Measurement of the Electric Form Factor of the Neutron at Q^2 = 0.3-0.8 (GeV/c)^2

The electric form factor of the neutron, G_En, has been measured at the Mainz Microtron by recoil polarimetry in the quasielastic D(e_pol,e'n_pol)p reaction. Three data points have been extracted at squared four-momentum transfers Q^2 = 0.3, 0.6 and 0.8 (GeV/c)^2. Corrections for nuclear binding effects have been applied.Comment: 9 pages, 7 figures, 2 tables. Accepted for publication in EPJ

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Patient preferences for the treatment of systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES: Treatments for systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) differ in attributes, i.e. mode of administration, adverse events (AEs) and efficacy. As physicians and patients may perceive treatments differently, shared decision-making can be essential for optimal treatment provision. We therefore aimed to quantify patient preferences for different treatment attributes. METHODS: Seven SSc-ILD attributes were identified from mixed-methods research and clinician input: mode of administration, shortness of breath, skin tightness, cough, tiredness, risk of gastrointestinal AEs (GI-AEs), and risk of serious and non-serious infections. Patients with SSc-ILD completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which they were asked to repeatedly choose between two alternatives characterized by varying severity levels of the included attributes. The data were analysed using a multinomial logit model; relative attribute importance and maximum acceptable risk measures were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 231 patients with SSc-ILD completed the DCE. Patients preferred twice-daily oral treatments and 6-12-monthly infusions. Patients' choices were mostly influenced by the risk of GI-AEs or infections. Improvement was more important in respiratory symptoms than in skin tightness. Concerning trade-offs, patients accepted different levels of increase in GI-AE risk: +21% if it reduced the infusions' frequency; +15% if changing to an oral treatment; up to + 37% if it improved breathlessness; and up to + 36% if it reduced the risk of infections. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to quantitatively elicit patients' preferences for treatment attributes in SSc-ILD. Patients showed willingness to make trade-offs, providing a firm basis for shared decision-making in clinical practice

Patient preferences for the treatment of systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease: a discrete choice experiment

Objectives Treatments for SSc-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) differ in attributes, i.e. mode of administration, adverse events (AEs) and efficacy. As physicians and patients may perceive treatments differently, shared decision-making can be essential for optimal treatment provision. We therefore aimed to quantify patient preferences for different treatment attributes. Methods Seven SSc-ILD attributes were identified from mixed-methods research and clinician input: mode of administration, shortness of breath, skin tightness, cough, tiredness, risk of gastrointestinal AEs (GI-AEs) and risk of serious and non-serious infections. Patients with SSc-ILD completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which they were asked to repeatedly choose between two alternatives characterized by varying severity levels of the included attributes. The data were analysed using a multinomial logit model; relative attribute importance and maximum acceptable risk measures were calculated. Results Overall, 231 patients with SSc-ILD completed the DCE. Patients preferred twice-daily oral treatments and 6-12 monthly infusions. Patients' choices were mostly influenced by the risk of GI-AEs or infections. Improvement was more important in respiratory symptoms than in skin tightness. Concerning trade-offs, patients accepted different levels of increase in GI-AE risk: +21% if it reduced the infusions' frequency; +15% if changing to an oral treatment; up to +37% if it improved breathlessness; and up to +36% if it reduced the risk of infections. Conclusions This is the first study to quantitatively elicit patients' preferences for treatment attributes in SSc-ILD. Patients showed willingness to make trade-offs, providing a firm basis for shared decision-making in clinical practice