Spiritual care is an important component of high-quality health care, especially for critically ill patients and their families. Despite evidence of benefits from spiritual care, physicians and other health-care providers commonly fail to assess and address their patients' spiritual care needs in the intensive care unit (ICU). In addition, it is common that spiritual care resources that can improve both patient outcomes and family member experiences are underutilized. In this review, we provide an overview of spiritual care and its role in the ICU. We review evidence demonstrating the benefits of, and persistent unmet needs for, spiritual care services, as well as the current state of spiritual care delivery in the ICU setting. Furthermore, we outline tools and strategies intensivists and other critical care medicine health-care professionals can employ to support the spiritual well-being of patients and families, with a special focus on chaplaincy services.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its associated symptoms, named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have rapidly spread worldwide, resulting in the declaration of a pandemic. When several countries began enacting quarantine and lockdown policies, the pandemic as it is now known truly began. While most patients have minimal symptoms, approximately 20% of verified subjects are suffering from serious medical consequences. Co-existing diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and others, have been shown to make patients more vulnerable to severe outcomes from COVID-19 by modulating host–viral interactions and immune responses, causing severe infection and mortality. In this review, we outline the putative signaling pathways at the interface of COVID-19 and several diseases, emphasizing the clinical and molecular implications of concurring diseases in COVID-19 clinical outcomes. As evidence is limited on co-existing diseases and COVID-19, most findings are preliminary, and further research is required for optimal management of patients with comorbidities.

The success of any given cancer immunotherapy relies on several key factors. In particular, success hinges on the ability to stimulate the immune system in a controlled and precise fashion, select the best treatment options and appropriate therapeutic agents, and use highly effective tools to accurately and efficiently assess the outcome of the immunotherapeutic intervention. Furthermore, a deep understanding and effective utilization of tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), nanomedicine and biomedical imaging must be harmonized to improve treatment efficacy. Additionally, a keen appreciation of the dynamic interplay that occurs between immune cells and the tumor microenvironment (TME) is also essential. New advances toward the modulation of the immune TME have led to many novel translational research approaches focusing on the targeting of TAMs, enhanced drug and nucleic acid delivery, and the development of theranostic probes and nanoparticles for clinical trials. In this review, we discuss the key cogitations that influence TME, TAM modulations and immunotherapy in solid tumors as well as the methods and resources of tracking the tumor response. The vast array of current nanomedicine technologies can be readily modified to modulate immune function, target specific cell types, deliver therapeutic payloads and be monitored using several different imaging modalities. This allows for the development of more effective treatments, which can be specifically designed for particular types of cancer or on an individual basis. Our current capacities have allowed for greater use of theranostic probes and multimodal imaging strategies that have led to better image contrast, real-time imaging capabilities leveraging targeting moieties, tracer kinetics and enabling more detailed response profiles at the cellular and molecular levels. These novel capabilities along with new discoveries in cancer biology should drive innovation for improved biomarkers for efficient and individualized cancer therapy.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has created unprecedented challenges worldwide. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) causes COVID‐19 and has a complex interaction with the immune system, including growing evidence of sex‐specific differences in the immune response. Sex‐disaggregated analyses of epidemiological data indicate that males experience more severe symptoms and suffer higher mortality from COVID‐19 than females. Many behavioural risk factors and biological factors may contribute to the different immune response. This review examines the immune response to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection in the context of sex, with emphasis on potential biological mechanisms explaining differences in clinical outcomes. Understanding sex differences in the pathophysiology of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection will help promote the development of specific strategies to manage the disease.

Patients diagnosed with glioblastoma have poor prognosis. Conventional treatment strategies such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy demonstrated limited clinical success and have considerable side effects on healthy tissues. A central challenge in treating brain tumors is the poor permeability of the blood–brain barrier (BBB) to therapeutics. Recently, various methods based on immunotherapy and nanotechnology have demonstrated potential in addressing these obstacles by enabling precise targeting of brain tumors to minimize adverse effects, while increasing targeted drug delivery across the BBB. In addition to treating the tumors, these approaches may be used in conjunction with imaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography to enhance the prognosis procedures. This review aims to provide mechanistic understanding of immune system regulation in the central nervous system and the benefits of nanoparticles in the prognosis of brain tumors. This article is characterized under: Diagnostic Tools > in vivo Nanodiagnostics and Imaging Nanotechnology Approaches to Biology > Cells at the Nanoscale Nanotechnology Approaches to Biology > Nanoscale Systems in Biology

No abstract

Background and objectivesWalking while talking is a dual cognitive-motor task that predicts frailty, falls, and cognitive decline in the general elderly population. Adults with CKD have gait abnormalities during usual walking. It is unknown whether they have greater gait abnormalities and cognitive-motor interference during walking while talking.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsCommunity-dwelling, nondisabled adults (n=330) ≥65 years of age underwent quantitative gait analysis, including walking while talking. Differences in walking-while-talking performance by CKD status were evaluated, and relative changes between walking-while-talking and walking alone performance were computed to quantify cognitive-motor interference (dual-task cost). Associations were tested using multivariable linear spline regression models, and independent gait domains were derived using factor analysis. CKD was defined as an eGFR<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2.ResultsCKD was present in 134 (41%) participants. Participants with CKD had slower gait speed along with various gait cycle abnormalities during walking while talking: among those with CKD, every 10-ml/min per 1.73 m2 lower eGFR was associated with 3.3-cm/s (95% confidence interval, 0.4 to 6.1) slower gait speed, 1.8-cm (95% confidence interval, 0.6 to 3.0) shorter step length, 1.1% (95% confidence interval, 0.6 to 1.7) less time in the swing phase, and 1.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.5 to 2.3) greater time in double support after multivariable adjustment. When comparing walking while talking with walking alone, every 10-ml/min per 1.73 m2 lower eGFR was associated with 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.5 to 3.2) greater decrease in time in the swing phase and 0.9% (95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 1.5) greater increase in time in the stance phase. Factor analysis identified three walking-while-talking domains and three dual-task cost domains: eGFR was associated specifically with the rhythm domain for both walking-while-talking and dual-task cost. Every 10-ml/min per 1.73 m2 lower eGFR was associated with a poorer performance of 0.2 SD (95% confidence interval, 0.1 to 0.3) for walking while talking and 0.2 SD (95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 0.3) for dual-task cost.ConclusionsDuring walking while talking, CKD is associated with gait abnormalities, possibly due to increased cognitive-motor interference.

No abstract