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

Growing synfire chains with triphasic spike-time-dependent plasticity

How collections of neurons combine into functional networks capable of intricate and accurate information processing is one of the biggest and most interesting challenges in neuroscience today. To approach this challenge, it is necessary to address the problem one structure at a time. In this thesis the focus is the development of synfire chains. Synfire chains are feed-forward neural structures which have long been suggested as a possible mechanism by which precisely timed sequences of neural activity could be generated. Precise spatiotemporal firing patterns are known to occur in the brains of many animals including, rats, mice, song birds, monkeys and humans. Such firing patterns have been linked with a wide range of behaviours including motor responses and sensory encoding. There have been many previous computational studies which address the development of synfire chains. However, they have all required either initial sparse connectivity or strong topological constraints in addition to any synaptic learning rules. Here, it is shown that this necessity can be removed. In this model, development is guided by an experimentally reported spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) rule, triphasic STDP, plus activity-dependent excitability. This STDP rule, which has not been previously used in computational studies, is shown to successfully develop a synfire chain in a network of binary neurons. The width and length of the final chain can be controlled through model parameters. In addition, it is possible to embed multiple chains within one neural network. Next, the effect of triphasic STDP is investigated in a network of more realistic leaky integrate and fire neurons. Here, synfire chain development is shown to be robust in the presence of heterogeneous delays. Finally, the development is described as a random walk, creating a concrete relationship between the model parameters and final network structure

Long-term effect of thymectomy plus prednisone versus prednisone alone in patients with non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis: 2-year extension of the MGTX randomised trial

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Background: The Thymectomy Trial in Non-Thymomatous Myasthenia Gravis Patients Receiving Prednisone (MGTX) showed that thymectomy combined with prednisone was superior to prednisone alone in improving clinical status as measured by the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) score in patients with generalised non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis at 3 years. We investigated the long-term effects of thymectomy up to 5 years on clinical status, medication requirements, and adverse events. Methods: We did a rater-blinded 2-year extension study at 36 centres in 15 countries for all patients who completed the randomised controlled MGTX and were willing to participate. MGTX patients were aged 18 to 65 years at enrolment, had generalised non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis of less than 5 years\u27 duration, had acetylcholine receptor antibody titres of 1·00 nmol/L or higher (or concentrations of 0·50–0·99 nmol/L if diagnosis was confirmed by positive edrophonium or abnormal repetitive nerve stimulation, or abnormal single fibre electromyography), had Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America Clinical Classification Class II–IV disease, and were on optimal anticholinesterase therapy with or without oral corticosteroids. In MGTX, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either thymectomy plus prednisone or prednisone alone. All patients in both groups received oral prednisone at doses titrated up to 100 mg on alternate days until they achieved minimal manifestation status. The primary endpoints of the extension phase were the time-weighted means of the QMG score and alternate-day prednisone dose from month 0 to month 60. Analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00294658. It is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed. Findings: Of the 111 patients who completed the 3-year MGTX, 68 (61%) entered the extension study between Sept 1, 2009, and Aug 26, 2015 (33 in the prednisone alone group and 35 in the prednisone plus thymectomy group). 50 (74%) patients completed the 60-month assessment, 24 in the prednisone alone group and 26 in the prednisone plus thymectomy group. At 5 years, patients in the thymectomy plus prednisone group had significantly lower time-weighted mean QMG scores (5·47 [SD 3·87] vs 9·34 [5·08]; p=0·0007) and mean alternate-day prednisone doses (24 mg [SD 21] vs 48 mg [29]; p=0·0002) than did those in the prednisone alone group. 14 (42%) of 33 patients in the prednisone group, and 12 (34%) of 35 in the thymectomy plus prednisone group, had at least one adverse event by month 60. No treatment-related deaths were reported during the extension phase. Interpretation: At 5 years, thymectomy plus prednisone continues to confer benefits in patients with generalised non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis compared with prednisone alone. Although caution is appropriate when generalising our findings because of the small sample size of our study, they nevertheless provide further support for the benefits of thymectomy in patients with generalised non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis. Funding: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke