How Is Energy Justice Built Into Community Choice Aggregation? A Comparative Case Study of the Lowell Community Choice Power Supply Program and Cape Light Compact, Massachusetts

Community Choice Aggregation represents a potential opportunity to meet climate change mitigation aims through bulk buying renewable energy, but there remain challenges to deliver energy justice for low income communities. This thesis researched how two CCA programs - the Lowell Community Choice Power Supply Program and the Cape Light Compact - are building energy justice into their mission and activities. Archival research was conducted and eleven in-person interviews took place with experts, advocates and practitioners across the two CCA programs. Questions centered around five energy justice themes - community control, community ownership, local green jobs, low income assistance, and the tension between 100% renewable energy and energy justice - corresponding to the three tenets of energy justice: 1) procedural justice; 2) distributive justice and 3) recognition justice. Research findings highlighted key structural differences between the two programs that enabled differing levels of support for low income communities. While the Lowell program was able to negotiate much lower prices for customers, there remains little in the way of low income support, and the decision-making process seemingly lacked inclusion and authentic participation. The Cape program in contrast has taken the Mass Save energy efficiency program in-house, creating a comprehensive entity that arguably goes further in meeting the needs of the community. These research findings highlight the tools available for other future CCAs in Massachusetts looking to further energy justice

Nebulised interferon-β1a (SNG001) in hospitalised COVID-19: SPRINTER phase III study

Background Despite the availability of vaccines and therapies, patients are being hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Interferon (IFN)-β is a naturally occurring protein that stimulates host immune responses against most viruses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. SNG001 is a recombinant IFN-β1a formulation delivered to the lungs via nebuliser. SPRINTER assessed the efficacy and safety of SNG001 in adults hospitalised due to COVID-19 who required oxygen via nasal prongs or mask. Methods Patients were randomised double-blind to SNG001 (n=309) or placebo (n=314) once daily for 14 days plus standard of care (SoC). The primary objective was to evaluate recovery after administration of SNG001 versus placebo, in terms of times to hospital discharge and recovery to no limitation of activity. Key secondary end-points were progression to severe disease or death, progression to intubation or death and death. Results Median time to hospital discharge was 7.0 and 8.0 days with SNG001 and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio (HR) 1.06 (95% CI 0.89–1.27); p=0.51); time to recovery was 25.0 days in both groups (HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.81–1.28); p=0.89). There were no significant SNG001–placebo differences for the key secondary end-points, with a 25.7% relative risk reduction in progression to severe disease or death (10.7% and 14.4%, respectively; OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.44–1.15); p=0.161). Serious adverse events were reported by 12.6% and 18.2% patients with SNG001 and placebo, respectively. Conclusions Although the primary objective of the study was not met, SNG001 had a favourable safety profile, and the key secondary end-points analysis suggested that SNG001 may have prevented progression to severe disease

Safety and efficacy of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection carries a substantial risk of severe and prolonged illness; treatment options are currently limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of inhaled nebulised interferon beta-1a (SNG001) for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 pilot trial at nine UK sites. Adults aged 18 years or older and admitted to hospital with COVID-19 symptoms, with a positive RT-PCR or point-of-care test, or both, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive SNG001 (6 MIU) or placebo by inhalation via a mouthpiece daily for 14 days. The primary outcome was the change in clinical condition on the WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI) during the dosing period in the intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients who received at least one dose of the study drug). The OSCI is a 9-point scale, where 0 corresponds to no infection and 8 corresponds to death. Multiple analyses were done to identify the most suitable statistical method for future clinical trials. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events for 28 days. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrialsregister.eu (2020-001023-14) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04385095); the pilot trial of inpatients with COVID-19 is now completed. Findings: Between March 30 and May 30, 2020, 101 patients were randomly assigned to SNG001 (n=50) or placebo (n=51). 48 received SNG001 and 50 received placebo and were included in the intention-to-treat population. 66 (67%) patients required oxygen supplementation at baseline: 29 in the placebo group and 37 in the SNG001 group. Patients receiving SNG001 had greater odds of improvement on the OSCI scale (odds ratio 2·32 [95% CI 1·07–5·04]; p=0·033) on day 15 or 16 and were more likely than those receiving placebo to recover to an OSCI score of 1 (no limitation of activities) during treatment (hazard ratio 2·19 [95% CI 1·03–4·69]; p=0·043). SNG001 was well tolerated. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event was headache (seven [15%] patients in the SNG001 group and five [10%] in the placebo group). There were three deaths in the placebo group and none in the SNG001 group.Interpretation: Patients who received SNG001 had greater odds of improvement and recovered more rapidly from SARS-CoV-2 infection than patients who received placebo, providing a strong rationale for further trials. Funding: Synairgen Research.</p