Minimally invasive detection of cell death could prove an invaluable resource in many physiologic and pathologic situations. Cell-free circulating DNA (cfDNA) released from dying cells is emerging as a diagnostic tool for monitoring cancer dynamics and graft failure. However, existing methods rely on differences in DNA sequences in source tissues, so that cell death cannot be identified in tissues with a normal genome. We developed a method of detecting tissue-specific cell death in humans based on tissue-specific methylation patterns in cfDNA. We interrogated tissue-specific methylome databases to identify cell type-specific DNA methylation signatures and developed a method to detect these signatures in mixed DNA samples. We isolated cfDNA from plasma or serum of donors, treated the cfDNA with bisulfite, PCR-amplified the cfDNA, and sequenced it to quantify cfDNA carrying the methylation markers of the cell type of interest. Pancreatic β-cell DNA was identified in the circulation of patients with recently diagnosed type-1 diabetes and islet-graft recipients; oligodendrocyte DNA was identified in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis; neuronal/glial DNA was identified in patients after traumatic brain injury or cardiac arrest; and exocrine pancreas DNA was identified in patients with pancreatic cancer or pancreatitis. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that the tissue origins of cfDNA and thus the rate of death of specific cell types can be determined in humans. The approach can be adapted to identify cfDNA derived from any cell type in the body, offering a minimally invasive window for diagnosing and monitoring a broad spectrum of human pathologies as well as providing a better understanding of normal tissue dynamics.
Background: Therapeutic hypothermia (TH) after cardiac arrest protects from neurological sequels and death and is recommended in guidelines. The Hypothermia Registry was founded to the monitor outcome, performance and complications of TH. Methods: Data on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients admitted to intensive care for TH were registered. Hospital survival and long-term outcome (6-12 months) were documented using the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale, CPC 1-2 representing a good outcome and 3-5 a bad outcome. Half of the patients underwent coronary angiography and one-third underwent percutaneous coronary intervention
IMPORTANCE A strategy using mechanical chest compressions might improve the poor outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but such a strategy has not been tested in large clinical trials.OBJECTIVE To determine whether administering mechanical chest compressions with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (mechanical CPR), compared with manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (manual CPR), according to guidelines, would improve 4-hour survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter randomized clinical trial of 2589 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest conducted between January 2008 and February 2013 in 4 Swedish, 1 British, and 1 Dutch ambulance services and their referring hospitals. Duration of follow-up was 6 months. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive either mechanical chest compressions (LUCAS Chest Compression System, Physio-Control/Jolife AB) combined with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (n = 1300) or to manual CPR according to guidelines (n = 1289). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESFour-hour survival, with secondary end points of survival up to 6 months with good neurological outcome using the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score. A CPC score of 1 or 2 was classified as a good outcome.RESULTS Four-hour survival was achieved in 307 patients (23.6%) with mechanical CPR and 305 (23.7%) with manual CPR (risk difference, -0.05%; 95% CI, -3.3% to 3.2%; P > .99). Survival with a CPC score of 1 or 2 occurred in 98 (7.5%) vs 82 (6.4%) (risk difference, 1.18%; 95% CI, -0.78% to 3.1%) at intensive care unit discharge, in 108 (8.3%) vs 100 (7.8%) (risk difference, 0.55%; 95% CI, -1.5% to 2.6%) at hospital discharge, in 105 (8.1%) vs 94 (7.3%) (risk difference, 0.78%; 95% CI, -1.3% to 2.8%) at 1 month, and in 110 (8.5%) vs 98 (7.6%) (risk difference, 0.86%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 3.0%) at 6 months with mechanical CPR and manual CPR, respectively. Among patients surviving at 6 months, 99% in the mechanical CPR group and 94% in the manual CPR group had CPC scores of 1 or 2.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, there was no significant difference in 4-hour survival between patients treated with the mechanical CPR algorithm or those treated with guideline-adherent manual CPR. The vast majority of survivors in both groups had good neurological outcomes by 6 months. In clinical practice, mechanical CPR using the presented algorithm did not result in improved effectiveness compared with manual CPR.
ImportanceSome individuals experience persistent symptoms after initial symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (often referred to as Long COVID).ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of males and females with COVID-19, younger or older than 20 years of age, who had Long COVID symptoms in 2020 and 2021 and their Long COVID symptom duration.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsBayesian meta-regression and pooling of 54 studies and 2 medical record databases with data for 1.2 million individuals (from 22 countries) who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 54 studies, 44 were published and 10 were collaborating cohorts (conducted in Austria, the Faroe Islands, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the US). The participant data were derived from the 44 published studies (10 501 hospitalized individuals and 42 891 nonhospitalized individuals), the 10 collaborating cohort studies (10 526 and 1906), and the 2 US electronic medical record databases (250 928 and 846 046). Data collection spanned March 2020 to January 2022.ExposuresSymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.Main Outcomes and MeasuresProportion of individuals with at least 1 of the 3 self-reported Long COVID symptom clusters (persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings; cognitive problems; or ongoing respiratory problems) 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2020 and 2021, estimated separately for hospitalized and nonhospitalized individuals aged 20 years or older by sex and for both sexes of nonhospitalized individuals younger than 20 years of age.ResultsA total of 1.2 million individuals who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection were included (mean age, 4-66 years; males, 26%-88%). In the modeled estimates, 6.2% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 2.4%-13.3%) of individuals who had symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection experienced at least 1 of the 3 Long COVID symptom clusters in 2020 and 2021, including 3.2% (95% UI, 0.6%-10.0%) for persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings, 3.7% (95% UI, 0.9%-9.6%) for ongoing respiratory problems, and 2.2% (95% UI, 0.3%-7.6%) for cognitive problems after adjusting for health status before COVID-19, comprising an estimated 51.0% (95% UI, 16.9%-92.4%), 60.4% (95% UI, 18.9%-89.1%), and 35.4% (95% UI, 9.4%-75.1%), respectively, of Long COVID cases. The Long COVID symptom clusters were more common in women aged 20 years or older (10.6% [95% UI, 4.3%-22.2%]) 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection than in men aged 20 years or older (5.4% [95% UI, 2.2%-11.7%]). Both sexes younger than 20 years of age were estimated to be affected in 2.8% (95% UI, 0.9%-7.0%) of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. The estimated mean Long COVID symptom cluster duration was 9.0 months (95% UI, 7.0-12.0 months) among hospitalized individuals and 4.0 months (95% UI, 3.6-4.6 months) among nonhospitalized individuals. Among individuals with Long COVID symptoms 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, an estimated 15.1% (95% UI, 10.3%-21.1%) continued to experience symptoms at 12 months.Conclusions and RelevanceThis study presents modeled estimates of the proportion of individuals with at least 1 of 3 self-reported Long COVID symptom clusters (persistent fatigue with bodily pain or mood swings; cognitive problems; or ongoing respiratory problems) 3 months after symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.
No abstract
Adverse events were common after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Sustained hyperglycemia and seizures treated with anticonvulsants were associated with increased mortality. Bleeding and infection were more common after invasive procedures, but these adverse events were not associated with increased mortality in our study.
Amyloid β (Aβ) peptides are proteolytic products from amyloid precursor protein (APP) and are thought to play a role in Alzheimer disease (AD) pathogenesis. While much is known about molecular mechanisms underlying cerebral Aβ accumulation in familial AD, less is known about the cause(s) of brain amyloidosis in sporadic disease. Animal and postmortem studies suggest that Aβ secretion can be up-regulated in response to hypoxia. We employed a new technology (Single Molecule Arrays, SiMoA) capable of ultrasensitive protein measurements and developed a novel assay to look for changes in serum Aβ42 concentration in 25 resuscitated patients with severe hypoxia due to cardiac arrest. After a lag period of 10 or more hours, very clear serum Aβ42 elevations were observed in all patients. Elevations ranged from approximately 80% to over 70-fold, with most elevations in the range of 3–10-fold (average approximately 7-fold). The magnitude of the increase correlated with clinical outcome. These data provide the first direct evidence in living humans that ischemia acutely increases Aβ levels in blood. The results point to the possibility that hypoxia may play a role in the amyloidogenic process of AD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.