Objective IgG4‐related disease (IgG4‐RD) can cause fibroinflammatory lesions in nearly any organ. Correlation among clinical, serologic, radiologic, and pathologic data is required for diagnosis. This work was undertaken to develop and validate an international set of classification criteria for IgG4‐RD. Methods An international multispecialty group of 86 physicians was assembled by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). Investigators used consensus exercises, existing literature, derivation and validation cohorts of 1,879 subjects (1,086 cases, 793 mimickers), and multicriterion decision analysis to identify, weight, and test potential classification criteria. Two independent validation cohorts were included. Results A 3‐step classification process was developed. First, it must be demonstrated that a potential IgG4‐RD case has involvement of at least 1 of 11 possible organs in a manner consistent with IgG4‐RD. Second, exclusion criteria consisting of a total of 32 clinical, serologic, radiologic, and pathologic items must be applied; the presence of any of these criteria eliminates the patient from IgG4‐RD classification. Third, 8 weighted inclusion criteria domains, addressing clinical findings, serologic results, radiology assessments, and pathology interpretations, are applied. In the first validation cohort, a threshold of 20 points had a specificity of 99.2% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 97.2–99.8%) and a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI 81.9–88.5%). In the second, the specificity was 97.8% (95% CI 93.7–99.2%) and the sensitivity was 82.0% (95% CI 77.0–86.1%). The criteria were shown to have robust test characteristics over a wide range of thresholds. Conclusion ACR/EULAR classification criteria for IgG4‐RD have been developed and validated in a large cohort of patients. These criteria demonstrate excellent test performance and should contribute substantially to future clinical, epidemiologic, and basic science investigations.

IMPORTANCEThe efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain.OBJECTIVE To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021).INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from −1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. RESULTSThe aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, −1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, −0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI,; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among crit...

To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 .Methods: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. Results:We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (-1 to 15), 0 (-1 to 9) and-1 (-1 to 7), respectively,

Individuals with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) have an increased risk of gastric cancer, and gastrointestinal lymphoma, yet screening for premalignant gastric lesions is rarely offered routinely to these patients. Proposed screening protocols are not widely accepted and are based on gastric cancer risk factors that are not applicable to all CVID patients. Fifty-two CVID patients were recruited for screening gastroscopy irrespective of symptoms or blood results and were compared to 40 controls presenting for gastroscopy for other clinical indications. Overall, 34% of CVID patients had intestinal metaplasia (IM), atrophic gastritis or moderate to severe non-atrophic gastritis, which can increase the risk of gastric cancer, compared to 7.5% of controls (p < 0.01). Focal nodular lymphoid hyperplasia, a precursor lesion for gastrointestinal lymphoma, was seen in eight CVID patients (16%), one of whom was diagnosed with gastrointestinal lymphoma on the same endoscopy. High-risk gastric pathology was associated with increased time since diagnosis of CVID, smoking, Helicobacter pylori, a low-serum pepsinogen I concentration, and diarrhea, but not pepsinogen I/II ratio, iron studies, vitamin B12 levels or upper gastrointestinal symptoms. There was a lower rate of detection of IM when fewer biopsies were taken, and IM and gastric atrophy were rarely predicted by the endoscopist macroscopically, highlighting the need for standardized biopsy protocols. The prevalence of premalignant gastric lesions in patients with CVID highlights the need for routine gastric screening. We propose a novel gastric screening protocol to detect early premalignant lesions and reduce the risk of gastric cancer and gastric lymphoma in these patients.