In situ Biological Dose Mapping Estimates the Radiation Burden Delivered to ‘Spared’ Tissue between Synchrotron X-Ray Microbeam Radiotherapy Tracks

Microbeam radiation therapy (MRT) using high doses of synchrotron X-rays can destroy tumours in animal models whilst causing little damage to normal tissues. Determining the spatial distribution of radiation doses delivered during MRT at a microscopic scale is a major challenge. Film and semiconductor dosimetry as well as Monte Carlo methods struggle to provide accurate estimates of dose profiles and peak-to-valley dose ratios at the position of the targeted and traversed tissues whose biological responses determine treatment outcome. The purpose of this study was to utilise γ-H2AX immunostaining as a biodosimetric tool that enables in situ biological dose mapping within an irradiated tissue to provide direct biological evidence for the scale of the radiation burden to ‘spared’ tissue regions between MRT tracks. Γ-H2AX analysis allowed microbeams to be traced and DNA damage foci to be quantified in valleys between beams following MRT treatment of fibroblast cultures and murine skin where foci yields per unit dose were approximately five-fold lower than in fibroblast cultures. Foci levels in cells located in valleys were compared with calibration curves using known broadbeam synchrotron X-ray doses to generate spatial dose profiles and calculate peak-to-valley dose ratios of 30–40 for cell cultures and approximately 60 for murine skin, consistent with the range obtained with conventional dosimetry methods. This biological dose mapping approach could find several applications both in optimising MRT or other radiotherapeutic treatments and in estimating localised doses following accidental radiation exposure using skin punch biopsies

Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Clinicians commonly examine posture and movement in people with the belief that correcting dysfunctional movement may reduce pain. If dysfunctional movement is to be accurately identified, clinicians should know what constitutes normal movement and how this differs in people with low back pain (LBP). This systematic review examined studies that compared biomechanical aspects of lumbo-pelvic movement in people with and without LBP. Methods. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2014 for relevant studies. Studies had to compare adults with and without LBP using skin surface measurement techniques to measure lumbo-pelvic posture or movement. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and identified and extracted data. Standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for group differences between people with and without LBP, and where possible, meta-analyses were performed. Within-group variability in all measurements was also compared. Results: The search identified 43 eligible studies. Compared to people without LBP, on average, people with LBP display: (i) no difference in lordosis angle (8 studies), (ii) reduced lumbar ROM (19 studies), (iii) no difference in lumbar relative to hip contribution to end-range flexion (4 studies), (iv) no difference in standing pelvic tilt angle (3 studies), (v) slower movement (8 studies), and (vi) reduced proprioception (17 studies). Movement variability appeared greater for people with LBP for flexion, lateral flexion and rotation ROM, and movement speed, but not for other movement characteristics. Considerable heterogeneity exists between studies, including a lack of detail or standardization between studies on the criteria used to define participants as people with LBP (cases) or without LBP (controls). Conclusions: On average, people with LBP have reduced lumbar ROM and proprioception, and move more slowly compared to people without LBP. Whether these deficits exist prior to LBP onset is unknown

Mapping the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™) Generic Core Scales onto the Child Health Utility Index–9 Dimension (CHU-9D) Score for Economic Evaluation in Children

Background: The Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™) questionnaire is a widely used, generic instrument designed for measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL); however, it is not preference-based and therefore not suitable for cost–utility analysis. The Child Health Utility Index–9 Dimension (CHU-9D), however, is a preference-based instrument that has been primarily developed to support cost–utility analysis. Objective: This paper presents a method for estimating CHU-9D index scores from responses to the PedsQL™ using data from a randomised controlled trial of prednisolone therapy for treatment of childhood corticosteroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome. Methods: HRQoL data were collected from children at randomisation, week 16, and months 12, 18, 24, 36 and 48. Observations on children aged 5 years and older were pooled across all data collection timepoints and were then randomised into an estimation (n = 279) and validation (n = 284) sample. A number of models were developed using the estimation data before internal validation. The best model was chosen using multi-stage selection criteria. Results: Most of the models developed accurately predicted the CHU-9D mean index score. The best performing model was a generalised linear model (mean absolute error = 0.0408; mean square error = 0.0035). The proportion of index scores deviating from the observed scores by 13 years) or patient groups with particularly poor quality of life. ISRCTN Registry No: 1664524

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca