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

The ethics of informed consent and shared decision-making in pediatric surgery

Informed consent is a required feature in the practice of pediatric surgery. Surgeons cannot practice the trade without it and most of us learned to do it as part of our apprenticeship in surgical training. We were bystanders when the senior resident or attending spoke to the patient and family and we were silent witnesses to the signing of the document called a consent. Intentional instruction about informed consent is rudimentary in most residencies. By the time we become surgical fellows, it is assumed that we have the requisite skill set to perform this task so we can get on with what we like to do best; operating. For many, it is viewed as a perfunctory step which, if done properly, will comply with hospital policies, might someday be exhibited during medical litigation, and ultimately it will occupy a tiny bit of memory in the hospital EMR system. However, this thing called the informed consent is much more than an item on a pre-op check list. The re-branding of the term informed consent into shared decision-making underscores the re-evolution that has occurred in thought and practice from the act of obtaining an individual\u27s permission for treatment toward the process leading up to that act. It reflects some of our most important ethical values in healthcare and is still the source of scholarly inquiry and controversy. In this paper, the terms informed consent and shared decision-making will be used interchangeably but the intention is focused on the process of how physicians and their patients make choices together. If you have not thought about this topic recently, I encourage you to take a moment and explore some of the interesting and challenging questions which are still unanswered. Although the ethical principles underlying informed consent are shared by adult and pediatric medicine, there are many aspects which are unique to the medical care of children. This article highlights some of those challenges and controversies illustrated by two case studies and viewed through the lens of bioethics

Ethics and multiculturalism in pediatric surgery

The concept of culture includes many defining characteristics such race, ethnicity, gender, identity, socioeconomic status, beliefs, traditions, and habits. Multiculturalism is a concept that allows for respect, understanding and acknowledgement of a diversity of identities. The cases discussed in this manuscript indicate the importance of multiculturalism in the practice of pediatric surgery

Intestinal pathology in patients with pathogenic ACTG2-variant visceral myopathy: 16 patients from 12 families and review of the literature

Background: Dominant gamma-smooth muscle actin gene (ACTG2) variants cause clinically diverse forms of visceral myopathy. Many patients undergo intestinal resection or biopsy before identification of their genetic defect. The pathology of ACTG2-variant visceral myopathy has not been evaluated systematically. Methods: Glass slides, ultrastructural images, molecular genetic reports, and clinical records from 16 patients with pathogenic (15) or likely pathogenic (1) ACTG2 variants were reviewed and compared with surgical specimens from controls (no evidence of a primary myopathy or pseudo-obstruction due to Hirschsprung disease) and published descriptions. Results: The variable clinical manifestations in our cohort matched those in the literature. Only non-specific light and electron microscopic findings observed in non-myopathic controls were encountered in 13 of 16 patients. The remaining 3 patients harbored hyalinized cytoplasmic inclusions in smooth muscle cells and 1 of them had polyglucosan bodies in the muscularis propria. Conclusions: Apart from hyalinized inclusions, which were only observed in 3/16 patients, intestinal pathology in the majority of patients with ACTG2 variants is not indicative of an underlying visceral myopathy. Molecular testing should be considered even when no diagnostic intestinal pathology is identified

Surgical Care and Career Opportunities in a Changing Practice Paradigm

The American health care system is changing rapidly and radically. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L.111-148) was set in motion by an unsustainable growth in medical expenditures that eventually consumed 16% of our gross domestic product or nearly $3 million annually. Left unattended, this would nearly bankrupt our economy.1 In addition, the Affordable Care Act will allow the enrollment of nearly 20 to 30 million currently uninsured Americans into expanded Medicaid and Medicare programs. Coverage to many additional patients will become more marketplace driven through the establishment of health insurance exchanges.2 These expanded programs, in concert with the rapid increase of Americans that are older than 65 year of age, and the now 13-year freeze of Medicare support for graduate medical education, are expected to produce a projected shortfall of some 91,000 physicians by 2020, including a nearly 7% decrease in such critical surgical subspecialties as urology, thoracic surgery, and rural general surgery.3 and