Off-line breath acetone analysis in critical illness

Analysis of breath acetone could be useful in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) setting to monitor evidence of starvation and metabolic stress. The aims of this study were to examine the relationship between acetone concentrations in breath and blood in critical illness, to explore any changes in breath acetone concentration over time and correlate these with clinical features. Consecutive patients, ventilated on controlled modes in a mixed ICU, with stress hyperglycaemia requiring insulin therapy and/or new pulmonary infiltrates on chest radiograph were recruited. Once daily, triplicate end-tidal breath samples were collected and analysed off-line by selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS). Thirty-two patients were recruited (20 males), median age 61.5 years (range 26–85 years). The median breath acetone concentration of all samples was 853 ppb (range 162–11 375 ppb) collected over a median of 3 days (range 1–8). There was a trend towards a reduction in breath acetone concentration over time. Relationships were seen between breath acetone and arterial acetone (rs = 0.64, p < 0.0001) and arterial beta-hydroxybutyrate (rs = 0.52, p < 0.0001) concentrations. Changes in breath acetone concentration over time corresponded to changes in arterial acetone concentration. Some patients remained ketotic despite insulin therapy and normal arterial glucose concentrations. This is the first study to look at breath acetone concentration in ICU patients for up to 8 days. Breath acetone concentration may be used as a surrogate for arterial acetone concentration, which may in future have a role in the modulation of insulin and feeding in critical illness

Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Funding Sponsored by the University of Dundee and supported through an Investigator Initiated Research award from Insmed, Bridgewater, NJ; STOP-COVID19 trial

Outcome of hospitalization for COVID-19 in patients with interstitial lung disease. An international multicenter study

Rationale: The impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) has not been established. Objectives: To assess outcomes in patients with ILD hospitalized for COVID-19 versus those without ILD in a contemporaneous age-, sex-, and comorbidity-matched population. Methods: An international multicenter audit of patients with a prior diagnosis of ILD admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 between March 1 and May 1, 2020, was undertaken and compared with patients without ILD, obtained from the ISARIC4C (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium) cohort, admitted with COVID-19 over the same period. The primary outcome was survival. Secondary analysis distinguished idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis from non–idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ILD and used lung function to determine the greatest risks of death. Measurements and Main Results: Data from 349 patients with ILD across Europe were included, of whom 161 were admitted to the hospital with laboratory or clinical evidence of COVID-19 and eligible for propensity score matching. Overall mortality was 49% (79/161) in patients with ILD with COVID-19. After matching, patients with ILD with COVID-19 had significantly poorer survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.60; confidence interval, 1.17–2.18; P = 0.003) than age-, sex-, and comorbidity-matched controls without ILD. Patients with an FVC of <80% had an increased risk of death versus patients with FVC ≥80% (HR, 1.72; 1.05–2.83). Furthermore, obese patients with ILD had an elevated risk of death (HR, 2.27; 1.39−3.71). Conclusions: Patients with ILD are at increased risk of death from COVID-19, particularly those with poor lung function and obesity. Stringent precautions should be taken to avoid COVID-19 in patients with ILD

The resource boom's underbelly: Criminological impacts of mining development

Australia is currently in the midst of a major resources boom. Resultant growing demands for labour in regional and remote areas have accelerated the recruitment of non resident workers, mostly contractors, who work extended block rosters of 12-hour shifts and are accommodated in work camps, often adjacent to established mining towns. Serious social impacts of these practices, including violence and crime, have generally escaped industry, government and academic scrutiny. This paper highlights some of these impacts on affected regional communities and workers and argues that post-industrial mining regimes serve to mask and privatize these harms and risks, shifting them on to workers, families and communities

Identifying causation in hypersensitivity pneumonitis: a British perspective

Background Establishing whether patients are exposed to a ‘known cause’ is a key element in both the diagnostic assessment and the subsequent management of hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP). Objective This study surveyed British interstitial lung disease (ILD) specialists to document current practice and opinion in relation to establishing causation in HP. Methods British ILD consultants (pulmonologists) were invited by email to take part in a structured questionnaire survey, to provide estimates of demographic data relating to their service and to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements. A priori ‘consensus agreement’ was defined as at least 70% of participants replying that they ‘Strongly agree’ or ‘Tend to agree’. Results 54 consultants took part in the survey from 27 ILD multidisciplinary teams. Participants estimated that 20% of the patients in their ILD service have HP, and of these, a cause is identifiable in 32% of cases. For patients with confirmed HP, an estimated 40% have had a bronchoalveolar lavage for differential cell counts, and 10% a surgical biopsy. Consensus agreement was reached for 25 of 33 statements relating to causation and either the assessment of unexplained ILD or management of confirmed HP. Conclusions This survey has demonstrated that although there is a degree of variation in the diagnostic approach for patients with suspected HP in Britain, there is consensus opinion for some key areas of practice. There are several factors in clinical practice that currently act as potential barriers to identifying the cause for British HP patients