基于生物信息学的肥厚型心肌病易感基因TNNC1单核苷酸多态性致病表型分析

肥厚型心肌病(HCM)是一种常见的遗传性心脏病,是青少年及年轻运动员心源性猝死的最主要原因之一,其分子遗传学基础为基因突变。TNNC1是HCM的重要致病基因之一,目前仅发现其少量非同义单核苷酸多态性(nsSNPs)位点与HCM发病相关,但该基因其他nsSNPs数量较多,结合临床进行实验遗传检测其基因型与表型的关系,工作量巨大,尚不可行。因此,采用生物信息学方法,从dbSNP数据库中筛选出TNNC1基因全部的nsSNPs,联合4款(Mutation Taster、PolyPhen-2、PhD-SNP和MutPred)专业软件,进行有害性分级筛选和致病关联预测,最后进行突变蛋白三维结构建模及可视化分析。结果显示,首次从TNNC1基因102个nsSNPs位点中预测出疾病相关的18个(G159D、S69R、P52R、D149G、D3V、G140E、N51K、D151V、M47R、G110C、A23D、G140R、K158N、C35Y、R147C、L48P、F74C和V44G)高风险nsSNPs。基于生物信息学方法,以TNNC1基因的nsSNPs为示范,分析其nsSNPs与疾病表型的关系,这为其他遗传疾病致病基因nsSNPs的关联分析打下理论研究基础,具有重要的参考价值。     

Systemic therapy for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early stage and metastatic breast cancer

Hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer is defined by the presence of the estrogen receptor and/or the progesterone receptor and the absence of HER2 gene amplification. HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer accounts for 65%–70% of all breast cancers, and incidence increases with increasing age. Treatment varies by stage, and endocrine therapy is the mainstay of treatment in both early stage and late-stage disease. Combinations with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors have reduced distant recurrence in the early stage setting and improved overall survival in the metastatic setting. Chemotherapy is used based on stage and tumor biology in the early stage setting and after endocrine resistance for advanced disease. New therapies, including novel endocrine agents and antibody-drug conjugates, are now changing the treatment landscape. With the availability of new treatment options, it is important to define the optimal sequence of treatment to maximize clinical benefit while minimizing toxicity. In this review, the authors first discuss the pathologic and molecular features of HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and mechanisms of endocrine resistance. Then, they discuss current and emerging therapies for both early stage and metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer, including treatment algorithms based on current data.     

Understanding Hispanic Patient Satisfaction with Telehealth During COVID-19

BackgroundRecent studies have described the use of telehealth for pediatric surgical care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate equity in telehealth use by comparing rates of utilization and satisfaction with pediatric surgical telemedicine among Hispanic patients.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients seen by a surgical subspecialty provider in the outpatient setting at a quaternary pediatric hospital between April 1 and June 30, 2020. Patients evaluated in the same three-month period in 2019 were analyzed as a historic control. Differences in Family Experience Survey (FES) responses based on race and ethnicity and preferred language of care were assessed using univariable and multivariable generalized linear modeling.ResultsThe pandemic cohort included fewer patients of Hispanic ethnicity and fewer Spanish-speakers. After controlling for visit type, comparison of Spanish-speaking and English-speaking patients revealed that Spanish-speaking families had significantly lower scores for FES items that evaluated healthcare provider explaining (IRR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.61–0.90), listening (IRR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.63–0.92), and time spent with the family (IRR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.60–0.89). There were no differences in FES responses based on insurance status or degree of medical complexity.ConclusionsTelehealth services were less commonly used among Hispanic and Spanish-speaking patients. Language may differentially affect family satisfaction with healthcare and telehealth solutions. Strategies to mitigate these inequities are needed and may include strengthening interpreter services and providing language-concordant care.Level of evidenceLevel IV.     

Bioimpedance as a measure of fluids in patients with septic shock. A prospective observational study

Background

Septic shock is often treated with aggressive fluid resuscitation leading to profound fluid overload. The assessment of fluid status relies on suboptimal measures making treatment difficult. Bioelectrical impedance analysis is an alternative but the validity is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the validity of bioelectrical impedance analysis for fluid measures in patients with septic shock.

Methods

Single-center, prospective observational cohort study. We included adult ICU patients with septic shock. We evaluated the agreement between measures on the left and right side of the patient and measures 1 h apart by two bioelectrical impedance devices. Results are presented as Bland Altman plots with 95% Limits of Agreements (LoA) and as correlations between bioelectrical impedance analysis results and clinical markers of fluids.

Results

Forty-nine patients were included. The agreement between measures on the left and the right side of the patient and after 1 h was overall without bias, but with wide LoA's. Fluid overload 1 h apart showed the most narrow 95% LoA (−2.4–2.9 L). The same wide limits of agreements were observed when comparing devices. For example, total body water with 95% LoA of −14.8 –16.7 L. Correlations between bioelectrical impedance analysis and clinical measures were low but statistically significant.

Conclusions

In patients with septic shock bioelectrical impedance analysis had no systematic errors or bias, but wide limits of agreement, indicating that the devices have a large and uncorrectable random error. Fluid status by bioelectrical impedance analysis is not sufficiently accurate to guide treatment in this group of patients.     

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers,observational study

IntroductionThe risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19.MethodsA two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the “standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under ”escalated VTE prophylaxis dose“. The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications.ResultsA total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52–2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16–3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08–10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79–1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76–1.53; P = 0.83, respectively).ConclusionEscalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.     

Rehabilitation in long COVID-19: A mini-review

We have been experiencing multiple waves of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. With these unprecedented waves, we have entered into an era of ‘new normal’. This pandemic has enforced us to rethink the very basics of childhood learning: Habits, health etiquette, and hygiene. Rehabilitation has immense importance during this pandemic considering a few aspects. Multidisciplinary COVID-19 rehabilitation clinics are essential to address the demand. The equitable distribution of COVID-19 rehabilitation services for differently-abled individuals during the pandemic is an important aspect. Rehabilitation needs identification and further studies on various rehabilitation interventions are among the key unmet future research needs.     

RNA sequencing steps toward the first line

• DNA is the sequence that codes for proteins.
• Messenger RNA is transcribed from the DNA sequence of genes and translated into protein.
• It can be difficult to predict how a change in the DNA sequence will affect messenger RNA and protein quantity and quality.
• DNA translocation changes can cause the joining of sequences from two different genes or different parts of the same gene.
• DNA sequencing is often used clinically to predict how DNA changes might affect proteins.
• Alternatively, RNA sequencing can be used as a more direct measure of the effect of DNA changes on the protein products.
• This sequencing is important for identifying changes in cancer that may indicate response to targeted therapy, prognosis, or diagnosis.