Search

Background: Survivors of severe-to-critical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may have functional impairment, radiological sequelae and persistent symptoms requiring prolonged follow-up. This pragmatic study aimed to describe their clinical follow-up and determine their respiratory recovery trajectories, and the factors that could influence them and their health-related quality of life., Methods: Adults hospitalised for severe-to-critical COVID-19 were evaluated at 3 months and up to 12 months post-hospital discharge in this prospective, multicentre, cohort study., Results: Among 485 enrolled participants, 293 (60%) were reassessed at 6 months and 163 (35%) at 12 months; 89 (51%) and 47 (27%) of the 173 participants initially managed with standard oxygen were reassessed at 6 and 12 months, respectively. At 3 months, 34%, 70% and 56% of the participants had a restrictive lung defect, impaired diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide ( D LCO ) and significant radiological sequelae, respectively. During extended follow-up, both D LCO and forced vital capacity percentage predicted increased by means of +4 points at 6 months and +6 points at 12 months. Sex, body mass index, chronic respiratory disease, immunosuppression, pneumonia extent or corticosteroid use during acute COVID-19 and prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were associated with D LCO at 3 months, but not its trajectory thereafter. Among 475 (98%) patients with at least one chest computed tomography scan during follow-up, 196 (41%) had significant sequelae on their last images., Conclusions: Although pulmonary function and radiological abnormalities improved up to 1 year post-acute COVID-19, high percentages of severe-to-critical disease survivors, including a notable proportion of those managed with standard oxygen, had significant lung sequelae and residual symptoms justifying prolonged follow-up., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: F. Schlemmer reports support for the present manuscript from Fondation du Souffle, consulting fees from Pfizer, lecture honoraria from Gilead, and travel support from Chiesi, GSK, Elivie, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Gilead and Roche, outside the submitted work. P. Le Guen reports support for attending ATS 2022 from Unimed, outside the submitted work. M. Roumila reports grants from Vivisol and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. T. Gille reports lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche/Genetech, and travel support from Oxyvie, LVL Medical and Vitalaire, outside the submitted work. L. Sésé reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche-Genentech, and travel support from Novartis and Sanofi Aventis, outside the submitted work. Y. Uzunhan reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and non-financial support from Oxyvie, and personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. M. Patout reports grants from Fisher & Paykel, ResMed and Asten Santé, consulting fees from Philips Respironics, ResMed, Asten Santé and GSK, lecture honoraria from Philips Respironics, Asten Santé, ResMed, Air Liquide Medical, SOS Oxygène, Antadir, Chiesi and Jazz Pharmaceutical, travel support from Asten Santé, advisory board participation from ResMed, Philips Respironics and Asten Santé, stock/stock options from Kernel Biomedical, and receipt of equipment/materials from Philips Respironics, ResMed and Fisher & Paykel, outside the submitted work. M. Zysman reports grants from AVAD and INSERM U1045, lecture honoraria from CSL Behring, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca, and travel support Chiesi and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. S. Habib reports lecture honoraria from GSK and AstraZeneca, travel support from GSK and Novartis, and advisory board participation with Pfizer, Novartis and Sanofi. C. Jung reports grants from Danone and Menarini, lecture honoraria from Adare and Nestle, and a leadership role and stock/stock options from Biofoodie, outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright ©The authors 2023.)

Background: Inter-individual variations of non-glomerular filtration rate (GFR) determinants of serum creatinine, such as muscle mass, account for the imperfect performance of estimated GFR (eGFR) equations. We aimed to develop an equation based on creatinine and total lumbar muscle cross-sectional area measured by unenhanced computed tomography scan at the third lumbar vertebra., Methods: The muscle mass-based eGFR (MMB-eGFR) equation was developed in 118 kidney donor candidates (iohexol clearance) using linear regression. Validation cohorts included 114 healthy subjects from another center ( 51 Cr-EDTA clearance, validation population 1), 55 patients with chronic diseases (iohexol, validation population 2), and 60 patients with highly discordant creatinine and cystatin C-based eGFR, thus presumed to have atypical non-GFR determinants of creatinine ( 51 Cr-EDTA, validation population 3). Mean bias was the mean difference between eGFR and measured GFR, precision the standard deviation (SD) of the bias, and accuracy the percentage of eGFR values falling within 20% and 30% of measured GFR., Results: In validation population 1, performance of MMB-eGFR was not different from those of CKD-EPI Cr2009 and CKD-EPI Cr2021 . In validation population 2, MMB-eGFR was unbiased and displayed better precision than CKD-EPI Cr2009 , CKD-EPI Cr2021 and EKFC (SD of the biases: 13.1 vs 16.5, 16.8 and 15.9 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ). In validation population 3, MMB-eGFR had better precision and accuracy {accuracy within 30%: 75.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 64.0-86.0] vs 51.5% (95% CI 39.0-64.3) for CKD-EPI Cr2009 , 43.3% (95% CI 31.0-55.9) for CKD-EPICr2021, and 53.3% (95% CI 40.7-66.0) for EKFC}. Difference in bias between Black and white subjects was -2.1 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (95% CI -7.2 to 3.0), vs -8.4 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (95% CI -13.2 to -3.6) for CKD-EPI Cr2021 ., Conclusion: MMB-eGFR displayed better performances than equations based on demographics, and could be applied to subjects of various ethnic backgrounds., Competing Interests: All the authors declare no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)

Background and Objectives: Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) have cardiovascular effects in addition to their neurologic activity and might alter mortality. We wanted to know whether treatment with ChEIs modifies mortality in patients with dementia., Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICRTP, from their inception to November 2021, and screened bibliographies of reviews, guidelines, and included studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled studies at lower risk of bias comparing ChEI treatment with placebo or usual treatment, for 6 months or longer, in patients with dementia of any type. Two investigators independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias, and extracted data using predefined forms. Any discordance between investigators was solved by discussion and consensus. Data on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, measured as either crude death rates or multivariate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs), were pooled using a random-effect model. Information size achieved was assessed using trial sequential analysis (TSA). We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines., Results: Twenty-four studies (12 RCTs, 12 cohorts, mean follow-up 6-120 months), cumulating 79,153 patients with Alzheimer (13 studies), Parkinson (1), vascular (1), or any type (9) dementia, fulfilled inclusion criteria. Pooled all-cause mortality in control patients was 15.1 per 100 person-years. Treatment with ChEIs was associated with lower all-cause mortality (unadjusted risk ratio [RR] 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84; adjusted HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.84, moderate-quality to high-quality evidence). This result was consistent between randomized and nonrandomized studies and in several sensitivity analyses. No difference appeared between subgroups by type of dementia, age, individual drug, or dementia severity. Less data were available for cardiovascular mortality (3 RCTs, 2 cohorts, 9,182 patients, low-quality to moderate-quality evidence), which was also lower in patients treated with ChEIs (unadjusted RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.93, adjusted HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32-0.68). In TSA analysis, the results for all-cause mortality were conclusive but not those for cardiovascular mortality., Discussion: There is moderate-quality to high-quality evidence of a consistent association between long-term treatment with ChEIs and a reduction in all-cause mortality in patients with dementia. These findings may influence decisions to prescribe ChEIs in those patients., Trial Registration Information: This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews with the number CRD42021254458 (June 11, 2021)., (© 2022 American Academy of Neurology.)

Introduction: An early diagnosis is crucial in reducing mortality among people who have breast cancer (BC). There is a shortfall of characteristic early clinical symptoms in BC patients, highlighting the importance of investigating new methods for its early detection. A promising novel approach is the analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) produced and emitted through the metabolism of cancer cells., Methods: The purpose of this systematic review is to outline the published research regarding BC-associated VOCs. For this, headspace analysis of VOCs was explored in patient-derived body fluids, animal model-derived fluids, and BC cell lines to identify BC-specific VOCs. A systematic search in PubMed and Web of Science databases was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines., Results: Thirty-two studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Results highlight that VOC analysis can be promising as a potential novel screening tool. However, results of in vivo , in vitro and case-control studies have delivered inconsistent results leading to a lack of inter-matrix consensus between different VOC sampling methods., Discussion: Discrepant VOC results among BC studies have been obtained, highly due to methodological discrepancies. Therefore, methodological issues leading to disparities have been reviewed and recommendations have been made on the standardisation of VOC collection and analysis methods for BC screening, thereby improving future VOC clinical validation studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2022.)