Bioelectrochemical Organic Matter Conversion Into Hydrogen, Comparison of Different Polarization Strategies

Hydrogen plays a pivotal role in the decarbonization of the fuel industry as both an energy vector and a chemical, however most of the available technologies still heavily rely on fossil fuels and sustainable processes are still unused due to their higher operational costs. MECs are devices based on the utilization of electroactive microorganisms that can interact with polarized electrodes (usually graphite-based), using them as the final electron acceptor for their metabolism. The use of a bioanode capable of oxidizing the organic substances contained in wastewater makes it possible to utilize part of the chemical energy present in the reduced waste compounds for the generation of green hydrogen, reducing the required (theoretical) potential by 85% compared to conventional electrolysis (+1.23 V vs +0.187 V). This study aims to compare two different polarization strategies of a microbial electrolysis cell aimed at hydrogen production coupled with the oxidation of synthetic wastewater. The study clearly showed the advantage of using potentiostatic polarization over galvanostatic polarization due to lower energy consumption during the potentiostatic polarization mode. Indeed, galvanostatic polarization promoted the loss of biological activity due to kinetic limitations in the biological reactions. Consequently, water oxidation on graphite granules occurred in the anodic chamber, increasing the anodic potential up to 0.95 V vs. SHE

La vita (e la morte) nelle strutture per anziani durante la pandemia. Una ricerca qualitativa in Emilia-Romagna

La ricerca che il libro presenta, nata dalla collaborazione tra il Centro di Ricerca Relational Social Work dell'Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore e il sindacato Federazione Nazionale Pensionati CISL Emilia-Romagna, ha preso l'avvio nel primo periodo dell'emergenza sanitaria, quando si è imposta la necessità di interrogarsi sulle conseguenze sociali di quanto stava accadendo nelle residenze per anziani. Quali effetti aveva sugli ospiti l'interruzione dei contatti con l'esterno? E come hanno fatto gli operatori a non smarrire il senso relazionale del lavoro di cura? A queste e ad altre domande le autrici rispondono esponendo il disegno e la metodologia della ricerca e i dati ricavati dalle interviste a residenti, operatori e familiari; i risultati sono poi commentati dal sindacato, che illustra il proprio ruolo di sostegno e riflette, alla luce delle drammatiche esperienze recenti, sui possibili sviluppi dei servizi assistenziali. L'attenzione all'attualità e la prospettiva empirica e progettuale fanno del volume una lettura di sicuro interesse per operatori sociali e ricercatori, ma anche per chiunque viva in prima persona le complessità dell'assistenza agli anziani

Pharmacokinetics of remdesivir and GS-441524 in two critically ill patients who recovered from COVID-19

Abstract Background Remdesivir is a prodrug of the nucleoside analogue GS-441524 and is under evaluation for treatment of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. Objectives To evaluate the pharmacokinetics of remdesivir and GS-441524 in plasma, bronchoalveolar aspirate (BAS) and CSF in two critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods Remdesivir was administered at 200 mg loading dose on the first day followed by 12 days of 100 mg in two critically ill patients. Blood samples were collected immediately after (C0) and at 1 (C1) and 24 h (C24) after intravenous administration on day 3 until day 9. BAS samples were collected on Days 4, 7 and 9 from both patients while one CSF on Day 7 was obtained in one patient. Remdesivir and GS-441524 concentrations were measured in these samples using a validated UHPLC-MS/MS method. Results We observed higher concentrations of remdesivir at C0 (6- to 7-fold higher than EC50 from in vitro studies) and a notable decay at C1. GS-441524 plasma concentrations reached a peak at C1 and persisted until the next administration. Higher concentrations of GS-441524 were observed in the patient with mild renal dysfunction. Mean BAS/plasma concentration ratios of GS-441524 were 2.3% and 6.4% in Patient 1 and Patient 2, respectively. The CSF concentration found in Patient 2 was 25.7% with respect to plasma. GS-441524 levels in lung and CNS suggest compartmental differences in drug exposure. Conclusions We report the first pharmacokinetic evaluation of remdesivir and GS-441524 in recovered COVID-19 patients. Further study of the pharmacokinetic profile of remdesivir, GS-441524 and the intracellular triphosphate form are required. </jats:sec

A multi-country analysis of COVID-19 hospitalizations by vaccination status

Background: Individuals vaccinated against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), when infected, can still develop disease&nbsp;that requires hospitalization. It remains unclear whether these patients differ from hospitalized unvaccinated patients with regard to presentation, coexisting comorbidities, and outcomes. Methods: Here, we use data from an international consortium to study this&nbsp;question and assess whether differences between these groups are&nbsp;context specific. Data from 83,163 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (34,843 vaccinated, 48,320 unvaccinated) from 38 countries were analyzed. Findings: While typical symptoms were more often reported in unvaccinated patients, comorbidities, including some associated with worse prognosis in previous studies, were more common in vaccinated patients. Considerable between-country variation in both in-hospital fatality risk and vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated difference in this outcome was observed. Conclusions: These findings will inform allocation of healthcare resources in future surges as well as design of longer-term international studies to characterize changes in clinical profile of hospitalized COVID-19 patients related to vaccination history. Funding: This work was made possible by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome (215091/Z/18/Z, 222410/Z/21/Z, 225288/Z/22/Z, and 220757/Z/20/Z); the Bill&nbsp;&amp; Melinda Gates&nbsp;Foundation (OPP1209135); and the philanthropic support of the donors&nbsp;to the University of Oxford's COVID-19 Research Response Fund (0009109). Additional funders are listed in the "acknowledgments" section

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Abstract Background The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P &lt; 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men. </jats:sec

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

International audienceAbstract Background The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

International audienceBackground: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support.Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]).Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable