A survey of quality of life indicators in the Romanian Roma population following the ‘Decade of Roma Inclusion’ [version 3; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Background: This study explores how the Roma in Romania, the EU’s most concentrated population, are faring in terms of a number of quality of life indicators, including poverty levels, healthcare, education, water, sanitation, and hygiene. It further explores the role of synthetic populations and modelling in identifying at-risk populations and delivering targeted aid. Methods: 135 surveys were conducted across five geographically diverse Romanian communities. Household participants were selected through a comprehensive random walk method. Analyses were conducted on all data using Pandas for Python. Combining land scan data, time-use survey analyses, interview data, and ArcGIS, the resulting synthetic population was analysed via classification and regression tree (CART) analysis to identify hot-spots of need, both ethnically and geographically. Results: These data indicate that the Roma in Romania face significant disparities in education, with Roma students less likely to progress beyond 8 th grade. In addition, the Roma population remains significantly disadvantaged with regard to safe and secure housing, poverty, and healthcare status, particularly in connection to diarrheal disease. In contrast, however, both Roma and non-Roma in rural areas face difficulties regarding full-time employment, sanitation, and water, sanitation, and hygiene infrastructure. In addition, the use of a synthetic population can generate information about ‘hot spots’ of need, based on geography, ethnicity, and type of aid required. Conclusions: These data demonstrate the challenges that remain to the Roma population in Romania, and also point to the myriad of ways in which all rural Romanians, regardless of ethnicity, are encountering hardship. This study highlights an approach that combines traditional survey data with more wide-reaching geographically based data and CART analysis to determine ‘hot spot’ areas of need in a given population. With the appropriate inputs, this tool can be extrapolated to any population in any country

Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 85A prime followed by MVA85A boost compared with BCG revaccination among Ugandan adolescents who received BCG at birth: a randomised, open-label trial

Background BCG confers reduced, variable protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. A more effective vaccine is needed. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of candidate regimen ChAdOx1 85A–MVA85A compared with BCG revaccination among Ugandan adolescents. Methods After ChAdOx1 85A dose escalation and age de-escalation, we did a randomised open-label phase 2a trial among healthy adolescents aged 12–17 years, who were BCG vaccinated at birth, without evident tuberculosis exposure, in Entebbe, Uganda. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a block size of 6, to ChAdOx1 85A followed by MVA85A (on day 56) or BCG (Moscow strain). Laboratory staff were masked to group assignment. Primary outcomes were solicited and unsolicited adverse events (AEs) up to day 28 and serious adverse events (SAEs) throughout the trial; and IFN-γ ELISpot response to antigen 85A (day 63 [geometric mean] and days 0–224 [area under the curve; AUC). Findings Six adults (group 1, n=3; group 2, n=3) and six adolescents (group 3, n=3; group 4, n=3) were enrolled in the ChAdOx1 85A-only dose-escalation and age de-escalation studies (July to August, 2019). In the phase 2a trial, 60 adolescents were randomly assigned to ChAdOx1 85A–MVA85A (group 5, n=30) or BCG (group 6, n=30; December, 2019, to October, 2020). All 60 participants from groups 5 and 6 were included in the safety analysis, with 28 of 30 from group 5 (ChAdOx1 85A–MVA85A) and 29 of 30 from group 6 (BCG revaccination) analysed for immunogenicity outcomes. In the randomised trial, 60 AEs were reported among 23 (77%) of 30 participants following ChAdOx1 85A–MVA85A, 31 were systemic, with one severe event that occurred after the MVA85A boost that was rapidly self-limiting. All 30 participants in the BCG revaccination group reported at least one mild to moderate solicited AE; most were local reactions. There were no SAEs in either group. Ag85A-specific IFN-γ ELISpot responses peaked on day 63 in the ChAdOx1 85A–MVA85A group and were higher in the ChAdOx1 85A-MVA85A group compared with the BCG revaccination group (geometric mean ratio 30·59 [95% CI 17·46–53·59], p<0·0001, day 63; AUC mean difference 57 091 [95% CI 40 524–73 658], p<0·0001, days 0–224). Interpretation The ChAdOx1 85A–MVA85A regimen was safe and induced stronger Ag85A-specific responses than BCG revaccination. Our findings support further development of booster tuberculosis vaccines. Funding UK Research and Innovations and Medical Research Council. Translations For the Swahili and Luganda translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Safety of a controlled human infection model of tuberculosis with aerosolised, live-attenuated Mycobacterium bovis BCG versus intradermal BCG in BCG-naive adults in the UK: a dose-escalation, randomised, controlled, phase 1 trial

Background: Mycobacterium tuberculosis is the main causative agent of tuberculosis. BCG, the only licensed vaccine, provides inadequate protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. Controlled human infection models are useful tools for vaccine development. We aimed to determine a safe dose of aerosol-inhaled live-attenuated Mycobacterium bovis BCG as a surrogate for M tuberculosis infection, then compare the safety and tolerability of infection models established using aerosol-inhaled and intradermally administered BCG. Methods: This phase 1 controlled human infection trial was conducted at two clinical research facilities in the UK. Healthy, immunocompetent adults aged 18–50 years, who were both M tuberculosis-naive and BCG-naive and had no history of asthma or other respiratory diseases, were eligible for the trial. Participants were initially enrolled into group 1 (receiving the BCG Danish strain); the trial was subsequently paused because of a worldwide shortage of BCG Danish and, after protocol amendment, was restarted using the BCG Bulgaria strain (group 2). After a dose-escalation study, during which participants were sequentially allocated to receive either 1 × 103, 1 × 104, 1 × 105, 1 × 106, or 1 × 107 colony-forming units (CFU) of aerosol BCG, the maximum tolerated dose was selected for the randomised controlled trial. Participants in this trial were randomly assigned (9:12), by variable block randomisation and using sequentially numbered sealed envelopes, to receive aerosol BCG (1 × 107 CFU) and intradermal saline or intradermal BCG (1 × 106 CFU) and aerosol saline. Participants were masked to treatment allocation until day 14. The primary outcome was to compare the safety of a controlled human infection model based on aerosol-inhaled BCG versus one based on intradermally administered BCG, and the secondary outcome was to evaluate BCG recovery in the airways of participants who received aerosol BCG or skin biopsies of participants who received intradermal BCG. BCG was detected by culture and by PCR. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02709278, and is complete. Findings: Participants were assessed for eligibility between April 7, 2016, and Sept 29, 2018. For group 1, 15 participants were screened, of whom 13 were enrolled and ten completed the study; for group 2, 60 were screened and 33 enrolled, all of whom completed the study. Doses up to 1 × 107 CFU aerosol-inhaled BCG were sufficiently well tolerated. No significant difference was observed in the frequency of adverse events between aerosol and intradermal groups (median percentage of solicited adverse events per participant, post-aerosol vs post-intradermal BCG: systemic 7% [IQR 2–11] vs 4% [1–13], p=0·62; respiratory 7% [1–19] vs 4% [1–9], p=0·56). More severe systemic adverse events occurred in the 2 weeks after aerosol BCG (15 [12%] of 122 reported systemic adverse events) than after intradermal BCG (one [1%] of 94; difference 11% [95% CI 5–17]; p=0·0013), but no difference was observed in the severity of respiratory adverse events (two [1%] of 144 vs zero [0%] of 97; 1% [−1 to 3]; p=0·52). All adverse events after aerosol BCG resolved spontaneously. One serious adverse event was reported—a participant in group 2 was admitted to hospital to receive analgesia for a pre-existing ovarian cyst, which was deemed unrelated to BCG infection. On day 14, BCG was cultured from bronchoalveolar lavage samples after aerosol infection and from skin biopsy samples after intradermal infection. Interpretation: This first-in-human aerosol BCG controlled human infection model was sufficiently well tolerated. Further work will evaluate the utility of this model in assessing vaccine efficacy and identifying potential correlates of protection

Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received

Background The ProtecT trial reported intention-to-treat analysis of men with localised prostate cancer randomly allocated to active monitoring (AM), radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy. Objective To report outcomes according to treatment received in men in randomised and treatment choice cohorts. Design, setting, and participants This study focuses on secondary care. Men with clinically localised prostate cancer at one of nine UK centres were invited to participate in the treatment trial comparing AM, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy. Intervention Two cohorts included 1643 men who agreed to be randomised and 997 who declined randomisation and chose treatment. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Analysis was carried out to assess mortality, metastasis and progression and health-related quality of life impacts on urinary, bowel, and sexual function using patient-reported outcome measures. Analysis was based on comparisons between groups defined by treatment received for both randomised and treatment choice cohorts in turn, with pooled estimates of intervention effect obtained using meta-analysis. Differences were estimated with adjustment for known prognostic factors using propensity scores. Results and limitations According to treatment received, more men receiving AM died of PCa (AM 1.85%, surgery 0.67%, radiotherapy 0.73%), whilst this difference remained consistent with chance in the randomised cohort (p = 0.08); stronger evidence was found in the exploratory analyses (randomised plus choice cohort) when AM was compared with the combined radical treatment group (p = 0.003). There was also strong evidence that metastasis (AM 5.6%, surgery 2.4%, radiotherapy 2.7%) and disease progression (AM 20.35%, surgery 5.87%, radiotherapy 6.62%) were more common in the AM group. Compared with AM, there were higher risks of sexual dysfunction (95% at 6 mo) and urinary incontinence (55% at 6 mo) after surgery, and of sexual dysfunction (88% at 6 mo) and bowel dysfunction (5% at 6 mo) after radiotherapy. The key limitations are the potential for bias when comparing groups defined by treatment received and changes in the protocol for AM during the lengthy follow-up required in trials of screen-detected PCa. Conclusions Analyses according to treatment received showed increased rates of disease-related events and lower rates of patient-reported harms in men managed by AM compared with men managed by radical treatment, and stronger evidence of greater PCa mortality in the AM group. Patient summary More than 95 out of every 100 men with low or intermediate risk localised prostate cancer do not die of prostate cancer within 10 yr, irrespective of whether treatment is by means of monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy. Side effects on sexual and bladder function are better after active monitoring, but the risks of spreading of prostate cancer are more common

Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (prostate testing for cancer and treatment [ProtecT] study)

Objective To investigate the functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of treatments for localised prostate cancer and inform treatment decision-making. Patients and Methods Men aged 50–69 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen testing and biopsies at nine UK centres in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial were randomised to, or chose one of, three treatments. Of 2565 participants, 1135 men received active monitoring (AM), 750 a radical prostatectomy (RP), 603 external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and 77 low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT, not a randomised treatment). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed annually for 6 years were analysed by initial treatment and censored for subsequent treatments. Mixed effects models were adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. Results Treatment-received analyses revealed different impacts of treatments over 6 years. Men remaining on AM experienced gradual declines in sexual and urinary function with age (e.g., increases in erectile dysfunction from 35% of men at baseline to 53% at 6 years and nocturia similarly from 20% to 38%). Radical treatment impacts were immediate and continued over 6 years. After RP, 95% of men reported erectile dysfunction persisting for 85% at 6 years, and after EBRT this was reported by 69% and 74%, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with AM). After RP, 36% of men reported urinary leakage requiring at least 1 pad/day, persisting for 20% at 6 years, compared with no change in men receiving EBRT or AM (P < 0.001). Worse bowel function and bother (e.g., bloody stools 6% at 6 years and faecal incontinence 10%) was experienced by men after EBRT than after RP or AM (P < 0.001) with lesser effects after BT. No treatment affected mental or physical QoL. Conclusion Treatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes

GWAS meta-analysis of over 29,000 people with epilepsy identifies 26 risk loci and subtype-specific genetic architecture

Epilepsy is a highly heritable disorder affecting over 50 million people worldwide, of which about one-third are resistant to current treatments. Here we report a multi-ancestry genome-wide association study including 29,944 cases, stratified into three broad categories and seven subtypes of epilepsy, and 52,538 controls. We identify 26 genome-wide significant loci, 19 of which are specific to genetic generalized epilepsy (GGE). We implicate 29 likely causal genes underlying these 26 loci. SNP-based heritability analyses show that common variants explain between 39.6% and 90% of genetic risk for GGE and its subtypes. Subtype analysis revealed markedly different genetic architectures between focal and generalized epilepsies. Gene-set analyses of GGE signals implicate synaptic processes in both excitatory and inhibitory neurons in the brain. Prioritized candidate genes overlap with monogenic epilepsy genes and with targets of current antiseizure medications. Finally, we leverage our results to identify alternate drugs with predicted efficacy if repurposed for epilepsy treatment

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570