Background In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04381936 ). Findings Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research.

Background: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examined the efficacy and safety of risperidone in the treatment of aggression, agitation, and psychosis in elderly nursing-home patients with dementia. Method: Elderly patients with a DSM-IV diagnosis of dementia of the Alzheimer's type, vascular dementia, or a combination of the 2 (i.e., mixed dementia) and significant aggressive behaviors were randomized to receive, for a period of 12 weeks, a flexible dose of either placebo or risperidone solution up to a maximum of 2 mg/day. Outcome measures were the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), the Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease (BEHAVE-AD) rating scale, and the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) and of Change (CGI-C) scales. Results: A total of 345 patients were randomized to treatment with risperidone or placebo, and 337 patients received at least one dose of study drug. The trial was completed by 67% of patients in the placebo group and 73% of patients in the risperidone group. The mean ± SE dose of risperidone was 0.95 ± 0.03 mg/day. The primary endpoint of the study, the difference from baseline to endpoint in CMAI total aggression score, showed a significant reduction in aggressive behavior for risperidone versus placebo (p < .001). A similar improvement was also seen for the CMAI total non-aggression subscale (p < .002) and for the BEHAVE-AD total (p < .001) and psychotic symptoms subscale (p = .004). At endpoint, the CGI-S and the CGI-C scores indicated a significantly greater improvement with risperidone compared with placebo (p < .001). Overall, 94% and 92% of the risperidone and placebo groups, respectively, reported at least 1 adverse event. Somnolence and urinary tract infection were more common with risperidone treatment, whereas agitation was more common with placebo. There was no significant difference in the number of patients who reported extrapyramidal symptoms between the risperidone (23%) and placebo (16%) groups. Conclusion: Treatment with low-dose (mean = 0.95 mg/day) risperidone resulted in significant improvement in aggression, agitation, and psychosis associated with dementia.

No abstract

No abstract

Climate change is driving a pervasive global redistribution of the planet's species. Species redistribution poses new questions for the study of ecosystems, conservation science and human societies that require a coordinated and integrated approach. Here we review recent progress, key gaps and strategic directions in this nascent research area, emphasising emerging themes in species redistribution biology, the importance of understanding underlying drivers and the need to anticipate novel outcomes of changes in species ranges. We highlight that species redistribution has manifest implications across multiple temporal and spatial scales and from genes to ecosystems. Understanding range shifts from ecological, physiological, genetic and biogeographical perspectives is essential for informing changing paradigms in conservation science and for designing conservation strategies that incorporate changing population connectivity and advance adaptation to climate change. Species redistributions present challenges for human well-being, environmental management and sustainable development. By synthesising recent approaches, theories and tools, our review establishes an interdisciplinary foundation for the development of future research on species redistribution. Specifically, we demonstrate how ecological, conservation and social research on species redistribution can best be achieved by working across disciplinary boundaries to develop and implement solutions to climate change challenges. Future studies should therefore integrate existing and complementary scientific frameworks while incorporating social science and human-centred approaches. Finally, we emphasise that the best science will not be useful unless more scientists engage with managers, policy makers and the public to develop responsible and socially acceptable options for the global challenges arising from species redistributions.