First administration to man of Org 25435, an intravenous anaesthetic: A Phase 1 Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND: Org 25435 is a new water-soluble alpha-amino acid ester intravenous anaesthetic which proved satisfactory in animal studies. This study aimed to assess the safety, tolerability and efficacy of Org 25435 and to obtain preliminary pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data. METHODS: In the Short Infusion study 8 healthy male volunteers received a 1 minute infusion of 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg/kg (n = 2 per group); a further 10 received 3.0 mg/kg (n = 5) or 4.0 mg/kg (n = 5). Following preliminary pharmacokinetic modelling 7 subjects received a titrated 30 minute Target Controlled Infusion (TCI), total dose 5.8-20 mg/kg. RESULTS: Within the Short Infusion study, all subjects were successfully anaesthetised at 3 and 4 mg/kg. Within the TCI study 5 subjects were anaesthetised and 2 showed signs of sedation. Org 25435 caused hypotension and tachycardia at doses over 2 mg/kg. Recovery from anaesthesia after a 30 min administration of Org 25435 was slow (13.7 min). Pharmacokinetic modelling suggests that the context sensitive half-time of Org 25435 is slightly shorter than that of propofol in infusions up to 20 minutes but progressively longer thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Org 25435 is an effective intravenous anaesthetic in man at doses of 3 and 4 mg/kg given over 1 minute. Longer infusions can maintain anaesthesia but recovery is slow. Hypotension and tachycardia during anaesthesia and slow recovery of consciousness after cessation of drug administration suggest this compound has no advantages over currently available intravenous anaesthetics

Thigh-length compression stockings and DVT after stroke

Controversy exists as to whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with invasive bladder cancer, despite randomised controlled trials of more than 3000 patients. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of such treatment on survival in patients with this disease

Ethnicity and cardiovascular disease prevention in the United Kingdom : a practical approach to management

The United Kingdom is a diverse society with 7.9% of the population from black and minority ethnic groups (BMEGs). The causes of the excess cardiovascular disease (CVD) and stroke morbidity and mortality in BMEGs are incompletely understood though socio-economic factors are important. However, the role of classical cardiovascular (CV) risk factors is clearly important despite the patterns of these risk factors varying significantly by ethnic group. Despite the major burden of CVD and stroke among BMEGs in the UK, the majority of the evidence on the management of such conditions has been based on predominantly white European populations. Moreover, the CV epidemiology of African Americans does not represent well the morbidity and mortality experience seen in black Africans and black Caribbeans, both in Britain and in their native African countries. In particular, atherosclerotic disease and coronary heart disease are still relatively rare in the latter groups. This is unlike the South Asian diaspora, who have prevalence rates of CVD in epidemic proportions both in the diaspora and on the subcontinent. As the BMEGs have been under-represented in research, a multitude of guidelines exists for the 'general population.' However, specific reference and recommendation on primary and secondary prevention guidelines in relation to ethnic groups is extremely limited. This document provides an overview of ethnicity and CVD in the United Kingdom, with management recommendations based on a roundtable discussion of a multidisciplinary ethnicity and CVD consensus group, all of whom have an academic interest and clinical practice in a multiethnic community

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

Background Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research