Low temperature transition to a superconducting phase in boron-doped silicon films grown on (001)-oriented silicon wafers

We report on a detailed analysis of the superconducting properties of boron-doped silicon films grown along the 001 direction by Gas Immersion Laser Doping. The doping concentration cB has been varied up to approx. 10 at.% by increasing the number of laser shots to 500. No superconductivity could be observed down to 40mK for doping level below 2.5 at.%. The critical temperature Tc then increased steeply to reach 0.6K for cB = 8 at%. No hysteresis was found for the transitions in magnetic field, which is characteristic of a type II superconductor. The corresponding upper critical field Hc2(0) was on the order of 1000 G, much smaller than the value previously reported by Bustarret et al. in Nature (London) 444, 465 (2006).Comment: 4 pages including 4 figures, submitted to PRB-Rapid Communicatio

The Superconducting Transition in Boron Doped Silicon Films

International audienceWe report on a detailed analysis of the superconducting properties of boron-doped silicon films grown along the 001 direction by gas immersion laser doping. This technique is proved to be a powerful technique to dope silicon in the alloying range 2-10 at.% where superconductivity occurs. The superconducting transitions are sharp and well defined both in resistivity and magnetic susceptibility. The variation of Tc on the boron concentration is in contradiction with a classical exponential dependence on superconducting parameters. Electrical measurements were performed in magnetic field on the sample with cB = 8 at.% (400 laser shots) which has the highest Tc (0.6 K). No hysteresis was found for the transitions in magnetic field, which is characteristic of a type-II superconductor. The corresponding upper critical field was on the order of 1000 G at low temperatures, much smaller than the value previously reported. The temperature dependence of Hc2 is very well reproduced by the linearized Gorkov equations neglecting spin effects in the very dirty limit. These measurements in magnetic field allow an estimation of the electronic mean-free path, the coherence length, and the London penetration depth within a simple two-band free electron model

Randomised trial of indwelling pleural catheters for refractory transudative pleural effusions

Objective: Refractory symptomatic transudative pleural effusions are an indication for pleural drainage. There has been supportive observational evidence for the use of indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) for transudative effusions, but no randomised trials. We aimed to investigate the effect of IPCs on breathlessness in patients with transudative pleural effusions when compared with standard care. / Methods: A multicentre randomised controlled trial, in which patients with transudative pleural effusions were randomly assigned to either an IPC (intervention) or therapeutic thoracentesis (TT; standard care). The primary outcome was mean daily breathlessness score over 12 weeks from randomisation. / Results: 220 patients were screened from April 2015 to August 2019 across 13 centres, with 33 randomised to intervention (IPC) and 35 to standard care (TT). Underlying aetiology was heart failure in 46 patients, liver failure in 16 and renal failure in six. In primary outcome analysis, the mean±sd breathlessness score over the 12-week study period was 39.7±29.4 mm in the IPC group and 45.0±26.1 mm in the TT group (p=0.67). Secondary outcomes analysis demonstrated that mean±sd drainage was 17 412±17 936 mL and 2901±2416 mL in the IPC and TT groups, respectively. A greater proportion of patients had at least one adverse event in the IPC group (p=0.04). / Conclusion: We found no significant difference in breathlessness over 12 weeks between IPCs or TT. TT is associated with fewer complications and IPCs reduced the number of invasive pleural procedures required. Patient preference and circumstances should be considered in selecting the intervention in this cohort

The impact of outpatient <i>versus</i> inpatient management on health-related quality of life outcomes for patients with malignant pleural effusion: the OPTIMUM randomised clinical trial

Background: The principal aim of malignant pleural effusion (MPE) management is to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms.Methods: In this open-label randomised controlled trial, patients with symptomatic MPE were randomly assigned to either indwelling pleural catheter (IPC) insertion with the option of talc pleurodesis or chest drain and talc pleurodesis. The primary end-point was global health status, measured with the 30-item European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) at 30 days post-intervention. 142 participants were enrolled from July 2015 to December 2019.Results: Of participants randomly assigned to the IPC (n=70) and chest drain (n=72) groups, primary outcome data were available in 58 and 56 patients, respectively. Global health status improved in both groups at day 30 compared with baseline: IPC (mean difference 13.11; p=0.001) and chest drain (mean difference 10.11; p=0.001). However, there was no significant between-group difference at day 30 (mean intergroup difference in baseline-adjusted global health status 2.06, 95% CI −5.86–9.99; p=0.61), day 60 or day 90. No significant differences were identified between groups in breathlessness and chest pain scores. All chest drain arm patients were admitted (median length of stay 4 days); seven patients in the IPC arm required intervention-related hospitalisation.Conclusions: While HRQoL significantly improved in both groups, there were no differences in patient-reported global health status at 30 days. The outpatient pathway using an IPC was not superior to inpatient treatment with a chest drain

How achievable are COVID-19 clinical trial recruitment targets? A UK observational cohort study and trials registry analysis

OBJECTIVES: To analyse enrolment to interventional trials during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and describe the barriers to successful recruitment in the circumstance of a further wave or future pandemics. DESIGN: We analysed registered interventional COVID-19 trial data and concurrently did a prospective observational study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were being assessed for eligibility to one of the RECOVERY, C19-ACS or SIMPLE trials. SETTING: Interventional COVID-19 trial data were analysed from the clinicaltrials.gov and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number databases on 12 July 2020. The patient cohort was taken from five centres in a respiratory National Institute for Health Research network. Population and modelling data were taken from published reports from the UK government and Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit. PARTICIPANTS: 2082 consecutive admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 27 March 2020 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions enrolled, and reasons for exclusion from the aforementioned trials. Comparisons of trial recruitment targets with estimated feasible recruitment numbers. RESULTS: Analysis of trial registration data for COVID-19 treatment studies enrolling in England showed that by 12 July 2020, 29 142 participants were needed. In the observational study, 430 (20.7%) proceeded to randomisation. 82 (3.9%) declined participation, 699 (33.6%) were excluded on clinical grounds, 363 (17.4%) were medically fit for discharge and 153 (7.3%) were receiving palliative care. With 111 037 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England by 12 July 2020, we determine that 22 985 people were potentially suitable for trial enrolment. We estimate a UK hospitalisation rate of 2.38%, and that another 1.25 million infections would be required to meet recruitment targets of ongoing trials. CONCLUSIONS: Feasible recruitment rates, study design and proliferation of trials can limit the number, and size, that will successfully complete recruitment. We consider that fewer, more appropriately designed trials, prioritising cooperation between centres would maximise productivity in a further wave

How achievable are COVID-19 clinical trial recruitment targets? A UK observational cohort study and trials registry analysis

Objectives: To analyse enrolment to interventional trials during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and describe the barriers to successful recruitment in the circumstance of a further wave or future pandemics. Design: We analysed registered interventional COVID-19 trial data and concurrently did a prospective observational study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were being assessed for eligibility to one of the RECOVERY, C19-ACS or SIMPLE trials. Setting: Interventional COVID-19 trial data were analysed from the clinicaltrials.gov and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number databases on 12 July 2020. The patient cohort was taken from five centres in a respiratory National Institute for Health Research network. Population and modelling data were taken from published reports from the UK government and Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit. Participants: 2082 consecutive admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 27 March 2020 were included. Main outcome measures: Proportions enrolled, and reasons for exclusion from the aforementioned trials. Comparisons of trial recruitment targets with estimated feasible recruitment numbers. Results: Analysis of trial registration data for COVID-19 treatment studies enrolling in England showed that by 12 July 2020, 29 142 participants were needed. In the observational study, 430 (20.7%) proceeded to randomisation. 82 (3.9%) declined participation, 699 (33.6%) were excluded on clinical grounds, 363 (17.4%) were medically fit for discharge and 153 (7.3%) were receiving palliative care. With 111 037 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England by 12 July 2020, we determine that 22 985 people were potentially suitable for trial enrolment. We estimate a UK hospitalisation rate of 2.38%, and that another 1.25 million infections would be required to meet recruitment targets of ongoing trials. Conclusions: Feasible recruitment rates, study design and proliferation of trials can limit the number, and size, that will successfully complete recruitment. We consider that fewer, more appropriately designed trials, prioritising cooperation between centres would maximise productivity in a further wave

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P=0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.

Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.MethodsIn this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment.ResultsA total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55).ConclusionsIn patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936. opens in new tab; ISRCTN number, 50189673. opens in new tab.

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

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

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

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome