Critical care admission of South African (SA) surgical patients: Results of the SA Surgical Outcomes Study

Background. Appropriate critical care admissions are an important component of surgical care. However, there are few data describing postoperative critical care admission in resource-limited low- and middle-income countries.Objective. To describe the demographics, organ failures, organ support and outcomes of non-cardiac surgical patients admitted to critical care units in South Africa (SA).Methods. The SA Surgical Outcomes Study (SASOS) was a 7-day national, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of all patients ≥16 years of age undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery between 19 and 26 May 2014 at 50 government-funded hospitals. All patients admitted to critical care units during this study were included for analysis.Results. Of the 3 927 SASOS patients, 255 (6.5%) were admitted to critical care units; of these admissions, 144 (56.5%) were planned, and 111 (43.5%) unplanned. The incidence of confirmed or strongly suspected infection at the time of admission was 35.4%, with a significantly higher incidence in unplanned admissions (49.1 v. 24.8%, p<0.001). Unplanned admission cases were more frequently hypovolaemic, had septic shock, and required significantly more inotropic, ventilatory and renal support in the first 48 hours after admission. Overall mortality was 22.4%, with unplanned admissions having a significantly longer critical care length of stay and overall mortality (33.3 v. 13.9%, p<0.001).Conclusion. The outcome of patients admitted to public sector critical care units in SA is strongly associated with unplanned admissions. Adequate ‘high care-dependency units’ for postoperative care of elective surgical patients could potentially decrease the burden on critical care resources in SA by 23%. This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02141867)

Autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs are present in ~4% of uninfected individuals over 70 years old and account for ~20% of COVID-19 deaths

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors, some rights reserved.Circulating autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing high concentrations (10 ng/ml; in plasma diluted 1:10) of IFN-alpha and/or IFN-omega are found in about 10% of patients with critical COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pneumonia but not in individuals with asymptomatic infections. We detect auto-Abs neutralizing 100-fold lower, more physiological, concentrations of IFN-alpha and/or IFN-omega (100 pg/ml; in 1:10 dilutions of plasma) in 13.6% of 3595 patients with critical COVID-19, including 21% of 374 patients >80 years, and 6.5% of 522 patients with severe COVID-19. These antibodies are also detected in 18% of the 1124 deceased patients (aged 20 days to 99 years; mean: 70 years). Moreover, another 1.3% of patients with critical COVID-19 and 0.9% of the deceased patients have auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-beta. We also show, in a sample of 34,159 uninfected individuals from the general population, that auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-alpha and/or IFN-omega are present in 0.18% of individuals between 18 and 69 years, 1.1% between 70 and 79 years, and 3.4% >80 years. Moreover, the proportion of individuals carrying auto-Abs neutralizing lower concentrations is greater in a subsample of 10,778 uninfected individuals: 1% of individuals 80 years. By contrast, auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-beta do not become more frequent with age. Auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs predate SARS-CoV-2 infection and sharply increase in prevalence after the age of 70 years. They account for about 20% of both critical COVID-19 cases in the over 80s and total fatal COVID-19 cases.Peer reviewe

The risk of COVID-19 death is much greater and age dependent with type I IFN autoantibodies

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection fatality rate (IFR) doubles with every 5 y of age from childhood onward. Circulating autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α, IFN-ω, and/or IFN-β are found in ∼20% of deceased patients across age groups, and in ∼1% of individuals aged 4% of those >70 y old in the general population. With a sample of 1,261 unvaccinated deceased patients and 34,159 individuals of the general population sampled before the pandemic, we estimated both IFR and relative risk of death (RRD) across age groups for individuals carrying autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs, relative to noncarriers. The RRD associated with any combination of autoantibodies was higher in subjects under 70 y old. For autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, the RRDs were 17.0 (95% CI: 11.7 to 24.7) and 5.8 (4.5 to 7.4) for individuals <70 y and ≥70 y old, respectively, whereas, for autoantibodies neutralizing both molecules, the RRDs were 188.3 (44.8 to 774.4) and 7.2 (5.0 to 10.3), respectively. In contrast, IFRs increased with age, ranging from 0.17% (0.12 to 0.31) for individuals <40 y old to 26.7% (20.3 to 35.2) for those ≥80 y old for autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, and from 0.84% (0.31 to 8.28) to 40.5% (27.82 to 61.20) for autoantibodies neutralizing both. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs increase IFRs, and are associated with high RRDs, especially when neutralizing both IFN-α2 and IFN-ω. Remarkably, IFRs increase with age, whereas RRDs decrease with age. Autoimmunity to type I IFNs is a strong and common predictor of COVID-19 death.The Laboratory of Human Genetics of Infectious Diseases is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute; The Rockefeller University; the St. Giles Foundation; the NIH (Grants R01AI088364 and R01AI163029); the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards program (Grant UL1 TR001866); a Fast Grant from Emergent Ventures; Mercatus Center at George Mason University; the Yale Center for Mendelian Genomics and the Genome Sequencing Program Coordinating Center funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (Grants UM1HG006504 and U24HG008956); the Yale High Performance Computing Center (Grant S10OD018521); the Fisher Center for Alzheimer’s Research Foundation; the Meyer Foundation; the JPB Foundation; the French National Research Agency (ANR) under the “Investments for the Future” program (Grant ANR-10-IAHU-01); the Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory of Excellence (Grant ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID); the French Foundation for Medical Research (FRM) (Grant EQU201903007798); the French Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral hepatitis (ANRS) Nord-Sud (Grant ANRS-COV05); the ANR GENVIR (Grant ANR-20-CE93-003), AABIFNCOV (Grant ANR-20-CO11-0001), CNSVIRGEN (Grant ANR-19-CE15-0009-01), and GenMIS-C (Grant ANR-21-COVR-0039) projects; the Square Foundation; Grandir–Fonds de solidarité pour l’Enfance; the Fondation du Souffle; the SCOR Corporate Foundation for Science; The French Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and Innovation (Grant MESRI-COVID-19); Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), REACTing-INSERM; and the University Paris Cité. P. Bastard was supported by the FRM (Award EA20170638020). P. Bastard., J.R., and T.L.V. were supported by the MD-PhD program of the Imagine Institute (with the support of Fondation Bettencourt Schueller). Work at the Neurometabolic Disease lab received funding from Centre for Biomedical Research on Rare Diseases (CIBERER) (Grant ACCI20-767) and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement 824110 (EASI Genomics). Work in the Laboratory of Virology and Infectious Disease was supported by the NIH (Grants P01AI138398-S1, 2U19AI111825, and R01AI091707-10S1), a George Mason University Fast Grant, and the G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation. The Infanta Leonor University Hospital supported the research of the Department of Internal Medicine and Allergology. The French COVID Cohort study group was sponsored by INSERM and supported by the REACTing consortium and by a grant from the French Ministry of Health (Grant PHRC 20-0424). The Cov-Contact Cohort was supported by the REACTing consortium, the French Ministry of Health, and the European Commission (Grant RECOVER WP 6). This work was also partly supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, NIH (Grants ZIA AI001270 to L.D.N. and 1ZIAAI001265 to H.C.S.). This program is supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Grant ANR-10-LABX-69-01). K.K.’s group was supported by the Estonian Research Council, through Grants PRG117 and PRG377. R.H. was supported by an Al Jalila Foundation Seed Grant (Grant AJF202019), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and a COVID-19 research grant (Grant CoV19-0307) from the University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. S.G.T. is supported by Investigator and Program Grants awarded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and a University of New South Wales COVID Rapid Response Initiative Grant. L.I. reports funding from Regione Lombardia, Italy (project “Risposta immune in pazienti con COVID-19 e co-morbidità”). This research was partially supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Grant COV20/0968). J.R.H. reports funding from Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (Grant HHSO10201600031C). S.O. reports funding from Research Program on Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases from Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (Grant JP20fk0108531). G.G. was supported by the ANR Flash COVID-19 program and SARS-CoV-2 Program of the Faculty of Medicine from Sorbonne University iCOVID programs. The 3C Study was conducted under a partnership agreement between INSERM, Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2 University, and Sanofi-Aventis. The Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale funded the preparation and initiation of the study. The 3C Study was also supported by the Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés, Direction générale de la Santé, Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale, Institut de la Longévité, Conseils Régionaux of Aquitaine and Bourgogne, Fondation de France, and Ministry of Research–INSERM Program “Cohortes et collections de données biologiques.” S. Debette was supported by the University of Bordeaux Initiative of Excellence. P.K.G. reports funding from the National Cancer Institute, NIH, under Contract 75N91019D00024, Task Order 75N91021F00001. J.W. is supported by a Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO) Fundamental Clinical Mandate (Grant 1833317N). Sample processing at IrsiCaixa was possible thanks to the crowdfunding initiative YoMeCorono. Work at Vall d’Hebron was also partly supported by research funding from Instituto de Salud Carlos III Grant PI17/00660 cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF/FEDER). C.R.-G. and colleagues from the Canarian Health System Sequencing Hub were supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Grants COV20_01333 and COV20_01334), the Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation (RTC-2017-6471-1; AEI/FEDER, European Union), Fundación DISA (Grants OA18/017 and OA20/024), and Cabildo Insular de Tenerife (Grants CGIEU0000219140 and “Apuestas científicas del ITER para colaborar en la lucha contra la COVID-19”). T.H.M. was supported by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (Grants NNF20OC0064890 and NNF21OC0067157). C.M.B. is supported by a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Health Professional-Investigator Award. P.Q.H. and L. Hammarström were funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Antibody Therapy Against Coronavirus consortium, Grant 101003650). Work at Y.-L.L.’s laboratory in the University of Hong Kong (HKU) was supported by the Society for the Relief of Disabled Children. MBBS/PhD study of D.L. in HKU was supported by the Croucher Foundation. J.L.F. was supported in part by the Evaluation-Orientation de la Coopération Scientifique (ECOS) Nord - Coopération Scientifique France-Colombie (ECOS-Nord/Columbian Administrative department of Science, Technology and Innovation [COLCIENCIAS]/Colombian Ministry of National Education [MEN]/Colombian Institute of Educational Credit and Technical Studies Abroad [ICETEX, Grant 806-2018] and Colciencias Contract 713-2016 [Code 111574455633]). A. Klocperk was, in part, supported by Grants NU20-05-00282 and NV18-05-00162 issued by the Czech Health Research Council and Ministry of Health, Czech Republic. L.P. was funded by Program Project COVID-19 OSR-UniSR and Ministero della Salute (Grant COVID-2020-12371617). I.M. is a Senior Clinical Investigator at the Research Foundation–Flanders and is supported by the CSL Behring Chair of Primary Immunodeficiencies (PID); by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven C1 Grant C16/18/007; by a Flanders Institute for Biotechnology-Grand Challenges - PID grant; by the FWO Grants G0C8517N, G0B5120N, and G0E8420N; and by the Jeffrey Modell Foundation. I.M. has received funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant Agreement 948959). E.A. received funding from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (Grant INTERFLU 1574). M. Vidigal received funding from the São Paulo Research Foundation (Grant 2020/09702-1) and JBS SA (Grant 69004). The NH-COVAIR study group consortium was supported by a grant from the Meath Foundation.Peer reviewe

Effects of 2 years of caloric restriction on oxidative status assessed by urinary F2-isoprostanes: The CALERIE 2 randomized clinical trial

9siCalorie restriction (CR) without malnutrition slows aging in animal models. Oxidative stress reduction was proposed to mediate CR effects. CR effect on urinary F2-isoprostanes, validated oxidative stress markers, was assessed in CALERIE, a two-year randomized controlled trial. Healthy volunteers (n = 218) were randomized to prescribed 25% CR (n = 143) or ad libitum control (AL, n = 75) stratifying the randomization schedule by site, sex, and BMI. F2-isoprostanes were quantified using LC-MS/MS in morning, fasted urine specimens at baseline, at 12 and 24 months. The primary measure of oxidative status was creatinine-adjusted 2,3-dinor-iPF(2α)-III concentration, additional measured included iPF(2α)-III, iPF2a-VI, and 8,12-iso-iPF2a-VI. Intention-to-treat analyses assessed change in 2,3-dinor-iPF(2α)-III using mixed models assessing treatment, time, and treatment-by-time interaction effects, adjusted for blocking variables and baseline F2-isoprostane value. Exploratory analyses examined changes in iPF(2α)-III, iPF(2α)-VI, and 8,12-iso-iPF(2α)-VI. A factor analysis used aggregate information on F2-isoprostane values. In CR group, 2,3-dinor-iPF(2α)-III concentrations were reduced from baseline by 17% and 13% at 12 and 24 months, respectively; these changes were significantly different from AL group (p < .01). CR reduced iPF(2α)-III concentrations by 20% and 27% at 12 and 24 months, respectively (p < .05). The effects were weaker on the VI-species. CR caused statistically significant reduction in isoprostane factor at both time points, and mean (se) changes were -0.36 (0.06) and -0.31 (0.06). No significant changes in isoprostane factor were at either time point in AL group (p < .01 between-group difference). We conclude that two-year CR intervention in healthy, nonobese men and women reduced whole body oxidative stress as assessed by urinary concentrations of F2-isoprostanes.nonenoneIl'yasova, Dora; Fontana, Luigi; Bhapkar, Manjushri; Pieper, Carl F; Spasojevic, Ivan; Redman, Leanne M; Das, Sai Krupa; Huffman, Kim M; Kraus, William EIl'Yasova, Dora; Fontana, Luigi; Bhapkar, Manjushri; Pieper, Carl F; Spasojevic, Ivan; Redman, Leanne M; Das, Sai Krupa; Huffman, Kim M; Kraus, William

Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background No effective systemic therapy exists for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. A preliminary study suggested that sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, the platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and Raf may be effective in hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods In this multicenter, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 602 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic treatment to receive either sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Primary outcomes were overall survival and the time to symptomatic progression. Secondary outcomes included the time to radiologic progression and safety. Results At the second planned interim analysis, 321 deaths had occurred, and the study was stopped. Median overall survival was 10.7 months in the sorafenib group and 7.9 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the sorafenib group, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.87; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the median time to symptomatic progression (4.1 months vs. 4.9 months, respectively, P=0.77). The median time to radiologic progression was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (P<0.001). Seven patients in the sorafenib group (2%) and two patients in the placebo group (1%) had a partial response; no patients had a complete response. Diarrhea, weight loss, hand-foot skin reaction, and hypophosphatemia were more frequent in the sorafenib group. Conclusions In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, median survival and the time to radiologic progression were nearly 3 months longer for patients treated with sorafenib than for those given placebo

A randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments to Inhibit VEGF in Age-related choroidal Neovascularisation (IVAN)

BACKGROUND:Bevacizumab (Avastin(®), Roche), which is used in cancer therapy, is the 'parent' molecule from which ranibizumab (Lucentis(®), Novartis) was derived for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). There were reports in the literature on the effectiveness of bevacizumab in treating nAMD, but no trials. The cost per dose of bevacizumab is about 5-10% that of ranibizumab. This trial was a head-to-head comparison of these two drugs.OBJECTIVE:To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and bevacizumab, and two treatment regimens, for nAMD.DESIGN:Multicentre, factorial randomised controlled trial with within-trial cost-utility and cost-minimisation analyses from the perspective of the UK NHS. Participants, health professionals and researchers were masked to allocation of drug but not regimen. Computer-generated random allocations to combinations of ranibizumab or bevacizumab, and continuous or discontinuous regimen, were stratified by centre, blocked and concealed.SETTING:Twenty-three ophthalmology departments in NHS hospitals.PARTICIPANTS:Patients ??50 years old with active nAMD in the study eye with best corrected distance visual acuity (BCVA) ??25 letters measured on a Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart. Previous treatment for nAMD, long-standing disease, lesion diameter &gt;?6000?µm, thick blood at the fovea and any other confounding ocular disease were exclusion criteria. One eye per participant was studied; the fellow eye was treated according to usual care, if required.INTERVENTIONS:Ranibizumab and bevacizumab were procured commercially. Doses were ranibizumab 0.5?mg or bevacizumab 1.25?mg. The repackaged bevacizumab was quality assured. All participants were treated at visits 0, 1 and 2. Participants randomised to the continuous regimen were treated monthly thereafter. Participants randomised to the discontinuous regimen were not retreated after visit 2 unless pre-specified criteria for active disease were met. If retreatment was needed, monthly injections over 3 months were mandated.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was BCVA. The non-inferiority margin was 3.5 letters. Secondary outcomes were contrast sensitivity; near visual acuity; reading index; neovascular lesion morphology; generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcomes, including macular disease-specific quality of life; survival free from treatment failure; resource use; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and development of new geographic atrophy (GA) (outcome added during the trial). Results are reported for the study eye, except for patient-reported outcomes.RESULTS:Between 27 March 2008 and 15 October 2010, 610 participants were allocated and treated (314 ranibizumab, 296 bevacizumab; at 3 months, 305 continuous, 300 discontinuous). After 2 years, bevacizumab was neither non-inferior nor inferior to ranibizumab [-1.37 letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.75 to +1.01 letters] and discontinuous treatment was neither non-inferior nor inferior to continuous treatment (-1.63 letters, 95% CI -4.01 to +0.75 letters). Lesion thickness at the fovea was similar by drug [geometric mean ratio (GMR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; p?=?0.24] but 9% less with continuous treatment (GMR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97; p?=?0.004). Odds of developing new GA during the trial were similar by drug [odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.25; p?=?0.46] but significantly higher with continuous treatment (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.11; p?=?0.033). Safety outcomes did not differ by drug but mortality was lower with continuous treatment (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.03; p?=?0.05). Continuous ranibizumab cost £3.5M per QALY compared with continuous bevacizumab; continuous bevacizumab cost £30,220 per QALY compared with discontinuous bevacizumab. These results were robust in sensitivity analyses.CONCLUSIONS:Ranibizumab and bevacizumab have similar efficacy. Discontinuing treatment and restarting when required results in slightly worse efficacy. Safety was worse with discontinuous treatment, although new GA developed more often with continuous treatment. Ranibizumab is not cost-effective, although it remains uncertain whether or not continuous bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with discontinuous bevacizumab at £20,000 per QALY threshold. Future studies should focus on the ocular safety of the two drugs, further optimisation of treatment regimens and criteria for stopping treatment