No abstract

In 102 healthy Caucasians, 20-50 years old, we investigated the effect of anthropometrics on the 6-min walk test (6MWT), in order to provide reference values for walk distance (6MWD), oxygen saturation (SpO2), pulse rate (PR), respiratory rate (RR), breathlessness perception (VAS) and for the walking distance and body weight product (DW). The mean 6MWD and DW values were 593 +/- 57 and 638+/-44 m (P < 0.01) and 35,030 +/- 5306 and 48,882 +/- 6555 kg m (P < 0.01), respectively for women and for men. While walking, SpO2 remained unaltered and subjects reached 67 +/- 10% of their maximal predicted heart rate and a RR mean value of 19 +/- 4 bpm. VAS ratings were significantly higher in females as compared to males (24 +/- 15 vs. 18 +/- 5 mm, P < 0.05), however, when corrected for PR change while walking, they were not different. The equation by stepwise multiple regression analysis included height, age and gender for the 6MWD and accounted for 42% of the total variance. This study confirms the relevant effect of anthropometrics on walking capacity and suggests that when rating dyspnea, the change in heart rate during walking should be considered.

Link to full study: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02123667?term=NCT02123667&rank=1 relevance of SAD, which is present across all severity stages of asthma. It is particularly present in severe disease, likely reflecting structural lung changes that are not responsive toe the use of oral corticosteroids and/or high dose inhaled corticosteroids. Moreover, SAD relates to asthma stability, severity, quality of life, exacerbation rates and health care utilization and can be delineated by easyto-conduct, clinically applicable measures such as IOS and spirometry. Therefore, this aspect of asthma needs further consideration in the management of the disease.

No abstract

Background Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04327388 ; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 1...