The crystal structure of a complex between the protein biosynthesis elongation factor eEF1A (formerly EF-1alpha) and the catalytic C terminus of its exchange factor, eEF1Balpha (formerly EF-1beta), was determined to 1.67 A resolution. One end of the nucleotide exchange factor is buried between the switch 1 and 2 regions of eEF1A and destroys the binding site for the Mg(2+) ion associated with the nucleotide. The second end of eEF1Balpha interacts with domain 2 of eEF1A in the region hypothesized to be involved in the binding of the CCA-aminoacyl end of the tRNA. The competition between eEF1Balpha and aminoacylated tRNA may be a central element in channeling the reactants in eukaryotic protein synthesis. The recognition of eEF1A by eEF1Balpha is very different from that observed in the prokaryotic EF-Tu:EF-Ts complex. Recognition of the switch 2 region in nucleotide exchange is, however, common to the elongation factor complexes and those of Ras:Sos and Arf1:Sec7.

Objectives:Knowledge of health related quality of life of haematological patients is limited. This study aimed at investigating the prevalence and predictors of symptoms and problems in a representative sample of haematological patients in Denmark.Methods:A random sample of patients with leukaemia, multiple myeloma and advanced lymphoma (n = 732) received the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Mean scores were calculated. In addition, scores were dichotomised using two thresholds: patients reporting at least ‘a little’ of each EORTC QLQ-C30 symptom/problem were classified as having a ‘symptom/problem’, and patients reporting at least ‘quite a bit’ were classified as having a ‘severe symptom/problem’. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors.Results:In total, 470 (64%) patients participated. The most frequent symptoms/problems were fatigue (55%; severe 20%), reduced role function (49%; severe 23%), insomnia (46%; severe 15%), and pain (37%; severe 15%). Older patients and patients in active antineoplastic treatment had more symptoms and problems. There was only little evidence of social inequalities.Conclusion:This is probably the first nationally representative study of symptoms and problems in haematological patients. These patients have symptoms/problems that deserve attention. Health related quality of life is an important issue in haematological malignancies.

We did not observe beneficial or harmful effects of early specialist palliative care, but important beneficial effects cannot be excluded.

Little is known about the need for palliative care among advanced cancer patients who are not in specialist palliative care. The purpose was to identify prevalence and predictors of symptoms and problems in a nationally representative sample of Danish advanced cancer patients. Patients with cancer stage 3 or 4 from 54 hospital departments (n = 1630) received the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Mean scores were calculated according to the scoring manual and in addition a 'symptom/problem' and a 'severe symptom/problem' was defined and calculated. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors. In total, 977 (60%) patients participated. The most frequent symptoms/problems were fatigue (57%; severe 22%) followed by reduced role function, insomnia and pain. Age, cancer stage, primary tumour, type of department, marital status and whether the patient had recently been hospitalized or not were associated with several symptoms and problems. This is probably the first nationally representative study of its kind. It shows that advanced cancer patients in Denmark have symptoms and problems that deserve attention and that some patient groups are especially at risk.

Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for large-scale detection of total antibodies (total-Ab) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G and M against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays. This study was a Danish national collaboration and evaluated fifteen commercial and one in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in sixteen laboratories. Sensitivity was evaluated using 150 samples from individuals with asymptomatic, mild or moderate COVID-19; nonhospitalized or hospitalized, confirmed by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), collected 13-73 days either from symptom onset or from positive NAAT (patients without symptoms). Specificity and cross reactivity were evaluated in samples collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic from >586 blood donors and patients with autoimmune diseases, cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus infections and acute viral infections. A specificity of ≥99% was achieved by all total-Ab and IgG assays except one, Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG (97.2%). Sensitivities in descending order were: Wantai/ELISA total-Ab (96.7%), CUH-NOVO/in-house ELISA total-Ab (96.0%), Ortho/Vitros total-Ab (95.3%), YHLO/iFlash-IgG (94.0%), Ortho/Vitros-IgG (93.3%), Siemens/Atellica total-Ab (93.2%), Roche/Elecsys total-Ab (92.7%), Abbott/Architect-IgG (90.0%), Abbott/Alinity-IgG (median 88.0%), Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG (median 84.6%), Siemens/Vista total-Ab (81.0%), Euroimmun/ELISA-IgG (78.0%), and Snibe/Maglumi-IgG (median 78.0%). However, confidence intervals overlapped for several assays. The IgM results were variable, with the Wantai/ELISA-IgM showing the highest sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (99%). The rate of seropositivity increased with time from symptom onset and symptom severity.

BACKGROUNDResearch in palliative care is considered difficult due to the poor health of patients. However, patient‐provided data are essential for a thorough description of patient symptomatology and for the evaluation of care.METHODSThe authors examined the feasibility of a questionnaire‐based study using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality‐of‐life instrument EORTC QLQ‐C30, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in cancer patients who were receiving palliative care. This report describes the symptomatology of participating patients and examines differences in symptomatology between patients in three palliative care functions: inpatient, outpatient, and palliative home care.RESULTSOf 267 eligible patients who were referred to a department of palliative medicine, initial self‐assessment questionnaires were obtained from 176 patients (65.9%). The 91 nonparticipants were older and had lower Karnofsky Performance status (KPS) values than the participants. Almost all participating patients suffered from impaired role function and physical function and had high levels of pain, fatigue, and other symptoms. According to the HADS, 47% of patients suffered from depression. Outpatients had better scores than inpatients and patients in palliative home care for physical function, role function, cognitive function, depression, and inactivity.CONCLUSIONSIt is possible to carry out a questionnaire‐based study of symptomatology in consecutive cancer patients in palliative care, achieving rather complete data from the participants. The symptomatology in these patients was very pronounced. The questionnaires were able to detect clinically important differences between places of service. Cancer 2002;94:512–20. © 2002 American Cancer Society.

The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which the symptoms experienced by advanced cancer patients were covered by the medical records. Fifty-eight patients participated in the study. On the day of first encounter with our palliative care department, a medical history was taken, and on this or the following day, the patients completed the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The symptomatology reported in the patient-completed questionnaires was compared with the symptomatology mentioned by the physician in the medical record. The analysis revealed good concordance concerning pain, but most other symptoms or problems were reported much more often by patients than by their doctors. Reasons for these discrepancies are discussed. It is suggested that the doctor's knowledge of the patient's symptomatology might gain from more systematic screening and transfer of information from patient self-assessment questionnaires to the medical records.

No abstract