Search

BackgroundPrevious studies have observed that haemoglobin concentrations can be affected by type of blood collection, analysis methods and device, and that near-in-time population-based surveys report substantially different anaemia prevalence. We investigated whether differences in mean haemoglobin or prevalence of anaemia between near-in-time surveys of the same population were associated with differences in type of blood collection or analytic approach to haemoglobin measurement.MethodsWe systematically identified pairs of population-based surveys that measured haemoglobin in the same population of women of reproductive age (WRA) or preschool-aged children (PSC). Surveys were matched on geographic coverage, urban/rural place of residence, inclusion of pregnant women, time of data collection (within 18 months), and, to the extent feasible, age range. Differences in anaemia prevalence were presented graphically. Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression of difference in mean haemoglobin were carried out, with subgroups defined by comparison of type of blood collection and analytic approach within each survey pair.ResultsWe included 23 survey pairs from 17 countries for PSC and 17 survey pairs from 11 countries for WRA. Meta-regression indicates that surveys measuring haemoglobin with HemoCue® Hb 301 found higher haemoglobin concentrations than near-in-time surveys using HemoCue® Hb 201+ in non-pregnant women ((NPW); 5.8 g/L (95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.2-8.3) mean difference, n = 5 pairs) and PSC (4.3 g/L (1.4-7.2), n = 6). Surveys collecting venous blood found higher haemoglobin concentrations than near-in-time surveys collecting capillary blood in PSC (3.8 g/L (0.8-6.7), n = 8), but not NPW (0.4 g/L (-1.9-2.8), n = 9).ConclusionsBecause this study is observational, differences in haemoglobin concentrations in near-in-time surveys may be caused by other factors associated with choice of analytic approach or type of blood collected. The source or sources of differences should be clarified to improve use of surveys to prioritize and evaluate public health programs.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42022296553.

Respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 has placed focus on the lungs. Here, we present single-nucleus accessible chromatin profiles of 90,980 nuclei and matched single-nucleus transcriptomes of 46,500 nuclei in non-diseased lungs from donors of ~30 weeks gestation,~3 years and ~30 years. We mapped candidate cis-regulatory elements (cCREs) and linked them to putative target genes. We identified distal cCREs with age-increased activity linked to SARS-CoV-2 host entry gene TMPRSS2 in alveolar type 2 cells, which had immune regulatory signatures and harbored variants associated with respiratory traits. At the 3p21.31 COVID-19 risk locus, a candidate variant overlapped a distal cCRE linked to SLC6A20, a gene expressed in alveolar cells and with known functional association with the SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2. Our findings provide insight into regulatory logic underlying genes implicated in COVID-19 in individual lung cell types across age. More broadly, these datasets will facilitate interpretation of risk loci for lung diseases.

BACKGROUND: A major obstacle in translating the therapeutic potential of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells to children with central nervous system (CNS) tumors is the blood–brain barrier. To overcome this limitation, preclinical and clinical studies have supported the use of repeated, locoregional intracranial CAR T-cell delivery. However, there is limited literature available describing the process for the involvement of an investigational drug service (IDS) pharmacy, particularly in the setting of a children’s hospital with outpatient dosing for CNS tumors. OBJECTIVES: To describe Seattle Children’s Hospital’s experience in clinically producing CAR T cells and the implementation of IDS pharmacy practices used to deliver more than 300 intracranial CAR T-cell doses to children, as well as to share how we refined the processing techniques from CAR T-cell generation to the thawing of fractionated doses for intracranial delivery. METHODS: Autologous CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were collected and transduced to express HER2, EGFR, or B7-H3–specific CAR T cells. Cryopreserved CAR T cells were thawed by the IDS pharmacy before intracranial delivery to patients with recurrent/refractory CNS tumors or with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma/diffuse midline glioma. RESULTS: The use of a thaw-and-dilute procedure for cryopreserved individual CAR T-cell doses provides reliable viability and is more efficient than typical thaw-and-wash protocols. Cell viability with the thaw-and-dilute protocol was approximately 75% and was always within 10% of the viability assessed at cryopreservation. Cell viability was preserved through 6 hours after thawing, which exceeded the 1-hour time frame from thawing to infusion. CONCLUSION: As the field of adoptive immunotherapy grows and continues to bring hope to patients with fatal CNS malignancies, it is critical to focus on improving the preparatory steps for CAR T-cell delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundTo ensure that National Institutes of Health-funded research is relevant to the population's needs, specific emphasis on proportional representation of minority/sex groups into National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers' clinical research programs is reported to the NCI.MethodsEMPaCT investigators at 5 regionally diverse comprehensive cancer centers compared data reported to the NCI for their most recent Cancer Center Support Grant competitive renewal to assess and compare the centers' catchment area designations, data definitions, data elements, collection processes, reporting, and performance regarding proportional representation of race/ethnicity and sex subsets.ResultsCancer centers' catchment area definitions differed widely in terms of their cancer patient versus general population specificity, levels of specificity, and geographic coverage. Racial/ethnic categories were similar, yet were defined differently, across institutions. Patients' socioeconomic status and insurance status were inconsistently captured across the 5 centers.ConclusionsCatchment area definitions and the collection of patient-level demographic factors varied widely across the 5 comprehensive cancer centers. This challenged the assessment of success by cancer centers in accruing representative populations into the cancer research enterprise. Accrual of minorities was less than desired for at least 1 racial/ethnic subcategory at 4 of the 5 centers. Institutions should clearly and consistently declare their primary catchment area and the rationale and should report how race/ethnicity and sex are defined, determined, collected, and reported. More standardized, frequent, consistent collection, reporting, and review of these data are recommended, as is a commitment to collecting socioeconomic data, given that socioeconomic status is a primary driver of cancer disparities in the United States.

By valuing the knowledge of each discipline holistic patient-centered care can be achieved as decisions arise from expertise rather than established hierarchies. While healthcare has historically operated as a hierarchical power structure (i.e., some voices have more influence), these dynamics are rarely discussed. This review addresses this issue by appraising extant quantitative measures that assess multidisciplinary team (MDT) power dynamics. By identifying psychometrically sound measures, change agents can uncover the collective thought processes informing power structures in practice and develop strategies to mitigate power disparities. Several databases were searched. English language articles were included if they reported on quantitative measures assessing power dynamics among MDTs in acute/hospital settings. Results were synthesized using a narrative approach. In total, 6,202 search records were obtained of which 62 met the eligibility criteria. The review reveals some promising measures to assess power dynamics (e.g., Interprofessional Collaboration Scale). However, the findings also confirm several gaps in the current evidence base: 1) need for further psychometric and pragmatic testing of measures; 2) inclusion of more representative MDT samples; 3) further evaluation of unmatured power dimensions. Addressing these gaps will support the development of future interventions aimed at mitigating power imbalances and ultimately improve collaborative working within MDTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]