Self management of patients with mild COPD in primary care : randomised controlled trial

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of nurse-led telephone health coaching to encourage self-management in a primary care population with mild symptoms of COPD. Design: Pragmatic, multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Setting: 71 general practices in four areas of England. Participants: 577 people, with MRC dyspnoea grade 1 or 2, recruited from primary care COPD registers with spirometry confirmed diagnosis, were randomised to the intervention (n=289) or usual care (n=288). Interventions: Nurse-delivered telephone health coaching intervention, underpinned by Social Cognitive Theory, promoting: accessing smoking cessation services, increasing physical activity, medication management and action planning (4 sessions over 11 weeks; postal information at weeks 16 and 24). Nurses received two days of training. The usual care group received a leaflet about COPD. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was health related quality of life at 12 months using the short version of the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ-C). Results: The intervention was delivered with good fidelity: 86% of scheduled calls were delivered; 75% of participants received all four calls. 92% participants were followed-up at six months and 89% at 12 months. There was no difference in SGRQ-C total score at 12 months (mean difference -1.3, 95%CI -3.6 to 0.9; p=0.2). Compared to usual care participants, at six months follow-up, the intervention group reported significantly greater physical activity, more had received a care plan (44% v 30%), rescue packs of antibiotics (37% v 29%) and inhaler technique check (68% v 55%). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes (dyspnoea, smoking cessation, anxiety, depression, self-efficacy, objectively measured physical activity). Conclusions A novel telephone health coaching intervention to promote behaviour change in primary care patients with mild symptoms of dyspnoea did lead to changes in self-management activities, but did not improve health related quality of life

Metallation and mismetallation of iron and manganese proteins in vitro and in vivo: the class I ribonucleotide reductases as a case study

How cells ensure correct metallation of a given protein and whether a degree of promiscuity in metal binding has evolved are largely unanswered questions. In a classic case, iron- and manganese-dependent superoxide dismutases (SODs) catalyze the disproportionation of superoxide using highly similar protein scaffolds and nearly identical active sites. However, most of these enzymes are active with only one metal, although both metals can bind in vitro and in vivo. Iron(II) and manganese(II) bind weakly to most proteins and possess similar coordination preferences. Their distinct redox properties suggest that they are unlikely to be interchangeable in biological systems except when they function in Lewis acid catalytic roles, yet recent work suggests this is not always the case. This review summarizes the diversity of ways in which iron and manganese are substituted in similar or identical protein frameworks. As models, we discuss (1) enzymes, such as epimerases, thought to use Fe[superscript II] as a Lewis acid under normal growth conditions but which switch to Mn[superscript II] under oxidative stress; (2) extradiol dioxygenases, which have been found to use both Fe[superscript II] and Mn[superscript II], the redox role of which in catalysis remains to be elucidated; (3) SODs, which use redox chemistry and are generally metal-specific; and (4) the class I ribonucleotide reductases (RNRs), which have evolved unique biosynthetic pathways to control metallation. The primary focus is the class Ib RNRs, which can catalyze formation of a stable radical on a tyrosine residue in their β2 subunits using either a di-iron or a recently characterized dimanganese cofactor. The physiological roles of enzymes that can switch between iron and manganese cofactors are discussed, as are insights obtained from the studies of many groups regarding iron and manganese homeostasis and the divergent and convergent strategies organisms use for control of protein metallation. We propose that, in many of the systems discussed, “discrimination” between metals is not performed by the protein itself, but it is instead determined by the environment in which the protein is expressed.National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant GM81393

A Role for Non-Antimicrobial Actions of Tetracyclines in Combating Oxidative Stress in Periodontal and Metabolic Diseases: A Literature Review

This review addresses the role of adjunctive tetracycline therapy in the management of periodontal diseases and its efficacy in reducing inflammatory burden, oxidative stress and its sequelae in patients with coexisting features of metabolic syndrome. Removal of the dimethylamine group at C4 of the tetracycline molecule reduces its antibiotic properties, enhancing its non-antimicrobial actions; this strategy has aided the development of several chemically modified tetracyclines such as minocycline and doxycycline, by altering different regions of the molecule for focused action on biological targets. Tetracyclines are effective in reducing inflammation by inhibiting matrix metalloproteinases, preventing excessive angiogenesis, inhibiting apoptosis and stimulating bone formation. There are important applications for tetracyclines in the management of diabetic, dyslipidaemic periodontal patients who smoke. The diverse mechanisms of action of tetracyclines in overcoming oxidative stress and enhancing matrix synthesis are discussed in this review

Post-intervention Status in Patients With Refractory Myasthenia Gravis Treated With Eculizumab During REGAIN and Its Open-Label Extension

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether eculizumab helps patients with anti-acetylcholine receptor-positive (AChR+) refractory generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) achieve the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) post-intervention status of minimal manifestations (MM), we assessed patients' status throughout REGAIN (Safety and Efficacy of Eculizumab in AChR+ Refractory Generalized Myasthenia Gravis) and its open-label extension. METHODS: Patients who completed the REGAIN randomized controlled trial and continued into the open-label extension were included in this tertiary endpoint analysis. Patients were assessed for the MGFA post-intervention status of improved, unchanged, worse, MM, and pharmacologic remission at defined time points during REGAIN and through week 130 of the open-label study. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients completed REGAIN and continued into the open-label study (eculizumab/eculizumab: 56; placebo/eculizumab: 61). At week 26 of REGAIN, more eculizumab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients achieved a status of improved (60.7% vs 41.7%) or MM (25.0% vs 13.3%; common OR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-4.5). After 130 weeks of eculizumab treatment, 88.0% of patients achieved improved status and 57.3% of patients achieved MM status. The safety profile of eculizumab was consistent with its known profile and no new safety signals were detected. CONCLUSION: Eculizumab led to rapid and sustained achievement of MM in patients with AChR+ refractory gMG. These findings support the use of eculizumab in this previously difficult-to-treat patient population. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: REGAIN, NCT01997229; REGAIN open-label extension, NCT02301624. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that, after 26 weeks of eculizumab treatment, 25.0% of adults with AChR+ refractory gMG achieved MM, compared with 13.3% who received placebo

Minimal Symptom Expression' in Patients With Acetylcholine Receptor Antibody-Positive Refractory Generalized Myasthenia Gravis Treated With Eculizumab

The efficacy and tolerability of eculizumab were assessed in REGAIN, a 26-week, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive (AChR+) refractory generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG), and its open-label extension

Global overview of the management of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic (CHOLECOVID study)

Background: This study provides a global overview of the management of patients with acute cholecystitis during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: CHOLECOVID is an international, multicentre, observational comparative study of patients admitted to hospital with acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on management were collected for a 2-month study interval coincident with the WHO declaration of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and compared with an equivalent pre-pandemic time interval. Mediation analysis examined the influence of SARS-COV-2 infection on 30-day mortality. Results: This study collected data on 9783 patients with acute cholecystitis admitted to 247 hospitals across the world. The pandemic was associated with reduced availability of surgical workforce and operating facilities globally, a significant shift to worse severity of disease, and increased use of conservative management. There was a reduction (both absolute and proportionate) in the number of patients undergoing cholecystectomy from 3095 patients (56.2 per cent) pre-pandemic to 1998 patients (46.2 per cent) during the pandemic but there was no difference in 30-day all-cause mortality after cholecystectomy comparing the pre-pandemic interval with the pandemic (13 patients (0.4 per cent) pre-pandemic to 13 patients (0.6 per cent) pandemic; P = 0.355). In mediation analysis, an admission with acute cholecystitis during the pandemic was associated with a non-significant increased risk of death (OR 1.29, 95 per cent c.i. 0.93 to 1.79, P = 0.121). Conclusion: CHOLECOVID provides a unique overview of the treatment of patients with cholecystitis across the globe during the first months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The study highlights the need for system resilience in retention of elective surgical activity. Cholecystectomy was associated with a low risk of mortality and deferral of treatment results in an increase in avoidable morbidity that represents the non-COVID cost of this pandemic

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P &lt; 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2–4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease