The effectiveness of different minimally invasive epiphysiodesis techniques in the management of paediatric leg length discrepancies: a systematic review

Paediatric leg length discrepancies (LLDs) are more common than might be expected with the literature reporting that between 0.1 and 7% of the paediatric population has a LLD of >2 cm. Causes can be subdivided into congenital and acquired aetiologies. LLDs greater than 2 cm can lead to functional complications such as altered gait kinetics and abnormal loading of joints. For children predicted to have a LLD of 2-5 cm, minimally invasive epiphysiodesis (MIE) is the current management of choice. Presently, there are four MIE techniques commonly used throughout the world, however, no systematic reviews have compared these techniques. The objective of this thesis was to conduct a systematic review to synthesise the best available evidence on the use of MIE for the management of paediatric LLD. The effectiveness of four different techniques was compared: percutaneous epiphysiodesis using transphyseal screws (PETS); physeal drilling and curettage (PDC); physeal stapling; and guided growth with eight-Plates. Studies that evaluated two or more of the interventions or those that investigated a single intervention were considered for inclusion. Primary outcomes for the review included absolute LLD at skeletal maturity; rate of correction; percentage of correction; and incidence of long term complications. This review found that all techniques were sufficient at reducing the burden of a LLD with the mean final LLD of each being calculated to be <2 cm. Despite this, the rate of complications was higher in the eight-Plates and staples groups than the PDC and PETS groups. The PETS cohort had a reported failure of growth plate arrest (GPA) of 2.5% compared with 6% in the PDC and staples groups and 14% in the eight-Plate groups. The rate of inadequate correction (i.e. over or under correction), were also higher in the eight-Plate and staples groups (15% and 23%, respectively) than the PETS and PDC groups (8% and 13%, respectively). The incidence of angular deformities was much higher in the staples cohort (33%) than in the other groups (PDC 2%; PETS 9%; and eight-Plates 5%). The incidence of acute complications, such as haematoma, infection and acute knee pain, was similar across all techniques. Unfortunately, the overall level of evidence was low, due to the suboptimal and heterogeneous nature of the study designs included in this systematic review, and thus, treatment guidelines could not be developed. Notwithstanding this, the available evidence showed that all the evaluated techniques can adequately reduce a LLD, although PDC and PETS appear to be more effective at this. Further research is required to substantiate these claims; for now, all techniques remain an acceptable technique for addressing LLDs of 2-5 cm.Thesis (MClinSc) -- University of Adelaide, Adelaide Medical School, 201

The Prevalence and Drug Sensitivity of Tuberculosis among Patients Dying in Hospital in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: A Postmortem Study

A postmortem study by Ted Cohen and colleagues reveals a huge toll of tuberculosis among patients dying in hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Development of a Standardized Screening Rule for Tuberculosis in People Living with HIV in Resource-Constrained Settings: Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis of Observational Studies

Haileyesus Getahun and colleagues report the development of a simple, standardized tuberculosis (TB) screening rule for resource-constrained settings, to identify people living with HIV who need further investigation for TB disease

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

In vitro and in vivo functions of SARS-CoV-2 infection-enhancing and neutralizing antibodies

SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) protect against COVID-19. A concern regarding SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is whether they mediate disease enhancement. Here, we isolated NAbs against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and the N-terminal domain (NTD) of SARS-CoV-2 spike from individuals with acute or convalescent SARS-CoV-2 or a history of SARS-CoV infection. Cryo-electron microscopy of RBD and NTD antibodies demonstrated function-specific modes of binding. Select RBD NAbs also demonstrated Fc receptor-g (FcgR)-mediated enhancement of virus infection in vitro, while five non-neutralizing NTD antibodies mediated FcgR-independent in vitro infection enhancement. However, both types of infection-enhancing antibodies protected from SARS-CoV-2 replication in monkeys and mice. Three of 46 monkeys infused with enhancing antibodies had higher lung inflammation scores compared to controls. One monkey had alveolar edema and elevated bronchoalveolar lavage inflammatory cytokines. Thus, while in vitro antibody-enhanced infection does not necessarily herald enhanced infection in vivo, increased lung inflammation can rarely occur in SARS-CoV-2 antibody-infused macaques

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Methods: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. Findings: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96–1·28). Interpretation: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570