Background Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. Results A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P=0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, −5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, −9.8 to −0.3; P=0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, −5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, −8.7 to −1.9; P=0.003). Conclusions Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579 .)

No abstract

The typical course of HIV infection for a majority of untreated individuals is persistent viral replication and a gradual loss of CD4 + T cells. One of the consequences of ongoing HIV replication is increased immune activation, aff ecting all major cell populations of the immune system ( 1 -3 ). Within the B cell population, HIV infection has been associated with numerous perturbations ( 4 ), many of which have been attributed to changes in the distribution of B cell subpopulations found in the peripheral blood. These changes include increased frequencies of activated and terminally diff erentiated B cells expressing low levels of CD21 that have been associated with ongoing viral replication ( 5, 6 ), a decreased frequency of memory B cells that is not reversed by antiretroviral therapy ( 7 ), and an increased frequency of immature/transitional B cells that has been associated with CD4 + T cell lymphopenia ( 8, 9 ).The eff ects of immune activation in persistent viral infections have recently been shown to include virus-specifi c T cell exhaustion. After the original description in chronic lymphocyte choriomeningitis virus (LCMV) infection in mice ( 10 ), observations of virus-specifi c CD4 + and CD8 + T cell exhaustion have recently been extended to 12 ). Although PD-1 was the fi rst inhibitory receptor associated with virus-specifi c T cell exhaustion, recent fi ndings suggest that exhaustion may result

Thiazide-type diuretics are superior in preventing 1 or more major forms of CVD and are less expensive. They should be preferred for first-step antihypertensive therapy.

We propose a flexible method of extending a study based on conditional power. The possibility for extension when the p value at the planned end is small but not statistically significant is built in to the design of the study. The significance of the treatment difference at the planned end is used to determine the number of additional observations needed and the critical value necessary for use after accruing those additional observations. It may therefore be thought of as a two-stage procedure. Even though the observed treatment difference at stage 1 is used to make decisions, the Type I error rate is protected.

On the basis of these data, a left-ventricular-wall thickness of greater than or equal to 13 mm is very uncommon in highly trained athletes, virtually confined to athletes training in rowing sports, and associated with an enlarged left ventricular cavity. In addition, the upper limit to which the thickness of the left ventricular wall may be increased by athletic training appears to be 16 mm. Therefore, athletes with a wall thickness of more than 16 mm and a nondilated left ventricular cavity are likely to have primary forms of pathologic hypertrophy, such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

In a mathematical approach to hypothesis tests, we start with a clearly defined set of hypotheses and choose the test with the best properties for those hypotheses. In practice, we often start with less precise hypotheses. For example, often a researcher wants to know which of two groups generally has the larger responses, and either a t-test or a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) test could be acceptable. Although both t-tests and WMW tests are usually associated with quite different hypotheses, the decision rule and p-value from either test could be associated with many different sets of assumptions, which we call perspectives. It is useful to have many of the different perspectives to which a decision rule may be applied collected in one place, since each perspective allows a different interpretation of the associated p-value. Here we collect many such perspectives for the two-sample t-test, the WMW test and other related tests. We discuss validity and consistency under each perspective and discuss recommendations between the tests in light of these many different perspectives. Finally, we briefly discuss a decision rule for testing genetic neutrality where knowledge of the many perspectives is vital to the proper interpretation of the decision rule.

BACKGROUND The discovery of potent and broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs) against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has made passive immunization a potential strategy for the prevention and treatment of HIV infection. We sought to determine whether passive administration of VRC01, a bNAb targeting the HIV CD4-binding site, can safely prevent or delay plasma viral rebound after the discontinuation of antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS We conducted two open-label trials (AIDS Clinical Trials Group [ACTG] A5340 and National Institutes of Health [NIH] 15-I-0140) of the safety, side-effect profile, pharmacokinetic properties, and antiviral activity of VRC01 in persons with HIV infection who were undergoing interruption of ART. RESULTS A total of 24 participants were enrolled, and one serious alcohol-related adverse event occurred. Viral rebound occurred despite plasma VRC01 concentrations greater than 50 μg per milliliter. The median time to rebound was 4 weeks in the A5340 trial and 5.6 weeks in the NIH trial. Study participants were more likely than historical controls to have viral suppression at week 4 (38% vs. 13%, P = 0.04 by a two-sided Fisher’s exact test in the A5340 trial; and 80% vs. 13%, P<0.001 by a two-sided Fisher’s exact test in the NIH trial) but the difference was not significant at week 8. Analyses of virus populations before ART as well as before and after ART interruption showed that VRC01 exerted pressure on rebounding virus, resulting in restriction of recrudescent viruses and selection for preexisting and emerging antibody neutralization–resistant virus. CONCLUSIONS VRC01 slightly delayed plasma viral rebound in the trial participants, as compared with historical controls, but it did not maintain viral suppression by week 8. In the small number of participants enrolled in these trials, no safety concerns were identified with passive immunization with a single bNAb (VRC01). (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTG A5340 and NIH 15-I-0140 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02463227 and NCT02471326.)