Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Making good learning partnerships Examining the experience and potential with the community-based women's education sector and the further education sector

Includes bibliographical referencesSIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:m03/20816 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Change over time in women's views and experiences of maternity care in England, 1995–2014: A comparison using survey data

Background – There have been changes in maternity care policy over the last 20 years and women’s experience, continuity and satisfaction with care have become more prominent. However there has been no research examining changes over time in women’s reported experience. Methods – This study used secondary analysis of data collected in four postal surveys of maternity care experiences in 1995, 2006, 2010 and 2014. In each case women who had delivered in a specified time period in England were randomly sampled and sent a questionnaire three months after the birth. Women were excluded if they were aged less than 16 years or their baby had died. The majority of questions were comparable over the different surveys. Descriptive statistics and adjusted odds ratios are presented. Results – In the antenatal period, an increasing proportion of women had early first contact with a healthcare professional, screening for Down’s syndrome, both dating and anomaly scans and the total number of ultrasound scans increased over the period. The proportion of women given explanations about screening and choice regarding interventions during labour and birth both appear to have increased. In the postnatal period, length of hospital stay declined over time but the proportion of women who considered their length of stay too short remained constant. The number of postnatal home visits also declined and there was a substantial increase in the proportion of women who would have liked more visits. Overall satisfaction with care remained high especially for care during pregnancy, labour and birth. Conclusions – Despite fewer antenatal checks, shorter hospital stays and fewer postnatal home visits, women were generally very positive about their care in pregnancy, labour and birth, and the postnatal period. Maternity care has changed in many respects, with earlier contact with health professionals, more scans and more information. However, reduced continuity of care and a need for support in the early weeks with a new baby was expressed by many women and are issues that may be contributing to some of the dissatisfaction expressed

Act now against new NHS competition regulations

An open letter to the BMA and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges calls on them to make a joint public statement of opposition to the amended section 75 regulation

Stratified analyses refine association between TLR7 rare variants and severe COVID-19

Summary: Despite extensive global research into genetic predisposition for severe COVID-19, knowledge on the role of rare host genetic variants and their relation to other risk factors remains limited. Here, 52 genes with prior etiological evidence were sequenced in 1,772 severe COVID-19 cases and 5,347 population-based controls from Spain/Italy. Rare deleterious TLR7 variants were present in 2.4% of young (<60 years) cases with no reported clinical risk factors (n = 378), compared to 0.24% of controls (odds ratio [OR] = 12.3, p = 1.27 × 10−10). Incorporation of the results of either functional assays or protein modeling led to a pronounced increase in effect size (ORmax = 46.5, p = 1.74 × 10−15). Association signals for the X-chromosomal gene TLR7 were also detected in the female-only subgroup, suggesting the existence of additional mechanisms beyond X-linked recessive inheritance in males. Additionally, supporting evidence was generated for a contribution to severe COVID-19 of the previously implicated genes IFNAR2, IFIH1, and TBK1. Our results refine the genetic contribution of rare TLR7 variants to severe COVID-19 and strengthen evidence for the etiological relevance of genes in the interferon signaling pathway