No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Burn injury is associated with a high risk of death. Whether a pattern of immune and inflammatory responses after burn is associated with outcome is unknown. The aim of this study was to explore the association between systemic immune and inflammatory responses and outcome in severely-ill burn patients.Materials and Methods: Innate immunity, adaptive immunity, activation and stress and inflammation biomarkers were collected at admission and days 2, 7, 14, and 28 in severely-ill adult burn patients. Primary endpoint was mortality at day 90, secondary endpoint was secondary infections. Healthy donors (HD) served as controls. Multiple Factorial Analysis (MFA) was used to identify patterns of immune response.Results: 50 patients were included. Age was 49.2 (44.2–54.2) years, total burn body surface area was 38.0% (32.7–43.3). Burn injury showed an upregulation of adaptive immunity and activation biomarkers and a down regulation of innate immunity and stress/inflammation biomarkers. High interleukin-10 (IL-10) at admission was associated with risk of death. However, no cluster of immune/inflammatory biomarkers at early timepoints was associated with mortality. HLA-DR molecules on monocytes at admission were associated with bacterial infections and septic shock. Later altered immune/inflammatory responses in patients who died may had been driven by the development of septic shock.Conclusion: Burn injury induced an early and profound upregulation of adaptive immunity and activation biomarkers and a down regulation of innate immunity and stress/inflammation biomarkers. Immune and inflammatory responses were associated with bacterial infection and septic shock. Absence of immune recovery patterns was associated with poor prognosis.

No abstract

Background We previously reported that impaired type I IFN activity, due to inborn errors of TLR3- and TLR7-dependent type I interferon (IFN) immunity or to autoantibodies against type I IFN, account for 15–20% of cases of life-threatening COVID-19 in unvaccinated patients. Therefore, the determinants of life-threatening COVID-19 remain to be identified in ~ 80% of cases. Methods We report here a genome-wide rare variant burden association analysis in 3269 unvaccinated patients with life-threatening COVID-19, and 1373 unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals without pneumonia. Among the 928 patients tested for autoantibodies against type I IFN, a quarter (234) were positive and were excluded. Results No gene reached genome-wide significance. Under a recessive model, the most significant gene with at-risk variants was TLR7, with an OR of 27.68 (95%CI 1.5–528.7, P = 1.1 × 10−4) for biochemically loss-of-function (bLOF) variants. We replicated the enrichment in rare predicted LOF (pLOF) variants at 13 influenza susceptibility loci involved in TLR3-dependent type I IFN immunity (OR = 3.70[95%CI 1.3–8.2], P = 2.1 × 10−4). This enrichment was further strengthened by (1) adding the recently reported TYK2 and TLR7 COVID-19 loci, particularly under a recessive model (OR = 19.65[95%CI 2.1–2635.4], P = 3.4 × 10−3), and (2) considering as pLOF branchpoint variants with potentially strong impacts on splicing among the 15 loci (OR = 4.40[9%CI 2.3–8.4], P = 7.7 × 10−8). Finally, the patients with pLOF/bLOF variants at these 15 loci were significantly younger (mean age [SD] = 43.3 [20.3] years) than the other patients (56.0 [17.3] years; P = 1.68 × 10−5). Conclusions Rare variants of TLR3- and TLR7-dependent type I IFN immunity genes can underlie life-threatening COVID-19, particularly with recessive inheritance, in patients under 60 years old.

No abstract

International audienceno abstrac

Background Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are known to be a fair evaluation method. These recent years, the use of online OSCEs (eOSCEs) has spread. This study aimed to compare remote versus live evaluation and assess the factors associated with score variability during eOSCEs. Methods We conducted large-scale eOSCEs at the medical school of the Université de Paris Cité in June 2021 and recorded all the students’ performances, allowing a second evaluation. To assess the agreement in our context of multiple raters and students, we fitted a linear mixed model with student and rater as random effects and the score as an explained variable. Results One hundred seventy observations were analyzed for the first station after quality control. We retained 192 and 110 observations for the statistical analysis of the two other stations. The median score and interquartile range were 60 out of 100 (IQR 50–70), 60 out of 100 (IQR 54–70), and 53 out of 100 (IQR 45–62) for the three stations. The score variance proportions explained by the rater (ICC rater) were 23.0, 16.8, and 32.8%, respectively. Of the 31 raters, 18 (58%) were male. Scores did not differ significantly according to the gender of the rater (p = 0.96, 0.10, and 0.26, respectively). The two evaluations showed no systematic difference in scores (p = 0.92, 0.053, and 0.38, respectively). Conclusion Our study suggests that remote evaluation is as reliable as live evaluation for eOSCEs.