Endothelin 1 levels in relation to clinical presentation and outcome of Henoch Schonlein purpura

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Henoch Schonlein purpura (HSP) is a common vasculitis of small vessels whereas endothelin-1 (ET-1) is usually reported elevated in vasculities and systematic inflammation. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether ET-1 levels are correlated with the clinical presentation and the outcome of HSP.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study sample consisted of thirty consecutive patients with HSP. An equal number of healthy patients of similar age and the same gender were served as controls. The patients' age range was 2–12.6 years with a mean ± SD = 6.3 ± 3 years. All patients had a physical examination with a renal, and an overall clinical score. Blood and urinary biochemistry, immunology investigation, a skin biopsy and ET-1 measurements in blood and urine samples were made at presentation, 1 month later and 1 year after the appearance of HSP. The controls underwent the same investigation with the exception of skin biopsy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ET-1 levels in plasma and urine did not differ between patients and controls at three distinct time points. Furthermore the ET-1 were not correlated with the clinical score and renal involvement was independent from the ET-1 measurements. However, the urinary ET-1 levels were a significant predictor of the duration of the acute phase of HSP (HR = 0.98, p = 0.032, CI0.96–0.99). The ET-1 levels did not correlate with the duration of renal involvement.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Urinary ET-1 levels are a useful marker for the duration of the acute phase of HSP but not for the length of renal involvement.</p

Thigh-length compression stockings and DVT after stroke

Controversy exists as to whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with invasive bladder cancer, despite randomised controlled trials of more than 3000 patients. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of such treatment on survival in patients with this disease

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

Background Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. 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-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. 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%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated 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 (median 10 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, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or 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 other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research