How to get prescribed lasix

Parent/Caretaker Relatives with MAGI-like Budgeting - Including how to get prescribed lasix Medicare Beneficiaries. Consumers who fall into the DAB category (Age 65+/Disabled/Blind) and would otherwise be budgeted with non-MAGI rules can opt to use Affordable Care Act MAGI rules if they are the parent/caretaker of a child under age 18 or under age 19 and in school full time. This is referred to as “MAGI-like budgeting.” Under MAGI rules income can be up to 138% of the FPL—again, higher than the limit for DAB budgeting, which is equivalent to only 83% FPL.

MAGI-like consumers can be enrolled in either MSP or MIPP, depending on how to get prescribed lasix if their income is higher or lower than 120% of the FPL. If their income is under 120% FPL, they are eligible for MSP as a SLIMB. If income is above 120% FPL, then they can enroll in MIPP.

(See GIS 18 MA/001 - 2018 Medicaid Managed Care Transition for how to get prescribed lasix Enrollees Gaining Medicare, #4) 3. New Medicare Enrollees who are Not Yet in a Medicare Savings Program When a consumer has Medicaid through the New York State of Health (NYSoH) Marketplace and then enrolls in Medicare when she turns age 65 or because she received Social Security Disability for 24 months, her Medicaid case is normally** transferred to the local department of social services (LDSS)(HRA in NYC) to be rebudgeted under non-MAGI budgeting. During the transition process, she should be reimbursed for the Part B premiums via MIPP.

However, the transition time can how to get prescribed lasix vary based on age. AGE 65+ For those who enroll in Medicare at age 65+, the Medicaid case takes about four months to be rebudgeted and approved by the LDSS. The consumer is entitled to MIPP payments for at least three months during the transition.

Once the how to get prescribed lasix case is with the LDSS she should automatically be re-evaluated for MSP. Consumers UNDER 65 who receive Medicare due to disability status are entitled to keep MAGI Medicaid through NYSoH for up to 12 months (also known as continuous coverage, See NY Social Services Law 366, subd. 4(c).

These consumers should receive MIPP payments for as long as their cases remain with NYSoH and throughout the how to get prescribed lasix transition to the LDSS. NOTE during hypertension medications emergency their case may remain with NYSoH for more than 12 months. See here.

See GIS 18 MA/001 - 2018 Medicaid Managed Care how to get prescribed lasix Transition for Enrollees Gaining Medicare, #4 for an explanation of this process. Note. During the hypertension medications emergency, those who have Medicaid through the NYSOH marketplace and enroll in Medicare should NOT have their cases transitioned to the LDSS.

They should keep the same MAGI budgeting and automatically receive MIPP how to get prescribed lasix payments. See GIS 20 MA/04 or this article on hypertension medications eligibility changes 4. Those with Special Budgeting after Losing SSI (DAC, Pickle, 1619b) Disabled Adult Child (DAC).

Special budgeting is available to those who are 18+ and lose SSI because they how to get prescribed lasix begin receiving Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits (or receive an increase in the amount of their benefit). Consumer must have become disabled or blind before age 22 to receive the benefit. If the new DAC benefit amount was disregarded and the consumer would otherwise be eligible for SSI, they can keep Medicaid eligibility with NO SPEND DOWN.

See this article how to get prescribed lasix. Consumers may have income higher than MSP limits, but keep full Medicaid with no spend down. Therefore, they are eligible for payment of their Part B premiums.

See page 96 of the Medicaid Reference how to get prescribed lasix Guide (Categorical Factors). If their income is lower than the MSP SLIMB threshold, they can be added to MSP. If higher than the threshold, they can be reimbursed via MIPP.

See how to get prescribed lasix also 95-ADM-11. Medical Assistance Eligibility for Disabled Adult Children, Section C (pg 8). Pickle &.

1619B. 5. When the Part B Premium Reduces Countable Income to Below the Medicaid Limit Since the Part B premium can be used as a deduction from gross income, it may reduce someone's countable income to below the Medicaid limit.

The consumer should be paid the difference to bring her up to the Medicaid level ($904/month in 2021). They will only be reimbursed for the difference between their countable income and $904, not necessarily the full amount of the premium. See GIS 02-MA-019.

Reimbursement of Health Insurance Premiums MIPP and MSP are similar in that they both pay for the Medicare Part B premium, but there are some key differences. MIPP structures the payments as reimbursement -- beneficiaries must continue to pay their premium (via a monthly deduction from their Social Security check or quarterly billing, if they do not receive Social Security) and then are reimbursed via check. In contrast, MSP enrollees are not charged for their premium.

Their Social Security check usually increases because the Part B premium is no longer withheld from their check. MIPP only provides reimbursement for Part B. It does not have any of the other benefits MSPs can provide, such as.

A consumer cannot have MIPP without also having Medicaid, whereas MSP enrollees can have MSP only. Of the above benefits, Medicaid also provides Part D Extra Help automatic eligibility. There is no application process for MIPP because consumers should be screened and enrolled automatically (00 OMM/ADM-7).

Either the state or the LDSS is responsible for screening &. Distributing MIPP payments, depending on where the Medicaid case is held and administered (14 /2014 LCM-02 Section V). If a consumer is eligible for MIPP and is not receiving it, they should contact whichever agency holds their case and request enrollment.

Unfortunately, since there is no formal process for applying, it may require some advocacy. If Medicaid case is at New York State of Health they should call 1-855-355-5777. Consumers will likely have to ask for a supervisor in order to find someone familiar with MIPP.

If Medicaid case is with HRA in New York City, they should email mipp@hra.nyc.gov. If Medicaid case is with other local districts in NYS, call your local county DSS. Once enrolled, it make take a few months for payments to begin.

Payments will be made in the form of checks from the Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), the fiscal agent for the New York State Medicaid program. The check itself comes attached to a remittance notice from Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS). Unfortunately, the notice is not consumer-friendly and may be confusing.

See attached sample for what to look for. Health Insurance Premium Payment Program (HIPP) HIPP is a sister program to MIPP and will reimburse consumers for private third party health insurance when deemed “cost effective.” Directives:Medicare Savings Programs (MSPs) pay for the monthly Medicare Part B premium for low-income Medicare beneficiaries and qualify enrollees for the "Extra Help" subsidy for Part D prescription drugs. There are three separate MSP programs, the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) Program, the Specified Low Income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB) Program and the Qualified Individual (QI) Program, each of which is discussed below.

Those in QMB receive additional subsidies for Medicare costs. See 2021 Fact Sheet on MSP in NYS by Medicare Rights Center ENGLISH SPANISH State law. N.Y.

§ 367-a(3)(a), (b), and (d). 2020 Medicare 101 Basics for New York State - 1.5 hour webinar by Eric Hausman, sponsored by NYS Office of the Aging Note. Some consumers may be eligible for the Medicare Insurance Premium Payment (MIPP) Program, instead of MSP.

See this article for more info. TOPICS COVERED IN THIS ARTICLE 1. No Asset Limit 1A.

Summary Chart of MSP Programs 2. Income Limits &. Rules and Household Size 3.

The Three MSP Programs - What are they and how are they Different?. 4. FOUR Special Benefits of MSP Programs.

Back Door to Extra Help with Part D MSPs Automatically Waive Late Enrollment Penalties for Part B - and allow enrollment in Part B year-round outside of the short Annual Enrollment Period No Medicaid Lien on Estate to Recover Payment of Expenses Paid by MSP Food Stamps/SNAP not reduced by Decreased Medical Expenses when Enroll in MSP - at least temporarily 5. Enrolling in an MSP - Automatic Enrollment &. Applications for People who Have Medicare What is Application Process?.

6. Enrolling in an MSP for People age 65+ who Do Not Qualify for Free Medicare Part A - the "Part A Buy-In Program" 7. What Happens After MSP Approved - How Part B Premium is Paid 8 Special Rules for QMBs - How Medicare Cost-Sharing Works 1.

NO ASSET LIMIT!. Since April 1, 2008, none of the three MSP programs have resource limits in New York -- which means many Medicare beneficiaries who might not qualify for Medicaid because of excess resources can qualify for an MSP. 1.A.

SUMMARY CHART OF MSP BENEFITS QMB SLIMB QI-1 Eligibility ASSET LIMIT NO LIMIT IN NEW YORK STATE INCOME LIMIT (2021) Single Couple Single Couple Single Couple $1,094 $1,472 $1,308 $1,762 $1,469 $1,980 Federal Poverty Level 100% FPL 100 – 120% FPL 120 – 135% FPL Benefits Pays Monthly Part B premium?. YES, and also Part A premium if did not have enough work quarters and meets citizenship requirement. See “Part A Buy-In” YES YES Pays Part A &.

B deductibles &. Co-insurance YES - with limitations NO NO Retroactive to Filing of Application?. Yes - Benefits begin the month after the month of the MSP application.

18 NYCRR §360-7.8(b)(5) Yes – Retroactive to 3rd month before month of application, if eligible in prior months Yes – may be retroactive to 3rd month before month of applica-tion, but only within the current calendar year. (No retro for January application). See GIS 07 MA 027.

Can Enroll in MSP and Medicaid at Same Time?. YES YES NO!. Must choose between QI-1 and Medicaid.

Cannot have both, not even Medicaid with a spend-down. 2. INCOME LIMITS and RULES Each of the three MSP programs has different income eligibility requirements and provides different benefits.

The income limits are tied to the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). 2021 FPL levels were released by NYS DOH in GIS 21 MA/06 - 2021 Federal Poverty Levels Attachment II NOTE. There is usually a lag in time of several weeks, or even months, from January 1st of each year until the new FPLs are release, and then before the new MSP income limits are officially implemented.

During this lag period, local Medicaid offices should continue to use the previous year's FPLs AND count the person's Social Security benefit amount from the previous year - do NOT factor in the Social Security COLA (cost of living adjustment). Once the updated guidelines are released, districts will use the new FPLs and go ahead and factor in any COLA. See 2021 Fact Sheet on MSP in NYS by Medicare Rights Center ENGLISH SPANISH Income is determined by the same methodology as is used for determining in eligibility for SSI The rules for counting income for SSI-related (Aged 65+, Blind, or Disabled) Medicaid recipients, borrowed from the SSI program, apply to the MSP program, except for the new rules about counting household size for married couples.

L. 367-a(3)(c)(2), NYS DOH 2000-ADM-7, 89-ADM-7 p.7. Gross income is counted, although there are certain types of income that are disregarded.

The most common income disregards, also known as deductions, include. (a) The first $20 of your &. Your spouse's monthly income, earned or unearned ($20 per couple max).

(b) SSI EARNED INCOME DISREGARDS. * The first $65 of monthly wages of you and your spouse, * One-half of the remaining monthly wages (after the $65 is deducted). * Other work incentives including PASS plans, impairment related work expenses (IRWEs), blind work expenses, etc.

For information on these deductions, see The Medicaid Buy-In for Working People with Disabilities (MBI-WPD) and other guides in this article -- though written for the MBI-WPD, the work incentives apply to all Medicaid programs, including MSP, for people age 65+, disabled or blind. (c) monthly cost of any health insurance premiums but NOT the Part B premium, since Medicaid will now pay this premium (may deduct Medigap supplemental policies, vision, dental, or long term care insurance premiums, and the Part D premium but only to the extent the premium exceeds the Extra Help benchmark amount) (d) Food stamps not counted. You can get a more comprehensive listing of the SSI-related income disregards on the Medicaid income disregards chart.

As for all benefit programs based on financial need, it is usually advantageous to be considered a larger household, because the income limit is higher. The above chart shows that Households of TWO have a higher income limit than households of ONE. The MSP programs use the same rules as Medicaid does for the Disabled, Aged and Blind (DAB) which are borrowed from the SSI program for Medicaid recipients in the “SSI-related category.” Under these rules, a household can be only ONE or TWO.

18 NYCRR 360-4.2. See DAB Household Size Chart. Married persons can sometimes be ONE or TWO depending on arcane rules, which can force a Medicare beneficiary to be limited to the income limit for ONE person even though his spouse who is under 65 and not disabled has no income, and is supported by the client applying for an MSP.

EXAMPLE. Bob's Social Security is $1300/month. He is age 67 and has Medicare.

His wife, Nancy, is age 62 and is not disabled and does not work. Under the old rule, Bob was not eligible for an MSP because his income was above the Income limit for One, even though it was well under the Couple limit. In 2010, NYS DOH modified its rules so that all married individuals will be considered a household size of TWO.

DOH GIS 10 MA 10 Medicare Savings Program Household Size, June 4, 2010. This rule for household size is an exception to the rule applying SSI budgeting rules to the MSP program. Under these rules, Bob is now eligible for an MSP.

When is One Better than Two?. Of course, there may be couples where the non-applying spouse's income is too high, and disqualifies the applying spouse from an MSP. In such cases, "spousal refusal" may be used SSL 366.3(a).

(Link is to NYC HRA form, can be adapted for other counties). In NYC, if you have a Medicaid case with HRA, instead of submitting an MSP application, you only need to complete and submit MAP-751W (check off "Medicare Savings Program Evaluation") and fax to (917) 639-0837. (The MAP-751W is also posted in languages other than English in this link.

(Updated 4/14/2021.)) 3. The Three Medicare Savings Programs - what are they and how are they different?. 1.

Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB). The QMB program provides the most comprehensive benefits. Available to those with incomes at or below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), the QMB program covers virtually all Medicare cost-sharing obligations.

Part B premiums, Part A premiums, if there are any, and any and all deductibles and co-insurance. QMB coverage is not retroactive. The program’s benefits will begin the month after the month in which your client is found eligible.

** See special rules about cost-sharing for QMBs below - updated with new CMS directive issued January 2012 ** See NYC HRA QMB Recertification form ** Even if you do not have Part A automatically, because you did not have enough wages, you may be able to enroll in the Part A Buy-In Program, in which people eligible for QMB who do not otherwise have Medicare Part A may enroll, with Medicaid paying the Part A premium (Materials by the Medicare Rights Center). 2. Specifiedl Low-Income Medicare Beneficiary (SLMB).

For those with incomes between 100% and 120% FPL, the SLMB program will cover Part B premiums only. SLMB is retroactive, however, providing coverage for three months prior to the month of application, as long as your client was eligible during those months. 3.

Qualified Individual (QI-1). For those with incomes between 120% and 135% FPL, and not receiving Medicaid, the QI-1 program will cover Medicare Part B premiums only. QI-1 is also retroactive, providing coverage for three months prior to the month of application, as long as your client was eligible during those months.

However, QI-1 retroactive coverage can only be provided within the current calendar year. (GIS 07 MA 027) So if you apply in January, you get no retroactive coverage. Q-I-1 recipients would be eligible for Medicaid with a spend-down, but if they want the Part B premium paid, they must choose between enrolling in QI-1 or Medicaid.

They cannot be in both. It is their choice. DOH MRG p.

19. In contrast, one may receive Medicaid and either QMB or SLIMB. 4.

Four Special Benefits of MSPs (in addition to NO ASSET TEST). Benefit 1. Back Door to Medicare Part D "Extra Help" or Low Income Subsidy -- All MSP recipients are automatically enrolled in Extra Help, the subsidy that makes Part D affordable.

They have no Part D deductible or doughnut hole, the premium is subsidized, and they pay very low copayments. Once they are enrolled in Extra Help by virtue of enrollment in an MSP, they retain Extra Help for the entire calendar year, even if they lose MSP eligibility during that year. The "Full" Extra Help subsidy has the same income limit as QI-1 - 135% FPL.

However, many people may be eligible for QI-1 but not Extra Help because QI-1 and the other MSPs have no asset limit. People applying to the Social Security Administration for Extra Help might be rejected for this reason. Recent (2009-10) changes to federal law called "MIPPA" requires the Social Security Administration (SSA) to share eligibility data with NYSDOH on all persons who apply for Extra Help/ the Low Income Subsidy.

Data sent to NYSDOH from SSA will enable NYSDOH to open MSP cases on many clients. The effective date of the MSP application must be the same date as the Extra Help application. Signatures will not be required from clients.

In cases where the SSA data is incomplete, NYSDOH will forward what is collected to the local district for completion of an MSP application. The State implementing procedures are in DOH 2010 ADM-03. Also see CMS "Dear State Medicaid Director" letter dated Feb.

18, 2010 Benefit 2. MSPs Automatically Waive Late Enrollment Penalties for Part B Generally one must enroll in Part B within the strict enrollment periods after turning age 65 or after 24 months of Social Security Disability. An exception is if you or your spouse are still working and insured under an employer sponsored group health plan, or if you have End Stage Renal Disease, and other factors, see this from Medicare Rights Center.

If you fail to enroll within those short periods, you might have to pay higher Part B premiums for life as a Late Enrollment Penalty (LEP). Also, you may only enroll in Part B during the Annual Enrollment Period from January 1 - March 31st each year, with Part B not effective until the following July. Enrollment in an MSP automatically eliminates such penalties...

For life.. Even if one later ceases to be eligible for the MSP. AND enrolling in an MSP will automatically result in becoming enrolled in Part B if you didn't already have it and only had Part A.

See Medicare Rights Center flyer. Benefit 3. No Medicaid Lien on Estate to Recover MSP Benefits Paid Generally speaking, states may place liens on the Estates of deceased Medicaid recipients to recover the cost of Medicaid services that were provided after the recipient reached the age of 55.

Since 2002, states have not been allowed to recover the cost of Medicare premiums paid under MSPs. In 2010, Congress expanded protection for MSP benefits. Beginning on January 1, 2010, states may not place liens on the Estates of Medicaid recipients who died after January 1, 2010 to recover costs for co-insurance paid under the QMB MSP program for services rendered after January 1, 2010.

The federal government made this change in order to eliminate barriers to enrollment in MSPs. See NYS DOH GIS 10-MA-008 - Medicare Savings Program Changes in Estate Recovery The GIS clarifies that a client who receives both QMB and full Medicaid is exempt from estate recovery for these Medicare cost-sharing expenses. Benefit 4.

SNAP (Food Stamp) benefits not reduced despite increased income from MSP - at least temporarily Many people receive both SNAP (Food Stamp) benefits and MSP. Income for purposes of SNAP/Food Stamps is reduced by a deduction for medical expenses, which includes payment of the Part B premium. Since approval for an MSP means that the client no longer pays for the Part B premium, his/her SNAP/Food Stamps income goes up, so their SNAP/Food Stamps go down.

Here are some protections. Do these individuals have to report to their SNAP worker that their out of pocket medical costs have decreased?. And will the household see a reduction in their SNAP benefits, since the decrease in medical expenses will increase their countable income?.

The good news is that MSP households do NOT have to report the decrease in their medical expenses to the SNAP/Food Stamp office until their next SNAP/Food Stamp recertification. Even if they do report the change, or the local district finds out because the same worker is handling both the MSP and SNAP case, there should be no reduction in the household’s benefit until the next recertification. New York’s SNAP policy per administrative directive 02 ADM-07 is to “freeze” the deduction for medical expenses between certification periods.

Increases in medical expenses can be budgeted at the household’s request, but NYS never decreases a household’s medical expense deduction until the next recertification. Most elderly and disabled households have 24-month SNAP certification periods. Eventually, though, the decrease in medical expenses will need to be reported when the household recertifies for SNAP, and the household should expect to see a decrease in their monthly SNAP benefit.

It is really important to stress that the loss in SNAP benefits is NOT dollar for dollar. A $100 decrease in out of pocket medical expenses would translate roughly into a $30 drop in SNAP benefits. See more info on SNAP/Food Stamp benefits by the Empire Justice Center, and on the State OTDA website.

Some clients will be automatically enrolled in an MSP by the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) shortly after attaining eligibility for Medicare. Others need to apply. The 2010 "MIPPA" law introduced some improvements to increase MSP enrollment.

See 3rd bullet below. Also, some people who had Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act before they became eligible for Medicare have special procedures to have their Part B premium paid before they enroll in an MSP. See below.

WHO IS AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED IN AN MSP. Clients receiving even $1.00 of Supplemental Security Income should be automatically enrolled into a Medicare Savings Program (most often QMB) under New York State’s Medicare Savings Program Buy-in Agreement with the federal government once they become eligible for Medicare. They should receive Medicare Parts A and B.

Clients who are already eligible for Medicare when they apply for Medicaid should be automatically assessed for MSP eligibility when they apply for Medicaid. (NYS DOH 2000-ADM-7 and GIS 05 MA 033). Clients who apply to the Social Security Administration for Extra Help, but are rejected, should be contacted &.

Enrolled into an MSP by the Medicaid program directly under new MIPPA procedures that require data sharing. Strategy TIP. Since the Extra Help filing date will be assigned to the MSP application, it may help the client to apply online for Extra Help with the SSA, even knowing that this application will be rejected because of excess assets or other reason.

SSA processes these requests quickly, and it will be routed to the State for MSP processing. Since MSP applications take a while, at least the filing date will be retroactive. Note.

The above strategy does not work as well for QMB, because the effective date of QMB is the month after the month of application. As a result, the retroactive effective date of Extra Help will be the month after the failed Extra Help application for those with QMB rather than SLMB/QI-1. Applying for MSP Directly with Local Medicaid Program.

Those who do not have Medicaid already must apply for an MSP through their local social services district. (See more in Section D. Below re those who already have Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act before they became eligible for Medicare.

If you are applying for MSP only (not also Medicaid), you can use the simplified MSP application form (theDOH-4328(Rev. 8/2017-- English) (2017 Spanish version not yet available). Either application form can be mailed in -- there is no interview requirement anymore for MSP or Medicaid.

See 10 ADM-04. Applicants will need to submit proof of income, a copy of their Medicare card (front &. Back), and proof of residency/address.

See the application form for other instructions. One who is only eligible for QI-1 because of higher income may ONLY apply for an MSP, not for Medicaid too. One may not receive Medicaid and QI-1 at the same time.

If someone only eligible for QI-1 wants Medicaid, s/he may enroll in and deposit excess income into a pooled Supplemental Needs Trust, to bring her countable income down to the Medicaid level, which also qualifies him or her for SLIMB or QMB instead of QI-1. Advocates in NYC can sign up for a half-day "Deputization Training" conducted by the Medicare Rights Center, at which you'll be trained and authorized to complete an MSP application and to submit it via the Medicare Rights Center, which submits it to HRA without the client having to apply in person. Enrolling in an MSP if you already have Medicaid, but just become eligible for Medicare Those who, prior to becoming enrolled in Medicare, had Medicaid through Affordable Care Act are eligible to have their Part B premiums paid by Medicaid (or the cost reimbursed) during the time it takes for them to transition to a Medicare Savings Program.

In 2018, DOH clarified that reimbursement of the Part B premium will be made regardless of whether the individual is still in a Medicaid managed care (MMC) plan. GIS 18 MA/001 Medicaid Managed Care Transition for Enrollees Gaining Medicare ( PDF) provides, "Due to efforts to transition individuals who gain Medicare eligibility and who require LTSS, individuals may not be disenrolled from MMC upon receipt of Medicare. To facilitate the transition and not disadvantage the recipient, the Medicaid program is approving reimbursement of Part B premiums for enrollees in MMC." The procedure for getting the Part B premium paid is different for those whose Medicaid was administered by the NYS of Health Exchange (Marketplace), as opposed to their local social services district.

The procedure is also different for those who obtain Medicare because they turn 65, as opposed to obtaining Medicare based on disability. Either way, Medicaid recipients who transition onto Medicare should be automatically evaluated for MSP eligibility at their next Medicaid recertification. NYS DOH 2000-ADM-7 Individuals can also affirmatively ask to be enrolled in MSP in between recertification periods.

IF CLIENT HAD MEDICAID ON THE MARKETPLACE (NYS of Health Exchange) before obtaining Medicare. IF they obtain Medicare because they turn age 65, they will receive a letter from their local district asking them to "renew" Medicaid through their local district. See 2014 LCM-02.

Now, their Medicaid income limit will be lower than the MAGI limits ($842/ mo reduced from $1387/month) and they now will have an asset test. For this reason, some individuals may lose full Medicaid eligibility when they begin receiving Medicare. People over age 65 who obtain Medicare do NOT keep "Marketplace Medicaid" for 12 months (continuous eligibility) See GIS 15 MA/022 - Continuous Coverage for MAGI Individuals.

Since MSP has NO ASSET limit. Some individuals may be enrolled in the MSP even if they lose Medicaid, or if they now have a Medicaid spend-down. If a Medicare/Medicaid recipient reports income that exceeds the Medicaid level, districts must evaluate the person’s eligibility for MSP.

08 OHIP/ADM-4 ​If you became eligible for Medicare based on disability and you are UNDER AGE 65, you are entitled to keep MAGI Medicaid for 12 months from the month it was last authorized, even if you now have income normally above the MAGI limit, and even though you now have Medicare. This is called Continuous Eligibility. EXAMPLE.

Sam, age 60, was last authorized for Medicaid on the Marketplace in June 2016. He became enrolled in Medicare based on disability in August 2016, and started receiving Social Security in the same month (he won a hearing approving Social Security disability benefits retroactively, after first being denied disability). Even though his Social Security is too high, he can keep Medicaid for 12 months beginning June 2016.

Sam has to pay for his Part B premium - it is deducted from his Social Security check. He may call the Marketplace and request a refund. This will continue until the end of his 12 months of continues MAGI Medicaid eligibility.

He will be reimbursed regardless of whether he is in a Medicaid managed care plan. See GIS 18 MA/001 Medicaid Managed Care Transition for Enrollees Gaining Medicare (PDF) When that ends, he will renew Medicaid and apply for MSP with his local district. Individuals who are eligible for Medicaid with a spenddown can opt whether or not to receive MSP.

(Medicaid Reference Guide (MRG) p. 19). Obtaining MSP may increase their spenddown.

MIPPA - Outreach by Social Security Administration -- Under MIPPA, the SSA sends a form letter to people who may be eligible for a Medicare Savings Program or Extra Help (Low Income Subsidy - LIS) that they may apply. The letters are. · Beneficiary has Extra Help (LIS), but not MSP · Beneficiary has no Extra Help (LIS) or MSP 6.

Enrolling in MSP for People Age 65+ who do Not have Free Medicare Part A - the "Part A Buy-In Program" Seniors WITHOUT MEDICARE PART A or B -- They may be able to enroll in the Part A Buy-In program, in which people eligible for QMB who are age 65+ who do not otherwise have Medicare Part A may enroll in Part A, with Medicaid paying the Part A premium. See Step-by-Step Guide by the Medicare Rights Center). This guide explains the various steps in "conditionally enrolling" in Part A at the SSA office, which must be done before applying for QMB at the Medicaid office, which will then pay the Part A premium.

See also GIS 04 MA/013. In June, 2018, the SSA revised the POMS manual procedures for the Part A Buy-In to to address inconsistencies and confusion in SSA field offices and help smooth the path for QMB enrollment. The procedures are in the POMS Section HI 00801.140 "Premium-Free Part A Enrollments for Qualified Medicare BenefiIaries." It includes important clarifications, such as.

SSA Field Offices should explain the QMB program and conditional enrollment process if an individual lacks premium-free Part A and appears to meet QMB requirements. SSA field offices can add notes to the “Remarks” section of the application and provide a screen shot to the individual so the individual can provide proof of conditional Part A enrollment when applying for QMB through the state Medicaid program. Beneficiaries are allowed to complete the conditional application even if they owe Medicare premiums.

In Part A Buy-in states like NYS, SSA should process conditional applications on a rolling basis (without regard to enrollment periods), even if the application coincides with the General Enrollment Period. (The General Enrollment Period is from Jan 1 to March 31st every year, in which anyone eligible may enroll in Medicare Part A or Part B to be effective on July 1st). 7.

What happens after the MSP approval - How is Part B premium paid For all three MSP programs, the Medicaid program is now responsible for paying the Part B premiums, even though the MSP enrollee is not necessarily a recipient of Medicaid. The local Medicaid office (DSS/HRA) transmits the MSP approval to the NYS Department of Health – that information gets shared w/ SSA and CMS SSA stops deducting the Part B premiums out of the beneficiary’s Social Security check. SSA also refunds any amounts owed to the recipient.

!. ) CMS “deems” the MSP recipient eligible for Part D Extra Help/ Low Income Subsidy (LIS). ​Can the MSP be retroactive like Medicaid, back to 3 months before the application?.

​The answer is different for the 3 MSP programs. QMB -No Retroactive Eligibility – Benefits begin the month after the month of the MSP application. 18 NYCRR § 360-7.8(b)(5) SLIMB - YES - Retroactive Eligibility up to 3 months before the application, if was eligible This means applicant may be reimbursed for the 3 months of Part B benefits prior to the month of application.

QI-1 - YES up to 3 months but only in the same calendar year. No retroactive eligibility to the previous year. 7.

QMBs -Special Rules on Cost-Sharing. QMB is the only MSP program which pays not only the Part B premium, but also the Medicare co-insurance.

Lowest price lasix

	Lasix	Inderal la
Where to get	100mg 360 tablet $235.95	40mg 60 tablet $59.95
Dosage	Online Drugstore	Online Drugstore
Long term side effects	Yes	No
Effect on blood pressure	Yes	Small dose
How fast does work	1h	23h
Buy with Paypal	Ask your Doctor	Ask your Doctor
Free pills	40mg	Consultation

Protecting the safety and health of essential workers who support America’s food security—including the meat, poultry, buy lasix water pill and pork processing lowest price lasix industries—is a top priority for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued additional guidance to reduce the risk of exposure to the hypertension and keep workers safe and healthy in the meatpacking and meat processing industries —including those involved in beef, pork, and poultry operations. This new guidance provides specific recommendations for employers to meet their obligations to protect workers in these facilities, where people normally work closely together and share workspaces and lowest price lasix equipment. Here are eight ways to help minimize meat processing workers’ exposure to the hypertension.

Screen workers before they enter the workplace. If a worker becomes sick, send them home and disinfect lowest price lasix their workstation and any tools they used. Move workstations farther apart. Install partitions between workstations using strip curtains, plexiglass, or similar materials.

To limit spread between lowest price lasix groups, assign the same workers to the same shifts with the same coworkers. Prevent workers from using other workers’ equipment. Allow workers to wear face coverings when entering, inside, and exiting the facility. Encourage workers to report any safety and health lowest price lasix concerns to their supervisors.

OSHA is committed to ensuring that workers and employers in essential industries have clear guidance to keep workers safe and healthy from the hypertension—including guidance for essential workers in construction, manufacturing, package delivery, and retail. Workers and employers who have questions or concerns about workplace safety can contact OSHA online or by phone at 1-800-321-6742 (OSHA). You can lowest price lasix find additional resources and learn more about OSHA’s response to the hypertension at www.osha.gov/hypertension. Loren Sweatt is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the U.S.

Department of Labor’s Occupation Safety and Health Administration Editor’s Note. It is important to note that information and guidance about hypertension medications continually evolve as conditions lowest price lasix change. Workers and employers are encouraged to regularly refer to the resources below for updates:Each year on Dec. 6, we celebrate National Miners Day lowest price lasix to recognize and applaud the skill, dedication and hard work miners put into providing many of the products essential to fulfilling America’s most vital needs.

I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to every working miner in our nation. From the coal that provides power for the lights we use to the copper used in our electronics and cookware, miners provide the necessary minerals to make the products integral to our daily lives while sometimes facing hazardous conditions in the workplace. Having worked lowest price lasix in the mining industry for the majority of my life, I fully recognize the hazards that confined spaces, mobile equipment and complex electrical equipment, just to name a few, can present to working miners. This is why my agency, the U.S.

Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), exists. MSHA enforces safety and health standards and regulations — at all American lowest price lasix coal mines, quarries, copper and other metal mines, and many other facilities — to protect miners from the hazards they face each day. Our aim is to see every miner go home safe and healthy after every shift. Keeping all miners safe means continued production of the indispensable products we use every day.

Every time you drink from a glass, thank a miner lowest price lasix. Every time you ride a bike or take a drive in your car, thank a miner. Miners are the true backbone of not just our nation’s mining industry but also the many industries that could not operate without the raw materials that miners produce. So, on this National lowest price lasix Miners Day, please join me in recognizing, honoring and thanking miners for their steady and courageous role in providing the products that make so much of our daily life possible.

David Zatezalo is the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health at the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Follow MSHA on Twitter at @MSHA_DOL..

Protecting the safety http://sidecountrytheatre.org/15/ and how to get prescribed lasix health of essential workers who support America’s food security—including the meat, poultry, and pork processing industries—is a top priority for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued additional guidance to reduce the risk of exposure to the hypertension and keep workers safe and healthy in the meatpacking and meat processing industries —including those involved in beef, pork, and poultry operations. This new guidance provides specific recommendations for employers to meet their obligations to protect workers in these facilities, where people normally work closely together and share workspaces and equipment how to get prescribed lasix.

Here are eight ways to help minimize meat processing workers’ exposure to the hypertension. Screen workers before they enter the workplace. If a worker becomes sick, how to get prescribed lasix send them home and disinfect their workstation and any tools they used.

Move workstations farther apart. Install partitions between workstations using strip curtains, plexiglass, or similar materials. To limit spread between groups, assign the same workers to the same shifts how to get prescribed lasix with the same coworkers.

Prevent workers from using other workers’ equipment. Allow workers to wear face coverings when entering, inside, and exiting the facility. Encourage workers to report any how to get prescribed lasix safety and health concerns to their supervisors.

OSHA is committed to ensuring that workers and employers in essential industries have clear guidance to keep workers safe and healthy from the hypertension—including guidance for essential workers in construction, manufacturing, package delivery, and retail. Workers and employers who have questions or concerns about workplace safety can contact OSHA online or by phone at 1-800-321-6742 (OSHA). You can how to get prescribed lasix find additional resources and learn more about OSHA’s response to the hypertension at www.osha.gov/hypertension.

Loren Sweatt is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupation Safety and Health Administration Editor’s Note. It is important to note that http://metallicwebsites.net/uncategorized/hello-world/ information and guidance about hypertension medications continually evolve how to get prescribed lasix as conditions change.

Workers and employers are encouraged to regularly refer to the resources below for updates:Each year on Dec. 6, we celebrate National Miners Day to recognize how to get prescribed lasix and applaud the skill, dedication and hard work miners put into providing many of the products essential to fulfilling America’s most vital needs. I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to every working miner in our nation.

From the coal that provides power for the lights we use to the copper used in our electronics and cookware, miners provide the necessary minerals to make the products integral to our daily lives while sometimes facing hazardous conditions in the workplace. Having worked in the mining industry for the majority of my life, I fully recognize the hazards that confined spaces, mobile equipment and complex electrical equipment, just to name a few, can present to how to get prescribed lasix working miners. This is why my agency, the U.S.

Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), exists. MSHA enforces safety and how to get prescribed lasix health standards and regulations — at all American coal mines, quarries, copper and other metal mines, and many other facilities — to protect miners from the hazards they face each day. Our aim is to see every miner go home safe and healthy after every shift.

Keeping all miners safe means continued production of the indispensable products we use every day. Every time you drink from a how to get prescribed lasix glass, thank a miner. Every time you ride a bike or take a drive in your car, thank a miner.

Miners are the true backbone of not just our nation’s mining industry but also the many industries that could not operate without the raw materials that miners produce. So, on this National Miners Day, please join me in recognizing, honoring and thanking miners for their steady and courageous role in providing the products that make so much of how to get prescribed lasix our daily life possible. David Zatezalo is the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health at the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

How should I use Lasix?

Take Lasix by mouth with a glass of water. You may take Lasix with or without food. If it upsets your stomach, take it with food or milk. Do not take your medicine more often than directed. Remember that you will need to pass more urine after taking Lasix. Do not take your medicine at a time of day that will cause you problems. Do not take at bedtime.

Talk to your pediatrician regarding the use of Lasix in children. While this drug may be prescribed for selected conditions, precautions do apply.

Overdosage: If you think you have taken too much of Lasix contact a poison control center or emergency room at once.

NOTE: Lasix is only for you. Do not share Lasix with others.

Pushing lasix too fast

PHILADELPHIA, PA – pushing lasix too fast The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has entered into a conciliation agreement with B. Braun Medical Inc pushing lasix too fast.

€“ a federal contractor based in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania – to resolve allegations of discrimination against female employees.During a routine compliance evaluation, OFCCP found that – from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017 – the manufacturing company discriminated against female applicants by steering them into the lower paying position of general manufacturing associate at its Allentown facility. While not admitting liability, B. Braun Medical pushing lasix too fast Inc.

Has agreed to pay $77,000 in back pay and interest to 27 affected class members. €œCompanies should proactively monitor their selection and hiring systems to ensure that discriminatory practices are not occurring when making placement decisions,” said Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Regional Director Michele Hodge, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. B.

Braun Medical Inc. Holds numerous federal contracts to provide products and services to multiple federal departments and agencies. The U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs holds the majority of their contracts. OFCCP launched the Class Member Locator (CML) to identify applicants and/or workers who have been impacted by OFCCP’s compliance evaluations and complaint investigations and who may be entitled to a portion of monetary relief and/or consideration for job placement. If you think you may be a class member who applied between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017, the period of the investigation, please visit our website at www.dol.gov/ofccp/CML/index.htm, where you can also find information about other recent OFCCP settlements.

OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. These laws, as amended, make it illegal for contractors and subcontractors doing business with the federal government to discriminate in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. In addition, contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from discriminating against applicants or employees because they have inquired about, discussed or disclosed their compensation or that of others, subject to certain limitations, and may not retaliate against applicants or employees for engaging in protected activities.

These laws also require that federal contractors provide equal employment opportunity through affirmative action. For more information, please call OFCCP’s toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/. The mission of the Department of Labor is to foster, promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers and retirees of the United States.

Improve working conditions. Advance opportunities for profitable employment. And assure work-related benefits and rights.WASHINGTON, DC – Since the start of the hypertension lasix through Oct.

15, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited 112 establishments for violations relating to hypertension, resulting in proposed penalties totaling $1,603,544.OSHA inspections have resulted in the agency citing employers for violations, including failures to. OSHA has already announced citations relating to 85 establishments, which can be found at dol.gov/newsroom.

In addition to those establishments, the 27 establishments below have received hypertension-related citations totaling $381,388 from OSHA relating to one or more of the above violations from Oct. 9 to Oct. 15, 2020.

OSHA provides more information about individual citations at its Establishment Search website, which it updates periodically. Establishment Name Inspection Number City State Initial Penalty Wintonbury Care Center LLC 1472908 Bloomfield Connecticut $15,422 The Children's Center of Hamden Inc. 1475696 Hamden Connecticut $11,452 Chelsea Place Care Center LLC 1474336 Hartford Connecticut $15,422 Trinity Hill Care Center LLC 1474368 Hartford Connecticut $15,422 SecureCare Options LLC 1476011 Rocky Hill Connecticut $15,422 Alden-Valley Ridge Rehabilitation and Health Care Center Inc.

1488820 Bloomingdale Illinois $13,494 Greystone Healthcare Management Corp. 1474331 Northbrook Illinois $12,145 Lutheran Senior Services 1472507 Ballwin Missouri $13,494 Conagra Brands Inc. 1472729 Marshall Missouri $2,121 Andover Subacute and Rehab Center Services One Inc.

1472882 Andover New Jersey $22,555 Clark Nursing &. Rehabilitation Center 1483652 Clark New Jersey $12,145 St. Joseph's University Medical Center Inc.

1477915 Cedar Grove New Jersey $23,133 Emerson Convalescent Center 1473663 Emerson New Jersey $20,820 Humc Opco 1477121 Hoboken New Jersey $13,494 Care One at Livingston Assisted Living 1489564 Livingston New Jersey $11,567 Sinai Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare LLC 1474225 Newark New Jersey $23,133 Prime Healthcare Services-St. Mary's Passaic LLC 1491182 Passaic New Jersey $12,145 Hackensack Meridian Medical Group, Primary Care 1475842 Red Bank New Jersey $13,494 Atrium Post-Acute Care of Wayneview 1487631 Wayne New Jersey $1,735 Sapphire HC LLC 1487944 Briarcliff Manor New York $20,820 Montefiore Medical Center 1475727 Bronx New York $23,133 Gilani Medical Services PC 1476331 Brooklyn New York $4,048 Haven Manor Health Care Center LLC 1486085 Far Rockaway New York $12,145 Jawonio Inc 1491587 Haverstraw New York $13,494 MSAF Group LLC 1487240 Ossining New York $12,145 GEC Youngstown Management LLC 1474597 Youngstown Ohio $13,494 JBS Green Bay Inc. 1472927 Green Bay Wisconsin $13,494 A full list of what standards were cited for each establishment – and the inspection number – are available here.

An OSHA standards database can be found here. Resources are available on the agency’s hypertension medications webpage to help employers comply with these standards. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees.

OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and providing training, education, and assistance. For more information, visit www.osha.gov. The mission of the Department of Labor is to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States.

Improve working conditions. Advance opportunities for profitable employment. And assure work-related benefits and rights..

PHILADELPHIA, PA – check this The how to get prescribed lasix U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has entered into a conciliation agreement with B. Braun Medical Inc how to get prescribed lasix. €“ a federal contractor based in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania – to resolve allegations of discrimination against female employees.During a routine compliance evaluation, OFCCP found that – from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2017 – the manufacturing company discriminated against female applicants by steering them into the lower paying position of general manufacturing associate at its Allentown facility.

While not admitting liability, B. Braun Medical how to get prescribed lasix Inc. Has agreed to pay $77,000 in back pay and interest to 27 affected class members. €œCompanies should proactively monitor their selection and hiring systems to ensure that discriminatory practices are not occurring when making placement decisions,” said Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Regional Director Michele Hodge, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

B. Braun Medical Inc. Holds numerous federal contracts to provide products and services to multiple federal departments and agencies. The U.S.

Department of Veterans Affairs holds the majority of their contracts. OFCCP launched the Class Member Locator (CML) to identify applicants and/or workers who have been impacted by OFCCP’s compliance evaluations and complaint investigations and who may be entitled to a portion of monetary relief and/or consideration for job placement. If you think you may be a class member who applied between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017, the period of the investigation, please visit our website at www.dol.gov/ofccp/CML/index.htm, where you can also find information about other recent OFCCP settlements. OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974.

These laws, as amended, make it illegal for contractors and subcontractors doing business with the federal government to discriminate in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. In addition, contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from discriminating against applicants or employees because they have inquired about, discussed or disclosed their compensation or that of others, subject to certain limitations, and may not retaliate against applicants or employees for engaging in protected activities. These laws also require that federal contractors provide equal employment opportunity through affirmative action. For more information, please call OFCCP’s toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 or visit http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.

The mission of the Department of Labor is to foster, promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers and retirees of the United States. Improve working conditions. Advance opportunities for profitable employment. And assure work-related benefits and rights.WASHINGTON, DC – Since the start of the hypertension lasix through Oct.

15, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has cited 112 establishments for violations relating to hypertension, resulting in proposed penalties totaling $1,603,544.OSHA inspections have resulted in the agency citing employers for violations, including failures to. OSHA has already announced citations relating to 85 establishments, which can be found at dol.gov/newsroom. In addition to those establishments, the 27 establishments below have received hypertension-related citations totaling $381,388 from OSHA relating to one or more of the above violations from Oct.

9 to Oct. 15, 2020. OSHA provides more information about individual citations at its Establishment Search website, which it updates periodically. Establishment Name Inspection Number City State Initial Penalty Wintonbury Care Center LLC 1472908 Bloomfield Connecticut $15,422 The Children's Center of Hamden Inc.

1475696 Hamden Connecticut $11,452 Chelsea Place Care Center LLC 1474336 Hartford Connecticut $15,422 Trinity Hill Care Center LLC 1474368 Hartford Connecticut $15,422 SecureCare Options LLC 1476011 Rocky Hill Connecticut $15,422 Alden-Valley Ridge Rehabilitation and Health Care Center Inc. 1488820 Bloomingdale Illinois $13,494 Greystone Healthcare Management Corp. 1474331 Northbrook Illinois $12,145 Lutheran Senior Services 1472507 Ballwin Missouri $13,494 Conagra Brands Inc. 1472729 Marshall Missouri $2,121 Andover Subacute and Rehab Center Services One Inc.

1472882 Andover New Jersey $22,555 Clark Nursing &. Rehabilitation Center 1483652 Clark New Jersey $12,145 St. Joseph's University Medical Center Inc. 1477915 Cedar Grove New Jersey $23,133 Emerson Convalescent Center 1473663 Emerson New Jersey $20,820 Humc Opco 1477121 Hoboken New Jersey $13,494 Care One at Livingston Assisted Living 1489564 Livingston New Jersey $11,567 Sinai Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare LLC 1474225 Newark New Jersey $23,133 Prime Healthcare Services-St.

Mary's Passaic LLC 1491182 Passaic New Jersey $12,145 Hackensack Meridian Medical Group, Primary Care 1475842 Red Bank New Jersey $13,494 Atrium Post-Acute Care of Wayneview 1487631 Wayne New Jersey $1,735 Sapphire HC LLC 1487944 Briarcliff Manor New York $20,820 Montefiore Medical Center 1475727 Bronx New York $23,133 Gilani Medical Services PC 1476331 Brooklyn New York $4,048 Haven Manor Health Care Center LLC 1486085 Far Rockaway New York $12,145 Jawonio Inc 1491587 Haverstraw New York $13,494 MSAF Group LLC 1487240 Ossining New York $12,145 GEC Youngstown Management LLC 1474597 Youngstown Ohio $13,494 JBS Green Bay Inc. 1472927 Green Bay Wisconsin $13,494 A full list of what standards were cited for each establishment – and the inspection number – are available here. An OSHA standards database can be found here. Resources are available on the agency’s hypertension medications webpage to help employers comply with these standards.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and providing training, education, and assistance. For more information, visit www.osha.gov. The mission of the Department of Labor is to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States.

Improve working conditions. Advance opportunities for profitable employment. And assure work-related benefits and rights..

Lasix 40mg price in usa

Patients Figure lasix 40mg price in usa http://rebelsessions.com/portfolio-view/rebel-sessions-2011-rebel-session-5-big-wave-surfing-event-in-cape-town-south-africa-4/ 1. Figure 1. Enrollment and lasix 40mg price in usa Randomization.

Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization. 541 were assigned to the remdesivir group and 522 to the lasix 40mg price in usa placebo group (Figure 1). Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned.

Forty-nine patients had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients (99.2%) lasix 40mg price in usa received placebo as assigned. Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2).

As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients in the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had completed the trial through day 29, recovered, lasix 40mg price in usa or died. Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. There were 132 patients in the remdesivir group and 169 in the placebo group who had not recovered and had not completed the day 29 follow-up visit.

The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have at least some postbaseline lasix 40mg price in usa data available (538 in the remdesivir group and 521 in the placebo group). Four of the 1063 patients were not included in the primary analysis because no postbaseline data were available at the time of the database freeze. Table 1 lasix 40mg price in usa.

Table 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean age of patients was 58.9 years, and 64.3% were male lasix 40mg price in usa (Table 1).

On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of hypertension medications during the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients lasix 40mg price in usa were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, and 13.6% were designated as other or not reported. 249 (23.4%) were Hispanic or Latino.

Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of days between lasix 40mg price in usa symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to 12). Nine hundred forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix.

272 (25.6%) patients met category 7 lasix 40mg price in usa criteria on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 (39.6%) category 5, and 127 (11.9%) category 4. There were 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.

Primary Outcome lasix 40mg price in usa Figure 2. Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Cumulative lasix 40mg price in usa Recoveries.

Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen. Panel B), in those with a baseline score of 5 (receiving oxygen. Panel C), in those with a baseline score of lasix 40mg price in usa 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

Panel D), and in those with a baseline score of 7 (receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO. Panel E) lasix 40mg price in usa. Table 2.

Table 2. Outcomes Overall and According to lasix 40mg price in usa Score on the Ordinal Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population. Figure 3.

Figure 3 lasix 40mg price in usa. Time to Recovery According to Subgroup. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer lasix 40mg price in usa treatment effects.

Race and ethnic group were reported by the patients. Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 11 days, as compared with 15 days. Rate ratio lasix 40mg price in usa for recovery, 1.32.

95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients (Figure 2 and Table 2).

Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline score of 4 (127 patients) and those with a baseline score of 6 (197 patients), the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively. For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7.

272 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.42). A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant. An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable was conducted to evaluate the overall effect (of the percentage of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome.

This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31. 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54. 1017 patients).

Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe. Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57. 664 patients), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81.

380 patients) (Figure 3). Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.50. 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.91.

P=0.001. 844 patients) (Table 2 and Fig. S5).

Mortality was numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04. 1059 patients).

The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients that had yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10).

Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group and 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3). 4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients).

Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group. No deaths were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4).

The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]). Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]).

Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose level (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]). Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with hypertension medications at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network.

(Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor. Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, tocilizumab, or convalescent plasma. Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed hypertension and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial.

Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020. Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible. Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients or from a legal representative if they were unable to provide consent.

The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net.

The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee. The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in the preparation or approval of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan.

Randomization We collected baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site. Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment. Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial.

For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated. These patients were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included in this report. The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician.

Patients and local members of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments. Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first. Information was recorded regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death).

In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization. Further analyses were specified at 6 months.

Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death. Other prespecified clinical outcomes included cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and receipt and duration of ventilation. Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the hypertension medications lasix.

As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups. Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients. For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was used to estimate the mortality rate ratio.

Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the absence of any information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period.

Cox regression was used to analyze the secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization. For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio. Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support. Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1).

To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years). This adjustment was not specified in the first version of the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent. Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.

Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk. (One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest.

Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford.Trial Population Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants in the mRNA-1273 Trial at Enrollment.

The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig. S1). Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including http://toenrichlives.com/2011/12/handi-medical-supply-wants-you-to%e2%80%a6/ one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected hypertension medications while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending.

All continued to attend scheduled trial visits. The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1. treatment Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met.

As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination. Figure 1. Figure 1.

Systemic and Local Adverse Events. The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2).

Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events. None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination. After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever.

One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common. Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site.

Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3). hypertension Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2.

Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens. Figure 2. Figure 2.

hypertension Antibody and Neutralization Responses. Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live lasix PRNT80 responses (Panel D). In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively.

Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants. Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel. In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR.

In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively.

Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays. Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A).

Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident. Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B). For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens.

The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]). hypertension Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination. After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50].

Figure 2C, Fig. S8, and Table 2. 80% inhibitory dilution [ID80].

Fig. S2 and Table S6). However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants.

The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43. The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43). These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens.

Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-lasix neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay. At day 43, wild-type lasix–neutralizing activity capable of reducing hypertension infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay.

Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs. S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273. hypertension T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs.

S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >. Interleukin 2 >. Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13).

CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig. S11).Trial Design and Oversight We conducted this three-group trial at 55 hospitals in Brazil. The trial was designed by the executive committee (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org) and approved by the Brazilian National Commission for Research Ethics, the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), and ethics committees at the participating sites.

The trial was funded by the hospitals and research institutes participating in Coalition hypertension medications Brazil (see the Supplementary Appendix). EMS Pharma provided additional funding and logistic support for the trial and also donated and supplied the trial drugs. EMS Pharma had no role in the conduct of the trial, the analysis, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

The trial was overseen by an independent international data and safety monitoring committee. The executive committee vouches for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol (available at NEJM.org). Participants The trial included consecutive patients who were 18 years of age or older and who had been hospitalized with suspected or confirmed hypertension medications with 14 or fewer days since symptom onset.

Among the reasons for exclusion from the trial were the use of supplemental oxygen at a rate of more than 4 liters per minute as administered by a nasal cannula or at a level of at least 40% as administered by a Venturi mask. The use of supplemental oxygen administered by a high-flow nasal cannula or invasive or noninvasive ventilation. Previous use of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or any other macrolide for more than 24 hours before enrollment (and since the onset of symptoms).

And a history of severe ventricular tachycardia or electrocardiographic findings with a corrected QT interval (QTc) of at least 480 msec. Complete information on the inclusion and exclusion criteria is provided in the Supplementary Appendix. All the patients provided written or electronic informed consent before randomization.

Randomization, Interventions, and Follow-up Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care (control group), standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily for 7 days (hydroxychloroquine-alone group), or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once a day for 7 days. Randomization was performed in blocks of six and was stratified according to the use or nonuse of supplemental oxygen at the time of randomization. Randomization was performed centrally by means of an electronic case-report form system (RedCap) as described in the Supplementary Appendix.12 The current standard care for hypertension medications was at the discretion of the treating physicians.

The use of glucocorticoids, other immunomodulators, antibiotic agents, and antiviral agents was allowed (see the Supplementary Appendix). The administration of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine was not allowed in the control group, and the use of macrolides was not allowed in the control group or the hydroxychloroquine-alone group. Guidance was provided to the investigators about how to adjust or interrupt treatment according to side effects and laboratory abnormalities.

Data were collected daily, from randomization until day 15, in the electronic case-report form. For patients who were discharged before day 15, a structured telephone call to the patient or the patient’s family was conducted on or after day 15 by an interviewer who was unaware of the assigned trial group in order to assess vital status and return to routine activities. Outcomes The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days, evaluated with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale.

Scores on the scale were defined as follows. A score of 1 indicated not hospitalized with no limitations on activities. 2, not hospitalized but with limitations on activities.

3, hospitalized and not receiving supplemental oxygen. 4, hospitalized and receiving supplemental oxygen. 5, hospitalized and receiving oxygen supplementation administered by a high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation.

6, hospitalized and receiving mechanical ventilation. And 7, death. Secondary outcomes included clinical status at 7 days, evaluated with the use of a six-level ordinal scale (see below and see the Supplementary Appendix).

An indication for intubation within 15 days. The receipt of supplemental oxygen administered by a high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation between randomization and 15 days. Duration of hospital stay.

In-hospital death. Thromboembolic complications. Acute kidney injury.

And the number of days alive and free from respiratory support up to 15 days. A day alive and free from respiratory support was defined as any day in which the patient did not receive supplemental oxygen or invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, from randomization to day 15. Patients who died during the 15-day window were assigned a value of 0 days alive and free from respiratory support in this assessment.

Safety outcomes are listed in the Supplementary Appendix. All the trial outcomes were assessed by the site investigators, who were aware of the trial-group assignments (except as noted above for patients who had been discharged before day 15 and who were assessed for the primary outcome by means of a blinded telephone interview). No formal adjudication of trial outcomes was performed.

Sample-Size Calculation and Protocol Changes We had originally planned for the trial to include 630 patients, using the intention-to-treat analysis population, with a six-level ordinal outcome as the primary outcome, as described in the Supplementary Appendix. However, before the first interim analysis was conducted, we changed the primary-outcome assessment to the seven-level ordinal scale and the main analysis population from the intention-to-treat population to a modified intention-to-treat population that included only patients with a diagnosis of hypertension medications that had been confirmed by reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) testing (using the test available at each site). The change to the use of the seven-level ordinal scale was adopted because on April 10, 2020 (before the first enrolled patient had reached 15 days of follow-up), we established the capability to obtain 15-day information on limitations on activities with the use of blinded telephone interviews.

We therefore added another level to the six-level ordinal outcome, dividing the first level (not hospitalized) into two levels (level 1, not hospitalized and with no limitations on activities. And level 2, not hospitalized but with limitations on activities). The change to the modified intention-to-treat population was adopted because, under the hypothesis that treatment would have beneficial effects on the primary outcome only for patients who had a confirmed diagnosis, the inclusion of unconfirmed cases would decrease the estimated effect size and power.

As a related change, we added external adjudication of unconfirmed cases, which were classified as probable, possible, or probably not hypertension medications (see the Supplementary Appendix). The sample size was revised with the use of the overall distribution of the seven-level ordinal outcome at day 15 observed among the first 120 patients, with the levels 1 through 7 having the following proportions of patients. 60%, 19%, 7%, 1%, 1%, 5%, and 7%, respectively.

With 630 patients who had undergone randomization and 510 patients included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, we calculated that the trial would have 80% power to detect an odds ratio of 0.5 between groups (two-by-two comparisons), at a significance level of 5% and with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons (α=5%, divided by 3 for each comparison).13 Statistical Analysis The primary outcome was analyzed by mixed ordinal logistic regression with random intercept according to site, assuming proportional odds. We report all two-by-two comparisons. Binary outcomes were assessed with the use of a mixed logistic-regression model, except for in-hospital mortality, which was assessed with a Cox proportional-hazards model.

Continuous outcomes were evaluated by means of generalized linear regression or mixed models for repeated variables, as appropriate. All models were adjusted for age and the use of supplemental oxygen at admission. We also performed sensitivity analyses that included all the patients who had undergone randomization (intention-to-treat population) and sensitivity analyses for the primary outcome for the following groups.

Patients with definitive, probable, or possible hypertension medications. And patients with definitive or probable hypertension medications. Two additional populations were considered.

An efficacy population included patients with a confirmed diagnosis who received at least one dose of the assigned trial drug. The safety population included patients according to the medications received, regardless of the assigned trial group or the result of hypertension medications testing. We planned three interim analyses, to be conducted when 120 patients, 315 patients, and 504 patients had completed 15 days of follow-up.

However, only the first interim analysis was conducted. Owing to faster-than-expected enrollment, primary-outcome data for the second and third interim analyses were available only after trial recruitment was finished. After discussion with the data and safety monitoring committee, the second and third interim analyses were cancelled.

The data and safety monitoring committee used Haybittle–Peto14 stopping boundaries, with a P-value threshold of less than 0.001 to interrupt the trial for safety and a P-value threshold of less than 0.0001 to interrupt the trial for efficacy. We did not adjust the final values of the hypothesis test for sequential analyses. Analyses were performed with the use of R software (R Core Team).15 P values for the primary outcome were adjusted with the use of Bonferroni correction.

No P values are reported for secondary outcomes. The widths of the confidence intervals for the secondary outcomes have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons, so the intervals should not be used to infer definitive treatment effects. P values for the safety analyses were not adjusted given the importance of identifying potential signals of harm.

Additional details about the statistical analyses are provided in the Supplementary Appendix..

Patients Figure https://eingrext.at/shop/ 1 how to get prescribed lasix. Figure 1. Enrollment and how to get prescribed lasix Randomization. Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization.

541 were assigned to the remdesivir group and 522 to the placebo group how to get prescribed lasix (Figure 1). Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned. Forty-nine patients had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients how to get prescribed lasix (99.2%) received placebo as assigned.

Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2). As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients in the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had completed the trial through day 29, how to get prescribed lasix recovered, or died. Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. There were 132 patients in the remdesivir group and 169 in the placebo group who had not recovered and had not completed the day 29 follow-up visit.

The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have at least some postbaseline data available how to get prescribed lasix (538 in the remdesivir group and 521 in the placebo group). Four of the 1063 patients were not included in the primary analysis because no postbaseline data were available at the time of the database freeze. Table 1 how to get prescribed lasix. Table 1.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean age of patients was 58.9 years, and how to get prescribed lasix 64.3% were male (Table 1). On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of hypertension medications during the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, and 13.6% were designated how to get prescribed lasix as other or not reported.

249 (23.4%) were Hispanic or Latino. Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of days how to get prescribed lasix between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to 12). Nine hundred forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix.

272 (25.6%) patients met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 how to get prescribed lasix (39.6%) category 5, and 127 (11.9%) category 4. There were 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group. Primary Outcome Figure how to get prescribed lasix 2.

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates how to get prescribed lasix of Cumulative Recoveries. Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen. Panel B), in those with a baseline score of 5 (receiving oxygen.

Panel C), in those with a baseline how to get prescribed lasix score of 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Panel D), and in those with a baseline score of 7 (receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO. Panel E) how to get prescribed lasix. Table 2.

Table 2. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal how to get prescribed lasix Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population. Figure 3. Figure 3 how to get prescribed lasix.

Time to Recovery According to Subgroup. The widths of the how to get prescribed lasix confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects. Race and ethnic group were reported by the patients. Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 11 days, as compared with 15 days.

Rate ratio for recovery, how to get prescribed lasix 1.32. 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients (Figure 2 and Table 2).

Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline score of 4 (127 patients) and those with a baseline score of 6 (197 patients), the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively. For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7. 272 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.42).

A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant. An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable was conducted to evaluate the overall effect (of the percentage of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome. This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31. 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54.

1017 patients). Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe. Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57. 664 patients), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81.

380 patients) (Figure 3). Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.50. 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.91. P=0.001.

844 patients) (Table 2 and Fig. S5). Mortality was numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04.

1059 patients). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients that had yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10).

Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group and 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3). 4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients). Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group.

No deaths were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4). The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]).

Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose level (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]). Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with hypertension medications at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network.

(Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor. Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, tocilizumab, or convalescent plasma. Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed hypertension and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial. Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020.

Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible. Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients or from a legal representative if they were unable to provide consent. The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee.

The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net. The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee. The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in the preparation or approval of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan.

Randomization We collected baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site. Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment. Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial. For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated.

These patients were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included in this report. The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician. Patients and local members of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments. Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first.

Information was recorded regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death). In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization. Further analyses were specified at 6 months.

Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death. Other prespecified clinical outcomes included cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and receipt and duration of ventilation. Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the hypertension medications lasix. As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups.

Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients. For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was used to estimate the mortality rate ratio. Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the absence of any information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days.

Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period. Cox regression was used to analyze the secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization. For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio. Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support. Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1). To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years).

This adjustment was not specified in the first version of the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent. Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk.

(One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest. Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford.Trial Population Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants in the mRNA-1273 Trial at Enrollment. The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig.

S1). Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected hypertension medications while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending. All continued to attend scheduled trial visits. The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1.

treatment Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met. As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination. Figure 1. Figure 1.

Systemic and Local Adverse Events. The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2). Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events.

None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination. After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever. One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common.

Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site. Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3). hypertension Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2.

Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens. Figure 2. Figure 2. hypertension Antibody and Neutralization Responses.

Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live lasix PRNT80 responses (Panel D). In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively. Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants.

Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel. In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR.

In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR.

The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays. Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A). Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident. Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B).

For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens. The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]). hypertension Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination. After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50].

Figure 2C, Fig. S8, and Table 2. 80% inhibitory dilution [ID80]. Fig.

S2 and Table S6). However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants. The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43. The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43).

These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens. Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-lasix neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay. At day 43, wild-type lasix–neutralizing activity capable of reducing hypertension infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay.

Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs. S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273. hypertension T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs. S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >.

Interleukin 2 >. Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13). CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig. S11).Trial Design and Oversight We conducted this three-group trial at 55 hospitals in Brazil.

The trial was designed by the executive committee (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org) and approved by the Brazilian National Commission for Research Ethics, the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), and ethics committees at the participating sites. The trial was funded by the hospitals and research institutes participating in Coalition hypertension medications Brazil (see the Supplementary Appendix). EMS Pharma provided additional funding and logistic support for the trial and also donated and supplied the trial drugs. EMS Pharma had no role in the conduct of the trial, the analysis, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

The trial was overseen by an independent international data and safety monitoring committee. The executive committee vouches for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol (available at NEJM.org). Participants The trial included consecutive patients who were 18 years of age or older and who had been hospitalized with suspected or confirmed hypertension medications with 14 or fewer days since symptom onset. Among the reasons for exclusion from the trial were the use of supplemental oxygen at a rate of more than 4 liters per minute as administered by a nasal cannula or at a level of at least 40% as administered by a Venturi mask.

The use of supplemental oxygen administered by a high-flow nasal cannula or invasive or noninvasive ventilation. Previous use of chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or any other macrolide for more than 24 hours before enrollment (and since the onset of symptoms). And a history of severe ventricular tachycardia or electrocardiographic findings with a corrected QT interval (QTc) of at least 480 msec. Complete information on the inclusion and exclusion criteria is provided in the Supplementary Appendix.

All the patients provided written or electronic informed consent before randomization. Randomization, Interventions, and Follow-up Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care (control group), standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily for 7 days (hydroxychloroquine-alone group), or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once a day for 7 days. Randomization was performed in blocks of six and was stratified according to the use or nonuse of supplemental oxygen at the time of randomization. Randomization was performed centrally by means of an electronic case-report form system (RedCap) as described in the Supplementary Appendix.12 The current standard care for hypertension medications was at the discretion of the treating physicians.

The use of glucocorticoids, other immunomodulators, antibiotic agents, and antiviral agents was allowed (see the Supplementary Appendix). The administration of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine was not allowed in the control group, and the use of macrolides was not allowed in the control group or the hydroxychloroquine-alone group. Guidance was provided to the investigators about how to adjust or interrupt treatment according to side effects and laboratory abnormalities. Data were collected daily, from randomization until day 15, in the electronic case-report form.

For patients who were discharged before day 15, a structured telephone call to the patient or the patient’s family was conducted on or after day 15 by an interviewer who was unaware of the assigned trial group in order to assess vital status and return to routine activities. Outcomes The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days, evaluated with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale. Scores on the scale were defined as follows. A score of 1 indicated not hospitalized with no limitations on activities.

2, not hospitalized but with limitations on activities. 3, hospitalized and not receiving supplemental oxygen. 4, hospitalized and receiving supplemental oxygen. 5, hospitalized and receiving oxygen supplementation administered by a high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation.

6, hospitalized and receiving mechanical ventilation. And 7, death. Secondary outcomes included clinical status at 7 days, evaluated with the use of a six-level ordinal scale (see below and see the Supplementary Appendix). An indication for intubation within 15 days.

The receipt of supplemental oxygen administered by a high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation between randomization and 15 days. Duration of hospital stay. In-hospital death. Thromboembolic complications.

Acute kidney injury. And the number of days alive and free from respiratory support up to 15 days. A day alive and free from respiratory support was defined as any day in which the patient did not receive supplemental oxygen or invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, from randomization to day 15. Patients who died during the 15-day window were assigned a value of 0 days alive and free from respiratory support in this assessment.

Safety outcomes are listed in the Supplementary Appendix. All the trial outcomes were assessed by the site investigators, who were aware of the trial-group assignments (except as noted above for patients who had been discharged before day 15 and who were assessed for the primary outcome by means of a blinded telephone interview). No formal adjudication of trial outcomes was performed. Sample-Size Calculation and Protocol Changes We had originally planned for the trial to include 630 patients, using the intention-to-treat analysis population, with a six-level ordinal outcome as the primary outcome, as described in the Supplementary Appendix.

However, before the first interim analysis was conducted, we changed the primary-outcome assessment to the seven-level ordinal scale and the main analysis population from the intention-to-treat population to a modified intention-to-treat population that included only patients with a diagnosis of hypertension medications that had been confirmed by reverse-transcriptase–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) testing (using the test available at each site). The change to the use of the seven-level ordinal scale was adopted because on April 10, 2020 (before the first enrolled patient had reached 15 days of follow-up), we established the capability to obtain 15-day information on limitations on activities with the use of blinded telephone interviews. We therefore added another level to the six-level ordinal outcome, dividing the first level (not hospitalized) into two levels (level 1, not hospitalized and with no limitations on activities. And level 2, not hospitalized but with limitations on activities).

The change to the modified intention-to-treat population was adopted because, under the hypothesis that treatment would have beneficial effects on the primary outcome only for patients who had a confirmed diagnosis, the inclusion of unconfirmed cases would decrease the estimated effect size and power. As a related change, we added external adjudication of unconfirmed cases, which were classified as probable, possible, or probably not hypertension medications (see the Supplementary Appendix). The sample size was revised with the use of the overall distribution of the seven-level ordinal outcome at day 15 observed among the first 120 patients, with the levels 1 through 7 having the following proportions of patients. 60%, 19%, 7%, 1%, 1%, 5%, and 7%, respectively.

With 630 patients who had undergone randomization and 510 patients included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, we calculated that the trial would have 80% power to detect an odds ratio of 0.5 between groups (two-by-two comparisons), at a significance level of 5% and with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons (α=5%, divided by 3 for each comparison).13 Statistical Analysis The primary outcome was analyzed by mixed ordinal logistic regression with random intercept according to site, assuming proportional odds. We report all two-by-two comparisons. Binary outcomes were assessed with the use of a mixed logistic-regression model, except for in-hospital mortality, which was assessed with a Cox proportional-hazards model. Continuous outcomes were evaluated by means of generalized linear regression or mixed models for repeated variables, as appropriate.

All models were adjusted for age and the use of supplemental oxygen at admission. We also performed sensitivity analyses that included all the patients who had undergone randomization (intention-to-treat population) and sensitivity analyses for the primary outcome for the following groups. Patients with definitive, probable, or possible hypertension medications. And patients with definitive or probable hypertension medications.

Two additional populations were considered. An efficacy population included patients with a confirmed diagnosis who received at least one dose of the assigned trial drug. The safety population included patients according to the medications received, regardless of the assigned trial group or the result of hypertension medications testing. We planned three interim analyses, to be conducted when 120 patients, 315 patients, and 504 patients had completed 15 days of follow-up.

However, only the first interim analysis was conducted. Owing to faster-than-expected enrollment, primary-outcome data for the second and third interim analyses were available only after trial recruitment was finished. After discussion with the data and safety monitoring committee, the second and third interim analyses were cancelled. The data and safety monitoring committee used Haybittle–Peto14 stopping boundaries, with a P-value threshold of less than 0.001 to interrupt the trial for safety and a P-value threshold of less than 0.0001 to interrupt the trial for efficacy.

We did not adjust the final values of the hypothesis test for sequential analyses. Analyses were performed with the use of R software (R Core Team).15 P values for the primary outcome were adjusted with the use of Bonferroni correction. No P values are reported for secondary outcomes. The widths of the confidence intervals for the secondary outcomes have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons, so the intervals should not be used to infer definitive treatment effects.

P values for the safety analyses were not adjusted given the importance of identifying potential signals of harm. Additional details about the statistical analyses are provided in the Supplementary Appendix..

Is lasix a sulfa drug

Welcome to this week's edition of is lasix a sulfa drug Healthcare lasix pills online Career Insights. This weekly roundup highlights healthcare career-related articles culled from across the Web to help you learn what's next.Lisa Grabl is president of the locum tenens division of CompHealth, the nation's largest locum tenens physician staffing company and a leader in permanent and temporary allied healthcare staffing. Lisa has worked in healthcare staffing for more than go to this website 20 years. Last Updated December 23, 2020.

Welcome to this week's edition of Healthcare buy lasix online usa Career Insights how to get prescribed lasix. This weekly roundup highlights healthcare career-related articles culled from across the Web to help you learn what's next.Lisa Grabl is president of the locum tenens division of CompHealth, the nation's largest locum tenens physician staffing company and a leader in permanent and temporary allied healthcare staffing. Lisa has worked in order lasix online healthcare staffing for more than 20 years. Last Updated December 23, 2020.