Biomarker Discovery in Serum from Patients with Carotid Atherosclerosis

www.karger.com/cee This is an Open Access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License (www.karger.com/OA-license), applicable to the online version of the article only. Distribution for non-commercial purposes only

Impaired HCV clearance in HIV/HCV coinfected subjects treated with PegIFN and RBV due to interference of IFN signaling by IFNαR2a

Enhanced endogenous interferon (IFN) stimulated gene (ISG) signature has been associated with nonresponsiveness to hepatitis C treatment using pegylated-IFNα (pegIFNα) and ribavirin (RBV) in human immunodeficiency virus/hepatitis C virus (HIV/HCV) coinfected patients. Using a proteomic approach, we identified high levels of IFNα receptor 2a (IFNαR2a) in the serum of null responders to pegIFNα/RBV. IFNαR2a inhibited antiviral activity of all formulations of IFNα in JFH/Huh7.5 cells. Furthermore, serum from null responders, but not from those who achieved sustained virologic response, suppressed IFN-signaling and ISG expression in IFNα-stimulated PBMCs of healthy donors in an IFNαR2a specific fashion. An IFNαR2a transgenic mice model (C57BL/6) was generated that had significantly higher levels of IFNαR2a in the serum than the controls (P=0.001). Total ISG expression in the lymph nodes was significantly higher compared to wild-type mice (P value=0.0016). In addition, IFITM1 and SP110 had significantly increased expression in the liver, IFITM1 and ISG15 in the lymph node, and ISG15 and PLSCR1 in the spleen (P value\u3c0.05). The underlying mechanism of resistance to hepatitis C treatment may involve transsignaling of the JAK/STAT pathway by the sIFNαR2a-IFNα/β complex and result in the enhanced ISG signature observed in null responders. In this regard, the transgenic mice model simulated nonresponders to IFNα therapy and provides valuable insights into the role of sIFNαR2a- IFNα interactions in vivo. © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc

Rapid induction of autoantibodies during ARDS and septic shock

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Little is known about the induction of humoral responses directed against human autoantigens during acute inflammation. We utilized a highly sensitive antibody profiling technology to study autoantibodies in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe sepsis, conditions characterized by intensive immune activation leading to multiple organ dysfunction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using Luciferase Immunoprecipitation Systems (LIPS), a cohort of control, ARDS and sepsis patients were tested for antibodies to a panel of autoantigens. Autoantibody titers greater than the mean plus 3 SD of the 24 control samples were used to identify seropositive samples. Available longitudinal samples from different seropositive ARDS and sepsis patient samples, starting from within the first two days after admission to the intensive care, were then analyzed for changes in autoantibody over time.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From screening patient plasma, 57% of ARDS and 46% of septic patients without ARDS demonstrated at least one statistically significant elevated autoantibody compared to the controls. Frequent high titer antibodies were detected against a spectrum of autoantigens including potassium channel regulator, gastric ATPase, glutamic decarboxylase-65 and several cytokines. Analysis of serial samples revealed that several seropositive patients had low autoantibodies at early time points that often rose precipitously and peaked between days 7-14. Further, the use of therapeutic doses of corticosteroids did not diminish the rise in autoantibody titers. In some cases, the patient autoantibody titers remained elevated through the last serum sample collected.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The rapid induction of autoantibodies in ARDS and severe sepsis suggests that ongoing systemic inflammation and associated tissue destruction mediate the break in tolerance against these self proteins.</p

Sepsis, Care Bundles and Quality Improvement

Overall Goals and Objectives: 1. To review the evolution of care bundles. 2. Analyze the development of treatment bundles for sepsis. 3. Discuss the potential benefits and risks associated with sepsis care bundles

Diagnosing sepsis is subjective and highly variable: a survey of intensivists using case vignettes

Background: Sepsis is the focus of national quality improvement programs and a recent public reporting measure from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. However, diagnosing sepsis requires interpreting nonspecific signs and can therefore be subjective. We sought to quantify interobserver variability in diagnosing sepsis. Methods: We distributed five case vignettes of patients with suspected or confirmed infection and organ dysfunction to a sample of practicing intensivists. Respondents classified cases as systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock, or none of the above. Interobserver variability was calculated using Fleiss’ κ for the five-level classification, and for answers dichotomized as severe sepsis/septic shock versus not-severe sepsis/septic shock and any sepsis category (sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock) versus not-sepsis. Results: Ninety-four physicians completed the survey. Most respondents (88 %) identified as critical care specialists; other specialties included pulmonology (39 %), anesthesia (19 %), surgery (9 %), and emergency medicine (9 %). Respondents had been in practice for a median of 8 years, and 90 % practiced at academic hospitals. Almost all respondents (83 %) felt strongly or somewhat confident in their ability to apply the traditional consensus sepsis definitions. However, overall interrater agreement in sepsis diagnoses was poor (Fleiss’ κ 0.29). When responses were dichotomized into severe sepsis/septic shock versus not-severe sepsis/septic shock or any sepsis category versus not-sepsis, agreement was still poor (Fleiss’ κ 0.23 and 0.18, respectively). Seventeen percent of respondents classified one of the five cases as severe sepsis/septic shock, 27.7 % rated two cases, 33.0 % respondents rated three cases, 19.2 % rated four cases, and 3.2 % rated all five cases as severe sepsis/septic shock. Among respondents who felt strongly confident in their ability to use sepsis definitions (n = 45), agreement was no better (Fleiss’ κ 0.28 for the five-category classification, and Fleiss’ κ 0.21 for the dichotomized severe sepsis/septic shock classification). Cases were felt to be extremely or very realistic in 74 % of responses; only 3 % were deemed unrealistic. Conclusions: Diagnosing sepsis is extremely subjective and variable. Objective criteria and standardized methodology are needed to enhance consistency and comparability in sepsis research, surveillance, benchmarking, and reporting. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1266-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users