Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Arterial Thrombosis in Patients with Cancer

Cancer is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in the USA. While the association between venous thrombosis and malignancy is well established, arterial thrombosis has more recently been recognized as a serious complication of cancer and certain chemotherapeutic agents. This review aims to summarize the most recent literature regarding the incidence and risk factors for cancer-related arterial thrombosis, understand the pathophysiologic mechanisms of thrombosis, and highlight the specific diagnostic and treatment considerations relevant to cancer patients.Based on a recent study looking at the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, the incidence of arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs) in patients with cancer at 6 months is 4.7%; the presence of an ATE is predictive of worse outcomes. Certain drugs such as platinum-based agents, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and taxanes have been associated with high rates of ATEs. Increased platelet reactivity appears crucial to development of arterial thrombosis in cancer patients. Cancer patients have an increased risk of arterial thrombosis that is likely due to both a cancer-associated procoagulant state as well as the adverse effects of certain chemotherapeutic agents. Treatment of arterial thromboembolism in cancer patients typically requires a multidisciplinary approach in part due to high rates of thrombocytopenia and stent thrombosis in the setting of percutaneous interventions. More studies are needed to investigate optimal prophylaxis, surveillance strategies, and treatments of cancer-related arterial thromboembolic disease

Muscle injuries and strategies for improving their repair

Satellite cells are tissue resident muscle stem cells required for postnatal skeletal muscle growth and repair through replacement of damaged myofibers. Muscle regeneration is coordinated through different mechanisms, which imply cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions as well as extracellular secreted factors. Cellular dynamics during muscle regeneration are highly complex. Immune, fibrotic, vascular and myogenic cells appear with distinct temporal and spatial kinetics after muscle injury. Three main phases have been identified in the process of muscle regeneration; a destruction phase with the initial inflammatory response, a regeneration phase with activation and proliferation of satellite cells and a remodeling phase with maturation of the regenerated myofibers. Whereas relatively minor muscle injuries, such as strains, heal spontaneously, severe muscle injuries form fibrotic tissue that impairs muscle function and lead to muscle contracture and chronic pain. Current therapeutic approaches have limited effectiveness and optimal strategies for such lesions are not known yet. Various strategies, including growth factors injections, transplantation of muscle stem cells in combination or not with biological scaffolds, anti-fibrotic therapies and mechanical stimulation, may become therapeutic alternatives to improve functional muscle recovery

Stem Cell-Based and Tissue Engineering Approaches for Skeletal Muscle Repair

Skeletal muscle tissue exhibits significant regeneration capacity upon injury or disease. This intrinsic regeneration potential is orchestrated by stem cells termed satellite cells, which undergo activation and differentiation in response to muscle insult, giving rise to fusion-competent myogenic progenitors responsible for tissue rejuvenation. Skeletal muscle diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystro-phy are characterized by progressive loss of muscle mass which precipitates reduced motility, paralysis, and in some occurrences untimely death. A manifold of muscle pathologies involve a failure to efficiently regenerate the muscle tissue, rendering stem cell-based approaches an attractive therapeutic strategy. Here we will present past and contemporary methods to treat skeletal muscle degeneration by stem cell therapy, covering prominent challenges facing this technology and potential means to overcome current hurdles. A primary focus of this chapter is directed toward illustrating innovative ways to utilize stem cells alone or in conjunction with biomaterials and tissue engineering techniques to remedy Duchenne muscular dystrophy or volumetric muscle loss