Search

[Importance] Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm., [Objective] To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes., [Data Sources] Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts., [Study Selection] Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria., [Data Extraction and Synthesis] In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance–weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality., [Main Outcomes and Measures] The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days., [Results] A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P, [Conclusions and Relevance] In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality., [Trial Registration] PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021230155., Funding for administrative and communications support was provided by the World Health Organization.

Dans ce contexte, la pratique du naming, changer le nom des stades de foot pour y associer un sponsor, s’avère particulièrement intéressante. Outre un choix économique, nos réflexions invitent aussi à les considérer comme une décision linguistique aux implications sociales non négligeables. Elle mérite ainsi une réflexion particulière pour les entreprises désireuses de sponsoriser des enceintes.

International audience; Ce chapitre interroge les terminologies mises en œuvre pour la description organoleptique et hédonique de la fève de cacao produite en Equateur et approchée à partir de la dégustation du produit fini qu’est le chocolat. Il s’arrête en particulier sur les modalités de construction de ces terminologies dans le contexte local spécifique qui repose tout à la fois sur une dichotomie entre la culture de la fève et sa transformation en chocolat et sur la situation diglossique du pays entre langues natives pour les producteurs et espagnol pour les exportateurs et aficionados à l’origine d’un discours largement prescriptif. Affichant une orientation éminemment méthodologique, la contribution discute en particulier le mode de constitution d’un corpus qui permette de tenir compte de la pluralité des sources de discours qui s’entremêlent et propose une discussion des premiers résultats quantitatifs observables dans un échantillon dudit corpus.

Background: We aimed to determine the impact of tocilizumab use on severe COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 19) pneumonia mortality. Methods: We performed a multicentre retrospective cohort study in 18 tertiary hospitals in Spain from March to April 2020. Consecutive patients admitted with severe COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab were compared to patients not treated with tocilizumab, adjusting by inverse probability of the treatment weights (IPTW). Tocilizumab’s effect in patients receiving steroids during the 48 h following inclusion was analysed. Results: During the study period, 506 patients with severe COVID-19 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among them, 268 were treated with tocilizumab and 238 patients were not. Median time to tocilizumab treatment from onset of symptoms was 11 days [interquartile range (IQR) 8–14]. Global mortality was 23.7%. Mortality was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab than in controls: 16.8% versus 31.5%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.514 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.355–0.744], p\0.001; weighted HR 0.741 (95% CI 0.619–0.887), p = 0.001. Tocilizumab treatment reduced mortality by 14.7% relative to no tocilizumab treatment [relative risk reduction (RRR) 46.7%]. We calculated a number necessary to treat of 7. Among patients treated with steroids, mortality was lower in those treated with tocilizumab than in those treated with steroids alone [10.9% versus 40.2%, HR 0.511 (95% CI 0.352–0.741), p = 0.036; weighted HR 0.6 (95% CI 0.449–0.804), p\0.001] (interaction p = 0.094). Conclusions: These results show that survival of patients with severe COVID-19 is higher in those treated with tocilizumab than in those not treated and that tocilizumab’s effect adds to that of steroids administered to non-intubated patients with COVID-19 during the first 48 h of presenting with respiratory failure despite oxygen therapy. Randomised controlled studies are needed to confirm these results. Trial registration: European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorization Studies (EU PAS Register) identifier, EUPAS34415

Resumen: La vía clínica de recuperación intensificada en cirugía cardiaca (RICC) pretende identificar, difundir y favorecer la implementación de las mejores actuaciones basadas en la evidencia científica para disminuir la variabilidad en la práctica clínica. La puesta en marcha de estas prácticas en el proceso clínico global favorecerá la obtención de mejores resultados, acortamiento de estancias hospitalarias y en la Unidad de Cuidados Críticos, lo que permitirá una reducción de costes y una mayor eficiencia. Tras realizar una revisión sistemática en cada uno de los puntos del proceso perioperatorio en cirugía cardiaca, se han redactado recomendaciones basadas en la mejor evidencia científica disponible en la actualidad con el consenso de las sociedades científicas implicadas. Abstract: The ERAS guidelines are intended to identify, disseminate and promote the implementation of the best, scientific evidence-based actions to decrease variability in clinical practice. The implementation of these practices in the global clinical process will promote better outcomes and the shortening of hospital and critical care unit stays, thereby resulting in a reduction in costs and in greater efficiency. After completing a systematic review at each of the points of the perioperative process in cardiac surgery, recommendations have been developed based on the best scientific evidence currently available with the consensus of the scientific societies involved.

Introduction: Madrid has been the epicenter of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in Spain. We analyzed our experience with SARS-CoV-2 infected and cancer patients. Patients and Methods: We included patients from March 1 to April 30 2020 at Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro, Majadahonda, Madrid (Spain). The inclusion criteria were diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection made by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of nasopharyngeal specimens in cancer patients who were admitted to the hospital due to the need for respiratory support. The exclusion criteria were suspected cases not confirmed. The primary objective was to analyze the mortality rates of patients with cancer, especially those with lung cancer and COVID-19. Results: Overall in-hospital mortality of cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was 15.2% similar to 12.7% of the global COVID-19 hospitalized population (p=0.615) and greater than that of patients admitted without SARS-CoV-2 infection during the same period 4.3% (p, This paper is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 875160.

IMPORTANCE Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. OBJECTIVE To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. DATA SOURCES Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS In this prospectivemeta-analysis, risk of biaswas assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I-2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measurewas all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. RESULTS A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P =.003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P

Background Our objective was to describe the clinical course, risk factors and outcomes of patients infected with COVID-19 around the globe comparing cancer to non-cancer patients. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 confirmed cases through an international multicenter collaboration including 17 centers around the world including the United States of America, Brazil, Europe, Far East, Middle East and Australia from January to date. We evaluated the patients’ clinical characteristics, clinical course of the disease, hospitalization and outcome. Death was considered to be COVID-associated if it occurred within 30 days from the time of diagnosis. Results Preliminary data on 571 patients included 186 cancer patients and 385 non-cancer patients. Cancer patients were more likely to have COPD and received steroids but were less likely to have COVID-related symptoms compared to non-cancer patients (84% vs 97%, p< 0.0001). The rate of pneumonia with hypoxia, non-invasive ventilation and mechanical ventilation were similar in both groups. Despite the fact that hospital admissions were significantly higher in non-cancer patients (70% vs 56%, p< 0.001), promising antiviral and immune-related therapy including remdesivir, convalescent plasma and immunomodulators were more commonly used in cancer patients compared to non-cancer patients (P=0.04). Cancer patients had a higher COVID-associated mortality rate compared to non-cancer patients (20% vs 11%, p=0.006). Conclusion Despite the fact that cancer patients received more frequent antiviral and immune-related therapy, the mortality rate among cancer patients was significantly higher than non-cancer patients. Disclosures Roy F. Chemaly, MD, MPH, FACP, FIDSA, Chimerix (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Clinigen (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Novartis (Research Grant or Support)Oxford Immunotec (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Shire/Takeda (Research Grant or Support)Viracor (Research Grant or Support) Issam I. Raad, MD, Citius (Other Financial or Material Support, Ownership interest)Cook Medical (Grant/Research Support)Inventive Protocol (Other Financial or Material Support, Ownership interest)Novel Anti-Infective Technologies (Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support, Ownership interest)

Este artigo explora a história de como os homens tem mapeado e conceituado geograficamente o espaço, e seus eventuais efeitos sobre o meio ambiente. Focando a história do mapeamento, da aeronáutica e dos voos ao espaço, o artigo explora como a ciência e a tecnologia tem sido empregada pelo governo brasileiro na conquista das fronteiras, especialmente da Amazônia. Analisa como essa conquista espacial afetou o meio ambiente na região. Os governos de Getúlio Vargas (1930-1945) e da ditadura militar brasileira (1964-1985) usaram o mapeamento, aeronaves e satélites para promover economicamente o desenvolvimento da região, desenvolvimento que causou a degradação do meio ambiente e conflitos com os povos indígenas. Finalmente, analisamos como as imagens de satélites reverteram essa tendência quando passaram a ser usadas par reforçar as leis ambientais, reduzindo enormemente a taxa de desmatamento na Amazônia.