; for the CORIMUNO-19 Collaborative Group IMPORTANCE Severe pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE To determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICPANTS This cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events. RESULTS Of 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] −9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], −21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI −28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care...

Background Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have an excess of inflammation and increased concentrations of cytokines including interleukin-1 (IL-1). We aimed to determine whether anakinra, a recombinant human IL-1 receptor antagonist, could improve outcomes in patients in hospital with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia.Methods In this multicentre, open-label, Bayesian randomised clinical trial (CORIMUNO-ANA-1), nested within the CORIMUNO-19 cohort, we recruited patients from 16 University hospitals in France with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by real-time RT-PCR, requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen by mask or nasal cannula but without ventilation assistance, a score of 5 on the WHO Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS), and a C-reactive protein serum concentration of more than 25 mg/L not requiring admission to the intensive care unit at admission to hospital. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based secure centralised system, stratified by centre and blocked with varying block sizes (randomly of size two or four), to either usual care plus anakinra (200 mg twice a day on days 1-3, 100 mg twice on day 4, 100 mg once on day 5) or usual care alone. Usual care was provided at the discretion of the site clinicians. The two coprimary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had died or needed non-invasive or mechanical ventilation by day 4 (ie, a score of >5 on the WHO-CPS) and survival without need for mechanical or non-invasive ventilation (including high-flow oxygen) at day 14. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04341584, and is now closed to accrual. FindingsBetween April 8 and April 26, 2020, we screened 153 patients. The study was stopped early following the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board, after the recruitment of 116 patients: 59 were assigned to the anakinra group, and 57 were assigned to the usual care group. Two patients in the usual care group withdrew consent and were not analysed. In the analysable population, the median age was 66 years (IQR 59 to 76) and 80 (70%) participants were men. In the anakinra group, 21 (36%) of 59 patients had a WHO-CPS score of more than 5 at day 4 versus 21 (38%) of 55 in the usual care group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] -2•5%, 90% credible interval [CrI] -17•1 to 12•0), with a posterior probability of ARD of less than 0 (ie, anakinra better than usual care) of 61•2%. At day 14, 28 (47%; 95% CI 33 to 59) patients in the anakinra group and 28 (51%; 95% CI 36 to 62) in the usual care group needed ventilation or died, with a posterior probability of any efficacy of anakinra (hazard ratio [HR] being less than 1) of 54•5% (median posterior HR 0•97; 90% CrI 0•62 to 1•52). At day 90, 16 (27%) patients in the anakinra group and 15 (27%) in the usual care group had died. Serious adverse events occurred in 27 (46%) patients in the anakinra group and 21 (38%) in the usu...

Among factors impacting performance during an ultramarathon, sleep is an underappreciated factor that has received little attention. The aims of this study were to characterize habitual sleep behaviors in ultramarathon runners and to examine strategies they use to manage sleep before and during ultramarathons. Responses from 636 participants to a questionnaire were considered. This population was found to sleep more on weekends and holidays (7–8 h to 8–9 h) than during weekdays (6–7 h to 7–8 h; p < 0.001). Work was a mediator of napping habits since 19–25% reported napping on work days and 37–56% on non-work days. There were 24.5% of the participants reporting sleep disorders, with more women (38.9%) reporting sleep problems than men (22.0%; p < 0.005). Mean (±SD) sleepiness score on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale was 8.9 ± 4.3 with 37.6% of respondents scoring higher than 10, reflecting excessive daytime sleepiness. Most of the study participants (73.9%) had a strategy to manage sleep preceding an ultramarathon, with 54.7% trying to increase their opportunities for sleep. Only 21% of participants reported that they had a strategy to manage sleep during ultramarathons, with micronaps being the most common strategy specified. Sub-analyses from 221 responses indicated that sleep duration during an ultramarathon was correlated with finish time for races lasting 36–60 h (r = 0.48; p < 0.01) or > 60 h (r = 0.44; p < 0.001). We conclude that sleep duration among ultramarathon runners was comparable to the general population and other athletic populations, yet they reported a lower prevalence of sleep disorders. Daytime sleepiness was among the lowest rates encountered in athletic populations, which may be related to the high percentage of nappers in our population. Sleep extension, by increasing sleep time at night and daytime napping, was the main sleep strategy to prepare for ultramarathons.

It is unclear whether motor fatigability and perceived fatigue share a common pathophysiology in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). This cross-sectional investigation explored the relationship between the mechanisms of motor fatigability from cycling and fatigue severity in PwMS. Thirteen highly fatigued (HF) and thirteen non-fatigued (LF) PwMS, and thirteen healthy controls (CON) completed a step-test until volitional exhaustion on an innovative cycle ergometer. Neuromuscular evaluations involving femoral nerve electrical stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation were performed every three minutes throughout cycling. One-way ANOVA at baseline and exhaustion uncovered evidence of consistently smaller motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes (P = .011) and prolonged MEP latencies (P = .041) in HF, as well as a greater decline in maximal voluntary contraction force (HF: 63 ± 13%; LF: 75 ± 13%; CON: 73 ± 11% of pre; P = .037), and potentiated twitch force (HF: 35 ± 13%; LF: 50 ± 16%; CON: 47 ± 17% of pre; P = .049) in HF at volitional exhaustion. Hierarchical regression determined that fatigue severity on the Fatigue Severity Scale was predicted by prolonged MEP latencies (change in R2 = .389), elevated peripheral muscle fatigability (change in R2 = .183), and depressive symptoms (change in R2 = .213). These findings indicate that MS-related fatigue is distinguished by disrupted corticospinal responsiveness which could suggest progressive pathology, but fatigability from whole-body exercise and depressive symptoms also influence perceptions of fatigue in PwMS.

BackgroundCancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common and distressing symptom of cancer and/or cancer treatment that persists for years after treatment completion in approximately one third of cancer survivors. Exercise is beneficial for the management of CRF, and general exercise guidelines for cancer survivors are available. There are multiple potential pathways by which exercise improves CRF, and cancer survivors with CRF are diverse with respect to cancer type, treatments and experienced side effects. While the general exercise guidelines are likely sufficient for most cancer survivors, tailoring of exercise interventions may be more effective in those with persistent fatigue. The primary aim of this research is to investigate the effect of a traditional vs. tailored exercise intervention on CRF severity in cancer survivors with persistent CRF.Methods/designCancer survivors (≥ 3 months and ≤ 5 years since primary treatment) who score ≤ 34 on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (FACIT-F) will be randomly allocated to one of two parallel treatment arms: traditional (active control) and tailored exercise. Participants in the traditional exercise group will engage in aerobic and resistance exercise that is consistent with exercise guidelines for cancer survivors. The tailored exercise group will be prescribed an intervention designed to address individual deficits identified at baseline, such as loss of muscular strength, cardiorespiratory deconditioning or sleep disturbance. Participants will be assessed before and after the intervention for CRF severity and other patient-reported outcomes, neuromuscular function and fatigue in response to whole-body exercise, sleep quantity and quality, physical activity levels, cardiorespiratory fitness and blood biomarkers.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this will be the first study to compare the effects of a traditional vs. tailored exercise intervention on CRF severity in cancer survivors with persistent CRF. Using physiological, behavioural and patient-reported outcomes, this study will add to the current knowledge about both the factors contributing to CRF, and the potential reduction in CRF severity with an exercise intervention.Trial registrationThe study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03049384), February, 2017.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4668-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.