Study on pollutants formation under knocking combustion conditions using an optical single cylinder SI research engine

The aim of this experimental study is to investigate the pollutants formation and cyclic emission variability under knocking combustion conditions. A great number of studies extensively describe the phenomenon of knock and its combustion characteristics as well as the effect of knock on engine performance; however the impact of knocking combustion on pollutants formation and how it affects cyclic emission variability has not been previously explored. In this study, an optical single cylinder SI research engine and fast response analyzers were employed to experimentally correlate knocking combustion characteristics with cyclic resolved emissions from cycle to cycle. High-speed natural light photography imaging and simultaneous in-cylinder pressure measurements were obtained from the optical research engine to interpret emissions formation under knocking combustion. The test protocol included the investigation of the effect of various engine parameters such as ignition timing and mixture air/fuel ratio on knocking combustion and pollutant formation. Results showed that at stoichiometric conditions by advancing spark timing from MBT to knock intensity equal to 6 bar, instantaneous NO and HC emissions are increased by up to 60% compared to the MBT operating conditions. A further increase of knock intensity at the limits of pre-ignition region was found to significantly drop NO emissions. Conversely, it was found that when knocking combustion occurs at lean conditions, NO emissions are enhanced as knock intensity is increased

COVID-19 trajectories among 57 million adults in England: a cohort study using electronic health records

BACKGROUND: Updatable estimates of COVID-19 onset, progression, and trajectories underpin pandemic mitigation efforts. To identify and characterise disease trajectories, we aimed to define and validate ten COVID-19 phenotypes from nationwide linked electronic health records (EHR) using an extensible framework. METHODS: In this cohort study, we used eight linked National Health Service (NHS) datasets for people in England alive on Jan 23, 2020. Data on COVID-19 testing, vaccination, primary and secondary care records, and death registrations were collected until Nov 30, 2021. We defined ten COVID-19 phenotypes reflecting clinically relevant stages of disease severity and encompassing five categories: positive SARS-CoV-2 test, primary care diagnosis, hospital admission, ventilation modality (four phenotypes), and death (three phenotypes). We constructed patient trajectories illustrating transition frequency and duration between phenotypes. Analyses were stratified by pandemic waves and vaccination status. FINDINGS: Among 57 032 174 individuals included in the cohort, 13 990 423 COVID-19 events were identified in 7 244 925 individuals, equating to an infection rate of 12·7% during the study period. Of 7 244 925 individuals, 460 737 (6·4%) were admitted to hospital and 158 020 (2·2%) died. Of 460 737 individuals who were admitted to hospital, 48 847 (10·6%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), 69 090 (15·0%) received non-invasive ventilation, and 25 928 (5·6%) received invasive ventilation. Among 384 135 patients who were admitted to hospital but did not require ventilation, mortality was higher in wave 1 (23 485 [30·4%] of 77 202 patients) than wave 2 (44 220 [23·1%] of 191 528 patients), but remained unchanged for patients admitted to the ICU. Mortality was highest among patients who received ventilatory support outside of the ICU in wave 1 (2569 [50·7%] of 5063 patients). 15 486 (9·8%) of 158 020 COVID-19-related deaths occurred within 28 days of the first COVID-19 event without a COVID-19 diagnoses on the death certificate. 10 884 (6·9%) of 158 020 deaths were identified exclusively from mortality data with no previous COVID-19 phenotype recorded. We observed longer patient trajectories in wave 2 than wave 1. INTERPRETATION: Our analyses illustrate the wide spectrum of disease trajectories as shown by differences in incidence, survival, and clinical pathways. We have provided a modular analytical framework that can be used to monitor the impact of the pandemic and generate evidence of clinical and policy relevance using multiple EHR sources. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre, led by Health Data Research UK

Dolutegravir twice-daily dosing in children with HIV-associated tuberculosis: a pharmacokinetic and safety study within the open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority ODYSSEY trial

Background: Children with HIV-associated tuberculosis (TB) have few antiretroviral therapy (ART) options. We aimed to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of dolutegravir twice-daily dosing in children receiving rifampicin for HIV-associated TB. Methods: We nested a two-period, fixed-order pharmacokinetic substudy within the open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority ODYSSEY trial at research centres in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Children (aged 4 weeks to <18 years) with HIV-associated TB who were receiving rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir were eligible for inclusion. We did a 12-h pharmacokinetic profile on rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir and a 24-h profile on once-daily dolutegravir. Geometric mean ratios for trough plasma concentration (Ctrough), area under the plasma concentration time curve from 0 h to 24 h after dosing (AUC0–24 h), and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) were used to compare dolutegravir concentrations between substudy days. We assessed rifampicin Cmax on the first substudy day. All children within ODYSSEY with HIV-associated TB who received rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir were included in the safety analysis. We described adverse events reported from starting twice-daily dolutegravir to 30 days after returning to once-daily dolutegravir. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02259127), EudraCT (2014–002632-14), and the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91737921). Findings: Between Sept 20, 2016, and June 28, 2021, 37 children with HIV-associated TB (median age 11·9 years [range 0·4–17·6], 19 [51%] were female and 18 [49%] were male, 36 [97%] in Africa and one [3%] in Thailand) received rifampicin with twice-daily dolutegravir and were included in the safety analysis. 20 (54%) of 37 children enrolled in the pharmacokinetic substudy, 14 of whom contributed at least one evaluable pharmacokinetic curve for dolutegravir, including 12 who had within-participant comparisons. Geometric mean ratios for rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir versus once-daily dolutegravir were 1·51 (90% CI 1·08–2·11) for Ctrough, 1·23 (0·99–1·53) for AUC0–24 h, and 0·94 (0·76–1·16) for Cmax. Individual dolutegravir Ctrough concentrations were higher than the 90% effective concentration (ie, 0·32 mg/L) in all children receiving rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir. Of 18 children with evaluable rifampicin concentrations, 15 (83%) had a Cmax of less than the optimal target concentration of 8 mg/L. Rifampicin geometric mean Cmax was 5·1 mg/L (coefficient of variation 71%). During a median follow-up of 31 weeks (IQR 30–40), 15 grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred among 11 (30%) of 37 children, ten serious adverse events occurred among eight (22%) children, including two deaths (one tuberculosis-related death, one death due to traumatic injury); no adverse events, including deaths, were considered related to dolutegravir. Interpretation: Twice-daily dolutegravir was shown to be safe and sufficient to overcome the rifampicin enzyme-inducing effect in children, and could provide a practical ART option for children with HIV-associated TB

Neuropsychiatric manifestations and sleep disturbances with dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy versus standard of care in children and adolescents: a secondary analysis of the ODYSSEY trial

BACKGROUND: Cohort studies in adults with HIV showed that dolutegravir was associated with neuropsychiatric adverse events and sleep problems, yet data are scarce in children and adolescents. We aimed to evaluate neuropsychiatric manifestations in children and adolescents treated with dolutegravir-based treatment versus alternative antiretroviral therapy. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of ODYSSEY, an open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial, in which adolescents and children initiating first-line or second-line antiretroviral therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to dolutegravir-based treatment or standard-of-care treatment. We assessed neuropsychiatric adverse events (reported by clinicians) and responses to the mood and sleep questionnaires (reported by the participant or their carer) in both groups. We compared the proportions of patients with neuropsychiatric adverse events (neurological, psychiatric, and total), time to first neuropsychiatric adverse event, and participant-reported responses to questionnaires capturing issues with mood, suicidal thoughts, and sleep problems. FINDINGS: Between Sept 20, 2016, and June 22, 2018, 707 participants were enrolled, of whom 345 (49%) were female and 362 (51%) were male, and 623 (88%) were Black-African. Of 707 participants, 350 (50%) were randomly assigned to dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy and 357 (50%) to non-dolutegravir-based standard-of-care. 311 (44%) of 707 participants started first-line antiretroviral therapy (ODYSSEY-A; 145 [92%] of 157 participants had efavirenz-based therapy in the standard-of-care group), and 396 (56%) of 707 started second-line therapy (ODYSSEY-B; 195 [98%] of 200 had protease inhibitor-based therapy in the standard-of-care group). During follow-up (median 142 weeks, IQR 124–159), 23 participants had 31 neuropsychiatric adverse events (15 in the dolutegravir group and eight in the standard-of-care group; difference in proportion of participants with ≥1 event p=0·13). 11 participants had one or more neurological events (six and five; p=0·74) and 14 participants had one or more psychiatric events (ten and four; p=0·097). Among 14 participants with psychiatric events, eight participants in the dolutegravir group and four in standard-of-care group had suicidal ideation or behaviour. More participants in the dolutegravir group than the standard-of-care group reported symptoms of self-harm (eight vs one; p=0·025), life not worth living (17 vs five; p=0·0091), or suicidal thoughts (13 vs none; p=0·0006) at one or more follow-up visits. Most reports were transient. There were no differences by treatment group in low mood or feeling sad, problems concentrating, feeling worried or feeling angry or aggressive, sleep problems, or sleep quality. INTERPRETATION: The numbers of neuropsychiatric adverse events and reported neuropsychiatric symptoms were low. However, numerically more participants had psychiatric events and reported suicidality ideation in the dolutegravir group than the standard-of-care group. These differences should be interpreted with caution in an open-label trial. Clinicians and policy makers should consider including suicidality screening of children or adolescents receiving dolutegravir

Timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international prospective cohort study.

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay

Hospital admission and emergency care attendance risk for SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) compared with alpha (B.1.1.7) variants of concern: a cohort study

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant was first detected in England in March, 2021. It has since rapidly become the predominant lineage, owing to high transmissibility. It is suspected that the delta variant is associated with more severe disease than the previously dominant alpha (B.1.1.7) variant. We aimed to characterise the severity of the delta variant compared with the alpha variant by determining the relative risk of hospital attendance outcomes. Methods: This cohort study was done among all patients with COVID-19 in England between March 29 and May 23, 2021, who were identified as being infected with either the alpha or delta SARS-CoV-2 variant through whole-genome sequencing. Individual-level data on these patients were linked to routine health-care datasets on vaccination, emergency care attendance, hospital admission, and mortality (data from Public Health England's Second Generation Surveillance System and COVID-19-associated deaths dataset; the National Immunisation Management System; and NHS Digital Secondary Uses Services and Emergency Care Data Set). The risk for hospital admission and emergency care attendance were compared between patients with sequencing-confirmed delta and alpha variants for the whole cohort and by vaccination status subgroups. Stratified Cox regression was used to adjust for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, recent international travel, area of residence, calendar week, and vaccination status. Findings: Individual-level data on 43 338 COVID-19-positive patients (8682 with the delta variant, 34 656 with the alpha variant; median age 31 years [IQR 17–43]) were included in our analysis. 196 (2·3%) patients with the delta variant versus 764 (2·2%) patients with the alpha variant were admitted to hospital within 14 days after the specimen was taken (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2·26 [95% CI 1·32–3·89]). 498 (5·7%) patients with the delta variant versus 1448 (4·2%) patients with the alpha variant were admitted to hospital or attended emergency care within 14 days (adjusted HR 1·45 [1·08–1·95]). Most patients were unvaccinated (32 078 [74·0%] across both groups). The HRs for vaccinated patients with the delta variant versus the alpha variant (adjusted HR for hospital admission 1·94 [95% CI 0·47–8·05] and for hospital admission or emergency care attendance 1·58 [0·69–3·61]) were similar to the HRs for unvaccinated patients (2·32 [1·29–4·16] and 1·43 [1·04–1·97]; p=0·82 for both) but the precision for the vaccinated subgroup was low. Interpretation: This large national study found a higher hospital admission or emergency care attendance risk for patients with COVID-19 infected with the delta variant compared with the alpha variant. Results suggest that outbreaks of the delta variant in unvaccinated populations might lead to a greater burden on health-care services than the alpha variant. Funding: Medical Research Council; UK Research and Innovation; Department of Health and Social Care; and National Institute for Health Research

Changes in symptomatology, reinfection, and transmissibility associated with the SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7: an ecological study

Background The SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 was first identified in December, 2020, in England. We aimed to investigate whether increases in the proportion of infections with this variant are associated with differences in symptoms or disease course, reinfection rates, or transmissibility. Methods We did an ecological study to examine the association between the regional proportion of infections with the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 variant and reported symptoms, disease course, rates of reinfection, and transmissibility. Data on types and duration of symptoms were obtained from longitudinal reports from users of the COVID Symptom Study app who reported a positive test for COVID-19 between Sept 28 and Dec 27, 2020 (during which the prevalence of B.1.1.7 increased most notably in parts of the UK). From this dataset, we also estimated the frequency of possible reinfection, defined as the presence of two reported positive tests separated by more than 90 days with a period of reporting no symptoms for more than 7 days before the second positive test. The proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections with the B.1.1.7 variant across the UK was estimated with use of genomic data from the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium and data from Public Health England on spike-gene target failure (a non-specific indicator of the B.1.1.7 variant) in community cases in England. We used linear regression to examine the association between reported symptoms and proportion of B.1.1.7. We assessed the Spearman correlation between the proportion of B.1.1.7 cases and number of reinfections over time, and between the number of positive tests and reinfections. We estimated incidence for B.1.1.7 and previous variants, and compared the effective reproduction number, Rt, for the two incidence estimates. Findings From Sept 28 to Dec 27, 2020, positive COVID-19 tests were reported by 36 920 COVID Symptom Study app users whose region was known and who reported as healthy on app sign-up. We found no changes in reported symptoms or disease duration associated with B.1.1.7. For the same period, possible reinfections were identified in 249 (0·7% [95% CI 0·6–0·8]) of 36 509 app users who reported a positive swab test before Oct 1, 2020, but there was no evidence that the frequency of reinfections was higher for the B.1.1.7 variant than for pre-existing variants. Reinfection occurrences were more positively correlated with the overall regional rise in cases (Spearman correlation 0·56–0·69 for South East, London, and East of England) than with the regional increase in the proportion of infections with the B.1.1.7 variant (Spearman correlation 0·38–0·56 in the same regions), suggesting B.1.1.7 does not substantially alter the risk of reinfection. We found a multiplicative increase in the Rt of B.1.1.7 by a factor of 1·35 (95% CI 1·02–1·69) relative to pre-existing variants. However, Rt fell below 1 during regional and national lockdowns, even in regions with high proportions of infections with the B.1.1.7 variant. Interpretation The lack of change in symptoms identified in this study indicates that existing testing and surveillance infrastructure do not need to change specifically for the B.1.1.7 variant. In addition, given that there was no apparent increase in the reinfection rate, vaccines are likely to remain effective against the B.1.1.7 variant. Funding Zoe Global, Department of Health (UK), Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK), National Institute for Health Research (UK), Medical Research Council (UK), Alzheimer's Society

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication