Importance Agitation is common, persistent, and associated with adverse consequences for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Pharmacological treatment options, including antipsychotics are not satisfactory. Objective The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of citalopram for agitation in patients with AD. Key secondary objectives examined effects of citalopram on function, caregiver distress, safety, cognitive safety, and tolerability. Design, Setting and Participants The Citalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer's Disease Study (CitAD) was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group trial that enrolled 186 patients with probable AD and clinically significant agitation from eight academic centers in the US and Canada from August 2009 to January 2013. Interventions Participants (n=186) were randomized to receive a psychosocial intervention plus either citalopram (n=94) or placebo (n=92) for 9 weeks. Dose began at 10 mg/d with planned titration to 30 mg/d over 3 weeks based on response and tolerability. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome measures were the Neurobehavioral Rating Scale, agitation subscale (NBRS-A) and the modified Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC) Other outcomes were the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), activities of daily living (ADLs), caregiver distress, cognitive safety (MMSE), and adverse events. Results Participants on citalopram showed significant improvement compared to placebo on both primary outcome measures. NBRS-A estimated treatment difference at week 9 (citalopram minus placebo) was −0.93 [95% CI: −1.80 to −0.06], p = 0.036. mADCS-CGIC results showed 40% of citalopram participants having moderate or marked improvement from baseline compared to 26% on placebo, with estimated treatment effect (odds ratio of being at or better than a given CGIC category) of 2.13 [95% CI 1.23 to 3.69], p = 0.007. Participants on citalopram showed significant improvement on the CMAI, total NPI and caregiver distress scores but not on the NPI agitation subscale, ADLs, or in less use of rescue lorazepam. Worsening of cognition (−1.05 points [95% CI: −1.97 to −0.13], p = 0.026) and QT interval prolongation (18.1 ms [95% CI: 6.1, 30.1], p = 0.004) were seen in the citalopram group. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with probable Alzheimer's disease and agitation receiving psychosocial intervention, the addition of citalopram compared with placebo significantly reduced agitation and caregiver distress, but cognitive and cardiac adverse effects of citalopram may limit its practical application at the 30 mg/d dose studied in this trial.

The reduced tidal volume strategy used in this study was safe. Failure to observe beneficial effects of small tidal volume ventilation treatment in important clinical outcome variables may have occurred because a) the sample size was too small to discern small treatment effects; b) the differences in tidal volumes and plateau pressures were modest; or c) reduced tidal volume ventilation is not beneficial.

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 .)

BACKGROUND Concern persists that inflexible duty-hour rules in medical residency programs may adversely affect the training of physicians. METHODS We randomly assigned 63 internal medicine residency programs in the United States to be governed by standard duty-hour policies of the 2011 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) or by more flexible policies that did not specify limits on shift length or mandatory time off between shifts. Measures of educational experience included observations of the activities of interns (first-year residents), surveys of trainees (both interns and residents) and faculty, and intern examination scores. RESULTS There were no significant between-group differences in the mean percentages of time that interns spent in direct patient care and education nor in trainees’ perceptions of an appropriate balance between clinical demands and education (primary outcome for trainee satisfaction with education; response rate, 91%) or in the assessments by program directors and faculty of whether trainees’ workload exceeded their capacity (primary outcome for faculty satisfaction with education; response rate, 90%). Another survey of interns (response rate, 49%) revealed that those in flexible programs were more likely to report dissatisfaction with multiple aspects of training, including educational quality (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 2.73) and overall well-being (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.67 to 3.65). In contrast, directors of flexible programs were less likely to report dissatisfaction with multiple educational processes, including time for bedside teaching (response rate, 98%; odds ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.49). Average scores (percent correct answers) on in-training examinations were 68.9% in flexible programs and 69.4% in standard programs; the difference did not meet the noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points (difference, −0.43; 95% CI, −2.38 to 1.52; P = 0.06 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS There was no significant difference in the proportion of time that medical interns spent on direct patient care and education between programs with standard duty-hour policies and programs with more flexible policies. Interns in flexible programs were less satisfied with their educational experience than were their peers in standard programs, but program directors were more satisfied. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the ACGME; iCOMPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02274818.)

BACKGROUND Long-term treatment with supplemental oxygen has unknown efficacy in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and resting or exercise-induced moderate desaturation. METHODS We originally designed the trial to test whether long-term treatment with supplemental oxygen would result in a longer time to death than no use of supplemental oxygen among patients who had stable COPD with moderate resting desaturation (oxyhemoglobin saturation as measured by pulse oximetry [SpO2], 89 to 93%). After 7 months and the randomization of 34 patients, the trial was redesigned to also include patients who had stable COPD with moderate exercise-induced desaturation (during the 6-minute walk test, SpO2 ≥80% for ≥5 minutes and <90% for ≥10 seconds) and to incorporate the time to the first hospitalization for any cause into the new composite primary outcome. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive long-term supplemental oxygen (supplemental-oxygen group) or no long-term supplemental oxygen (no-supplemental-oxygen group). In the supplemental-oxygen group, patients with resting desaturation were prescribed 24-hour oxygen, and those with desaturation only during exercise were prescribed oxygen during exercise and sleep. The trial-group assignment was not masked. RESULTS A total of 738 patients at 42 centers were followed for 1 to 6 years. In a time-to-event analysis, we found no significant difference between the supplemental-oxygen group and the no-supplemental-oxygen group in the time to death or first hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.12; P=0.52), nor in the rates of all hospitalizations (rate ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.13), COPD exacerbations (rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.19), and COPD-related hospitalizations (rate ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.17). We found no consistent between-group differences in measures of quality of life, lung function, and the distance walked in 6 minutes. CONCLUSIONS In patients with stable COPD and resting or exercise-induced moderate desaturation, the prescription of long-term supplemental oxygen did not result in a longer time to death or first hospitalization than no long-term supplemental oxygen, nor did it provide sustained benefit with regard to any of the other measured outcomes. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; LOTT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00692198.)

Obesity is a risk factor for being diagnosed with asthma, but there is conflicting evidence on whether obesity is a risk factor for lung function abnormalities characteristic of asthma. We studied a cohort of 488 subjects, 47% of whom were obese. Obese and non-obese subjects with asthma had similar airflow limitation and bronchodilator responsiveness, but obese participants had increased sleep disturbance and gastroesophageal reflux disease, higher cytokine levels, and a trend towards increased exacerbations when treated with theophylline. Obese and non-obese asthmatics have similar lung function abnormalities, but comorbidities and altered responses to medications may significantly affect asthma control in obese people.

No abstract

No abstract