Point-of-care detection of lactate in cerebrospinal fluid

Purpose!#!Measurements of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) lactate can aid in detecting infections of the central nervous system and surrounding structures. Neurosurgical patients with temporary lumbar or ventricular CSF drainage harbor an increased risk for developing infections of the central nervous system, which require immediate therapeutic responses. Since blood gas analyzers enable rapid blood-lactate measurements, we were interested in finding out if we can reliably measure CSF-lactate by this point-of-care technique.!##!Methods!#!Neurosurgical patients on our intensive care unit (ICU) with either lumbar or external ventricular drainage due to a variety of reasons were included in this prospective observational study. Standard of care included measurements of leucocyte counts, total protein and lactate measurements in CSF by the neurochemical laboratory of our University Medical Center twice a week. With respect to this study, we additionally performed nearly daily measurements of cerebrospinal fluid by blood gas analyzers to determine the reliability of CSF-lactate measured by blood gas analyzers as compared to the standard measurements with a certified device.!##!Results!#!62 patients were included in this study. We performed 514 CSF-lactate measurements with blood gas analyzers and compared 180 of these to the in-house standard CSF-lactate measurements. Both techniques correlated highly significantly (Pearson correlation index 0.94) even though lacking full concordance in a Bland-Altman plotting. Of particular importance, regular measurements enabled immediate detection of central infection in three patients who had developed meningitis during the course of their treatment.!##!Conclusion!#!Blood gas analyzers measure CSF-lactate with sufficient reliability and can help in the timely detection of a developing meningitis. In addition to and triggering established CSF diagnostics, CSF-lactate measurements by blood gas analyzers may improve surveillance of patients with CSF drainage. This study was retrospectively registered on April 20th 2020 in the German trial register. The trial registration number is DRKS00021466

Facial nerve neurographies in intensive care unit-acquired weakness

Abstract Background Patients with an intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) often present clinically with severe paresis of the limb and trunk muscles while facial muscles appear less affected. To investigate whether the facial nerves are partially spared from this condition, we performed both peripheral and cranial nerve conduction studies in critically ill patients. Methods In patients requiring prolonged ICU therapy, the motor and sensory nerve conduction velocities of the peroneal, ulnar and facial nerves and the muscle action potentials of the associated muscles, as well as the orbicularis oculi reflexes were assessed shortly after admission, and on ICU days 7 and 14. Results Eighteen patients were included in the final data analysis (average age 54.2 ± 16.8 years, 8 females). The amplitudes of the peroneal nerve compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) were reduced in all patients at ICU days 7 and 14 (F(1.39; 23.63) = 13.85; p < 0.001). There was no similar decrease in the CMAP amplitudes of the ulnar or facial nerve. Other parameters of nerve function (latencies, sensory and motor nerve conduction velocities, sensory nerve action potentials) remained unchanged. The reproducibility of the orbicularis oculi reflex was reduced during the disease course, while its latencies did not change significantly during the disease course. Conclusions There is a relative preservation of CMAPs in facial and hand as opposed to foot muscles. This is compatible with the clinical observation that the facial muscles in patients with ICU-AW are less severely affected. This may be primarily a function of the nerve length, and consequently more robust trophic factors in shorter nerves. Trial registration This study was prospectively registered in the German Clinical Trial Register on April 20th 2020 (DRKS00021467)

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19

Background With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required. Objectives To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022. Selection criteria We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19. Data collection and analysis We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections. Main results We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population. Authors' conclusions In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals)

Camostat Mesylate May Reduce Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Sepsis: A First Observation

Objectives: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 cell entry depends on angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and transmembrane serine protease 2 and is blocked in cell culture by camostat mesylate, a clinically proven protease inhibitor. Whether camostat mesylate is able to lower disease burden in coronavirus disease 2019 sepsis is currently unknown. Design: Retrospective observational case series. Setting: Patient treated in ICU of University hospital Göttingen, Germany. Patients: Eleven critical ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients with organ failure were treated in ICU. Interventions: Compassionate use of camostat mesylate (six patients, camostat group) or hydroxychloroquine (five patients, hydroxychloroquine group). Measurements and Main Results: Clinical courses were assessed by Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score at days 1, 3, and 8. Further, viral load, oxygenation, and inflammatory markers were determined. Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score was comparable between camostat and hydroxychloroquine groups upon ICU admission. During observation, the Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score decreased in the camostat group but remained elevated in the hydroxychloroquine group. The decline in disease severity in camostat mesylate treated patients was paralleled by a decline in inflammatory markers and improvement of oxygenation. Conclusions: The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 decreased upon camostat mesylate treatment within a period of 8 days and a similar effect was not observed in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine. Camostat mesylate thus warrants further evaluation within randomized clinical trials

Immunity after COVID-19 vaccination in people with higher risk of compromised immune status: a scoping review

Background High efficacy in terms of protection from severe COVID-19 has been demonstrated for several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. However, patients with compromised immune status develop a weaker and less stable immune response to vaccination. Strong immune response may not always translate into clinical benefit, therefore it is important to synthesise evidence on modified schemes and types of vaccination in these population subgroups for guiding health decisions. As the literature on COVID-19 vaccines continues to expand, we aimed to scope the literature on multiple subgroups to subsequently decide on the most relevant research questions to be answered by systematic reviews. Objectives To provide an overview of the availability of existing literature on immune response and long-term clinical outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination, and to map this evidence according to the examined populations, specific vaccines, immunity parameters, and their way of determining relevant long-term outcomes and the availability of mapping between immune reactivity and relevant outcomes. Search methods We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 6 December 2021. Selection criteria We included studies that published results on immunity outcomes after vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, Sputnik V or Sputnik Light, BBIBP-CorV, or CoronaVac on predefined vulnerable subgroups such as people with malignancies, transplant recipients, people undergoing renal replacement therapy, and people with immune disorders, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women, and children. We included studies if they had at least 100 participants (not considering healthy control groups); we excluded case studies and case series. Data collection and analysis We extracted data independently and in duplicate onto an online data extraction form. Data were represented as tables and as online maps to show the frequency of studies for each item. We mapped the data according to study design, country of participant origin, patient comorbidity subgroup, intervention, outcome domains (clinical, safety, immunogenicity), and outcomes. Main results Out of 25,452 identified records, 318 studies with a total of more than 5 million participants met our eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Participants were recruited mainly from high-income countries between January 2020 and 31 October 2021 (282/318); the majority of studies included adult participants (297/318). Haematological malignancies were the most commonly examined comorbidity group (N = 54), followed by solid tumours (N = 47), dialysis (N = 48), kidney transplant (N = 43), and rheumatic diseases (N = 28, 17, and 15 for mixed diseases, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively). Thirty-one studies included pregnant or breastfeeding women. The most commonly administered vaccine was BNT162b2 (N = 283), followed by mRNA-1273 (N = 153), AZD1222 (N = 66), Ad26.COV2.S (N = 42), BBIBP-CorV (N = 15), CoronaVac (N = 14), and Sputnik V (N = 5; no studies were identified for Sputnik Light). Most studies reported outcomes after regular vaccination scheme. The majority of studies focused on immunogenicity outcomes, especially seroconversion based on binding antibody measurements and immunoglobulin G (IgG) titres (N = 179 and 175, respectively). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported in 126 and 54 studies, whilst SARS-CoV-2 infection irrespective of severity was reported in 80 studies. Mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in 36 studies. Please refer to our evidence gap maps for more detailed information. Authors' conclusions Up to 6 December 2021, the majority of studies examined data on mRNA vaccines administered as standard vaccination schemes (two doses approximately four to eight weeks apart) that report on immunogenicity parameters or adverse events. Clinical outcomes were less commonly reported, and if so, were often reported as a secondary outcome observed in seroconversion or immunoglobulin titre studies. As informed by this scoping review, two effectiveness reviews (on haematological malignancies and kidney transplant recipients) are currently being conducted

Cord blood cell therapy alters LV remodeling and cytokine expression but does not improve heart function after myocardial infarction in rats

OBJECTIVE: In this study the ability of unrestricted somatic stem cells (USSC) and mononuclear cord blood cells (MN-CBC) was tested to improve heart function and left ventricular (LV) remodeling after myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: The cells were delivered by i.v. or intramyocardial injections in rat models of MI by permanent coronary artery occlusion and by ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury. Heart function and remodeling was followed by recurrent echocardiography over 8 or 12 weeks after which catheterization was performed. RESULTS: Although injected labeled cells could be observed within the myocardium for up to 6 d, there was no sign of cardiac regeneration 8 or 12 weeks after MI. However, the mRNA expression of components of the extracellular matrix was attenuated in the infarct scar 12 weeks after MI and cell injection. Additionally, the expression of interleukin (IL)-6 but not of IL-1 beta increased at the site of injury and the adjacent border-zone 12 weeks after I/R and USSC-injection. However, these effects did not translate into improved heart function or attenuated LV dilatation. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that cord blood cell implantation after MI acts through paracrine mechanisms to modify remodeling rather than myocyte regeneration. The role of myofibroblasts and the optimal conditions of cell application need to be determined to translate these mechanisms into functional improvement