Exploring the role of artificial intelligence in the study of fetal heart

The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging -     

Hepatitis B virus infection reactivation in patients under immunosuppressive therapies: Pathogenesis,screening, prevention and treatment

With a 5.3% of the global population involved, hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a major public health challenge requiring an urgent response. After a possible acute phase, the natural history of HBV infection can progress in chronicity. Patients with overt or occult HBV infection can undergo HBV reactivation (HBVr) in course of immunosuppressive treatments that, apart from oncological and hem-atological diseases, are also used in rheumatologic, gastrointestinal, neurological and dermatological settings, as well as to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. The risk of HBV reactivation is related to the immune status of the patient and the baseline HBV infection condition. The aim of the present paper is to investigate the risk of HBVr in those not oncological settings in order to suggest strategies for preventing and treating this occurrence. The main studies about HBVr for patients with occult hepatitis B infection and chronic HBV infection affected by non-oncologic diseases eligible for immunosuppressive treatment have been analyzed. The occurrence of this challenging event can be reduced screening the population eligible for immunosuppressant to assess the best strategies according to any virological status. Further prospective studies are needed to increase data on the risk of HBVr related to newer immunomodulant agents employed in non-oncological setting.     

Immunogenicity of two doses of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines for solid cancer patients on treatment with or without a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

Previous studies on the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines showed a reduced seroconversion in cancer patients. The aim of our study is to evaluate the immunogenicity of two doses of mRNA vaccines in solid cancer patients with or without a previous exposure to the virus. This is a single-institution, prospective, nonrandomized study. Patients in active treatment and a control cohort of healthy people received two doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech/Pfizer, The United States) or mRNA-1273 (Spikevax, Moderna). Vaccine was administered before starting anticancer therapy or on the first day of the treatment cycle. SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels against S1, RBD (to evaluate vaccine response) and N proteins (to evaluate previous infection) were measured in plasma before the first dose and 30 days after the second one. From January to June 2021, 195 consecutive cancer patients and 20 healthy controls were enrolled. Thirty-one cancer patients had a previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Cancer patients previously exposed to the virus had significantly higher median levels of anti-S1 and anti-RBD IgG, compared to healthy controls (P = .0349) and to cancer patients without a previous infection (P < .001). Vaccine type (anti-S1: P < .0001; anti-RBD: P = .0045), comorbidities (anti-S1: P = .0274; anti-RBD: P = .0048) and the use of G-CSF (anti-S1: P = .0151) negatively affected the antibody response. Conversely, previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 significantly enhanced the response to vaccination (anti-S1: P < .0001; anti-RBD: P = .0026). Vaccine immunogenicity in cancer patients with a previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 seems comparable to that of healthy subjects. On the other hand, clinical variables of immune frailty negatively affect humoral immune response to vaccination.     

Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.     

Perceived barriers to physical activity during the 2nd lockdown in a northeastern state of Brazil

Sport Sciences for Health - The practice of physical activity has been recommended during the pandemic period of COVID-19 as a way of preventing the worsening of physical and mental health. After...     

Use and Applicability of the Gail Model to Calculate Breast Cancer Risk: A Scoping Review

Objective: To perform a scoping review of the applicability of the Gail model in different countries for different ethnicities. Methods: The review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and search strategies based on the PICOS approach. The reviewed articles were included if they were published between 2013 and 2018 in English, Portuguese, or Spanish; were original articles available in full online; and described the use of the Gail model. The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science data bases were searched. Results: A total of 38 articles eligible for analysis were identified, of which 16 used the Gail model to assess breast cancer risk in women, eight analyzed the applicability of this tool in their population, seven compared the tool and/or modified it according to the specific risk factors of their population, and seven cited the model in determining eligibility for chemoprevention. Conclusion: The Gail model has different applicabilities Greater effectiveness and breast cancer risk are found in developed countries.     

Risk as a pattern over time: Delineation of time-dependent risk factors in biological,psychological, and social variables in cancer patients

Background

Survival in cancer patients is associated with a multitude of biological, social, and psychological factors. Although it is well established that all these factors add to overall mortality, it is not well understood how the predictive power of these parameters changes in a comprehensive model and over time.

Methods

Patients who attended the authors’ outpatient clinic were invited to participate. The authors followed 5180 mixed cancer patients (51.1% female; mean age, 59.1 years [SD = 13.8]) for up to 16 years and analyzed biological (age, sex, cancer site, anemia), psychological (anxiety, depression), and social variables (marital status, education, employment status) potentially predicting overall survival in a Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

The median survival time for the entire sample was 4.3 years (95% confidence interval, 4.0–4.7). The overall survival probabilities for 1 and 10 years were 76.8% and 38.0%, respectively. Following an empirical approach, the authors split the time interval into five periods: acute, subacute, short-term, medium-term, and long-term. A complex pattern of variables predicted overall survival differently in the five periods. Biological parameters were important throughout most of the time, social parameters were either time-independent predictors or tended to be more important in the longer term. Of the psychological parameters, only depression was a significant predictor and lost its predictive power in the long-term.

Conclusions

The findings of this study allow the development of comprehensive patient-specific models of risk and resilience factors addressing biopsychosocial needs of cancer patients, paving the way for a personalized treatment plan that goes beyond biomedical cancer care.