Objective To determine whether tocilizumab improves clinical outcomes for patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Randomised, open label trial. Setting Nine hospitals in Brazil, 8 May to 17 July 2020. Participants Adults with confirmed covid-19 who were receiving supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation and had abnormal levels of at least two serum biomarkers (C reactive protein, D dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, or ferritin). The data monitoring committee recommended stopping the trial early, after 129 patients had been enrolled, because of an increased number of deaths at 15 days in the tocilizumab group. Interventions Tocilizumab (single intravenous infusion of 8 mg/kg) plus standard care (n=65) versus standard care alone (n=64). Main outcome measure The primary outcome, clinical status measured at 15 days using a seven level ordinal scale, was analysed as a composite of death or mechanical ventilation because the assumption of odds proportionality was not met. Results A total of 129 patients were enrolled (mean age 57 (SD 14) years; 68% men) and all completed follow-up. All patients in the tocilizumab group and two in the standard care group received tocilizumab. 18 of 65 (28%) patients in the tocilizumab group and 13 of 64 (20%) in the standard care group were receiving mechanical ventilation or died at day 15 (odds ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 3.66; P=0.32). Death at 15 days occurred in 11 (17%) patients in the tocilizumab group compared with 2 (3%) in the standard care group (odds ratio 6.42, 95% confidence interval 1.59 to 43.2). Adverse events were reported in 29 of 67 (43%) patients who received tocilizumab and 21 of 62 (34%) who did not receive tocilizumab. Conclusions In patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab plus standard care was not superior to standard care alone in improving clinical outcomes at 15 days, and it might increase mortality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04403685 .

The WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group IMPORTANCE Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm.OBJECTIVE To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes.DATA SOURCES Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts.STUDY SELECTION Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISIn this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I 2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days.RESULTS A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P = .52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hosp...

Invasive fusariosis (IF) has been associated with a poor prognosis. Although recent series have reported improved outcomes, the definition of optimal treatments remains controversial. The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in the outcome of IF. We retrospectively analysed 233 cases of IF from 11 countries, comparing demographics, clinical findings, treatment and outcome in two periods: 1985-2000 (period 1) and 2001-2011 (period 2). Most patients (92%) had haematological disease. Primary treatment with deoxycholate amphotericin B was more frequent in period 1 (63% vs. 30%, p <0.001), whereas voriconazole (32% vs. 2%, p <0.001) and combination therapies (18% vs. 1%, p <0.001) were more frequent in period 2. The 90-day probabilities of survival in periods 1 and 2 were 22% and 43%, respectively (p <0.001). In period 2, the 90-day probabilities of survival were 60% with voriconazole, 53% with a lipid formulation of amphotericin B, and 28% with deoxycholate amphotericin B (p 0.04). Variables associated with poor prognosis (death 90 days after the diagnosis of fusariosis) by multivariable analysis were: receipt of corticosteroids (hazard ratio (HR) 2.11, 95% CI 1.18-3.76, p 0.01), neutropenia at end of treatment (HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.57-4.65, p <0.001), and receipt of deoxycholate amphotericin B (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.06-3.16, p 0.03). Treatment practices have changed over the last decade, with an increased use of voriconazole and combination therapies. There has been a 21% increase in survival rate in the last decade.

The treatment of ALL causes a significant increase in the number of dental anomalies. Their GBI and VPI were also elevated. Changes in salivary glands during treatment did not affect saliva flow permanently. Follow-up of these patients by an oral health team is recommended.

This study showed no evidence of benefit from the prophylactic use of low-energy laser in children and adolescents with cancer treated with chemotherapy when optimal dental and oral care was provided.

No abstract

Problems in the processes of pain identification, measurement, and treatment have been found. Results suggest that there is a need for both an investment in continuing education of professionals and the development of protocols to optimize the analgesic therapy, thus preventing increased child suffering.

No abstract