Ultrasmall and Highly Dispersed Pt Entities Deposited on Mesoporous N-doped Carbon Nanospheres by Pulsed CVD for Improved HER.

Vapor-based deposition techniques are emerging approaches for the design of carbon-supported metal powder electrocatalysts with tailored catalyst entities, sizes, and dispersions. Herein, a pulsed CVD (Pt-pCVD) approach is employed to deposit different Pt entities on mesoporous N-doped carbon (MPNC) nanospheres to design high-performance hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) electrocatalysts. The influence of consecutive precursor pulse number (50-250) and deposition temperature (225-300 °C) are investigated. The Pt-pCVD process results in highly dispersed ultrasmall Pt clusters (≈1 nm in size) and Pt single atoms, while under certain conditions few larger Pt nanoparticles are formed. The best MPNC-Pt-pCVD electrocatalyst prepared in this work (250 pulses, 250 °C) reveals a Pt HER mass activity of 22.2 ± 1.2 A mg-1 Pt at -50 mV versus the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE), thereby outperforming a commercially available Pt/C electrocatalyst by 40% as a result of the increased Pt utilization. Remarkably, after optimization of the Pt electrode loading, an ultrahigh Pt mass activity of 56 ± 2 A mg-1 Pt at -50 mV versus RHE is found, which is among the highest Pt mass activities of Pt single atom and cluster-based electrocatalysts reported so far.

Cellular prion protein acts as mediator of amyloid beta uptake by caveolin-1 causing cellular dysfunctions in vitro and in vivo.

INTRODUCTION: Cellular prion protein (PrPC) was implicated in amyloid beta (Aß)-induced toxicity in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the precise molecular mechanisms involved in this process are unclear. METHODS: Double transgenic mice were generated by crossing Prnp knockout (KO) with 5xFAD mice, and light-sheet microscopy was used for whole brain tissue analyses. PrPC-overexpressing cells were developed for in vitro studies, and microscopy was used to assess co-localization of proteins of interest. Surface-plasmon resonance (SPR) was used to investigate protein-binding characteristics. RESULTS: In vivo, PrPC levels correlated with reduced lifespan and cognitive and motor function, and its ablation disconnected behavior deficits from Aß levels. Light-sheet microscopy showed that PrPC influenced Aß-plaque burden but not the distribution of those plaques. Interestingly, caveolin-1 (Cav-1) KO neurons significantly reduced intracellular Aß-oligomer (Aßo) uptake when compared to wild-type neurons. DISCUSSION: The findings shed new light on the relevance of intracellular Aßo, suggesting that PrPC and Cav-1 modulate intracellular Aß levels and the Aß-plaque load. HIGHLIGHTS: PrPC expression adversely affects lifespan and behavior in 5xFAD mice. PrPC increases Aß1-40 and Aß1-42 levels and Aß-plaque load in 5xFAD mice. Cav-1 interacts with both PrPC and Aß peptides. Knocking out Cav-1 leads to a significant reduction in intracellular Aß levels.

CCNE1 and survival of patients with tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma: An Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium study.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin E1 (CCNE1) is a potential predictive marker and therapeutic target in tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC). Smaller studies have revealed unfavorable associations for CCNE1 amplification and CCNE1 overexpression with survival, but to date no large-scale, histotype-specific validation has been performed. The hypothesis was that high-level amplification of CCNE1 and CCNE1 overexpression, as well as a combination of the two, are linked to shorter overall survival in HGSC. METHODS: Within the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium, amplification status and protein level in 3029 HGSC cases and mRNA expression in 2419 samples were investigated. RESULTS: High-level amplification (>8 copies by chromogenic in situ hybridization) was found in 8.6% of HGSC and overexpression (>60% with at least 5% demonstrating strong intensity by immunohistochemistry) was found in 22.4%. CCNE1 high-level amplification and overexpression both were linked to shorter overall survival in multivariate survival analysis adjusted for age and stage, with hazard stratification by study (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08-1.47, p = .034, and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.32, p = .015, respectively). This was also true for cases with combined high-level amplification/overexpression (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47, p = .033). CCNE1 mRNA expression was not associated with overall survival (HR, 1.00 per 1-SD increase; 95% CI, 0.94-1.06; p = .58). CCNE1 high-level amplification is mutually exclusive with the presence of germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants and shows an inverse association to RB1 loss. CONCLUSION: This study provides large-scale validation that CCNE1 high-level amplification is associated with shorter survival, supporting its utility as a prognostic biomarker in HGSC.

Increased FOXJ1 protein expression is associated with improved overall survival in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma: an Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis Consortium Study.

BACKGROUND: Recently, we showed a >60% difference in 5-year survival for patients with tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) when stratified by a 101-gene mRNA expression prognostic signature. Given the varied patient outcomes, this study aimed to translate prognostic mRNA markers into protein expression assays by immunohistochemistry and validate their survival association in HGSC. METHODS: Two prognostic genes, FOXJ1 and GMNN, were selected based on high-quality antibodies, correlation with protein expression and variation in immunohistochemical scores in a preliminary cohort (n = 134 and n = 80, respectively). Six thousand four hundred and thirty-four (FOXJ1) and 5470 (GMNN) formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded ovarian neoplasms (4634 and 4185 HGSC, respectively) represented on tissue microarrays from the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium underwent immunohistochemical staining and scoring, then univariate and multivariate survival analysis. RESULTS: Consistent with mRNA, FOXJ1 protein expression exhibited a linear, increasing association with improved overall survival in HGSC patients. Women with >50% expression had the most favourable outcomes (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.91, p < 0.0001). GMNN protein expression was not significantly associated with overall HSGC patient survival. However, HGSCs with >35% GMNN expression showed a trend for better outcomes, though this was not significant. CONCLUSION: We provide foundational evidence for the prognostic value of FOXJ1 in HGSC, validating the prior mRNA-based prognostic association by immunohistochemistry.

Ultrahigh Mass Activity Pt Entities Consisting of Pt Single atoms, Clusters, and Nanoparticles for Improved Hydrogen Evolution Reaction.

Platinum is one of the best-performing catalysts for the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER). However, high cost and scarcity severely hinder the large-scale application of Pt electrocatalysts. Constructing highly dispersed ultrasmall Platinum entities is thereby a very effective strategy to increase Pt utilization and mass activities, and reduce costs. Herein, highly dispersed Pt entities composed of a mixture of Pt single atoms, clusters, and nanoparticles are synthesized on mesoporous N-doped carbon nanospheres. The presence of Pt single atoms, clusters, and nanoparticles is demonstrated by combining among others aberration-corrected annular dark-field scanning transmission electron microscopy, X-ray absorption spectroscopy, and electrochemical CO stripping. The best catalyst exhibits excellent geometric and Pt HER mass activity, respectively ≈4 and 26 times higher than that of a commercial Pt/C reference and a Pt catalyst supported on nonporous N-doped carbon nanofibers with similar Pt loadings. Noteworthily, after optimization of the geometrical Pt electrode loading, the best catalyst exhibits ultrahigh Pt and catalyst mass activities (56 ± 3 A mg-1 Pt and 11.7 ± 0.6 A mg-1 Cat at -50 mV vs. reversible hydrogen electrode), which are respectively ≈1.5 and 58 times higher than the highest Pt and catalyst mass activities for Pt single-atom and cluster-based catalysts reported so far.

Synthesis, structural characterization and study of antioxidant and anti-PrPSc properties of flavonoids and their rhenium(I)-tricarbonyl complexes.

This study aims at the synthesis and initial biological evaluation of novel rhenium-tricarbonyl complexes of 3,3',4',5,7-pentahydroxyflavone (quercetin), 3,7,4΄-trihydroxyflavone (resokaempferol), 5,7-dihydroxyflavone (chrysin) and 4΄,5,7-trihydroxyflavonone (naringenin) as neuroprotective and anti-PrP agents. Resokaempferol was synthesized from 2,2΄,4-trihydroxychalcone by H2O2/NaOH. The rhenium-tricarbonyl complexes of the type fac-[Re(CO)3(Fl)(sol)] were synthesized by reacting the precursor fac-[Re(CO)3(sol)3]+ with an equimolar amount of the flavonoids (Fl) quercetin, resokaempferol, chrysin and naringenin and the solvent (sol) was methanol or water. The respective Re-flavonoid complexes were purified by semi-preparative HPLC and characterized by spectroscopic methods. Furthermore, the structure of Re-chrysin was elucidated by X-ray crystallography. Initial screening of the neuroprotective properties of these compounds included the in vitro assessment of the antioxidant properties by the DPPH assay as well as the anti-lipid peroxidation of linoleic acid in the presence of AAPH and their ability to inhibit soybean lipoxygenase. From the above studies, it was concluded that the complexes' properties are mainly correlated with the structural characteristics and the presence of the flavonoids. The flavonoids and their respective Re-complexes were also tested in vitro for their ability to inhibit the formation and aggregation of the amyloid-like abnormal prion protein, PrPSc, by employing the real-time quaking-induced conversion assay with recombinant PrP seeded with cerebrospinal fluid from patients with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. All the compounds blocked de novo abnormal PrP formation and aggregation.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

Modelling the impact of functionality, cognition, and mood state on awareness in people with Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the nature of the relationship between cognitive function, mood state, and functionality in predicting awareness in a non-clinically depressed sample of participants with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) in Brazil. METHODS: People with AD (PwAD) aged 60 years or older were recruited from an outpatient unit at the Center of AD of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Measures of awareness of condition (Assessment Scale of the Psychosocial Impact of the Diagnosis of Dementia), cognitive function (Mini-Mental State Examination), mood state (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia), and functionality (Pfeffer Functional Activities Questionnaire) were applied to 264 people with mild to moderate AD and their caregivers. Hypotheses were tested statistically using SEM approach. Three competing models were compared. RESULTS: The first model, in which the influence of mood state and cognitive function on awareness was mediated by functionality, showed a very good fit to the data and a medium effect size. The competing models, in which the mediating variables were mood state and cognitive function, respectively, only showed poor model fit. CONCLUSION: Our model supports the notion that the relationship between different factors and awareness in AD is mediated by functionality and not by depressive mood state or cognitive level. The proposed direct and indirect effects on awareness are discussed, as well as the missing direct influence of mood state on awareness. The understanding of awareness in dementia is crucial and our model gives one possible explanation of its underlying structure in AD.

A Dual-Metal-Catalyzed Sequential Cascade Reaction in an Engineered Protein Cage.

Herein, we describe the creation of an artificial protein cage housing a dual-metal-tagged guest protein that catalyzes a linear, two-step sequential cascade reaction. The guest protein consists of a fusion protein of HaloTag and monomeric rhizavidin. Inside the protein capsid, we established a ruthenium-catalyzed allylcarbamate deprotection reaction followed by a gold-catalyzed ring-closing hydroamination reaction that led to indoles and phenanthridines with an overall yield of up to 66 % in aqueous solutions. Furthermore, we show that the encapsulation stabilizes the metal catalysts against deactivation by air, proteins and cell lysate.

Cellular Prion Protein Mediates α-Synuclein Uptake, Localization, and Toxicity In Vitro and In Vivo.

BACKGROUND: The cellular prion protein (PrPC ) is a membrane-bound, multifunctional protein mainly expressed in neuronal tissues. Recent studies indicate that the native trafficking of PrPC can be misused to internalize misfolded amyloid beta and α-synuclein (aSyn) oligomers. OBJECTIVES: We define PrPC 's role in internalizing misfolded aSyn in α-synucleinopathies and identify further involved proteins. METHODS: We performed comprehensive behavioral studies on four transgenic mouse models (ThySyn and ThySynPrP00, TgM83 and TgMPrP00) at different ages. We developed PrPC -(over)-expressing cell models (cell line and primary cortical neurons), used confocal laser microscopy to perform colocalization studies, applied mass spectrometry to identify interactomes, and determined disassociation constants using surface plasmon resonance (SPR) spectroscopy. RESULTS: Behavioral deficits (memory, anxiety, locomotion, etc.), reduced lifespans, and higher oligomeric aSyn levels were observed in PrPC -expressing mice (ThySyn and TgM83), but not in homologous Prnp ablated mice (ThySynPrP00 and TgMPrP00). PrPC colocalized with and facilitated aSyn (oligomeric and monomeric) internalization in our cell-based models. Glimepiride treatment of PrPC -overexpressing cells reduced aSyn internalization in a dose-dependent manner. SPR analysis showed that the binding affinity of PrPC to monomeric aSyn was lower than to oligomeric aSyn. Mass spectrometry-based proteomic studies identified clathrin in the immunoprecipitates of PrPC and aSyn. SPR was used to show that clathrin binds to recombinant PrP, but not aSyn. Experimental disruption of clathrin-coated vesicles significantly decreased aSyn internalization. CONCLUSION: PrPC 's native trafficking can be misused to internalize misfolded aSyn through a clathrin-based mechanism, which may facilitate the spreading of pathological aSyn. Disruption of aSyn-PrPC binding is, therefore, an appealing therapeutic target in α-synucleinopathies. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are well established for the long-term treatment of inflammatory respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They have been investigated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The anti-inflammatory action of inhaled corticosteroids might have the potential to reduce the risk of severe illness resulting from hyperinflammation in COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether inhaled corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 7 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating inhaled corticosteroids for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We included the following interventions: any type or dose of inhaled corticosteroids. We included the following comparison: inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with or without placebo). We excluded studies examining nasal or topical steroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. For risk of bias assessment, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes of mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, time to symptom resolution, serious adverse events, adverse events, and infections. MAIN RESULTS: Inhaled corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) - People with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 We found no studies that included people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate-to-severe COVID-19. - People with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included three RCTs allocating 3607 participants, of whom 2490 had confirmed mild COVID-19. We analysed a subset of the total number of participants recruited to the studies (2171, 52% female) as some trials had a platform design where not all participants were allocated to treatment groups simultaneously. The included studies were community-based, recruiting people who were able to use inhaler devices to deliver steroids and relied on remote assessment and self-reporting of outcomes. Most people were older than 50 years and had co-morbidities such as hypertension, lung disease, or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. A total of 1057 participants were analysed in the inhaled corticosteroid arm (budesonide: 860 participants; ciclesonide: 197 participants), and 1075 participants in the control arm. No studies included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. With respect to the following outcomes, inhaled corticosteroids compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (at up to day 30) (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.67; 2132 participants; low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every nine deaths per 1000 people not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, there were six deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 2 to 16 per 1000 people); - probably reduces admission to hospital or death (at up to 30 days) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.99; 2025 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably increases resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14 (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30; 1986 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may reduce the duration to symptom resolution (at up to day 30) (by -4.00 days, 95% CI -6.22 to -1.78 less than control group rate of 12 days; 139 participants; low-certainty evidence); - the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on serious adverse events (during study period) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.76; 1586 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in adverse events (at up to day 30) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may result in little to no difference in infections (during study period) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.58; 400 participants; low-certainty evidence). As studies did not report outcomes for subgroups (e.g. age, ethnicity, sex), we did not perform subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms who are able to use inhaler devices, we found moderate-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids probably reduce the combined endpoint of admission to hospital or death and increase the resolution of all initial symptoms at day 14. Low-certainty evidence suggests that corticosteroids make little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to day 30 and may decrease the duration to symptom resolution. We do not know whether inhaled corticosteroids increase or decrease serious adverse events due to heterogeneity in the way they were reported across the studies. There is low-certainty evidence that inhaled corticosteroids may decrease infections. The evidence we identified came from studies in high-income settings using budesonide and ciclesonide prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, serious adverse events, and people with asymptomatic infection or with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. The 10 ongoing and four completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review. We monitor newly published results of RCTs on inhaled corticosteroids on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: With potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending. Individuals with moderate to severe disease Four studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Systemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease We did not identify any trial for this population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors. Currently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).

Bimetallic Mn, Fe, Co, and Ni Sites in a Four-Helix Bundle Protein: Metal Binding, Structure, and Peroxide Activation.

Bimetallic active sites in enzymes catalyze small-molecule conversions that are among the top 10 challenges in chemistry. As different metal cofactors are typically incorporated in varying protein scaffolds, it is demanding to disentangle the individual contributions of the metal and the protein matrix to the activity. Here, we compared the structure, properties, and hydrogen peroxide reactivity of four homobimetallic cofactors (Mn(II)2, Fe(II)2, Co(II)2, Ni(II)2) that were reconstituted into a four-helix bundle protein. Reconstituted proteins were studied in solution and in crystals. All metals bind with high affinity and yield similar cofactor structures. Cofactor variants react with H2O2 but differ in their turnover rates, accumulated oxidation states, and trapped peroxide-bound intermediates. Varying the metal composition thus creates opportunities to tune the reactivity of the bimetallic cofactor and to study and functionalize reactive species.

Modeling Quality of Life in Alzheimer Disease: The Impact of Cognitive, Functional, and Mood Variables in Self and Carers' Perceptions.

Quality of life (QoL) includes complex interactions between objective and subjective factors. Through structural equation modeling, we analyzed people with Alzheimer disease (PwAD) and carers' ratings to identify the factors associated with PwAD QoL. We included 264 PwAD and their carers. Model 1, carers' ratings of PwAD QoL, showed a bidirectional association with worse depressive symptoms, lower functionality, and impairment on awareness being linked. These variables were associated with burden and all of them directly affecting carers' ratings of PwAD QoL. Model 2, PwAD self-reported QoL, had the same bidirectional associations among the same variables with all of them influencing PwAD self-reported QoL. However, the interpretations of these similar associations should be different. The path analysis increased the understanding of the relationship between QoL and cognition, functionality, mood, awareness, and burden. Our findings bring together a number of consistent predictors and confirm their different effects in PwAD and carers' point of view about QoL.

Colchicine for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poor clinical outcomes are associated with hyperinflammation and a complex dysregulation of the immune response. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory medicine and is thought to improve disease outcomes in COVID-19 through a wide range of anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Patients and healthcare systems need more and better treatment options for COVID-19 and a thorough understanding of the current body of evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of Colchicine as a treatment option for COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard care alone in any setting, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 21 May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials evaluating colchicine for the treatment of people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, sex, or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating the prophylactic effects of colchicine for people without severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection but at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) to assess bias in included studies and GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following prioritised outcome categories considering people with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, worsening and improvement of clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events and for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease: all-cause mortality, admission to hospital or death, symptom resolution, duration to symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs with 11,525 hospitalised participants (8002 male) and one RCT with 4488 (2067 male) non-hospitalised participants. Mean age of people treated in hospital was about 64 years, and was 55 years in the study with non-hospitalised participants. Further, we identified 17 ongoing studies and 11 studies completed or terminated, but without published results. Colchicine plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo) Treatment of hospitalised people with moderate to severe COVID-19 All-cause mortality: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in all-cause mortality up to 28 days compared to standard care alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 11,445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Worsening of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in worsening of clinical status assessed as new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death compared to standard care alone (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 10,916 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical status: colchicine plus standard care probably results in little to no difference in improvement of clinical status, assessed as number of participants discharged alive up to day 28 without clinical deterioration or death compared to standard care alone (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.01; 1 RCT, 11,340 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.78; 1 RCT, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine plus standard care on serious adverse events compared to standard care alone (0 events observed in 1 RCT of 105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment of non-hospitalised people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 All-cause mortality: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality at 28 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.62; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; low-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital or death within 28 days: colchicine probably slightly reduces the need for hospitalisation or death within 28 days compared to placebo (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 4488 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Symptom resolution: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Quality of life, including fatigue and neurological status: we identified no studies reporting this outcome. Adverse events: the evidence is uncertain about the effect of colchicine on adverse events compared to placebo . Results are from one RCT reporting treatment-related events only in 4412 participants (low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events: colchicine probably slightly reduces serious adverse events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 4412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Colchicine versus another active treatment (e.g. corticosteroids, anti-viral drugs, monoclonal antibodies) No studies evaluated this comparison. Different formulations, doses, or schedules of colchicine No studies assessed this. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, in people hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19 the use of colchicine probably has little to no influence on mortality or clinical progression in comparison to placebo or standard care alone. We do not know whether colchicine increases the risk of (serious) adverse events. We are uncertain about the evidence of the effect of colchicine on all-cause mortality for people with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. However, colchicine probably results in a slight reduction of hospital admissions or deaths within 28 days, and the rate of serious adverse events compared with placebo. None of the studies reported data on quality of life or compared the benefits and harms of colchicine versus other drugs, or different dosages of colchicine. We identified 17 ongoing and 11 completed but not published RCTs, which we expect to incorporate in future versions of this review as their results become available. Editorial note: due to the living approach of this work, we monitor newly published results of RCTs on colchicine on a weekly basis and will update the review when the evidence or our certainty in the evidence changes.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. So far, systemic corticosteroids are one of the few treatment options for COVID-19. Nonetheless, size of effect, certainty of the evidence, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 16 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, participant age, gender or ethnicity.  We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids. We included the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care (plus/minus placebo), dose comparisons, timing comparisons (early versus late), different types of corticosteroids and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances.  We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome or Middle East respiratory syndrome), corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, ventilator-free days, new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, quality of life, serious adverse events, adverse events, and hospital-acquired infections. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs in 8075 participants, of whom 7041 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 3072 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 2322). We also identified 42 ongoing studies and 16 studies reported as being completed or terminated in a study registry, but without results yet.  Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo  We included 10 RCTs (7989 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analysis included outcome data from nine studies.  All-cause mortality (at longest follow-up available): systemic corticosteroids plus standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality slightly in people with COVID-19 compared to standard care alone (median 28 days: risk difference of 30 in 1000 participants fewer than the control group rate of 275 in 1000 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.00; 9 RCTs, 7930 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Ventilator-free days: corticosteroids may increase ventilator-free days (MD 2.6 days more than control group rate of 4 days, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.53; 1 RCT, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ventilator-free days have inherent limitations as a composite endpoint and should be interpreted with caution.  New need for invasive ventilation: the evidence is of very low certainty. Because of high risk of bias arising from deaths that occurred before ventilation we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics.  Quality of life/neurological outcome: no data were available. Serious adverse events: we included data on two RCTs (678 participants) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids compared to standard care (plus/minus placebo); for adverse events and hospital-acquired infections, we included data on five RCTs (660 participants). Because of high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting we are uncertain about the size and direction of the effects. Consequently, we did not perform analysis beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics (very low-certainty evidence).    Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids  We identified one study that compared methylprednisolone with dexamethasone. The evidence for mortality and new need for invasive mechanical ventilation is very low certainty due to the small number of participants (n = 86). No data were available for the other outcomes. We did not identify comparisons of different dosages or timing. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease Currently, there are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may also be a reduction in ventilator-free days. Since we are unable to  adjust for the impact of early death on subsequent endpoints, the findings for ventilation outcomes and harms have limited applicability to inform treatment decisions. Currently, there is no evidence for asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants).  There is an urgent need for good-quality evidence for specific subgroups of disease severity, for which we propose level of respiratory support at randomisation. This applies to the comparison or subgroups of different types and doses of corticosteroids, too. Outcomes apart from mortality should be measured and analysed appropriately taking into account confounding through death if applicable.  We identified 42 ongoing and 16 completed but not published RCTs in trials registries suggesting possible changes of effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future. Most ongoing studies target people who need respiratory support at baseline. With the living approach of this review, we will continue to update our search and include eligible trials and published data.

Clinical and pathological associations of PTEN expression in ovarian cancer: a multicentre study from the Ovarian Tumour Tissue Analysis Consortium.

BACKGROUND: PTEN loss is a putative driver in histotypes of ovarian cancer (high-grade serous (HGSOC), endometrioid (ENOC), clear cell (CCOC), mucinous (MOC), low-grade serous (LGSOC)). We aimed to characterise PTEN expression as a biomarker in epithelial ovarian cancer in a large population-based study. METHODS: Tumours from 5400 patients from a multicentre observational, prospective cohort study of the Ovarian Tumour Tissue Analysis Consortium were used to evaluate associations between immunohistochemical PTEN patterns and overall survival time, age, stage, grade, residual tumour, CD8+ tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) counts, expression of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and androgen receptor (AR) by means of Cox proportional hazard models and generalised Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests. RESULTS: Downregulation of cytoplasmic PTEN expression was most frequent in ENOC (most frequently in younger patients; p value = 0.0001) and CCOC and was associated with longer overall survival in HGSOC (hazard ratio: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.94, p value = 0.022). PTEN expression was associated with ER, PR and AR expression (p values: 0.0008, 0.062 and 0.0002, respectively) in HGSOC and with lower CD8 counts in CCOC (p value < 0.0001). Heterogeneous expression of PTEN was more prevalent in advanced HGSOC (p value = 0.019) and associated with higher CD8 counts (p value = 0.0016). CONCLUSIONS: PTEN loss is a frequent driver in ovarian carcinoma associating distinctly with expression of hormonal receptors and CD8+ TIL counts in HGSOC and CCOC histotypes.

Synthesis of Pt@TiO2 nanocomposite electrocatalysts for enhanced methanol oxidation by hydrophobic nanoreactor templating.

In this work Pt@TiO2 nanocomposite electrocatalysts for methanol oxidation were synthesized using a one-pot process by hydrophobic nanoreactor templating. TiO2 was used as a support material for the platinum nanoparticles, thereby providing strong metal-support interactions. The Pt@TiO2 electrocatalyst consists of a monolayer of spherical superstructures comprising finely dispersed platinum nanoparticles in a crystalline TiO2 matrix as revealed by high resolution (scanning) transmission electron microscopy (HR-TEM and HR-STEM) combined with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX), electron diffraction and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). The Pt@TiO2 electrocatalyst showed high methanol oxidation activity, exceeding the activity of a commercial Pt/C catalyst by a factor of 2.5, as well as a cathodically shifted methanol oxidation peak. The increased methanol oxidation activity of Pt@TiO2 was attributed to its enhanced CO oxidation ability, an undesired intermediate, which is formed during methanol oxidation and poisons the Pt-surface. Indeed, CO stripping experiments confirmed that CO oxidation takes place at lower potentials in the case of Pt@TiO2, leading to a cathodic shift of the CO oxidation peak by 100 mV compared to a commercial Pt/C reference catalyst. Insights into the mechanism of methanol oxidation on Pt@TiO2 were found by comparison of methanol oxidation in different electrolytes. It was found that methanol oxidation via the CO-route is more pronounced on Pt@TiO2 than on Pt/C. The improved activity for CO oxidation resulted thereby in a better catalyst performance, especially at low potentials, and an increased stability, as demonstrated by chronoamperometry. The long-term stability of the catalyst was further addressed by accelerated stress tests (AST), which showed that the superior catalytic activity is retained even after 30 000 potential cycles.