; for the CORIMUNO-19 Collaborative Group IMPORTANCE Severe pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE To determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICPANTS This cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events. RESULTS Of 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] −9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], −21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI −28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care...
Background Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have an excess of inflammation and increased concentrations of cytokines including interleukin-1 (IL-1). We aimed to determine whether anakinra, a recombinant human IL-1 receptor antagonist, could improve outcomes in patients in hospital with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia.Methods In this multicentre, open-label, Bayesian randomised clinical trial (CORIMUNO-ANA-1), nested within the CORIMUNO-19 cohort, we recruited patients from 16 University hospitals in France with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by real-time RT-PCR, requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen by mask or nasal cannula but without ventilation assistance, a score of 5 on the WHO Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS), and a C-reactive protein serum concentration of more than 25 mg/L not requiring admission to the intensive care unit at admission to hospital. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based secure centralised system, stratified by centre and blocked with varying block sizes (randomly of size two or four), to either usual care plus anakinra (200 mg twice a day on days 1-3, 100 mg twice on day 4, 100 mg once on day 5) or usual care alone. Usual care was provided at the discretion of the site clinicians. The two coprimary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had died or needed non-invasive or mechanical ventilation by day 4 (ie, a score of >5 on the WHO-CPS) and survival without need for mechanical or non-invasive ventilation (including high-flow oxygen) at day 14. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04341584, and is now closed to accrual. FindingsBetween April 8 and April 26, 2020, we screened 153 patients. The study was stopped early following the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board, after the recruitment of 116 patients: 59 were assigned to the anakinra group, and 57 were assigned to the usual care group. Two patients in the usual care group withdrew consent and were not analysed. In the analysable population, the median age was 66 years (IQR 59 to 76) and 80 (70%) participants were men. In the anakinra group, 21 (36%) of 59 patients had a WHO-CPS score of more than 5 at day 4 versus 21 (38%) of 55 in the usual care group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] -2•5%, 90% credible interval [CrI] -17•1 to 12•0), with a posterior probability of ARD of less than 0 (ie, anakinra better than usual care) of 61•2%. At day 14, 28 (47%; 95% CI 33 to 59) patients in the anakinra group and 28 (51%; 95% CI 36 to 62) in the usual care group needed ventilation or died, with a posterior probability of any efficacy of anakinra (hazard ratio [HR] being less than 1) of 54•5% (median posterior HR 0•97; 90% CrI 0•62 to 1•52). At day 90, 16 (27%) patients in the anakinra group and 15 (27%) in the usual care group had died. Serious adverse events occurred in 27 (46%) patients in the anakinra group and 21 (38%) in the usu...
Objective. To evaluate the efficacy of joint lavage and intraarticular steroid injection, alone and in combination, in the treatment of patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA).Methods. Ninety-eight patients with painful tibiofemoral OA were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, controlled, 2 ؋ 2 factorial-design trial of 6 months' duration. The 4 treatment groups consisted of 1) intraarticular placebo (1.5 ml of 0.9% normal saline), 2) intraarticular corticosteroids (3.75 mg of cortivazol in 1.5 ml), 3) joint lavage and intraarticular placebo, and 4) joint lavage and intraarticular corticosteroid. Outcome measures evaluated at baseline, week 1, week 4, week 12, and week 24 included severity of pain (100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]), global status (100-mm VAS), and Lequesne's functional index.Results. No interaction between steroid injection and joint lavage was demonstrated. Patients who had undergone joint lavage had significantly improved pain VAS scores at week 24 (P ؍ 0.020). In contrast, corticosteroid injection had no long-term effect (P ؍ 0.313); corticosteroid injection was associated with a decrease in pain only at week 1 (P ؍ 0.003) and week 4 (P ؍ 0.020). After week 4, Lequesne's functional index was not significantly improved regardless of the assigned treatment.Conclusion. Compared with placebo, both treatments significantly relieved pain but did not improve functional impairment. The effects of the 2 treatments were additive. Cortivazol provided short-term relief of pain (up to week 4). The effects of joint lavage persisted up to week 24.Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is one of the most common forms of arthritis and a major cause of pain and disability, particularly among the elderly (1). Intraarticular corticosteroid therapy is widely used in the treatment of OA, particularly for the knee. A recent survey of rheumatologists in the US suggested that Ͼ95% prescribe corticosteroids "at least sometimes," and 53% "frequently" (2). Such therapy is recommended in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for the medical management of knee OA (3), and its clinical benefit has been evaluated in several controlled studies (4-6). However, a recent systematic review of studies of intraarticular (IA) corticosteroid use in patients with knee OA (7) showed that these studies were flawed by numerous methodologic deficiencies. Two recent double-blind, placebo-controlled studies showed significantly greater decreases in pain with corticosteroid treatment than with placebo only at week 1 in 1 study and at week 3 in the other (8,9). Some authors concluded that the evidence for efficacy of IA corticosteroids in knee OA is relatively weak (10,11).The results of several studies have suggested that joint lavage, either alone or combined with arthroscopy,
In an attempt to better understand the importance of tuber-borne inoculum in black dot development, several potato cultivars were inoculated with various Colletotrichum coccodes isolates. Symptoms developed first on underground organs (starting 2 weeks after inoculation on roots, and later on stolons and tubers) of inoculated plants; stem infections developed only after 7-10 weeks, depending on the cultivar. Infection with C. coccodes resulted in a reduction in numbers of stolons and tubers in cv. Bintje, but not in the later maturing cv. Roseval. Significant isolate by cultivar interactions were detected from the analysis of root symptoms after inoculation of three potato cultivars (Bintje, Spunta and Desiree) with five C. coccodes isolates. Such an interaction was also detected for stolon/tuber symptoms at the latest scoring date (98 days after inoculation), but not at earlier dates (58, 70 and 84 days after inoculation). These results suggest that protocols based on root colonization might be used for investigating cultivar response to black dot and pathogenicity of C. coccodes isolates, and that some specificity exists in the reaction of potato genotypes to this pathogenic fungus.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.