Food choice is critical for survival because organisms must choose food that is edible and nutritious and avoid pathogenic food. Many organisms, including the nematode C. elegans, use olfaction to detect and distinguish among food sources. C. elegans exhibits innate preferences for the odors of different bacterial species. However, little is known about the preferences of C. elegans for bacterial strains isolated from their natural environment as well as the attractive volatile compounds released by preferred natural bacteria isolates. We tested food odor preferences of C. elegans for non-pathogenic bacteria found in their natural habitats. We found that C. elegans showed a preference for the odor of six of the eight tested bacterial isolates over its standard food source, E. coli HB101. Using solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry, we found that four of six attractive bacterial isolates (Alcaligenes sp. JUb4, Providenica sp. JUb5, Providencia sp. JUb39, and Flavobacteria sp. JUb43) released isoamyl alcohol, a well-studied C. elegans attractant, while both non-attractive isolates (Raoultella sp. JUb38 and Acinetobacter sp. JUb68) released very low or non-detectable amounts of isoamyl alcohol. In conclusion, we find that isoamyl alcohol is likely an ethologically relevant odor that is released by some attractive bacterial isolates in the natural environment of C. elegans.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) due to infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causes substantial morbidity. Tocilizumab, an interleukin‐6 receptor antagonist, might improve outcomes by mitigating inflammation. We conducted a retrospective study of patients admitted to the University of Washington Hospital system with COVID‐19 and requiring supplemental oxygen. Outcomes included clinical improvement, defined as a two‐point reduction in severity on a six‐point ordinal scale or discharge, and mortality within 28 days. We used Cox proportional‐hazards models with propensity score inverse probability weighting to compare outcomes in patients who did and did not receive tocilizumab. We evaluated 43 patients who received tocilizumab and 45 who did not. Patients receiving tocilizumab were younger with fewer comorbidities but higher baseline oxygen requirements. Tocilizumab treatment was associated with reduced C‐reactive protein, fibrinogen, and temperature, but there were no meaningful differences in time to clinical improvement (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38–2.22) or mortality (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.21–1.52). A numerically higher proportion of tocilizumab‐treated patients had subsequent infections, transaminitis, and cytopenias. Tocilizumab did not improve outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. However, this study was not powered to detect small differences, and there remains the possibility for a survival benefit.

No abstract

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to infection with SARS-CoV-2 causes substantial morbidity. Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, might improve outcomes by mitigating inflammation. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of patients admitted to the University of Washington Hospital system with COVID-19 and requiring supplemental oxygen. Outcomes included clinical improvement, defined as a two-point reduction in severity on a 6-point ordinal scale or discharge, and mortality within 28 days. We used Cox proportional-hazards models with propensity score inverse probability weighting to compare outcomes in patients who did and did not receive tocilizumab. Results We evaluated 43 patients who received tocilizumab and 45 who did not. Patients receiving tocilizumab were younger with fewer comorbidities but higher baseline oxygen requirements. Tocilizumab treatment was associated with reduced CRP, fibrinogen, and temperature, but there were no meaningful differences in Cox models of time to clinical improvement (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.38-2.22) or mortality (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.21-1.52). A numerically higher proportion of tocilizumab-treated patients had subsequent infections, transaminitis, and cytopenias. Conclusions Tocilizumab did not improve outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, this study was not powered to detect small differences, and there remains the possibility for a survival benefit.

BACKGROUND: As health profession schools implement addiction curricula, they need survey instruments to evaluate the impact of the educational interventions. However, existing measures do not use current non-stigmatizing language and fail to capture core concepts. OBJECTIVE: To develop a brief measure of health profession student readiness to work with people who use drugs (PWUDs) and establish its content validity. METHODS: We conducted a literature review of existing instruments and desired clinical competencies related to providing care to PWUD and used results and expert feedback to create and revise a pool of 72 items. We conducted cognitive interviews with ten pre-clinical health profession students from various US schools of nursing, pharmacy, and medicine to ensure the items were easy to understand. Finally, we used a modified Delphi process with twenty-four health professions educators and addiction experts (eight each from nursing, pharmacy, and medicine) to select items for inclusion in the final scale. We analyzed expert ratings of individual items and interdisciplinary agreement on ratings to decide how to prioritize items. We ultimately selected 12 attitudes and 12 confidence items to include in the REadiness to Discuss Use, Common Effects, and HArm Reduction Measure (RE-DUCE-HARM). Experts rated their overall assessment of the final scale. RESULTS: Twenty-two of twenty-four experts agreed or strongly agreed that the attitudes scale measures student attitudes that impact readiness to work with PWUDs. Twenty-three of twenty-four experts agreed or strongly agreed that the confidence scale measures student selfefficacy in competencies that impact readiness to work with PWUDs. Seven of 72 initial items and none of the 24 selected items had statistically significant differences between disciplines. CONCLUSIONS:The REDUCE-HARM instrument has strong content validity and may serve as a useful tool in evaluating addiction education. Additional research is needed to establish its reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness to change.