Search

Introduction: The application of structural competency and structural vulnerability to emergency medicine (EM) research has not been previously described despite EM researchers routinely engaging structurally vulnerable populations. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review and consensus-building process to develop a structurally competent research approach and operational framework relevant to EM research.Methods: We conducted a scoping review focused on structural competency and structural vulnerability. Results of the review informed the development of a structural competency research framework that was presented throughout a multi-step consensus process culminating in the 2021 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference. Feedback to the framework was incorporated throughout the conference.Results: The scoping review produced 291 articles with 123 articles relevant to EM research. All 123 articles underwent full-text review and data extraction following a standardized data extraction form. Most of the articles acknowledged or described structures that lead to inequities with a variety of methodological approaches used to operationalize structural competency and/or structural vulnerability. The framework developed aligned with components of the research process, drawing upon methodologies from studies included in the scoping review. Conclusion: The framework developed provides a starting point for EM researchers seeking to understand, acknowledge, and incorporate structural competency into EM research. By incorporating components of the framework, researchers may enhance their ability to address social, historical, political, and economic forces that lead to health inequities, reframing drivers of inequities away from individual factors and focusing on structural factors.

Renalase is a secreted flavoprotein with anti-inflammatory and pro-cell survival properties. COVID-19 is associated with disordered inflammation and apoptosis. We hypothesized that blood renalase levels would correspond to severe COVID-19 and survival. In this retrospective cohort study, clinicopathologic data and blood samples were collected from hospitalized COVID-19 subjects (March-June 2020) at a single institution tertiary hospital. Plasma renalase and cytokine levels were measured and clinical data abstracted from health records. Of 3,450 COVID-19 patients, 458 patients were enrolled. Patients were excluded if

The Sex and Gender in Emergency Medicine (SGEM) interest group of the Society of Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) was established to increase research and to disseminate knowledge about the influence of sex and/or gender in acute care medicine and on patient outcomes. To help facilitate these goals, over the past 4 years, SGEM has created, delivered, and honed a Jeopardy-like scientific quiz game for the annual SAEM national meeting. Here we describe the SAEM Jeopardy Game's development, implementation, evolution, and outcomes as well as our targeted approach to access and engage emergency medicine stakeholders in its participation.

Background: In the last 3 years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) declared advancement of understanding the role sex as a biological variable has in research a priority. The burden now falls on educators and clinicians to translate into clinical practice the ensuing body of evidence for sex as a biological variable that clearly shows the effect of sex/gender on disease diagnosis and management. The 2018 Sex and Gender Health Education Summit (SGHE) organized an interdisciplinary and interprofessional workshop to (1) analyze common clinical scenarios highlighting the nuances of sex- and gender-based medicine (SGBM) in presentation, diagnosis, or management of illness; (2) utilize valid educational and assessment tools for a multiprofessional audience; and (3) brainstorm standardized learning objectives that integrate both. Materials and Methods: We describe the iterative process used to create these scenarios, as well as an interprofessional forum to develop standardized SGBM case-based objectives. Results: A total of 170 health education professionals representing 137 schools of Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Public Health, Nursing, Physical, and Occupational Therapy participated in this workshop. After attending the workshop, participants reported a significant increase in comfort level with using diverse educational modalities in the instruction of health profession learners. Recurrent themes included case-based learning, use of sex-neutral cases, simulation, and standardized patient scenarios for educational modalities; and self-assessment, peer assessment, and review of clinical documentation as used assessment tools. Materials created for the workshop included teaching SGBM case scenarios, methods of assessment, and sample standardized objectives. Conclusion: The SGHE Summit provided an interdisciplinary forum to create educational tools and materials for SABV instruction that may be applied to a diverse audience.

The National Institutes of Health recently highlighted the significant role of sex as a biologicalvariable (SABV) in research design, outcome and reproducibility, mandating that this variable beaccounted for in all its funded research studies. This move has resulted in a rapidly increasing bodyof literature on SABV with important implications for changing the clinical practice of emergencymedicine (EM). Translation of this new knowledge to the bedside requires an understanding ofhow sex-based research will ultimately impact patient care. We use three case-based scenarios inacute myocardial infarction, acute ischemic stroke and important considerations in pharmacologictherapy administration to highlight available data on SABV in evidence-based research to providethe EM community with an important foundation for future integration of patient sex in the delivery ofemergency care as gaps in research are filled.

There is increasing interest in the long-term cardiovascular health of women with complicated pregnancies and their affected offspring. Emerging antenatal risk factors such as preeclampsia appear to increase the risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease across the life course in both the offspring and women after pregnancy. However, the antenatal programming mechanisms responsible are complex and incompletely understood, with roots in alterations in the development, structure, and function of the kidney, heart, vasculature, and brain. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is a major regulator of maternal-fetal health through the placental interface, as well as kidney and cardiovascular tissue development and function. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system dysregulation plays a critical role in the development of pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia and programming of long-term adverse cardiovascular health in both the mother and the offspring. An improved understanding of antenatal renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system programming is crucial to identify at-risk individuals and to facilitate development of novel therapies to prevent and treat disease across the life course. Given the inherent complexities of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, it is imperative that preclinical and translational research studies adhere to best practices to accurately and rigorously measure components of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. This comprehensive synthesis of preclinical and translational scientific evidence of the mechanistic role of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in antenatal programming of hypertension and cardiovascular disease will help (1) to ensure that future research uses best research practices, (2) to identify pressing needs, and (3) to guide future investigations to maximize potential outcomes. This will facilitate more rapid and efficient translation to clinical care and improve health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: Question: Among adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19, does treatment with synthetic angiotensin (1-7) (TXA-127) or an angiotensin II type 1 receptor–biased ligand (TRV-027) improve clinical outcomes? Findings: In 2 placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials, the number of days alive and free from supplemental oxygen during the 28 days after trial enrollment (oxygen-free days) was not significantly different from placebo for TXA-127 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88) or TRV-027 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.74). Meaning: These findings do not support the hypothesis that pharmacological modulation of the renin-angiotensin system with exogenous administration of synthetic angiotensin (1-7) or blockade of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor results in clinical benefit for patients with severe COVID-19. Importance: Preclinical models suggest dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection may increase the relative activity of angiotensin II compared with angiotensin (1-7) and may be an important contributor to COVID-19 pathophysiology. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of RAS modulation using 2 investigational RAS agents, TXA-127 (synthetic angiotensin [1-7]) and TRV-027 (an angiotensin II type 1 receptor–biased ligand), that are hypothesized to potentiate the action of angiotensin (1-7) and mitigate the action of the angiotensin II. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two randomized clinical trials including adults hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and new-onset hypoxemia were conducted at 35 sites in the US between July 22, 2021, and April 20, 2022; last follow-up visit: July 26, 2022. Interventions: A 0.5-mg/kg intravenous infusion of TXA-127 once daily for 5 days or placebo. A 12-mg/h continuous intravenous infusion of TRV-027 for 5 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was oxygen-free days, an ordinal outcome that classifies a patient's status at day 28 based on mortality and duration of supplemental oxygen use; an adjusted odds ratio (OR) greater than 1.0 indicated superiority of the RAS agent vs placebo. A key secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included allergic reaction, new kidney replacement therapy, and hypotension. Results: Both trials met prespecified early stopping criteria for a low probability of efficacy. Of 343 patients in the TXA-127 trial (226 [65.9%] aged 31-64 years, 200 [58.3%] men, 225 [65.6%] White, and 274 [79.9%] not Hispanic), 170 received TXA-127 and 173 received placebo. Of 290 patients in the TRV-027 trial (199 [68.6%] aged 31-64 years, 168 [57.9%] men, 195 [67.2%] White, and 225 [77.6%] not Hispanic), 145 received TRV-027 and 145 received placebo. Compared with placebo, both TXA-127 (unadjusted mean difference, −2.3 [95% CrI, −4.8 to 0.2]; adjusted OR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.59 to 1.30]) and TRV-027 (unadjusted mean difference, −2.4 [95% CrI, −5.1 to 0.3]; adjusted OR, 0.74 [95% CrI, 0.48 to 1.13]) resulted in no difference in oxygen-free days. In the TXA-127 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 22 of 163 patients (13.5%) in the TXA-127 group vs 22 of 166 patients (13.3%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.66]). In the TRV-027 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 29 of 141 patients (20.6%) in the TRV-027 group vs 18 of 140 patients (12.9%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 1.52 [95% CrI, 0.75 to 3.08]). The frequency of the safety outcomes was similar with either TXA-127 or TRV-027 vs placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with severe COVID-19, RAS modulation (TXA-127 or TRV-027) did not improve oxygen-free days vs placebo. These results do not support the hypotheses that pharmacological interventions that selectively block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor or increase angiotensin (1-7) improve outcomes for patients with severe COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04924660 These 2 randomized clinical trials compare the efficacy and safety of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) modulation using 2 investigational RAS agents, TXA-127 vs placebo and TRV-027 vs placebo, in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]