Comprehensive Nomograms Using Routine Biomarkers Beyond Eosinophil Levels: Enhancing Predictability of Corticosteroid Treatment Outcomes in AECOPD.

Purpose: Patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) exhibit heterogeneous responses to corticosteroid treatment. We aimed to determine whether combining eosinophil levels with other routine clinical indicators can enhance the predictability of corticosteroid treatment outcomes and to come up with a scoring system. Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients admitted with AECOPD receiving corticosteroid treatment between July 2013 and March 2022 at Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Data on patients' demographics, smoking status, hospitalization for AECOPD in the previous year, comorbidities, blood laboratory tests, in-hospital treatment and clinical outcomes were collected. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and backward logistic regression were used for predictor selection, and predictive nomograms were developed. The discrimination and calibration of the nomograms were assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and calibration plots. Internal validation was performed using the 500-bootstrap method, and clinical utility was evaluated using decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: Among the 3254 patients included, 804 (24.7%) had treatment failure. A nomogram of eosinophils, platelets, C-reactive protein (CRP), low density lipoprotein cholesterol, prognostic nutritional index (PNI), hospitalization for AECOPD in the previous year, ischemic heart diseases and chronic hepatic disease was developed to predict treatment failure for patients with a smoking history. For patients without a smoking history, a nomogram of CRP, PNI, ischemic heart diseases and chronic hepatic disease was developed. Although the AUCs of these two nomograms were only 0.644 and 0.647 respectively, they were significantly superior to predictions based solely on blood eosinophil levels. Conclusion: We developed easy-to-use comprehensive nomograms utilizing readily available clinical biomarkers related to inflammation, nutrition and immunity, offering modestly enhanced predictive value for treatment outcomes in corticosteroid-treated patients with AECOPD. Further investigations into novel biomarkers and additional patient data are imperative to optimize the predictive performance.

Predicting the death of patients with anti-melanoma differentiation-associated protein-5-positive dermatomyositis-associated interstitial lung disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the risk factors for death in anti-melanoma differentiation-associated protein-5-positive dermatomyositis-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD). METHODS: Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. RESULTS: Twenty studies were selected. Factors that may increase death risk included older age (SMD: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.81), elevated Krebs von den Lungen-6 (SMD: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.86), lactate dehydrogenase (SMD: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.72-1.02), C-reactive protein (SMD: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44-0.80), ferritin (SMD: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.71-1.15), creatine kinase (SMD: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.13-0.44), neutrophil (SMD: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.04-0.64), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (SMD: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.24-0.79), aspartate aminotransferase (SMD: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.45-0.94), shorter disease duration (SMD: -0.44, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.21), rapidly progressive ILD (RR: 4.08, 95% CI: 3.01-5.54), fever (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.46-2.69), dyspnoea (RR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.32-2.02), and anti-Ro52 antibody positive (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.11-1.49). Female (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.78-0.94), increased albumin (SMD: -1.20, 95% CI: -1.76 to -0.64), lymphocyte (SMD: -0.49, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.30), and arthralgia (RR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.37-0.78) were protective factors. CONCLUSION: Older age, shorter disease duration, rapidly progressive ILD, fever, dyspnoea, anti-Ro52 antibody positive, and some inflammatory markers were risk factors for death in patients with anti-melanoma differentiation-associated protein-5-positive dermatomyositis-associated ILD.

The Prognostic Value of Blood Eosinophil Level in AECOPD is Influenced by Corticosteroid Treatment During Hospitalization.

Purpose: Blood eosinophil is a promising biomarker for phenotyping patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of eosinophil on short- and long-term outcomes stratified by corticosteroid treatment among AECOPD inpatients. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we included patients hospitalized for AECOPD from July 2013 to June 2021 in Beijing, China. Clinical data were collected from electronic medical records. The blood eosinophil count was measured within 24h after admission. Eosinophilic AECOPD was defined as having an eosinophil percentage ≥ 2%. The study outcomes were length of stay (LOS), treatment failure, and AECOPD readmission risk within 3 years of discharge. Multivariable models were used to analyze the associations between blood eosinophil count and outcomes stratified by corticosteroid treatment during hospitalization. Results: A total of 2406 AECOPD patients were included. The median LOS of AECOPD patients was 10 (interquartile range: 8-14) days. The eosinophil percentage was negatively associated with LOS (P-trend=0.014). Compared with the non-eosinophilic AECOPD group, the eosinophilic group had a 58% lower risk of treatment failure (OR=0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89) in patients treated with systemic corticosteroids, but no association was observed in those treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) only (OR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.60-1.52). The eosinophilic group had an increased risk of 90-day re-admission in patients treated with ICS only (HR=1.51, 95% CI: 1.00-2.29), but not in patients treated with systemic corticosteroids during hospitalization (HR=0.67, 95% CI: 0.39-1.15). No statistically significant results were found for 180-day, 1-year, or 3-year readmission risk. Conclusion: Elevated blood eosinophils in AECOPD were associated with shorter length of stay and improved response to treatment with systemic corticosteroids, but not inhaled corticosteroids. Our study suggested that a therapeutic approach of using systemic corticosteroid may benefit patients present with eosinophilic AECOPD.

The efficiency of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.

The objective of this study was to assess whether convalescent plasma therapy could offer survival advantages for patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). An electronic search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library and MedRxiv was performed from January 1st, 2020 to April 1st, 2022. We included studies containing patients with COVID-19 and treated with CCP. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and synthesized with a random-effect analysis model. The primary outcome was 28-d mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, ventilation-free days, 14-d mortality, improvements of symptoms, progression of diseases and requirements of mechanical ventilation. Safety outcomes included the incidence of all adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2.0 was used to assess the potential risk of bias in eligible studies. The heterogeneity of results was assessed by I^2 test and Q statistic test. The possibility of publication bias was assessed by conducting Begg and Egger test. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used for quality of evidence. This study had been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021273608. 32 RCTs comprising 21478 patients with Covid-19 were included. Compared to the control group, COVID-19 patients receiving CCP were not associated with significantly reduced 28-d mortality (CCP 20.0% vs control 20.8%; risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.87-1.02; p = 0.16; I² = 8%). For all secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between CCP group and control group. The incidence of AEs (26.9% vs 19.4%,; risk ratio 1.14; 95% CI 0.99-01.31; p = 0.06; I² = 38%) and SAEs (16.3% vs 13.5%; risk ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.87-1.20; p = 0.76; I² = 42%) tended to be higher in the CCP group compared to the control group, while the differences did not reach statistical significance. In all, CCP therapy was not related to significantly improved 28-d mortality or symptoms recovery, and should not be viewed as a routine treatment for COVID-19 patients. Trial registration number: CRD42021273608. Registration on February 28, 2022. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42022313265.

Effect of different levels of PEEP on mortality in ICU patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether higher positive end- expiratory pressure (PEEP) could provide a survival advantage for patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) compared with lower PEEP. METHODS: Eligible studies were identified through searches of Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline, and Wanfang database from inception up to 1 June 2021. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used in this meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified for further evaluation. Higher and lower PEEP arms included 1330 patients and 1650 patients, respectively. A mean level of 9.6±3.4 cmH2O was applied in the higher PEEP groups and 1.9±2.6 cmH2O was used in the lower PEEP groups. Higher PEEP, compared with lower PEEP, was not associated with reduction of all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91-1.18; P =0.627), and 28-day mortality (RR 1.07 ; 95% CI 0.92-1.24; P =0.365). In terms of risk of ARDS (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.24-0.78; P =0.005), duration of intensive care unit (MD -1.04; 95%CI-1.36 to -0.73; P < 0.00001), and oxygenation (MD 40.30; 95%CI 0.94 to 79.65; P = 0.045), higher PEEP was superior to lower PEEP. Besides, the pooled analysis showed no significant differences between groups both in the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.00; 95%CI-0.13 to 0.13; P = 0.996) and hospital stay (MD -0.66; 95%CI-1.94 to 0.61; P = 0.309). More importantly, lower PEEP did not increase the risk of pneumonia, atelectasis, barotrauma, hypoxemia, or hypotension among patients compared with higher PEEP. The TSA analysis showed that the results of all-cause mortality and 28-day mortality might be false-negative results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a lower PEEP ventilation strategy was non-inferior to a higher PEEP ventilation strategy in ICU patients without ARDS, with no increased risk of all-cause mortality and 28-day mortality. Further high-quality RCTs should be performed to confirm these findings.