Statistical method for the determination of equivalence of automated test procedures

In the development of test methods for solid dosage forms, manual test procedures for assay and content uniformity often precede the development of automated test procedures. Since the mode of extraction for automated test methods is often slightly different from that of the manual test method, additional validation of an automated test method is usually required. In addition to compliance with validation guidelines, developers of automated test methods are often asked to demonstrate equivalence between the manual and automated test methods. There are problems associated with using the traditional zero-difference hypothesis tests (such as the Student's t-test) for demonstrating equivalence. The use of the Westlake Interval and Schuirmann's Two One-sided test as more rigorous methods of demonstrating equivalence is discussed

Red-flag sepsis and SOFA identifies different patient population at risk of sepsis-related deaths on the general ward

Controversy exists regarding the best diagnostic and screening tool for sepsis outside the intensive care unit (ICU). Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score has been shown to be superior to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, however, the performance of “Red Flag sepsis criteria” has not been tested formally. The aim of the study was to investigate the ability of Red Flag sepsis criteria to identify the patients at high risk of sepsis-related death in comparison to SOFA based sepsis criteria. We also investigated the comparison of Red Flag sepsis to quick SOFA (qSOFA), SIRS, and national early warning score (NEWS) scores and factors influencing patient mortality. Patients were recruited into a 24-hour point-prevalence study on the general wards and emergency departments across all Welsh acute hospitals. Inclusion criteria were: clinical suspicion of infection and NEWS 3 or above in-line with established escalation criteria in Wales. Data on Red Flag sepsis and SOFA criteria was collected together with qSOFA and SIRS scores and 90-day mortality. 459 patients were recruited over a 24-hour period. 246 were positive for Red Flag sepsis, mortality 33.7% (83/246); 241 for SOFA based sepsis criteria, mortality 39.4% (95/241); 54 for qSOFA, mortality 57.4% (31/54), and 268 for SIRS, mortality 33.6% (90/268). 55 patients were not picked up by any criteria. We found that older age was associated with death with OR (95% CI) of 1.03 (1.02–1.04); higher frailty score 1.24 (1.11–1.40); DNA-CPR order 1.74 (1.14–2.65); ceiling of care 1.55 (1.02–2.33); and SOFA score of 2 and above 1.69 (1.16–2.47). The different clinical tools captured different subsets of the at-risk population, with similar sensitivity. SOFA score 2 or above was independently associated with increased risk of death at 90 days. The sequalae of infection-related organ dysfunction cannot be reliably captured based on routine clinical and physiological parameters alone

Sepsis-related deaths in the at-risk population on the wards: attributable fraction of mortality in a large point-prevalence study

Objective Sepsis mortality is reported to be high worldwide, however recently the attributable fraction of mortality due to sepsis (AFsepsis) has been questioned. If improvements in treatment options are to be evaluated, it is important to know what proportion of deaths are potentially preventable or modifiable after a sepsis episode. The aim of the study was to establish the fraction of deaths directly related to the sepsis episode on the general wards and emergency departments. Results 839 patients were recruited over the two 24-h periods in 2016 and 2017. 521 patients fulfilled SEPSIS-3 criteria. 166 patients (32.4%) with sepsis and 56 patients (17.6%) without sepsis died within 90 days. Out of the 166 sepsis deaths 12 (7.2%) could have been directly related to sepsis, 28 (16.9%) possibly related and 96 (57.8%) were not related to sepsis. Overall AFsepsis was 24.1%. Upon analysis of the 40 deaths likely to be attributable to sepsis, we found that 31 patients (77.5%) had the Clinical Frailty Score ≥ 6, 28 (70%) had existing DNA-CPR order and 17 had limitations of care orders (42.5%)

Adjunctive rifampicin to reduce early mortality from Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: the ARREST RCT.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common and frequently fatal infection. Adjunctive rifampicin may enhance early S. aureus killing, sterilise infected foci and blood faster, and thereby reduce the risk of dissemination, metastatic infection and death. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not adjunctive rifampicin reduces bacteriological (microbiologically confirmed) failure/recurrence or death through 12 weeks from randomisation. Secondary objectives included evaluating the impact of rifampicin on all-cause mortality, clinically defined failure/recurrence or death, toxicity, resistance emergence, and duration of bacteraemia; and assessing the cost-effectiveness of rifampicin. DESIGN: Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), blinded, placebo-controlled multicentre trial. SETTING: UK NHS trust hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients (≥ 18 years) with meticillin-resistant or susceptible S. aureus grown from one or more blood cultures, who had received < 96 hours of antibiotic therapy for the current infection, and without contraindications to rifampicin. INTERVENTIONS: Adjunctive rifampicin (600-900 mg/day, oral or intravenous) or placebo for 14 days in addition to standard antibiotic therapy. Investigators and patients were blinded to trial treatment. Follow-up was for 12 weeks (assessments at 3, 7, 10 and 14 days, weekly until discharge and final assessment at 12 weeks post randomisation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was all-cause bacteriological (microbiologically confirmed) failure/recurrence or death through 12 weeks from randomisation. RESULTS: Between December 2012 and October 2016, 758 eligible participants from 29 UK hospitals were randomised: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. The median age was 65 years [interquartile range (IQR) 50-76 years]. A total of 485 (64.0%) infections were community acquired and 132 (17.4%) were nosocomial; 47 (6.2%) were caused by meticillin-resistant S. aureus. A total of 301 (39.7%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for a median of 29 days (IQR 18-45 days) and 619 (81.7%) participants received flucloxacillin. By 12 weeks, 62 out of 370 (16.8%) patients taking rifampicin versus 71 out of 388 (18.3%) participants taking the placebo experienced bacteriological (microbiologically confirmed) failure/recurrence or died [absolute risk difference -1.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.0% to 4.3%; hazard ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; p = 0.81]. There were 4 (1.1%) and 5 (1.3%) bacteriological failures (p = 0.82) in the rifampicin and placebo groups, respectively. There were 3 (0.8%) versus 16 (4.1%) bacteriological recurrences (p = 0.01), and 55 (14.9%) versus 50 (12.9%) deaths without bacteriological failure/recurrence (p = 0.30) in the rifampicin and placebo groups, respectively. Over 12 weeks, there was no evidence of differences in clinically defined failure/recurrence/death (p = 0.84), all-cause mortality (p = 0.60), serious (p = 0.17) or grade 3/4 (p = 0.36) adverse events (AEs). However, 63 (17.0%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10.1%) participants in the placebo group experienced antibiotic or trial drug-modifying AEs (p = 0.004), and 24 (6.5%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 6 (1.5%) participants in the placebo group experienced drug-interactions (p = 0.0005). Evaluation of the costs and health-related quality-of-life impacts revealed that an episode of S. aureus bacteraemia costs an average of £12,197 over 12 weeks. Rifampicin was estimated to save 10% of episode costs (p = 0.14). After adjustment, the effect of rifampicin on total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was positive (0.004 QALYs), but not statistically significant (standard error 0.004 QALYs). CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S. aureus bacteraemia. FUTURE WORK: Given the substantial mortality, other antibiotic combinations or improved source management should be investigated. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37666216, EudraCT 2012-000344-10 and Clinical Trials Authorisation 00316/0243/001. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.NIHR HTA Programm

Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

Biodiversity: adaptation pathways and opportunities

The possibilities, issues and barriers pertaining to the adaptation of biodiversity to climate change show similarities across the different ecosystem types, species and processes of the Wet Tropics Cluster (WTC) region. Many management actions for climate change are the same as those already known to be important to biodiversity management: reduce or eliminate other anthropogenic stressors in order to build integrity and resilience into natural systems and ideally assist them to withstand the future pressures associated with climate change. However, climate change will also involve different approaches in many respects including facilitating change, especially the movement of species and ecosystems as they track suitable climate and conditions. In addition, 'in situ' conservation – managing species in their habitat, or facilitating their dispersal within the landscape - will be less expensive than 'ex situ' conservation (managing species outside their current range)