The polymorphism of 2-benzoyl-N,N-diethylbenzamide

The crystal structures of two new polymorphs of 2-benzoyl-N,N-diethylbenzamide were obtained after recrystallization trials with different solvents. The new forms II and III were monoclinic and crystallized in the same space group with similar a, b and c lengths but different β angles. The forms had no conformation differences within themselves; however, the long-range packing (> two unit cells) was not isostructural. In comparison with the previously published crystal structure, form I, different conformations and packing arrangements were observed. The new form II was thermally characterized and stable at room temperature, when heated up to its melting point and when cooled to −170 °C. Additionally, once form II was re-heated, a fourth form is observed after a phase transition from the monoclinic to the orthorhombic crystal systems, form IV

Aqueous solubility of organic salts. Investigating trends in a systematic series of 51 crystalline salt forms of methylephedrine

A dataset consisting of structures and aqueous solubility and melting point data for 51 salt forms of the phenylethylamine base methylephedrine is presented. Analysis showed correlation between solubility and melting point and between melting point of the salt and melting point of the parent acid, but no correlation of salt solubility with solubility of the parent acid. Identification of associations was aided by examining chemically sensible subgroups of the dataset, and this approach highlighted significantly different relationships between solubility and melting point for these subgroups. Thus, for example, the expected negative correlation between solubility and melting point was found for 24 anhydrous benzoate salts, but a positive correlation observed for 8 halide salts. Hydrated forms were anomalous. Packing analysis identified groups of structures that were isostructural with respect to cation packing. Correlation between solubility and melting point was found to be greatest within these isostructural groups, implying a role for packing structure in determining solubility

Características da oferta de contracepção de emergência na rede básica de saúde do Recife, Nordeste do Brasil

The aim of the study was to describe the use of emergency contraception (EC) in Family Health Units in Recife between March and September, 2011. The questionnaire was answered by 234 professionals, 154 nurses and 80 physicians selected by random sampling in 117 USF. Almost all professionals (90.6%) reported availability of EC in Family Health Unit; physicians and/or nurse were the main prescribers (73.9%); 27.4% knew the distribution strategy by “women’s health kit”. Although 85.0% of professionals have already prescribed the EC, only 8.5% considered the EC as a woman’s right. The majority (80.7%) understand the Family Planning manual of the Ministry of Health and about half (51.2%) understand the Reproductive Rights manual of the municipality’s manual. 51.3% knew the EC action mechanism and 77.4% usually inform women about EC. Among those who do not explain about EC, the main reasons were: “lack of opportunity” (10.0%) for physicians and “to avoid becoming routine” (6.5%) for nurses. Half of the professionals (50.0%) reported prescribing in three recommended situations (unprotected intercourse, rape and failure of contraceptive methodin use) and 65.8% agree that religion interfere in the decision of the prescription/advice. Health professionals have demonstrated sufficient technical knowledge to prescribe EC, but do not recognize it as a right of women. Also, they consider that the influence of religion may interfere with the decision of prescribing and with the use of EC by women.O objetivo do estudo foi descrever as características da utilização da contracepção de emergência (CE) em unidades de saúde da família (USF) da cidade do Recife entre março e setembro de 2011. O questionário foi respondido por 234 profissionais, 154 enfermeiros e 80 médicos selecionados por amostragem aleatória em 117 USF. Quase todos os profissionais (90,6%) informaram disponibilidade da CE na USF; médico e/ou enfermeiro foram os principais dispensadores (73,9%) e 27,4% conheciam a estratégia de distribuição através do “kit saúde da mulher”. Apesar de 85,0% dos profissionais já terem prescrito a CE, apenas 8,5% a consideram como direito da mulher. A maioria (80,7%) conhecia o manual de Planejamento Familiar do Ministério da Saúde e cerca de metade (51,2%) conhecia o manual de Direitos Reprodutivos do município. Entre os entrevistados, 51,3% conheciam o correto mecanismo de ação e 77,4% costumam informar às mulheres sobre CE. Os principais motivos para não informar foram: “falta de oportunidade” (10,0%) para os médicos e “para evitar que se tornem rotina” (6,5%) para os enfermeiros. Metade dos profissionais (50,0%) informaram prescrever nas três situações preconizadas (relação desprotegida, estupro e falha do método contraceptivo em uso) e 65,8% concordam que a religião interfere na decisão da prescrição/orientação. Os profissionais de saúde demonstraram ter conhecimento técnico suficiente para prescrever a CE, porém não a reconhecem como um direito das mulheres. Além disso, consideram que a influência religiosa pode interferir na decisão da prescrição e no uso da CE pelas mulheres

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