Clinical features and outcomes of elderly hospitalised patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure or both

Background and objective: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) mutually increase the risk of being present in the same patient, especially if older. Whether or not this coexistence may be associated with a worse prognosis is debated. Therefore, employing data derived from the REPOSI register, we evaluated the clinical features and outcomes in a population of elderly patients admitted to internal medicine wards and having COPD, HF or COPD + HF. Methods: We measured socio-demographic and anthropometric characteristics, severity and prevalence of comorbidities, clinical and laboratory features during hospitalization, mood disorders, functional independence, drug prescriptions and discharge destination. The primary study outcome was the risk of death. Results: We considered 2,343 elderly hospitalized patients (median age 81 years), of whom 1,154 (49%) had COPD, 813 (35%) HF, and 376 (16%) COPD + HF. Patients with COPD + HF had different characteristics than those with COPD or HF, such as a higher prevalence of previous hospitalizations, comorbidities (especially chronic kidney disease), higher respiratory rate at admission and number of prescribed drugs. Patients with COPD + HF (hazard ratio HR 1.74, 95% confidence intervals CI 1.16-2.61) and patients with dementia (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.06-2.90) had a higher risk of death at one year. The Kaplan-Meier curves showed a higher mortality risk in the group of patients with COPD + HF for all causes (p = 0.010), respiratory causes (p = 0.006), cardiovascular causes (p = 0.046) and respiratory plus cardiovascular causes (p = 0.009). Conclusion: In this real-life cohort of hospitalized elderly patients, the coexistence of COPD and HF significantly worsened prognosis at one year. This finding may help to better define the care needs of this population

A high-performance gradient insert for rapid and short-T2 imaging at full duty cycle

Purpose The goal of this study was to devise a gradient system for MRI in humans that reconciles cutting‐edge gradient strength with rapid switching and brings up the duty cycle to 100% at full continuous amplitude. Aiming to advance neuroimaging and short‐T2 techniques, the hardware design focused on the head and the extremities as target anatomies. Methods A boundary element method with minimization of power dissipation and stored magnetic energy was used to design anatomy‐targeted gradient coils with maximally relaxed geometry constraints. The design relies on hollow conductors for high‐performance cooling and split coils to enable dual‐mode gradient amplifier operation. With this approach, strength and slew rate specifications of either 100 mT/m with 1200 mT/m/ms or 200 mT/m with 600 mT/m/ms were reached at 100% duty cycle, assuming a standard gradient amplifier and cooling unit. Results After manufacturing, the specified values for maximum gradient strength, maximum switching rate, and field geometry were verified experimentally. In temperature measurements, maximum local values of 63°C were observed, confirming that the device can be operated continuously at full amplitude. Testing for peripheral nerve stimulation showed nearly unrestricted applicability in humans at full gradient performance. In measurements of acoustic noise, a maximum average sound pressure level of 132 dB(A) was determined. In vivo capability was demonstrated by head and knee imaging. Full gradient performance was employed with echo planar and zero echo time readouts. Conclusion Combining extreme gradient strength and switching speed without duty cycle limitations, the described system offers unprecedented options for rapid and short‐T2 imaging. Magn Reson Med 79:3256–3266, 2018. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

Tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The single-arm TOCIVID-19 prospective trial

BackgroundTocilizumab blocks pro-inflammatory activity of interleukin-6 (IL-6), involved in pathogenesis of pneumonia the most frequent cause of death in COVID-19 patients.MethodsA multicenter, single-arm, hypothesis-driven trial was planned, according to a phase 2 design, to study the effect of tocilizumab on lethality rates at 14 and 30 days (co-primary endpoints, a priori expected rates being 20 and 35%, respectively). A further prospective cohort of patients, consecutively enrolled after the first cohort was accomplished, was used as a secondary validation dataset. The two cohorts were evaluated jointly in an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model to assess prognostic variables on survival.ResultsIn the primary intention-to-treat (ITT) phase 2 population, 180/301 (59.8%) subjects received tocilizumab, and 67 deaths were observed overall. Lethality rates were equal to 18.4% (97.5% CI: 13.6-24.0, P=0.52) and 22.4% (97.5% CI: 17.2-28.3, P<0.001) at 14 and 30 days, respectively. Lethality rates were lower in the validation dataset, that included 920 patients. No signal of specific drug toxicity was reported. In the exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age and lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio negatively affected survival, while the concurrent use of steroids was associated with greater survival. A statistically significant interaction was found between tocilizumab and respiratory support, suggesting that tocilizumab might be more effective in patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline.ConclusionsTocilizumab reduced lethality rate at 30 days compared with null hypothesis, without significant toxicity. Possibly, this effect could be limited to patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline.Registration EudraCT (2020-001110-38); clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04317092)

Correction to: Tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The single-arm TOCIVID-19 prospective trial (Journal of Translational Medicine, (2020), 18, 1, (405), 10.1186/s12967-020-02573-9)

Following publication of the original article [1] the authors identified that the collaborators of the TOCIVID-19 investigators, Italy were only available in the supplementary file. The original article has been updated so that the collaborators are correctly acknowledged. For clarity, all collaborators are listed in this correction article