Background In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04381936 ). Findings Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

SummaryBackgroundCerebral microbleeds are a potential neuroimaging biomarker of cerebral small vessel diseases that are prone to intracranial bleeding. We aimed to determine whether presence of cerebral microbleeds can identify patients at high risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage when anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation after recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack.MethodsOur observational, multicentre, prospective inception cohort study recruited adults aged 18 years or older from 79 hospitals in the UK and one in the Netherlands with atrial fibrillation and recent acute ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, treated with a vitamin K antagonist or direct oral anticoagulant, and followed up for 24 months using general practitioner and patient postal questionnaires, telephone interviews, hospital visits, and National Health Service digital data on hospital admissions or death. We excluded patients if they could not undergo MRI, had a definite contraindication to anticoagulation, or had previously received therapeutic anticoagulation. The primary outcome was symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurring at any time before the final follow-up at 24 months. The log-rank test was used to compare rates of intracranial haemorrhage between those with and without cerebral microbleeds. We developed two prediction models using Cox regression: first, including all predictors associated with intracranial haemorrhage at the 20% level in univariable analysis; and second, including cerebral microbleed presence and HAS-BLED score. We then compared these with the HAS-BLED score alone. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02513316.FindingsBetween Aug 4, 2011, and July 31, 2015, we recruited 1490 participants of whom follow-up data were available for 1447 (97%), over a mean period of 850 days (SD 373; 3366 patient-years). The symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage rate in patients with cerebral microbleeds was 9·8 per 1000 patient-years (95% CI 4·0–20·3) compared with 2·6 per 1000 patient-years (95% CI 1·1–5·4) in those without cerebral microbleeds (adjusted hazard ratio 3·67, 95% CI 1·27–10·60). Compared with the HAS-BLED score alone (C-index 0·41, 95% CI 0·29–0·53), models including cerebral microbleeds and HAS-BLED (0·66, 0·53–0·80) and cerebral microbleeds, diabetes, anticoagulant type, and HAS-BLED (0·74, 0·60–0·88) predicted symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage significantly better (difference in C-index 0·25, 95% CI 0·07–0·43, p=0·0065; and 0·33, 0·14–0·51, p=0·00059, respectively).InterpretationIn patients with atrial fibrillation anticoagulated after recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, cerebral microbleed presence is independently associated with symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage risk and could be used to inform anticoagulation decisions. Large-scale collaborative observational cohort analyses are needed to refine and validate intracranial haemorrhage risk scores incorporating cerebral microbleeds to identify patients at risk of net harm from ora...

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundResults of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects.MethodsFOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762.FindingsBetween Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months.InterpretationFluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function.FundingUK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.

SummaryBackgroundIntensive antiplatelet therapy with three agents might be more effective than guideline treatment for preventing recurrent events in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of intensive antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin, clopidogrel, and dipyridamole) with that of guideline-based antiplatelet therapy.MethodsWe did an international, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial in adult participants with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) within 48 h of onset. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio using computer randomisation to receive loading doses and then 30 days of intensive antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin 75 mg, clopidogrel 75 mg, and dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily) or guideline-based therapy (comprising either clopidogrel alone or combined aspirin and dipyridamole). Randomisation was stratified by country and index event, and minimised with prognostic baseline factors, medication use, time to randomisation, stroke-related factors, and thrombolysis. The ordinal primary outcome was the combined incidence and severity of any recurrent stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic; assessed using the modified Rankin Scale) or TIA within 90 days, as assessed by central telephone follow-up with masking to treatment assignment, and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN47823388.Findings3096 participants (1556 in the intensive antiplatelet therapy group, 1540 in the guideline antiplatelet therapy group) were recruited from 106 hospitals in four countries between April 7, 2009, and March 18, 2016. The trial was stopped early on the recommendation of the data monitoring committee. The incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA did not differ between intensive and guideline therapy (93 [6%] participants vs 105 [7%]; adjusted common odds ratio [cOR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·67–1·20, p=0·47). By contrast, intensive antiplatelet therapy was associated with more, and more severe, bleeding (adjusted cOR 2·54, 95% CI 2·05–3·16, p<0·0001).InterpretationAmong patients with recent cerebral ischaemia, intensive antiplatelet therapy did not reduce the incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA, but did significantly increase the risk of major bleeding. Triple antiplatelet therapy should not be used in routine clinical practice.FundingNational Institutes of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, British Heart Foundation.