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 We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL,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.     

Can EGFR mutation status be reliably determined in pre‐operative needle biopsies from adenocarcinomas of the lung?

The identification of EGFR mutations in non‐small‐cell lung cancer is important for selecting patients, who may benefit from treatment with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The analysis is usually performed on cytological aspirates and/or histological needle biopsies, representing a small fraction of the tumour volume. The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of this molecular test. We retrospectively included 201 patients with primary adenocarcinoma of the lung. EGFR mutation status (exon 19 deletions and exon 21 L858R point mutation) was evaluated on both pre‐operative biopsies (131 histological and 70 cytological) and on the surgical specimens, using PCR. Samples with low tumour cell fraction were assigned to laser micro‐dissection (LMD). We found nine (4.5%) patients with EGFR mutation in the lung tumour resections, but failed to identify mutation in one of the corresponding pre‐operative, cytological specimens. Several (18.4%) analyses of the pre‐operative biopsies were inconclusive, especially in case of biopsies undergoing LMD and regarding exon 21 analysis. Discrepancy of mutation status in one patient may reflect intra‐tumoural heterogeneity or technical issues. Moreover, several inconclusive results in the diagnostic biopsies reveal that attention must be paid on the suitability of pre‐operative biopsies for EGFR mutation analysis.     

Prognostic tools for hypertrophic scar formation based on fundamental differences in systemic immunity

Unpredictable hypertrophic scarring (HS) occurs after approximately 35% of all surgical procedures and causes significant physical and psychological complaints. Parallel to the need to understanding the mechanisms underlying HS formation, a prognostic tool is needed. The objective was to determine whether (systemic) immunological differences exist between patients who develop HS and those who develop normotrophic scars (NS) and to assess whether those differences can be used to identify patients prone to developing HS. A prospective cohort study with NS and HS groups in which (a) cytokine release by peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and (b) the irritation threshold (IT) after an irritant (sodium lauryl sulphate) patch test was evaluated. Univariate regression analysis of PBMC cytokine secretion showed that low MCP‐1, IL‐8, IL‐18 and IL‐23 levels have a strong correlation with HS (P < .010‐0.004; AUC = 0.790‐0.883). Notably, combinations of two or three cytokines (TNF‐a, MCP‐1 and IL‐23; AUC: 0.942, Nagelkerke R²: 0.727) showed an improved AUC indicating a better correlation with HS than single cytokine analysis. These combination models produce good prognostic results over a broad probability range (sensitivity: 93.8%, specificity 86.7%, accuracy 90,25% between probability 0.3 and 0.7). Furthermore, the HS group had a lower IT than the NS group and an accuracy of 68%. In conclusion, very fundamental immunological differences exist between individuals who develop HS and those who do not, whereas the cytokine assay forms the basis of a predictive prognostic test for HS formation, the less invasive, easily performed irritant skin patch test is more accessible for daily practice.