Exposure to the field of renal transplantation during undergraduate medical education in the UK

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of surgeons in the field of renal transplantation, with a predicted shortage of over 20 consultants by the year 2005. Early positive exposure to the field, commencing at undergraduate level, has been identified as being vital to improving rates of recruitment. This study was performed to assess the exposure of undergraduates to the field of renal transplantation during medical education in the UK. METHODS: In October 2004 a questionnaire was sent to the clinical deans of all UK medical schools regarding undergraduate exposure to renal transplantation. RESULTS: Twenty-five replies were received, giving a response rate of 96%. All but one school had a centre for renal transplantation in their region. Three schools (12%) gave no formal lecture or tutorial on the subject during the entire course. Of the remainder, between one to four formal sessions were provided, ranging from 15 minutes to 3 hours duration. Six medical schools (24%) provided no compulsory clinical exposure to renal transplantation, with a further five (20%) saying that students may receive exposure by chance. The average length of attachment was three weeks. Twenty-one medical schools (84%) provided between 1–10% of students a choice to study renal transplantation, as part of electives and special study modules. CONCLUSION: This study reveals a variation between, and within, medical schools in the levels of formal teaching. If the trends in recruitment to renal transplantation are to be reversed, we have an obligation to improve upon the medical education that students currently receive

A survey of medical students to assess their exposure to and knowledge of renal transplantation

BACKGROUND: Within the field of renal transplantation there is a lack of qualified and trainee surgeons and a shortage of donated organs. Any steps to tackle these issues should, in part, be aimed at future doctors. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to final year students at a single medical school in the UK to assess their exposure to and knowledge of renal transplantation. RESULTS: Although 46% of responding students had examined a transplant recipient, only 14% had ever witnessed the surgery. Worryingly, 9% of students believed that xenotransplantation commonly occurs in the UK and 35% were unable to name a single drug that a recipient may need to take. CONCLUSIONS: This survey demonstrates a lack of exposure to, and knowledge of, the field of renal transplantation. Recommendations to address the problems with the recruitment of surgeons and donation of organs, by targeting medical students are made

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

Increasing frailty is associated with higher prevalence and reduced recognition of delirium in older hospitalised inpatients: results of a multi-centre study

Purpose: Delirium is a neuropsychiatric disorder delineated by an acute change in cognition, attention, and consciousness. It is common, particularly in older adults, but poorly recognised. Frailty is the accumulation of deficits conferring an increased risk of adverse outcomes. We set out to determine how severity of frailty, as measured using the CFS, affected delirium rates, and recognition in hospitalised older people in the United Kingdom. Methods: Adults over 65 years were included in an observational multi-centre audit across UK hospitals, two prospective rounds, and one retrospective note review. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), delirium status, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Results: The overall prevalence of delirium was 16.3% (483). Patients with delirium were more frail than patients without delirium (median CFS 6 vs 4). The risk of delirium was greater with increasing frailty [OR 2.9 (1.8–4.6) in CFS 4 vs 1–3; OR 12.4 (6.2–24.5) in CFS 8 vs 1–3]. Higher CFS was associated with reduced recognition of delirium (OR of 0.7 (0.3–1.9) in CFS 4 compared to 0.2 (0.1–0.7) in CFS 8). These risks were both independent of age and dementia. Conclusion: We have demonstrated an incremental increase in risk of delirium with increasing frailty. This has important clinical implications, suggesting that frailty may provide a more nuanced measure of vulnerability to delirium and poor outcomes. However, the most frail patients are least likely to have their delirium diagnosed and there is a significant lack of research into the underlying pathophysiology of both of these common geriatric syndromes

MCM3 is a novel proliferation marker associated with longer survival for patients with tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma

Tubo-ovarian high-grade serous carcinomas (HGSC) are highly proliferative neoplasms that generally respond well to platinum/taxane chemotherapy. We recently identified minichromosome maintenance complex component 3 (MCM3), which is involved in the initiation of DNA replication and proliferation, as a favorable prognostic marker in HGSC. Our objective was to further validate whether MCM3 mRNA expression and possibly MCM3 protein levels are associated with survival in patients with HGSC. MCM3 mRNA expression was measured using NanoString expression profiling on formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue (N = 2355 HGSC) and MCM3 protein expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry (N = 522 HGSC) and compared with Ki-67. Kaplan-Meier curves and the Cox proportional hazards model were used to estimate associations with survival. Among chemotherapy-naïve HGSC, higher MCM3 mRNA expression (one standard deviation increase in the score) was associated with longer overall survival (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.92, p < 0.0001, N = 1840) in multivariable analysis. MCM3 mRNA expression was highest in the HGSC C5.PRO molecular subtype, although no interaction was observed between MCM3, survival and molecular subtypes. MCM3 and Ki-67 protein levels were significantly lower after exposure to neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy-naïve tumors: 37.0% versus 46.4% and 22.9% versus 34.2%, respectively. Among chemotherapy-naïve HGSC, high MCM3 protein levels were also associated with significantly longer disease-specific survival (HR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.74, p = 0.0003, N = 392) compared to cases with low MCM3 protein levels in multivariable analysis. MCM3 immunohistochemistry is a promising surrogate marker of proliferation in HGSC