Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Circles and Sensibilities: Music by and for Virgil Thomson

This video documents the concert titled "Circles & Sensibilities: Music by and For Virgil Thomson" at the University of Michigan Museum of Art on November 1, 2013. Exploring the artistic circle as creative milieu and engine through the compositions of early-mid 20th century American composers, students, alumni, and faculty from the School of Music, Theatre, & Dance performed works written by Virgil Thomson, Aaron Copland, Ned Rorem, David Diamond, Marc Blitzstein, Paul Bowles, and David Del Tredici. Professor Nadine Hubbs provided commentary. Performances by: John Boonenberg (piano), Jean Bernard Cerin (baritone), Jennifer Goltz (soprano), Kathryn Goodson (piano), Matthew Leslie-Santana (violin), Donald Sinta (saxophone), and Adam Tendler (piano). This concert was presented as part of the 2013 performance series, SMTD@UMMA, and was made possible with support from The Katherine Tuck Enrichment Fund, the Department of American Culture, and the Residential College. It was presented in conjunction with the UMMA exhibit Adolph Gottlieb: Sculptor. This concert was presented by The University of Michigan Museum of Art, The School of Music, Theatre & Dance, and the Lesbian-Gay-Queer Research Initiative at the Institute for Research on Women and Gender.The Katherine Tuck Enrichment FundThe Department of American CultureThe Residential Collegehttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106998/1/Circles_and_Sensibilities-FullConcert-Final.movhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106998/3/ConsentForms-CirclesSensibilities.pd

Consensus on the key characteristics of endocrine-disrupting chemicals as a basis for hazard identification.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous chemicals that interfere with hormone action, thereby increasing the risk of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, reproductive impairment, cognitive deficits and obesity. A complex literature of mechanistic studies provides evidence on the hazards of EDC exposure, yet there is no widely accepted systematic method to integrate these data to help identify EDC hazards. Inspired by work to improve hazard identification of carcinogens using key characteristics (KCs), we have developed ten KCs of EDCs based on our knowledge of hormone actions and EDC effects. In this Expert Consensus Statement, we describe the logic by which these KCs are identified and the assays that could be used to assess several of these KCs. We reflect on how these ten KCs can be used to identify, organize and utilize mechanistic data when evaluating chemicals as EDCs, and we use diethylstilbestrol, bisphenol A and perchlorate as examples to illustrate this approach

Consensus on the key characteristics of endocrine-disrupting chemicals as a basis for hazard identification.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are exogenous chemicals that interfere with hormone action, thereby increasing the risk of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, reproductive impairment, cognitive deficits and obesity. A complex literature of mechanistic studies provides evidence on the hazards of EDC exposure, yet there is no widely accepted systematic method to integrate these data to help identify EDC hazards. Inspired by work to improve hazard identification of carcinogens using key characteristics (KCs), we have developed ten KCs of EDCs based on our knowledge of hormone actions and EDC effects. In this Expert Consensus Statement, we describe the logic by which these KCs are identified and the assays that could be used to assess several of these KCs. We reflect on how these ten KCs can be used to identify, organize and utilize mechanistic data when evaluating chemicals as EDCs, and we use diethylstilbestrol, bisphenol A and perchlorate as examples to illustrate this approach

The Key Characteristics of Carcinogens:Relationship to the Hallmarks of Cancer, Relevant Biomarkers, and Assays to Measure Them

BACKGROUND: The key characteristics (KCs) of human carcinogens provide a uniform approach to evaluating mechanistic evidence in cancer hazard identification. Refinements to the approach were requested by organizations and individuals applying the KCs. METHODS: We assembled an expert committee with knowledge of carcinogenesis and experience in applying the KCs in cancer hazard identification. We leveraged this expertise and an examination of the literature to more clearly describe each KC; identify current and emerging assays and in vivo biomarkers that can be used to measure them; and, make recommendations for future assay development. RESULTS: We found that the KCs are clearly distinct from the Hallmarks of Cancer, that interrelationships among the KCs can be leveraged to strengthen the KC approach (and an understanding of environmental carcinogenesis), and that the KC approach is applicable to the systematic evaluation of a broad range of potential cancer hazards in vivo and in vitro. We identified gaps in coverage of the KCs by current assays. CONCLUSION: Future efforts should expand the breadth, specificity and sensitivity of validated assays and biomarkers that can measure the 10 KCs. IMPACT: Refinement of the KC approach will enhance and accelerate carcinogen identification, a first step in cancer prevention