The results of a meta-analysis are more than just the reported odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, and P value. Of equal importance is the fine print of the study which should include assessment of risk of bias, certainty in evidence, and heterogeneity in the individual point estimates and confidence intervals. These areas all have influence on the quality of the data in the analysis. Reading and understanding the fine print is important.
Although insect herbivores are known to evolve resistance to insecticides through multiple genetic mechanisms, resistance in individual species has been assumed to follow the same mechanism. While both mutations in the target site insensitivity and increased amplification are known to contribute to insecticide resistance, little is known about the degree to which geographic populations of the same species differ at the target site in a response to insecticides. We tested structural (e.g. mutation profiles) and regulatory (e.g. the gene expression of Ldace1 and Ldace2, AChE activity) differences between two populations (Vermont, USA and Belchow, Poland) of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata in their resistance to two commonly used groups of insecticides, organophosphates, and carbamates. We established that Vermont beetles were more resistant to azinphos-methyl and carbaryl insecticides compared to Belchow beetles, despite a similar frequency of resistance-associated alleles (i.e. S291G) in the Ldace2 gene. However, the Vermont population had two additional amino acid replacements (G192S, F402Y) in the Ldace1 gene, which were absent in the Belchow population. Moreover, the Vermont population showed higher expression of Ldace1 and was less sensitive to AChE inhibition by azinphos methyl oxon than the Belchow population. Therefore, the two populations have evolved different genetic mechanisms to adapt to organophosphate and carbamate insecticides.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for targeted local interventions given substantial heterogeneity within cities and counties. Publicly available case data are typically aggregated to the city or county level to protect patient privacy, but more granular data are necessary to identify and act upon community-level risk factors that can change over time. Methods: Individual COVID-19 case and mortality data from Massachusetts were geocoded to residential addresses and aggregated into two time periods: “Phase 1” (March–June 2020) and “Phase 2” (September 2020–February 2021). Institutional cases associated with long-term care facilities, prisons, or homeless shelters were identified using address data and modeled separately. Census tract sociodemographic and occupational predictors were drawn from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. We used mixed-effects negative binomial regression to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs), accounting for town-level spatial autocorrelation. Results: Case incidence was elevated in census tracts with higher proportions of Black and Latinx residents, with larger associations in Phase 1 than Phase 2. Case incidence associated with proportion of essential workers was similarly elevated in both Phases. Mortality IRRs had differing patterns from case IRRs, decreasing less substantially between Phases for Black and Latinx populations and increasing between Phases for proportion of essential workers. Mortality models excluding institutional cases yielded stronger associations for age, race/ethnicity, and essential worker status. Conclusions: Geocoded home address data can allow for nuanced analyses of community disease patterns, identification of high-risk subgroups, and exclusion of institutional cases to comprehensively reflect community risk.
What can be seen from the case report by Verzelloni et al. has a double value, beyond the case itself. First of all, the use of platelet aggregation assessment tests, such as TEG-PM, allows clinicians to verify the exact timing between the suspension of thienopyridines and the possibility of surgery without further temporal delays and is also able to favor the evolution of ischemic problems or hemodynamic instability not easily treatable. It therefore allows clinicians to optimize the bleeding / thrombosis matching. Secondly, the use of point of care methodologies for the evaluation of platelet aggregation allows us to evaluate the adequacy of the anti-aggregation, facilitating, where resistance or percentages of anti-aggregation are lower than expected, modification of the therapeutic regimen.
Title: Bicuspid Aortic Valve: Progression of Stenosis and Clinical RelevanceRunning Head: Progression of Stenosis in Bicuspid Aortic ValveAuthors: Saqib Masroor, MD, MBA, MHSUniversity of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic SurgeryMeeting Presentation: NoneDisclosure: NoneWord Count: 717
A 77-year-old woman was admitted to our emergency department complaining of abdominal pain. Computed tomography was performed and showed aerobilila and a large 5.1 cm gallstone lodged in the small intestine. She underwent emergency surgery. Intraoperative findings noted small bowel obstruction caused by a large gallstone.
We present the case of a 41 year old gentleman who was admitted to hospital with a presumed case of surgical dysphagia. A clinical diagnosis of pharyngeal-cervical-brachial variant of Guillain-Barré Syndrome was made and he treated with a 5 day course of IVIG resulting in gradual but signigicant symptomatic relief.
A middle-aged Sudanese woman has been presented complained about multiple joint pain, skin rash, chest pain, hair loss, severe abdominal pain associated with abdominal distension, bloody diarrhoea and vomiting. Lab investigation and computed tomography (CT) abdomen revealed the patient have an intussusception on top of SLE. The patient was treated
The swift advances in interventional cardiology combined with the increasing risk of cardiac surgical procedures resulted in diminishing volume of coronary and valvular surgery and affected the future of cardiac surgery service and training. Application to cardiac surgery training programs have steadily declined. This cross-sectional study aimed at identifying main weakness facing cardiac surgery and advocating some recommendations to improve the status of current and future of cardiac surgery.
Anomalous aortic origin of a coronary artery from the opposite sinus is a rare congenital condition that can cause sudden death in young people. When it is associated with acute aortic dissection, acute myocardial infarction can occur due to enlargement of the sinus of Valsalva. We report the case of a 71-year-old man with anomalous origin of the right coronary artery from the left sinus of Valsalva, who developed right ventricular infarction due to the compression of the right coronary artery between the aorta and pulmonary artery trunk.
The heart transplantation (HT) is undoubtedly the best treatment for end-stage heart failure patients (2). However, the organ shortage remains a major challenge in cardiac surgery. Facing this problem, the medical community starts to extend the donor criteria to select more suitable organs for HT. The use of ECDs is still controversial, since it is associated with a high incidence of primary graft failure (3), and although it guarantees longer survival than without transplantation, there is still some hesitation in accepting this practice.
Background: Thoracic aortic aneurysm is a significant risk factor for aortic dissection and rupture. Guidelines recommend referral of patients to a cardiovascular specialist for periodic surveillance imaging with surgical intervention determined primarily by aneurysm size. We investigated the association between socioeconomic status and surveillance practices in patients with ascending aortic aneurysms. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed records of 465 consecutive patients diagnosed between 2013-2016 with ascending aortic aneurysm ≥4cm on computed tomography scans. Primary outcomes were clinical follow-up with a cardiovascular specialist and aortic surveillance imaging within 2 years following index scan. We stratified patients into quartiles using the area deprivation index (ADI), a validated percentile measure of 17 variables characterizing socioeconomic status at the census block group level. Competing risks analysis was used to determine interquartile differences in risk of death prior to follow up with a cardiovascular specialist. Results: Lower socioeconomic status was associated with significantly lower rates of surveillance imaging and referral to a cardiovascular specialist. On competing risks regression, the ADI quartile with lowest socioeconomic status had lower hazard of follow-up with a cardiologist or cardiac surgeon prior to death (HR 0.46 [0.34, 0.62], p<0.001). Though there were no differences in aneurysm size at time of surgical repair, patients in the lowest socioeconomic quartile were more frequently symptomatic at surgery than other quartiles (92% vs 23-38%, p<0.001). Conclusion: Patients with lower socioeconomic status receive less timely follow-up imaging and specialist referral for thoracic aortic aneurysms, resulting in surgical intervention only when alarming symptoms are already present.
Letter to the Editor: Telemedicine in the era of coronavirus 19: Implications for postoperative care in cardiac surgeryContributing Authors:Anish Verma (Corresponding Author) – Fifth Year Medical StudentRachel Pathimagaraj – Fourth Year Medical StudentDaniel Warrington - Fifth Year Medical StudentJames Whiteway - Fifth Year Medical StudentAll authors are based at the United Kingdom institution, The University of Manchester – Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health.
ABSTRACT Post infarction ventricular septal rupture (PIVSR) is an infrequent but potentially fatal complication of acute myocardial infarction. • The 30-day mortality rate with the transcatheter approach when performed in the acute phase (less than two weeks) was 25.3% compared to 50% when surgery is performed in the acute phase (within three weeks). • There is no correlation between defect size and mortality. • NYHA class IV and time to VSD closure are risk predictors for transcatheter closure for a 30-day mortality rate of 31.5%.
Addressing Beta-lactam Allergy: A Time for actionElizabeth J. Phillips, MD, FIDSA, FAAAAI, Pascal Demoly, MD, PhD, Maria J Torres, MD, PhD1 Department of Medicine, Center for Drug Safety and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville Tennessee USA, 2Institute for Immunology & Infectious Diseases, Murdoch University, Murdoch Australia, 3Division of Allergy, Department of Pulmonology, University Hospital of Montepellier, and IDESP, Univ. Montpellier – Inserm, Montpellier France,4Allergy Unit, Hospital Regional Universitario de Malaga-IBIMA-BIONAND-ARADyAL, and Departmento de Medicina, Universidad de Malaga, Malaga, SpainCorrespondence:Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, FIDSA, FAAAAICenter for Drug Safety and ImmunologyVanderbilt University Medical Center1161 – 21st Avenue SouthNashville, TN 37232(615) 322-9174 (tel)Elizabeth.firstname.lastname@example.orgIt is now 93 years since the discovery of penicillins, and over 75 years since the first use of penicillin. We have entered yet another wave of challenges plagued with antibiotic resistance accelerating at a rate that well exceeds that of new antibiotic development. In the face of these uphill battles, 8-15% of a global population who has had access to care is labeled as penicillin allergic.1 In the United States (US) there are at maximum 6000 specialists who practice allergy out of a total of 700,000 practicing physicians, and not all allergists are proficient in and practice drug allergy. Conservatively out of 30,000,000 who are labeled as penicillin allergic at any one time in the US, this would mean that each allergist would need to delabel a minimum of 6000 patients. In Europe and the United Kingdom, the figures are proportionately identical, with some differences between countries. Even if all patients had equal access to care, this type of scalability remains impossible. This overwhelming burden that threatens to negatively impact healthcare through delays in treatment, higher healthcare utilization and cost, less effective treatment and increased antibiotic resistance and Clostridioides difficile infection, demands a risk-based approach that simplifies the penicillin allergy delabeling process and establishes bridges with non-allergists.1, 2What have we learned that now makes the population level goal of penicillin delabeling achievable? First off, prevention is better than cure. We should critically examine pediatric populations for antibiotic use to address over-prescription of antibiotics including penicillins for viral infections. We should avoid labeling children with benign delayed exanthems that occur in the setting of a likely viral infection as penicillin allergic. When continued treatment is necessary we should in fact encourage “treating through” such reactions. When a label of penicillin allergy seems inevitable in a child we should address this label early and pay particular attention to antibiotic stewardship. New data on serum sickness-like reaction suggests that many of these are likely virally mediated and do not reproduce on ingestion challenge.3 Community based education programs can help disseminate timely information on penicillin allergy to dispel myths and alleviate fears. A label of penicillin allergy should be both viewed and approached as a threat to both individual and public health. On a public health level addressing penicillin allergy should be seen as a broad stewardship tool that provides a level of herd protectiveness against antibiotic resistance. On an individual level a label of penicillin allergy should be approached with the same routineness as any other preventative health check, and primary care physicians and providers should be trained to understand and manage low-risk penicillin allergy labels.4 Patients should regularly discuss their drug allergy passport with their healthcare providers such as pharmacists and physicians. Allergy passports should enable interoperability, high traceability and time-stamped information solving the problem of frequent unavailability and inaccuracy of drug allergy information.5 Risk stratification should occur and if in a low-risk category a patient should be given the option of direct oral challenge and delabeling. Risk stratification to identify by clinical history the low-risk penicillin allergic patients who would be appropriate for simple procedures is key. Several mechanisms now exist to risk stratify those labeled as penicillin allergic in routine clinical practice. These clinical prediction rules provide an evidence base to identify the majority of low-risk penicillin allergy labeled patients who are at low risk for rechallenge reactions.6, 7 In current practice it is likely that less than 1% of such low-risk patients will be at risk for a reaction on ingestion challenge.1, 8To make widespread penicillin allergy delabeling an achievable and scalable goal we must be convinced of the safety of direct ingestion challenges. A randomized study allocated children 5 years or older with low-risk cutaneous reaction to penicillin skin testing followed by amoxicillin challenge versus 2 step direct oral challenge with amoxicillin with tolerance of amoxicillin of 96% of those with direct challenge and only minor reactions in the remainder.9These results have recently been confirmed in an European population of children.10 Aside from the inconvenience and potential need for specialty assessment, for very low-risk patients, the use of skin testing would be expected to perform poorly considering their low pre-test probability of a reaction. Several other studies have demonstrated that a single or two-step direct ingestion challenge with penicillins such as amoxicillin is a safe and practical strategy to remove a label of penicillin allergy.11 Although there is evidence to support the use of risk stratification tools to delabel penicillin allergy under allergist guidance, we require an educational program on drug allergy for primary care physicians as well validation of these risk stratification tools, to show that low-risk penicillin delabeling can be achieved in this setting.Even in the face of risk stratification and safety of direct ingestion challenge, populations are not equal in terms of their medical risk or antibiotic needs. Intuitively populations that serve to benefit from penicillins and other beta lactams have been shown to have inferior outcomes when labeled as penicillin allergic that would benefit from a delabeling intervention. This includes the association of penicillin allergy label and use of an alternative antibiotic with post-operative surgical site infections.12 Other settings where research has shown feasibility in delabeling include children in the emergency department, critically ill populations with high antibiotic needs, and pregnant women where the high rates of surgical delivery and group B Streptococcal colonization in pregnancy create a high demand for penicillin and cephalosporins as safe firstline drugs.1, 13, 14 Increasingly, assessment of unverified penicillin allergy has been recognized as an antibiotic stewardship intervention in immunocompromised states such as transplant and cancer where populations have much to gain by being delabeled.15There is a “time for action” for removal of penicillin allergy labels on a population level but how do we achieve widespread implementation (Figure 1)? Policy changes should be driven by collaboration with Infectious diseases specialists and allergists who should join forces to pair antibiotic allergy management with antibiotic stewardship. In the community we need to educate parents and pediatricians to make them aware of the hazards of both unnecessary antibiotics and penicillin allergy labels for mild rashes that are often related to a viral infection and unlikely to recur. Primary healthcare providers should be given greater incentives to delabel penicillin allergic patients at the point-of-care and armed with decision support tools to facilitate risk stratification. For those whose history is not consistent with allergy this could include direct delabeling without testing. In the future, evidence may support that routine direct ingestion challenge with a penicillin and delabeling is safe in the primary care setting. Finally, by off-loading low-risk reactions to primary care providers we can then prioritize care of the patients with a higher-risk allergy and/or medical history by engagement with specialists who can provide more in-depth assessments and give them the best antibiotic options.Figure 1: Addressing Beta-lactam Allergy: An Implementation Roadmap: There are currently many missed opportunities for community members and healthcare providers to take action forward on the “penicillin allergy delabeling” movement. This includes not only active measures to delabel patients by history and direct oral challenge and to identify high risk patients for prioritized penicillin allergy delabeling but also preventive measures to avoid unnecessary use and exposure to antibiotics and avoidance of unnecessary labeling in those with mild rashes of likely viral origin.