Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in Scottish neonates 2020-2022:a national, population-based cohort study

Objectives: To examine neonates in Scotland aged 0–27 days with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by viral testing; the risk of confirmed neonatal infection by maternal and infant characteristics; and hospital admissions associated with confirmed neonatal infections. Design: Population-based cohort study. Setting and population: All live births in Scotland, 1 March 2020–31 January 2022. Results: There were 141 neonates with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over the study period, giving an overall infection rate of 153 per 100 000 live births (141/92 009, 0.15%). Among infants born to women with confirmed infection around the time of birth, the confirmed neonatal infection rate was 1812 per 100 000 live births (15/828, 1.8%). Two-thirds (92/141, 65.2%) of neonates with confirmed infection had an associated admission to neonatal or (more commonly) paediatric care. Six of these babies (6/92, 6.5%) were admitted to neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care; however, none of these six had COVID-19 recorded as their main diagnosis. There were no neonatal deaths among babies with confirmed infection. Implications and relevance: Confirmed neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection was uncommon over the first 23 months of the pandemic in Scotland. Secular trends in the neonatal confirmed infection rate broadly followed those seen in the general population, although at a lower level. Maternal confirmed infection at birth was associated with an increased risk of neonatal confirmed infection. Two-thirds of neonates with confirmed infection had an associated admission to hospital, with resulting implications for the baby, family and services, although their outcomes were generally good. Ascertainment of confirmed infection depends on the extent of testing, and this is likely to have varied over time and between groups: the extent of unconfirmed infection is inevitably unknown

Performance of the GeneXpert Ebola Assay for Diagnosis of Ebola Virus Disease in Sierra Leone: A Field Evaluation Study

Background: Throughout the Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic in West Africa, field laboratory testing for EVD has relied on complex, multi-step real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assays; an accurate sample-to-answer RT-PCR test would reduce time to results and potentially increase access to testing. We evaluated the performance of the Cepheid GeneXpert Ebola assay on clinical venipuncture whole blood (WB) and buccal swab (BS) specimens submitted to a field biocontainment laboratory in Sierra Leone for routine EVD testing by RT-PCR (“Trombley assay”). Methods and Findings: This study was conducted in the Public Health England EVD diagnostic laboratory in Port Loko, Sierra Leone, using residual diagnostic specimens remaining after clinical testing. EDTA-WB specimens (n = 218) were collected from suspected or confirmed EVD patients between April 1 and July 20, 2015. BS specimens (n = 71) were collected as part of a national postmortem screening program between March 7 and July 20, 2015. EDTA-WB and BS specimens were tested with Xpert (targets: glycoprotein [GP] and nucleoprotein [NP] genes) and Trombley (target: NP gene) assays in parallel. All WB specimens were fresh; 84/218 were tested in duplicate on Xpert to compare WB sampling methods (pipette versus swab); 43/71 BS specimens had been previously frozen. In all, 7/218 (3.2%) WB and 7/71 (9.9%) BS samples had Xpert results that were reported as “invalid” or “error” and were excluded, leaving 211 WB and 64 BS samples with valid Trombley and Xpert results. For WB, 22/22 Trombley-positive samples were Xpert-positive (sensitivity 100%, 95% CI 84.6%–100%), and 181/189 Trombley-negative samples were Xpert-negative (specificity 95.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 91.8%–98.2%). Seven of the eight Trombley-negative, Xpert-positive (Xpert cycle threshold [Ct] range 37.7–43.4) WB samples were confirmed to be follow-up submissions from previously Trombley-positive EVD patients, suggesting a revised Xpert specificity of 99.5% (95% CI 97.0%–100%). For Xpert-positive WB samples (n = 22), Xpert NP Ct values were consistently lower than GP Ct values (mean difference −4.06, 95% limits of agreement −6.09, −2.03); Trombley (NP) Ct values closely matched Xpert NP Ct values (mean difference −0.04, 95% limits of agreement −2.93, 2.84). Xpert results (positive/negative) for WB sampled by pipette versus swab were concordant for 78/79 (98.7%) WB samples, with comparable Ct values for positive results. For BS specimens, 20/20 Trombley-positive samples were Xpert-positive (sensitivity 100%, 95% CI 83.2%–100%), and 44/44 Trombley-negative samples were Xpert-negative (specificity 100%, 95% CI 92.0%–100%). This study was limited to testing residual diagnostic samples, some of which had been frozen before use; it was not possible to test the performance of the Xpert Ebola assay at point of care. Conclusions: The Xpert Ebola assay had excellent performance compared to an established RT-PCR benchmark on WB and BS samples in a field laboratory setting. Future studies should evaluate feasibility and performance outside of a biocontainment laboratory setting to facilitate expanded access to testing

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

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

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

β-Lactam Estrogen Receptor Antagonists and a Dual-targeting Estrogen Receptor/tubulin Ligand

Twelve novel β-lactams were synthesised and their antiproliferative effects and binding affinity for the predominant isoforms of the estrogen receptor (ER), ERα and ERβ, were determined. β-Lactams 23 and 26 had the strongest binding affinities for ERα (IC50 values: 40 and 8 nM respectively) and ERβ (IC50 values: 19 and 15 nM). β-Lactam 26 was the most potent in antiproliferative assays using MCF-7 breast cancer cells, and further biochemical analysis showed that it caused accumulation of cells in G2/M phase (mitotic blockade) and depolymerisation of tubulin in MCF-7 cells. Compound 26 also induced apoptosis and downregulation of the pro-survival proteins Bcl-2 and Mcl-1. Computational modeling predicted binding preferences for the dual ER/tubulin ligand 26. This series is an important addition to the known pool of ER antagonists and β-lactam 26 is the first reported compound that has dual-targeting properties for both the ER and tubulin

The novel pyrrolo-1,5-benzoxazepine, PBOX-15, synergistically enhances the apoptotic efficacy of imatinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumours; suggested mechanism of action of PBOX-15

The C-KIT receptor tyrosine kinase is constitutively activated in the majority of gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). Imatinib (IM) a selective inhibitor of C-KIT, is indicated for the treatment of KIT-positive unresectable and/or metastatic GIST, and has tripled the survival time of patients with metastatic GIST. However, the majority of patients develop IM-resistance and progress. Although IM elicits strong antiproliferative effects, it fails to induce sufficient levels of apoptosis; acquired IM-resistance and disease recurrence remain an issue, a more effective drug treatment is greatly needed. We examined the effect of a novel microtubule-targeting agent (MTA), pyrrolo-1,5-benzoxazepine (PBOX)-15 in combination with IM on GIST cells. PBOX-15 decreased viability and in combination with IM synergistically enhanced apoptosis in both IM-sensitive and IM-resistant GIST cells, decreased the anti-apoptotic protein Mcl-1, and enhanced activation of pro-caspase-3 and PARP cleavage. The combination treatment also led to an enhanced inhibition of C-KIT-phosphorylation and inactivation of C-KIT-dependent signalling in comparison to either drug alone; CDC37, a key regulator of C-KIT in GIST was also dramatically decreased. Furthermore, PBOX-15 reduced CKII expression, an enzyme which regulates the expression of CDC37. In conclusion, our findings indicate the potential of PBOX-15 to improve the apoptotic response of IM in GIST cells and provide a more effective treatment option for GIST patients

Synthesis and Biochemical Evaluation of 3-Phenoxy-1,4-diarylazetidin-2-ones as Tubulin-Targeting Antitumor Agents

Structure-activity relationships for a series of 3-phenoxy-1,4-diarylazetidin-2-ones were investigated leading to the discovery of a number of potent antiproliferative compounds, including trans-4-(3-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenoxy-1-(3,4,5-trimethoxyphenyl)azetidin-2-one (78b) and trans-4-(3-amino-4-methoxyphenyl)-3-phenoxy-1-(3,4,5-trimethoxyphenyl)azetidin-2-one (90b). X-ray crystallography studies indicate the potential importance of the torsional angle between the 1-phenyl ‘A’ ring and 4-phenyl ‘B’ ring for potent antiproliferative activity, and that a trans configuration between the 3-phenoxy and 4-phenyl rings is generally optimal. These compounds displayed IC50 values of 38 nM and 19 nM respectively in MCF-7 breast cancer cells, inhibited the polymerization of isolated tubulin in vitro, disrupted the microtubular structure in MCF-7 cells as visualised by confocal microscopy, and caused G2/M arrest and apoptosis. Compound 90b possessed a mean GI50 value of 22 nM in the NCI60 cell line screen, displayed minimal cytotoxicity and was shown to interact at the colchicine-binding site on β-tubulin. Phosphate and amino acid prodrugs of both 78b and 90b were synthesised, of which the alanine amide 102b retained potency and is a promising candidate for further clinical development

Sensitivity and specificity of the Xpert Ebola assay versus the Trombley assay performed on clinical whole blood and buccal swab samples.

<p>Sensitivity and specificity of the Xpert Ebola assay versus the Trombley assay performed on clinical whole blood and buccal swab samples.</p