An Observational Overview of Solar Flares

We present an overview of solar flares and associated phenomena, drawing upon a wide range of observational data primarily from the RHESSI era. Following an introductory discussion and overview of the status of observational capabilities, the article is split into topical sections which deal with different areas of flare phenomena (footpoints and ribbons, coronal sources, relationship to coronal mass ejections) and their interconnections. We also discuss flare soft X-ray spectroscopy and the energetics of the process. The emphasis is to describe the observations from multiple points of view, while bearing in mind the models that link them to each other and to theory. The present theoretical and observational understanding of solar flares is far from complete, so we conclude with a brief discussion of models, and a list of missing but important observations.Comment: This is an article for a monograph on the physics of solar flares, inspired by RHESSI observations. The individual articles are to appear in Space Science Reviews (2011

Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Colonization with Escherichia coli EC 25 protects neonatal rats from necrotizing enterocolitis.

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in premature infants; yet its pathogenesis remains poorly understood. To evaluate the role of intestinal bacteria in protection against NEC, we assessed the ability of naturally occurring intestinal colonizer E. coli EC25 to influence composition of intestinal microbiota and NEC pathology in the neonatal rat model. Experimental NEC was induced in neonatal rats by formula feeding/hypoxia, and graded histologically. Bacterial populations were characterized by plating on blood agar, scoring colony classes, and identifying each class by sequencing 16S rDNA. Binding of bacteria to, and induction of apoptosis in IEC-6 enterocytes were examined by plating on blood agar and fluorescent staining for fragmented DNA. E. coli EC 25, which was originally isolated from healthy rats, efficiently colonized the intestine and protected from NEC following introduction to newborn rats with formula at 106 or 108 cfu. Protection did not depend significantly on EC25 inoculum size or load in the intestine, but positively correlated with the fraction of EC25 in the microbiome. Introduction of EC25 did not prevent colonization with other bacteria and did not significantly alter bacterial diversity. EC25 neither induced cultured enterocyte apoptosis, nor protected from apoptosis induced by an enteropathogenic strain of Cronobacter muytjensii. Our results show that E. coli EC25 is a commensal strain that efficiently colonizes the neonatal intestine and protects from NEC

Effects of <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> EC25 on NEC pathology.

<p>A, Distribution of NEC scores in Harlan Labs rats that received 0, 10⁶, and 10⁸ cfu of EC25 per feeding. Horizontal bars are medians. *, significant difference from the group that received no EC25 (p<0.05). B. NEC scores in control Harlan Labs rats (solid bars) and those that received EC25 (open bars). C, Average fractions of EC25 in microbimes of NEC (score 2–4, n = 8) and no NEC (score 0–1, n = 24) rats. All animals received 10⁶ or 10⁸ cfu of EC25. *, significant difference, p = 0.014. D, Average logarithms of total EC25 loads in no-NEC (n = 24) and NEC (n = 8) animals. E, Average SDI with (n = 32) and without (n = 80) supplementation with EC25.</p

Bacterial species and strains found in 4 day old rats.

<p>Bacterial species and strains found in 4 day old rats.</p

Colony morphology and DNA restriction fragments of bacterial strains.

<p>A, Colony morphology. EC25 colonies (2–5) have characteristic strong wrinkles and small central button. Other <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> strains have smooth (1, 8), wrinkled with large central button (7), or weakly wrinkled (10) colonies. Colonies of other species (6, 9) are grossly different from those of <i>E</i>.<i>coli</i>. B, Electropherograms of <i>Hin</i>dIII-digested DNA. 1, <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> Di114; 2–5, <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> EC25; 6, <i>Micrococcus luteus</i>; 7, <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> FUA1242; 8, <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> DSM1103; 9, <i>Citrobacter freundii</i>; 10, <i>E</i>. <i>coli</i> NRG85C.</p

NEC scores and numbers of identified strains.

<p>A Distribution of NEC scores in Charles River (solid bars) and Harlan Labs (open bars) rats. B, Numbers of different bacterial strains found in litters. C, Numbers of bacterial strains found in individual animals. B and C show data for combined breast fed and formula fed population. D, average logarithms of total bacterial loads in animals with NEC (scores 2–4, n = 60) and without NEC (scores 0–1, n = 72).</p