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:Family members of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk for mental health morbidity both during and after a patient's ICU stay. OBJECTIVES:To determine prevalences of and factors associated with anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress and complicated grief in family members of ICU patients.DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty family members of patients inICUs at a large university hospital participated. MEASUREMENTS: We used the Control PreferencesScale to determine participants' role preferences for surrogate decision-making. We used the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Impact of Event Scale, and Inventory of Complicated Grief to measure anxiety and depression (at enrollment, 1 month, 6 months), posttraumatic stress (6 months), and complicated grief (6 months). RESULTS:We interviewed all 50 participants at enrollment, 39 (78%) at 1 month, and 34 (68%) at 6 months. At the three time points, anxiety was present in 42% (95% CI, 29-56%), 21% (95% CI, 10-35%), and 15% (95% CI, 6-29%) of participants. Depression was present in 16% (95% CI, 8-28%), 8% (95% CI, 2-19%), and 6% (95% CI, 1-18%). At 6 months, 35% (95% CI, 21-52%) of participants had posttraumatic stress. Of the 38% who were bereaved, 46% (95% CI, 22-71%) had complicated grief. Posttraumatic stress was not more common in bereaved than nonbereaved participants, and neither posttraumatic stress nor complicated grief was associated with decision-making role preference or with anxiety or depression during the patient's ICU stay.CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms of anxiety and depression diminished over time, but both bereaved and nonbereaved participants had high rates of posttraumatic stress and complicated grief. Family members should be assessed for posttraumatic stress and complicated grief.

Background Health research is evolving to include patient stakeholders (patients, families and caregivers) as active members of research teams. Frameworks describing the conceptual foundations underlying this engagement and strategies detailing best practice activities to facilitate engagement have been published to guide these efforts. Objective The aims of this narrative review are to identify, quantify and summarize (a) the conceptual foundational principles of patient stakeholder engagement in research and (b) best practice activities to support these efforts. Search Strategy, Inclusion Criteria, Data Extraction and Synthesis We accessed a publicly available repository of systematically identified literature related to patient engagement in research. Two reviewers independently screened articles to identify relevant articles and abstracted data. Main Results We identified 990 potentially relevant articles of which 935 (94.4%) were excluded and 55 (5.6%) relevant. The most commonly reported foundational principles were “respect” (n = 25, 45%) and “equitable power between all team members” (n = 21, 38%). Creating “trust between patient stakeholders and researchers” was described in 17 (31%) articles. Twenty‐seven (49%) articles emphasized the importance of providing training and education for both patient stakeholder and researchers. Providing financial compensation for patient stakeholders’ time and expertise was noted in 19 (35%) articles. Twenty articles (36%) emphasized regular, bidirectional dialogue between patient partners and researchers as important for successful engagement. Discussion and Conclusions Engaging patient stakeholders in research as partners presents an opportunity to design, implement and disseminate patient‐centred research. This review creates an overarching foundational framework for authentic and sustainable partnerships between patient stakeholders and researchers.

No abstract

BACKGROUNDBioethicists and professional associations give specific recommendations for discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).OBJECTIVETo determine whether attending hospitalist physicians’ discussions meet these recommendations.DESIGNCross-sectional observational study on the medical services at two hospitals within a university system between August 2008 and March 2009.PARTICIPANTSAttending hospitalist physicians and patients who were able to communicate verbally about their medical care.MAIN MEASURESWe identified code status discussions in audio-recorded admission encounters via physician survey and review of encounter transcripts. A quantitative content analysis was performed to determine whether discussions included elements recommended by bioethicists and professional associations. Two coders independently coded all discussions; Cohen’s kappa was 0.64–1 for all reported elements.KEY RESULTSAudio-recordings of 80 patients’ admission encounters with 27 physicians were obtained. Eleven physicians discussed code status in 19 encounters. Discussions were more frequent in seriously ill patients (OR 4, 95% CI 1.2–14.6), yet 66% of seriously ill patients had no discussion. The median length of the code status discussions was 1 min (range 0.2–8.2). Prognosis was discussed with code status in only one of the encounters. Discussions of patients’ preferences focused on the use of life-sustaining interventions as opposed to larger life goals. Descriptions of CPR as an intervention used medical jargon, and the indication for CPR was framed in general, as opposed to patient-specific scenarios. No physician quantitatively estimated the outcome of or provided a recommendation about the use of CPR.CONCLUSIONSCode status was not discussed with many seriously ill patients. Discussions were brief, and did not include elements that bioethicists and professional associations recommend to promote patient autonomy. Local and national guidelines, research, and clinical practice changes are needed to clarify and systematize with whom and how CPR is discussed at hospital admission.