The expression of MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide, and Tei index in sepsis-induced myocardial injury.

We sought to investigate the expression of MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide, and Tei index in sepsis-induced myocardial injury. The current retrospective analysis focused on 146 sepsis patients admitted to our hospital from February 2021 to March 2023. Based on the presence or absence of myocardial injury, the patients were divided into two groups: the sepsis group (n = 80) and the sepsis-induced myocardial injury group (n = 66). Based on the 28-day mortality status of the patients, they were also divided into a survival group of 143 cases and a death group of 3 cases. The study compared the levels of MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide, and Tei index between the sepsis group and sepsis-induced myocardial injury group, as well as the comparison of two sets of ultrasound indicators. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the influencing factors of sepsis-induced myocardial injury, followed by multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify the influencing factors of such condition. MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide and cardiac Tei index between the survival and death groups were compared and Pearson correlation analysis was conduct to assess their correlations. In terms of general information, there were no significant differences in gender, age, BMI, mean arterial pressure, systolic pressure, diastolic pressure, respiratory rate, oxygenation index, basic diseases and infection site between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed in heart rate, SOFA score, and APACHE II score between the two groups (P < 0.05). The levels of MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide, and Tei index in the sepsis-induced myocardial injury group were significantly higher than those in the sepsis group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the sepsis-induced myocardial injury group exhibited lower left ventricular end-diastolic diameter and left ventricular end-systolic diameter compared to the sepsis group, along with higher levels of E, E/e', and e', showing significant differences (P < 0.05). The independent variables considered in the analysis included general data, ultrasound indicators with significant differences, as well as MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide, and Tei index. The dependent variable was sepsis-induced myocardial injury, and univariate logistic regression analysis identified E, E/e', e', MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide, and Tei index as influencing factors of sepsis-induced myocardial injury. Subsequently, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted with the independent variables set as E, E/e', e', MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide, and Tei index, and the dependent variable as sepsis-induced myocardial injury. The results indicated that MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide, and Tei index were influencing factors of sepsis-induced myocardial injury. The levels of MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide and cardiac Tei index in the death group were significantly higher than those in the survival group (P < 0.05). The Pearson correlation analysis showed that MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide and cardiac Tei index were correlated with the prognosis of patients with sepsis-induced myocardial injury (P < 0.05). We demonstrated high expression levels of MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide, and Tei index in patients with sepsis-induced myocardial injury. Ultrasound indicators can effectively contribute to the diagnosis of sepsis-induced myocardial injury. Moreover, MALAT1, plasma brain natriuretic peptide, and Tei index have been identified as influencing factors of sepsis-induced myocardial injury.

Huang G ，Yang W ，Zhao X ，Bai Y ，Jiang X ，Liu J ... -  《Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》

RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial.

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have been found to be efficient on SARS-CoV-2, and reported to be efficient in Chinese COV-19 patients. We evaluate the effect of hydroxychloroquine on respiratory viral loads. French Confirmed COVID-19 patients were included in a single arm protocol from early March to March 16th, to receive 600mg of hydroxychloroquine daily and their viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs was tested daily in a hospital setting. Depending on their clinical presentation, azithromycin was added to the treatment. Untreated patients from another center and cases refusing the protocol were included as negative controls. Presence and absence of virus at Day6-post inclusion was considered the end point. Six patients were asymptomatic, 22 had upper respiratory tract infection symptoms and eight had lower respiratory tract infection symptoms. Twenty cases were treated in this study and showed a significant reduction of the viral carriage at D6-post inclusion compared to controls, and much lower average carrying duration than reported in the litterature for untreated patients. Azithromycin added to hydroxychloroquine was significantly more efficient for virus elimination. Despite its small sample size, our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its effect is reinforced by azithromycin. This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). Concerns have been raised regarding this article, the substance of which relate to the articles' adherence to Elsevier's publishing ethics policies and the appropriate conduct of research involving human participants, as well as concerns raised by three of the authors themselves regarding the article's methodology and conclusions. Elsevier's Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics Team, in collaboration with the journal's co-owner, the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC), and with guidance from an impartial field expert acting in the role of an independent Publishing Ethics Advisor, Dr. Jim Gray, Consultant Microbiologist at the Birmingham Children's and Women's Hospitals, U.K., conducted an investigation and determined that the below points constituted cause for retraction: • The journal has been unable to confirm whether any of the patients for this study were accrued before ethical approval had been obtained. The ethical approval dates for this article are stated as being 5th and 6th of March 2020 (ANSM and CPP respectively), while the article states that recruitment began in “early March”. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui, has confirmed that the start date for patient accrual was 6th March 2020. The journal has not been able to establish whether all patients could have entered into the study in time for the data to have been analysed and included in the manuscript prior to its submission on the 20th March 2020, nor whether all patients were enrolled in the study upon admission as opposed to having been hospitalised for some time before starting the treatment described in the article. Additionally, the journal has not been able to establish whether there was equipoise between the study patients and the control patients. • The journal has not been able to establish whether the subjects in this study should have provided informed consent to receive azithromycin as part of the study. The journal has concluded that that there is reasonable cause to conclude that azithromycin was not considered standard care at the time of the study. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui has attested that azithromycin treatment was not, at the time of the study, an experimental treatment but a possible treatment for, or preventative measure against, bacterial superinfections of viral pneumonia as described in section 2.4 of the article, and as such the treatment should be categorised as standard care that would not require informed consent. This does not fully address the journal's concerns around the use of azithromycin in the study. In section 3.1 of the article, it is stated that six patients received azithromycin to prevent (rather than treat) bacterial superinfection. All of these were amongst the patients who also received hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). None of the control patients are reported to have received azithromycin. This would indicate that only patients in the HCQ arm received azithromycin, all of whom were in one center. The recommendations for use of macrolides in France at the time the study was conducted indicate that azithromycin would not have been a logical agent to use as first-line prophylaxis against pneumonia due to the frequency of macrolide resistance amongst bacteria such as pneumococci. These two points suggest that azithromycin would not have been standard practice across southern France at the time the study was conducted and would have required informed consent. • Three of the authors of this article, Dr. Johan Courjon, Prof. Valérie Giordanengo, and Dr. Stéphane Honoré have contacted the journal to assert their opinion that they have concerns regarding the presentation and interpretation of results in this article and have stated they no longer wish to see their names associated with the article. • Author Prof. Valérie Giordanengo informed the journal that while the PCR tests administered in Nice were interpreted according to the recommendations of the national reference center, it is believed that those carried out in Marseille were not conducted using the same technique or not interpreted according to the same recommendations, which in her opinion would have resulted in a bias in the analysis of the data. This raises concerns as to whether the study was partially conducted counter to national guidelines at that time. The 17th author, Prof. Philippe Brouqui has attested that the PCR methodology was explained in reference 17 of the article. However, the article referred to by reference 17 describes several diagnostic approaches that were used (one PCR targeting the envelope protein only; another targeting the spike protein; and three commercially produced systems by QuantiNova, Biofire, and FTD). This reference does not clarify how the results were interpreted. It has also been noted during investigation of these concerns that only 76% (19/25) of patients were viral culture positive, resulting in uncertainty in the interpretation of PCR reports as has been raised by Prof. Giordanengo. As part of the investigation, the corresponding author was contacted and asked to provide an explanation for the above concerns. No response has been received within the deadline provided by the journal. Responses were received by the 3rd and 17th authors, Prof. Philippe Parola and Prof. Philippe Brouqui, respectively, and were reviewed as part of the investigation. These two authors, in addition to 1st author Dr. Philippe Gautret, 13th author Prof. Philippe Colson, and 15th author Prof. Bernard La Scola, disagreed with the retraction and dispute the grounds for it. Having followed due process and concluded the aforementioned investigation and based on the recommendation of Dr. Jim Gray acting in his capacity as independent Publishing Ethics Advisor, the co-owners of the journal (Elsevier and ISAC) have therefore taken the decision to retract the article.

Gautret P ，Lagier JC ，Parola P ，Hoang VT ，Meddeb L ，Mailhe M ，Doudier B ，Courjon J ，Giordanengo V ，Vieira VE ，Tissot Dupont H ，Honoré S ，Colson P ，Chabrière E ，La Scola B ，Rolain JM ，Brouqui P ，Raoult D ... -  《-》

Sex and gender as predictors for allograft and patient-relevant outcomes after kidney transplantation.

Sex, as a biological construct, and gender, defined as the cultural attitudes and behaviours attributed by society, may be associated with allograft loss, death, cancer, and rejection. Other factors, such as recipient age and donor sex, may modify the association between sex/gender and post-transplant outcomes. We sought to evaluate the prognostic effects of recipient sex and, separately, gender as independent predictors of graft loss, death, cancer, and allograft rejection following kidney or simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation. We aimed to evaluate this prognostic effect by defining the relationship between recipient sex or gender and post-transplantation outcomes identifying reasons for variations between sexes and genders, and then quantifying the magnitude of this relationship. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception up to 12 April 2023, through contact with the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Information Specialist, using search terms relevant to this review and no language restrictions. Cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies were included if sex or gender were the primary exposure and clearly defined. Studies needed to focus on our defined outcomes post-transplantation. Sex was defined as the chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical characteristics associated with the biological sex, and we used the terms "males" and "females". Gender was defined as the attitudes and behaviours that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex, and we used the terms "men" and "women". Two authors independently assessed the references for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Whenever appropriate, we performed random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the mean difference in outcomes. The outcomes of interest included the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplant (SONG-Tx) core outcomes, allograft loss, death, cancer (overall incidence and site-specific) and acute or chronic graft rejection. Fifty-three studies (2,144,613 patients; range 59 to 407,963) conducted between 1990 and 2023 were included. Sixteen studies were conducted in the Americas, 12 in Europe, 11 in the Western Pacific, four in the Eastern Mediterranean, three in Africa, two in Southeast Asia, and five across multiple regions. All but one study focused on sex rather than gender as the primary exposure of interest. The number identified as male was 54%; 49 studies included kidney transplant recipients, and four studies included SPK transplant recipients. Twenty-four studies included adults and children, 25 studies included only adults, and four studies included only children. Data from 33 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Among these, six studies presented unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) that assessed the effect of recipient sex on kidney allograft loss. The other studies reported risk ratios (RRs) for the pre-defined outcomes. Notably, the decision to restrict the meta-analyses to unadjusted estimates arose from the variation in covariate adjustment methods across studies, lacking a common set of adjusted variables. Only three studies considered the modifying effect of recipient age on graft loss or death, which is likely crucial to evaluating sex differences in post-transplant outcomes. No studies considered the modifying effect of recipient age on cancer incidence or allograft rejection risk. In low certainty evidence, compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in kidney allograft loss post-transplantation (7 studies, 5843 patients: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12; I2 = 73%). This was also observed in studies that included time-to-event analyses (6 studies, 238,937 patients; HR 1.07, 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.20; I2 = 44%). Two recent large registry-based cohort studies that considered the modifying effects of donor sex and recipient age showed that female recipients under 45 years of age had significantly higher graft loss rates than age-matched male recipients in the setting of a male donor. In contrast, female recipients 60 years and older had lower graft loss rates than age-matched male recipients, regardless of donor sex. Compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in death up to 30 years post-transplantation; however, the evidence is very uncertain (13 studies, 60,818 patients: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; I2 = 92%). Studies that considered the modifying effect of recipient age and donor sex showed that female recipients had a higher excess death risk than males under 45 years of age in the setting of a male donor. Compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in cancer incidence up to 20 years post-transplantation; however, the evidence is very uncertain (7 studies, 25,076 patients; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; I2 = 60%). Compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in the incidence of acute and chronic kidney allograft rejection up to 15 years post-transplantation (9 studies, 6158 patients: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.05; I2 =54%; low certainty evidence). One study assessed gender and reported that when compared with men, women experienced better five-year survival in high (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.87) and middle-income areas (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), with no difference in low-income areas (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.01). There was considerable uncertainty regarding any association between sex or gender and post-transplant patient-relevant outcomes. This was primarily due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity. The observed clinical heterogeneity between studies could be attributed to diverse patient characteristics within sample populations. As a result of limited sex-stratified demographic data being provided, further investigation of this heterogeneity was constrained. However, factors contributing to this finding may include recipient age, donor age, types, and sex. Methodological heterogeneity was noted with the interchangeable use of sex and gender, outcome misclassification, the use of different measures of effects, inconsistent covariate profiles, and disregard for important effect modification. There is very low to low certainty evidence to suggest there are no differences in kidney and pancreas allograft survival, patient survival, cancer, and acute and chronic allograft rejection between male and female kidney and SPK transplant recipients.

Jayanti S ，Beruni NA ，Chui JN ，Deng D ，Liang A ，Chong AS ，Craig JC ，Foster B ，Howell M ，Kim S ，Mannon RB ，Sapir-Pichhadze R ，Scholes-Robertson NJ ，Strauss AT ，Jaure A ，West L ，Cooper TE ，Wong G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

[Establishment and validation of a sepsis 28-day mortality prediction model based on the lactate dehydrogenase-to-albumin ratio in patients with sepsis].

Wang Z ，Huang F ，Li S ，Li X ，Liu Y ，Shao B ，Liu M ，Yao Y ，Wang J ... -  《-》