Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects

Background There is an expectation for stakeholders (including patients, the public, health professionals, and others) to be involved in research. Researchers are increasingly recognising that it is good practice to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. There is currently a lack of evidence about (A) how to do this and (B) the effects, or impact, of such involvement. We aim to create a map of the evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and use this evidence to address the two points above. Methods We will complete a mixed-method synthesis of the evidence, first completing a scoping review to create a broad map of evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and secondly completing two contingent syntheses. We will use a stepwise approach to searching; the initial step will include comprehensive searches of electronic databases, including CENTRAL, AMED, Embase, Medline, Cinahl and other databases, supplemented with pre-defined hand-searching and contacting authors. Two reviewers will undertake each review task (i.e., screening, data extraction) using standard systematic review processes. For the scoping review, we will include any paper, regardless of publication status or study design, which investigates, reports or discusses involvement in a systematic review. Included papers will be summarised within structured tables. Criteria for judging the focus and comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement will be applied, informing which papers are included within the two contingent syntheses. Synthesis A will detail the methods that have been used to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. Papers from the scoping review that are judged to provide an adequate description of methods or approaches will be included. Details of the methods of involvement will be extracted from included papers using pre-defined headings, presented in tables and described narratively. Synthesis B will include studies that explore the effect of stakeholder involvement on the quality, relevance or impact of a systematic review, as identified from the scoping review. Study quality will be appraised, data extracted and synthesised within tables. Discussion This review should help researchers select, improve and evaluate methods of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews. Review findings will contribute to Cochrane training resources

Immunogenicity and safety of AZD2816, a beta (B.1.351) variant COVID-19 vaccine, and AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) as third-dose boosters for previously vaccinated adults: a multicentre, randomised, partly double-blinded, phase 2/3 non-inferiority immunobridging study in the UK and Poland

Background This study aimed to evaluate AZD2816, a variant-updated COVID-19 vaccine expressing the full-length SARS-CoV-2 beta (B.1.351) variant spike protein that is otherwise similar to AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), and AZD1222 as third-dose boosters. Methods This phase 2/3, partly double-blinded, randomised, active-controlled study was done at 19 sites in the UK and four in Poland. Adult participants who had received a two-dose AZD1222 or mRNA vaccine primary series were randomly assigned by means of an Interactive Response Technology–Randomisation and Trial Supply Management system (1:1 within each primary-series cohort, stratified by age, sex, and comorbidities) to receive AZD1222 or AZD2816 (intramuscular injection; 5 × 1010 viral particles). Participants, investigators, and all sponsor staff members involved in study conduct were masked to randomisation. AZD1222 and AZD2816 doses were prepared by unmasked study staff members. The primary objectives were to evaluate safety and humoral immunogenicity (non-inferiority of day-29 pseudovirus neutralising antibody geometric mean titre [GMT] against ancestral SARS-CoV-2: AZD1222 booster vs AZD1222 primary series [historical controls]; margin 0·67; SARS-CoV-2-seronegative participants). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04973449, and is completed. Findings Between June 27 and Sept 30, 2021, 1394 participants of the 1741 screened were randomly assigned to AZD1222 or AZD2816 following an AZD1222 (n=373, n=377) or mRNA vaccine (n=322, n=322) primary series. In SARS-CoV-2-seronegative participants receiving AZD1222 or AZD2816, 78% and 80% (AZD1222 primary series) and 90% and 93%, respectively (mRNA vaccine primary series) reported solicited adverse events to the end of day 8; 2%, 2%, 1%, and 1% had serious adverse events and 12%, 12%, 10%, and 11% had adverse events of special interest, respectively, to the end of day 180. The primary immunogenicity non-inferiority endpoint was met: day-29 neutralising antibody GMT ratios (ancestral SARS-CoV-2) were 1·02 (95% CI 0·90–1·14) and 3·47 (3·09–3·89) with AZD1222 booster versus historical controls (AZD1222 and mRNA vaccine primary series, respectively). Responses against beta were greater with AZD2816 versus AZD1222 (GMT ratios, AZD1222, mRNA vaccine primary series 1·84 [1·63–2·08], 2·22 [1·99–2·47]). Interpretation Both boosters were well tolerated, with immunogenicity against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 similar to AZD1222 primary-series vaccination. AZD2816 gave greater immune responses against beta versus AZD1222. Funding AstraZeneca

Immunogenicity and safety of AZD2816, a beta (B.1.351) variant COVID-19 vaccine, and AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) as third-dose boosters for previously vaccinated adults:a multicentre, randomised, partly double-blinded, phase 2/3 non-inferiority immunobridging study in the UK and Poland

Background: This study aimed to evaluate AZD2816, a variant-updated COVID-19 vaccine expressing the full-length SARS-CoV-2 beta (B.1.351) variant spike protein that is otherwise similar to AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), and AZD1222 as third-dose boosters.Methods: This phase 2/3, partly double-blinded, randomised, active-controlled study was done at 19 sites in the UK and four in Poland. Adult participants who had received a two-dose AZD1222 or mRNA vaccine primary series were randomly assigned by means of an Interactive Response Technology–Randomisation and Trial Supply Management system (1:1 within each primary-series cohort, stratified by age, sex, and comorbidities) to receive AZD1222 or AZD2816 (intramuscular injection; 5 × 1010 viral particles). Participants, investigators, and all sponsor staff members involved in study conduct were masked to randomisation. AZD1222 and AZD2816 doses were prepared by unmasked study staff members. The primary objectives were to evaluate safety and humoral immunogenicity (non-inferiority of day-29 pseudovirus neutralising antibody geometric mean titre [GMT] against ancestral SARS-CoV-2: AZD1222 booster vs AZD1222 primary series [historical controls]; margin 0·67; SARS-CoV-2-seronegative participants). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04973449, and is completed.Findings: Between June 27 and Sept 30, 2021, 1394 participants of the 1741 screened were randomly assigned to AZD1222 or AZD2816 following an AZD1222 (n=373, n=377) or mRNA vaccine (n=322, n=322) primary series. In SARS-CoV-2-seronegative participants receiving AZD1222 or AZD2816, 78% and 80% (AZD1222 primary series) and 90% and 93%, respectively (mRNA vaccine primary series) reported solicited adverse events to the end of day 8; 2%, 2%, 1%, and 1% had serious adverse events and 12%, 12%, 10%, and 11% had adverse events of special interest, respectively, to the end of day 180. The primary immunogenicity non-inferiority endpoint was met: day-29 neutralising antibody GMT ratios (ancestral SARS-CoV-2) were 1·02 (95% CI 0·90–1·14) and 3·47 (3·09–3·89) with AZD1222 booster versus historical controls (AZD1222 and mRNA vaccine primary series, respectively). Responses against beta were greater with AZD2816 versus AZD1222 (GMT ratios, AZD1222, mRNA vaccine primary series 1·84 [1·63–2·08], 2·22 [1·99–2·47]).Interpretation: Both boosters were well tolerated, with immunogenicity against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 similar to AZD1222 primary-series vaccination. AZD2816 gave greater immune responses against beta versus AZD1222.Funding: AstraZeneca

Immunogenicity and safety of AZD2816, a beta (B.1.351) variant COVID-19 vaccine, and AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) as third-dose boosters for previously vaccinated adults: a multicentre, randomised, partly double-blinded, phase 2/3 non-inferiority immunobridging study in the UK and Poland

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate AZD2816, a variant-updated COVID-19 vaccine expressing the full-length SARS-CoV-2 beta (B.1.351) variant spike protein that is otherwise similar to AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), and AZD1222 as third-dose boosters. METHODS: This phase 2/3, partly double-blinded, randomised, active-controlled study was done at 19 sites in the UK and four in Poland. Adult participants who had received a two-dose AZD1222 or mRNA vaccine primary series were randomly assigned by means of an Interactive Response Technology-Randomisation and Trial Supply Management system (1:1 within each primary-series cohort, stratified by age, sex, and comorbidities) to receive AZD1222 or AZD2816 (intramuscular injection; 5 × 1010 viral particles). Participants, investigators, and all sponsor staff members involved in study conduct were masked to randomisation. AZD1222 and AZD2816 doses were prepared by unmasked study staff members. The primary objectives were to evaluate safety and humoral immunogenicity (non-inferiority of day-29 pseudovirus neutralising antibody geometric mean titre [GMT] against ancestral SARS-CoV-2: AZD1222 booster vs AZD1222 primary series [historical controls]; margin 0·67; SARS-CoV-2-seronegative participants). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04973449, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 27 and Sept 30, 2021, 1394 participants of the 1741 screened were randomly assigned to AZD1222 or AZD2816 following an AZD1222 (n=373, n=377) or mRNA vaccine (n=322, n=322) primary series. In SARS-CoV-2-seronegative participants receiving AZD1222 or AZD2816, 78% and 80% (AZD1222 primary series) and 90% and 93%, respectively (mRNA vaccine primary series) reported solicited adverse events to the end of day 8; 2%, 2%, 1%, and 1% had serious adverse events and 12%, 12%, 10%, and 11% had adverse events of special interest, respectively, to the end of day 180. The primary immunogenicity non-inferiority endpoint was met: day-29 neutralising antibody GMT ratios (ancestral SARS-CoV-2) were 1·02 (95% CI 0·90-1·14) and 3·47 (3·09-3·89) with AZD1222 booster versus historical controls (AZD1222 and mRNA vaccine primary series, respectively). Responses against beta were greater with AZD2816 versus AZD1222 (GMT ratios, AZD1222, mRNA vaccine primary series 1·84 [1·63-2·08], 2·22 [1·99-2·47]). INTERPRETATION: Both boosters were well tolerated, with immunogenicity against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 similar to AZD1222 primary-series vaccination. AZD2816 gave greater immune responses against beta versus AZD1222. FUNDING: AstraZeneca

Development of the ‘ACT now & check it out’ intervention to support patient-initiated follow up for Head and Neck cancer patients

Objective: Current Head and Neck cancer (HNC) follow-up models are considered sub-optimal at detecting re currences. We describe the development of a patient-initiated follow up (PIFU) trial intervention support package, to support HNC patients to engage in PIFU self-care behaviors. Methods: An intervention mapping approach, informed by evidence synthesis, theory and stakeholder consul tation, guided intervention development. Data sources included a patient survey (n = 144), patient interviews (n = 30), 7 workshops with patients (n = 25) and caregivers (n = 3) and 5 workshops with health professionals (n = 21). Results: The intervention (‘ACT now & check-it-out’) comprises an education and support session with a health professional and an app and/or a booklet for patients. The main targets for change in patient self-care behaviors

Older adults' attitudes about continuing cancer screening later in life: a pilot study interviewing residents of two continuing care communities

BACKGROUND: Individualized decision making has been recommended for cancer screening decisions in older adults. Because older adults' preferences are central to individualized decisions, we assessed older adults' perspectives about continuing cancer screening later in life. METHODS: Face to face interviews with 116 residents age 70 or over from two long-term care retirement communities. Interview content included questions about whether participants had discussed cancer screening with their physicians since turning age 70, their attitudes about information important for individualized decisions, and their attitudes about continuing cancer screening later in life. RESULTS: Forty-nine percent of participants reported that they had an opportunity to discuss cancer screening with their physician since turning age 70; 89% would have preferred to have had these discussions. Sixty-two percent believed their own life expectancy was not important for decision making, and 48% preferred not to discuss life expectancy. Attitudes about continuing cancer screening were favorable. Most participants reported that they would continue screening throughout their lives and 43% would consider getting screened even if their doctors recommended against it. Only 13% thought that they would not live long enough to benefit from cancer screening tests. Factors important to consider stopping include: age, deteriorating or poor health, concerns about the effectiveness of the tests, and doctors recommendations. CONCLUSION: This select group of older adults held positive attitudes about continuing cancer screening later in life, and many may have had unrealistic expectations. Individualized decision making could help clarify how life expectancy affects the potential survival benefits of cancer screening. Future research is needed to determine whether educating older adults about the importance of longevity in screening decisions would be acceptable, affect older adults' attitudes about screening, or change their screening behavior

The words leader/líder and their resonances in an Italo-Latin American multinational corporation

© 2017, © The Author(s) 2017. The problems of ‘lost in translation’ are well known. Yet some terms of English managerial vocabulary, which are perfectly translatable in other languages, remain untranslated. One explanation of this phenomenon is what Linguistic anthropology call negative semantic resonances. Semantic resonances focused on the issue of which meanings can or cannot be expressed by a single word in different cultures. In this paper, based on an organisational ethnography of Latin American expatriates working for an Italo-Latin-American multinational corporation (Tubworld), we analyse the resonances of the word leader/líder and director, direttore, capo, guida, coordinador, caudillo among a group of expatriates; all Italian, Spanish or multilingual speakers who use English as a second language in their everyday interactions. The paper explains how the different uses contribute to create a meaning of what a leader should and should not be; someone who leads without leading, sometimes a manager. The authors, an Italian native speaker who learnt Spanish during childhood and use English as his everyday language and a Spanish native speaker, argue that Italian or Spanish speakers not only avoid the words duce and caudillo (the vernacular vocabulary for leader, not in use due to the political and cultural meaning) but also the word leader/líder itself, as it resonate to the other two (violent, authoritarian, autocratic, antidemocratic leadership) but furthermore because the word, a lexical loan from English, failed to encapsulate the complexity of leading multilingual organisations like Tubworld

Development of the ‘ACT now & check it out’ intervention to support patient-initiated follow up for Head and Neck cancer patients

Objective: Current Head and Neck cancer (HNC) follow-up models are considered sub-optimal at detecting re currences. We describe the development of a patient-initiated follow up (PIFU) trial intervention support package, to support HNC patients to engage in PIFU self-care behaviors. Methods: An intervention mapping approach, informed by evidence synthesis, theory and stakeholder consul tation, guided intervention development. Data sources included a patient survey (n = 144), patient interviews (n = 30), 7 workshops with patients (n = 25) and caregivers (n = 3) and 5 workshops with health professionals (n = 21). Results: The intervention (‘ACT now & check-it-out’) comprises an education and support session with a health professional and an app and/or a booklet for patients. The main targets for change in patient self-care behaviors

Correlates of protection against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

The global supply of COVID-19 vaccines remains limited. An understanding of the immune response that is predictive of protection could facilitate rapid licensure of new vaccines. Data from a randomized efficacy trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in the United Kingdom was analyzed to determine the antibody levels associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2. Binding and neutralizing antibodies at 28 days after the second dose were measured in infected and noninfected vaccine recipients. Higher levels of all immune markers were correlated with a reduced risk of symptomatic infection. A vaccine efficacy of 80% against symptomatic infection with majority Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of SARS-CoV-2 was achieved with 264 (95% CI: 108, 806) binding antibody units (BAU)/ml: and 506 (95% CI: 135, not computed (beyond data range) (NC)) BAU/ml for anti-spike and anti-RBD antibodies, and 26 (95% CI: NC, NC) international unit (IU)/ml and 247 (95% CI: 101, NC) normalized neutralization titers (NF) for pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization, respectively. Immune markers were not correlated with asymptomatic infections at the 5% significance level. These data can be used to bridge to new populations using validated assays, and allow extrapolation of efficacy estimates to new COVID-19 vaccines