2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine

The writing committee conducted a comprehensive search of the medical and scientific literature through the use of PubMed/MEDLINE. Searches were limited to publications written in the English language. Compiled reports were reviewed and additional articles were provided by committee members. Specifically targeted searches were conducted on the following subtopics: acute aortic dissection, ankylosing spondylitis, aortic dissection and litigation, aortic neoplasm, aortic tumors, Behçet disease, bicuspid aortic valve, calcified aorta, chronic dissection, coarctation of the aorta, D-dimer, dissecting aneurysm, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, endovascular and aortic aneurysms, medial degeneration, porcelain aorta, giant cell arteritis, imaging and thoracic aortic disease, inflammatory disease, intramural hematoma, Loeys-Dietz syndrome, Marfan syndrome, Noonan syndrome, penetrating aortic ulcer, polycystic kidney disease, thoracic and aortic aneurysms, thoracic aortic disease and patient care, thoracic aortic disease and surgery, thoracic aorta and Kawasaki disease, Takayasu arteritis, thoracoabdominal and aorta or aortic disease, and Turner syndrome. More than 850 references were reviewed, with 830 used as the primary evidence base for the final guideline. The ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines methodology processes were followed to write the text and recommendations. In general, published manuscripts appearing in journals listed in Index Medicus were used as the evidence base. Published abstracts were used only for emerging information but were not used in the formulation of recommendations

New Pharmacological Agents to Aid Smoking Cessation and Tobacco Harm Reduction: What has been Investigated and What is in the Pipeline?

A wide range of support is available to help smokers to quit and aid attempts at harm reduction, including three first-line smoking cessation medications: nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion. Despite the efficacy of these, there is a continual need to diversify the range of medications so that the needs of tobacco users are met. This paper compares the first-line smoking cessation medications to: 1) two variants of these existing products: new galenic formulations of varenicline and novel nicotine delivery devices; and 2) twenty-four alternative products: cytisine (novel outside of central and eastern Europe), nortriptyline, other tricyclic antidepressants, electronic cigarettes, clonidine (an anxiolytic), other anxiolytics (e.g. buspirone), selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) reuptake inhibitors, supplements (e.g. St John’s wort), silver acetate, nicobrevin, modafinil, venlafaxine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI), opioid antagonist, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) antagonists, glucose tablets, selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists, nicotine vaccines, drugs that affect gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transmission, drugs that affect N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDA), dopamine agonists (e.g. levodopa), pioglitazone (Actos; OMS405), noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and the weight management drug lorcaserin. Six criteria are used: relative efficacy, relative safety, relative cost, relative use (overall impact of effective medication use), relative scope (ability to serve new groups of patients), and relative ease of use (ESCUSE). Many of these products are in the early stages of clinical trials, however, cytisine looks most promising in having established efficacy and safety and being of low cost. Electronic cigarettes have become very popular, appear to be efficacious and are safer than smoking, but issues of continued dependence and possible harms need to be considered

Canvass: A Crowd-Sourced, Natural Product Screening Library for Exploring Biological Space

Natural products and their derivatives continue to be wellsprings of nascent therapeutic potential. However, many laboratories have limited resources for biological evaluation, leaving their previously isolated or synthesized compounds largely or completely untested. To address this issue, the Canvass library of natural products was assembled, in collaboration with academic and industry researchers, for quantitative high-throughput screening (qHTS) across a diverse set of cell-based and biochemical assays. Characterization of the library in terms of physicochemical properties, structural diversity, and similarity to compounds in publicly available libraries indicates that the Canvass library contains many structural elements in common with approved drugs. The assay data generated were analyzed using a variety of quality control metrics, and the resultant assay profiles were explored using statistical methods, such as clustering and compound promiscuity analyses. Individual compounds were then sorted by structural class and activity profiles. Differential behavior based on these classifications, as well as noteworthy activities, are outlined herein. One such highlight is the activity of (–)-2(S)-cathafoline, which was found to stabilize calcium levels in the endoplasmic reticulum. The workflow described here illustrates a pilot effort to broadly survey the biological potential of natural products by utilizing the power of automation and high-throughput screening

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Validation and utility of ARDS subphenotypes identified by machine-learning models using clinical data: an observational, multicohort, retrospective analysis

International audienceTwo acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) subphenotypes (hyperinflammatory and hypoinflammatory) with distinct clinical and biological features and differential treatment responses have been identified using latent class analysis (LCA) in seven individual cohorts. To facilitate bedside identification of subphenotypes, clinical classifier models using readily available clinical variables have been described in four randomised controlled trials. We aimed to assess the performance of these models in observational cohorts of ARDS. Methods: In this observational, multicohort, retrospective study, we validated two machine-learning clinical classifier models for assigning ARDS subphenotypes in two observational cohorts of patients with ARDS: Early Assessment of Renal and Lung Injury (EARLI; n=335) and Validating Acute Lung Injury Markers for Diagnosis (VALID; n=452), with LCA-derived subphenotypes as the gold standard. The primary model comprised only vital signs and laboratory variables, and the secondary model comprised all predictors in the primary model, with the addition of ventilatory variables and demographics. Model performance was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots, and assigning subphenotypes using a probability cutoff value of 0·5 to determine sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the assignments. We also assessed the performance of the primary model in EARLI using data automatically extracted from an electronic health record (EHR; EHR-derived EARLI cohort). In Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE; n=2813), a multinational, observational ARDS cohort, we applied a custom classifier model (with fewer variables than the primary model) to determine the prognostic value of the subphenotypes and tested their interaction with the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategy, with 90-day mortality as the dependent variable. Findings: The primary clinical classifier model had an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0·92 (95% CI 0·90–0·95) in EARLI and 0·88 (0·84–0·91) in VALID. Performance of the primary model was similar when using exclusively EHR-derived predictors compared with manually curated predictors (AUC=0·88 [95% CI 0·81–0·94] vs 0·92 [0·88–0·97]). In LUNG SAFE, 90-day mortality was higher in patients assigned the hyperinflammatory subphenotype than in those with the hypoinflammatory phenotype (414 [57%] of 725 vs 694 [33%] of 2088; p<0·0001). There was a significant treatment interaction with PEEP strategy and ARDS subphenotype (p=0·041), with lower 90-day mortality in the high PEEP group of patients with the hyperinflammatory subphenotype (hyperinflammatory subphenotype: 169 [54%] of 313 patients in the high PEEP group vs 127 [62%] of 205 patients in the low PEEP group; hypoinflammatory subphenotype: 231 [34%] of 675 patients in the high PEEP group vs 233 [32%] of 734 patients in the low PEEP group). Interpretation: Classifier models using clinical variables alone can accurately assign ARDS subphenotypes in observational cohorts. Application of these models can provide valuable prognostic information and could inform management strategies for personalised treatment, including application of PEEP, once prospectively validated. Funding: US National Institutes of Health and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine