No abstract

Majority of patients infected with the COVID 19 virus display a mild to moderate course of disease and spontaneously recover at 14-20 days. However, about 15% of patients progress to severe stages and 2.5% of these patients succumb to this illness. Most patients with severe disease belong to the elderly age group (< 65 years of age) and have multiple associated co-morbidities. The immune responses induced by the COVID 19 virus, during the incubation and non-severe stages, requires the early initiation of a specific adaptive immune response to eliminate the virus and prevent the progress to severe stages. In patients with a dysfunctional bridge adaptive immunity, the innate immune response becomes exaggerated due to the lack of feedback from the adaptive immune cells. The resultant cytokine storm is responsible for the severe lung injury leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome seen in COVID 19 patients. Mesenchymal stem cells are known to suppress overactive immune responses as well as bring about tissue regeneration and repair. This immuno-modulatory effect of MSCs could hold potential to manage a patient with severe symptoms of COVID 19 infection due to a dysfunctional adaptive immune system.

Background: Measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) has an established role in guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. We tested the hypothesis that, at the stage of diagnostic invasive coronary angiography, systematic FFR-guided assessment of coronary artery disease would be superior, in terms of resource use and quality of life, to assessment by angiography alone. Methods: We performed an open-label, randomized, controlled trial in 17 UK centers, recruiting 1100 patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography for the investigation of stable angina or non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Patients were randomized to either angiography alone (angiography) or angiography with systematic pressure wire assessment of all epicardial vessels >2.25 mm in diameter (angiography+FFR). The coprimary outcomes assessed at 1 year were National Health Service hospital costs and quality of life. Prespecified secondary outcomes included clinical events. Results: In the angiography+FFR arm, the median number of vessels examined was 4 (interquartile range, 3–5). The median hospital costs were similar: angiography, £4136 (interquartile range, £2613–£7015); and angiography+FFR, £4510 (£2721–£7415; P =0.137). There was no difference in median quality of life using the visual analog scale of the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L: angiography, 75 (interquartile range, 60–87); and angiography+FFR, 75 (interquartile range, 60–90; P =0.88). The number of clinical events was as follows: deaths, 5 versus 8; strokes, 3 versus 4; myocardial infarctions, 23 versus 22; and unplanned revascularizations, 26 versus 33, with a composite hierarchical event rate of 8.7% (48 of 552) for angiography versus 9.5% (52 of 548) for angiography+FFR ( P =0.64). Conclusions: A strategy of systematic FFR assessment compared with angiography alone did not result in a significant reduction in cost or improvement in quality of life. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01070771.

ImportanceUltrasound renal denervation (uRDN) was shown to lower blood pressure (BP) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (HTN). Establishing the magnitude and consistency of the uRDN effect across the HTN spectrum is clinically important.ObjectiveTo characterize the effectiveness and safety of uRDN vs a sham procedure from individual patient-level pooled data across uRDN trials including either patients with mild to moderate HTN on a background of no medications or with HTN resistant to standardized triple-combination therapy.Data SourcesA Study of the ReCor Medical Paradise System in Clinical Hypertension (RADIANCE-HTN SOLO and TRIO) and A Study of the ReCor Medical Paradise System in Stage II Hypertension (RADIANCE II) trials.Study SelectionTrials with similar designs, standardized operational implementation (medication standardization and blinding of both patients and physicians to treatment assignment), and follow-up.Data Extraction and SynthesisPooled analysis using individual patient-level data using linear regression models to compare uRDN with sham across the trials.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was baseline-adjusted change in 2-month daytime ambulatory systolic BP (dASBP) between groups.ResultsA total of 506 patients were randomized in the 3 studies (uRDN, 293; sham, 213; mean [SD] age, 54.1 [9.3]; 354 male [70.0%]). After a 1-month medication stabilization period, dASBP was similar between the groups (mean [SD], uRDN, 150.3 [9.2] mm Hg; sham, 150.8 [10.5] mm Hg). At 2 months, dASBP decreased by 8.5 mm Hg to mean (SD) 141.8 (13.8) mm Hg among patients treated with uRDN and by 2.9 mm Hg to 147.9 (14.6) mm Hg among patients treated with a sham procedure (mean difference, −5.9; 95% CI, −8.1 to −3.8 mm Hg; P &amp;lt; .001 in favor of uRDN). BP decreases from baseline with uRDN vs sham were consistent across trials and across BP parameters (office SBP: −10.4 mm Hg vs −3.4 mm Hg; mean difference, −6.4 mm Hg; 95% CI, −9.1 to –3.6 mm Hg; home SBP: −8.4 mm Hg vs −1.4 mm Hg; mean difference, −6.8 mm Hg; 95% CI, −8.7 to −4.9 mm Hg, respectively). The BP reductions with uRDN vs sham were consistent across prespecified subgroups. Independent predictors of a larger BP response to uRDN were higher baseline BP and heart rate and the presence of orthostatic hypertension. No differences in early safety end points were observed between groups.Conclusions and RelevanceResults of this patient-level pooled analysis suggest that BP reductions with uRDN were consistent across HTN severity in sham-controlled trials designed with a 2-month primary end point to standardize medications across randomized groups.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02649426 and NCT03614260

No abstract