Suzanne Forbes

Following a period of ischemia (local restriction of blood supply to a tissue), the restoration of blood supply to the affected area causes significant tissue damage. This is known as ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) and is a central pathological mechanism contributing to many common disease states. The medical complications caused by IRI in individuals with cerebrovascular or heart disease are a leading cause of death in developed countries. IRI is also of crucial importance in fields as diverse as solid organ transplantation, acute kidney injury and following major surgery, where post-operative organ dysfunction is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Given its clinical impact, novel interventions are urgently needed to minimize the effects of IRI, not least to save lives but also to reduce healthcare costs. In this Review, we examine the experimental technique of ischemic conditioning, which entails exposing organs or tissues to brief sub-lethal episodes of ischemia and reperfusion, before, during or after a lethal ischemic insult. This approach has been found to confer profound tissue protection against IRI. We discuss the translation of ischemic conditioning strategies from bench to bedside, and highlight where transition into human clinical studies has been less successful than in animal models, reviewing potential reasons for this. We explore the challenges that preclude more extensive clinical translation of these strategies and emphasize the role that underlying comorbidities have in altering the efficacy of these strategies in improving patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates if the pattern of diagnostic testing for suspected lung cancer, stage at diagnosis, patterns of specialist referral and treatment options offered to people in rural Western Australia are similar to those in the metropolitan area. It then explores the barriers to quality care in rural areas as perceived by GPs and patients. METHODS: There was a review of GP records to obtain clinical and referral information and an in-depth interview with patients and GPs concerning their perspectives of the quality of care. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: We selected age and sex-matched samples of 22 rural and 21 metropolitan patients. Rural patients had more symptoms and took longer to consult their GPs, leading to later diagnosis and fewer treatment options. They experienced longer waits for specialist consultation and underwent less diagnostic testing. The GPs always referred lung cancer patients to a specialist, usually a respiratory physician. Teaching hospitals were preferred because of their comprehensive facilities and multidisciplinary teams. Rural GPs reported distance, time and availability of appointments as barriers; they also raised concerns about late confirmation of diagnosis. Rural and metropolitan patients were equally satisfied with their quality of care, but rural patients desired more information and better communication between hospital and GPs. Facilities for rural patients at some metropolitan hospitals were criticised. In conclusion, rural patients received a different care pattern from metropolitan patients and they and their GPs raised concerns about the equity and quality of lung cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Haemodialysis patients are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19. Their immune response after infection is unclear. We have found high seroconversion rates in this population with 95% developing antibodies. It is unclear if and how long these antibodies persist. Here we investigate this with serial antibody testing. METHODS: We identified haemodialysis patients who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 between March-May 2020 and measured monthly antibodies (IgG/IgM) in those who survived. We used a semi-quantitative cut-off index (COI) to create a qualitative result and plotted optical density (OD) over time. We used linear regression to examine the slope, as well as noting peak OD and time to peak OD. We correlated these against baseline demographics, markers of illness severity, and comorbidities. RESULTS: 122 patients were analysed. All remained antibody positive during follow-up; for a minimum of 148 days. 71% had a positive gradient indicating increasing antibody positivity over time. We found that age (p = 0.01), duration of PCR positivity (p = 0.06) and presence of symptoms (p = 0.05) were associated with a longer time to peak OD. Immunosuppression did not alter peak OD but did lead to a non-significant increase in time to peak OD and more patients had a subsequent fall in Ab levels (p = 0.02). Diabetic patients were more likely to have a positive slope (OR 2.26). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that haemodialysis patients have a robust and sustained antibody response after confirmed COVID-19 infection with no suggestion that immunosuppression weakens this response. Although unclear what protection these antibodies confer, this encouraging that haemodialysis patients should respond to vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis patients are at high risk of Covid-19, though vaccination has significant efficacy in preventing and reducing the severity of infection. Little information is available on disease severity and vaccine efficacy since the dissemination of the Omicron variant. METHODS: In a multi-center study, during a period of the epidemic driven by the Omicron variant, all hemodialysis patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 were identified. Outcomes were analyzed according to predictor variables including vaccination status. Risk of infection was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 infection was identified in 1126 patients including 200 (18%) unvaccinated, 56 (5%) post first dose, 433 (38%) post second dose, and 437 (39%) at least 7 days beyond their third dose. The majority of patients had a mild course but 160 (14%) were hospitalized and 28 (2%) died. In regression models adjusted for age and comorbidity, two-dose vaccination was associated with a 39% (95%CI: 2%-62%) reduction in admissions, but third doses provided additional protection, with a 51% (95%CI: 25%-69%) further reduction in admissions. Among 1265 patients at risk at the start of the observation period, SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed in 211 (17%). Two-dose vaccination was associated with a 41% (95%CI: 3%-64%) reduction in the incidence of infection, with no clear additional effect provided by third doses. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in dialysis patients during an Omicron dominant period of the epidemic. Among those developing infection, severe illness was less common with prior vaccination, particularly after third vaccine doses.