Humanitas University

Diversity and plasticity are hallmarks of cells of the monocyte-macrophage lineage. In response to IFNs, Toll-like receptor engagement, or IL-4/IL-13 signaling, macrophages undergo M1 (classical) or M2 (alternative) activation, which represent extremes of a continuum in a universe of activation states. Progress has now been made in defining the signaling pathways, transcriptional networks, and epigenetic mechanisms underlying M1-M2 or M2-like polarized activation. Functional skewing of mononuclear phagocytes occurs in vivo under physiological conditions (e.g., ontogenesis and pregnancy) and in pathology (allergic and chronic inflammation, tissue repair, infection, and cancer). However, in selected preclinical and clinical conditions, coexistence of cells in different activation states and unique or mixed phenotypes have been observed, a reflection of dynamic changes and complex tissue-derived signals. The identification of mechanisms and molecules associated with macrophage plasticity and polarized activation provides a basis for macrophage-centered diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Importance: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) emerged in China and has spread globally, creating a pandemic. Information about the clinical characteristics of infected patients who require intensive care is limited. Objective: To characterize patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) in the Lombardy region of Italy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective case series of 1591 consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 referred for ICU admission to the coordinator center (Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy) of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network and treated at one of the ICUs of the 72 hospitals in this network between February 20 and March 18, 2020. Date of final follow-up was March 25, 2020. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay of nasal and pharyngeal swabs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic and clinical data were collected, including data on clinical management, respiratory failure, and patient mortality. Data were recorded by the coordinator center on an electronic worksheet during telephone calls by the staff of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network. Results: Of the 1591 patients included in the study, the median (IQR) age was 63 (56-70) years and 1304 (82%) were male. Of the 1043 patients with available data, 709 (68%) had at least 1 comorbidity and 509 (49%) had hypertension. Among 1300 patients with available respiratory support data, 1287 (99% [95% CI, 98%-99%]) needed respiratory support, including 1150 (88% [95% CI, 87%-90%]) who received mechanical ventilation and 137 (11% [95% CI, 9%-12%]) who received noninvasive ventilation. The median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 14 (IQR, 12-16) cm H2O, and Fio2 was greater than 50% in 89% of patients. The median Pao2/Fio2 was 160 (IQR, 114-220). The median PEEP level was not different between younger patients (n = 503 aged ≤63 years) and older patients (n = 514 aged ≥64 years) (14 [IQR, 12-15] vs 14 [IQR, 12-16] cm H2O, respectively; median difference, 0 [95% CI, 0-0]; P = .94). Median Fio2 was lower in younger patients: 60% (IQR, 50%-80%) vs 70% (IQR, 50%-80%) (median difference, -10% [95% CI, -14% to 6%]; P = .006), and median Pao2/Fio2 was higher in younger patients: 163.5 (IQR, 120-230) vs 156 (IQR, 110-205) (median difference, 7 [95% CI, -8 to 22]; P = .02). Patients with hypertension (n = 509) were older than those without hypertension (n = 526) (median [IQR] age, 66 years [60-72] vs 62 years [54-68]; P < .001) and had lower Pao2/Fio2 (median [IQR], 146 [105-214] vs 173 [120-222]; median difference, -27 [95% CI, -42 to -12]; P = .005). Among the 1581 patients with ICU disposition data available as of March 25, 2020, 920 patients (58% [95% CI, 56%-61%]) were still in the ICU, 256 (16% [95% CI, 14%-18%]) were discharged from the ICU, and 405 (26% [95% CI, 23%-28%]) had died in the ICU. Older patients (n = 786; age ≥64 years) had higher mortality than younger patients (n = 795; age ≤63 years) (36% vs 15%; difference, 21% [95% CI, 17%-26%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICUs in Lombardy, Italy, the majority were older men, a large proportion required mechanical ventilation and high levels of PEEP, and ICU mortality was 26%.

The purpose of these guidelines is to assist physicians in recommending, performing, interpreting and reporting the results of FDG PET/CT for oncological imaging of adult patients. PET is a quantitative imaging technique and therefore requires a common quality control (QC)/quality assurance (QA) procedure to maintain the accuracy and precision of quantitation. Repeatability and reproducibility are two essential requirements for any quantitative measurement and/or imaging biomarker. Repeatability relates to the uncertainty in obtaining the same result in the same patient when he or she is examined more than once on the same system. However, imaging biomarkers should also have adequate reproducibility, i.e. the ability to yield the same result in the same patient when that patient is examined on different systems and at different imaging sites. Adequate repeatability and reproducibility are essential for the clinical management of patients and the use of FDG PET/CT within multicentre trials. A common standardised imaging procedure will help promote the appropriate use of FDG PET/CT imaging and increase the value of publications and, therefore, their contribution to evidence-based medicine. Moreover, consistency in numerical values between platforms and institutes that acquire the data will potentially enhance the role of semiquantitative and quantitative image interpretation. Precision and accuracy are additionally important as FDG PET/CT is used to evaluate tumour response as well as for diagnosis, prognosis and staging. Therefore both the previous and these new guidelines specifically aim to achieve standardised uptake value harmonisation in multicentre settings.

INTRODUCTION Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection (1). Sepsis and septic shock are major healthcare problems, impacting millions of people around the world each year and killing between one in three and one in six of those it affects (2–4). Early identification and appropriate management in the initial hours after the development of sepsis improve outcomes. The recommendations in this document are intended to provide guidance for the clinician caring for adult patients with sepsis or septic shock in the hospital setting. Recommendations from these guidelines cannot replace the clinician’s decision-making capability when presented with a unique patient’s clinical variables. These guidelines are intended to reflect best practice (Table 1). TABLE 1. - Table of Current Recommendations and Changes From Previous 2016 Recommendations Recommendations 2021 Recommendation Strength and Quality of Evidence Changes From 2016 Recommendations 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong , moderate-quality evidence (for screening) Changed from Best practice statement “We recommend that hospitals and hospital systems have a performance improvement program for sepsis including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients.” Strong , very low-quality evidence (for standard operating procedures) 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a single-screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong , moderate-quality evidence NEW 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence INITIAL RESUSCITATION 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice statement 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hr of resuscitation. Weak, low quality of evidence DOWNGRADE from Strong , low quality of evidence “We recommend that in the initial resuscitation from sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid be given within the first 3 hr” 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation, over physical examination, or static parameters alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong , moderate-quality evidence ADMISSION TO INTENSIVE CARE 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice statement For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within hr of Strong , low quality of evidence from “We recommend that of should be as as after and within one for septic shock and sepsis Strong , very low quality of evidence , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice statement For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hr from the time when sepsis first Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice statement NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for as compared to one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence We on the of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for an initial over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of on and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend or a of infection that and as as and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of that are a of sepsis or septic shock after other Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest for of over using of for Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using over of Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and of is we suggest using clinical to when to over clinical alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using as fluid for resuscitation. Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for resuscitation. Weak , low quality of evidence from , low quality of “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using in patients who of Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend against using for resuscitation. Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we suggest against using for resuscitation. Weak , moderate-quality evidence from , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic For adults with septic shock, we recommend using as the over other Strong evidence evidence quality of evidence quality of evidence low-quality evidence For adults with septic shock on with mean arterial pressure we suggest of the of Weak , quality evidence For adults with septic shock and mean arterial pressure and we suggest Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest to or using alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock, we suggest of arterial blood pressure over as as and are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest to mean arterial pressure a is Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of fluid in the first hr of resuscitation in patients with sepsis and septic shock who have of hypoperfusion and after the initial resuscitation. NEW “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence is evidence to a on the of in adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest the of over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of in to for adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using a low over a Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using an for of 30 over higher Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with to sepsis-induced we suggest using higher over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using low as compared with Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence using we recommend against using Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using for hr Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis induced we suggest using over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using when in with the in to Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and an for we suggest using IV Weak , moderate-quality evidence from Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest against using IV to septic shock patients fluid resuscitation and are to for this is not we suggest IV at a of For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We the of blood is evidence to a on the of other blood For adults with sepsis or septic shock we recommend using a Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, and who have for we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using a to Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using low over for Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using in to over alone. Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using or Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and with for we suggest against using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend at a of Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and we suggest against using to improve or to Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and and or we suggest using Weak , low quality of evidence For adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who be we suggest of Weak , very low quality of evidence CARE For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of and with patients and over Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest of over hr or Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on to of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend that the of on clinician be the treatment when to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against for patients over on clinician Weak , low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest to over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using a of at of over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on the of tool over For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend screening for and and and to these Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest and sepsis and to hospital and in the setting. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend the clinical provide the to in in and hospital to are and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis and septic shock and we suggest using a compared with to the Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we recommend at and hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis and septic shock and we recommend including the sepsis and and after sepsis in the and hospital Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock who we recommend hospital with to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and is evidence to a on compared with For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a for or against For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend and for and after hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we suggest to a program Weak , very low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock for or an of we suggest to a Weak , very low quality of evidence are to in the be at for Sepsis and - Recommendation 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong quality of evidence for Strong very low-quality evidence for standard operating Sepsis performance improvement of sepsis of sepsis and for a of on the of performance improvement that these with to sepsis with a in in patients with sepsis and septic shock The of performance improvement not to be as as the of a program that sepsis screening and Sepsis screening are to identification of sepsis and of or of the health is in of these with having the of with in of clinical and are for sepsis as response of or Early or Early improve performance of screening and in a of patients from for hospital sepsis the the operating and higher for the for screening as MEWS and target patients in as or of three not a of screening is in and of sepsis screening are an of sepsis for operating procedures are a of that a response to clinical Sepsis standard operating as Early have to a standard with of the sepsis and the between of sepsis and of sepsis to hospitals in the in a and after of sepsis with a from other this time in hospitals with higher with the sepsis a of in higher with standard operating procedures compared with it in one - Recommendation 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong moderate-quality The qSOFA three to and in patients with or suspected a a and a blood pressure mm of these are the is qSOFA to the recommendations of the on the of Sepsis qSOFA as a of in patients with or suspected to as a screening tool that time have the of the qSOFA as a screening tool for sepsis The have as to have that qSOFA is having of for identification of infection induced organ dysfunction qSOFA are screening for sepsis and the clinician to the of the that of patients a qSOFA or these patients for of have when against the Early and the Early the of a qSOFA should the clinician to the of sepsis in given the of the the a against as a screening - Recommendation 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak low-quality The of lactate with in patients with suspected infection and sepsis is is as of the sepsis for those patients with sepsis and an elevated lactate is of the of septic shock that lactate be to for the of sepsis adult patients with suspected not have the of lactate in this The lactate an elevated from of the from with from and from the three are and an between the of lactate at and the are the of an elevated or lactate or the of a of sepsis in patients with suspected lactate is to or the on not be in we a the of serum lactate as an to the of sepsis in patients with suspected not - Recommendations 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hours of resuscitation. Weak low-quality 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation over physical or static parameters alone. Weak very low-quality parameters response to a or a fluid using pressure or 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak low-quality resuscitation, serum lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak low-quality fluid resuscitation is for the of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion in sepsis and septic shock. Previous guidelines recommend appropriate resuscitation of sepsis or septic shock and having a low for it in those patients sepsis is not is the evidence from this is a best practice and are that a is The 2016 a for using a of 30 mL/kg of IV in initial fluid resuscitation. of initial resuscitation on evidence are for initial resuscitation in sepsis or septic shock. of adults to an with sepsis or septic shock that to 30 mL/kg of crystalloid fluid within 3 hours of sepsis with of of and of in of including and the and the of fluid in the of 30 that this fluid in clinical practice patients require fluid initial resuscitation. to be with the of fluid and with fluid of and of the of septic patients is the for a initial and of the response to treatment. and fluid the initial resuscitation should be by of and organ perfusion. pressure and blood pressure are of fluid measures have at fluid compared with static measures with fluid against pressure or and of in response to in a and dynamic to guide fluid with to of to and of to in one other in between septic patients with a compared with standard from and a of evidence in to guide of fluid resuscitation as as the appropriate in patients with sepsis and in that resuscitation with of IV by and arterial with fluid in the first hours and higher hospital standard fluid the initial 30 mL/kg is by measures of fluid of mL/kg compared to to 3 mL/kg the of fluid and on of of or not be a in pressure that the is fluid a for lactate is an of and is not a of of septic shock in lactate as evidence of to (1). Previous of these guidelines have using lactate as a target of resuscitation in the of sepsis and septic shock, on to and of in serum lactate in with or in The that serum lactate are not in patients with septic shock, these that decrease lactate lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. with sepsis lactate not be in is not measures of organ be to the and of of the and capillary refill time have and to be of The a resuscitation a resuscitation at or lactate by hours in the first hours of septic shock the organ dysfunction as by in the and in the lactate this not the of a on using resuscitation and is and this should be by and to or fluid are of the or to the should management - Recommendation 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong moderate-quality MAP is a of mean in is the major of and MAP in blood and the of perfusion. as the and have the to blood a to be mm are with organ with MAP Previous guidelines a MAP of 65 mm Hg for initial resuscitation. The on a in septic shock patients who given to target a MAP of mm a target of mm Hg in a a in with higher MAP patients with higher MAP with with a higher of of this that the MAP in the of on this that higher MAP not improve in septic shock to and MAP target compared a mm with a that and MAP by the in patients 65 and with septic shock The in this a mean MAP of mm compared with mm Hg in the to in the by of and in in the and the of with higher MAP and the of patients with MAP of mm the a MAP of 65 mm Hg in the initial resuscitation of patients with septic shock who require to - Recommendation 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak low-quality The of patients on of in an appropriate the septic patients are in the and hospital of patients from are with sepsis and and and hospital of on the time for to the from and an of an in of for each of to of patients in the a higher hospital for the higher to time hr and compared with the to time for of an to time hr with hospital in patients with higher of with sepsis not patients to when hours hospital the a hospital higher and higher of and of patients in hospitals in the that to to higher and on of patients to an in outcomes. is evidence of and are best in an are of patients with sepsis to an not be in in and be this and appropriate treatment should not be of of - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice of these we the of a for to it is to in a a best practice we that appropriate should be in patients with suspected sepsis and septic shock it in in the of not in this as as The and of sepsis are and other is to sepsis, the cannot have a of sepsis in a with organ a or of patients with sepsis to have Best practice is to the to other are or a patient’s clinical after hospital or the of a of this be in when it is to or major is a that to on the that the is each as in and of the that by or in each in of or that the for a in the or a We not or evidence this are to a an that not from is or this is not of the should the of patients and patients that is not to - Recommendations For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within one of Strong low quality of evidence very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice and clinical examination, for and of and treatment for that this should be within 3 hours of that a be as to the of an of the patient’s and the of sepsis is to be For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hours from the time when sepsis first Weak very low quality of For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak very low quality of Early of appropriate is one of the to in patients with sepsis to patients with sepsis or septic shock should be as an The to provide as as be against the with to patients infection These a of as or and sepsis is as sepsis in and that first to be sepsis to be the of infection and of for each with suspected sepsis should the and of The with in patients with septic shock, have a between time to and in patients with septic shock in patients septic shock a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients for patients not on a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients with sepsis at least one of or or organ and for patients with septic to a for sepsis and a for septic shock in a of patients in each in time from to of with of and of in patients with in patients not an between and should be that the and at of to the of with or other patients with sepsis shock, the between time to and within the first hours from is have one to a in between and the other in a in time to suggest that after hours from hospital sepsis We suggest in patients with sepsis shock as as sepsis to be the and 3 hours after sepsis first suspected for sepsis at that given the of with septic shock and the of and the a to and within one in patients with septic shock. for patients with sepsis, we recommend be 1). For patients with sepsis shock, we recommend a of and of be to within 3 should be or should be to the Recommendations on of from suggest that of in patients with sepsis and septic shock is and and of a of in The and time for by and the of and of on is to recommendations to the of in patients with sepsis and septic shock in are in with the recommendations to - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak very low quality of is in in response to in with clinical the of and of a of 30 a of and of for sepsis in patients We evidence from three that compared for of the three in to of to or of to and not in of the and on the with of the and the quality of evidence very guidelines for the management of recommend of for patients with of and in including the a against using to guide in to clinical - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak low quality of The on to an against in an treatment for sepsis and septic shock the that the patient’s infection is caused by the of with treatment for in a with and the of with treatment in a for of patients and be to The of by from in to in and by for of infection or IV of or of hospital and of on the of including in on patients with the of in patients with of hours are with in not in patients with or sepsis, including against with higher patients The with are by an between of and in patients with or to for in a with be in a be from including the of to for are and on and clinical for are - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for compared with one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak very low quality of the of in of the world and between in and the initial of is to the at least one that is against the the and are the of on the of for and the of the and are is for patients with in a with of in or other between in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock when from the in the of of and in a low with the from the Recommendations the of one for treatment over one are given clinical including of and the of the of sepsis is to the appropriate For this we from recommendations in patients with sepsis or septic shock recommend the of on of to guide this infection or with within the of within the to a within the and within the the and are is not for patients with with and quality of evidence very and the of with the of for treatment. have an in in patients at for we suggest using for treatment to the of in patients with a low for we suggest using a for as are of using and the a of including infection and development of of is in patients at for with septic shock. - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak low quality of Sepsis and septic shock to are in and are with that of appropriate

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) have emerged as major regulators of immune responses in cancer and other pathological conditions. In recent years, ample evidence supports key contributions of MDSC to tumour progression through both immune-mediated mechanisms and those not directly associated with immune suppression. MDSC are the subject of intensive research with >500 papers published in 2015 alone. However, the phenotypic, morphological and functional heterogeneity of these cells generates confusion in investigation and analysis of their roles in inflammatory responses. The purpose of this communication is to suggest characterization standards in the burgeoning field of MDSC research.

Publicado também em: https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/53933

Mononuclear phagocyte plasticity includes the expression of functions related to the resolution of inflammation, tissue repair and remodelling, particularly when these cells are set in an M2 or an M2-like activation mode. Macrophages are credited with an essential role in remodelling during ontogenesis. In extraembryonic life, under homeostatic conditions, the macrophage trophic and remodelling functions are recapitulated in tissues such as bone, mammary gland, decidua and placenta. In pathology, macrophages are key components of tissue repair and remodelling that occur during wound healing, allergy, parasite infection and cancer. Interaction with cells bearing stem or progenitor cell properties is likely an important component of the role of macrophages in repair and remodelling. These properties of cells of the monocyte-macrophage lineage may represent a tool and a target for therapeutic exploitation.

Macrophages are a diverse set of cells present in all body compartments. This diversity is imprinted by their ontogenetic origin (embryonal versus adult bone marrow-derived cells); the organ context; by their activation or deactivation by various signals in the contexts of microbial invasion, tissue damage, and metabolic derangement; and by polarization of adaptive T cell responses. Classic adaptive responses of macrophages include tolerance, priming, and a wide spectrum of activation states, including M1, M2, or M2-like. Moreover, macrophages can retain long-term imprinting of microbial encounters (trained innate immunity). Single-cell analysis of mononuclear phagocytes in health and disease has added a new dimension to our understanding of the diversity of macrophage differentiation and activation. Epigenetic landscapes, transcription factors, and microRNA networks underlie the adaptability of macrophages to different environmental cues. Macrophage plasticity, an essential component of chronic inflammation, and its involvement in diverse human diseases, most notably cancer, is discussed here as a paradigm.

On February 20, 2020, a patient in his 30s admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in Codogno Hospital (Lodi, Lombardy, Italy) tested positive for a new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). He had a history of atypical pneumonia that was not responding to treatment, but he was not considered at risk for COVID-19 infection. he positive result was immediately reported to the Lombardy health care system and governmental offices. During the next 24 hours, the number of reported positive cases increased to 36. This situation was considered a serious development for several reasons: the patient ("patient 1") was healthy and young; in less than 24 hours, 36 additional cases were identified, without links to patient 1 or previously identified positive cases already in the country; it was not possible to identify with certainty the source of transmission to patient 1 at the time; and, because patient 1 was in the ICU and there were already 36 cases by day 2, chances were that a cluster of unknown magnitude was present and additional spread was likely.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are increasingly a cause of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma globally. This burden is expected to increase as epidemics of obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome continue to grow. The goal of this analysis was to use a Markov model to forecast NAFLD disease burden using currently available data. METHODS: A model was used to estimate NAFLD and NASH disease progression in eight countries based on data for adult prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Published estimates and expert consensus were used to build and validate the model projections. RESULTS: If obesity and DM level off in the future, we project a modest growth in total NAFLD cases (0-30%), between 2016-2030, with the highest growth in China as a result of urbanization and the lowest growth in Japan as a result of a shrinking population. However, at the same time, NASH prevalence will increase 15-56%, while liver mortality and advanced liver disease will more than double as a result of an aging/increasing population. CONCLUSIONS: NAFLD and NASH represent a large and growing public health problem and efforts to understand this epidemic and to mitigate the disease burden are needed. If obesity and DM continue to increase at current and historical rates, both NAFLD and NASH prevalence are expected to increase. Since both are reversible, public health campaigns to increase awareness and diagnosis, and to promote diet and exercise can help manage the growth in future disease burden. LAY SUMMARY: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis can lead to advanced liver disease. Both conditions are becoming increasingly prevalent as the epidemics of obesity and diabetes continue to increase. A mathematical model was built to understand how the disease burden associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis will change over time. Results suggest increasing cases of advanced liver disease and liver-related mortality in the coming years.

This new diagnostic consensus guideline is a joint project of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology [ESGAR] that now merges the former ECCO-ESGAR Imaging Guideline and the former ECCO Endoscopy Guideline, also including laboratory parameters. It has been drafted by 30 ECCO and ESGAR members from 17 European countries. All the authors recognize th e work of and are grateful to previous ECCO and ESGAR members who contributed tocreating the earlier consensus guidelines on imaging and endoscopy. The former guidelines have been condensed into this new diagnostic consensus guideline which consists of two papers: the first detailing assessment at initial diagnosis, to monitor treat ment and for the detection of complications; the second dealing with the available scoring systems and general considerations regarding the different diagnostic tools. The strategy to define consensus was similar to that previously described in other ECCO consensus guidelines [available at www.ecco-ibd.eu]. Briefly, an open call for participants was made, with ECCO participants selected by the Guidelines’ Committee of ECCO [known as GuiCom] on the basis of their publication record and a personal statement and ESGAR participants nominated by ESGAR. The following working parties were established: diagnostics at initial diagnosis, diagnostics for monitoring treatment in patients with known IBD, diagnostics for the detect ion of complications, scores for IBD, and general principles and technical aspects. Provisional guideline statements and supporting text were written following a comprehensive literature review, then refined following two voting rounds. The first voting round introduced a more comprehensive voting procedure, in which each Guidelines participants voted on all statements by explicitly reviewing those statements together with their respective supporting text and references. The second voting round included optional national representative participation of ECCO’s 36 member countries and ESGAR’s 28 member countries. The level of evidence was graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine [www.cebm.net]. The ECCO statements were finalized by the authors at a face-to-face meeting in Barcelona in October 2017 and represent consensus with agreement of at least 80% of the present participants. Consensus statements are intended to be read in context with their qualifying comments and not in isolation. The supporting text was then finalised under the direction of each working group leader [SV, TK, GF, VA, EC], before being integrated by the consensus leaders [CM, JS, AS].

Importance: Many patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are critically ill and require care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Objective: To evaluate the independent risk factors associated with mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring treatment in ICUs in the Lombardy region of Italy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, observational cohort study included 3988 consecutive critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 referred for ICU admission to the coordinating center (Fondazione IRCCS [Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico] Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy) of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network from February 20 to April 22, 2020. Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was confirmed by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay of nasopharyngeal swabs. Follow-up was completed on May 30, 2020. Exposures: Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, long-term medications, and ventilatory support at ICU admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to death in days from ICU admission to hospital discharge. The independent risk factors associated with mortality were evaluated with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Of the 3988 patients included in this cohort study, the median age was 63 (interquartile range [IQR] 56-69) years; 3188 (79.9%; 95% CI, 78.7%-81.1%) were men, and 1998 of 3300 (60.5%; 95% CI, 58.9%-62.2%) had at least 1 comorbidity. At ICU admission, 2929 patients (87.3%; 95% CI, 86.1%-88.4%) required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The median follow-up was 44 (95% CI, 40-47; IQR, 11-69; range, 0-100) days; median time from symptoms onset to ICU admission was 10 (95% CI, 9-10; IQR, 6-14) days; median length of ICU stay was 12 (95% CI, 12-13; IQR, 6-21) days; and median length of IMV was 10 (95% CI, 10-11; IQR, 6-17) days. Cumulative observation time was 164 305 patient-days. Hospital and ICU mortality rates were 12 (95% CI, 11-12) and 27 (95% CI, 26-29) per 1000 patients-days, respectively. In the subgroup of the first 1715 patients, as of May 30, 2020, 865 (50.4%) had been discharged from the ICU, 836 (48.7%) had died in the ICU, and 14 (0.8%) were still in the ICU; overall, 915 patients (53.4%) died in the hospital. Independent risk factors associated with mortality included older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.60-1.92), male sex (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.31-1.88), high fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19), high positive end-expiratory pressure (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) or low Pao2:Fio2 ratio (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87) on ICU admission, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.28-2.19), hypercholesterolemia (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.52), and type 2 diabetes (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.39). No medication was independently associated with mortality (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.97-1.42; angiotensin receptor blockers HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.29). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients admitted to ICUs in Lombardy, Italy, with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, most patients required IMV. The mortality rate and absolute mortality were high.

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

BACKGROUND: A single, high priming dose of tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated antigen 4) plus durvalumab (anti–programmed cell death ligand-1), an infusion regimen termed STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab), showed encouraging clinical activity and safety in a phase 2 trial of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, open-label, phase 3 trial, the majority of the patients we enrolled with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and no previous systemic treatment were randomly assigned to receive one of three regimens: tremelimumab (300 mg, one dose) plus durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks; STRIDE), durvalumab (1500 mg every 4 weeks), or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). The primary objective was overall survival for STRIDE versus sorafenib. Noninferiority for overall survival for durvalumab versus sorafenib was a secondary objective. RESULTS: In total, 1171 patients were randomly assigned to STRIDE (n=393), durvalumab (n=389), or sorafenib (n=389). The median overall survival was 16.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.16 to 19.58) with STRIDE, 16.56 months (95% CI, 14.06 to 19.12) with durvalumab, and 13.77 months (95% CI, 12.25 to 16.13) with sorafenib. Overall survival at 36 months was 30.7%, 24.7%, and 20.2%, respectively. The overall survival hazard ratio for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (96.02% CI, 0.65 to 0.93; P=0.0035). Overall survival with durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95.67% CI, 0.73 to 1.03; noninferiority margin, 1.08). Median progression-free survival was not significantly different among all three groups. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred for 50.5% of patients with STRIDE, 37.1% with durvalumab, and 52.4% with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE significantly improved overall survival versus sorafenib. Durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03298451.)

This evidence- and consensus-based guideline was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. The conference was held on 1 December 2016. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the EU-founded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO) with the participation of 48 delegates of 42 national and international societies. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell-driven disease, presenting with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous urticaria and other chronic forms of urticaria are disabling, impair quality of life and affect performance at work and school. This guideline covers the definition and classification of urticaria, taking into account the recent progress in identifying its causes, eliciting factors and pathomechanisms. In addition, it outlines evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria.

Crohn’s disease [CD] is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] that can result in progressive bowel damage and disability.1 CD can affect individuals of any age, from children to the elderly,2,3 and may cause significant morbidity and impact on quality of life. Up to one-third of patients present with complicated behaviour [strictures, fistula, or abscesses] at diagnosis.4 Most patients over time will develop a complication, with roughly 50% of patients requiring surgery within 10 years of diagnosis.5–7 As the precise aetiology of CD remains unknown, a curative therapy is not yet available.8 Several agents are available for the medical treatment of CD. Medical agents include mesalazine [5-ASA], locally active steroids [such as budesonide], systemic steroids, thiopurines such as azathioprine [AZA] and mercaptopurine [MP], methotrexate [MTX], and biologic therapies (such as anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF], anti-integrins, and anti-interleukin [IL] 12/23]. The European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] produces and regularly updates several guidelines aimed at providing evidence-based guidance on critical aspects of IBD care to all health care professionals who manage patients with IBD. To provide high-quality evidence-based recommendations on medical treatment in CD, ECCO decided to develop these guidelines by adopting the GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation] approach.9 GRADE is a systematic process for developing guidelines which addresses how to frame the health care questions, summarise the evidence, formulate the recommendations, and grade their strength and the quality of the associated evidence. GRADE increases transparency at all levels of this process and makes explicit the three considerations that lead to a particular recommendation: the quality of the evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, and the patients’ values and preferences. Therefore ECCO reviewed the available high-quality evidence on the medical management of CD and developed evidence-based recommendations on the medical treatment of adult patients with CD. These guidelines do not cover specific situations, such as postoperative management of adult patients with CD, which was already covered in the latest ECCO Guidelines on Crohn’s disease.10 Based on the GRADE workflow, the Guidelines Committee of ECCO [GuiCom] selected a panel of 48 experts supported by a team of methodologists and librarians. Selection was based on IBD expertise, scientific background, and knowledge of the GRADE methodology. All panellists received adequate training in GRADE before starting the process. Additionally, four patients with CD representing the European Federation of Crohn’s and Colitis Associations [EFCCA] were invited to participate in all face-to-face meetings and to provide their experiences and state their preferences. Three domains for medical treatment of CD were identified: 1] induction therapy; 2] maintenance therapy; 3] therapy of fistulising perianal disease. All panellists were assigned to one of three working groups coordinated by one to two working group leaders under the supervision of two Guideline coordinators. The panellists first formulated a series of specific questions using the PICO format [Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes] which were deemed to be clinically important for the medical treatment of CD. The outcomes of all PICO questions were subsequently graded as ‘not important’, ‘important’, or ‘critical’ during a face-to-face kick-off meeting in Vienna, using a Delphi consensus process. A team of professional librarians performed a comprehensive literature search on EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Central databases using specific search strings for each PICO question [Supplementary Files 1, 2, and 3, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. Two independent working group members [one assigned to the PICO and another one from the same group as a second reviewer] assessed the relevance of each abstract to PICO and included or excluded all the relevant papers for the final data extraction and analysis. Subsequently, the working group members assigned to each PICO question systematically reviewed and summarised the evidence on every outcome, to compile a Summary of Findings [SoF] table for each question. The GRADE method follows a hierarchical approach to synthesise evidence; recent high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials were preferentially used to create the recommendations. When these were not available, individual randomised clinical trials [RCTs] followed by observational studies were reviewed; results of individual studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis as appropriate and when needed. To define disease activity and severity [mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe], we accepted the definitions used by the investigators of the studies selected as an evidence basis for our work. The quality of evidence was classified into the following four categories in accordance with the GRADE approach: ‘high’ [meaning that further research is unlikely to change our in the research may change our in the research to change our in the and [meaning that any of is each PICO the quality of evidence was to the quality of evidence outcomes graded as The strength of each was graded as [meaning the of an the or or as [meaning the balance is the quality of evidence, values or and the outcomes were not in the clinical this was in the To the recommendations, we from the systematic reviews or our group of methodologists performed the All recommendations were to by the panel the ECCO for each with and from a of ECCO members who to the were not selected to be of the The final of all was panel members during a final consensus meeting in and to a final recommendations were at of the panellists with the and associated strength The of the and and the of the were reviewed by two Guideline Committee members and by the ECCO who the final of these The literature search the relevant definitions of and a of the and the the evidence can be in the Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC As CD is a therapy to in the and in the The that chronic and results in to a recent in medical treatment and disease is that and may patients to their and therapy are to high-quality evidence is not available to this affect the of medical These include disease disease activity and to and of perianal or fistulising the individual for and the individual and the and of each be As is a clinical and is of to disease and therapy at based on and approach will provide the with the to therapy the of of the disease and which is to be to disease to the management of CD a series of health care maintenance be to be and be and appropriate guidance or for and be as in ECCO or the of for induction of of Crohn’s disease performed a meta-analysis of that the of or with in patients with active CD [Supplementary 1, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The of from to patients with disease with or disease were was significant for induction of clinical [Supplementary 1, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. A recent Cochrane significant and to be in our as was significant in to when with [Supplementary 2, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. the trials of was over for clinical [Supplementary 3, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. significant in to was in trials that [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. meta-analysis a significant on clinical the that at of another meta-analysis was to any such A pooled of three trials of a of a in the Crohn’s with the in and was not clinically Two trials with for induction of clinical A pooled a of [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. was not by any significant in for [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. in trials that the of was to patients with The of or for the treatment of CD not in using for the induction of clinical in patients with active Crohn’s disease to the A Cochrane systematic and included three that at a of with [Supplementary 2, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. Two of these clinical as in or at at was in all three was to for clinical and clinical in patients with active CD in the to the As with steroids which are associated with systemic activity and systemic and and a was to be in the reviewed A Cochrane systematic and meta-analysis from reviewed two that at a of with mesalazine to a mesalazine in patients with active CD [Supplementary 3, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. All trials clinical in or and clinical at was not to mesalazine for clinical in patients with active CD in the [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. clinical was in patients in patients mesalazine [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The of was with and in groups [Supplementary and available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. studies the of treatment on CD. and to clinical or with the of these the European on the of to or Therefore a was not on to CD, for the treatment of patients with Crohn’s we the of systemic for the induction of clinical and Two on the of systemic or with for the treatment of active available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. was at a of 48 and on a basis to and of from to with a of is at over an from these studies in a Cochrane systematic patients on induction of clinical was in patients as with were to be as in clinical in the two studies patients on the of patients from the of systemic was available from one patients with The of was in patients with included of and in patients with and in was for the outcomes to which a quality of evidence the of thiopurines as for the induction of of Crohn’s disease Several studies on the of thiopurines with for induction of and in [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. trials the of thiopurines for induction of clinical in with or patients were The active was in four of these and the active was in the The trials were in of of active and of for of the trials for the of The pooled was performed on an basis and for induction of thiopurines and in the active with in the group Three trials on clinical not with of disease these of of disease were of the patients as with of clinical The of clinical was was and to data and the quality of evidence was for this [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. one on during The pooled of any was not and thiopurines were in two of of developed The quality of evidence was deemed to a of and on a quality of The groups was at for and for of the trials on at the of the induction data were available that for a pooled trials in of such as or in thiopurines as with a of at and at and for the thiopurines and a of in the group and a significant in in and one relevant was this patients with active CD were randomised to of or for with a of at that was over a [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. a of patients with were in clinical The of treatment for and was in with this is by and such as the of studies were that for the induction of of CD. was in the the of for CD and the decided to Three and studies the of and thiopurines for induction of in [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. These studies used and of Two studies used at of and and one used at All patients were and received systemic steroids at of the individual studies or the pooled a significant in the to [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. the of is with the data are and the quality of evidence is for can be Based on the evidence, on a for the of for clinical in patients with CD not be may be as an for patients with disease when be The to therapy in patients a be the of and to in patients with Crohn’s disease who not to therapy are and therapies for the treatment of CD include and is not in the European for CD, is available in and is a at a of at 2, and during induction and every is a at a of and followed by every is a at a of at 2, and followed by every on agents and from several meta-analyses of their for induction of clinical and clinical [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC in patients who not adequate or were to data were available for the induction two studies a the evidence was to on clinical were and data on were by to the of patients included in the meta-analysis on outcomes and and and quality of are was in of The of on and in a that with and were to for induction of The of of biologic agents is a of that patients with fistulising perianal complicated from the of to a of or of agents be the first in disease these results are based on from clinical the of and thiopurines over to clinical and one the of therapy of with as with for the induction of clinical in patients to therapies [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. this therapy was not to for clinical therapy was associated with at this was at the of was in to associated with therapy the of used in this was the used in CD patients of therapy with a when starting to in patients with Crohn’s who an to therapy The and Crohn’s the of with over in patients to who to to steroids or [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. therapy in of clinical at as with therapy was to result in at this was in for were of in therapy A in clinical is patients who or an to thiopurines and in therapy is in such maintenance in with the benefits in of A of of the of therapy starting therapy in this be in the of evidence, an approach be for induction of in patients with Crohn’s disease with to therapy to therapy high-quality is an that to the by the and CD, induction be using a of systematic and meta-analysis pooled the results from in which was with for induction of in patients with active available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. patients with or induction of clinical and induction of clinical at were and a meta-analysis was an of clinical of [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The quality of evidence was The of clinical was [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The quality of evidence was CD patients that of patients at as with of The quality of evidence was on or The pooled of any was not and [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. the pooled of any was not and [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC the quality of evidence was The of to be for induction of and in patients with Crohn’s disease with to therapy to therapy is a that by the in is at a of at 2, and for and every who do not at can from an at Three randomised trials patients with or on induction of clinical induction of clinical and in adult patients with active available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. in these studies were followed for to 10 was in patients with [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. clinical was in patients with [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The quality of evidence for these outcomes was of with were not with [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The quality of evidence for this was to from the of or for the treatment of active Crohn’s disease in patients who therapy systematic and meta-analysis performed an of and for induction of in patients with active CD who were or to a of patients with or on induction of clinical and clinical [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The pooled of clinical and clinical were not and the quality of evidence was for a of patients with or on or The pooled of any was not and the pooled of any was not and the quality of evidence was surgery be as an in is for the induction of in patients with CD, as a and of at or a or a Crohn’s of with and is a knowledge on how to CD in of the the and or in patients with disease. Therefore the is to the who the individual and of systemic steroids are in in CD, are by important Additionally, of not disease Therefore we that the of or to steroids the of 10 or within of starting steroids, a within of steroids, or the for a of in all a are not in thiopurines a of and are for in CD patients are with steroids at the of patients with a of steroids and in at and is associated with a of this may be medical and surgery are not or are associated with individual patients with CD as a or with or to therapy we the of These include agents [such as and or All these agents are in and CD The on and and the induction of in the of with thiopurines is for of therapy over was in the performed to The the of or the of and over or in with this be and in The for the of Crohn’s that the of with in patients at of as with a was associated with of and for surgery in patients with A that is associated with to clinical the and of therapy to be a in in the therapy not to be associated with at in the a that therapy is associated with for and as with Therefore the is to the who and to be as specific such as the at for or and at for specific such as patients who or are is evidence on the and in patients with or as a first assessed the and of these agents when used in therapy as with to be in the in was in patients with in patients with CD with disease or to at one surgery be as an the of a for induction of and for using of clinical the or of therapy not on on the disease severity impact of disease in the individual the and for the inflammatory of and disease appropriate studies that the of over a on the of and and that for disease be studies were by this as important research the of for maintenance of in patients with Crohn’s disease for the maintenance of of CD [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. significant [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. trials that assessed and were from to with trials a of were significant in the of patients an or to or The data were and this [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. are for the maintenance of in patients with Crohn’s disease The of maintenance treatment with or to patients with CD who are in one [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. meta-analysis included data from trials and A of patients with to were included and followed for to was to in disease activity in was to for the maintenance of in patients outcomes were in four trials and a of patients followed for to The of during maintenance treatment with thiopurines was with The of in patients with thiopurines was and were the the of therapy in patients with Crohn’s disease for that the of thiopurines disease Two studies the of of the for of Crohn’s disease in and the trials [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The excluded from our table was not or the adult patients with a recent of CD were randomised to or to were to active disease in this The results were not significant for any of the critical outcomes of clinical not the two groups patients with and were in The of as and were in patients in the group and in the group methotrexate for the maintenance of in patients with Crohn’s disease on the of are from one patients were of or of for [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. with active CD, who to of treatment with were assigned to at a of or for for CD were the of patients who in was in the group in the group 50% of the patients in the group by the of the were in in the group as with the group over the observational [one and the a and patients in the group in the of the was one treatment of these of severity to treatment or from the The of was in patients with Crohn’s disease who with maintenance treatment using the same treatment is Two systematic reviews the of maintenance treatment with and to patients with CD who disease with the same [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. trials and were pooled in the meta-analysis from one was on two on and two on A of patients were included and followed for to of the studies included and one included all was as a The of with was The following values were with with and with A significant the three are pooled data available on of all as a performed in the of a Cochrane the for for and were and with is as with for the maintenance of in CD the and of do not the of that may in and observational for clinical in patients with Crohn’s disease who with at every was to in clinical in patients with CD who with [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. patients every and patients every were in clinical as with patients and was at clinical and a of with data are to the the of to clinical in patients with Crohn’s disease who with outcomes for the maintenance of with in CD patients [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC to in the induction were to every or or a of the patients were in clinical as with of A that at clinical was by of patients every and by of patients every as with in the The treatment every and was and was treatment every and Therefore was every or was in of patients of patients The pooled of any was not patients who were and are data on as this was assessed in a of patients at was significant in patients in the group as with patients in the treatment were during the of were and with significant in the and was an of in the maintenance groups patients in and data are to the are randomised trials or with agents for the maintenance of clinical in patients with CD who or with the same A included trials used the to define clinical with The a time of All were the the the quality of evidence was specific was the in the maintenance Based on is evidence to to or in patients who to induction treatment with any or is a to that and to trials that for the of who from a biologic over the Crohn’s disease patients in clinical under is evidence to for or the of to clinical outcomes as to care from two with a of patients with CD were used to this [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. These two of over clinically based for any of our critical clinical [one clinical [one [one [one or [one the a of IBD patients with to maintenance therapy were randomised to or groups were or to a and of the that in patients in clinical a or was in and of in clinical or at were and based the group who received during the patients with CD, with an induction therapy with and were randomised to the following three based on clinical and levels of with of or of or based on clinical The was to a was in clinical with from to in the three in in in studies important in their which the strength of our The outcomes in studies were clinical important such as and to be The in Crohn’s that is on and and that during the induction may outcomes and treatment the that with adequate of patients are Crohn’s disease patients who to an is evidence to for or the of to clinical outcomes to the of in patients on therapy with active to the of of and to clinical was with on clinical in one in a of patients with CD with were randomised to every or based on and levels using the was in clinical the group and the group [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. studies a adequate and clinical outcomes from clinical to Based on these observational recent clinical guidelines and a group of experts supported the of the quality of evidence from observational a of patients with active IBD with who and clinical were for and at a of was in of patients in the as with in the clinical was in and in the group another a of the using a of was to a at was this group and a group in which were of was significant in clinical the approach was in the evidence not an a and clinical outcomes a of thiopurines in Crohn’s disease patients in on maintenance as the of is when the treatment is our meta-analysis to the two of in CD patients in on maintenance therapy [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. from four trials were included received from to before randomised to or or to or All studies a time of to results that the of clinical is [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. meta-analysis for was the data a with of the results were not significant [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. for the be performed the data from the To the evidence for the of clinical is in of of as when the treatment was the of was not and from studies that patients treatment for are and this an important research from observational studies and for the of and in patients to treatment with The time and the of patients included in the studies of the meta-analysis are to and that may in the reviewed the literature to the approach of using thiopurines an literature we not evidence the two treatment one was of thiopurines was with thiopurines in the of therapy in patients with IBD. The was as was not to data from and CD specific was patients with Crohn’s disease who with the of and we with A Cochrane based on two the same patients who therapy with or [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. The same the of for therapy or These results are to an of in the therapy studies included and studies are to the A of when agents are with the and were as 10 in one meta-analysis of patients included in the patients with Crohn’s disease who with the of and we with the basis of a meta-analysis of studies on by the data included were the and groups to be to the relevant PICO question. The result of this not any in maintenance of clinical therapy and [Supplementary and Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. this meta-analysis was to of in the studies with a are quality data available for clinical in the which is an that follows the of patients in the on the of were in patients with or at years of The meta-analysis by which was not any in with and therapy [Supplementary available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online]. is evidence to or of therapy in Crohn’s disease patients the to therapy be and and be with the randomised

The American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (AJCC/UICC) TNM staging system provides the most reliable guidelines for the routine prognostication and treatment of colorectal carcinoma. This traditional tumour staging summarizes data on tumour burden (T), the presence of cancer cells in draining and regional lymph nodes (N) and evidence for distant metastases (M). However, it is now recognized that the clinical outcome can vary significantly among patients within the same stage. The current classification provides limited prognostic information and does not predict response to therapy. Multiple ways to classify cancer and to distinguish different subtypes of colorectal cancer have been proposed, including morphology, cell origin, molecular pathways, mutation status and gene expression-based stratification. These parameters rely on tumour-cell characteristics. Extensive literature has investigated the host immune response against cancer and demonstrated the prognostic impact of the in situ immune cell infiltrate in tumours. A methodology named 'Immunoscore' has been defined to quantify the in situ immune infiltrate. In colorectal cancer, the Immunoscore may add to the significance of the current AJCC/UICC TNM classification, since it has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor superior to the AJCC/UICC TNM classification. An international consortium has been initiated to validate and promote the Immunoscore in routine clinical settings. The results of this international consortium may result in the implementation of the Immunoscore as a new component for the classification of cancer, designated TNM-I (TNM-Immune).

Abstract Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can have viral or non-viral causes 1–5 . Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is an important driver of HCC. Immunotherapy has been approved for treating HCC, but biomarker-based stratification of patients for optimal response to therapy is an unmet need 6,7 . Here we report the progressive accumulation of exhausted, unconventionally activated CD8 + PD1 + T cells in NASH-affected livers. In preclinical models of NASH-induced HCC, therapeutic immunotherapy targeted at programmed death-1 (PD1) expanded activated CD8 + PD1 + T cells within tumours but did not lead to tumour regression, which indicates that tumour immune surveillance was impaired. When given prophylactically, anti-PD1 treatment led to an increase in the incidence of NASH–HCC and in the number and size of tumour nodules, which correlated with increased hepatic CD8 + PD1 + CXCR6 + , TOX + , and TNF + T cells. The increase in HCC triggered by anti-PD1 treatment was prevented by depletion of CD8 + T cells or TNF neutralization, suggesting that CD8 + T cells help to induce NASH–HCC, rather than invigorating or executing immune surveillance. We found similar phenotypic and functional profiles in hepatic CD8 + PD1 + T cells from humans with NAFLD or NASH. A meta-analysis of three randomized phase III clinical trials that tested inhibitors of PDL1 (programmed death-ligand 1) or PD1 in more than 1,600 patients with advanced HCC revealed that immune therapy did not improve survival in patients with non-viral HCC. In two additional cohorts, patients with NASH-driven HCC who received anti-PD1 or anti-PDL1 treatment showed reduced overall survival compared to patients with other aetiologies. Collectively, these data show that non-viral HCC, and particularly NASH–HCC, might be less responsive to immunotherapy, probably owing to NASH-related aberrant T cell activation causing tissue damage that leads to impaired immune surveillance. Our data provide a rationale for stratification of patients with HCC according to underlying aetiology in studies of immunotherapy as a primary or adjuvant treatment.

IMPORTANCE: Most patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are diagnosed with advanced disease not eligible for potentially curative therapies; therefore, new treatment options are needed. Combining nivolumab with ipilimumab may improve clinical outcomes compared with nivolumab monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced HCC who were previously treated with sorafenib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CheckMate 040 is a multicenter, open-label, multicohort, phase 1/2 study. In the nivolumab plus ipilimumab cohort, patients were randomized between January 4 and September 26, 2016. Treatment group information was blinded after randomization. Median follow-up was 30.7 months. Data cutoff for this analysis was January 2019. Patients were recruited at 31 centers in 10 countries/territories in Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients had advanced HCC (with/without hepatitis B or C) previously treated with sorafenib. A total of 148 patients were randomized (50 to arm A and 49 each to arms B and C). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to either nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, administered every 3 weeks (4 doses), followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (arm A); nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, administered every 3 weeks (4 doses), followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (arm B); or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks (arm C). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary end points were safety, tolerability, and objective response rate. Duration of response was also measured (investigator assessed with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1). RESULTS: Of 148 total participants, 120 were male (81%). Median (IQR) age was 60 (52.5-66.5). At data cutoff (January 2019), the median follow-up was 30.7 months (IQR, 29.9-34.7). Investigator-assessed objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 20%-47%) in arm A, 27% (95% CI, 15%-41%) in arm B, and 29% (95% CI, 17%-43%) in arm C. Median (range) duration of response was not reached (8.3-33.7+) in arm A and was 15.2 months (4.2-29.9+) in arm B and 21.7 months (2.8-32.7+) in arm C. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events were reported in 46 of 49 patients (94%) in arm A, 35 of 49 patients (71%) in arm B, and 38 of 48 patients (79%) in arm C; there was 1 treatment-related death (arm A; grade 5 pneumonitis). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had manageable safety, promising objective response rate, and durable responses. The arm A regimen (4 doses nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks) received accelerated approval in the US based on the results of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01658878.

Catheter ablation of AF is a very commonly performed procedure in hospitals throughout the world. Surgical ablation of AF, although less widely available than catheter-based AF ablation, is also an important therapeutic option for patients with AF at many major medical centers. This document provides an up-to-date review of the indications, techniques, and outcomes of catheter and surgical ablation of AF. Areas for which a consensus can be reached concerning AF ablation are identified, and a series of consensus definitions have been developed for use in future clinical trials of AF ablation. Also included within this document are recommendations concerning indications for AF ablation, technical performance of this procedure, and training. It is our hope to improve patient care by providing a foundation for those involved with care of patients with AF as well as those who perform AF ablation. It is recognized that this field continues to evolve rapidly and that this document will need to be updated. Successful AF ablation programs optimally should consist of a cooperative team of cardiologists, electrophysiologists, and surgeons to ensure appropriate indications, procedure selection, and follow-up.