Afghanistan Legal Lessons Learned: Army Rule of Law Operations

One of the most crucial components of the 2002 National Security Strategy which will impact virtually all other components is the world-wide implementation of the rule of law. In furtherance of the Strategy, National Security Presidential Directive 44 was issued in late 2005 and states that it is U.S. policy to work with other countries towards effective implementation of the rule of law. The Directive tasks the Secretaries of State and Defense with coordinating rule of law efforts and with integrating them into military contingency plans. Consequently, by direction of the President, the military has a key role to play in implementing the rule of law and Judge Advocates must be prepared to lead these efforts. Commanders look to Judge Advocates with the expectation that they will be competent and innovative in implementing the unit\u27s rule of law mission. This is clearly demonstrated by the Center for Law and Military Operations\u27 publication of the Rule of Law Handbook: A Practitioner\u27s Guide for Judge Advocates, where a constantly re-occurring theme is that the command naturally turns to the legal expert within the task force to plan, execute, coordinate, and evaluate rule of law efforts. Over six years of operations in Afghanistan, commanders have relied on JAs in their rule of law operations. These operations have created a number of lessons learned; this paper will highlight three: 1) Rule of law operations must be totally integrated into all phases and aspects of military operations and the unit mission; 2) U.S. Army Rule of Law efforts must be completely coordinated and synchronized with other rule of law efforts, especially those of the host nation, and must recognize what role the military is organizationally qualified to fill; 3) Military rule of law operations must be effects-based

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

HMGA1 Reprograms Somatic Cells into Pluripotent Stem Cells by Inducing Stem Cell Transcriptional Networks

PMC3499526BACKGROUND: Although recent studies have identified genes expressed in human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) that induce pluripotency, the molecular underpinnings of normal stem cell function remain poorly understood. The high mobility group A1 (HMGA1) gene is highly expressed in hESCs and poorly differentiated, stem-like cancers; however, its role in these settings has been unclear. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We show that HMGA1 is highly expressed in fully reprogrammed iPSCs and hESCs, with intermediate levels in ECCs and low levels in fibroblasts. When hESCs are induced to differentiate, HMGA1 decreases and parallels that of other pluripotency factors. Conversely, forced expression of HMGA1 blocks differentiation of hESCs. We also discovered that HMGA1 enhances cellular reprogramming of somatic cells to iPSCs together with the Yamanaka factors (OCT4, SOX2, KLF4, cMYC - OSKM). HMGA1 increases the number and size of iPSC colonies compared to OSKM controls. Surprisingly, there was normal differentiation in vitro and benign teratoma formation in vivo of the HMGA1-derived iPSCs. During the reprogramming process, HMGA1 induces the expression of pluripotency genes, including SOX2, LIN28, and cMYC, while knockdown of HMGA1 in hESCs results in the repression of these genes. Chromatin immunoprecipitation shows that HMGA1 binds to the promoters of these pluripotency genes in vivo. In addition, interfering with HMGA1 function using a short hairpin RNA or a dominant-negative construct blocks cellular reprogramming to a pluripotent state. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate for the first time that HMGA1 enhances cellular reprogramming from a somatic cell to a fully pluripotent stem cell. These findings identify a novel role for HMGA1 as a key regulator of the stem cell state by inducing transcriptional networks that drive pluripotency. Although further studies are needed, these HMGA1 pathways could be exploited in regenerative medicine or as novel therapeutic targets for poorly differentiated, stem-like cancers.JH Libraries Open Access Fun

Efficacy and safety of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab or cladribine in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (StarMS): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Introduction: Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) is increasingly used as treatment for patients with active multiple sclerosis (MS), typically after failure of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). A recent phase III trial, ‘Multiple Sclerosis International Stem Cell Transplant, MIST’, showed that aHSCT resulted in prolonged time to disability progression compared with DMTs in patients with relapsing remitting MS (RRMS). However, the MIST trial did not include many of the current high-efficacy DMTs (alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab or cladribine) in use in the UK within the control arm, which are now offered to patients with rapidly evolving severe MS (RES-MS) who are treatment naïve. There remain, therefore, unanswered questions about the relative efficacy and safety of aHSCT over these high-efficacy DMTs in these patient groups. The StarMS trial (Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation versus Alemtuzumab, Ocrelizumab, Ofatumumab or Cladribine in Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis) will assess the efficacy, safety and long-term impact of aHSCT compared with high-efficacy DMTs in patients with highly active RRMS despite the use of standard DMTs or in patients with treatment naïve RES-MS. Methods and analysis: StarMS is a multicentre parallel-group rater-blinded randomised controlled trial with two arms. A total of 198 participants will be recruited from 19 regional neurology secondary care centres in the UK. Participants will be randomly allocated to the aHSCT arm or DMT arm in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will remain in the study for 2 years with follow-up visits at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months postrandomisation. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who achieve ‘no evidence of disease activity’ during the 2-year postrandomisation follow-up period in an intention to treat analysis. Secondary outcomes include efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and immune reconstitution of aHSCT and the four high-efficacy DMTs. Ethics and dissemination: The study was approved by the Yorkshire and Humber—Leeds West Research Ethics Committee (20/YH/0061). Participants will provide written informed consent prior to any study specific procedures. The study results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and abstracts will be submitted to relevant national and international conferences. Trial registration number: ISRCTN88667898

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

Prion proteins in subpopulations of white blood cells from patients with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

Recent cases of prion transmission in humans following transfusions using blood donated by patients with asymptomatic variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) implicate the presence of prion infectivity in peripheral blood. In this study, we examined the levels of the normal, cellular prion protein (PrPC), and the disease-causing isoform (PrPSc) in subpopulations of circulating white blood cells (WBCs) from patients with sporadic (s) CJD, age-matched neurological controls and healthy donors. Though widely distributed, the highest levels of PrPC were found in a subpopulation of T lymphocytes: approximately 12,000 PrPC molecules were found per CD4+CD45RA-CD62L- effector memory T helper cell. Although platelets expressed low levels of PrPC on their surface, their high abundance in circulation resulted in the majority of PrPC being platelet associated. Using quantitative fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis, we found that neither WBC composition nor the amount of cell-surface PrPC molecules was altered in patients with sCJD. Eight different WBC fraction types from the peripheral blood of patients with sCJD were assessed for PrPSc. We were unable to find any evidence for PrPSc in purified granulocytes, monocytes, B cells, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, natural killer cells, nonclassical gamma delta T cells, or platelets. If human WBCs harbor prion infectivity in patients with sCJD, then the levels are likely to be low

Prion proteins in subpopulations of white blood cells from patients with sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

Recent cases of prion transmission in humans following transfusions using blood donated by patients with asymptomatic variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) implicate the presence of prion infectivity in peripheral blood. In this study, we examined the levels of the normal, cellular prion protein (PrPC), and the disease-causing isoform (PrPSc) in subpopulations of circulating white blood cells (WBCs) from patients with sporadic (s) CJD, age-matched neurological controls and healthy donors. Though widely distributed, the highest levels of PrPC were found in a subpopulation of T lymphocytes: approximately 12,000 PrPC molecules were found per CD4+CD45RA-CD62L- effector memory T helper cell. Although platelets expressed low levels of PrPC on their surface, their high abundance in circulation resulted in the majority of PrPC being platelet associated. Using quantitative fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis, we found that neither WBC composition nor the amount of cell-surface PrPC molecules was altered in patients with sCJD. Eight different WBC fraction types from the peripheral blood of patients with sCJD were assessed for PrPSc. We were unable to find any evidence for PrPSc in purified granulocytes, monocytes, B cells, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, natural killer cells, nonclassical gamma delta T cells, or platelets. If human WBCs harbor prion infectivity in patients with sCJD, then the levels are likely to be low