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

Effect of Oral Methylprednisolone on Decline in Kidney Function or Kidney Failure in Patients With IgA Nephropathy: The TESTING Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE: The effect of glucocorticoids on major kidney outcomes and adverse events in IgA nephropathy has been uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of methylprednisolone in patients with IgA nephropathy at high risk of kidney function decline. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that enrolled 503 participants with IgA nephropathy, proteinuria greater than or equal to 1 g per day, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 20 to 120 mL/min/1.73 m2 after at least 3 months of optimized background care from 67 centers in Australia, Canada, China, India, and Malaysia between May 2012 and November 2019, with follow-up until June 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral methylprednisolone (initially 0.6-0.8 mg/kg/d, maximum 48 mg/d, weaning by 8 mg/d/mo; n = 136) or placebo (n = 126). After 262 participants were randomized, an excess of serious infections was identified, leading to dose reduction (0.4 mg/kg/d, maximum 32 mg/d, weaning by 4 mg/d/mo) and addition of antibiotic prophylaxis for pneumocystis pneumonia for subsequent participants (121 in the oral methylprednisolone group and 120 in the placebo group). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was a composite of 40% decline in eGFR, kidney failure (dialysis, transplant), or death due to kidney disease. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including kidney failure. RESULTS: Among 503 randomized patients (mean age, 38 years; 198 [39%] women; mean eGFR, 61.5 mL/min/1.73 m2; mean proteinuria, 2.46 g/d), 493 (98%) completed the trial. Over a mean of 4.2 years of follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 74 participants (28.8%) in the methylprednisolone group compared with 106 (43.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.39-0.72]; P < .001; absolute annual event rate difference, −4.8% per year [95% CI, −8.0% to −1.6%]). The effect on the primary outcome was seen across each dose compared with the relevant participants in the placebo group recruited to each regimen (P for heterogeneity = .11): full-dose HR, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.41-0.81); reduced-dose HR, 0.27 (95% CI, 0.11-0.65). Of the 11 prespecified secondary end points, 9 showed significant differences in favor of the intervention, including kidney failure (50 [19.5%] vs 67 [27.2%]; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.40-0.87]; P = .008; annual event rate difference, −2.9% per year [95% CI, −5.4% to −0.3%]). Serious adverse events were more frequent with methylprednisolone vs placebo (28 [10.9%] vs 7 [2.8%] patients with serious adverse events), primarily with full-dose therapy compared with its matching placebo (22 [16.2%] vs 4 [3.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with IgA nephropathy at high risk of progression, treatment with oral methylprednisolone for 6 to 9 months, compared with placebo, significantly reduced the risk of the composite outcome of kidney function decline, kidney failure, or death due to kidney disease. However, the incidence of serious adverse events was increased with oral methylprednisolone, mainly with high-dose therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0156005

Coming Out as Fat

This paper examines the surprising case of women who "come out as fat" to test and refine theories about social change, social mobilization, stigma, and stigma resistance. First, supporting theories about "social movement spillover," we find that overlapping memberships in queer and fat activist groups, as well as networks between these groups, have facilitated the migration of this cultural narrative. Second, we find that the different, embodied context of body size and sexual orientation leads to changes in meaning as this narrative travels. Specifically, the hyper-visibility of fat changes what it means to come out as a fat person, compared to what it means to come out as gay or lesbian. Third, this case leads us to question the importance of the distinction made in the literatures on stigma and on social movements between assimilationist strategies that stress sameness, on the one hand, and radical political strategies that emphasize difference, on the other. Finally, this case suggests that the extent to which a stigmatized trait is associated with membership in a social group-with its own practices, values, and norms- shapes what it means to "come out" as one who possesses that trait. © 2011 American Sociological Association