BACKGROUNDNo therapeutics have yet been proven effective for the treatment of severe illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. METHODSWe conducted a randomized, controlled, open-label trial involving hospitalized adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, which causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, and an oxygen saturation (Sao 2 ) of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or a ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pao 2 ) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio 2 ) of less than 300 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) twice a day for 14 days, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary end point was the time to clinical improvement, defined as the time from randomization to either an improvement of two points on a seven-category ordinal scale or discharge from the hospital, whichever came first. RESULTSA total of 199 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent randomization; 99 were assigned to the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 100 to the standard-care group. Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir was not associated with a difference from standard care in the time to clinical improvement (hazard ratio for clinical improvement, 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.72). Mortality at 28 days was similar in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and the standard-care group (19.2% vs. 25.0%; difference, −5.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −17.3 to 5.7). The percentages of patients with detectable viral RNA at various time points were similar. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, lopinavir-ritonavir led to a median time to clinical improvement that was shorter by 1 day than that observed with standard care (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.91). Gastrointestinal adverse events were more common in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, but serious adverse events were more common in the standard-care group. Lopinavir-ritonavir treatment was stopped early in 13 patients (13.8%) because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS

Doping is a widely applied technological process in materials science that involves incorporating atoms or ions of appropriate elements into host lattices to yield hybrid materials with desirable properties and functions. For nanocrystalline materials, doping is of fundamental importance in stabilizing a specific crystallographic phase, modifying electronic properties, modulating magnetism as well as tuning emission properties. Here we describe a material system in which doping influences the growth process to give simultaneous control over the crystallographic phase, size and optical emission properties of the resulting nanocrystals. We show that NaYF(4) nanocrystals can be rationally tuned in size (down to ten nanometres), phase (cubic or hexagonal) and upconversion emission colour (green to blue) through use of trivalent lanthanide dopant ions introduced at precisely defined concentrations. We use first-principles calculations to confirm that the influence of lanthanide doping on crystal phase and size arises from a strong dependence on the size and dipole polarizability of the substitutional dopant ion. Our results suggest that the doping-induced structural and size transition, demonstrated here in NaYF(4) upconversion nanocrystals, could be extended to other lanthanide-doped nanocrystal systems for applications ranging from luminescent biological labels to volumetric three-dimensional displays.

Key PointsQuestionWhat is the effect of convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, on clinical outcomes in patients with severe or life-threatening coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?FindingIn this randomized clinical trial that included 103 patients and was terminated early, the hazard ratio for time to clinical improvement within 28 days in the convalescent plasma group vs the standard treatment group was 1.40 and was not statistically significant.MeaningAmong patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment did not significantly improve the time to clinical improvement within 28 days, although the trial was terminated early and may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference.