Blastomyces Antigen Detection for Monitoring Progression of Blastomycosis in a Pregnant Adolescent

Although disseminated blastomycosis is a rare complication in pregnancy, delay in diagnosis and treatment can be fatal. We investigate the use of the Blastomyces urine antigen in diagnosis following disease progression in the intrapartum, postpartum, and neonatal periods. We describe a case of disseminated blastomycosis in a pregnant adolescent and review the pertinent literature regarding treatment and monitoring blastomycosis in pregnancy and the neonatal periods. This is the first reported case in which the Blastomyces urine antigen is utilized as a method of following disease activity during pregnancy confirming absence of clinically evident disease in a neonate. Urine antigen detection for blastomycosis can be useful for following progression of disease in patients with disseminated blastomycosis in both the intrapartum and postpartum periods

Validity and Reliability of the Robotic Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills

Objective structured assessments of technical skills (OSATS) have been developed to measure the skill of surgical trainees. Our aim was to develop an OSATS specifically for trainees learning robotic surgery

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

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Case Report Blastomyces Antigen Detection for Monitoring Progression of Blastomycosis in a Pregnant Adolescent

Although disseminated blastomycosis is a rare complication in pregnancy, delay in diagnosis and treatment can be fatal. We investigate the use of the Blastomyces urine antigen in diagnosis following disease progression in the intrapartum, postpartum, and neonatal periods. We describe a case of disseminated blastomycosis in a pregnant adolescent and review the pertinent literature regarding treatment and monitoring blastomycosis in pregnancy and the neonatal periods. This is the first reported case in which the Blastomyces urine antigen is utilized as a method of following disease activity during pregnancy confirming absence of clinically evident disease in a neonate. Urine antigen detection for blastomycosis can be useful for following progression of disease in patients with disseminated blastomycosis in both the intrapartum and postpartum periods

Case Report Blastomyces Antigen Detection for Monitoring Progression of Blastomycosis in a Pregnant Adolescent

Although disseminated blastomycosis is a rare complication in pregnancy, delay in diagnosis and treatment can be fatal. We investigate the use of the Blastomyces urine antigen in diagnosis following disease progression in the intrapartum, postpartum, and neonatal periods. We describe a case of disseminated blastomycosis in a pregnant adolescent and review the pertinent literature regarding treatment and monitoring blastomycosis in pregnancy and the neonatal periods. This is the first reported case in which the Blastomyces urine antigen is utilized as a method of following disease activity during pregnancy confirming absence of clinically evident disease in a neonate. Urine antigen detection for blastomycosis can be useful for following progression of disease in patients with disseminated blastomycosis in both the intrapartum and postpartum periods

Establishing Benchmarks For Minimum Competence With Dry Lab Robotic Surgery Drills

The Robotic Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (R-OSATS) is a previously validated assessment tool that is used to assess 5 standardized inanimate robotic surgery drills. R-OSATS is used to evaluate performance on surgical drills, with scores of 0 to 20 for each drill. Our objective was to establish the minimum threshold score that denotes competence on these drills. Thus, we performed a standard setting study using data from surgeons and trainees in 8 academic medical centers. Cutoff scores for the minimal level of competence using R-OSATS were established using 2 techniques: the modified Angoff and the contrasting groups methods. For the modified Angoff method, 8 content experts met and, in an iterative process, derived the scores that a minimally competent trainee should receive. After 2 iterative rounds of scoring and discussion with the modified Angoff method, we established a minimum competence score per drill with high agreement (rWG range, 0.92-0.98). There was unanimous consensus that a trainee needs to achieve competence on each independent drill. A second method, the contrasting groups method, was used to verify our results. In this method, we compared R-OSATS scores from inexperienced (34 postgraduate year 1 and 2 trainees) with experienced (22 faculty and fellow) robotic surgeons. The distributions of scores from both groups were plotted, and a cutoff score for each drill was determined from the intersection of the 2 curves. Using this method, the minimum score for competence would be 14 per drill, which is slightly more stringent but confirms the results obtained from the modified Angoff approach. In conclusion, using 2 well-described standard setting techniques, we have established minimum benchmarks designating trainee competence for 5 dry lab robotic surgery drills

Establishing Benchmarks For Minimum Competence With Dry Lab Robotic Surgery Drills

The Robotic Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (R-OSATS) is a previously validated assessment tool that is used to assess 5 standardized inanimate robotic surgery drills. R-OSATS is used to evaluate performance on surgical drills, with scores of 0 to 20 for each drill. Our objective was to establish the minimum threshold score that denotes competence on these drills. Thus, we performed a standard setting study using data from surgeons and trainees in 8 academic medical centers. Cutoff scores for the minimal level of competence using R-OSATS were established using 2 techniques: the modified Angoff and the contrasting groups methods. For the modified Angoff method, 8 content experts met and, in an iterative process, derived the scores that a minimally competent trainee should receive. After 2 iterative rounds of scoring and discussion with the modified Angoff method, we established a minimum competence score per drill with high agreement (rWG range, 0.92-0.98). There was unanimous consensus that a trainee needs to achieve competence on each independent drill. A second method, the contrasting groups method, was used to verify our results. In this method, we compared R-OSATS scores from inexperienced (34 postgraduate year 1 and 2 trainees) with experienced (22 faculty and fellow) robotic surgeons. The distributions of scores from both groups were plotted, and a cutoff score for each drill was determined from the intersection of the 2 curves. Using this method, the minimum score for competence would be 14 per drill, which is slightly more stringent but confirms the results obtained from the modified Angoff approach. In conclusion, using 2 well-described standard setting techniques, we have established minimum benchmarks designating trainee competence for 5 dry lab robotic surgery drills