Clinical Role of CA125 in Worsening Heart Failure A BIOSTAT-CHF Study Subanalysis

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between antigen carbohydrate 125 (CA125) and the risk of 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with worsening heart failure (HF).BACKGROUND CA125 is a widely available biomarker that is up-regulated in patients with acute HF and has been postulated as a useful marker of congestion and risk stratification.METHODS hi a large multicenter cohort of patients with worsening HF, either in-hospital or in the outpatient setting, the independent associations between CA125 and 1-year death and the composite of death/HF readmission (adjusted for outcome-specific prognostic risk score [BIOSTAT risk score]) were determined by using the Royston-Parmar method (N = 2356). In a sensitivity analysis, the prognostic implications of CA125 were also adjusted for a composite congestion score (CCS). Data were validated in the B1OSTAT-CHF (Biology Study to Tailored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure validation) cohort (N = 1,630).RESULTS Surrogates of congestion, such as N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and CCS, emerged as independent predictors of CA125. In muttivariabte survival analyses, higher CA125 was associated with an increased risk of mortality and the composite of death/HF readmission (p &lt;0.001 for both comparisons), even after adjustment for the CCS (p &lt;0.010 for both comparisons). The addition of CA125 to the B1OSTAT score led to a significant risk reclassification for both outcomes (category-free net reclassification improvement 0.137 [p &lt;0.001] and 0.104 [p 0.003] respectively). AR outcomes were confirmed in an independent validation cohort.CONCLUSIONS In patients with worsening HF, higher levels of CA125 were positively associated with parameters of congestion. Furthermore, CA125 remained independently associated with a higher risk of clinical outcomes, even beyond a predefined risk model and clinical surrogates of congestion. (C) 2020 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.</p

Protein-based cardiogenic shock patient classifier

Aims Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high short-term mortality and a precise CS risk stratification could guide interventions to improve patient outcome. Here, we developed a circulating protein-based score to predict short-term mortality risk among patients with CS. Methods and results Mass spectrometry analysis of 2654 proteins was used for screening in the Barcelona discovery cohort (n = 48). Targeted quantitative proteomics analyses (n = 51 proteins) were used in the independent CardShock cohort (n = 97) to derive and cross-validate the protein classifier. The combination of four circulating proteins (Cardiogenic Shock 4 proteins-CS4P), discriminated patients with low and high 90-day risk of mortality. CS4P comprises the abundances of liver-type fatty acid-binding protein, beta-2-microglobulin, fructose-bisphosphate aldolase B, and SerpinG1. Within the CardShock cohort used for internal validation, the C-statistic was 0.78 for the CardShock risk score, 0.83 for the CS4P model, and 0.84 (P = 0.033 vs. CardShock risk score) for the combination of CardShock risk score with the CS4P model. The CardShock risk score with the CS4P model showed a marked benefit in patient reclassification, with a net reclassification improvement (NRI) of 0.49 (P = 0.020) compared with CardShock risk score. Similar reclassification metrics were observed in the IABP-SHOCK II risk score combined with CS4P (NRI =0.57; P = 0.032). The CS4P patient classification power was confirmed by enzyme-linked immuno-sorbent assay (ELISA). Conclusion A new protein-based CS patient classifier, the CS4P, was developed for short-term mortality risk stratification. CS4P improved predictive metrics in combination with contemporary risk scores, which may guide clinicians in selecting patients for advanced therapies.Peer reviewe

Taking care of kidney transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic: experience from a medicalized hotel.

The global overload that health systems are undergoing since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic has forced hospitals to explore sustainable alternatives to treat vulnerable patients that require closer monitoring and higher use of resources, such as Kidney Transplant Recipients (KTRs)1,2 .The use of telemedicine and hospital-like infrastructures represent a valid option for most patients with mild-moderate COVID-19, as well as for patients in the recovery phase who cannot be discharged from hospital

The striking geographical pattern of gastric cancer mortality in Spain: environmental hypotheses revisited

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Gastric cancer is decreasing in most countries. While socioeconomic development is the main factor to which this decline has been attributed, enormous differences among countries and within regions are still observed, with the main contributing factors remaining elusive. This study describes the geographic distribution of gastric cancer mortality at a municipal level in Spain, from 1994-2003.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Smoothed relative risks of stomach cancer mortality were obtained, using the Besag-York-Molliè autoregressive spatial model. Maps depicting relative risk (RR) estimates and posterior probabilities of RR being greater than 1 were plotted.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From 1994-2003, 62184 gastric cancer deaths were registered in Spain (7 percent of all deaths due to malignant tumors). The geographic pattern was similar for both sexes. RRs displayed a south-north and coast-inland gradient, with lower risks being observed in Andalusia, the Mediterranean coastline, the Balearic and Canary Islands and the Cantabrian seaboard. The highest risk was concentrated along the west coast of Galicia, broad areas of the Castile & Leon Autonomous community, the province of Cáceres in Extremadura, Lleida and other areas of Catalonia.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In Spain, risk of gastric cancer mortality displays a striking geographic distribution. With some differences, this persistent and unique pattern is similar across the sexes, suggesting the implication of environmental exposures from sources, such as diet or ground water, which could affect both sexes and delimited geographic areas. Also, the higher sex-ratios found in some areas with high risk of smoking-related cancer mortality in males support the role of tobacco in gastric cancer etiology.</p

Genetic algorithm for close range photogrammetric network design: which one is the minimum set of points of view from which is possible to visualize a building in a successful way from its exterior side?

The term of Architectural Survey, in the field of Architecture and Heritage, includes the necessary operations, measures and analyses to understand and keep record of an architectural object in its whole configuration, including graphic documentation. Photogrammetry is a technique that allows, through photography, getting three dimensional models of real objects, which have as sufficient metric validity to generate graphic documentation from them: plans, elevations, sections... Other instruments that can be used are total stations or scanners laser. In this sense, an investigation has been started in order to find the minimum number of positions from which take pictures, using a Genetic Algorithm. In other words, the objective of the Genetic Algorithm is to find a set of points to guard all the facades of a building from its exterior side, in order to ensure that applying the algorithm, the data collection for the architectural survey is going to be satisfactory. In the model that has been designed, the user can introduce the shape of the building of which there is any interest of having graphical documentation. Also, the user can adjust the technical features of the instrument that is going to be used, as the minimum and maximum distance in which the instrument works correctly. Once the user has introduced the necessary data, the model recognize the areas from which any point of the facades is successfully guarded. By reciprocity, the model is also able to give information of which part of the building is guarded from any point of the exterior. It can be made manually. And, to conclude, the model can give the user the best set of points of view searching in multiple solutions by a Genetic Algorithm. This algorithm rewards solutions with a low number of points of view

Safety and efficacy of continuous subcutaneous levodopa–carbidopa infusion (ND0612) for Parkinson's disease with motor fluctuations (BouNDless): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre trial

© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Background: Conventional oral levodopa therapy for the treatment of Parkinson's disease can be associated with variations in plasma concentrations. Levodopa infusion strategies might provide more consistent drug delivery and fewer motor fluctuations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a continuous 24 h/day subcutaneous infusion of ND0612 (a levodopa-carbidopa solution) compared with oral immediate-release levodopa-carbidopa for the treatment of motor fluctuations in people with Parkinson's disease. Methods: We conducted a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, multicentre trial at 117 academic and community neurology sites in 16 countries, including in Europe, Israel, and the USA. Eligible participants were men and women aged 30 years or older with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (Hoehn and Yahr stage ≤3 in the on state) who experienced at least 2·5 h/day of off time. Participants underwent an open-label run-in phase (<12 weeks), during which time optimal regimens were established for both oral immediate-release levodopa-carbidopa and for 24 h/day subcutaneous ND0612 infusion (levodopa-carbidopa 60·0/7·5 mg/mL), with supplemental oral levodopa-carbidopa if needed. Participants were then randomly assigned (1:1) to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with their optimised regimen of either subcutaneous ND0612 or oral levodopa-carbidopa, with matching oral or subcutaneous placebo given as required to maintain blinding. Randomisation was done via an interactive web response system, stratified by region, using a permuted block schedule. Participants, study partners, treating investigators, study site personnel, and the sponsor were masked to treatment group allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline (ie, time of randomisation, when all patients were receiving an optimised open-label ND0612 regimen) to end of the double-blind phase in total daily on time without troublesome dyskinesia, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04006210, and is complete. Findings: Between Sept 30, 2019, and April 8, 2022, 381 participants were enrolled, of whom 259 (68%) were randomly assigned, 128 (49%) to subcutaneous ND0612 and 131 (51%) to oral levodopa-carbidopa. 243 (94%) participants completed the study. Treatment with subcutaneous ND0612 provided an additional 1·72 h (95% CI 1·08 to 2·36) of on time without troublesome dyskinesia compared with oral levodopa-carbidopa (change from baseline of -0·48 h [-0·94 to -0·02] with subcutaneous ND0612 vs -2·20 h [-2·65 to -1·74] with oral levodopa-carbidopa; p<0·0001). Significant treatment differences favouring subcutaneous ND0612 were also found in the first four of nine prespecified hierarchical outcomes of daily off time (-1·40 h [95% CI -1·99 to -0·80]), Movement Disorders Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part II scores (-3·05 [-4·28 to -1·81]), Patients Global Impression of Change (odds ratio [OR] 5·31 [2·67 to 10·58]), and Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (OR 7·23 [3·57 to 14·64]). Hierarchical testing ended after the fourth secondary endpoint. Adverse events were reported by 287 (89%) of 322 participants during open-label ND0612 optimisation, and by 103 (80%) of 128 in the ND0612 group and 97 (74%) of 131 in the oral levodopa-carbidopa group during the double-blind phase. The most common adverse events were infusion-site reactions (266 [83%] participants during open-label ND0612, and 73 [57%] in the ND0612 group vs 56 [43%] in the oral levodopa-carbidopa group during the double-blind phase), most of which were mild. Serious adverse events in four participants in the ND0612 group were related to study treatment (infusion-site cellulitis [n=2], infusion-site abscess and infusion-site ulcer [n=1]; and paraesthesia and peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy [n=1]). One participant in the ND0612 group died during the double-blind phase, but the death was not related to study treatment (fall leading to traumatic brain injury). Interpretation: Results of this phase 3 study showed that subcutaneous ND0612 used in combination with oral immediate-release levodopa-carbidopa increased on time without troublesome dyskinesia and reduced off time, with a favourable benefit-risk profile. ND0612 might offer a safe and efficacious subcutaneous levodopa infusion approach to managing motor fluctuations in people with Parkinson's disease. The ongoing open-label extension phase will provide further information on the long-term efficacy and safety of treatment.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin for prevention of disease in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trialResearch in context

Summary: Background: Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04847141. Findings: 461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, −3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; −9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19. Funding: Grifols

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field