Parametric Structural Model for a Mars Entry Concept

This paper outlines the process of developing a parametric model for a vehicle that can withstand Earth launch and Mars entry conditions. This model allows the user to change a variety of parameters ranging from dimensions and meshing to materials and atmospheric entry angles to perform finite element analysis on the model for the specified load cases. While this work focuses on an aeroshell for Earth launch aboard the Space Launch System (SLS) and Mars entry, the model can be applied to different vehicles and destinations. This specific project derived from the need to deliver large payloads to Mars efficiently, safely, and cheaply. Doing so requires minimizing the structural mass of the body as much as possible. The code developed for this project allows for dozens of cases to be run with the single click of a button. The end result of the parametric model gives the user a sense of how the body reacts under different loading cases so that it can be optimized for its purpose. The data are reported in this paper and can provide engineers with a good understanding of the model and valuable information for improving the design of the vehicle. In addition, conclusions show that the frequency analysis drives the design and suggestions are made to reduce the significance of normal modes in the design

Finite Element Modeling and Analysis of Mars Entry Aeroshell Baseline Concept

The structure that is developed and analyzed in this project must be able to survive all the various load conditions that it will encounter along its course to Mars with the minimal amount of weight and material. At this stage, the goal is to study the capability of the structure using a finite element model (FEM). This FEM is created using a python script, and is numerically solved in Nastran. The purpose of the model is to achieve an optimization of mass given specific constraints on launch and entry. The generation and analysis of the baseline Rigid Mid-Range Lift to Drag Ratio Aeroshell model is a continuation and an improvement on previous work done for the FEM. The model is generated using Python programming with the axisymmetric placement of nodes for beam and shell elements. The shells are assigned a honeycomb sandwich material with an aluminum honeycomb core and composite face sheets, and the beams are assigned the same material as the shell face sheets. There are two load cases assigned to the model: Earth launch and Mars entry. The Earth launch case consists of pressure, gravity, and vibration loads, and the Mars entry case consists of just pressure and gravity loads. The Earth launch case was determined to be the driving case, though the analyses are performed for both cases to ensure the constraints are satisfied. The types of analysis performed with the model are design optimization, statics, buckling, normal modes, and frequency response, the last of which is only for the Earth launch load case. The final results indicated that all of the requirements are satisfied except the thermal limits, which could not yet be tested, and the normal modes for the Mars entry. However, the frequency limits during Mars entry are expected to be much higher than the lower frequency limits set for the analysis. In addition, there are still improvements that can be made in order to reduce the weight while still meeting all requirements

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

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Time to Peak Glucose and Peak C-Peptide During the Progression to Type 1 Diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Trial and TrialNet Cohorts

OBJECTIVE To assess the progression of type 1 diabetes using time to peak glucose or C-peptide during oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in autoantibody-positive relatives of people with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We examined 2-h OGTTs of participants in the Diabetes Prevention Trial Type 1 (DPT-1) and TrialNet Pathway to Prevention (PTP) studies. We included 706 DPT-1 participants (mean ± SD age, 13.84 ± 9.53 years; BMI Z-score, 0.33 ± 1.07; 56.1% male) and 3,720 PTP participants (age, 16.01 ± 12.33 years; BMI Z-score, 0.66 ± 1.3; 49.7% male). Log-rank testing and Cox regression analyses with adjustments (age, sex, race, BMI Z-score, HOMA-insulin resistance, and peak glucose/C-peptide levels, respectively) were performed. RESULTS In each of DPT-1 and PTP, higher 5-year diabetes progression risk was seen in those with time to peak glucose >30 min and time to peak C-peptide >60 min (P < 0.001 for all groups), before and after adjustments. In models examining strength of association with diabetes development, associations were greater for time to peak C-peptide versus peak C-peptide value (DPT-1: χ2 = 25.76 vs. χ2 = 8.62; PTP: χ2 = 149.19 vs. χ2 = 79.98; all P < 0.001). Changes in the percentage of individuals with delayed glucose and/or C-peptide peaks were noted over time. CONCLUSIONS In two independent at-risk populations, we show that those with delayed OGTT peak times for glucose or C-peptide are at higher risk of diabetes development within 5 years, independent of peak levels. Moreover, time to peak C-peptide appears more predictive than the peak level, suggesting its potential use as a specific biomarker for diabetes progression