Peking Union Medical College Hospital

About: Peking Union Medical College Hospital is a healthcare organization based out in Beijing, China. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Medicine & Population. The organization has 15996 authors who have published 16018 publications receiving 226505 citations.

Hypothesis for potential pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection-a review of immune changes in patients with viral pneumonia.

Abstract: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with droplets and contact as the main means of transmissi...

A circular RNA protects the heart from pathological hypertrophy and heart failure by targeting miR-223.

Abstract: Aims Sustained cardiac hypertrophy accompanied by maladaptive cardiac remodelling represents an early event in the clinical course leading to heart failure. Maladaptive hypertrophy is considered to be a therapeutic target for heart failure. However, the molecular mechanisms that regulate cardiac hypertrophy are largely unknown. Methods and results Here we show that a circular RNA (circRNA), which we term heart-related circRNA ( HRCR ), acts as an endogenous miR-223 sponge to inhibit cardiac hypertrophy and heart failure. miR-223 transgenic mice developed cardiac hypertrophy and heart failure, whereas miR-223-deficient mice were protected from hypertrophic stimuli, indicating that miR-223 acts as a positive regulator of cardiac hypertrophy. We identified ARC as a miR-223 downstream target to mediate the function of miR-223 in cardiac hypertrophy. Apoptosis repressor with CARD domain transgenic mice showed reduced hypertrophic responses. Further, we found that a circRNA HRCR functions as an endogenous miR-223 sponge to sequester and inhibit miR-223 activity, which resulted in the increase of ARC expression. Heart-related circRNA directly bound to miR-223 in cytoplasm and enforced expression of HRCR in cardiomyocytes and in mice both exhibited attenuated hypertrophic responses. Conclusions These findings disclose a novel regulatory pathway that is composed of HRCR, miR-223, and ARC. Modulation of their levels provides an attractive therapeutic target for the treatment of cardiac hypertrophy and heart failure.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2021.

Abstract: Background Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications. Methods We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements. Results The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care. Conclusion The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Abstract: Clinical question What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? New recommendation Increased attention on ivermectin as a potential treatment for covid-19 triggered this recommendation. The panel made a recommendation against ivermectin in patients with covid-19 regardless of disease severity, except in the context of a clinical trial. Prior recommendations (a) a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (b) a strong recommendation against the use of lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (c) a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19; (d) a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19, and (e) a conditional recommendation against remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19. How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development group (GDG) of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation There is insufficient evidence to be clear to what extent, if any, ivermectin is helpful or harmful in treating covid-19. There was a large degree of uncertainty in the evidence about ivermectin on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes. There is potential for harm with an increased risk of adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation. Applying pre-determined values and preferences, the panel inferred that almost all well informed patients would want to receive ivermectin only in the context of a randomised trial, given that the evidence left a very high degree of uncertainty on important effects. Updates This is a living guideline. It replaces earlier versions (4 September, 20 November, and 17 December 2020) and supersedes the BMJ Rapid Recommendations on remdesivir published on 2 July 2020. The previous versions can be found as data supplements. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Readers note This is the fourth version (update 3) of the living guideline (BMJ 2020;370:m3379). When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.