Will Africans take COVID-19 vaccination?

The economic and humanistic impact of COVID-19 pandemic is enormous globally. No definitive treatment exists, hence accelerated development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines, offers a unique opportunity for COVID-19 prevention and control. Vaccine hesitancy may limit the success of vaccine distribution in Africa, therefore we assessed the potentials for coronavirus vaccine hesitancy and its determinants among Africans. An online crosssectional African-wide survey was administered in Arabic, English, and French languages. Questions on demographics, self-reported health status, vaccine literacy, knowledge and perception on vaccines, past experience, behavior, infection risk, willingness to receive and affordability of the SARS-COV-2 vaccine were asked. Data were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics. A total of 5,416 individuals completed the survey. Approximately, 94% were residents of 34 African countries while the other Africans live in the Diaspora. Only 63% of all participants surveyed were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible and 79% were worried about its side effects. Thirty-nine percent expressed concerns of vaccine-associated infection. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.30) among those who believed their risk of infection was very high, compared to those who believed otherwise. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was one-fifth (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.28) among those who believed their risk of falling sick was very high, compared to those who believed their risk of falling very sick was very low. The OR of vaccine hesitancy was 2.72 (95% CI: 2.24, 3.31) among those who have previously refused a vaccine for themselves or their child compared to counterparts with no self-reported history of vaccine hesitancy. Participants want the vaccines to be mandatory (40%), provided free of charge (78%) and distributed in homes and offices (44%). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is substantial among Africans based on perceived risk of coronavirus infection and past experiences.http://www.plosone.orgam2022Veterinary Tropical Disease

Will Africans take COVID-19 vaccination?

The economic and humanistic impact of COVID-19 pandemic is enormous globally. No definitive treatment exists, hence accelerated development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines, offers a unique opportunity for COVID-19 prevention and control. Vaccine hesitancy may limit the success of vaccine distribution in Africa, therefore we assessed the potentials for coronavirus vaccine hesitancy and its determinants among Africans. An online cross-sectional African-wide survey was administered in Arabic, English, and French languages. Questions on demographics, self-reported health status, vaccine literacy, knowledge and perception on vaccines, past experience, behavior, infection risk, willingness to receive and affordability of the SARS-COV-2 vaccine were asked. Data were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics. A total of 5,416 individuals completed the survey. Approximately, 94% were residents of 34 African countries while the other Africans live in the Diaspora. Only 63% of all participants surveyed were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible and 79% were worried about its side effects. Thirty-nine percent expressed concerns of vaccine-associated infection. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.30) among those who believed their risk of infection was very high, compared to those who believed otherwise. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was one-fifth (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.28) among those who believed their risk of falling sick was very high, compared to those who believed their risk of falling very sick was very low. The OR of vaccine hesitancy was 2.72 (95% CI: 2.24, 3.31) among those who have previously refused a vaccine for themselves or their child compared to counterparts with no self-reported history of vaccine hesitancy. Participants want the vaccines to be mandatory (40%), provided free of charge (78%) and distributed in homes and offices (44%). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is substantial among Africans based on perceived risk of coronavirus infection and past experiences

Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based therapy (RANGE): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Few treatments with a distinct mechanism of action are available for patients with platinum-refractory advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We assessed the efficacy and safety of treatment with docetaxel plus either ramucirumab-a human IgG1 VEGFR-2 antagonist-or placebo in this patient population

Correction: Global Occurrence and Emission of Rotaviruses to Surface Waters. Pathogens 2015, 4, 229–255

The authors wish to make the following corrections to their paper [1].[...

Global Occurrence and Emission of Rotaviruses to Surface Waters

Group A rotaviruses (RV) are the major cause of acute gastroenteritis in infants and young children globally. Waterborne transmission of RV and the presence of RV in water sources are of major public health importance. In this paper, we present the Global Waterborne Pathogen model for RV (GloWPa-Rota model) to estimate the global distribution of RV emissions to surface water. To our knowledge, this is the first model to do so. We review the literature to estimate three RV specific variables for the model: incidence, excretion rate and removal during wastewater treatment. We estimate total global RV emissions to be 2 × 1018 viral particles/grid/year, of which 87% is produced by the urban population. Hotspot regions with high RV emissions are urban areas in densely populated parts of the world, such as Bangladesh and Nigeria, while low emissions are found in rural areas in North Russia and the Australian desert. Even for industrialized regions with high population density and without tertiary treatment, such as the UK, substantial emissions are estimated. Modeling exercises like the one presented in this paper provide unique opportunities to further study these emissions to surface water, their sources and scenarios for improved management

Will Africans take COVID-19 vaccination?

The economic and humanistic impact of COVID-19 pandemic is enormous globally. No definitive treatment exists, hence accelerated development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines, offers a unique opportunity for COVID-19 prevention and control. Vaccine hesitancy may limit the success of vaccine distribution in Africa, therefore we assessed the potentials for coronavirus vaccine hesitancy and its determinants among Africans. An online cross-sectional African-wide survey was administered in Arabic, English, and French languages. Questions on demographics, self-reported health status, vaccine literacy, knowledge and perception on vaccines, past experience, behavior, infection risk, willingness to receive and affordability of the SARS-COV-2 vaccine were asked. Data were subjected to descriptive and inferential statistics. A total of 5,416 individuals completed the survey. Approximately, 94% were residents of 34 African countries while the other Africans live in the Diaspora. Only 63% of all participants surveyed were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination as soon as possible and 79% were worried about its side effects. Thirty-nine percent expressed concerns of vaccine-associated infection. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was 0.28 (95% CI: 0.22, 0.30) among those who believed their risk of infection was very high, compared to those who believed otherwise. The odds of vaccine hesitancy was one-fifth (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.28) among those who believed their risk of falling sick was very high, compared to those who believed their risk of falling very sick was very low. The OR of vaccine hesitancy was 2.72 (95% CI: 2.24, 3.31) among those who have previously refused a vaccine for themselves or their child compared to counterparts with no self-reported history of vaccine hesitancy. Participants want the vaccines to be mandatory (40%), provided free of charge (78%) and distributed in homes and offices (44%). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is substantial among Africans based on perceived risk of coronavirus infection and past experiences.</p

Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based therapy (RANGE): overall survival and updated results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background: Ramucirumab—an IgG1 vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 antagonist—plus docetaxel was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in platinum-refractory, advanced urothelial carcinoma. Here, we report the secondary endpoint of overall survival results for the RANGE trial. Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were enrolled from 124 investigative sites (hospitals, clinics, and academic centres) in 23 countries. Previous treatment with one immune checkpoint inhibitor was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive intravenous ramucirumab 10 mg/kg or placebo 10 mg/kg volume equivalent followed by intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (60 mg/m2 in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline, and visceral metastasis. Progression-free survival (the primary endpoint) and overall survival (a key secondary endpoint) were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02426125; patient enrolment is complete and the last patient on treatment is being followed up for safety issues. Findings: Between July 20, 2015, and April 4, 2017, 530 patients were randomly allocated to ramucirumab plus docetaxel (n=263) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=267) and comprised the intention-to-treat population. At database lock (March 21, 2018) for the final overall survival analysis, median follow-up was 7·4 months (IQR 3·5–13·9). In our sensitivity analysis of investigator-assessed progression-free survival at the overall survival database lock, median progression-free survival remained significantly improved with ramucirumab compared with placebo (4·1 months [95% CI 3·3–4·8] vs 2·8 months [2·6–2·9]; HR 0·696 [95% CI 0·573–0·845]; p=0·0002). Median overall survival was 9·4 months (95% CI 7·9–11·4) in the ramucirumab group versus 7·9 months (7·0–9·3) in the placebo group (stratified HR 0·887 [95% CI 0·724–1·086]; p=0·25). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in 5% or more of patients and with an incidence more than 2% higher with ramucirumab than with placebo were febrile neutropenia (24 [9%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 16 [6%] of 265 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (17 [7%] of 258 vs six [2%] of 265). Serious adverse events were similar between groups (112 [43%] of 258 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 107 [40%] of 265 patients in the placebo group). Adverse events related to study treatment and leading to death occurred in eight (3%) patients in the ramucirumab group versus five (2%) patients in the placebo group. Interpretation: Additional follow-up supports that ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improves progression-free survival, without a significant improvement in overall survival, for patients with platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. Clinically meaningful benefit might be restricted in an unselected population. Funding: Eli Lilly and Company

Characterizing prostate cancer risk through multi-ancestry genome-wide discovery of 187 novel risk variants.

The transferability and clinical value of genetic risk scores (GRSs) across populations remain limited due to an imbalance in genetic studies across ancestrally diverse populations. Here we conducted a multi-ancestry genome-wide association study of 156,319 prostate cancer cases and 788,443 controls of European, African, Asian and Hispanic men, reflecting a 57% increase in the number of non-European cases over previous prostate cancer genome-wide association studies. We identified 187 novel risk variants for prostate cancer, increasing the total number of risk variants to 451. An externally replicated multi-ancestry GRS was associated with risk that ranged from 1.8 (per standard deviation) in African ancestry men to 2.2 in European ancestry men. The GRS was associated with a greater risk of aggressive versus non-aggressive disease in men of African ancestry (P = 0.03). Our study presents novel prostate cancer susceptibility loci and a GRS with effective risk stratification across ancestry groups

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field