The aim of our study was to determine the impact of unsupervised Pulmonary Rehabilitation (uns-PR) on patients recovering from COVID-19, and determine its anthropometric, biological, demographic and fitness correlates. All patients (n = 20, age: 64.1 ± 9.9 years, 75% male) participated in unsupervised Pulmonary Rehabilitation program for eight weeks. We recorded anthropometric characteristics, pulmonary function parameters, while we performed 6 min walk test (6 MWT) and blood sampling for oxidative stress measurement before and after uns-PR. We observed differences before and after uns-PR during 6 MWT in hemodynamic parameters [systolic blood pressure in resting (138.7 ± 16.3 vs. 128.8 ± 8.6 mmHg, p = 0.005) and end of test (159.8 ± 13.5 vs. 152.0 ± 12.2 mmHg, p = 0.025), heart rate (5th min: 111.6 ± 16.9 vs. 105.4 ± 15.9 bpm, p = 0.049 and 6th min: 112.5 ± 18.3 vs. 106.9 ± 17.9 bpm, p = 0.039)], in oxygen saturation (4th min: 94.6 ± 2.9 vs. 95.8 ± 3.2%, p = 0.013 and 1st min of recovery: 97.8 ± 0.9 vs. 97.3 ± 0.9%), in dyspnea at the end of 6 MWT (1.3 ± 1.5 vs. 0.6 ± 0.9 score, p = 0.005), in distance (433.8 ± 102.2 vs. 519.2 ± 95.4 m, p < 0.001), in estimated O2 uptake (14.9 ± 2.4 vs. 16.9 ± 2.2 mL/min/kg, p < 0.001) in 30 s sit to stand (11.4 ± 3.2 vs. 14.1 ± 2.7 repetitions, p < 0.001)] Moreover, in plasma antioxidant capacity (2528.3 ± 303.2 vs. 2864.7 ± 574.8 U.cor., p = 0.027), in body composition parameters [body fat (32.2 ± 9.4 vs. 29.5 ± 8.2%, p = 0.003), visceral fat (14.0 ± 4.4 vs. 13.3 ± 4.2 score, p = 0.021), neck circumference (39.9 ± 3.4 vs. 37.8 ± 4.2 cm, p = 0.006) and muscle mass (30.1 ± 4.6 vs. 34.6 ± 7.4 kg, p = 0.030)] and sleep quality (6.7 ± 3.9 vs. 5.6 ± 3.3 score, p = 0.036) we observed differences before and after uns-PR. Our findings support the implementation of unsupervised pulmonary rehabilitation programs in patients following COVID-19 recovery, targeting the improvement of many aspects of long COVID-19 syndrome.

No abstract

Gene copy number and protein expression of topoisomerase IIalpha were correlated to benefit from anthracyclines in various tumors. A retrospective series of 69 patients with DLBCL managed with CHOP chemotherapy were studied for immunohistochemical TopoIIalpha expression and numerical gene abnormalities by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). The results were analyzed in relation to the expression of cell cycle proteins (Ki67, p53, HDM2, p21, p14, pRb, p16, and cyclins A, B1, D1, D2, D3, and E) and BCL6/CD10/MUM1/CD138 B-cell differentiation immunophenotype and outcome. High levels of TopoIIalpha protein were found in 91% of DLBCL cases. No evidence of TopoIIalpha gene amplification or deletion was found. The TopoIIalpha expression showed significant positive correlations with the proliferation index Ki67 (p = 0.002), cell cycle proteins pRb and cyclin D2 (p = 0.018 and p = 0.028, respectively), and the germinal center proteins bcl6 and CD10 (p = 0.010 and p < 0.0001, respectively). TopoIIalpha expression was significantly higher in germinal center B-cell like (GCB) DLBCL than in non-germinal center B-cell like (non-GCB) DLBCL (p = 0.048). TopoIIalpha protein was significantly associated with response to chemotherapy (chi(2), p = 0.024), but not with relapse-free or overall survival (p = 0.5). On multivariate analysis, only stage of disease retained independent prognostic significance (HR 0.33 for early stage, p = 0.008). Although TopoIIa gene copy number abnormalities were not found in DLBCL, high levels of protein expression are associated with GCB-cell differentiation immunophenotype, high proliferation, and response to treatment.

Background Over the last decades, many high-income countries have successfully implemented assertive outreach mental health services for acute care. Despite evidence that these services entail several benefits for service users, Germany has lagged behind and has been slow in implementing outreach services. In 2018, a new law enabled national mental health care providers to implement team-based crisis intervention services on a regular basis, allowing for different forms of Inpatient Equivalent Home Treatment (IEHT). IEHT is similar to the internationally known Home Treatment or Crisis Resolution Teams. It provides acute psychiatric treatment at the user’s home, similar to inpatient hospital treatment in terms of content, flexibility, and complexity. Methods/design The presented naturalistic, quasi-experimental cohort study will evaluate IEHT in ten hospitals running IEHT services in different German regions. Within a multi-method research approach, it will evaluate stakeholders’ experiences of care, service use, efficacy, costs, treatment processes and implementation processes of IEHT from different perspectives. Quantitative surveys will be used to recruit 360 service users. Subsequently, 180 service users receiving IEHT will be compared with 180 matched statistical ‘twins’ receiving standard inpatient treatment. Assessments will take place at baseline as well as after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the hospital re-admission rate within 12 months. Secondary outcomes include the combined readmission rate, total number of inpatient hospital days, treatment discontinuation rate, quality of life, psycho-social functioning, job integration, recovery, satisfaction with care, shared decision-making, and treatment costs. Additionally, the study will assess the burden of care and satisfaction with care among relatives or informal caregivers. A collaborative research team made up of researchers with and without lived experience of mental distress will conduct qualitative investigations with service users, caregivers and IEHT staff teams to explore critical ingredients and interactions between implementation processes, treatment processes, and outcomes from a stakeholder perspective. Discussion By integrating outcome, process and implementation research as well as different stakeholder perspectives and experiences in one study, this trial captures the various facets of IEHT as a special form of home treatment. Therefore, it allows for an adequate, comprehensive evaluation on different levels of this complex intervention. Trial registration Trial registrations: 1) German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS000224769. Registered December 3rd 2020, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do; 2) ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT0474550. Registered February 9th 2021.