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

Trail Making Test A improves performance characteristics of the International HIV Dementia Scale to identify symptomatic HAND

Although HIV-Associated Dementia (HAD) occurs in less than 5% of individuals with access to combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), rates of milder forms of HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorder (HAND) are much higher. We sought to define an optimal cut-point for the International HIV-Dementia Scale (IHDS) in Thailand for the identification of symptomatic HAND, defined as both HAD and Mild Neurocognitive Disorder (MND). We then sought to determine if adding a simple test from a larger neuropsychological battery could improve the performance characteristics for identifying symptomatic HAND. In this study 75 seropositive adults in Bangkok, Thailand, subjects completed neuropsychological tests and underwent a full neurological assessment. HAND diagnoses were determined by consensus conference using the 2007 Frascati criteria, blinded to the IHDS results. The optimal IHDS cut-point was determined by Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis with cross-validation. Individual neuropsychological tests were then evaluated and combined with the IHDS to test performance characteristics. The IHDS was poor at detecting symptomatic HAND at the optimized cut-point of ≤10 (sensitivity: 53.3%, specificity: 89.8%). The Trail Making Test A was most effective in improving performance characteristics when combined with the IHDS, with net sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 79%. In this setting, the IHDS performed poorly in identifying symptomatic HAND, but was substantially improved by the addition of Trail Making Test A, which typically requires less than two minutes to complete. This combination should be validated in a larger setting since it may address the critical need for HAND screening instruments in international settings

Integrating ecology with hydromorphology: a priority for river science and management

1. The assessment of links between ecology and physical habitat has become a major issue in river research and management. Key drivers include concerns about the conservation implications of human modifications (e.g. abstraction, climate change) and the explicit need to understand the ecological importance of hydromorphology as prescribed by the EU's Water Framework Directive. Efforts are focusing on the need to develop eco-hydromorphology at the interface between ecology, hydrology and fluvial geomorphology. Here, the scope of this emerging field is defined, some research and development issues are suggested, and a path for development is sketched out. 2. In the short term, major research priorities are to use existing literature or data better to identify patterns among organisms, ecological functions and river hydromorphological character. Another early priority is to identify model systems or organisms to act as research foci. In the medium term, the investigation of pattern-processes linkages, spatial structuring, scaling relationships and system dynamics will advance mechanistic understanding. The effects of climate change, abstraction and river regulation, eco-hydromorphic resistance/resilience, and responses to environmental disturbances are likely to be management priorities. Large-scale catchment projects, in both rural and urban locations, should be promoted to concentrate collaborative efforts, to attract financial support and to raise the profile of eco-hydromorphology. 3. Eco-hydromorphological expertise is currently fragmented across the main contributory disciplines (ecology, hydrology, geomorphology, flood risk management, civil engineering), potentially restricting research and development. This is paradoxical given the shared vision across these fields for effective river management based on good science with social impact. A range of approaches is advocated to build sufficient, integrated capacity that will deliver science of real management value over the coming decades