CASE SUMMARY: Two special COVID-19 cases-one full-term pregnant woman and one elderly (72-year-old) man-were treated by veno-venous (VV)-ECMO in the Second People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province, China. Both patients had developed refractory hypoxemia shortly after hospital admission, despite conventional support, and were therefore managed by VV-ECMO. Although both experienced multiple ECMO-related complications on top of the COVID-19 disease, their conditions improved gradually. Both patients were weaned successfully from the ECMO therapy. At the time of writing of this report, the woman has recovered completely and been discharged from hospital to home; the man remains on mechanical ventilation, due to respiratory muscle weakness and suspected lung fibrosis. As ECMO itself is associated with various complications, it is very important to understand and treat these complications to achieve optimal outcome.
CONCLUSION: VV-ECMO can provide sufficient gas exchange for COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it is crucial to understand and treat ECMO-related complications.
METHODS: A web-based survey (REDCap) was distributed via emails, social networking sites, and professional groups from October 2020 to February 2021 to neonatal clinicians in 35 countries.
RESULTS: A total of 484 responses were obtained from 35 countries and categorized into low/middle-income (43%, LMIC) or high-income (57%, HIC) countries. Of the 484 respondents, 53% would provide TH in mild HIE on case-to-case basis and only 25% would never cool. Clinicians from LMIC were more likely to routinely offer TH in mild HIE (25% v HIC 16%, p < 0.05), have a unit protocol for providing TH (50% v HIC 26%, p < 0.05), use adjunctive tools, e.g., aEEG (49% v HIC 32%, p < 0.001), conduct an MRI post TH (48% v HIC 40%, p < 0.05) and less likely to use neurological examinations as a HIE severity grading tool (80% v HIC 95%, p < 0.001). The majority of respondents (91%) would support a randomized controlled trial that was sufficiently large to examine neurodevelopmental outcomes in mild HIE after TH.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first survey of global opinion for TH in mild HIE. The overwhelming majority of professionals would consider "cooling" an infant with mild HIE, but LMIC respondents were more likely to routinely cool infants with mild HIE and use adjunctive tools for diagnosis and follow-up. There is wide practice heterogeneity and a sufficiently large RCT designed to examine neurodevelopmental outcomes, is urgently needed and widely supported.
RESULTS: Here, we report a comprehensive genomic analysis of the green mud crab Scylla paramamosain using ultralong sequencing technologies, achieving a high-quality chromosome-level assembly. The refined 1.21 Gb genome, with an impressive contig N50 of 11.45 Mb, offers a valuable genomic resource. The genome exhibits 33,662 protein-coding genes, enriched in various pathways related to development and environmental adaptation. Gene family analysis shows expansion in development-related pathways and contraction in metabolic pathways, indicating niche adaptations. Notably, investigation into Hox gene regulation sheds light on their role in pleopod development, with the Abd-A gene identified as a linchpin. Post-transcriptional regulation involving novel-miR1317 negatively regulates Abd-A levels. Furthermore, the potential role of fru gene in ovarian development and the identification of novel-miR35 as a regulator of Spfru2 add complexity to gene regulatory networks. Comparative functional analysis across Decapoda species reveals neo-functionalization of the elovl6 gene in the synthesis of long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFA), suggesting its importance in environmental adaptation.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings shed light on various aspects of crab biology, including genome sequencing, assembly, and annotation, as well as gene family expansion, contraction, and regulatory mechanisms governing crucial developmental processes such as metamorphosis, reproductive strategies, and fatty acid metabolism.
METHODS: This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study was conducted at 36 medical centers in China (mainland), Malaysia, South Korea, and Taiwan. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to 200 mg of pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤2 years or 80 mg/m2 of paclitaxel intravenously every week. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and safety.
RESULTS: Between February 16, 2017, and March 12, 2018, 94 patients were randomly assigned (47 pembrolizumab/47 paclitaxel) after screening; enrollment was stopped on March 12, 2018, based on the results of the global KEYNOTE-061 study, and patients were followed until the last patient's last visit. Median OS was 8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4-10 months) with pembrolizumab versus 8 months (95% CI, 5-11 months) with paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.63-1.54). Median PFS was 2 months (95% CI, 1-3 months) with pembrolizumab versus 4 months (95% CI, 3-6 months) with paclitaxel (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.04-2.52). ORR was 13% for pembrolizumab versus 19% for paclitaxel. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events occurred in 28 pembrolizumab-treated patients (60%) and 42 paclitaxel-treated patients (96%); grades 3 to 5 events occurred in 5 patients (11%) and 28 patients (64%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Definitive conclusions about the efficacy of second-line pembrolizumab in Asian patients with advanced PD-L1-positive gastric/GEJ cancer are limited because of insufficient power, but pembrolizumab was well tolerated in this patient population. Efficacy followed a trend similar to that observed in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 trial.
AIMS: The aim of this consensus is to provide evidence-based statements to guide clinicians caring for patients with refractory reflux-like symptoms (rRLS) or refractory GERD.
METHODS: This consensus was developed by the International Working Group for the Classification of Oesophagitis. The steering committee developed specific PICO questions pertaining to the management of PPI rRLS. Methodologists conducted systematic reviews of the literature. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 13 of 17 statements on diagnosis and management. For rRLS, suggested diagnostic strategies included endoscopy, ambulatory reflux testing and oesophageal manometry. The group did not reach consensus on the role of oesophageal biopsies or the use of reflux-symptom association in patients undergoing reflux testing. The group suggested against increasing the PPI dose in patients who had received 8 weeks of a twice-daily PPI. Adjunctive alginate or antacid therapy was suggested. There was no consensus on the role of adjunctive prokinetics. There was little role for adjunctive transient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) inhibitors or bile acid sequestrants. Endoscopic or surgical anti-reflux procedures should not be performed in patients with rRLS in the absence of objectively confirmed GERD.
CONCLUSIONS: The management of rRLS should be personalised, based on shared decision-making regarding the role of diagnostic testing to confirm or rule out GERD as a basis for treatment optimisation. Anti-reflux procedures should not be performed without objective confirmation of GERD.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-P and MOOSE guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS model (Population: infertile male patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: varicocele repair; Comparison: intra-person before-after varicocele repair; Outcome: conventional semen parameters; Study type: randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational and case-control studies).
RESULTS: Out of 1,632 screened abstracts, 351 articles (23 RCTs, 292 observational, and 36 case-control studies) were included in the quantitative analysis. The before-and-after analysis showed significant improvements in all semen parameters after varicocele repair (except sperm vitality); semen volume: standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.203, 95% CI: 0.129-0.278; p<0.001; I²=83.62%, Egger's p=0.3329; sperm concentration: SMD 1.590, 95% CI: 1.474-1.706; p<0.001; I²=97.86%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm count: SMD 1.824, 95% CI: 1.526-2.121; p<0.001; I²=97.88%, Egger's p=0.0063; total motile sperm count: SMD 1.643, 95% CI: 1.318-1.968; p<0.001; I²=98.65%, Egger's p=0.0003; progressive sperm motility: SMD 1.845, 95% CI: 1.537%-2.153%; p<0.001; I²=98.97%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm motility: SMD 1.613, 95% CI 1.467%-1.759%; p<0.001; l2=97.98%, Egger's p<0.001; sperm morphology: SMD 1.066, 95% CI 0.992%-1.211%; p<0.001; I²=97.87%, Egger's p=0.1864.
CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis is the largest to date using paired analysis on varicocele patients. In the current meta-analysis, almost all conventional semen parameters improved significantly following varicocele repair in infertile patients with clinical varicocele.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available.
CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.