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

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Public Distress, Economy and Education of Bago Division in Myanmar

In Myanmar, two expatriates have started infected by COVID-19 pandemic on 23 March in 2020 and COVID-19 period was divided into the two periods by the data of patients, from starting July 29, no more infected people found till August 19. Myanmar citizen think that there will be no more new COVID-19 cases, they started running their daily work, not following precaution methods. Unfortunately, the number of patients increased more and more, starting from 20th August. The period between 23rd March and 19th August was regarded as COVID-19 first wave and the period starting from 10th August was COVID-19 second wave by Government. In Myanmar, numbers of developed city are fewer than rural townships. Infrastructures of townships are same and most people, living in rural townships are not rich and they didn't have saving money in Banks and they are depending on their monthly salaries. During pandemic period, general workers faced with unemployment problem and difficulty in daily expenses. Some volunteers helped daily expenses to poor people in COVID-19 first wave. In second COVID-19 wave, volunteers cannot help many families. This paper focused on COVID-19 pandemic impact on Public psychological consequences, Economy, Educational dimension and the prospects after pandemic

Effect of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing on antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care in Thailand and Myanmar: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial

Background In southeast Asia, antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care is common, and a probable contributor to the high burden of antimicrobial resistance. The objective of this trial was to explore whether C-reactive protein (CRP) testing at point of care could rationalise antibiotic prescription in primary care, comparing two proposed thresholds to classify CRP concentrations as low or high to guide antibiotic treatment. Methods We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial in participants aged at least 1 year with a documented fever or a chief complaint of fever (regardless of previous antibiotic intake and comorbidities other than malignancies) recruited from six public primary care units in Thailand and three primary care clinics and one outpatient department in Myanmar. Individuals were randomly assigned using a computer-based randomisation system at a ratio of 1:1:1 to either the control group or one of two CRP testing groups, which used thresholds of 20 mg/L (group A) or 40 mg/L CRP (group B) to guide antibiotic prescription. Health-care providers were masked to allocation between the two intervention groups but not to the control group. The primary outcome was the prescription of any antibiotic from day 0 to day 5 and the proportion of patients who were prescribed an antibiotic when CRP concentrations were above and below the 20 mg/L or 40 mg/L thresholds. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02758821, and is now completed. Findings Between June 8, 2016, and Aug 25, 2017, we recruited 2410 patients, of whom 803 patients were randomly assigned to CRP group A, 800 to CRP group B, and 807 to the control group. 598 patients in CRP group A, 593 in CRP group B, and 767 in the control group had follow-up data for both day 5 and day 14 and had been prescribed antibiotics (or not) in accordance with test results (per-protocol population). During the trial, 318 (39%) of 807 patients in the control group were prescribed an antibiotic by day 5, compared with 290 (36%) of 803 patients in CRP group A and 275 (34%) of 800 in CRP group B. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0·80 (95% CI 0·65–0·98) and risk difference of −5·0 percentage points (95% CI −9·7 to −0·3) between group B and the control group were significant, although lower than anticipated, whereas the reduction in prescribing in group A compared with the control group was not significant (aOR 0·86 [0·70–1·06]; risk difference −3·3 percentage points [–8·0 to 1·4]). Patients with high CRP concentrations in both intervention groups were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic than in the control group (CRP ≥20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP ≥40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001), and those with low CRP concentrations were more likely to have an antibiotic withheld (CRP <20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP <40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001). 24 serious adverse events were recorded, consisting of 23 hospital admissions and one death, which occurred in CRP group A. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be possibly related to the study (a hospital admission in CRP group A). Interpretation In febrile patients attending primary care, testing for CRP at point of care with a threshold of 40 mg/L resulted in a modest but significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing, with patients with high CRP being more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic, and no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes. This study extends the evidence base from lower-income settings supporting the use of CRP tests to rationalise antibiotic use in primary care patients with an acute febrile illness. A key limitation of this study is the individual rather than cluster randomised study design which might have resulted in contamination between the study groups, reducing the effect size of the intervention

Effect of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing on antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care in Thailand and Myanmar: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial

Background In southeast Asia, antibiotic prescription in febrile patients attending primary care is common, and a probable contributor to the high burden of antimicrobial resistance. The objective of this trial was to explore whether C-reactive protein (CRP) testing at point of care could rationalise antibiotic prescription in primary care, comparing two proposed thresholds to classify CRP concentrations as low or high to guide antibiotic treatment. Methods We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial in participants aged at least 1 year with a documented fever or a chief complaint of fever (regardless of previous antibiotic intake and comorbidities other than malignancies) recruited from six public primary care units in Thailand and three primary care clinics and one outpatient department in Myanmar. Individuals were randomly assigned using a computer-based randomisation system at a ratio of 1:1:1 to either the control group or one of two CRP testing groups, which used thresholds of 20 mg/L (group A) or 40 mg/L CRP (group B) to guide antibiotic prescription. Health-care providers were masked to allocation between the two intervention groups but not to the control group. The primary outcome was the prescription of any antibiotic from day 0 to day 5 and the proportion of patients who were prescribed an antibiotic when CRP concentrations were above and below the 20 mg/L or 40 mg/L thresholds. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02758821, and is now completed. Findings Between June 8, 2016, and Aug 25, 2017, we recruited 2410 patients, of whom 803 patients were randomly assigned to CRP group A, 800 to CRP group B, and 807 to the control group. 598 patients in CRP group A, 593 in CRP group B, and 767 in the control group had follow-up data for both day 5 and day 14 and had been prescribed antibiotics (or not) in accordance with test results (per-protocol population). During the trial, 318 (39%) of 807 patients in the control group were prescribed an antibiotic by day 5, compared with 290 (36%) of 803 patients in CRP group A and 275 (34%) of 800 in CRP group B. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0·80 (95% CI 0·65–0·98) and risk difference of −5·0 percentage points (95% CI −9·7 to −0·3) between group B and the control group were significant, although lower than anticipated, whereas the reduction in prescribing in group A compared with the control group was not significant (aOR 0·86 [0·70–1·06]; risk difference −3·3 percentage points [–8·0 to 1·4]). Patients with high CRP concentrations in both intervention groups were more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic than in the control group (CRP ≥20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP ≥40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001), and those with low CRP concentrations were more likely to have an antibiotic withheld (CRP <20 mg/L: group A vs control group, p<0·0001; CRP <40 mg/L: group B vs control group, p<0·0001). 24 serious adverse events were recorded, consisting of 23 hospital admissions and one death, which occurred in CRP group A. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be possibly related to the study (a hospital admission in CRP group A). Interpretation In febrile patients attending primary care, testing for CRP at point of care with a threshold of 40 mg/L resulted in a modest but significant reduction in antibiotic prescribing, with patients with high CRP being more likely to be prescribed an antibiotic, and no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes. This study extends the evidence base from lower-income settings supporting the use of CRP tests to rationalise antibiotic use in primary care patients with an acute febrile illness. A key limitation of this study is the individual rather than cluster randomised study design which might have resulted in contamination between the study groups, reducing the effect size of the intervention

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

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