Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 µg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86534580. FINDINGS: The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months. INTERPRETATION: Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted. FUNDING: UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

Consistent patterns of common species across tropical tree communities.

Trees structure the Earth's most biodiverse ecosystem, tropical forests. The vast number of tree species presents a formidable challenge to understanding these forests, including their response to environmental change, as very little is known about most tropical tree species. A focus on the common species may circumvent this challenge. Here we investigate abundance patterns of common tree species using inventory data on 1,003,805 trees with trunk diameters of at least 10 cm across 1,568 locations1-6 in closed-canopy, structurally intact old-growth tropical forests in Africa, Amazonia and Southeast Asia. We estimate that 2.2%, 2.2% and 2.3% of species comprise 50% of the tropical trees in these regions, respectively. Extrapolating across all closed-canopy tropical forests, we estimate that just 1,053 species comprise half of Earth's 800 billion tropical trees with trunk diameters of at least 10 cm. Despite differing biogeographic, climatic and anthropogenic histories7, we find notably consistent patterns of common species and species abundance distributions across the continents. This suggests that fundamental mechanisms of tree community assembly may apply to all tropical forests. Resampling analyses show that the most common species are likely to belong to a manageable list of known species, enabling targeted efforts to understand their ecology. Although they do not detract from the importance of rare species, our results open new opportunities to understand the world's most diverse forests, including modelling their response to environmental change, by focusing on the common species that constitute the majority of their trees.

Pediatric lichen planus: A single-center retrospective review of 26 patients with follow up.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Pediatric lichen planus (LP) is rare with variable prevalence and atypical presentations compared to adults. Data on LP are lacking for the pediatric population in the United States. We present demographics, presentations, and treatments for a pediatric LP cohort. METHODS: We reviewed 26 patients diagnosed with LP at 20 years or younger. Treatment responses were defined as no response, partial response, and complete response. RESULTS: Demographics included 54% females and median diagnosis age of 16 years (range 6-20). Most patients presented with cutaneous LP (65%), with fewer having associated oral (23%), nail (7.7%), or genital (3.8%) involvement. Some had cutaneous-only LP (38%) or strictly mucosal LP (oral-only 19% and genital-only 15%). LP lesions were pruritic (50%), painful (19%), and/or asymptomatic (35%). Complete/partial responses occurred with medium-potency topical corticosteroids in cutaneous (n = 7; 64%), oral (n = 3; 75%), and genital LP (n = 3; 100%), with high/ultra-high potency topical corticosteroids in oral LP (n = 6; 86%), and with topical calcineurin inhibitors in genital LP (n = 2; 100%). Side effects were clobetasol-related oral candidiasis and biopsy-related penile depressed scar. Most patients with available follow-up achieved remission (n = 17; 81%). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric LP usually presents in adolescence with cutaneous involvement and is symptomatic. However, patients frequently can have oral, genital, or nail lesions or may be asymptomatic, so they need thorough examinations and follow-up. Long-term remission is common due to treatment or natural disease course. Medium-potency corticosteroids are recommended for cutaneous, oral, and genital LP. Various other local and systemic therapies exist with successful treatment responses.

Design and logistical considerations for the randomized adaptive non-inferiority storage-duration-ranging CHIlled Platelet Study.

BACKGROUND: Platelet transfusion is a potentially life-saving therapy for actively bleeding patients, ranging from those undergoing planned surgical procedures to those suffering unexpected traumatic injuries. Platelets are currently stored at room temperature (20°C-24°C) with a maximum storage duration of 7 days after donation. The CHIlled Platelet Study trial will compare the efficacy and safety of standard room temperature-stored platelets with platelets that are cold-stored (1°C-6°C), that is, chilled, with a maximum of storage up to 21 days in adult and pediatric patients undergoing complex cardiac surgical procedures. METHODS/RESULTS: CHIlled Platelet Study will use a Bayesian adaptive design to identify the range of cold storage durations for platelets that are non-inferior to standard room temperature-stored platelets. If cold-stored platelets are non-inferior at durations greater than 7 days, a gated superiority analysis will identify durations for which cold-stored platelets may be superior to standard platelets. We present example simulations of the CHIlled Platelet Study design and discuss unique challenges in trial implementation. The CHIlled Platelet Study trial has been funded and will be implemented in approximately 20 clinical centers. Early randomization to enable procurement of cold-stored platelets with different storage durations will be required, as well as a platelet tracking system to eliminate platelet wastage and maximize trial efficiency and economy. DISCUSSION: The CHIlled Platelet Study trial will determine whether cold-stored platelets are non-inferior to platelets stored at room temperature, and if so, will determine the maximum duration (up to 21 days) of storage that maintains non-inferiority. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04834414.

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

The Bayesian Time Machine: Accounting for temporal drift in multi-arm platform trials.

BACKGROUND: Multi-arm platform trials investigate multiple agents simultaneously, typically with staggered entry and exit of experimental treatment arms versus a shared control arm. In such settings, there is considerable debate whether to limit analyses for a treatment arm to concurrent randomized control subjects or to allow comparisons to both concurrent and non-concurrent (pooled) control subjects. The potential bias from temporal drift over time is at the core of this debate. METHODS: We propose time-adjusted analyses, including a "Bayesian Time Machine," to model potential temporal drift in the entire study population, such that primary analyses can incorporate all randomized control subjects from the platform trial. We conduct a simulation study to assess performance relative to utilizing concurrent or pooled controls. RESULTS: In multi-arm platform trials with staggered entry, analyses adjusting for temporal drift (either Bayesian or frequentist) have superior estimation of treatment effects and favorable testing properties compared to analyses using either concurrent or pooled controls. The Bayesian Time Machine generally provides estimates with greater precision and smaller mean square error than alternative approaches, at the risk of small bias and small Type I error inflation. CONCLUSIONS: The Bayesian Time Machine provides a compromise between bias and precision by smoothing estimates across time and leveraging all available data for the estimation of treatment effects. Prior distributions controlling the behavior of dynamic smoothing across time must be pre-specified and carefully calibrated to the unique context of each trial, appropriately accounting for the population, disease, and endpoints.

An adaptive clinical trial design to identify the target dose of tenecteplase for treatment of acute pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Fibrinolytic therapy with tenecteplase has been proposed for patients with pulmonary embolism but the optimal dose is unknown. Higher-than-necessary dosing is likely to cause excess bleeding. We designed an adaptive clinical trial to identify the minimum and assumed safest dose of tenecteplase that maintains efficacy. METHODS: We propose a Bayesian adaptive, placebo-controlled, group-sequential dose-finding trial using response-adaptive randomization to preferentially allocate subjects to the most promising doses, dual analyses strategies (continuous and dichotomized) using a gatekeeping approach to maximize clinical impact, and interim stopping rules to efficiently address competing trial objectives. The operating characteristics of the proposed design were evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation across multiple hypothetical efficacy scenarios. RESULTS: Simulation demonstrated response-adaptive randomization can preferentially allocate subjects to doses which appear to be performing well based on interim data. Interim decision-making, including the interim evaluation of both analysis strategies with gatekeeping, allows the trial to continue enrollment when success with the dichotomized analysis strategy appears sufficiently likely and to stop enrollment and declare superiority based on the continuous analysis strategy when there is little chance of ultimately declaring superiority with the dichotomized analysis. CONCLUSION: The proposed design allows evaluation of a greater number of dose levels than would be possible with a non-adaptive design and avoids the need to choose either the continuous or the dichotomized analysis strategy for the primary endpoint.

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis: a retrospective case series.

Autoimmune progesterone dermatitis (APD) is a rare hypersensitivity disorder characterized by recurring dermatologic manifestations during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle in women. Well-defined clinical and diagnostic criteria, outcomes measurements, and standard treatments are lacking. Methods: We performed a single-institution retrospective review of adult patients (older than 20 years at the time of diagnosis) with APD. Results: Fourteen patients were included with mean age of clinical onset of 34.3 ± 7.7 (range 24-54) years. There was a delay of 3.9 ± 5.5 (range 0.4-20) years between the onset of disease symptoms and diagnosis. The onset of APD was after exposure to exogenous progesterone in 9 of 14 patients. Progesterone skin test was performed in 9 patients and 6 were positive. Patients frequently presented with urticaria (9/14, 64.3%) and dermatitis (4/14, 28.6%). Continuous combined oral contraceptives (4/14, 28.6%), gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (3/14, 21.4%), and hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (2/14, 14.3%) were the most common attempted treatments with reliable outcomes. Conclusions: APD is a rare disorder which lacks universal diagnostic measures and criteria, contributing to a significant delay in diagnosis. Large-scale multicenter studies are needed to develop accurate tests, establish diagnostic criteria, and define treatment outcomes.

Integrating blue: How do we make nationally determined contributions work for both blue carbon and local coastal communities?

Blue Carbon Ecosystems (BCEs) help mitigate and adapt to climate change but their integration into policy, such as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), remains underdeveloped. Most BCE conservation requires community engagement, hence community-scale projects must be nested within the implementation of NDCs without compromising livelihoods or social justice. Thirty-three experts, drawn from academia, project development and policy, each developed ten key questions for consideration on how to achieve this. These questions were distilled into ten themes, ranked in order of importance, giving three broad categories of people, policy & finance, and science & technology. Critical considerations for success include the need for genuine participation by communities, inclusive project governance, integration of local work into national policies and practices, sustaining livelihoods and income (for example through the voluntary carbon market and/or national Payment for Ecosystem Services and other types of financial compensation schemes) and simplification of carbon accounting and verification methodologies to lower barriers to entry.

Colchicine for COVID-19 in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Colchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment. AIM: To determine whether colchicine reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related admissions to hospital and/or deaths among people in the community. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (PRINCIPLE). METHOD: Adults aged ≥65 years or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell for ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500 µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and admission to hospital/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. RESULTS: The trial opened on 2 April 2020. Randomisation to colchicine started on 4 March 2021 and stopped on 26 May 2021 because the prespecified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, randomised to colchicine (n = 156), usual care (n = 1145), and other treatments (n = 1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.72 to 1.16) and an estimated increase of 1.4 days in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. COVID-19-related admissions to hospital/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 (95% CrI = 0.28 to 1.89) and an estimated difference of -0.4% (95% CrI = -2.7 to 2.4). CONCLUSION: Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. METHODS: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). INTERPRETATION: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Development and validation of a prognostic 40-day mortality risk model among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The development of a prognostic mortality risk model for hospitalized COVID-19 patients may facilitate patient treatment planning, comparisons of therapeutic strategies, and public health preparations. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of patients hospitalized within a 13-hospital New Jersey USA network between March 1, 2020 and April 22, 2020 with positive polymerase chain reaction results for SARS-CoV-2, with follow-up through May 29, 2020. With death or hospital discharge by day 40 as the primary endpoint, we used univariate followed by stepwise multivariate proportional hazard models to develop a risk score on one-half the data set, validated on the remainder, and converted the risk score into a patient-level predictive probability of 40-day mortality based on the combined dataset. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 3123 hospitalized COVID-19 patients; median age 63 years; 60% were men; 42% had >3 coexisting conditions. 713 (23%) patients died within 40 days of hospitalization for COVID-19. From 22 potential candidate factors 6 were found to be independent predictors of mortality and were included in the risk score model: age, respiratory rate ≥25/minute upon hospital presentation, oxygenation <94% on hospital presentation, and pre-hospital comorbidities of hypertension, coronary artery disease, or chronic renal disease. The risk score was highly prognostic of mortality in a training set and confirmatory set yielding in the combined dataset a hazard ratio of 1.80 (95% CI, 1.72, 1.87) for one unit increases. Using observed mortality within 20 equally sized bins of risk scores, a predictive model for an individual's 40-day risk of mortality was generated as -14.258 + 13.460*RS + 1.585*(RS-2.524)^2-0.403*(RS-2.524)^3. An online calculator of this 40-day COVID-19 mortality risk score is available at www.HackensackMeridianHealth.org/CovidRS. CONCLUSIONS: A risk score using six variables is able to prognosticate mortality within 40-days of hospitalization for COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04347993.

Doxycycline for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at high risk of adverse outcomes in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Doxycycline is often used for treating COVID-19 respiratory symptoms in the community despite an absence of evidence from clinical trials to support its use. We aimed to assess the efficacy of doxycycline to treat suspected COVID-19 in the community among people at high risk of adverse outcomes. METHODS: We did a national, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in older people (PRINCIPLE) across primary care centres in the UK. We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater), who had been unwell (for ≤14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The interventions reported in this manuscript are usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only; evaluations of other interventions in this platform trial are ongoing. The coprimary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ISRCTN, 86534580. FINDINGS: The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomisation to doxycycline began on July 24, 2020, and was stopped on Dec 14, 2020, because the prespecified futility criterion was met; 2689 participants were enrolled and randomised between these dates. Of these, 2508 (93·3%) participants contributed follow-up data and were included in the primary analysis: 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group, 948 in the usual care only group (37·8%), and 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus other interventions group. Among the 1792 participants randomly assigned to the usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only groups, the mean age was 61·1 years (SD 7·9); 999 (55·7%) participants were female and 790 (44·1%) were male. In the primary analysis model, there was little evidence of difference in median time to first self-reported recovery between the usual care plus doxycycline group and the usual care only group (9·6 [95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 8·3 to 11·0] days vs 10·1 [8·7 to 11·7] days, hazard ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·93 to 1·17]). The estimated benefit in median time to first self-reported recovery was 0·5 days [95% BCI -0·99 to 2·04] and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit (defined as ≥1·5 days) was 0·10. Hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19 occurred in 41 (crude percentage 5·3%) participants in the usual care plus doxycycline group and 43 (4·5%) in the usual care only group (estimated absolute percentage difference -0·5% [95% BCI -2·6 to 1·4]); there were five deaths (0·6%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group and two (0·2%) in the usual care only group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community in the UK, who were at high risk of adverse outcomes, treatment with doxycycline was not associated with clinically meaningful reductions in time to recovery or hospital admissions or deaths related to COVID-19, and should not be used as a routine treatment for COVID-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research.

Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE (PRINCIPLE): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform, trial of community treatment of COVID-19 syndromic illness in people at higher risk.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to idenfy treatments for COVID-19 that reduce illness duration and hospital admission in those at higher risk of a longer illness course and complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE trial is an open-label, multiarm, prospective, adaptive platform, randomised clinical trial to evaluate potential treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new interventions as they become available, as well as the inclusion and cessation of existing intervention arms via frequent interim analyses. The first three interventions are hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and doxycycline. Eligible participants must be symptomatic in the community with possible or confirmed COVID-19 that started in the preceding 14 days and either (1) aged 65 years and over or (2) aged 50-64 years with comorbidities. Recruitment is through general practice, health service helplines, COVID-19 'hot hubs' and directly through the trial website. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a study drug plus usual care, and outcomes are collected via daily online symptom diary for 28 days from randomisation. The research team contacts participants and/or their study partner following days 7, 14 and 28 if the online diary is not completed. The trial has two coprimary endpoints: time to first self-report of feeling recovered from possible COVID-19 and hospital admission or death from possible COVID-19 infection, both within 28 days from randomisation. Prespecified interim analyses assess efficacy or futility of interventions and to modify randomisation probabilities that allocate more participants to interventions with better outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval Ref: 20/SC/0158 South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee; IRAS Project ID: 281958; EudraCT Number: 2020-001209-22. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN86534580.

A clustering method for graphical handwriting components and statistical writership analysis.

Handwritten documents can be characterized by their content or by the shape of the written characters. We focus on the problem of comparing a person's handwriting to a document of unknown provenance using the shape of the writing, as is done in forensic applications. To do so, we first propose a method for processing scanned handwritten documents to decompose the writing into small graphical structures, often corresponding to letters. We then introduce a measure of distance between two such structures that is inspired by the graph edit distance, and a measure of center for a collection of the graphs. These measurements are the basis for an outlier tolerant K-means algorithm to cluster the graphs based on structural attributes, thus creating a template for sorting new documents. Finally, we present a Bayesian hierarchical model to capture the propensity of a writer for producing graphs that are assigned to certain clusters. We illustrate the methods using documents from the Computer Vision Lab dataset. We show results of the identification task under the cluster assignments and compare to the same modeling, but with a less flexible grouping method that is not tolerant of incidental strokes or outliers.

Hydroxychloroquine and tocilizumab therapy in COVID-19 patients-An observational study.

Hydroxychloroquine has been touted as a potential COVID-19 treatment. Tocilizumab, an inhibitor of IL-6, has also been proposed as a treatment of critically ill patients. In this retrospective observational cohort study drawn from electronic health records we sought to describe the association between mortality and hydroxychloroquine or tocilizumab therapy among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Patients were hospitalized at a 13-hospital network spanning New Jersey USA between March 1, 2020 and April 22, 2020 with positive polymerase chain reaction results for SARS-CoV-2. Follow up was through May 5, 2020. Among 2512 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 there have been 547 deaths (22%), 1539 (61%) discharges and 426 (17%) remain hospitalized. 1914 (76%) received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and 1473 (59%) received hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin. After adjusting for imbalances via propensity modeling, compared to receiving neither drug, there were no significant differences in associated mortality for patients receiving any hydroxychloroquine during the hospitalization (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.80-1.22]), hydroxychloroquine alone (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.83-1.27]), or hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.75-1.28]). The 30-day unadjusted mortality for patients receiving hydroxychloroquine alone, azithromycin alone, the combination or neither drug was 25%, 20%, 18%, and 20%, respectively. Among 547 evaluable ICU patients, including 134 receiving tocilizumab in the ICU, an exploratory analysis found a trend towards an improved survival association with tocilizumab treatment (adjusted HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.57-1.00]), with 30 day unadjusted mortality with and without tocilizumab of 46% versus 56%. This observational cohort study suggests hydroxychloroquine, either alone or in combination with azithromycin, was not associated with a survival benefit among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Tocilizumab demonstrated a trend association towards reduced mortality among ICU patients. Our findings are limited to hospitalized patients and must be interpreted with caution while awaiting results of randomized trials. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04347993.