Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

About: Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust is a healthcare organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 7686 authors who have published 9631 publications receiving 399353 citations. The organization is also known as: Guy's and St Thomas' National Health Service Foundation Trust & Guy's and St Thomas' National Health Service Trust.

The cholesterol biosynthesis pathway regulates IL-10 expression in human Th1 cells.

Abstract: The mechanisms controlling CD4+ T cell switching from an effector to an anti-inflammatory (IL-10+) phenotype play an important role in the persistence of chronic inflammatory diseases. Here, we identify the cholesterol biosynthesis pathway as a key regulator of this process. Pathway analysis of cultured cytokine-producing human T cells reveals a significant association between IL-10 and cholesterol metabolism gene expression. Inhibition of the cholesterol biosynthesis pathway with atorvastatin or 25-hydroxycholesterol during switching from IFNγ+ to IL-10+ shows a specific block in immune resolution, defined as a significant decrease in IL-10 expression. Mechanistically, the master transcriptional regulator of IL10 in T cells, c-Maf, is significantly decreased by physiological levels of 25-hydroxycholesterol. Strikingly, progression to rheumatoid arthritis is associated with altered expression of cholesterol biosynthesis genes in synovial biopsies of predisposed individuals. Our data reveal a link between sterol metabolism and the regulation of the anti-inflammatory response in human CD4+ T cells.

Comparative performance of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antigen tests and association with detection of infectious virus in clinical specimens: a single-centre laboratory evaluation study.

Abstract: Summary Background Lateral flow devices (LFDs) for rapid antigen testing are set to become a cornerstone of SARS-CoV-2 mass community testing, although their reduced sensitivity compared with PCR has raised questions of how well they identify infectious cases. Understanding their capabilities and limitations is, therefore, essential for successful implementation. We evaluated six commercial LFDs and assessed their correlation with infectious virus culture and PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values. Methods In a single-centre, laboratory evaluation study, we did a head-to-head comparison of six LFDs commercially available in the UK: Innova Rapid SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test, Spring Healthcare SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Cassette, E25Bio Rapid Diagnostic Test, Encode SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test Device, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test Cassette, and SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Fluorescence Antigen Test. We estimated the specificities and sensitivities of the LFDs using stored naso-oropharyngeal swabs collected at St Thomas' Hospital (London, UK) for routine diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 testing by real-time RT-PCR (RT-rtPCR). Swabs were from inpatients and outpatients from all departments of St Thomas' Hospital, and from health-care staff (all departments) and their household contacts. SARS-CoV-2-negative swabs from the same population (confirmed by RT-rtPCR) were used for comparative specificity determinations. All samples were collected between March 23 and Oct 27, 2020. We determined the limit of detection (LOD) for each test using viral plaque-forming units (PFUs) and viral RNA copy numbers of laboratory-grown SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, LFDs were selected to assess the correlation of antigen test result with RT-rtPCR Ct values and positive viral culture in Vero E6 cells. This analysis included longitudinal swabs from five infected inpatients with varying disease severities. Furthermore, the sensitivities of available LFDs were assessed in swabs (n=23; collected from Dec 4, 2020, to Jan 12, 2021) confirmed to be positive (RT-rtPCR and whole-genome sequencing) for the B.1.1.7 variant, which was the dominant genotype in the UK at the time of study completion. Findings All LFDs showed high specificity (≥98·0%), except for the E25Bio test (86·0% [95% CI 77·9–99·9]), and most tests reliably detected 50 PFU/test (equivalent SARS-CoV-2 N gene Ct value of 23·7, or RNA copy number of 3 × 106/mL). Sensitivities of the LFDs on clinical samples ranged from 65·0% (55·2–73·6) to 89·0% (81·4–93·8). These sensitivities increased to greater than 90% for samples with Ct values of lower than 25 for all tests except the SureScreen fluorescence (SureScreen-F) test. Positive virus culture was identified in 57 (40·4%) of 141 samples; 54 (94·7%) of the positive cultures were from swabs with Ct values lower than 25. Among the three LFDs selected for detailed comparisons (the tests with highest sensitivity [Innova], highest specificity [Encode], and alternative technology [SureScreen-F]), sensitivity of the LFDs increased to at least 94·7% when only including samples with detected viral growth. Longitudinal studies of RT-rtPCR-positive samples (tested with Innova, Encode, and both SureScreen-F and the SureScreen visual [SureScreen-V] test) showed that most of the tests identified all infectious samples as positive. Test performance (assessed for Innova and SureScreen-V) was not affected when reassessed on swabs positive for the UK variant B.1.1.7. Interpretation In this comprehensive comparison of antigen LFDs and virus infectivity, we found a clear relationship between Ct values, quantitative culture of infectious virus, and antigen LFD positivity in clinical samples. Our data support regular testing of target groups with LFDs to supplement the current PCR testing capacity, which would help to rapidly identify infected individuals in situations in which they would otherwise go undetected. Funding King's Together Rapid COVID-19, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Huo Family Foundation, UK Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre.

Malocclusion, orthodontic treatment, and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14): Systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Objective: To synthesize evidence on the impact of malocclusion and its associated treatment on people's quality of life across studies that used the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire in the adult population. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the English literature using Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE yielded 98 unique citations. Studies using OHIP-14 with individuals 15 years of age and older were included. After initial screening, 64 citations were excluded and another 9 were excluded after reading full text reports; the remaining 25 were included in the review. All studies were observational and used one of three study designs: 11 compared the same group before and after treatment (pre-post design), 10 compared groups with and without malocclusion (independent groups design) and four compared an orthodontically treated group with an independent group requiring treatment (treated-untreated groups design). Only three studies using the pre-post design and four using th...