Adult Rat Bones Maintain Distinct Regionalized Expression of Markers Associated with Their Development

The incidence of limb bone fracture and subsequent morbidity and mortality due to excessive bone loss is increasing in the progressively ageing populations of both men and women. In contrast to bone loss in the weight-bearing limb, bone mass in the protective skull vault is maintained. One explanation for this could be anatomically diverse bone matrix characteristics generated by heterogeneous osteoblast populations. We have tested the hypothesis that adult bones demonstrate site-specific characteristics, and report differences at the organ, cell and transcriptome levels. Limb bones contain greater amounts of polysulphated glycosaminoglycan stained with Alcian Blue and have significantly higher osteocyte densities than skull bone. Site-specific patterns persist in cultured adult bone-derived cells both phenotypically (proliferation rate, response to estrogen and cell volumes), and at the level of specific gene expression (collagen triple helix repeat containing 1, reelin and ras-like and estrogen-regulated growth inhibitor). Based on genome-wide mRNA expression and cluster analysis, we demonstrate that bones and cultured adult bone-derived cells segregate according to site of derivation. We also find the differential expression of genes associated with embryological development (Skull: Zic, Dlx, Irx, Twist1 and Cart1; Limb: Hox, Shox2, and Tbx genes) in both adult bones and isolated adult bone-derived cells. Together, these site-specific differences support the view that, analogous to different muscle types (cardiac, smooth and skeletal), skull and limb bones represent separate classes of bone. We assign these differences, not to mode of primary ossification, but to the embryological cell lineage; the basis and implications of this division are discussed

Does Reproductive Justice Demand Insurance Coverage for IVF?

This paper comes out of a panel honoring the work of Anne Donchin (1940-2014), which took place at the 2016 Congress of the International Network on Feminist Approaches to Bioethics (FAB) in Edinburgh. My general aim is to highlight the contributions Anne made to feminist bioethics, and to feminist reproductive ethics in particular. My more specific aim, however, is to have a kind of conversation with Anne, through her work, about whether reproductive justice could demand insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization. I quote liberally from Anne’s work for this purpose, but also to shower the reader with her words, reminding those of us who knew her well what a wonderful colleague she was

Genetic selection for fast growth generates bone architecture characterised by enhanced periosteal expansion and limited consolidation of the cortices but a diminution in the early responses to mechanical loading.

International audienceBone strength is, in part, dependent on a mechanical input that regulates the (re)modelling of skeletal elements to an appropriate size and architecture to resist fracture during habitual use. The rate of longitudinal bone growth in juveniles can also affect fracture incidence in adulthood, suggesting an influence of growth rate on later bone quality. We have compared the effects of fast and slow growth on bone strength and architecture in the tibiotarsi of embryonic and juvenile birds. The loading-related biochemical responses (intracellular G6PD activity and NO release) to mechanical load were also determined. Further, we have analysed the proliferation and differentiation characteristics of primary tibiotarsal osteoblasts from fast and slow-growing strains. We found that bones from chicks with divergent growth rates display equal resistance to applied loads, but weight-correction revealed that the bones from juvenile fast growth birds are weaker, with reduced stiffness and lower resistance to fracture. Primary osteoblasts from slow-growing juvenile birds proliferated more rapidly and had lower alkaline phosphatase activity. Bones from fast-growing embryonic chicks display rapid radial expansion and incomplete osteonal infilling but, importantly, lack mechanical responsiveness. These findings are further evidence that the ability to respond to mechanical inputs is crucial to adapt skeletal architecture to generate a functionally appropriate bone structure and that fast embryonic and juvenile growth rates may predispose bone to particular architectures with increased fragility in the adult. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Comorbidities and the referral pathway to access joint replacement surgery: an exploratory qualitative study

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North Thames (CLAHRC) at Barts Health NHS Trust

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