Background In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04381936 ). Findings Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

No abstract

Deprescribing can be defined as the process of withdrawal or dose reduction of medications which are considered inappropriate in an individual. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview of "deprescribing"; firstly discussing the potential benefits and harms followed by the barriers to and enablers of deprescribing. We also provide practical recommendations to recognise opportunities and strategies for deprescribing in practice. Studies focused on minimizing polypharmacy indicate that deprescribing may be associated with potential benefits including resolution of adverse drug reactions, improved quality of life and medication adherence and a reduction in drug costs. While the data on the benefits is inconsistent, deprescribing appears to be safe. There are, however, potential harms including return of medical conditions or symptoms and adverse drug withdrawal reactions which emphasise the need for the process to be supervised and monitored by a health care professional. Taking action on deprescribing can be facilitated by knowledge of potential barriers, implementing a deprescribing process (utilising developed tools and resources) and identifying opportunities for deprescribing through engaging with patients and caregivers and other health care professionals and considering deprescribing in a variety of populations. Important areas for future research include the suitability of deprescribing of certain medications in specific populations, how to implement deprescribing processes into clinical care in a feasible and cost effective manner and how to engage consumers throughout the process to achieve positive health and quality of life outcomes.

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of the community based Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) on morbidity from cardiovascular disease. Design Community cluster randomised trial. Setting 39 mid-sized communities in Ontario, Canada, stratified by location and population size. Participants Community dwelling residents aged 65 years or over, family physicians, pharmacists, volunteers, community nurses, and local lead organisations. Intervention Communities were randomised to receive CHAP (n=20) or no intervention (n=19). In CHAP communities, residents aged 65 or over were invited to attend volunteer run cardiovascular risk assessment and education sessions held in community based pharmacies over a 10 week period; automated blood pressure readings and self reported risk factor data were collected and shared with participants and their family physicians and pharmacists. Main outcome measure Composite of hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and congestive heart failure among all community residents aged 65 and over in the year before compared with the year after implementation of CHAP. Results All 20 intervention communities successfully implemented CHAP. A total of 1265 three hour long sessions were held in 129/145 (89%) pharmacies during the 10 week programme. 15 889 unique participants had a total of 27 358 cardiovascular assessments with the assistance of 577 peer volunteers. After adjustment for hospital admission rates in the year before the intervention, CHAP was associated with a 9% relative reduction in the composite end point (rate ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 0.97; P=0.002) or 3.02 fewer annual hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease per 1000 people aged 65 and over. Statistically significant reductions favouring the intervention communities were seen in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction (rate ratio 0.87, 0.79 to 0.97; P=0.008) and congestive heart failure (0.90, 0.81 to 0.99; P=0.029) but not for stroke (0.99, 0.88 to 1.12; P=0.89). Conclusions A collaborative, multi-pronged, community based health promotion and prevention programme targeted at older adults can reduce cardiovascular morbidity at the population level. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN50550004.

Polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use among older adults contribute to adverse drug reactions, falls, cognitive impairment, noncompliance, hospitalization and mortality. While deprescribing - tapering, reducing or stopping a medication - is feasible and relatively safe, clinicians find it difficult to carry out. Deprescribing guidelines would facilitate this process. The aim of this paper is to identify and prioritize medication classes where evidence-based deprescribing guidelines would be of benefit to clinicians. A modified Delphi approach included a literature review to identify potentially inappropriate medications for the elderly, an expert panel to develop survey content and three survey rounds to seek consensus on priorities. Panel participants included three pharmacists, two family physicians and one social scientist. Sixty-five Canadian geriatrics experts (36 pharmacists, 19 physicians and 10 nurse practitioners) participated in the survey. Twenty-nine drugs/drug classes were included in the first survey with 14 reaching the required (≥ 70%) level of consensus, and 2 new drug classes added from qualitative comments. Fifty-three participants completed round two, and 47 participants completed round three. The final five priorities were benzodiazepines, atypical antipsychotics, statins, tricyclic antidepressants, and proton pump inhibitors; nine other drug classes were also identified as being in need of evidence-based deprescribing guidelines. The Delphi consensus process identified five priority drug classes for which expert clinicians felt guidance is needed for deprescribing. The classes of drugs that emerged strongly from the rankings dealt with mental health, cardiovascular, gastroenterological, and neurological conditions. The results suggest that deprescribing and overtreatment occurs through the full spectrum of primary care, and that evidence-based deprescribing guidelines are a priority in the care of the elderly.

The prevalence of suboptimal prescribing of medications is well documented. Patients are often undertreated or not offered therapeutic treatments that are likely to confer benefit. As a result, drug-related hospital admissions are common and often preventable. Improvements to the health-care system are clearly needed in order to maximize the benefits that can be derived from medications. Many countries are changing their primary health-care systems to improve the quality of health-care delivery. One main transformation is the use of multidisciplinary care teams to provide care in a coordinated manner often from the same location or by using the common medical record of the patients. It has been demonstrated that pharmacists can improve prescribing, reduce health-care utilization and medication costs, and contribute to clinical improvements in many chronic medical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and psychiatric illness. However, the effect of integrating a pharmacist providing general services into a primary care group has not been extensively studied. The Integrating Family Medicine and Pharmacy to Advance Primary Care Therapeutics (IMPACT) project was designed to provide a real-world demonstration of the feasibility of integrating the pharmacist into primary care office practice. This article provides a description of the IMPACT project participants; the IMPACT practice model and the concepts incorporated in its development; some initial results from the program evaluation; sustainability of the model; and some reflections on the implementation of the practice model.

Background and Purpose-The reliability of the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke is not known. We therefore aimed to assess and compare the test-retest reliability of both instruments in a group of stroke patients. Methods-A total of 2253 patients with stroke entered by United Kingdom hospitals in the International Stroke Trial were randomized to follow up with either the EuroQol or the SF-36 instruments. For both instruments, we randomly selected one third of respondents and asked them to complete another, identical questionnaire. We assessed test-retest reliability using agreement statistics: unweighted statistics for the categorical domains of the EuroQol and intraclass correlation coefficients for the EuroQol visual analog scale, utility scores, and SF-36. Results-For the five categorical domains of the EuroQol, reproducibility was generally good ( ranged from 0.63 to 0.80).The reproducibility of the domains of the SF-36 was qualitatively similar for all the domains except mental health (intraclass correlation coefficientϭ.28). However, the 95% confidence intervals for the difference in scores between test and retest were substantial. For both instruments, reproducibility was better when the patient completed the questionnaires than when a proxy did. Conclusions-Both the EuroQol and SF-36 have acceptable and qualitatively similar test-retest reliability. Therefore, either instrument might function effectively as a discriminatory measure for assessing health-related quality-of-life outcomes in groups of patients after stroke. However, our data do not support the use of either instrument for serial assessments in individual patients unless very large differences over time are expected. (Stroke. 1998;29:63-68.)

No abstract