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

Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980-2015 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

Background Improving survival and extending the longevity of life for all populations requires timely, robust evidence on local mortality levels and trends. The Global Burden of Disease 2015 Study (GBD 2015) provides a comprehensive assessment of all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1980 to 2015. These results informed an in-depth investigation of observed and expected mortality patterns based on sociodemographic measures. Methods We estimated all-cause mortality by age, sex, geography, and year using an improved analytical approach originally developed for GBD 2013 and GBD 2010. Improvements included refinements to the estimation of child and adult mortality and corresponding uncertainty, parameter selection for under-5 mortality synthesis by spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, and sibling history data processing. We also expanded the database of vital registration, survey, and census data to 14 294 geography-year datapoints. For GBD 2015, eight causes, including Ebola virus disease, were added to the previous GBD cause list for mortality. We used six modelling approaches to assess cause-specific mortality, with the Cause of Death Ensemble Model (CODEm) generating estimates for most causes. We used a series of novel analyses to systematically quantify the drivers of trends in mortality across geographies. First, we assessed observed and expected levels and trends of cause-specific mortality as they relate to the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary indicator derived from measures of income per capita, educational attainment, and fertility. Second, we examined factors affecting total mortality patterns through a series of counterfactual scenarios, testing the magnitude by which population growth, population age structures, and epidemiological changes contributed to shifts in mortality. Finally, we attributed changes in life expectancy to changes in cause of death. We documented each step of the GBD 2015 estimation processes, as well as data sources, in accordance with Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER). Findings Globally, life expectancy from birth increased from 61.7 years (95% uncertainty interval 61.4-61.9) in 1980 to 71.8 years (71.5-72.2) in 2015. Several countries in sub-Saharan Africa had very large gains in life expectancy from 2005 to 2015, rebounding from an era of exceedingly high loss of life due to HIV/AIDS. At the same time, many geographies saw life expectancy stagnate or decline, particularly for men and in countries with rising mortality from war or interpersonal violence. From 2005 to 2015, male life expectancy in Syria dropped by 11.3 years (3.7-17.4), to 62.6 years (56.5-70.2). Total deaths increased by 4.1% (2.6-5.6) from 2005 to 2015, rising to 55.8 million (54.9 million to 56.6 million) in 2015, but age-standardised death rates fell by 17.0% (15.8-18.1) during this time, underscoring changes in population growth and shifts in global age structures. The result was similar for non-communicable diseases (NCDs), with total deaths from these causes increasing by 14.1% (12.6-16.0) to 39.8 million (39.2 million to 40.5 million) in 2015, whereas age-standardised rates decreased by 13.1% (11.9-14.3). Globally, this mortality pattern emerged for several NCDs, including several types of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, cirrhosis, and Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. By contrast, both total deaths and age-standardised death rates due to communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional conditions significantly declined from 2005 to 2015, gains largely attributable to decreases in mortality rates due to HIV/AIDS (42.1%, 39.1-44.6), malaria (43.1%, 34.7-51.8), neonatal preterm birth complications (29.8%, 24.8-34.9), and maternal disorders (29.1%, 19.3-37.1). Progress was slower for several causes, such as lower respiratory infections and nutritional deficiencies, whereas deaths increased for others, including dengue and drug use disorders. Age-standardised death rates due to injuries significantly declined from 2005 to 2015, yet interpersonal violence and war claimed increasingly more lives in some regions, particularly in the Middle East. In 2015, rotaviral enteritis (rotavirus) was the leading cause of under-5 deaths due to diarrhoea (146 000 deaths, 118 000-183 000) and pneumococcal pneumonia was the leading cause of under-5 deaths due to lower respiratory infections (393 000 deaths, 228 000-532 000), although pathogen-specific mortality varied by region. Globally, the effects of population growth, ageing, and changes in age-standardised death rates substantially differed by cause. Our analyses on the expected associations between cause-specific mortality and SDI show the regular shifts in cause of death composition and population age structure with rising SDI. Country patterns of premature mortality (measured as years of life lost [YLLs]) and how they differ from the level expected on the basis of SDI alone revealed distinct but highly heterogeneous patterns by region and country or territory. Ischaemic heart disease, stroke, and diabetes were among the leading causes of YLLs in most regions, but in many cases, intraregional results sharply diverged for ratios of observed and expected YLLs based on SDI. Communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases caused the most YLLs throughout sub-Saharan Africa, with observed YLLs far exceeding expected YLLs for countries in which malaria or HIV/AIDS remained the leading causes of early death. Interpretation At the global scale, age-specific mortality has steadily improved over the past 35 years; this pattern of general progress continued in the past decade. Progress has been faster in most countries than expected on the basis of development measured by the SDI. Against this background of progress, some countries have seen falls in life expectancy, and age-standardised death rates for some causes are increasing. Despite progress in reducing age-standardised death rates, population growth and ageing mean that the number of deaths from most non-communicable causes are increasing in most countries, putting increased demands on health systems. Copyright (C) The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

Sex Difference in Daily Rhythms of Clock Gene Expression in the Aged Human Cerebral Cortex

BACKGROUND: Studies using self-report and physiological markers of circadian rhythmicity have demonstrated sex differences in a number of circadian attributes including morningness-eveningness, entrained phase, and intrinsic period. However, these sex differences have not been examined at the level of the molecular clock, and not in human cerebral cortex. We tested the hypothesis that there are detectable daily rhythms of clock gene expression in human cerebral cortex, and that there are significant sex differences in the timing of these rhythms. METHODS: We quantified the expression levels of three clock genes – PER2, PER3, and ARNTL1 in samples of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex from 490 deceased individuals in two cohort studies of older individuals, the Religious Orders Study and the Rush Memory and Aging Project, using mRNA microarray data. We parameterized clock gene expression at death as a function of time of death using cosine curves, and examined for sex differences in the phase of these curves. FINDINGS: Significant daily variation was seen in the expression of PER2 (p=0.004), PER3 (p=0.003) and ARNTL1 (p=0.0005). PER2/3 expression peaked at 10:38 [95%CI 9:20–11:56] and 10:44 [95%CI 9:29–11:59] respectively, and ARNTL1 expression peaked in antiphase to this at 21:23 [95%CI 20:16–22:30]. The timing of the expression of all three genes was significantly earlier in women than in men (PER2 6.8 hours p=0.002; PER3 5.5 hours p=0.001; ARNTL1 4.7 hours p=0.007). INTERPRETATION: Daily rhythms of clock gene expression are present in human cerebral cortex and can be inferred from postmortem samples. Moreover, these rhythms are relatively delayed in men compared to women

Changes in breast cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Dutch population-based study

Purpose: We aimed to compare (1) treatments and time intervals between treatments of breast cancer patients diagnosed during and before the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) the number of treatments started during and before the pandemic. Methods: Women were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. For aim one, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated to compare the treatment of women diagnosed within four periods of 2020: pre-COVID (weeks 1–8), transition (weeks 9–12), lockdown (weeks 13–17), and care restart (weeks 18–26), with data from 2018/2019 as reference. Wilcoxon rank-sums test was used to compare treatment intervals, using a two-sided p-value < 0.05. For aim two, number of treatments started per week in 2020 was compared with 2018/2019. Results: We selected 34,097 women for aim one. Compared to 2018/2019, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy was less likely for stage I (OR 0.24, 95%CI 0.11–0.53), stage II (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.47–0.86), and hormone receptor+/HER2− tumors (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.41–0.75) diagnosed during transition. Time between diagnosis and first treatment decreased for patients diagnosed during lockdown with a stage I (p < 0.01), II (p < 0.01) or III tumor (p = 0.01). We selected 30,002 women for aim two. The number of neo-adjuvant endocrine therapies and surgeries starting in week 14, 2020, increased by 339% and 18%, respectively. The number of adjuvant chemotherapies decreased by 42% in week 15 and increased by 44% in week 22. Conclusion: The pandemic and subsequently altered treatment recommendations affected multiple aspects of the breast cancer treatment strategy and the number of treatments started per week

Changes in breast cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Dutch population-based study

Purpose: We aimed to compare (1) treatments and time intervals between treatments of breast cancer patients diagnosed during and before the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) the number of treatments started during and before the pandemic. Methods: Women were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. For aim one, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated to compare the treatment of women diagnosed within four periods of 2020: pre-COVID (weeks 1–8), transition (weeks 9–12), lockdown (weeks 13–17), and care restart (weeks 18–26), with data from 2018/2019 as reference. Wilcoxon rank-sums test was used to compare treatment intervals, using a two-sided p-value < 0.05. For aim two, number of treatments started per week in 2020 was compared with 2018/2019. Results: We selected 34,097 women for aim one. Compared to 2018/2019, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy was less likely for stage I (OR 0.24, 95%CI 0.11–0.53), stage II (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.47–0.86), and hormone receptor+/HER2− tumors (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.41–0.75) diagnosed during transition. Time between diagnosis and first treatment decreased for patients diagnosed during lockdown with a stage I (p < 0.01), II (p < 0.01) or III tumor (p = 0.01). We selected 30,002 women for aim two. The number of neo-adjuvant endocrine therapies and surgeries starting in week 14, 2020, increased by 339% and 18%, respectively. The number of adjuvant chemotherapies decreased by 42% in week 15 and increased by 44% in week 22. Conclusion: The pandemic and subsequently altered treatment recommendations affected multiple aspects of the breast cancer treatment strategy and the number of treatments started per week