Growth, yield and phenology of 2 hybrid papayas (Carica papaya L.) as influenced by method of water application

Highly variable, outcrossed papaya lines irrigated with overhead sprinklers were grown at Yarwun (151.3˚E, 23.75˚S) in Queensland, Australia. The inherent variability made scientifically based comparative studies impractical. The advent of uniform hybrid papaya lines allowed the testing of 2 of these hybrids under 3 irrigation methods, 2 of which had the potential to greatly reduce water use compared with overhead sprinklers. Yields of 92 t/ha.year were achieved by both papaya Hybrids 29 and 1E. Water application method did not influence yield. About 26% of plants were lost due to the phytoplasma diseases dieback, yellow crinkle and mosaic over the life of the trial. Downward yield fluctuations were related to poor fruit set in winter when pollinators (Family Sphingidae) were not present and growth was slow due to hot dry periods affecting fruit set. The resultant fruit (about 6 months later) were small and reduced in number. Irrigation with overhead sprinklers using saline water (1400–4000 S/cm) damaged leaves and reduced growth of plants. Winter spot was most severe in July, August and September, in Hybrid 29 with overhead irrigation. Height of plants 13 weeks after planting was greater under trickle irrigation due to less damage from the saline water supply than in the overhead sprinkler treatment. Hybrid 29 set fruit at 94.3 cm above ground compared with 117.6 cm for Hybrid 1E

Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND. Patients with acute myocardial infarction who were treated with accelerated tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) (given over a period of 1 1/2 hours rather than the conventional 3 hours, and with two thirds of the dose given in the first 30 minutes) had a 30-day mortality that was 15 percent lower than that of pati

Sustained ventricular arrhythmias among patients with acute coronary syndromes with no ST-segment elevation: incidence, predictors, and outcomes

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of ventricular arrhythmias among patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes is unknown. We studied the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of sustained ventricular arrhythmias in 4 large randomized trials of such patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled the datasets of the Global Use of Streptokinase and tPA for Occluded Arteries (GUSTO)-IIb, Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy (PURSUIT), Platelet IIb/IIIa Antagonism for the Reduction of Acute Coronary Syndrome Events in a Global Organization Network (PARAGON)-A, and PARAGON-B trials (n=26 416). We identified independent predictors of ventricular fibrillation (VF) and ventricular tachycardia (VT) and compared the 30-day and 6-month mortality rates of patients who did (n=552) and did not (n=25 864) develop these arrhythmias during the index hospitalization. Independent predictors of in-hospital VF included prior hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, prior myocardial infarction, and ST-segment changes at presentation. Except for hypertension, these variables also independently predicted in-hospital VT. In Cox proportional-hazards modeling, in-hospital VF and VT were independently associated with 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 23.2 [95% CI, 18.1 to 29.8] for VF and HR, 7.6 [95% CI, 5.5 to 10.4] for VT) and 6-month mortality (HR, 14.8 [95% CI, 12.1 to 18.3] for VF and HR, 5.0 [95% CI, 3.8 to 6.5] for VT). These differences remained significant after excluding patients with heart failure or cardiogenic shock and those who died <24 hours after enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of effective therapies for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes, ventricular arrhythmias in this setting are associated with increased 30-day and 6-month mortality. More effective therapies are needed to improve the survival of patients with these arrhythmias

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