On the Theory of Evolution Versus the Concept of Evolution: Three Observations

Here we address three misconceptions stated by Rice et al. in their observations of our article Paz-y-Miño and Espinosa (Evo Edu Outreach 2:655–675, 2009), published in this journal. The five authors titled their note “The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life.” First, we argue that it is fallacious to believe that because the formulation of the theory of evolution, as conceived in the 1800s, did not include an explanation for the origin of life, nor of the universe, the concept of evolution would not allow us to hypothesize the possible beginnings of life and its connections to the cosmos. Not only Stanley Miller’s experiments of 1953 led scientists to envision a continuum from the inorganic world to the origin and diversification of life, but also Darwin’s own writings of 1871. Second, to dismiss the notion of Rice et al. that evolution does not provide explanations concerning the universe or the cosmos, we identify compelling scientific discussions on the topics: Zaikowski et al. (Evo Edu Outreach 1:65–73, 2008), Krauss (Evo Edu Outreach 3:193–197, 2010), Peretó et al. (Orig Life Evol Biosph 39:395–406, 2009) and Follmann and Brownson (Naturwissenschaften 96:1265–1292, 2009). Third, although we acknowledge that the term Darwinism may not be inclusive of all new discoveries in evolution, and also that creationists and Intelligent Designers hijack the term to portray evolution as ideology, we demonstrate that there is no statistical evidence suggesting that the word Darwinism interferes with public acceptance of evolution, nor does the inclusion of the origin of life or the universe within the concept of evolution. We examine the epistemological and empirical distinction between the theory of evolution and the concept of evolution and conclude that, although the distinction is important, it should not compromise scientific logic

The statistical analysis of a clinical trial when a protocol amendment changed the inclusion criteria

Abstract Background Sometimes, protocol amendments that change the inclusion and exclusion criteria are required in clinical trials. Then, the patient populations before and after the amendment may differ. Methods We propose to perform separate statistical tests for the different phases, i.e. for the patients recruited before and after the amendment, and to combine the tests using Fisher's combination test. After a significant combination test a multiple testing procedure can be applied to identify the phase(s) to which a proof of efficacy refers. We assume that the amendment(s) are not based on any type of unblinded data. The proposed method is investigated within a simulation study. Results The proposed combination approach is superior to the 'naïve' strategy to ignore the differences between the phases and pooling the data to perform just one statistical test. This superiority disappears when there are hardly any differences between the two phases. Conclusion When one or more protocol amendments change the inclusion and exclusion criteria, one should realize that the populations may differ. In this case, separate tests for the different phases together with a combination test are a powerful method that can be applied in a variety of settings. The (first) amendment should specify the combination test to be applied in order to combine the different phases.</p

Adaptation of mammalian host-pathogen interactions in a changing arctic environment

Many arctic mammals are adapted to live year-round in extreme environments with low winter temperatures and great seasonal variations in key variables (e.g. sunlight, food, temperature, moisture). The interaction between hosts and pathogens in high northern latitudes is not very well understood with respect to intra-annual cycles (seasons). The annual cycles of interacting pathogen and host biology is regulated in part by highly synchronized temperature and photoperiod changes during seasonal transitions (e.g., freezeup and breakup). With a warming climate, only one of these key biological cues will undergo drastic changes, while the other will remain fixed. This uncoupling can theoretically have drastic consequences on host-pathogen interactions. These poorly understood cues together with a changing climate by itself will challenge host populations that are adapted to pathogens under the historic and current climate regime. We will review adaptations of both host and pathogens to the extreme conditions at high latitudes and explore some potential consequences of rapid changes in the Arctic

Accounting for centre-effects in multicentre trials with a binary outcome - when, why, and how?

BACKGROUND: It is often desirable to account for centre-effects in the analysis of multicentre randomised trials, however it is unclear which analysis methods are best in trials with a binary outcome. METHODS: We compared the performance of four methods of analysis (fixed-effects models, random-effects models, generalised estimating equations (GEE), and Mantel-Haenszel) using a re-analysis of a previously reported randomised trial (MIST2) and a large simulation study. RESULTS: The re-analysis of MIST2 found that fixed-effects and Mantel-Haenszel led to many patients being dropped from the analysis due to over-stratification (up to 69% dropped for Mantel-Haenszel, and up to 33% dropped for fixed-effects). Conversely, random-effects and GEE included all patients in the analysis, however GEE did not reach convergence. Estimated treatment effects and p-values were highly variable across different analysis methods. The simulation study found that most methods of analysis performed well with a small number of centres. With a large number of centres, fixed-effects led to biased estimates and inflated type I error rates in many situations, and Mantel-Haenszel lost power compared to other analysis methods in some situations. Conversely, both random-effects and GEE gave nominal type I error rates and good power across all scenarios, and were usually as good as or better than either fixed-effects or Mantel-Haenszel. However, this was only true for GEEs with non-robust standard errors (SEs); using a robust ‘sandwich’ estimator led to inflated type I error rates across most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: With a small number of centres, we recommend the use of fixed-effects, random-effects, or GEE with non-robust SEs. Random-effects and GEE with non-robust SEs should be used with a moderate or large number of centres

An investigation of trachoma vaccine regimens by the chlamydia vaccine CTH522 administered with cationic liposomes in healthy adults (CHLM-02): a phase 1, double-blind trial

Background There is no vaccine against the major global pathogen Chlamydia trachomatis; its different serovars cause trachoma in the eye or chlamydia in the genital tract. We did a clinical trial administering CTH522, a recombinant version of the C trachomatis major outer membrane molecule, in different dose concentrations with and without adjuvant, to establish its safety and immunogenicity when administered intramuscularly, intradermally, and topically into the eye, in prime-boost regimens. Methods CHLM-02 was a phase 1, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at the National Institute for Health Research Imperial Clinical Research Facility, London, UK. Participants were healthy men and non-pregnant women aged 18–45 years, without pre-existing C trachomatis genital infection. Participants were assigned into six groups by the electronic database in a pre-prepared randomisation list (A–F). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to each of the groups A–E (12 participants each) and 6 were randomly assigned to group F. Investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Groups A–E received investigational medicinal product and group F received placebo only. Two liposomal adjuvants were compared, CAF01 and CAF09b. The groups were intramuscular 85 μg CTH522-CAF01, or placebo on day 0 and two boosters or placebo at day 28 and 112, and a mucosal recall with either placebo or CTH522 topical ocularly at day 140 (A); intramuscular 85 μg CTH522-CAF01, two boosters at day 28 and 112 with additional topical ocular administration of CTH522, and a mucosal recall with either placebo or CTH522 topical ocularly at day 140 (B); intramuscular 85 μg CTH522-CAF01, two boosters at day 28 and 112 with additional intradermal administration of CTH522, and a mucosal recall with either placebo or CTH522 topical ocularly at day 140 (C); intramuscular 15 μg CTH522-CAF01, two boosters at day 28 and 112, and a mucosal recall with either placebo or CTH522 topical ocularly at day 140 (D); intramuscular 85 μg CTH522-CAF09b, two boosters at day 28 and 112, and a mucosal recall with either placebo or CTH522 topical ocularly at day 140 (E); intramuscular placebo (F). The primary outcome was safety; the secondary outcome (humoral immunogenicity) was the percentage of trial participants achieving anti-CTH522 IgG seroconversion, defined as four-fold and ten-fold increase over baseline concentrations. Analyses were done as intention to treat and as per protocol. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03926728, and is complete. Findings Between Feb 17, 2020 and Feb 22, 2022, of 154 participants screened, 65 were randomly assigned, and 60 completed the trial (34 [52%] of 65 women, 46 [71%] of 65 White, mean age 26·8 years). No serious adverse events occurred but one participant in group A2 discontinued dosing after having self-limiting adverse events after both placebo and investigational medicinal product doses. Study procedures were otherwise well tolerated; the majority of adverse events were mild to moderate, with only seven (1%) of 865 reported as grade 3 (severe). There was 100% four-fold seroconversion rate by day 42 in the active groups (A–E) and no seroconversion in the placebo group. Serum IgG anti-CTH522 titres were higher after 85 μg CTH522-CAF01 than 15 μg, although not significantly (intention-to-treat median IgG titre ratio groups A–C:D=5·6; p=0·062), with no difference after three injections of 85 μg CTH522-CAF01 compared with CTH522-CAF09b (group E). Intradermal CTH522 (group C) induced high titres of serum IgG anti-CTH522 neutralising antibodies against serovars B (trachoma) and D (urogenital). Topical ocular CTH522 (group B) at day 28 and 112 induced higher total ocular IgA compared with baseline (p<0·001). Participants in all active vaccine groups, particularly groups B and E, developed cell mediated immune responses against CTH522. Interpretation CTH522, adjuvanted with CAF01 or CAF09b, is safe and immunogenic, with 85 μg CTH522-CAF01 inducing robust serum IgG binding titres. Intradermal vaccination conferred systemic IgG neutralisation breadth, and topical ocular administration increased ocular IgA formation. These findings indicate CTH522 vaccine regimens against ocular trachoma and urogenital chlamydia for testing in phase 2, clinical trials. Funding The EU Horizon Program TRACVAC

Developing search strategies for clinical practice guidelines in SUMSearch and Google Scholar and assessing their retrieval performance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Information overload, increasing time constraints, and inappropriate search strategies complicate the detection of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). The aim of this study was to provide clinicians with recommendations for search strategies to efficiently identify relevant CPGs in SUMSearch and Google Scholar.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We compared the retrieval efficiency (retrieval performance) of search strategies to identify CPGs in SUMSearch and Google Scholar. For this purpose, a two-term GLAD (GuideLine And Disease) strategy was developed, combining a defined CPG term with a specific disease term (MeSH term). We used three different CPG terms and nine MeSH terms for nine selected diseases to identify the most efficient GLAD strategy for each search engine. The retrievals for the nine diseases were pooled. To compare GLAD strategies, we used a manual review of all retrievals as a reference standard. The CPGs detected had to fulfil predefined criteria, e.g., the inclusion of therapeutic recommendations. Retrieval performance was evaluated by calculating so-called diagnostic parameters (sensitivity, specificity, and "Number Needed to Read" [NNR]) for search strategies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The search yielded a total of 2830 retrievals; 987 (34.9%) in Google Scholar and 1843 (65.1%) in SUMSearch. Altogether, we found 119 unique and relevant guidelines for nine diseases (reference standard). Overall, the GLAD strategies showed a better retrieval performance in SUMSearch than in Google Scholar. The performance pattern between search engines was similar: search strategies including the term "guideline" yielded the highest sensitivity (SUMSearch: 81.5%; Google Scholar: 31.9%), and search strategies including the term "practice guideline" yielded the highest specificity (SUMSearch: 89.5%; Google Scholar: 95.7%), and the lowest NNR (SUMSearch: 7.0; Google Scholar: 9.3).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>SUMSearch is a useful tool to swiftly gain an overview of available CPGs. Its retrieval performance is superior to that of Google Scholar, where a search is more time consuming, as substantially more retrievals have to be reviewed to detect one relevant CPG. In both search engines, the CPG term "guideline" should be used to obtain a comprehensive overview of CPGs, and the term "practice guideline" should be used if a less time consuming approach for the detection of CPGs is desired.</p

A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia

BACKGROUND:Convalescent plasma is frequently administered to patients with Covid-19 and hasbeen reported, largely on the basis of observational data, to improve clinical outcomes.Minimal data are available from adequately powered randomized, controlled trials. METHODS:We randomly assigned hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19 pneumoniain a 2:1 ratio to receive convalescent plasma or placebo. The primary outcome wasthe patient?s clinical status 30 days after the intervention, as measured on a six-pointordinal scale ranging from total recovery to death. RESULTS:A total of 228 patients were assigned to receive convalescent plasma and 105 toreceive placebo. The median time from the onset of symptoms to enrollment inthe trial was 8 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10), and hypoxemia was the mostfrequent severity criterion for enrollment. The infused convalescent plasma had amedian titer of 1:3200 of total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (interquartile range, 1:800 to1:3200]. No patients were lost to follow-up. At day 30 day, no significant differencewas noted between the convalescent plasma group and the placebo group in thedistribution of clinical outcomes according to the ordinal scale (odds ratio, 0.83(95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 1.35; P=0.46). Overall mortality was 10.96%in the convalescent plasma group and 11.43% in the placebo group, for a risk difference of −0.46 percentage points (95% CI, −7.8 to 6.8). Total SARS-CoV-2 antibodytiters tended to be higher in the convalescent plasma group at day 2 after the intervention. Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:no significant differences were observed in clinical status or overall mortality between patients treated with convalescent plasma and those who received placebo.(PlasmAr ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04383535.)Fil: Simonovich, Ventura A.. Hospital Italiano. Departamento de Medicina. Servicio de Clinica Medica.; ArgentinaFil: Burgos Pratx, Leandro D.. Hospital Italiano. Departamento de Medicina. Servicio de Clinica Medica.; ArgentinaFil: Scibona, Paula. Hospital Italiano. Departamento de Medicina. Servicio de Clinica Medica.; ArgentinaFil: Beruto, Maria Valeria. No especifíca;Fil: Vallone, Miguel Gabriel. No especifíca;Fil: Vázquez, C.. No especifíca;Fil: Savoy, N.. No especifíca;Fil: Giunta, Diego Hernan. No especifíca;Fil: Pérez, L.G.. No especifíca;Fil: Sánchez, M.L.. No especifíca;Fil: Gamarnik, Andrea Vanesa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Ojeda, D.S.. No especifíca;Fil: Santoro, D.M.. No especifíca;Fil: Camino, P. J.. No especifíca;Fil: Antelo, S.. No especifíca;Fil: Rainero, K.. No especifíca;Fil: Vidiella, G. P.. No especifíca;Fil: Miyazaki, E. A.. No especifíca;Fil: Cornistein, W.. No especifíca;Fil: Trabadelo, O. A.. No especifíca;Fil: Ross, F. M.. No especifíca;Fil: Spotti, M.. No especifíca;Fil: Funtowicz, G.. No especifíca;Fil: Scordo, W. E.. No especifíca;Fil: Losso, M. H.. No especifíca;Fil: Ferniot, I.. No especifíca;Fil: Pardo, P. E.. No especifíca;Fil: Rodriguez, E.. No especifíca;Fil: Rucci, P.. No especifíca;Fil: Pasquali, J.. No especifíca;Fil: Fuentes, N. A.. No especifíca;Fil: Esperatti, M.. No especifíca;Fil: Speroni, G. A.. No especifíca;Fil: Nannini, Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Rosario. Instituto de Inmunología Clinica y Experimental de Rosario. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas. Instituto de Inmunología Clinica y Experimental de Rosario; ArgentinaFil: Matteaccio, A.. No especifíca;Fil: Michelangelo, H.G.. No especifíca;Fil: Follmann, D.. No especifíca;Fil: Lane, H. Clifford. No especifíca;Fil: Belloso, Waldo Horacio. Hospital Italiano. Departamento de Medicina. Servicio de Clinica Medica.; Argentin

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccination

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 \u3e7-15 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