Avaliação na educação básica: assimilação e efetivação de resultados na gestão escolar / An analysis of school evaluation in basic education: assimilation and effectiveness of results

O Ministério da Educação - MEC realiza sistematicamente um conjunto de avaliações externas em larga escala, sendo coordenado pelo Inep em colaboração com as secretarias estaduais. Estas pesquisas proporcionam a obtenção de estatísticas das condições de oferta e atendimento do sistema educacional brasileiro, na educação básica, reunindo informações sobre todas as suas etapas e modalidades de ensino, e compondo um quadro detalhado sobre os alunos, os profissionais escolares, os gestores, as turmas e as escolas. Os dados e informações apuradas pela pesquisa subsidiam a operacionalização de importantes políticas públicas, programas governamentais e ações setoriais nas três esferas de governo. Os resultados destes estudos embasaram a criação do Índice de Desenvolvimento da Educação Básica – IDEB, que mede o desempenho escolar através da avaliação da aprendizagem e fluxo, cuja combinação tem o mérito de equilibrar as duas dimensões do sistema nacional de ensino. Existe uma dificuldade em demonstrar a relação entre desempenho escolar e a qualidade da escola possivelmente porque atributos escolares importantes para a aprendizagem podem não ser mensuráveis pelos métodos tradicionalmente aplicados. Para preencher esta lacuna foi implantado no estado do Ceara um sistema permanente de avaliação que realiza a avaliação externa de cada escola e a realização de avaliações longitudinais. Neste sentido, é necessário analisar em cada escola os resultados dos indicadores de qualidade educacional e do estudo longitudinal das médias de desempenho, bem como a influência dos fatores escolares para identificar as variáveis contextuais que melhor diferenciam o desempenho obtido pelos estudantes das escolas públicas. Aproximando os dados quantitativos com o ponto de vista dos diversos atores da comunidade escolar, será possível correlacionar as contribuições destes dois campos de investigação na busca pelo ensino-aprendizagem de qualidade. Para subsidiar as discussões, adotamos como metodologia a abordagem etnográfica visando integrar os dados quantitativos das avaliações externas e os dados qualitativos do cotidiano escolar. O objetivo deste trabalho foi elaborar um modelo de organização e planejamento que incorpore, ao cotidiano escolar, os resultados das avaliações externas do âmbito das escolas estaduais em Fortaleza. Visa também, dar subsídios para a criação de uma Comissão Própria de Avaliação – CPA, em cada unidade escolar, que a priori, acreditamos alavancaria os índices e melhoraria a avaliação ensino-aprendizagem.

Mental health and burnout syndrome among postgraduate students in medical and multidisciplinary residencies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil : protocol for a prospective cohort study

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to high levels of physical, psychological, and social stress among health care professionals, including postgraduate students in medical and multidisciplinary residencies. This stress is associated with the intense fear of occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus known to cause COVID-19. These professionals are at risk of developing physical and mental illnesses not only due to the infection but also due to prolonged exposure to multidimensional stress and continued work overload. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of symptoms suggestive of mental disorders and burnout syndrome and determine the risk factors for burnout among postgraduate students in medical and multidisciplinary residencies in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: For this prospective cohort study with parallel groups, participants were recruited between July and September 2020 to achieve a sample size of at least 1144 participants. Research instruments such as Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale; Patient Health Questionnaire; Brief Resilient Coping Scale; and Oldenburg Burnout Inventory will be used to collect data. Data will be collected in 2 waves: the first wave will include data related to sample characterization and psychosocial evaluation, and the second wave will be launched 12 weeks later and will include an evaluation of the incidence of burnout as well as correlations with the potential predictive factors collected in the first wave. Additionally, we will collect data regarding participants’ withdrawal from work. Results: The recruitment took place from July 29 to September 5, 2020. Data analyses for this phase is already in progress. The second phase of the study is also in progress. The final data collection began on December 1, 2020, and it will be completed by December 31, 2020. Conclusions: We believe the findings of this study will help evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health conditions of health professionals in Brazil as well as contribute to the planning and implementation of appropriate measures that can alleviate these mental health challenges. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/2429

High levels of immunosuppression are related to unfavourable outcomes in hospitalised patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 : first results of ReumaCoV Brasil registry

Objectives To evaluate risk factors associated with unfavourable outcomes: emergency care, hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation and death in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic disease (IMRD) and COVID-19. Methods Analysis of the first 8 weeks of observational multicentre prospective cohort study (ReumaCoV Brasil register). Patients with IMRD and COVID-19 according to the Ministry of Health criteria were classified as eligible for the study. Results 334 participants were enrolled, a majority of them women, with a median age of 45 years; systemic lupus erythematosus (32.9%) was the most frequent IMRD. Emergency care was required in 160 patients, 33.0% were hospitalised, 15.0% were admitted to the ICU and 10.5% underwent mechanical ventilation; 28 patients (8.4%) died. In the multivariate adjustment model for emergency care, diabetes (prevalence ratio, PR 1.38; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.73; p=0.004), kidney disease (PR 1.36; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.77; p=0.020), oral glucocorticoids (GC) (PR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.85; p50 years (PR 1.89; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.85; p=0.002), no use of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (PR 2.51;95% CI 1.16 to 5.45; p=0.004) and methylprednisolone pulse therapy (PR 2.50; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.92; p<0.001); for ICU admission, oral GC (PR 2.24; 95% CI 1.36 to 3.71; p<0.001) and pulse therapy with methylprednisolone (PR 1.65; 95% CI 1.00 to 2.68; p<0.043); the two variables associated with death were pulse therapy with methylprednisolone or cyclophosphamide (PR 2.86; 95% CI 1.59 to 5.14; p<0.018). Conclusions Age >50 years and immunosuppression with GC and cyclophosphamide were associated with unfavourable outcomes of COVID-19. Treatment with TNFi may have been protective, perhaps leading to the COVID-19 inflammatory process

Consistent patterns of common species across tropical tree communities

Trees structure the Earth’s most biodiverse ecosystem, tropical forests. The vast number of tree species presents a formidable challenge to understanding these forests, including their response to environmental change, as very little is known about most tropical tree species. A focus on the common species may circumvent this challenge. Here we investigate abundance patterns of common tree species using inventory data on 1,003,805 trees with trunk diameters of at least 10 cm across 1,568 locations1,2,3,4,5,6 in closed-canopy, structurally intact old-growth tropical forests in Africa, Amazonia and Southeast Asia. We estimate that 2.2%, 2.2% and 2.3% of species comprise 50% of the tropical trees in these regions, respectively. Extrapolating across all closed-canopy tropical forests, we estimate that just 1,053 species comprise half of Earth’s 800 billion tropical trees with trunk diameters of at least 10 cm. Despite differing biogeographic, climatic and anthropogenic histories7, we find notably consistent patterns of common species and species abundance distributions across the continents. This suggests that fundamental mechanisms of tree community assembly may apply to all tropical forests. Resampling analyses show that the most common species are likely to belong to a manageable list of known species, enabling targeted efforts to understand their ecology. Although they do not detract from the importance of rare species, our results open new opportunities to understand the world’s most diverse forests, including modelling their response to environmental change, by focusing on the common species that constitute the majority of their trees.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Clonal chromosomal mosaicism and loss of chromosome Y in elderly men increase vulnerability for SARS-CoV-2

The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19) had an estimated overall case fatality ratio of 1.38% (pre-vaccination), being 53% higher in males and increasing exponentially with age. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, we found 133 cases (1.42%) with detectable clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations (mCA) and 226 males (5.08%) with acquired loss of chromosome Y (LOY). Individuals with clonal mosaic events (mCA and/or LOY) showed a 54% increase in the risk of COVID-19 lethality. LOY is associated with transcriptomic biomarkers of immune dysfunction, pro-coagulation activity and cardiovascular risk. Interferon-induced genes involved in the initial immune response to SARS-CoV-2 are also down-regulated in LOY. Thus, mCA and LOY underlie at least part of the sex-biased severity and mortality of COVID-19 in aging patients. Given its potential therapeutic and prognostic relevance, evaluation of clonal mosaicism should be implemented as biomarker of COVID-19 severity in elderly people. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, individuals with clonal mosaic events (clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations and/or loss of chromosome Y) showed an increased risk of COVID-19 lethality

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Diretrizes Brasileiras de Medidas da Pressão Arterial Dentro e Fora do Consultório – 2023

Hypertension is one of the primary modifiable risk factors for morbidity and mortality worldwide, being a major risk factor for coronary artery disease, stroke, and kidney failure. Furthermore, it is highly prevalent, affecting more than one-third of the global population. Blood pressure measurement is a MANDATORY procedure in any medical care setting and is carried out by various healthcare professionals. However, it is still commonly performed without the necessary technical care. Since the diagnosis relies on blood pressure measurement, it is clear how important it is to handle the techniques, methods, and equipment used in its execution with care. It should be emphasized that once the diagnosis is made, all short-term, medium-term, and long-term investigations and treatments are based on the results of blood pressure measurement. Therefore, improper techniques and/or equipment can lead to incorrect diagnoses, either underestimating or overestimating values, resulting in inappropriate actions and significant health and economic losses for individuals and nations. Once the correct diagnosis is made, as knowledge of the importance of proper treatment advances, with the adoption of more detailed normal values and careful treatment objectives towards achieving stricter blood pressure goals, the importance of precision in blood pressure measurement is also reinforced. Blood pressure measurement (described below) is usually performed using the traditional method, the so-called casual or office measurement. Over time, alternatives have been added to it, through the use of semi-automatic or automatic devices by the patients themselves, in waiting rooms or outside the office, in their own homes, or in public spaces. A step further was taken with the use of semi-automatic devices equipped with memory that allow sequential measurements outside the office (ABPM; or HBPM) and other automatic devices that allow programmed measurements over longer periods (HBPM). Some aspects of blood pressure measurement can interfere with obtaining reliable results and, consequently, cause harm in decision-making. These include the importance of using average values, the variation in blood pressure during the day, and short-term variability. These aspects have encouraged the performance of a greater number of measurements in various situations, and different guidelines have advocated the use of equipment that promotes these actions. Devices that perform HBPM or ABPM, which, in addition to allowing greater precision, when used together, detect white coat hypertension (WCH), masked hypertension (MH), sleep blood pressure alterations, and resistant hypertension (RHT) (defined in Chapter 2 of this guideline), are gaining more and more importance. Taking these details into account, we must emphasize that information related to diagnosis, classification, and goal setting is still based on office blood pressure measurement, and for this reason, all attention must be given to the proper execution of this procedure.La hipertensión arterial (HTA) es uno de los principales factores de riesgo modificables para la morbilidad y mortalidad en todo el mundo, siendo uno de los mayores factores de riesgo para la enfermedad de las arterias coronarias, el accidente cerebrovascular (ACV) y la insuficiencia renal. Además, es altamente prevalente y afecta a más de un tercio de la población mundial. La medición de la presión arterial (PA) es un procedimiento OBLIGATORIO en cualquier atención médica o realizado por diferentes profesionales de la salud. Sin embargo, todavía se realiza comúnmente sin los cuidados técnicos necesarios. Dado que el diagnóstico se basa en la medición de la PA, es claro el cuidado que debe haber con las técnicas, los métodos y los equipos utilizados en su realización. Debemos enfatizar que una vez realizado el diagnóstico, todas las investigaciones y tratamientos a corto, mediano y largo plazo se basan en los resultados de la medición de la PA. Por lo tanto, las técnicas y/o equipos inadecuados pueden llevar a diagnósticos incorrectos, subestimando o sobreestimando valores y resultando en conductas inadecuadas y pérdidas significativas para la salud y la economía de las personas y las naciones. Una vez realizado el diagnóstico correcto, a medida que avanza el conocimiento sobre la importancia del tratamiento adecuado, con la adopción de valores de normalidad más detallados y objetivos de tratamiento más cuidadosos hacia metas de PA más estrictas, también se refuerza la importancia de la precisión en la medición de la PA. La medición de la PA (descrita a continuación) generalmente se realiza mediante el método tradicional, la llamada medición casual o de consultorio. Con el tiempo, se han agregado alternativas a través del uso de dispositivos semiautomáticos o automáticos por parte del propio paciente, en salas de espera o fuera del consultorio, en su propia residencia o en espacios públicos. Se dio un paso más con el uso de dispositivos semiautomáticos equipados con memoria que permiten mediciones secuenciales fuera del consultorio (AMPA; o MRPA) y otros automáticos que permiten mediciones programadas durante períodos más largos (MAPA). Algunos aspectos en la medición de la PA pueden interferir en la obtención de resultados confiables y, en consecuencia, causar daños en las decisiones a tomar. Estos incluyen la importancia de usar valores promedio, la variación de la PA durante el día y la variabilidad a corto plazo. Estos aspectos han alentado la realización de un mayor número de mediciones en diversas situaciones, y diferentes pautas han abogado por el uso de equipos que promuevan estas acciones. Los dispositivos que realizan MRPA o MAPA, que además de permitir una mayor precisión, cuando se usan juntos, detectan la hipertensión de bata blanca (HBB), la hipertensión enmascarada (HM), las alteraciones de la PA durante el sueño y la hipertensión resistente (HR) (definida en el Capítulo 2 de esta guía), están ganando cada vez más importancia. Teniendo en cuenta estos detalles, debemos enfatizar que la información relacionada con el diagnóstico, la clasificación y el establecimiento de objetivos todavía se basa en la medición de la presión arterial en el consultorio, y por esta razón, se debe prestar toda la atención a la ejecución adecuada de este procedimiento.A hipertensão arterial (HA) é um dos principais fatores de risco modificáveis para morbidade e mortalidade em todo o mundo, sendo um dos maiores fatores de risco para doença arterial coronária, acidente vascular cerebral (AVC) e insuficiência renal. Além disso, é altamente prevalente e atinge mais de um terço da população mundial. A medida da PA é procedimento OBRIGATÓRIO em qualquer atendimento médico ou realizado por diferentes profissionais de saúde. Contudo, ainda é comumente realizada sem os cuidados técnicos necessários. Como o diagnóstico se baseia na medida da PA, fica claro o cuidado que deve haver com as técnicas, os métodos e os equipamentos utilizados na sua realização. Deve-se reforçar que, feito o diagnóstico, toda a investigação e os tratamentos de curto, médio e longo prazos são feitos com base nos resultados da medida da PA. Assim, técnicas e/ou equipamentos inadequados podem levar a diagnósticos incorretos, tanto subestimando quanto superestimando valores e levando a condutas inadequadas e grandes prejuízos à saúde e à economia das pessoas e das nações. Uma vez feito o diagnóstico correto, na medida em que avança o conhecimento da importância do tratamento adequado, com a adoção de valores de normalidade mais detalhados e com objetivos de tratamento mais cuidadosos no sentido do alcance de metas de PA mais rigorosas, fica também reforçada a importância da precisão na medida da PA. A medida da PA (descrita a seguir) é habitualmente feita pelo método tradicional, a assim chamada medida casual ou de consultório. Ao longo do tempo, foram agregadas alternativas a ela, mediante o uso de equipamentos semiautomáticos ou automáticos pelo próprio paciente, nas salas de espera ou fora do consultório, em sua própria residência ou em espaços públicos. Um passo adiante foi dado com o uso de equipamentos semiautomáticos providos de memória que permitem medidas sequenciais fora do consultório (AMPA; ou MRPA) e outros automáticos que permitem medidas programadas por períodos mais prolongados (MAPA). Alguns aspectos na medida da PA podem interferir na obtenção de resultados fidedignos e, consequentemente, causar prejuízo nas condutas a serem tomadas. Entre eles, estão: a importância de serem utilizados valores médios, a variação da PA durante o dia e a variabilidade a curto prazo. Esses aspectos têm estimulado a realização de maior número de medidas em diversas situações, e as diferentes diretrizes têm preconizado o uso de equipamentos que favoreçam essas ações. Ganham cada vez mais espaço os equipamentos que realizam MRPA ou MAPA, que, além de permitirem maior precisão, se empregados em conjunto, detectam a HA do avental branco (HAB), HA mascarada (HM), alterações da PA no sono e HA resistente (HAR) (definidos no Capítulo 2 desta diretriz). Resguardados esses detalhes, devemos ressaltar que as informações relacionadas a diagnóstico, classificação e estabelecimento de metas ainda são baseadas na medida da PA de consultório e, por esse motivo, toda a atenção deve ser dada à realização desse procedimento

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

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P &lt; 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men