Writing Committee for the REMAP-CAP Investigators IMPORTANCE The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive.OBJECTIVE To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONSThe immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, −1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. RESULTS Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11...

Results suggest that dogs receiving long-term glucocorticoid treatment have an increased risk of developing a UTI. On this basis, we recommend that urine samples be submitted for bacterial culture at least yearly for such dogs.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of P07P, a product derived from a traditional Chinese herbal remedy, was undertaken in 50 dogs with atopic dermatitis. Owners recorded a daily itch score for 4-14 days before treatment and during treatment. Packets of powder containing P07P or placebo were added to the food once daily for 8 weeks. Dogs were assessed for erythema, surface damage, overall coat condition and seborrhoea by the same investigator, as well as for pruritus and general demeanour, at 0 (visit 2), 28 (visit 3) and 56 (visit 4) days of treatment or at withdrawal. Investigator and owner assessments of response were recorded after 28 and 56 days of treatment or at withdrawal. The predefined primary outcome measure was the owners' assessment of response at the end of treatment. Nine of the 24 dogs (37.5%) in the P07P group but only 3 of the 23 dogs (13%) in the placebo group were considered to have improved, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.09). There was a significantly higher withdrawal rate due to worsening of condition in the placebo group (P = 0.04). Mean daily itch score in the second 28-day period of the study was significantly higher than baseline in the placebo group (P = 0.01) but not in the P07P group (P = 0.30). Pruritus scores showed a significant deterioration from baseline at the final visit in the placebo group (P = 0.01) but not in the P07P group (P = 1.00). There was a significant difference between the groups in change from baseline in erythema score at visit 3 (P = 0.05). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in surface damage, seborrhoea, overall coat condition and general demeanour scores within or between the groups throughout the study. The product was well tolerated with no severe or serious adverse events recorded. P07P may be beneficial as a novel nonsteroidal therapy for the management of dogs with atopic dermatitis.

We compared the effect of propofol and saline control on intradermal test reactions in dogs with atopic dermatitis undergoing outpatient intradermal testing (IDT). Nineteen dogs were used in this clinical study. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous (IV) propofol or IV 0.9% saline, and IDT was performed on the right or left (randomized) lateral thorax. One investigator, unaware of the treatments, interpreted all IDT results. Injection sites were analysed using a subjective and objective method. A value of P ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. When all injection sites were subjectively analysed for reactions ≥ 1+ on all dogs, significantly more positive sites were apparent during propofol sedation than during saline administration. In addition, the greater number of individual dogs experiencing more positive reactions ≥ 1+ during propofol sedation was significant. When subjectively analysing reactions ≥ 2+, the greater number of positive reactions and the greater number of dogs with more positive reactions observed during propofol treatment was not significantly different from the saline control. When analysed objectively, the greater number of positive reactions observed during propofol sedation was not significant. A greater number of dogs had higher subjective scores and larger objective measurements during propofol sedation compared with saline administration. In summary, propofol sedation was associated with an overall greater number of positive IDT reactions compared with the saline control. Although not always significant, this difference should be considered when choosing propofol for skin testing dogs with atopic dermatitis.