Procreate and cherish: A note on Australia’s abrupt shift to Pro-Natalism

After a long history of arguing that Australian governments do not intervene in the bedrooms of the nation, in 2004 the Howard Government did exactly that. Under the enthusiastic choreographing of then Treasurer Peter Costello, it implemented an explicit and indirect fertility policy in the form of a maternity payment, commonly known as the ‘Baby Bonus’. Rising fertility in Australia since that time has been widely claimed as evidence of the policy’s success. Hailed as a mini ‘baby boom’, Costello was moved to describe the policy as a shift from ‘population or perish’ to ‘procreate and cherish’. Despite arguing against it while in Opposition, the policy has been continued with only a few changes by the incumbent Rudd Government, seemingly on the grounds that it may indeed be responsible for the recent ‘nudging up’ of birth rates. This paper traces the policy shift and concludes with a brief analysis of Australian trends across the period of the Baby Bonus (2004-2008), showing that one quarter of the increase in numbers is due to cohort size, but noting that fertility has also risen in many developed countries across the same period and thus trends in Australia may just be part of a broader trend – and/or in part an artifact of the index used to measure fertility. It also draws attention to the collateral effect of an increased dependency ratio, with the mini ‘boom’ reaching school age at the very moment the post war baby boomers reach retirement age – as forewarned by Costello in 2002 when initially rejecting the idea of a Baby Bonus

Dolutegravir twice-daily dosing in children with HIV-associated tuberculosis: a pharmacokinetic and safety study within the open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority ODYSSEY trial

Background: Children with HIV-associated tuberculosis (TB) have few antiretroviral therapy (ART) options. We aimed to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of dolutegravir twice-daily dosing in children receiving rifampicin for HIV-associated TB. Methods: We nested a two-period, fixed-order pharmacokinetic substudy within the open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority ODYSSEY trial at research centres in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Children (aged 4 weeks to <18 years) with HIV-associated TB who were receiving rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir were eligible for inclusion. We did a 12-h pharmacokinetic profile on rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir and a 24-h profile on once-daily dolutegravir. Geometric mean ratios for trough plasma concentration (Ctrough), area under the plasma concentration time curve from 0 h to 24 h after dosing (AUC0–24 h), and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) were used to compare dolutegravir concentrations between substudy days. We assessed rifampicin Cmax on the first substudy day. All children within ODYSSEY with HIV-associated TB who received rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir were included in the safety analysis. We described adverse events reported from starting twice-daily dolutegravir to 30 days after returning to once-daily dolutegravir. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02259127), EudraCT (2014–002632-14), and the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91737921). Findings: Between Sept 20, 2016, and June 28, 2021, 37 children with HIV-associated TB (median age 11·9 years [range 0·4–17·6], 19 [51%] were female and 18 [49%] were male, 36 [97%] in Africa and one [3%] in Thailand) received rifampicin with twice-daily dolutegravir and were included in the safety analysis. 20 (54%) of 37 children enrolled in the pharmacokinetic substudy, 14 of whom contributed at least one evaluable pharmacokinetic curve for dolutegravir, including 12 who had within-participant comparisons. Geometric mean ratios for rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir versus once-daily dolutegravir were 1·51 (90% CI 1·08–2·11) for Ctrough, 1·23 (0·99–1·53) for AUC0–24 h, and 0·94 (0·76–1·16) for Cmax. Individual dolutegravir Ctrough concentrations were higher than the 90% effective concentration (ie, 0·32 mg/L) in all children receiving rifampicin and twice-daily dolutegravir. Of 18 children with evaluable rifampicin concentrations, 15 (83%) had a Cmax of less than the optimal target concentration of 8 mg/L. Rifampicin geometric mean Cmax was 5·1 mg/L (coefficient of variation 71%). During a median follow-up of 31 weeks (IQR 30–40), 15 grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred among 11 (30%) of 37 children, ten serious adverse events occurred among eight (22%) children, including two deaths (one tuberculosis-related death, one death due to traumatic injury); no adverse events, including deaths, were considered related to dolutegravir. Interpretation: Twice-daily dolutegravir was shown to be safe and sufficient to overcome the rifampicin enzyme-inducing effect in children, and could provide a practical ART option for children with HIV-associated TB

Neuropsychiatric manifestations and sleep disturbances with dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy versus standard of care in children and adolescents: a secondary analysis of the ODYSSEY trial

BACKGROUND: Cohort studies in adults with HIV showed that dolutegravir was associated with neuropsychiatric adverse events and sleep problems, yet data are scarce in children and adolescents. We aimed to evaluate neuropsychiatric manifestations in children and adolescents treated with dolutegravir-based treatment versus alternative antiretroviral therapy. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of ODYSSEY, an open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial, in which adolescents and children initiating first-line or second-line antiretroviral therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to dolutegravir-based treatment or standard-of-care treatment. We assessed neuropsychiatric adverse events (reported by clinicians) and responses to the mood and sleep questionnaires (reported by the participant or their carer) in both groups. We compared the proportions of patients with neuropsychiatric adverse events (neurological, psychiatric, and total), time to first neuropsychiatric adverse event, and participant-reported responses to questionnaires capturing issues with mood, suicidal thoughts, and sleep problems. FINDINGS: Between Sept 20, 2016, and June 22, 2018, 707 participants were enrolled, of whom 345 (49%) were female and 362 (51%) were male, and 623 (88%) were Black-African. Of 707 participants, 350 (50%) were randomly assigned to dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy and 357 (50%) to non-dolutegravir-based standard-of-care. 311 (44%) of 707 participants started first-line antiretroviral therapy (ODYSSEY-A; 145 [92%] of 157 participants had efavirenz-based therapy in the standard-of-care group), and 396 (56%) of 707 started second-line therapy (ODYSSEY-B; 195 [98%] of 200 had protease inhibitor-based therapy in the standard-of-care group). During follow-up (median 142 weeks, IQR 124–159), 23 participants had 31 neuropsychiatric adverse events (15 in the dolutegravir group and eight in the standard-of-care group; difference in proportion of participants with ≥1 event p=0·13). 11 participants had one or more neurological events (six and five; p=0·74) and 14 participants had one or more psychiatric events (ten and four; p=0·097). Among 14 participants with psychiatric events, eight participants in the dolutegravir group and four in standard-of-care group had suicidal ideation or behaviour. More participants in the dolutegravir group than the standard-of-care group reported symptoms of self-harm (eight vs one; p=0·025), life not worth living (17 vs five; p=0·0091), or suicidal thoughts (13 vs none; p=0·0006) at one or more follow-up visits. Most reports were transient. There were no differences by treatment group in low mood or feeling sad, problems concentrating, feeling worried or feeling angry or aggressive, sleep problems, or sleep quality. INTERPRETATION: The numbers of neuropsychiatric adverse events and reported neuropsychiatric symptoms were low. However, numerically more participants had psychiatric events and reported suicidality ideation in the dolutegravir group than the standard-of-care group. These differences should be interpreted with caution in an open-label trial. Clinicians and policy makers should consider including suicidality screening of children or adolescents receiving dolutegravir

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