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.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background:There is a need to improve end-of-life care for people with end-stage kidney disease, particularly due to the increasingly elderly, frail and co-morbid end-stage kidney disease population. Timely, sensitive and individualised Advance Care Planning discussions are acceptable and beneficial for people with end-stage kidney disease and can help foster realistic hopes and goals.Aim:To explore the experiences of people with end-stage kidney disease regarding starting haemodialysis, its impact on quality of life and their preferences for future care and to explore the Advance Care Planning needs of this population and the timing of this support.Study design:Semi-structured qualitative interview study of people receiving haemodialysis. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Recruitment ceased once data saturation was achieved.Setting/participants:A total of 20 patients at two UK National Health Service hospitals, purposively sampled by age, time on haemodialysis and symptom burden.Results:Themes emerged around: Looking Back, emotions of commencing haemodialysis; Current Experiences, illness and treatment burdens; and Looking Ahead, facing the realities. Challenges throughout the trajectory included getting information, communicating with staff and the ‘conveyor belt’ culture of haemodialysis units. Participants reported a lack of opportunity to discuss their future, particularly if their health deteriorated, and variable involvement in treatment decisions. However, discussion of these sensitive issues was more acceptable to some than others.Conclusion:Renal patients have considerable unmet Advance Care Planning needs. There is a need to normalise discussions about preferences and priorities in renal and haemodialysis units earlier in the disease trajectory. However, an individualised approach is essential – one size does not fit all.

There is a need to improve end-of-life care for End-Stage Kidney Disease patients, to enable them to make informed decisions about future care. Challenges include prioritising communication training among service providers.

BackgroundUK policymakers, clinicians and public wish to see improvements in end-of-life care (EoLC). However, healthcare professionals’ skills and knowledge to deliver high-quality care are often lacking. Since May 2012, palliative care staff in an inner-city tertiary hospital have run a 2-day Transforming End of Life Care (TEoLC) course to improve EoLC confidence, and competence among hospital and community staff.AimTo evaluate course participants’ self-rated confidence, competence and knowledge of EoLC topics.Evaluation designA before-and-after design using self-completion questionnaires, precourse and postcourse. 14 self-assessment questions examined confidence, understanding and knowledge of EoLC topics. Mean change scores and paired t tests were calculated and free-text responses analysed thematically.Participants236 staff members completed the course between May 2012 and April 2014. 42% worked in hospitals and 55% in the community; the most frequent staff roles were qualified nurses (49%), senior nurses (16%) and general practitioners (15%).ResultsAll 14 self-assessment topics improved significantly (p<0.001); most improved was ‘understanding and implementing Fast Track discharge’. Qualitative data showed increased knowledge and confidence in EoLC, particularly in communication, commitment to team work and holistic care. Overall, 217 (92%) participants would recommend the course and 215 (98%) indicated it would influence their practice.ConclusionsThe TEoLC course improved participants’ self-rated confidence, competence and knowledge in EoLC. Findings have utility beyond the UK in light of the international policy recommendations to improve the palliative care skills of generalist healthcare providers.

No abstract