Background The efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor blockade in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) who are not receiving mechanical ventilation is unclear. Methods We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, hyperinflammatory states, and at least two of the following signs: fever (body temperature >38°C), pulmonary infiltrates, or the need for supplemental oxygen in order to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive standard care plus a single dose of either tocilizumab (8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo. The primary outcome was intubation or death, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The secondary efficacy outcomes were clinical worsening and discontinuation of supplemental oxygen among patients who had been receiving it at baseline, both assessed in time-to-event analyses. Results We enrolled 243 patients; 141 (58%) were men, and 102 (42%) were women. The median age was 59.8 years (range, 21.7 to 85.4), and 45% of the patients were Hispanic or Latino. The hazard ratio for intubation or death in the tocilizumab group as compared with the placebo group was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 1.81; P=0.64), and the hazard ratio for disease worsening was 1.11 (95% CI, 0.59 to 2.10; P=0.73). At 14 days, 18.0% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 14.9% of the patients in the placebo group had had worsening of disease. The median time to discontinuation of supplemental oxygen was 5.0 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.6) in the tocilizumab group and 4.9 days (95% CI, 3.8 to 7.8) in the placebo group (P=0.69). At 14 days, 24.6% of the patients in the tocilizumab group and 21.2% of the patients in the placebo group were still receiving supplemental oxygen. Patients who received tocilizumab had fewer serious infections than patients who received placebo. Conclusions Tocilizumab was not effective for preventing intubation or death in moderately ill hospitalized patients with Covid-19. Some benefit or harm cannot be ruled out, however, because the confidence intervals for efficacy comparisons were wide. (Funded by Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04356937 .)

IntroductionPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is expanding across all medical specialties. As the benefits of US technology are becoming apparent, efforts to integrate US into pre-clinical medical education are growing. Our objective was to describe our process of integrating POCUS as an educational tool into the medical school curriculum and how such efforts are perceived by students.MethodsThis was a pilot study to introduce ultrasonography into the Harvard Medical School curriculum to first- and second-year medical students. Didactic and hands-on sessions were introduced to first-year students during gross anatomy and to second-year students in the physical exam course. Student-perceived attitudes, understanding, and knowledge of US, and its applications to learning the physical exam, were measured by a post-assessment survey.ResultsAll first-year anatomy students (n=176) participated in small group hands-on US sessions. In the second-year physical diagnosis course, 38 students participated in four sessions. All students (91%) agreed or strongly agreed that additional US teaching should be incorporated throughout the four-year medical school curriculum.ConclusionPOCUS can effectively be integrated into the existing medical school curriculum by using didactic and small group hands-on sessions. Medical students perceived US training as valuable in understanding human anatomy and in learning physical exam skills. This innovative program demonstrates US as an additional learning modality. Future goals include expanding on this work to incorporate US education into all four years of medical school.

Objective To systematically review the literature on reported adverse effects (AEs) associated with topical NSAID use in older adults with osteoarthritis (OA). Methods A systematic search of Medline (1950 to November 2009), Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane databases, Dissertation and American College of Rheumatology Meeting Abstracts was performed to identify original randomized controlled trials, case reports, observational studies, editorials or dissertations reporting AEs from topical NSAIDs in older adults with OA. Information was sought on study and participant characteristics, detailed recording of application site and systemic AEs as well as withdrawals due to AEs. Results The initial search yielded 953 articles of which 19 met eligibility criteria. Subjects receiving topical NSAIDs reported up to 39.3% application site AEs, and up to 17.5% systemic AEs. Five cases of warfarin potentiation with topical agents were reported; 1 resulting in gastrointestinal bleeding. In formal trials, the withdrawal rate from AEs ranged from 0-21% in the topical agents, 0-25% in the oral NSAIDs, and 0-16% in the placebo group. Conclusion In summary, although topical NSAIDs are safer than oral NSAIDs (fewer severe gastrointestinal AEs), a substantial proportion of older adults report systemic AEs with topical agents. Moreover, the withdrawal rate due to AEs with topical agents is comparable to that of oral NSAIDs. Given the safety profile and withdrawal rates described in this study, further data are needed to determine the incremental benefits of topical NSAIDs compared to other treatment modalities in older adults with OA.

No abstract