Topology-aware Quality-of-Service Support in Highly Integrated Chip Multiprocessors

Current design complexity trends, poor wire scalability, and power limitations argue in favor of highly modular onchip systems. Today’s state-of-the-art CMPs already feature up to a hundred discrete cores. With increasing levels of integration, CMPs with hundreds of cores, cache tiles, and specialized accelerators are anticipated in the near future. Meanwhile, server consolidation and cloud computing paradigms have emerged as profit vehicles for exploiting abundant resources of chip-multiprocessors. As multiple, potentially malevolent, users begin to share virtualized resources of a single chip, CMP-level quality-of-service (QOS) support becomes necessary to provide performance isolation, service guarantees, and security. This work takes a topology-aware approach to on-chip QOS. We propose to segregate shared resources, such as memory controllers and accelerators, into dedicated islands (shared regions) of the chip with full hardware QOS support. We rely on a richly connected Multidrop Express Channel (MECS) topology to connect individual nodes to shared regions, foregoing QOS support in much of the substrate and eliminating its respective overheads. We evaluate several topologies for the QOSenabled shared regions, focusing on the interaction between network-on-chip (NOC) and QOS metrics. We explore a new topology called Destination Partitioned Subnets (DPS), which uses a light-weight dedicated network for each destination node. On synthetic workloads, DPS nearly matches or outperforms other topologies with comparable bisection bandwidth in terms of performance, area overhead, energyefficiency, fairness, and preemption resilience.

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

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

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

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Medullary thyroid cancer patient’s assessment of quality of life tools: results from the QaLM study

Background: Medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) is a neuroendocrine tumour and a rare variant of thyroid cancer with different aetiology, presentation and treatment to differentiated thyroid cancer. Currently available thyroid cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) tools focus on issues and treatments more relevant to patients with differentiated thyroid cancer and therefore may not address issues specific to a MTC diagnosis and cancer journey. Method: This prospective multicentre randomised study involved 204 MTC patients completing four quality of life questionnaires (QOLQ) and stating their most and least preferred. The questionnaires were a general instrument, the EORTC QLQ-C30, two disease-specific tools, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) thyroid module and the City of Hope Quality of Life Scale/THYROID (amended) and the neuroendocrine questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-GINET21. Patients were randomised to complete the four questionnaires in one of 24 possible orders and then answered questions about which tool they preferred. The primary outcome measure was patients’ preferred QoL instrument for describing their concerns and for facilitating communication with their healthcare professional. Secondary analyses looked at differences between preferred QOLQs amongst patient subgroups (WHO performance status [0 and 1+], disease stage: early [T1–3, N0 or N1A], metastatic [T4, any T N1b] and advanced [any T any N M1], and type of MTC [sporadic and inherited]), identification of MTC patients’ least preferred questionnaire and clinicians’ views on the QoL tools in terms of their ability to highlight problems not otherwise ascertained by a standard clinical review. Results: No evidence of a difference was observed for most preferred QOLQ (p = 0.650). There was however evidence of a difference in least preferred questionnaire in the cohort of 128 patients who stated their least preferred questionnaire (p = 0.042), with 36% (46/128) of patients choosing the EORTC QLQ-GI.NET21 questionnaire. Subgroup analyses showed that there was no evidence of a difference in patients’ most preferred questionnaire in sporadic MTC patients (p = 0.637), patients with WHO PS 0 or 1+ (p = 0.844 and p = 0.423) nor when comparing patients with early, advanced local or metastatic disease (p = 0.132, p = 0.463 and p = 0.506, respectively). Similarly, subgroup analyses on patients’ least preferred questionnaires showed no evidence of differences in sporadic MTC patients (p = 0.092), patients with WHO PS 0 or 1+ (p = 0.423 and p = 0.276), nor in early or metastatic disease patients (p = 0.682 and p = 0.345, respectively). There was however some evidence to suggest a difference in least preferred questionnaire in patients with advanced local stage disease (p = 0.059), with 43% (16/37) of these patients choosing the EORTC QLQ-GI.NET21 questionnaire. Conclusions: MTC patients regardless of their performance status, disease aetiology and disease burden did not express a preference for any one particular questionnaire suggesting any of the tools studied could be utilized in this patient cohort. The least preferred questionnaire being a gastrointestinal NET specific tool suggests that diarrhoea was not a significant symptom and concern for the population studied

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS^®) Society Recommendations: 2018.

This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS <sup>®</sup> ) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS <sup>®</sup> protocol. A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. All recommendations on ERAS <sup>®</sup> protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly. The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS <sup>®</sup> Society in this comprehensive consensus review