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.

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

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.

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 ICU admission, we suggest admitting the patients to the ICU within 6 hr. Weak , low quality of evidence INFECTION 11. For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock but unconfirmed infection, we recommend continuously re-evaluating and searching for alternative diagnoses and discontinuing empiric antimicrobials if an alternative cause of illness is demonstrated or strongly suspected. Best practice statement 12. For adults with possible septic shock or a high likelihood for sepsis, we recommend administering antimicrobials immediately, ideally within 1 hr of recognition. Strong , low quality of evidence (Septic shock) CHANGED from previous: "We recommend that administration of intravenous antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within one hour for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock" Strong , very low quality of evidence (Sepsis without shock) strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 13. For adults with possible sepsis without shock, we recommend rapid assessment of the likelihood of infectious versus noninfectious causes of acute illness. Best practice statement 14. For adults with possible sepsis without shock, we suggest a time-limited course of rapid investigation and if concern for infection persists, the administration of antimicrobials within 3 hr from the time when sepsis was first recognized. Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend that administration of IV antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within 1 hr for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock" strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 15. For adults with a low likelihood of infection and without shock, we suggest deferring antimicrobials while continuing to closely monitor the patient. Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend that administration of IV antimicrobials should be initiated as soon as possible after recognition and within 1 hr for both a) septic shock and b) sepsis without shock" strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 16. For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using procalcitonin plus clinical evaluation to decide when to start antimicrobials, as compared to clinical evaluation alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 17. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at high risk of MRSA, we recommend using empiric antimicrobials with MRSA coverage over using antimicrobials without MRSA coverage. Best practice statement NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage." Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 18. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low risk of MRSA, we suggest against using empiric antimicrobials with MRSA coverage, as compared with using antimicrobials without MRSA coverage. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage." Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 19. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and high risk for multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms, we suggest using two antimicrobials with gram-negative coverage for empiric treatment over one gram-negative agent. Weak , very low quality of evidence 20. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low risk for multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms, we suggest against using two gram-negative agents for empiric treatment, as compared to one gram-negative agent. Weak , very low quality of evidence 21. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using double gram-negative coverage once the causative pathogen and the susceptibilities are known. Weak , very low quality of evidence 22. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at high risk of fungal infection, we suggest using empiric antifungal therapy over no antifungal therapy. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage." Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 23. For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low risk of fungal infection, we suggest against empiric use of antifungal therapy Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We recommend empiric broad-spectrum therapy with one or more antimicrobials for patients presenting with sepsis or septic shock to cover all likely pathogens (including bacterial and potentially fungal or viral coverage. " Strong recommendation , moderate quality of evidence 24. We make no recommendation on the use of antiviral agents. No recommendation 25. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using prolonged infusion of beta-lactams for maintenance (after an initial bolus) over conventional bolus infusion. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 26. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend optimising dosing strategies of antimicrobials based on accepted pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) principles and specific drug properties. Best practice statement 27. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend rapidly identifying or excluding a specific anatomical diagnosis of infection that requires emergent source control and implementing any required source control intervention as soon as medically and logistically practical. Best practice statement 28. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend prompt removal of intravascular access devices that are a possible source of sepsis or septic shock after other vascular access has been established. Best practice statement 29. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest daily assessment for de-escalation of antimicrobials over using fixed durations of therapy without daily reassessment for de-escalation. Weak , very low quality of evidence 30. For adults with an initial diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock and adequate source control, we suggest using shorter over longer duration of antimicrobial therapy. Weak , very low quality of evidence 31. For adults with an initial diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock and adequate source control where optimal duration of therapy is unclear, we suggest using procalcitonin AND clinical evaluation to decide when to discontinue antimicrobials over clinical evaluation alone. Weak , low quality of evidence HEMODYNAMIC MANAGEMENT 32. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using crystalloids as first-line fluid for resuscitation. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 33. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using balanced crystalloids instead of normal saline for resuscitation. Weak , low quality of evidence CHANGED from weak recommendation , low quality of evidence. "We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock" 34. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using albumin in patients who received large volumes of crystalloids. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 35. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend against using starches for resuscitation. Strong , high-quality evidence 36. For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we suggest against using gelatin for resuscitation. Weak , moderate-quality evidence UPGRADE from weak recommendation , low quality of evidence "We suggest using crystalloids over gelatins when resuscitating patients with sepsis or septic shock." 37. For adults with septic shock, we recommend using norepinephrine as the first-line agent over other vasopressors. Strong Dopamine. High-quality evidence Vasopressin. Moderate-quality evidence Epinephrine. Low quality of evidence Selepressin. Low quality of evidence Angiotensin II. Very low-quality evidence 38. For adults with septic shock on norepinephrine with inadequate mean arterial pressure levels, we suggest adding vasopressin instead of escalating the dose of norepinephrine. Weak , moderate quality evidence 39. For adults with septic shock and inadequate mean arterial pressure levels despite norepinephrine and vasopressin, we suggest adding epinephrine. Weak , low quality of evidence 40. For adults with septic shock, we suggest against using terlipressin. Weak , low quality of evidence 41. For adults with septic shock and cardiac dysfunction with persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate volume status and arterial blood pressure, we suggest either adding dobutamine to norepinephrine or using epinephrine alone. Weak , low quality of evidence 42. For adults with septic shock and cardiac dysfunction with persistent hypoperfusion despite adequate volume status and arterial blood pressure, we suggest against using levosimendan. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW 43. For adults with septic shock, we suggest invasive monitoring of arterial blood pressure over noninvasive monitoring, as soon as practical and if resources are available. Weak , very low quality of evidence 44. For adults with septic shock, we suggest starting vasopressors peripherally to restore mean arterial pressure rather than delaying initiation until a central venous access is secured. Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW 45. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of restrictive versus liberal fluid strategies in the first 24 hr of resuscitation in patients with sepsis and septic shock who still have signs of hypoperfusion and volume depletion after the initial resuscitation. No recommendation NEW "We suggest using either balanced crystalloids or saline for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock" Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence "We suggest using crystalloids over gelatins when resuscitating patients with sepsis or septic shock." Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence VENTILATION 46.There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of conservative oxygen targets in adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure. No recommendation 47. For adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure, we suggest the use of high flow nasal oxygen over noninvasive ventilation. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW 48. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of noninvasive ventilation in comparison to invasive ventilation for adults with sepsis-induced hypoxemic respiratory failure. No recommendation 49. For adults with sepsis-induced ARDS, we recommend using a low tidal volume ventilation strategy (6 mL/kg), over a high tidal volume strategy (> 10 mL/kg). Strong , high-quality evidence 50. For adults with sepsis-induced severe ARDS, we recommend using an upper limit goal for plateau pressures of 30 cm H2O, over higher plateau pressures. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 51. For adults with moderate to severe sepsis-induced ARDS, we suggest using higher PEEP over lower PEEP. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 52. For adults with sepsis-induced respiratory failure (without ARDS), we suggest using low tidal volume as compared with high tidal volume ventilation. Weak , low quality of evidence 53. For adults with sepsis-induced moderate-severe ARDS, we suggest using traditional recruitment maneuvers. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 54. When using recruitment maneuvers, we recommend against using incremental PEEP titration/strategy. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 55. For adults with sepsis-induced moderate-severe ARDS, we recommend using prone ventilation for greater than 12 hr daily. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 56. For adults with sepsis induced moderate-severe ARDS, we suggest using intermittent NMBA boluses, over NMBA continuous infusion. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 57. For adults with sepsis-induced severe ARDS, we suggest using Veno-venous (VV) ECMO when conventional mechanical ventilation fails in experienced centers with the infrastructure in place to support its use. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW ADDITIONAL THERAPIES 58. For adults with septic shock and an ongoing requirement for vasopressor therapy we suggest using IV corticosteroids. Weak , moderate-quality evidence UPGRADE from Weak recommendation , low quality of evidence "We suggest against using IV hydrocortisone to treat septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (see goals for Initial Resuscitation). If this is not achievable, we suggest IV hydrocortisone at a dose of 200 mg/day." 59. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using polymyxin B hemoperfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from previous: "We make no recommendation regarding the use of blood purification techniques" 60. There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of other blood purification techniques. No recommendation 61. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we recommend using a restrictive (over liberal) transfusion strategy. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 62. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV immunoglobulins. Weak , low quality of evidence 63. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, and who have risk factors for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, we suggest using stress ulcer prophylaxis. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 64. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis unless a contraindication to such therapy exists. Strong , moderate-quality evidence 65. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using low molecular weight heparin over unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis Strong , moderate-quality evidence 66. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using mechanical VTE prophylaxis, in addition to pharmacological prophylaxis, over pharmacologic prophylaxis alone. Weak , low quality of evidence 67. In adults with sepsis or septic shock and AKI, we suggest using either continuous or intermittent renal replacement therapy. Weak , low quality of evidence 68. In adults with sepsis or septic shock and AKI, with no definitive indications for renal replacement therapy, we suggest against using renal replacement therapy. Weak , moderate-quality evidence 69. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend initiating insulin therapy at a glucose level of ≥ 180mg/dL (10 mmol/L). Strong , moderate-quality evidence 70. For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV vitamin C. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW 71. For adults with septic shock and hypoperfusion-induced lactic acidemia, we suggest against using sodium bicarbonate therapy to improve hemodynamics or to reduce vasopressor requirements. Weak , low quality of evidence 72. For adults with septic shock and severe metabolic acidemia (pH ≤ 7.2) and acute kidney injury (AKIN score 2 or 3), we suggest using sodium bicarbonate therapy Weak , low quality of evidence 73. For adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who can be fed enterally, we suggest early (within 72 hr) initiation of enteral nutrition. Weak , very low quality of evidence LONG-TERM OUTCOMES AND GOALS OF CARE 74. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend discussing goals of care and prognosis with patients and families over no such discussion. Best practice statement 75. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest addressing goals of care early (within 72 hr) over late (72 hr or later). Weak , low quality of evidence 76. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on any specific standardized criterion to trigger goals of care discussion. No recommendation 77. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend that the principles of palliative care (which may include palliative care consultation based on clinician judgement) be integrated into the treatment plan, when appropriate, to address patient and family symptoms and suffering. Best practice statement 78. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against routine formal palliative care consultation for all patients over palliative care consultation based on clinician judgement. Weak , low quality of evidence 79. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock and their families, we suggest referral to peer support groups over no such referral. Weak , very low quality of evidence 80. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using a handoff process of critically important information at transitions of care over no such handoff process. Weak , very low quality of evidence 81. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the use of any specific structured handoff tool over usual handoff processes. No recommendation 82. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we recommend screening for economic and social support (including housing, nutritional, financial, and spiritual support), and make referrals where available to meet these needs. Best practice statement 83. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we suggest offering written and verbal sepsis education (diagnosis, treatment, and post-ICU/post-sepsis syndrome) prior to hospital discharge and in the follow-up setting. Weak , very low quality of evidence 84. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, we recommend the clinical team provide the opportunity to participate in shared decision making in post-ICU and hospital discharge planning to ensure discharge plans are acceptable and feasible. Best practice statement 85. For adults with sepsis and septic shock and their families, we suggest using a critical care transition program, compared with usual care, upon transfer to the floor. Weak , very low quality of evidence 86. For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we recommend reconciling medications at both ICU and hospital discharge. Best practice statement 87. For adult survivors of sepsis and septic shock and their families, we recommend including information about the ICU stay, sepsis and related diagnoses, treatments, and common impairments after sepsis in the written and verbal hospital discharge summary. Best practice statement 88. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who developed new impairments, we recommend hospital discharge plans include follow-up with clinicians able to support and manage new and long-term sequelae. Best practice statement 89. For adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on early post-hospital discharge follow-up compared with routine post-hospital discharge follow-up. No recommendation 90. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, there is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for or against early cognitive therapy. No recommendation 91. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend assessment and follow-up for physical, cognitive, and emotional problems after hospital discharge. Best practice statement 92. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock, we suggest referral to a post-critical illness follow-up program if available. Weak , very low quality of evidence 93. For adult survivors of sepsis or septic shock receiving mechanical ventilation for > 48hr or an ICU stay of > 72 hr, we suggest referral to a post-hospital rehabilitation program. Weak , very low quality of evidence (References 5–24 are referred to in the Methodology section which can be accessed at Supplemental Digital Content: Methodology.) SCREENING AND EARLY TREATMENT Screening for Patients With Sepsis and Septic Shock - 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 recommendation, moderate quality of evidence for screening. Strong recommendation, very low-quality evidence for standard operating procedures. Rationale Sepsis performance improvement programs generally consist of sepsis screening, education, measurement of sepsis bundle performance, patient outcomes, and actions for identified opportunities (25,26). Despite some inconsistency, a meta-analysis of 50 observational studies on the effect of performance improvement programs showed that these programs were associated with better adherence to sepsis bundles along with a reduction in mortality (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.61–0.72) in patients with sepsis and septic shock (27). The specific components of performance improvement did not appear to be as important as the presence of a program that included sepsis screening and metrics. Sepsis screening tools are designed to promote early identification of sepsis and consist of manual methods or automated use of the electronic health record (EHR). There is wide variation in diagnostic accuracy of these tools with most having poor predictive values, although the use of some was associated with improvements in care processes (28–31). A variety of clinical variables and tools are used for sepsis screening, such as systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, vital signs, signs of infection, quick Sequential Organ Failure Score (qSOFA) or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria, National Early Warning Score (NEWS), or Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) (26,32). Machine learning may improve performance of screening tools, and in a meta-analysis of 42,623 patients from seven studies for predicting hospital acquired sepsis the pooled area under the receiving operating curve (SAUROC) (0.89; 95% CI, 0.86−0.92); sensitivity (81%; 95% CI, 80−81), and specificity (72%; 95% CI, 72−72) was higher for machine learning than the SAUROC for traditional screening tools such as SIRS (0.70), MEWS (0.50), and SOFA (0.78) (32). Screening tools may target patients in various locations, such as in-patient wards, emergency departments, or ICUs (28–30,32). A pooled analysis of three RCTs did not demonstrate a mortality benefit of active screening (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.51−1.58) (33–35). However, while there is wide variation in sensitivity and specificity of sepsis screening tools, they are an important component of identifying sepsis early for timely intervention. Standard operating procedures are a set of practices that specify a preferred response to specific clinical circumstances Sepsis standard operating as Early have to which a standard with components of the sepsis early and A large the between of sepsis and A of sepsis to hospitals in the in a mortality and after of sepsis with a control from other In this time mortality was lower in hospitals with higher with the sepsis bundles may a A meta-analysis of two RCTs in higher mortality (RR, 95% CI, with standard operating procedures compared with usual care, while it was in one observational 95% CI, - Recommendation 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence. Rationale The qSOFA three variables to and prolonged ICU stay in patients with or suspected a Score a respiratory ≥ and a blood pressure ≤ mm When any two of these variables are the patient is qSOFA analysis used to support the recommendations of the on the of Sepsis identified qSOFA as a of poor in patients with or suspected infection, but no analysis was to support its use as a screening tool that time studies have the use of the qSOFA as a screening tool for sepsis The have been as to its have that qSOFA is more specific but than having two of SIRS for early identification of infection induced organ dysfunction SIRS qSOFA are screening tools for sepsis and the clinician to the of In the that of patients a qSOFA score 2 or but these patients for of poor have been when against the National Early Score and the Modified Early Score (MEWS) the presence of a qSOFA should the clinician to the of sepsis in all given the poor sensitivity of the the a strong recommendation against its use as a screening -

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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).

Crohn’s disease [CD] is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] that can result in progressive bowel damage and disability1. 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 diagnosis4. Most patients over time will develop a complication, with roughly 50% of patients requiring surgery within 10 years of diagnosis5-7. As the precise aetiology of CD remains unknown, a curative therapy is not yet available8. 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 biological therapies [such as anti-TNF, anti-integrins, and anti-IL12/23]. \nThe 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 healthcare professionals who manage patients with IBD. To provide high-quality evidence-based recommendations on medical and surgical treatment in CD, ECCO decided to develop these guidelines by adopting the GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation] approach9. GRADE is a systematic process for developing guidelines that addresses how to frame the healthcare questions, summarize the evidence, ..

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.