Background The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor blockade in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) who are not receiving mechanical ventilation is unclear. Methods We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, hyperinflammatory states, and at least two of the following signs: fever (body temperature >38°C), pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen in order to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive standard care plus a single dose of either tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo. The primary outcome was intubation or death, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The secondary efficacy outcomes were clinical worsening and discontinuation of supplemental oxygen among patients who had been receiving it at baseline, both assessed in time-to-event analyses. Results We enrolled 243 patients; 141 (58%) were men, and 102 (42%) were women. The median age was 59.8 years (range, 21.7 to 85.4), and 45% of the patients were Hispanic or Latino. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 1.81; P=0.64), and the hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 to 2.10; P=0.73). At 14 days, 18.0% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 14.9% of the patients in the placebo group had had worsening of disease. The median time to discontinuation of supplemental oxygen was 5.0 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.6) in the tocilizumab group and 4.9 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.8) in the placebo group (P=0.69). At 14 days, 24.6% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 21.2% of the patients in the placebo group were still receiving supplemental oxygen. Patients who received tocilizumab had fewer serious infections than patients who received placebo. Conclusions Tocilizumab was not effective for preventing intubation or death in moderately ill hospitalized patients with Covid-19. Some benefit or harm cannot be ruled out, however, because the confidence intervals for efficacy comparisons were wide. (Funded by Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04356937 .)

Background Patients with severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have respiratory failure with hypoxemia and acute bilateral pulmonary infiltrates, consistent with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It has been suggested that respiratory failure in COVID-19 represents a novel pathologic entity. Research Question How does the lung histopathology described in COVID-19 compare to the lung histopathology described in SARS and H1N1 influenza? Study Design and Methods: We conducted a systematic review to characterize the lung histopathologic features of COVID-19 and compare them against findings of other recent viral pandemics, H1N1 influenza and SARS. We systematically searched MEDLINE and PubMed for studies published up to June 24, 2020 using search terms for COVID-19, H1N1 influenza and SARS with keywords for pathology, biopsy, and autopsy. Using PRISMA-IPD guidelines, our systematic review analysis included 26 articles representing 171 COVID-19 patients; 20 articles representing 287 H1N1 patients; and eight articles representing 64 SARS patients. Results In COVID-19, acute phase diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) was reported in 88% of patients, which was similar to the proportion of cases with DAD in both H1N1 (90%) and SARS (98%). Pulmonary microthrombi were reported in 57% of COVID-19 and 58% of SARS patients, as compared to 24% of H1N1 influenza patients. Interpretation DAD, the histologic correlate of ARDS, is the predominant histopathologic pattern identified in lung pathology from patients with COVID-19, H1N1 influenza and SARS. Microthrombi were reported more frequently in both patients with COVID-19 and SARS as compared to H1N1 influenza. Future work is needed to validate this histopathologic finding and, if confirmed, elucidate the mechanistic underpinnings and characterize any associations with clinically important outcomes.

Background We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. Methods In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04501978 . Findings Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–...

Isolation guidelines for severe acute respiratory syndrome-cornavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are largely derived from data collected prior to emergence of the delta variant. We followed a cohort of ambulatory patients with post-vaccination breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections with longitudinal collection of nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 viral load quantification, whole genome sequencing, and viral culture. All delta variant infections (10/10, 100%) in our cohort were symptomatic, compared with 64% (9/14) of non-delta variant infections. Symptomatic delta variant breakthrough infections were characterized by higher initial viral load, longer duration of virologic shedding by PCR, greater likelihood of replication-competent virus at early stages of infection, and longer duration of culturable virus compared to non-delta variants. The duration of time since vaccination was also correlated with both duration of PCR positivity and duration of detection of replication-competent virus. Nonetheless, no individuals with symptomatic delta variant infections had replication-competent virus by day 10 after symptom onset or 24 hours after resolution of symptoms. These data support current US Center for Disease Control isolation guidelines and reinforce the importance of prompt testing and isolation among symptomatic individuals with delta variant breakthrough infections. Additional data are needed to evaluate these relationships among asymptomatic and more severe delta variant breakthrough infections.

In the last 20 years there has been increased focus on gender differences in health and disease. The earliest studies of lung cancer enrolled mainly men, as the incidence of lung cancer among women was exceedingly low. As social patterns changed around World War II and women began to smoke more, the epidemiology of lung cancer has changed. The higher percentage of lung cancer in non-smoking women as compared to non-smoking men suggests that lung cancer in women behaves differently. Studies of lung cancer in women indicate that there are differences in risk factors, histology, pathophysiology, treatment outcomes and prognosis as compared to men. The purpose of this review is to provide a concise summary of the literature on lung cancer as it pertains to women, with an emphasis on new areas of research and treatment options.

COVID-19 disease exhibits a very wide spectrum of severity. This strongly suggests that host factors influence outcomes. While acquired co-morbidities--such as age, obesity, history of smoking-are very likely related to clinical severity, it is also likely that genetic factors will prove to be relevant to the host thromboinflammatory response. Recently, investigators from China reported that ABO type was strongly statistically associated not only with acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection but also with survival following infection. Zhao et al [1] compared ABO distributions on 1,775 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in China with 3,694 ABO types from a

In rural Uganda, COPD may be more prevalent among PLWH, men, and those with prior tuberculosis. Future research is needed to confirm these findings and evaluate their broader impacts on health.

No abstract