SummaryBACKGROUNDTwelve months of oral cyclophosphamide (CYC) has been shown to alter the progression of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) when compared to placebo. However, toxicity was a concern and without continued treatment the efficacy disappeared by 24 months. We hypothesized that a two-year course of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) would be safer, better tolerated and produce longer lasting improvements than CYC.METHODSPatients with SSc-ILD meeting defined dyspnea, pulmonary function and high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) criteria were randomized in a double-blind, two-arm trial at 14 medical centers. MMF (target dose 1500 mg twice daily) was administered for 24 months in one arm and oral CYC (target dose 2·0 mg/kg/day) administered for 12 months followed by placebo for 12 months in the other arm. The primary endpoint, change in forced vital capacity as a percent of the predicted normal value (FVC %) over the course of 24 months, was assessed in a modified intention-to-treat analysis using an inferential joint model combining a mixed effects model for longitudinal outcomes and a survival model to handle non-ignorable missing data. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00883129, and is closed.RESULTSBetween November, 2009, and January, 2013, 142 patients were randomized. 126 patients (63 MMF; 63 CYC) with acceptable baseline HRCT studies and at least one outcome measure were included in the analysis. The adjusted FVC % (primary endpoint) improved from baseline to 24 months by 2.17 in the MMF arm (95% CI, 0.53–3.84) and 2·86 in the CYC arm (95% confidence interval 1·19–4·58) with no significant between-treatment difference (p=0·24), indicating that the trial was negative for the primary endpoint. However, in a post-hoc analysis of the primary endpoint, within-treatment improvements from baseline to 24 months were noted in both the CYC and MMF arms. A greater number of patients on CYC than on MMF prematurely withdrew from study drug (32 vs 20) and failed treatment (2 vs 0), and the time to stopping treatment was significantly shorter in the CYC arm (p=0·019). Sixteen deaths occurred (11 CYC; 5 MMF) with most due to progressive ILD. Leukopenia (30 vs 4 patients) and thrombocytopenia (4 vs 0 patients) occurred more often in patients treated with CYC. In post-hoc analyses, within- (but not between-) treatment improvements were also noted in defined secondary outcomes including skin score, dyspnea and whole-lung HRCT scores.INTERPRETATIONTreatment of SSc-ILD with MMF for two years or CYC for one year both resulted in significant improvements in pre-specified measures of lung function, dyspnea, lung imaging, and skin disease over the 2-year course of the study. While MMF was better tolerated and associated with less toxicity, the hypothesis that it would have greater efficacy at 24 months than CYC was not confirmed. These findings support the potential clinical impact of both CYC and MMF for progressive SSc-ILD, as well as the current preference for MMF due to its b...

Background The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. MethodsThe Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A posthoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). Findings We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5•9 months (IQR 4•9-6•5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity.Interpretation We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments w...

Background Polyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain. Methods In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19–related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion. Results Participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P=0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized. Conclusions In participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460 .)

No abstract

No abstract