Background The pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes immune-mediated hyperinflammation, which could potentially lead to respiratory failure and death. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is among cytokines that contribute to the inflammatory processes. Lenzilumab, a GM-CSF neutralising monoclonal antibody, was investigated in the LIVE-AIR trial to assess its efficacy and safety in treating COVID-19 beyond available treatments. Methods In LIVE-AIR, a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were recruited from 29 sites in the USA and Brazil and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive three intravenous doses of lenzilumab (600 mg per dose) or placebo delivered 8 h apart. All patients received standard supportive care, including the use of remdesivir and corticosteroids. Patients were stratified at randomisation by age and disease severity. The primary endpoint was survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT), comprising all randomised participants who received at least one dose of study drug under the documented supervision of the principal investigator or sub-investigator. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04351152 , and is completed. Findings Patients were enrolled from May 5, 2020, until Jan 27, 2021. 528 patients were screened, of whom 520 were randomly assigned and included in the intention-to-treat population. 479 of these patients (n=236, lenzilumab; n=243, placebo) were included in the mITT analysis for the primary outcome. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. 311 (65%) participants were males, mean age was 61 (SD 14) years at baseline, and median C-reactive protein concentration was 79 (IQR 41–137) mg/L. Steroids were administered to 449 (94%) patients and remdesivir to 347 (72%) patients; 331 (69%) patients received both treatments. Survival without invasive mechanical ventilation to day 28 was achieved in 198 (84%; 95% CI 79–89) participants in the lenzilumab group and in 190 (78%; 72–83) patients in the placebo group, and the likelihood of survival was greater with lenzilumab than placebo (hazard ratio 1·54; 95% CI 1·02–2·32; p=0·040). 68 (27%) of 255 patients in the lenzilumab group and 84 (33%) of 257 patients in the placebo group experienced at least one adverse event that was at least grade 3 in severity based on CTCAE criteria. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher were related to respiratory disorders (26%) and cardiac disorders (6%) and none led to death. Interpretation Lenzilumab significantly improved survival without invasive mechanical ventilation in hospitalised patients with CO...

No abstract

No abstract

Correspondence and Communications COVID-19 lockdown and beyond: Home practice solutions for developing microsurgical skills. Dear Sir, Current COVID-19 restrictions present significant challenges to Plastic Surgery training. Numerous obstacles exist; including the necessity for social distancing, global PPE shortages, virtual clinics decreasing trainee exposure to pathology, reduced face-to-face clinical teaching, and limited time in theatre. 1 Furthermore, suspension of nonurgent elective reconstruction work, including breast reconstruction, limits microsurgical training opportunities. Surgical training relies on multiple sequential practice sessions, to allow deep encoding into "muscle memory" 2 , this is particularly relevant for microsurgery where fine motor skills need to be developed. The authors present multiple practical and cost-effective solutions that allow trainees to practice microsurgical techniques from home and "upskill anywhere". These practice options are transferrable to other periods away from clinical practice, including research time and maternity leave, and can also be used to supplement clinical experience during unpredictable on-call rotas. In climates of economic instability, these techniques may prove particularly beneficial. A basic microsurgical instrument kit may be purchased online from multiple platforms at a relatively low cost (e.g. AliEx-press TM , £34). The cost of microsurgical sutures can be a limiting factor to microsurgical practice (e.g. 9.0 AliExpress TM , £0.93 each) and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, precarious supply chains necessitate preservation of resources. Luangjarmekorn et al. describe the use of human hair and insulin needles (BD Ultra-Fine Pen Needles 4 mm × 32 G, expresschemist.co.uk, £0.13 each) to make homemade microsurgical sutures (Table 1). Feedback from trainees in their study suggested that human hair sutures (Figure 1) was a "good-excellent" standard for microsurgical practice, equal to that of standard sutures 3. This is reflected in our experience; we find that a hair of dark colour, mid length, coarse texture and wavy consistency works best. There are multiple models for microsurgical practice described in the literature, including live animal models (predominantly rats), non-live animal models such as chicken wings or thighs, pig leg, placenta vessels, and cold stored vessels. Additionally, a number of non animal models exist

No abstract