What does it mean to be affiliated with care?: Delphi consensus on the definition of unaffiliation and specialist in sickle cell disease

Accruing evidence reveals best practices for how to help individuals living with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD); yet, the implementation of these evidence-based practices in healthcare settings is lacking. The Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC) is a national consortium that uses implementation science to identify and address barriers to care in SCD. The SCDIC seeks to understand how and why patients become unaffiliated from care and determine strategies to identify and connect patients to care. A challenge, however, is the lack of agreed-upon definition for what it means to be unaffiliated and what it means to be a SCD expert provider . In this study, we conducted a Delphi process to obtain expert consensus on what it means to be an unaffiliated patient with SCD and to define an SCD specialist, as no standard definition is available. Twenty-eight SCD experts participated in three rounds of questions. Consensus was defined as 80% or more of respondents agreeing. Experts reached consensus that an individual with SCD who is unaffiliated from care is someone who has not been seen by a sickle cell specialist in at least a year. A sickle cell specialist was defined as someone with knowledge and experience in SCD. Having knowledge means: being knowledgeable of the 2014 NIH Guidelines, Evidence-Based Management of SCD , trained in hydroxyurea management and transfusions, trained on screening for organ damage in SCD, trained in pain management and on SCD emergencies, and is aware of psychosocial and cognitive issues in SCD. Experiences that are expected of a SCD specialist include experience working with SCD patients, mentored by a SCD specialist, regular attendance at SCD conferences, and obtains continuing medical education on SCD every 2 years. The results have strong implications for future research, practice, and policy related to SCD by helping to lay a foundation for an new area of research (e.g., to identify subpopulations of unaffiliation and targeted interventions) and policies that support reaffiliation and increase accessibility to quality care

The everchanging epidemiology of meningococcal disease worldwide and the potential for prevention through vaccination.

Neisseria meningitidis is a major cause of bacterial meningitis and septicaemia worldwide and is associated with high case fatality rates and serious life-long complications among survivors. Twelve serogroups are recognised, of which six (A, B, C, W, X and Y) are responsible for nearly all cases of invasive meningococcal disease (IMD). The incidence of IMD and responsible serogroups vary widely both geographically and over time. For the first time, effective vaccines against all these serogroups are available or nearing licensure. Over the past two decades, IMD incidence has been declining across most parts of the world through a combination of successful meningococcal immunisation programmes and secular trends. The introduction of meningococcal C conjugate vaccines in the early 2000s was associated with rapid declines in meningococcal C disease, whilst implementation of a meningococcal A conjugate vaccine across the African meningitis belt led to near-elimination of meningococcal A disease. Consequently, other serogroups have become more important causes of IMD. In particular, the emergence of a hypervirulent meningococcal group W clone has led many countries to shift from monovalent meningococcal C to quadrivalent ACWY conjugate vaccines in their national immunisation programmes. Additionally, the recent licensure of two protein-based, broad-spectrum meningococcal B vaccines finally provides protection against the most common group responsible for childhood IMD across Europe and Australia. This review describes global IMD epidemiology across each continent and trends over time, the serogroups responsible for IMD, the impact of meningococcal immunisation programmes and future needs to eliminate this devastating disease

Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial

Background Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. Methods RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Findings Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61–69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1–10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688–1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4–82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6–83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population

Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial

Background Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. Methods RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00541047 . Findings Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60–69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0–10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612–0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6–75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2–81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Guidelines for short-term medical missions: perspectives from host countries

Abstract Background In the past decade, there has been increasing guideline development for short-term medical missions (STMMs) traveling from high-income to low- and middle-income countries for the purpose of supporting health care services. The ethics of STMMs is criticized in the literature and there is frequently a lack of host country collaboration. This typically results in guidelines which are developed through the lens of the sending (high-income) countries’ staff and organizations. The aim of this paper is to evaluate an existing best practice guideline document from the perspective of host country participants with knowledge of STMMs from Honduras, Malawi, and the Philippines. Methods The guideline used for the evaluation consisted of nine best practice elements that were discerned based on literature and the experience of those working within the field. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a cross-sectional study with participants (n = 118) from the host countries. Thematic analysis was conducted by two researchers and the results were assessed by working group members to confirm interpretations of the data. Results Overall, participants expressed a strong interest in having more structured guidance surrounding STMM practices. There was a positive response to and general acceptance of the proposed STMM guidelines, although participants found the 24-page document onerous to use; a companion checklist was developed. The key themes that emerged from the interviews included collaboration and coordination, care for hard-to-reach communities, capacity building, critical products and essential medical supplies, and opportunity and feasibility. Conclusions Host input suggests that the guidelines provide structured regulation and coordination of the medical mission process and have the potential to improve the way STMMs are carried out. The guidelines have also proven to be a useful tool for the actual implementation of STMMs and can be a tool to strengthen links and trust between mission teams and local health staff. However, local contexts vary considerably, and guidelines must be adapted for local use. It is recommended that STMM teams work in conjunction with host partners to ensure they meet local needs, increase capacity development of local health workers, and provide continuity of care for patients into the local system

Serum periostin levels in adults of Chinese descent: an observational study

Abstract Background Periostin has been shown to be a marker of Type 2 airway inflammation, associated with airway eosinophilia. It has a potential role in identifying asthmatics who may be responsive to treatment with monoclonal antibody therapy directed against Type 2 cytokines, such as interleukin (IL)-13, IL-4 receptor subunit-α and immunoglobulin E. The clinical utility of periostin measurements depends on better understanding of factors that may affect serum periostin levels, such as race. We aimed to identify the ranges of serum periostin in Chinese adults both with and without asthma, and compare them with those previously identified in Caucasian adults. Methods A two-centred cross-sectional study, recruiting 188 Chinese adults, aged 18 to 75 years. 120 participants had no history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 68 participants had a doctor’s diagnosis of asthma and were on current treatment. Univariate comparisons of periostin by dichotomous variables were made using t-tests with logarithmic transformation as the distribution of periostin was skewed. Results In the Chinese non-asthma group, periostin levels were sex-, but not age-dependent, with females having higher periostin levels. The individual predicted (90% CI) reference range for periostin in females was 61.1 ng/ml (41.6 to 89.8) ng/ml and in males was 53.2 ng/ml (36.1 to 78.3) ng/ml. There was no difference in median serum periostin levels between Chinese non-asthmatics and Chinese asthmatics, 57.0 versus 56.8 ng/ml, difference (95% CI) 0.1 (− 4.2 to 4.2) ng/ml, P = 0.94. The median serum periostin levels were higher in Chinese non-asthmatics than Caucasian non-asthmatics, 57.0 versus 49.7 ng/ml, difference (95% CI) 8.2 (5.8–10.6) ng/ml, P < 0.001. Conclusions Serum periostin does not discriminate between asthmatics and non-asthmatics and is therefore not a good biomarker to diagnose asthma. Serum periostin levels were higher in the Chinese compared to the Caucasian non-asthma group, and also sex dependent in the Chinese participants. There was no difference in serum periostin levels between Chinese non-asthma and asthma groups. This suggests that ethnicity should be considered in the interpretation of periostin levels in asthma patients and sex is an additional consideration in Chinese patients. Trial registration This trial was prospectively registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000122651

What does it mean to be affiliated with care?: Delphi consensus on the definition of "unaffiliation" and "specialist" in sickle cell disease.

Accruing evidence reveals best practices for how to help individuals living with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD); yet, the implementation of these evidence-based practices in healthcare settings is lacking. The Sickle Cell Disease Implementation Consortium (SCDIC) is a national consortium that uses implementation science to identify and address barriers to care in SCD. The SCDIC seeks to understand how and why patients become unaffiliated from care and determine strategies to identify and connect patients to care. A challenge, however, is the lack of agreed-upon definition for what it means to be unaffiliated and what it means to be a "SCD expert provider". In this study, we conducted a Delphi process to obtain expert consensus on what it means to be an "unaffiliated patient" with SCD and to define an "SCD specialist," as no standard definition is available. Twenty-eight SCD experts participated in three rounds of questions. Consensus was defined as 80% or more of respondents agreeing. Experts reached consensus that an individual with SCD who is unaffiliated from care is "someone who has not been seen by a sickle cell specialist in at least a year." A sickle cell specialist was defined as someone with knowledge and experience in SCD. Having "knowledge" means: being knowledgeable of the 2014 NIH Guidelines, "Evidence-Based Management of SCD", trained in hydroxyurea management and transfusions, trained on screening for organ damage in SCD, trained in pain management and on SCD emergencies, and is aware of psychosocial and cognitive issues in SCD. Experiences that are expected of a SCD specialist include experience working with SCD patients, mentored by a SCD specialist, regular attendance at SCD conferences, and obtains continuing medical education on SCD every 2 years." The results have strong implications for future research, practice, and policy related to SCD by helping to lay a foundation for an new area of research (e.g., to identify subpopulations of unaffiliation and targeted interventions) and policies that support reaffiliation and increase accessibility to quality care