Complex Heart-Lung Ventilator Emergencies in the CICU.

This review aims to enhance the comprehension and management of cardiopulmonary interactions in critically ill patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing mechanical ventilation. Highlighting the significance of maintaining a delicate balance, this article emphasizes the crucial role of adjusting ventilation parameters based on both invasive and noninvasive monitoring. It provides recommendations for the induction and liberation from mechanical ventilation. Special attention is given to the identification of auto-PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure) and other situations that may impact hemodynamics and patients' outcomes.

Design of VA CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1 (VA CURES-1): A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with early respiratory compromise.

Background: Effective therapeutics for severe acute respiratory syndrome CoronaVirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are evolving. Under Emergency Use Authorization, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was widely used in individuals hospitalized for COVID-19, but few randomized controlled trials supported its efficacy to limit respiratory failure or death. Methods: VA CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1 (VA CURES-1) was a double-blind, multi-site, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of CCP with conventional therapy in hospitalized Veterans with SARS-CoV-2 infection and early respiratory compromise (requirement for oxygen). Participants (planned sample size 702) were randomized 1:1 to receive CCP with high titer neutralizing activity or 0.9% saline, stratified by site and age (≥65 versus <65 years old). Participants were followed daily during initial hospitalization and at Days 15, 22 and 28. Outcomes: The composite primary outcome was acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or all-cause death by Day 28. Secondary outcomes by day 28 included time-to-recovery, clinical severity, mortality, rehospitalization for COVID-19, and adverse events. Serial respiratory and blood samples were collected for safety, virologic and immunologic analyses and future studies. Key variables in predicting the success of CURES-1 were: (1) enrollment early in the course of severe infection; (2) use of plasma with high neutralizing activity; (3) reliance on unambiguous, clinically meaningful outcomes. CURES-1 was terminated for futility due to perceived inability to enroll in the lull between the Alpha and Delta waves of the SARS CoV-2 epidemic. Conclusions: VA CURES-1 was a large multi-site trial designed to provide conclusive information about the efficacy of CCP in well-characterized patients at risk for progression of COVID-19. It utilized a rigorous study design with relevant initial timing, quality of product and outcomes. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04539275.

Designing and implementing methodology for double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials using blood products within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: Success in conducting clinical trials during the coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic requires the ability to innovate and adapt. There are well-established procedures for the blinding of investigational agents, especially medications, in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials within the Veterans Health Administration. However, these procedures, managed by research pharmacists, may not apply to investigational agents that are not exclusively managed by pharmacy, such as blood products, including coronavirus disease of 2019 convalescent plasma (plasma). In the absence of established blinding procedures, such studies require special design considerations to minimize uncertainty or bias. METHODS: We describe the processes and procedures developed for blinding of plasma in "Veterans Affairs CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1" as a prototypical study using this class of investigational therapeutic agents. Veterans Affairs CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1 is an ongoing multicenter randomized clinical trial testing the efficacy of plasma added to conventional therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection. RESULTS: We report the design of procedures to supply investigational blood products or 0.9% normal saline (saline) control while ensuring the integrity of the blind. Key aspects include workflow considerations, physical blinding strategies, and methods for engaging stakeholders. These procedures leverage the well-established Veterans Affairs research pharmacist's research infrastructure, and Blood Bank Services, which is responsible for blood-based investigational products. CONCLUSION: By describing the methods used to deliver blood products in a blinded manner in Veterans Affairs CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1, we strive both to educate and to increase awareness to improve the implementation of these biological therapeutics for future, high-quality research studies.

Oral immunization with bacteriophage MS2-L2 VLPs protects against oral and genital infection with multiple HPV types associated with head & neck cancers and cervical cancer.

Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) are the most common sexually transmitted infections. HPVs are transmitted through anogenital sex or oral sex. Anogenital transmission/infection is associated with anogenital cancers and genital warts while oral transmission/infection is associated with head and neck cancers (HNCs) including recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Current HPV vaccines protect against HPV types associated with ∼90% of cervical cancers and are expected to protect against a percentage of HNCs. However, only a few studies have assessed the efficacy of current vaccines against oral HPV infections. We had previously developed a mixed MS2-L2 candidate HPV vaccine based on bacteriophage MS2 virus-like particles (VLPs). The mixed MS2-L2 VLPs consisted of a mixture of two MS2-L2 VLPs displaying: i) a concatemer of L2 peptide (epitope 20-31) from HPV31 & L2 peptide (epitope 17-31) from HPV16 and ii) a consensus L2 peptide representing epitope 69-86. The mixed MS2-L2 VLPs neutralized/protected mice against six HPV types associated with ∼87% of cervical cancer. Here, we show that the mixed MS2-L2 VLPs can protect mice against additional HPV types; at the genital region, the VLPs protect against HPV53, 56, 11 and at the oral region, the VLPs protect against HPV16, 35, 39, 52, and 58. Thus, mixed MS2-L2 VLPs protect against eleven oncogenic HPV types associated with ∼95% of cervical cancer. The VLPs also have the potential to protect, orally, against the same oncogenic HPVs, associated with ∼99% of HNCs, including HPV11, which is associated with up to 32% of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Moreover, mixed MS2-L2 VLPs are thermostable at room temperature for up to 60 days after spray-freeze drying and they are protective against oral HPV infection.

Diagnostic value of tumor antigens in malignant pleural effusion: a meta-analysis.

The diagnostic value of tumor markers, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen (CA) 15-3, CA 19-9, CA 125, cytokeratin fragment (CYFRA), and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) in pleural fluid to differentiate between benign and malignant pleural effusion (MPE) has not yet been clearly established. A review of English language studies using human subjects was performed. Sensitivity and specificity values of the chosen tumor markers were pooled using a random effects model to generate hierarchical summary receiver operator curves to determine the diagnostic performance of each tumor marker. A total of 49 studies were included in the final analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity values for chosen tumor markers for diagnosing MPE are as follows: CEA, 0.549 and 0.962; CA 15-3, 0.507 and 0.983; CA 19-9, 0.376 and 0.980; CA 125, 0.575 and 0.928; CYFRA, 0.625 and 0.932; NSE, 0.613 and 0.884. The use of individual tumor markers in diagnosing MPE has many benefits (cost, invasiveness, and so forth). Although these tumor markers exhibit high specificity, the low sensitivity of each marker limits the diagnostic value. We conclude that tumor markers used individually are of insufficient diagnostic accuracy for clinical use. Tumor markers used in various combinations or from serum may have some potential worth further investigation.