Effects of lung inflammation and injury on pulmonary tissue penetration of meropenem and vancomycin in a model of unilateral lung injury.

OBJECTIVE: The timing and dosing of antimicrobial therapy are key in the treatment of pneumonia in critically ill patients. It is uncertain whether the presence of lung inflammation and injury affects tissue penetration of intravenously administered antimicrobial drugs. The effects of lung inflammation and injury on tissue penetration of two antimicrobial drugs commonly used for pneumonia were determined in an established model of unilateral lung injury. METHODS: Unilateral lung injury was induced in the left lung of 13 healthy pigs through cyclic rinsing; the right healthy lung served as control. Infusions of meropenem and vancomycin were administered and concentrations of these drugs in lung tissue, blood, and epithelial lining fluid (ELF) were compared over a period of 6 h. RESULTS: Median vancomycin lung tissue concentrations and penetration ratio were higher in inflamed and injured lungs compared with uninflamed and uninjured lungs (AUC0-6h: P = 0.003 and AUCdialysate/AUCplasma ratio: P = 0.003), resulting in higher AUC0-24/MIC. Median meropenem lung tissue concentrations and penetration ratio in inflamed and injured lungs did not differ from that in uninflamed and uninjured lungs (AUC0-6: P = 0.094 and AUCdialysate/AUCplasma ratio: P = 0.173). The penetration ratio for both vancomycin and meropenem into ELF was similar in injured and uninjured lungs. CONCLUSION: Vancomycin penetration into lung tissue is enhanced by acute inflammation and injury, a phenomenon barely evident with meropenem. Therefore, inflammation in lung tissue influences the penetration into interstitial lung tissue, depending on the chosen antimicrobial drug. Measurement of ELF levels alone might not identify the impact of inflammation and injury.

EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and systemic sclerosis (SSc). METHODS: A task force comprising 7 rheumatologists, 15 other healthcare professionals and 3 patients was established. Following a systematic literature review performed to inform the recommendations, statements were formulated, discussed during online meetings and graded based on risk of bias assessment, level of evidence (LoE) and strength of recommendation (SoR; scale A-D, A comprising consistent LoE 1 studies, D comprising LoE 4 or inconsistent studies), following the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology standard operating procedure. Level of agreement (LoA; scale 0-10, 0 denoting complete disagreement, 10 denoting complete agreement) was determined for each statement through online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and 12 recommendations were developed. These concerned common and disease-specific aspects of non-pharmacological management. SoR ranged from A to D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and recommendations ranged from 8.4 to 9.7. Briefly, non-pharmacological management of SLE and SSc should be tailored, person-centred and participatory. It is not intended to preclude but rather complement pharmacotherapy. Patients should be offered education and support for physical exercise, smoking cessation and avoidance of cold exposure. Photoprotection and psychosocial interventions are important for SLE patients, while mouth and hand exercises are important in SSc. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations will guide healthcare professionals and patients towards a holistic and personalised management of SLE and SSc. Research and educational agendas were developed to address needs towards a higher evidence level, enhancement of clinician-patient communication and improved outcomes.

Patient Representatives' Perspectives on Healthcare at the Time of COVID-19 and Suggestions for Care Redesign After the Pandemic: A Qualitative Study in Twenty-Four Countries.

OBJECTIVE: Several comments and recommendations called to embed better the patients' and public voice in healthcare policymaking. Still, no studies captured patients' bottom-up perspectives regarding healthcare at the time of COVID-19 at a micro-level in a range of different countries. We, therefore, explored the perspectives of patient representatives in all six World Health Organisation (WHO) regions and extracted suggestions for care redesign after the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with patient representatives until saturation. Thematic analysis followed a modified form of meaning condensation. We established rigour by transcript checking, inter-coder agreement, quote variation and standardised reporting. RESULTS: Disadvantaged people experienced an unprecedented inequity in healthcare from limited access to physical violence. The narratives revealed the extent of this inequity, but also opportunities for health workers to act and improve. Stigmatisation from COVID-19 differed between cultures and countries and ranged from none to feeling "ashamed" and "totally bashed". While experienced as indispensable in the future, patients refused telehealth when they were given "bad news", such as having an eye removed because of melanoma, and in end-of-life care. Patient representatives redefined their role and became indispensable influencers throughout the pandemic and beyond. CONCLUSION: We reached out to patient representatives with diverse perspectives, including those who represent minorities and marginalised patient populations. Since preferences and personal meanings drive behaviour and could be foundations for targeted interventions, they must be considered in all groups of people to increase society's resilience as a whole. Future healthcare should tackle inequity, address stigmatisation and consider patients' narratives to optimize telemedicine.

The Association of Blood Biomarkers and Body Mass Index in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite massive efforts, there are no diagnostic blood biomarkers for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). This study investigated several candidate diagnostic biomarkers and the metabolic phenotype in end-stage KOA in the context of obesity. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, adult patients undergoing knee arthroplasty were enrolled and KOA severity was assessed using the Lequesne index. Blood biomarkers with an important role in obesity, the metabolic syndrome, or KOA (oxidized form of low-density lipoprotein [oxLDL], advanced glycation end product [AGE], soluble AGE receptor [sRAGE], fatty acid binding protein 4 [FABP4], phospholipase A2 group IIA [PLA2G2A], fibroblast growth factor 23 [FGF-23], ghrelin, leptin, and resistin) were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA; n = 70) or Luminex technique (subgroup of n = 35). H1-NMR spectroscopy was used for the quantification of metabolite levels (subgroup of n = 31). The hip-knee-ankle angle was assessed. Multivariable and multivariate regression analysis was used to examine the relationship of biomarkers with body mass index (BMI) and KOA severity in complete case and multiple imputation analysis. RESULTS: While most of the investigated biomarkers were not associated with KOA severity, FABP4 and leptin were found to correlate with BMI and gender. Resistin was associated with Lequesne index in complete case analysis. Using a targeted metabolomics approach, BMI-dependent changes in the metabolome were hardly visible. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm studies on FABP4, leptin, and resistin with regard to obesity and the metabolic syndrome. There was no association of the investigated biomarkers with KOA severity, most likely due to the patient selection (end-stage KOA patients). Based on this absence of BMI-dependent changes in the metabolome, we might assume that BMI is not correlated with KOA severity in this specific patient group.

People's Willingness to Vaccinate Against COVID-19 Despite Their Safety Concerns: Twitter Poll Analysis.

BACKGROUND: On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization's Emergency Committee declared the rapid, worldwide spread of COVID-19 a global health emergency. Since then, tireless efforts have been made to mitigate the spread of the disease and its impact, and these efforts have mostly relied on nonpharmaceutical interventions. By December 2020, the safety and efficacy of the first COVID-19 vaccines were demonstrated. The large social media platform Twitter has been used by medical researchers for the analysis of important public health topics, such as the public's perception on antibiotic use and misuse and human papillomavirus vaccination. The analysis of Twitter-generated data can be further facilitated by using Twitter's built-in, anonymous polling tool to gain insight into public health issues and obtain rapid feedback on an international scale. During the fast-paced course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Twitter polling system has provided a viable method for gaining rapid, large-scale, international public health insights on highly relevant and timely SARS-CoV-2-related topics. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand the public's perception on the safety and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines in real time by using Twitter polls. METHODS: We developed 2 Twitter polls to explore the public's views on available COVID-19 vaccines. The surveys were pinned to the Digital Health and Patient Safety Platform Twitter timeline for 1 week in mid-February 2021, and Twitter users and influencers were asked to participate in and retweet the polls to reach the largest possible audience. RESULTS: The adequacy of COVID-19 vaccine safety (ie, the safety of currently available vaccines; poll 1) was agreed upon by 1579 out of 3439 (45.9%) Twitter users. In contrast, almost as many Twitter users (1434/3439, 41.7%) were unsure about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Only 5.2% (179/3439) of Twitter users rated the available COVID-19 vaccines as generally unsafe. Poll 2, which addressed the question of whether users would undergo vaccination, was answered affirmatively by 82.8% (2862/3457) of Twitter users, and only 8% (277/3457) categorically rejected vaccination at the time of polling. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the perceived high level of uncertainty about the safety of the available COVID-19 vaccines, we observed an elevated willingness to undergo vaccination among our study sample. Since people's perceptions and views are strongly influenced by social media, the snapshots provided by these media platforms represent a static image of a moving target. Thus, the results of this study need to be followed up by long-term surveys to maintain their validity. This is especially relevant due to the circumstances of the fast-paced pandemic and the need to not miss sudden rises in the incidence of vaccine hesitancy, which may have detrimental effects on the pandemic's course.