Search

Introduction Tocilizumab randomized clinical trial results are heterogeneous because of the heterogenous population included in them. Methods We conducted a meta-analysis with subgroup meta-analysis (PRISMA guidelines) between severe and non-severe COVID-19. Results We included nine trials. Overall, the mortality rate was 24.5% (821/3357) in the tocilizumab group and 29.1% (908/3125) in the control group at day 28–30 (pooled OR, 0.85; 95% CI 0.76–0.96; p = 0.006). Considering the subgroup analysis, this benefit on mortality was confirmed and amplified in the severe COVID-19 group (pooled OR, 0.82; 95% CI 0.73–0.93; p = 0.001) but not in the non-severe COVID-19 group (pooled OR, 1.46; 95% CI 0.91–2.34; p = 0.12). For patients who were not mechanically ventilated at baseline (5523/6482), the pooled OR (0.74; 95% CI 0.64–0.85; p

The study investigated the prospective memory (PM) functioning among patients with brain metastases (BM), eligible for neurosurgy/radiosurgery, and its relationships with depression and quality of life (QoL). This case-healthy-control, cross-sectional study, comprised 160 participants, including 49 patients with BM from various cancers treated with neurosurgery or radiosurgery. They were compared with 111 matched controls on a set of neuropsychological tests, including the MoCA global cognitive test and an experimental PM task ‘PROMESSE’. Participants also completed a depression scale (BDI-II), a generic (SF-12) and a specific (QLQ-C30) QoL instrument for cancer patients. Multivariate analyses were conducted on various PM outcomes, in particular on event-based (EBPM) and time-based (TBPM) PM performances. After adjusting for age and socio-cultural level, patients with BM performed worse than the control on the PM task (p

We have read with great interest the study conducted by Ramiro et al 1 entitled ‘Historically controlled comparison of glucocorticoids with or without tocilizumab versus supportive care only in patients with COVID-19-associated cytokine storm syndrome: results of the CHIC study’. This study was among the first publications showing benefit of tocilizumab administration in patients with severe COVID-19-associated cytokine storm syndrome, in July 2020.1 In the same way, we observed a benefit of tocilizumab administration in a cohort of 206 patients during the first wave of the pandemic, in June 2020.2 We have now more ‘evidence-based medicine’ to discuss tocilizumab’s place in COVID-19. Thus, nine randomised clinical trials (RCTs)3–11 have been published about tocilizumab administration in COVID-19; however, the effects on mortality remain heterogeneous in these trials.12 We recently made a …

International audience; Background: The aims of this study were (i) to define the relationship between a physical reconditioning cycle using balance exercises and muscular-articular stress and the balance capabilities of sedentary older adults and (ii) to assess whether older adults with weaker equilibrium abilities have a significantly limited progression. Our sample consisted of 338 people (263 women, 75 men) with an age, weight and height of 74.4 years (+/- 8.6), 67 kg (+/- 13.6) and 161.4 cm (+/- 8) and with a body mass index of 25.6 (+/- 4.3). The functional evaluations consisted of individual motor profile tests, monopodal eyes open and eyes closed for 30 s, a Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and stabilometric measurements on hard ground with eyes open for a duration of 25.6 s. The physical repackaging protocol was based on the 12-week Posture-Balance-Motricity and Health Education (PBM-ES) method with two 90-min weekly group sessions.Results: The evolution of the "posture" and "balance" variables was significantly associated with the equilibration capacities (p

Background Diesel motor exhaust is a recognised risk factor for lung cancer, but few studies have investigated the effect of diesel emissions on other parts of the respiratory tract. We used data from the ICARE study, a French population-based case-control study, to investigate the associations between exposure to diesel motor exhaust and the risk of cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx. Methods The analysis was restricted to men and included cases of squamous cell carcinomas of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx and larynx (350, 543, 383 and 454 cases, respectively) and 2780 controls. Detailed information on lifetime occupational history, tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking was collected by interview. We assessed occupational exposure to diesel motor exhaust from questionnaire responses. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for age, residence area, smoking, alcohol drinking and asbestos exposure. Results No association was found between exposure to diesel motor exhaust and cancer of the oral cavity (OR=0.88, CI=0.65–1.18), oropharynx (OR=0.83, CI=0.65–1.10), hypopharynx (OR=0.84, CI=0.65–1.18) or larynx (OR=1.11, CI=0.86–1.43). There was no indication of increasing risk with increasing duration of exposure, for any of the cancer sites. Conclusion These findings do not provide evidence that occupational exposure to diesel motor exhaust increases the risk of oral, pharyngeal or laryngeal cancer.

Objectives To investigate the associations between occupational exposure to refractory ceramic fibres (RCF) and the risk of lung and head and neck cancer. Methods We used data from ICARE, a population based case-control study conducted in France. Detailed lifetime tobacco and alcohol consumptions as well as complete occupational history were collected. Analyses were restricted to men and included 1867 cases of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, 2276 lung cancer cases and 2780 controls. Occupational exposure to RCF was assessed through a specific job-exposure matrix. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for age, residence area, tobacco smoking, alcohol drinking and cumulative exposure to asbestos with logistic models. Results Exposure to RCF was not associated with the risk of lung (OR = 0.9, CI = 0.7–1.2) or head and neck cancer overall (OR = 0.8, CI = 0.6–1.1) or for any of the cancer sites. There was no suggestion of a dose-response relationship with cumulative exposure. When we excluded subjects with the lowest probability of exposure, a non-significantly elevated risk was observed for lung cancer only (OR = 1.3, CI = 0.8–2.2). Co-exposure to asbestos and RCF did not increase the risk of respiratory cancer. For men exposed to both asbestos and RCF, the ORs were 1.8 (CI = 1.4–2.3) for lung cancer and 1.6 (1.2–2.0) for head and neck cancer, compared to respectively 1.7 (CI = 1.5–2.0) and 1.8 (CI = 1.5–2.1) for men exposed to asbestos alone. Since nearly all subjects exposed to RCF were also exposed to asbestos, an independent role of exposure to RCF could not be evaluated. Conclusion Even if a small excess risk cannot be excluded, our results do not provide evidence that exposure to RCF increases the risk of respiratory cancer.