A Review on Multi-Terminal High Voltage Direct Current Networks for Wind Power Integration

With the growing pressure to substitute fossil fuel-based generation, Renewable Energy Sources (RES) have become one of the main solutions from the power sector in the fight against climate change. Offshore wind farms, for example, are an interesting alternative to increase renewable power production, but they represent a challenge when being interconnected to the grid, since new installations are being pushed further off the coast due to noise and visual pollution restrictions. In this context, Multi-Terminal High Voltage Direct Current (MT-HVDC) networks are the most preferred technology for this purpose and for onshore grid reinforcements. They also enable the delivery of power from the shore to offshore Oil and Gas (O&G) production platforms, which can help lower the emissions in the transition away from fossil fuels. In this work, we review relevant aspects of the operation and control of MT-HVDC networks for wind power integration. The review approaches topics such as the main characteristics of MT-HVDC projects under discussion/commissioned around the world, rising challenges in the control and the operation of MT-HVDC networks and the modeling and the control of the Modular Multilevel Converter (MMC) stations. To illustrate the challenges on designing the control system of a MT-HVDC network and to corroborate the technical discussions, a simulation of a three-terminal MT-HVDC network integrating wind power generation and offshore O&G production units to the onshore grid is performed in Matlab’s Simscape Electrical toolbox. The results highlight the main differences between two alternatives to design the control system for an MT-HVDC network

Sarilumab in adults hospitalised with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia (CORIMUNO-SARI-1): An open-label randomised controlled trial

International audienc

Effect of anakinra versus usual care in adults in hospital with COVID-19 and mild-to-moderate pneumonia (CORIMUNO-ANA-1): a randomised controlled trial

International audienc

Effect of Tocilizumab vs Usual Care in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Moderate or Severe Pneumonia

International audienceImportance Severe pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Objective To determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Design, Setting, and Particpants This cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes.Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events.Results Of 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] −9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], −21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI −28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21).Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care unit, TCZ did not reduce WHO-CPS scores lower than 5 at day 4 but might have reduced the risk of NIV, MV, or death by day 14. No difference on day 28 mortality was found. Further studies are necessary for confirming these preliminary results.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0433180