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.

Objectives: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of emergency department (ED) physicians with the World Health Organization (WHO) case definition in a large community-based SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) cohort. Methods: This was a cohort study of all patients from Hong Kong's Amoy Garden complex who presented to an ED SARS screening clinic during a 2-month outbreak. Clinical findings and WHO case definition criteria were recorded, along with ED diagnoses. Final diagnoses were established independently based on relevant diagnostic tests performed after the ED visit. Emergency physician diagnostic accuracy was compared with that of the WHO SARS case definition. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated using standard formulae. Results: During the study period, 818 patients presented with SARS-like symptoms, including 205 confirmed SARS, 35 undetermined SARS and 578 non-SARS. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 91%, 96% and 94% for ED clinical diagnosis, versus 42%, 86% and 75% for the WHO case definition. Positive likelihood ratios (LR+) were 21.1 for physician judgement and 3.1 for the WHO criteria. Negative likelihood ratios (LR-) were 0.10 for physician judgement and 0.67 for the WHO criteria, indicating that clinician judgement was a much more powerful predictor than the WHO criteria. Conclusions: Physician clinical judgement was more accurate than the WHO case definition. Reliance on the WHO case definition as a SARS screening tool may lead to an unacceptable rate of misdiagnosis. The SARS case definition must be revised if it is to be used as a screening tool in emergency departments and primary care settings. RÉSUMÉObjectifs : Comparer l'exactitude du diagnostic des médecins au département d'urgence (DU) avec la définition des cas de l'Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (OMS) pour une vaste cohorte de cas EM ADVANCES • INNOVATIONS EN MU

Objectives: To assess the association of diagnostic predictors available in the emergency department (ED) with the outcome diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Methods: This retrospective cohort study describes all patients from the Amoy Garden complex who presented to an ED SARS screening clinic during a 2-month outbreak. Clinical and diagnostic predictors were recorded, along with ED diagnoses. Final diagnoses were established independently based on diagnostic tests performed after the ED visit. Associations of key predictors with the final diagnosis of SARS were described. Results: Of 821 patients, 205 had confirmed SARS, 35 undetermined SARS and 581 non-SARS. Multivariable logistic regression showed that the strongest predictors of SARS were abnormal chest x-ray (odds ratio [OR] = 17.4), subjective fever (OR = 9.7), temperature &gt;38°C (OR = 6.4), myalgias (OR = 5.5), chills and rigors (OR = 4.0) and contact exposure (OR = 2.6). In a subset of 176 patients who had a complete blood cell count performed, the strongest predictors were temperature ≥38ºC (OR = 15.5), lymphocyte count &lt;1000 (OR = 9.3) and abnormal chest x-ray (OR = 5.7). Diarrhea was a powerful negative predictor (OR = 0.03) of SARS. Conclusions: Two components of the World Health Organization case definition — fever and contact exposure — are helpful for ED decision-making, but respiratory symptoms do not discriminate well between SARS and non-SARS. Emergency physicians should consider the presence of diarrhea, chest x-ray findings, the absolute lymphocyte count and the platelet count as significant modifiers of disease likelihood. Prospective validation of these findings in other clinical settings is desirable.

Acute poisoning through consumption of plants picked from the wild is not uncommon in Hong Kong. Gelsemium elegans Benth. is one of the most poisonous native plants which can cause toxicities ranging from dizziness to respiratory depression and muscle paralysis after ingestion. We report three cases of gelsemium poisoning in a family after consumption of a homemade herbal soup made of a plant believed to be Cassytha filiformis Linn. collected in the countryside. All of them presented with dizziness, nausea and generalised weakness and bilateral ptosis about 1 hour post-ingestion. C. filiformis is generally regarded as non-toxic and it does not contain gelsemium alkaloids. The exact origin of the gelsemium was not known in this case. This case highlighted the potential public health threat posed by the practice of picking and consumption of wild plants. Emergency physicians should also be aware that the plant species reported by the patients may not always be the ones causing clinical toxicities. (Hong Kong j.emerg.med. 2015;22:60-63)

Starting from the 1st July 2009, poisoned patients who fulfilled the emergency medicine ward (EMW) admission criteria were transferred to the EMW for subsequent care after intensive care unit (ICU) management. This study was undertaken to review the impact of such a strategy on the length of stay (ALOS). Study design: This was a retrospective study on consecutive poisoned patients discharged from the ICU from the 1st July 2009 to 31st December 2010. Poisoned patients from the 1st January 2008 to 30th June 2009, who were discharged to the general medical ward or to other specialty wards were used as historical controls for comparison. Method: Medical records of eligible cases were reviewed and data were collected using a standardized data collection form. Disease severity during the ICU stay was assessed using the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score. The median ALOS and APACHE II scores of the 2 groups were compared. Results: A total of 32 poisoned patients were transferred from the ICU to EMW during the study period, in which 28 patients were included as the study group. For the historical control group, 19 patients were identified for comparison. The study group had a significantly shorter median length of stay in the ICU (21.3 h vs. 36.0 h, p=0.013) and a significantly shorter median ALOS (28.8 h vs. 52.5 h, p=0.002) compared to the historical control group. All patients discharged to the EMW survived with no ICU re-admission. Conclusion: The strategy of using the EMW as a stepdown unit for selected poisoning cases after ICU discharge is feasible, safe and effective.