8 research outputs found

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Get PDF
    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

    Thoracic Splenosis

    No full text
    A 22-year old man presented with the history of productive cough and also complained of some weight loss. Examination was essentially unremarkable. On detailed investigations like chest X-ray, CT thorax, Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology, Tc-99m scan, a diagnosis of thoracic splenosis was then made. To conclude, thoracic splenosis is a rare entity that needs patient's reassurance and radiological surveillance. It should also be considered as differential diagnoses of the pleural based masses Keywords: Thoracic Splenosis, Diagnosis, Pleural mass Internet Journal of Medical Update Vol. 1 (1) 2006: pp. 3-

    Resection rate of lung cancer in Teesside (UK) and Varese (Italy): a comparison after implementation of the National Cancer Plan

    Get PDF
    Background In a lung cancer survey in 2000 we showed significantly less favourable stage distribution and lower resection rate in Teesside (UK) than in the comparable industrialised area of Varese (Italy). Lung cancer services in Teesside were subsequently reorganised according to National Cancer Plan recommendations. Methods For all new lung cancer cases diagnosed in Teesside (n=324) and Varese (n=260) during the 12 months October 2010 to September 2011 (hereafter \u2018the 2010 cohort\u2019), demographic, clinico-pathological and disease management data were prospectively recorded using the same database and protocol as the 2000 survey. Findings were analysed focusing on resection rate. Results In the 2010 cohort compared with 2000, both in Teesside and Varese emergency referral decreased (p<0.001), performance status improved (p<0.001), but cancer stage shift was not seen; resection rate improved in Teesside, from 7% to 11% (p=0.054), and was unchanged in Varese (24%). Moreover, in Teesside compared with Varese the stage distribution remained less favourable, stage I\u2013II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) proportion being respectively 12% and 19% (p=0.040), and resection rate in all lung cancers remained lower (11% and 24%; p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, resection predictors in Teesside were as follows: stage I\u2013II NSCLC (OR 86.14; 95% CI 31.80 to 233.37), performance status 0\u20131 (OR 5.02; 95% CI 1.48 to 17.07), belonging to 2010 cohort (OR 2.85; 95% CI 1.06 to 7.64). Conclusions In Teesside the main independent predictor of resection was disease stage; in 2010\u20132011compared with 2000, lung cancer service improved but stage shift did not occur, and resection rate increased but remained significantly lower than in Varese
    corecore