Postoperative atrial fibrillation: The role of the inflammatory response

OBJECTIVE: Abnormal atrial conduction has been shown to be a substrate for postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF). This study aimed to determine the relationship between the location of the atrial reentry responsible for POAF, and degree of atrial inflammation. METHODS: Normal mongrel dogs (n = 18) were divided into 3 groups: anesthesia alone (anesthesia), lateral right atriotomy (atriotomy), and lateral right atriotomy with anti-inflammatory therapy (steroid). Conduction properties of the right and left atria (RA and LA) were examined 3 days postoperatively by mapping. Activation was observed during burst pacing-induced AF. The RA and LA myeloperoxidase activity was measured to quantitate the degree of inflammation. RESULTS: Sustained AF (\u3e2 minutes) was induced in 5 of 6 animals in the atriotomy group, but in none in the anesthesia or steroid groups. All sustained AF originated from around the RA incision. Three of these animals had an incisional reentrant tachycardia around the right atriotomy and 2 had a focal activation arising from the RA during AF. The LA activations in these animals were passive from the RA activation. The RA activation of the atriotomy group was more inhomogeneous than that of the anesthesia group (inhomogeneity index: 2.0 ± 0.2 vs 1.0 ± 0.1, P \u3c .01). Steroid therapy significantly normalized the RA activation after the atriotomy (1.2 ± 0.1, P \u3c .01). The inhomogeneity of the atrial conduction correlated with the myeloperoxidase activity (r = 0.774, P \u3c .001). CONCLUSIONS: Reentrant circuits responsible for POAF are dependent on the degree of inflammation and rotate around the atriotomy. Anti-inflammatory therapy decreased the risk of postoperative AF

Identification of clusters of individuals relevant to temporomandibular disorders and other chronic pain conditions: the OPPERA study

The classification of most chronic pain disorders gives emphasis to anatomical location of the pain to distinguish one disorder from the other (eg, back pain vs temporomandibular disorder [TMD]) or to define subtypes (eg, TMD myalgia vs arthralgia). However, anatomical criteria overlook etiology, potentially hampering treatment decisions. This study identified clusters of individuals using a comprehensive array of biopsychosocial measures. Data were collected from a case–control study of 1031 chronic TMD cases and 3247 TMD-free controls. Three subgroups were identified using supervised cluster analysis (referred to as the adaptive, pain-sensitive, and global symptoms clusters). Compared with the adaptive cluster, participants in the pain-sensitive cluster showed heightened sensitivity to experimental pain, and participants in the global symptoms cluster showed both greater pain sensitivity and greater psychological distress. Cluster membership was strongly associated with chronic TMD: 91.5% of TMD cases belonged to the pain-sensitive and global symptoms clusters, whereas 41.2% of controls belonged to the adaptive cluster. Temporomandibular disorder cases in the pain-sensitive and global symptoms clusters also showed greater pain intensity, jaw functional limitation, and more comorbid pain conditions. Similar results were obtained when the same methodology was applied to a smaller case–control study consisting of 199 chronic TMD cases and 201 TMD-free controls. During a median 3-year follow-up period of TMD-free individuals, participants in the global symptoms cluster had greater risk of developing first-onset TMD (hazard ratio = 2.8) compared with participants in the other 2 clusters. Cross-cohort predictive modeling was used to demonstrate the reliability of the clusters

Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome Current Considerations and Expectations

In the recent era, no congenital heart defect has undergone a more dramatic change in diagnostic approach, management, and outcomes than hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS). During this time, survival to the age of 5 years (including Fontan) has ranged from 50% to 69%, but current expectations are that 70% of newborns born today with HLHS may reach adulthood. Although the 3-stage treatment approach to HLHS is now well founded, there is significant variation among centers. In this white paper, we present the current state of the art in our understanding and treatment of HLHS during the stages of care: 1) pre-Stage I: fetal and neonatal assessment and management; 2) Stage I: perioperative care, interstage monitoring, and management strategies; 3) Stage II: surgeries; 4) Stage III: Fontan surgery; and 5) long-term follow-up. Issues surrounding the genetics of HLHS, developmental outcomes, and quality of life are addressed in addition to the many other considerations for caring for this group of complex patients

A Sensitive Assay for Virus Discovery in Respiratory Clinical Samples

In 5–40% of respiratory infections in children, the diagnostics remain negative, suggesting that the patients might be infected with a yet unknown pathogen. Virus discovery cDNA-AFLP (VIDISCA) is a virus discovery method based on recognition of restriction enzyme cleavage sites, ligation of adaptors and subsequent amplification by PCR. However, direct discovery of unknown pathogens in nasopharyngeal swabs is difficult due to the high concentration of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) that acts as competitor. In the current study we optimized VIDISCA by adjusting the reverse transcription enzymes and decreasing rRNA amplification in the reverse transcription, using hexamer oligonucleotides that do not anneal to rRNA. Residual cDNA synthesis on rRNA templates was further reduced with oligonucleotides that anneal to rRNA but can not be extended due to 3′-dideoxy-C6-modification. With these modifications >90% reduction of rRNA amplification was established. Further improvement of the VIDISCA sensitivity was obtained by high throughput sequencing (VIDISCA-454). Eighteen nasopharyngeal swabs were analysed, all containing known respiratory viruses. We could identify the proper virus in the majority of samples tested (11/18). The median load in the VIDISCA-454 positive samples was 7.2 E5 viral genome copies/ml (ranging from 1.4 E3–7.7 E6). Our results show that optimization of VIDISCA and subsequent high-throughput-sequencing enhances sensitivity drastically and provides the opportunity to perform virus discovery directly in patient material

Functional, Non-Clonal IgMa-Restricted B Cell Receptor Interactions with the HIV-1 Envelope gp41 Membrane Proximal External Region

The membrane proximal external region (MPER) of HIV-1 gp41 has several features that make it an attractive antibody-based vaccine target, but eliciting an effective gp41 MPER-specific protective antibody response remains elusive. One fundamental issue is whether the failure to make gp41 MPER-specific broadly neutralizing antibodies like 2F5 and 4E10 is due to structural constraints with the gp41 MPER, or alternatively, if gp41 MPER epitope-specific B cells are lost to immunological tolerance. An equally important question is how B cells interact with, and respond to, the gp41 MPER epitope, including whether they engage this epitope in a non-canonical manner i.e., by non-paratopic recognition via B cell receptors (BCR). To begin understanding how B cells engage the gp41 MPER, we characterized B cell-gp41 MPER interactions in BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice. Surprisingly, we found that a significant (∼7%) fraction of splenic B cells from BALB/c, but not C57BL/6 mice, bound the gp41 MPER via their BCRs. This strain-specific binding was concentrated in IgMhi subsets, including marginal zone and peritoneal B1 B cells, and correlated with enriched fractions (∼15%) of gp41 MPER-specific IgM secreted by in vitro-activated splenic B cells. Analysis of Igha (BALB/c) and Ighb (C57BL/6) congenic mice demonstrated that gp41 MPER binding was controlled by determinants of the Igha locus. Mapping of MPER gp41 interactions with IgMa identified MPER residues distinct from those to which mAb 2F5 binds and demonstrated the requirement of Fc CH regions. Importantly, gp41 MPER ligation produced detectable BCR-proximal signaling events, suggesting that interactions between gp41 MPER and IgMa determinants may elicit partial B cell activation. These data suggest that low avidity, non-paratopic interactions between the gp41 MPER and membrane Ig on naïve B cells may interfere with or divert bnAb responses

Implications for sequencing of biologic therapy and choice of second anti-TNF in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:results from the IMmunogenicity to Second Anti-TNF therapy (IMSAT) therapeutic drug monitoring study

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies are associated with treatment failure to anti-TNF agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).AIM: To assess whether immunogenicity to a patient's first anti-TNF agent would be associated with immunogenicity to the second, irrespective of drug sequence METHODS: We conducted a UK-wide, multicentre, retrospective cohort study to report rates of immunogenicity and treatment failure of second anti-TNF therapies in 1058 patients with IBD who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring for both infliximab and adalimumab. The primary outcome was immunogenicity to the second anti-TNF agent, defined at any timepoint as an anti-TNF antibody concentration ≥9 AU/ml for infliximab and ≥6 AU/ml for adalimumab.RESULTS: In patients treated with infliximab and then adalimumab, those who developed antibodies to infliximab were more likely to develop antibodies to adalimumab, than patients who did not develop antibodies to infliximab (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.27-3.20, p = 0.002). Similarly, in patients treated with adalimumab and then infliximab, immunogenicity to adalimumab was associated with subsequent immunogenicity to infliximab (OR 2.63, 95%CI 1.46-4.80, p < 0.001). For each 10-fold increase in anti-infliximab and anti-adalimumab antibody concentration, the odds of subsequently developing antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab increased by 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.17, p < 0.001) and 1.99 (95%CI 1.34-2.99, p < 0.001), respectively. Patients who developed immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to infliximab were more likely to develop immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to adalimumab (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39-4.19, p < 0.001). Commencing an immunomodulator at the time of switching to the second anti-TNF was associated with improved drug persistence in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic failure.CONCLUSION: Irrespective of drug sequence, immunogenicity to the first anti-TNF agent was associated with immunogenicity to the second, which was mitigated by the introduction of an immunomodulator in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic treatment failure

Implications for sequencing of biologic therapy and choice of second anti-TNF in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: results from the IMmunogenicity to Second Anti-TNF Therapy (IMSAT) therapeutic drug monitoring study

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies are associated with treatment failure to anti-TNF agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).AIM: To assess whether immunogenicity to a patient's first anti-TNF agent would be associated with immunogenicity to the second, irrespective of drug sequence METHODS: We conducted a UK-wide, multicentre, retrospective cohort study to report rates of immunogenicity and treatment failure of second anti-TNF therapies in 1058 patients with IBD who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring for both infliximab and adalimumab. The primary outcome was immunogenicity to the second anti-TNF agent, defined at any timepoint as an anti-TNF antibody concentration ≥9 AU/ml for infliximab and ≥6 AU/ml for adalimumab.RESULTS: In patients treated with infliximab and then adalimumab, those who developed antibodies to infliximab were more likely to develop antibodies to adalimumab, than patients who did not develop antibodies to infliximab (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.27-3.20, p = 0.002). Similarly, in patients treated with adalimumab and then infliximab, immunogenicity to adalimumab was associated with subsequent immunogenicity to infliximab (OR 2.63, 95%CI 1.46-4.80, p < 0.001). For each 10-fold increase in anti-infliximab and anti-adalimumab antibody concentration, the odds of subsequently developing antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab increased by 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.17, p < 0.001) and 1.99 (95%CI 1.34-2.99, p < 0.001), respectively. Patients who developed immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to infliximab were more likely to develop immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to adalimumab (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39-4.19, p < 0.001). Commencing an immunomodulator at the time of switching to the second anti-TNF was associated with improved drug persistence in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic failure.CONCLUSION: Irrespective of drug sequence, immunogenicity to the first anti-TNF agent was associated with immunogenicity to the second, which was mitigated by the introduction of an immunomodulator in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic treatment failure

Implications for sequencing of biologic therapy and choice of second anti-TNF in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:results from the IMmunogenicity to Second Anti-TNF therapy (IMSAT) therapeutic drug monitoring study

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies are associated with treatment failure to anti-TNF agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).AIM: To assess whether immunogenicity to a patient's first anti-TNF agent would be associated with immunogenicity to the second, irrespective of drug sequence METHODS: We conducted a UK-wide, multicentre, retrospective cohort study to report rates of immunogenicity and treatment failure of second anti-TNF therapies in 1058 patients with IBD who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring for both infliximab and adalimumab. The primary outcome was immunogenicity to the second anti-TNF agent, defined at any timepoint as an anti-TNF antibody concentration ≥9 AU/ml for infliximab and ≥6 AU/ml for adalimumab.RESULTS: In patients treated with infliximab and then adalimumab, those who developed antibodies to infliximab were more likely to develop antibodies to adalimumab, than patients who did not develop antibodies to infliximab (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.27-3.20, p = 0.002). Similarly, in patients treated with adalimumab and then infliximab, immunogenicity to adalimumab was associated with subsequent immunogenicity to infliximab (OR 2.63, 95%CI 1.46-4.80, p < 0.001). For each 10-fold increase in anti-infliximab and anti-adalimumab antibody concentration, the odds of subsequently developing antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab increased by 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.17, p < 0.001) and 1.99 (95%CI 1.34-2.99, p < 0.001), respectively. Patients who developed immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to infliximab were more likely to develop immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to adalimumab (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39-4.19, p < 0.001). Commencing an immunomodulator at the time of switching to the second anti-TNF was associated with improved drug persistence in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic failure.CONCLUSION: Irrespective of drug sequence, immunogenicity to the first anti-TNF agent was associated with immunogenicity to the second, which was mitigated by the introduction of an immunomodulator in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic treatment failure