Associations between environmental exposures and asthma control and exacerbations in young children : a systematic review

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Is pesticide exposure a cause of obstructive airways disease?

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Lung cancer mortality and exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in British coke oven workers

BACKGROUND: Workers on coke oven plants may be exposed to potentially carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), particularly during work on the ovens tops. Two cohorts, employees of National Smokeless Fuels (NSF) and the British Steel Corporation (BSC) totalling more than 6,600 British coke plant workers employed in 1967, had been followed up to mid-1987 for mortality. Previous analyses suggested an excess in lung cancer risk of around 25%, or less when compared with Social Class IV (‘partly skilled’). Analyses based on internal comparisons within the cohorts identified statistical associations with estimates of individual exposures, up to the start of follow-up, to benzene-soluble materials (BSM), widely used as a metric for mixtures of PAHs. Some associations were also found with times spent in certain coke ovens jobs with specific exposure scenarios, but results were not consistent across the two cohorts and limitations in the exposure estimates were noted. The present study was designed to reanalyse the existing data on lung cancer mortality, incorporating revised and improved exposure estimates to BSM and to benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P), including increments during the follow-up and a lag for latency. METHODS: Mean annual average concentrations of both BSM and B[a]P were estimated by analysis of variance (ANOVA) from concentration measurements at all NSF and six BSC plants, and summarised by job and plant, with a temporal trend (for the BSM only). These were combined with subjects’ work histories, to produce exposure estimates in each year of follow-up, with a 10-year lag to allow for latency. Exposures to BSM and to B[a]P were sufficiently uncorrelated to permit analysis in relation to each variable separately. Lung cancer death risks during the follow-up were analysed in relation to the estimated time-dependent exposures, both continuous and grouped, using Cox regression models, with adjustment for age. RESULTS: Changing the exposure estimates changed the estimated relative risks compared with earlier results, but the new analyses showed no significant trends with continuous measures of exposure to either BSM or B[a]P, nor with time spent on ovens tops. Analyses with grouped exposures showed mixed results. Across all BSC plants, the relative risk coefficient for working 5 or more years on ovens tops, where the exposures were highest, was 1.81, which was statistically significant. However, results for those with 0–5 years on ovens tops did not suggest a trend; the evidence for an underlying relationship was thus suggestive but not strong. CONCLUSIONS: The new results are in line with previous findings; they show some signs consistent with an effect of coke ovens work on lung cancer risk, especially on ovens tops, but the preponderant absence of significant results, and the inconsistencies between results for NSF and BSC, highlight how little evidence there is in these data of any effect

Effectiveness of laparoscopic removal of isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women (ESPriT2): protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial

Abstract Background Endometriosis affects 190 million women and those assigned female at birth worldwide. For some, it is associated with debilitating chronic pelvic pain. Diagnosis of endometriosis is often achieved through diagnostic laparoscopy. However, when isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE), the most common endometriosis subtype, is identified during laparoscopy, limited evidence exists to support the common decision to surgically remove it via excision or ablation. Improved understanding of the impact of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women is required. Here, we describe our protocol for a multi-centre trial to determine the effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of endometriosis-associated pain. Methods We plan to undertake a multi-centre participant-blind parallel-group randomised controlled clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot. We plan to randomise 400 participants from up to 70 National Health Service Hospitals in the UK. Participants with chronic pelvic pain awaiting diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected endometriosis will be consented by the clinical research team. If isolated SPE is identified at laparoscopy, and deep or ovarian endometriosis is not seen, participants will be randomised intraoperatively (1:1) to surgical removal (by excision or ablation or both, according to surgeons’ preference) versus diagnostic laparoscopy alone. Randomisation with block-stratification will be used. Participants will be given a diagnosis but will not be informed of the procedure they received until 12 months post-randomisation, unless required. Post-operative medical treatment will be according to participants’ preference. Participants will be asked to complete validated pain and quality of life questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Our primary outcome is the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30), via a between randomised group comparison of adjusted means at 12 months. Assuming a standard deviation of 22 points around the pain score, 90% power, 5% significance and 20% missing data, 400 participants are required to be randomised to detect an 8-point pain score difference. Discussion This trial aims to provide high quality evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN27244948. Registered 6 April 2021

Effectiveness of laparoscopic removal of isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women (ESPriT2): protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial

Background: endometriosis affects 190 million women and those assigned female at birth worldwide. For some, it is associated with debilitating chronic pelvic pain. Diagnosis of endometriosis is often achieved through diagnostic laparoscopy. However, when isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE), the most common endometriosis subtype, is identified during laparoscopy, limited evidence exists to support the common decision to surgically remove it via excision or ablation. Improved understanding of the impact of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women is required. Here, we describe our protocol for a multi-centre trial to determine the effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of endometriosis-associated pain.Methods: we plan to undertake a multi-centre participant-blind parallel-group randomised controlled clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot. We plan to randomise 400 participants from up to 70 National Health Service Hospitals in the UK. Participants with chronic pelvic pain awaiting diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected endometriosis will be consented by the clinical research team. If isolated SPE is identified at laparoscopy, and deep or ovarian endometriosis is not seen, participants will be randomised intraoperatively (1:1) to surgical removal (by excision or ablation or both, according to surgeons' preference) versus diagnostic laparoscopy alone. Randomisation with block-stratification will be used. Participants will be given a diagnosis but will not be informed of the procedure they received until 12 months post-randomisation, unless required. Post-operative medical treatment will be according to participants' preference. Participants will be asked to complete validated pain and quality of life questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Our primary outcome is the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30), via a between randomised group comparison of adjusted means at 12 months. Assuming a standard deviation of 22 points around the pain score, 90% power, 5% significance and 20% missing data, 400 participants are required to be randomised to detect an 8-point pain score difference.Discussion: this trial aims to provide high quality evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE.Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN27244948. Registered 6 April 2021.</p

Combination of gefitinib and methotrexate to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy (GEM3): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: tubal ectopic pregnancies can cause substantial morbidity or even death. Current treatment is with methotrexate or surgery. Methotrexate treatment fails in approximately 30% of women who subsequently require rescue surgery. Gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, might improve the effects of methotrexate. We assessed the efficacy of oral gefitinib with methotrexate, versus methotrexate alone, to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy.Methods: we performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across 50 UK hospitals. Participants diagnosed with tubal ectopic pregnancy were administered a single dose of intramuscular methotrexate (50 mg/m2) and randomised (1:1 ratio) to 7 days of additional oral gefitinib (250 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome, analysed by intention to treat, was surgical intervention to resolve the ectopic pregnancy. Secondary outcomes included time to resolution of ectopic pregnancy and serious adverse events. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN 67795930.Findings: between Nov 2, 2016, and Oct 6, 2021, 328 participants were allocated to methotrexate and gefitinib (n=165) or methotrexate and placebo (n=163). Three participants in the placebo group withdrew. Surgical intervention occurred in 50 (30%) of 165 participants in the gefitinib group and in 47 (29%) of 160 participants in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 1·15, 95% CI 0·85 to 1·58; adjusted risk difference –0·01, 95% CI –0·10 to 0·09; p=0·37). Without surgical intervention, median time to resolution was 28·0 days in the gefitinib group and 28·0 days in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·75 to 1·40). Serious adverse events occurred in five (3%) of 165 participants in the gefitinib group and in six (4%) of 162 participants in the placebo group. Diarrhoea and rash were more common in the gefitinib group.Interpretation: in women with a tubal ectopic pregnancy, adding oral gefitinib to parenteral methotrexate does not offer clinical benefit over methotrexate and increases minor adverse reactions. Funding: National Institute of Health Research.</p

Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a booster regimen of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine against COVID-19 (ENSEMBLE2) : results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Despite the availability of effective vaccines against COVID-19, booster vaccinations are needed to maintain vaccine-induced protection against variant strains and breakthrough infections. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen) as primary vaccination plus a booster dose. Methods ENSEMBLE2 is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial including crossover vaccination after emergency authorisation of COVID-19 vaccines. Adults aged at least 18 years without previous COVID-19 vaccination at public and private medical practices and hospitals in Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK, and the USA were randomly assigned 1:1 via a computer algorithm to receive intramuscularly administered Ad26.COV2.S as a primary dose plus a booster dose at 2 months or two placebo injections 2 months apart. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against the first occurrence of molecularly confirmed moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after booster vaccination, which was assessed in participants who received two doses of vaccine or placebo, were negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR at baseline and on serology at baseline and day 71, had no major protocol deviations, and were at risk of COVID-19 (ie, had no PCR-positive result or discontinued the study before day 71). Safety was assessed in all participants; reactogenicity, in terms of solicited local and systemic adverse events, was assessed as a secondary endpoint in a safety subset (approximately 6000 randomly selected participants). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04614948, and is ongoing. Findings Enrolment began on Nov 16, 2020, and the primary analysis data cutoff was June 25, 2021. From 34 571 participants screened, the double-blind phase enrolled 31 300 participants, 14 492 of whom received two doses (7484 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 7008 in the placebo group) and 11 639 of whom were eligible for inclusion in the assessment of the primary endpoint (6024 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 5615 in the placebo group). The median (IQR) follow-up post-booster vaccination was 36 center dot 0 (15 center dot 0-62 center dot 0) days. Vaccine efficacy was 75 center dot 2% (adjusted 95% CI 54 center dot 6-87 center dot 3) against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 (14 cases in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 52 cases in the placebo group). Most cases were due to the variants alpha (B.1.1.7) and mu (B.1.621); endpoints for the primary analysis accrued from Nov 16, 2020, to June 25, 2021, before the global dominance of delta (B.1.617.2) or omicron (B.1.1.529). The booster vaccine exhibited an acceptable safety profile. The overall frequencies of solicited local and systemic adverse events (evaluated in the safety subset, n=6067) were higher among vaccine recipients than placebo recipients after the primary and booster doses. The frequency of solicited adverse events in the Ad26.COV2.S group were similar following the primary and booster vaccinations (local adverse events, 1676 [55 center dot 6%] of 3015 vs 896 [57 center dot 5%] of 1559, respectively; systemic adverse events, 1764 [58 center dot 5%] of 3015 vs 821 [52 center dot 7%] of 1559, respectively). Solicited adverse events were transient and mostly grade 1-2 in severity. Interpretation A homologous Ad26.COV2.S booster administered 2 months after primary single-dose vaccination in adults had an acceptable safety profile and was efficacious against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. Studies assessing efficacy against newer variants and with longer follow-up are needed. Funding Janssen Research & Development. Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health