Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

The use of screencasts with embedded whole-slide scans and hyperlinks to teach anatomic pathology in a supervised digital environment

Background: There is an increasing interest in using digitized whole-slide imaging (WSI) for routine surgical pathology diagnoses. Screencasts are digital recordings of computer screen output with advanced interactive features that allow for the preparation of videos. Screencasts that include hyperlinks to WSIs could help teach pathology residents how to become familiar with technologies that they are likely to use in their future career. Materials and Methods: Twenty screencasts were prepared with Camtasia 2.0 software (TechSmith, Okemos, MI, USA). They included clinical history, videos of chest X-rays and/or chest computed tomography images, links to WSI digitized with an Aperio Turbo AT scanner (Leica Biosystems, Buffalo Grove, IL, USA), pre- and posttests, and faculty-narrated videos of the WSI in a manner closely resembling a slide seminar and other educational materials. Screencasts were saved in a hospital network, Screencast.com, YouTube.com, and Vimeo.com. The screencasts were viewed by 12 pathology residents and fellows who made diagnoses, answered the quizzes, and took a survey with questions designed to evaluate their perception of the quality of this technology. Quiz results were automatically e-mailed to faculty. Pre- and posttest results were compared using a paired t-test. Results: Screencasts can be viewed with Windows PC and Mac operating systems and mobile devices; only videos saved in our network and screencast.com could be used to generate quizzes. Participants' feedback was very favorable with average scores ranging from 4.5 to 4.8 (on a scale of 5). Mean posttest scores (87.0% [±21.6%]) were significantly improved over those in the pretest quizzes (48.5% [±31.2%]) (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Screencasts with WSI that allow residents and fellows to diagnose cases using digital microscopy may prove to be a useful technology to enhance the pathology education. Future studies with larger numbers of screencasts and participants are needed to optimize various teaching strategies

Pathologists should probably forget about kappa. Percent agreement, diagnostic specificity and related metrics provide more clinically applicable measures of interobserver variability

Kappa statistics have been widely used in the pathology literature to compare interobserver diagnostic variability (IOV) among different pathologists but there has been limited discussion about the clinical significance of kappa scores. Five representative and recent pathology papers were queried using clinically relevant specific questions to learn how IOV was evaluated and how the clinical applicability of results was interpreted. The papers supported our anecdotal impression that pathologists usually assess IOV using Cohen's or Fleiss' kappa statistics and interpret the results using some variation of the scale proposed by Landis and Koch. The papers did not cite or propose specific guidelines to comment on the clinical applicability of results. The solutions proposed to decrease IOV included the development of better diagnostic criteria and additional educational efforts, but the possibility that the entities themselves represented a continuum of morphologic findings rather than distinct diagnostic categories was not considered in any of the studies. A dataset from a previous study of IOV reported by Thunnissen et al. was recalculated to estimate percent agreement among 19 international lung pathologists for the diagnosis of 74 challenging lung neuroendocrine neoplasms. Kappa scores and diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated using the majority consensus diagnosis for each case as the gold reference diagnosis for that case. Diagnostic specificity estimates among multiple pathologists were > 90%, although kappa scores were considerably more variable. We explain why kappa scores are of limited clinical applicability in pathology and propose the use of positive and negative percent agreement and diagnostic specificity against a gold reference diagnosis to evaluate IOV among two and multiple raters, respectively