Queen Elizabeth University Hospital

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: 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: =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.

A concerted effort to tackle the global health problem posed by traumatic brain injury (TBI) is long overdue. TBI is a public health challenge of vast, but insufficiently recognised, proportions. Worldwide, more than 50 million people have a TBI each year, and it is estimated that about half the world's population will have one or more TBIs over their lifetime. TBI is the leading cause of mortality in young adults and a major cause of death and disability across all ages in all countries, with a disproportionate burden of disability and death occurring in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). It has been estimated that TBI costs the global economy approximately $US400 billion annually. Deficiencies in prevention, care, and research urgently need to be addressed to reduce the huge burden and societal costs of TBI. This Commission highlights priorities and provides expert recommendations for all stakeholders—policy makers, funders, health-care professionals, researchers, and patient representatives—on clinical and research strategies to reduce this growing public health problem and improve the lives of people with TBI.

The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, caused by SARS-CoV-2, represents the greatest medical challenge in decades. We provide a comprehensive review of the clinical course of COVID-19, its comorbidities, and mechanistic considerations for future therapies. While COVID-19 primarily affects the lungs, causing interstitial pneumonitis and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), it also affects multiple organs, particularly the cardiovascular system. Risk of severe infection and mortality increase with advancing age and male sex. Mortality is increased by comorbidities: cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, chronic pulmonary disease, and cancer. The most common complications include arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachyarrhythmia, and ventricular fibrillation), cardiac injury [elevated highly sensitive troponin I (hs-cTnI) and creatine kinase (CK) levels], fulminant myocarditis, heart failure, pulmonary embolism, and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Mechanistically, SARS-CoV-2, following proteolytic cleavage of its S protein by a serine protease, binds to the transmembrane angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) -a homologue of ACE-to enter type 2 pneumocytes, macrophages, perivascular pericytes, and cardiomyocytes. This may lead to myocardial dysfunction and damage, endothelial dysfunction, microvascular dysfunction, plaque instability, and myocardial infarction (MI). While ACE2 is essential for viral invasion, there is no evidence that ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) worsen prognosis. Hence, patients should not discontinue their use. Moreover, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors might be beneficial in COVID-19. Initial immune and inflammatory responses induce a severe cytokine storm [interleukin (IL)-6, IL-7, IL-22, IL-17, etc.] during the rapid progression phase of COVID-19. Early evaluation and continued monitoring of cardiac damage (cTnI and NT-proBNP) and coagulation (D-dimer) after hospitalization may identify patients with cardiac injury and predict COVID-19 complications. Preventive measures (social distancing and social isolation) also increase cardiovascular risk. Cardiovascular considerations of therapies currently used, including remdesivir, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, ribavirin, interferons, and lopinavir/ritonavir, as well as experimental therapies, such as human recombinant ACE2 (rhACE2), are discussed.

BACKGROUND: Viral load kinetics and duration of viral shedding are important determinants for disease transmission. We aimed to characterise viral load dynamics, duration of viral RNA shedding, and viable virus shedding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in various body fluids, and to compare SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) viral dynamics. METHODS: , and the grey literature, for research articles published between Jan 1, 2003, and June 6, 2020. We included case series (with five or more participants), cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials that reported SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, or MERS-CoV infection, and reported viral load kinetics, duration of viral shedding, or viable virus. Two authors independently extracted data from published studies, or contacted authors to request data, and assessed study quality and risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist tools. We calculated the mean duration of viral shedding and 95% CIs for every study included and applied the random-effects model to estimate a pooled effect size. We used a weighted meta-regression with an unrestricted maximum likelihood model to assess the effect of potential moderators on the pooled effect size. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020181914. FINDINGS: 79 studies (5340 individuals) on SARS-CoV-2, eight studies (1858 individuals) on SARS-CoV, and 11 studies (799 individuals) on MERS-CoV were included. Mean duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding was 17·0 days (95% CI 15·5-18·6; 43 studies, 3229 individuals) in upper respiratory tract, 14·6 days (9·3-20·0; seven studies, 260 individuals) in lower respiratory tract, 17·2 days (14·4-20·1; 13 studies, 586 individuals) in stool, and 16·6 days (3·6-29·7; two studies, 108 individuals) in serum samples. Maximum shedding duration was 83 days in the upper respiratory tract, 59 days in the lower respiratory tract, 126 days in stools, and 60 days in serum. Pooled mean SARS-CoV-2 shedding duration was positively associated with age (slope 0·304 [95% CI 0·115-0·493]; p=0·0016). No study detected live virus beyond day 9 of illness, despite persistently high viral loads, which were inferred from cycle threshold values. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract appeared to peak in the first week of illness, whereas that of SARS-CoV peaked at days 10-14 and that of MERS-CoV peaked at days 7-10. INTERPRETATION: Although SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool samples can be prolonged, duration of viable virus is relatively short-lived. SARS-CoV-2 titres in the upper respiratory tract peak in the first week of illness. Early case finding and isolation, and public education on the spectrum of illness and period of infectiousness are key to the effective containment of SARS-CoV-2. FUNDING: None.

Abstract The global supply of COVID-19 vaccines remains limited. An understanding of the immune response that is predictive of protection could facilitate rapid licensure of new vaccines. Data from a randomized efficacy trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in the United Kingdom was analyzed to determine the antibody levels associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2. Binding and neutralizing antibodies at 28 days after the second dose were measured in infected and noninfected vaccine recipients. Higher levels of all immune markers were correlated with a reduced risk of symptomatic infection. A vaccine efficacy of 80% against symptomatic infection with majority Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of SARS-CoV-2 was achieved with 264 (95% CI: 108, 806) binding antibody units (BAU)/ml: and 506 (95% CI: 135, not computed (beyond data range) (NC)) BAU/ml for anti-spike and anti-RBD antibodies, and 26 (95% CI: NC, NC) international unit (IU)/ml and 247 (95% CI: 101, NC) normalized neutralization titers (NF 50 ) for pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization, respectively. Immune markers were not correlated with asymptomatic infections at the 5% significance level. These data can be used to bridge to new populations using validated assays, and allow extrapolation of efficacy estimates to new COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Abstract The genetic make-up of an individual contributes to the susceptibility and response to viral infection. Although environmental, clinical and social factors have a role in the chance of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of COVID-19 1,2 , host genetics may also be important. Identifying host-specific genetic factors may reveal biological mechanisms of therapeutic relevance and clarify causal relationships of modifiable environmental risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes. We formed a global network of researchers to investigate the role of human genetics in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Here we describe the results of three genome-wide association meta-analyses that consist of up to 49,562 patients with COVID-19 from 46 studies across 19 countries. We report 13 genome-wide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19. Several of these loci correspond to previously documented associations to lung or autoimmune and inflammatory diseases 3–7 . They also represent potentially actionable mechanisms in response to infection. Mendelian randomization analyses support a causal role for smoking and body-mass index for severe COVID-19 although not for type II diabetes. The identification of novel host genetic factors associated with COVID-19 was made possible by the community of human genetics researchers coming together to prioritize the sharing of data, results, resources and analytical frameworks. This working model of international collaboration underscores what is possible for future genetic discoveries in emerging pandemics, or indeed for any complex human disease.

Abstract Objective To develop and validate a pragmatic risk score to predict mortality in patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Prospective observational cohort study. Setting International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study (performed by the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium—ISARIC-4C) in 260 hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Model training was performed on a cohort of patients recruited between 6 February and 20 May 2020, with validation conducted on a second cohort of patients recruited after model development between 21 May and 29 June 2020 . Participants Adults (age ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with covid-19 at least four weeks before final data extraction. Main outcome measure In-hospital mortality. Results 35 463 patients were included in the derivation dataset (mortality rate 32.2%) and 22 361 in the validation dataset (mortality rate 30.1%). The final 4C Mortality Score included eight variables readily available at initial hospital assessment: age, sex, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, level of consciousness, urea level, and C reactive protein (score range 0-21 points). The 4C Score showed high discrimination for mortality (derivation cohort: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.79; validation cohort: 0.77, 0.76 to 0.77) with excellent calibration (validation: calibration-in-the-large=0, slope=1.0). Patients with a score of at least 15 (n=4158, 19%) had a 62% mortality (positive predictive value 62%) compared with 1% mortality for those with a score of 3 or less (n=1650, 7%; negative predictive value 99%). Discriminatory performance was higher than 15 pre-existing risk stratification scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve range 0.61-0.76), with scores developed in other covid-19 cohorts often performing poorly (range 0.63-0.73). Conclusions An easy-to-use risk stratification score has been developed and validated based on commonly available parameters at hospital presentation. The 4C Mortality Score outperformed existing scores, showed utility to directly inform clinical decision making, and can be used to stratify patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 into different management groups. The score should be further validated to determine its applicability in other populations. Study registration ISRCTN66726260

Background and Purpose- Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has a poorer prognosis than acute ischemic stroke (AIS). However, clinician perception of prognosis may influence treatment decisions and adversely affect outcome. On acute CT, the conspicuity of ICH compared with AIS may lead clinicians to overestimate severity and influence prognostic evaluation. We investigated whether clinicians' estimates of volume, severity, and prognosis from acute imaging differed between ICH and AIS. Methods- CT scans from participants with acute ICH or ischemic stroke were reviewed. Volume was calculated using the ABC/2 method and automated volumetric analysis via specialized imaging software. ICH cases were matched with AIS cases for lesion volume, based on acute (<6 hours) CT for ICH, and 24-hour CT for AIS. Blind to clinical information, clinicians estimated lesion volume to the nearest 5 mL, graded lesion severity from 1 (mild) to 5 (very severe), and estimated 30-day prognosis using the modified Rankin Scale. Results- We compared 33 ICH cases with 33 volume-matched AIS cases. Clinicians overestimated ICH volume and underestimated AIS volumes: mean differences (estimated-actual volume) were +8 mL (±30) for ICH and -8 mL (±27) for AIS ( P<0.001). Observers rated ICH to be of greater severity and poorer prognosis compared with AIS cases: 109 of 265 (41%) ICH cases rated severity categories 4 or 5 compared with 36 of 257 (14%) AIS, P<0.001; estimated modified Rankin Scale of 0 to 2 in 125 of 265 (47%) ICH compared with 190 of 257 (74%) AIS, P<0.001. Results were unaffected by presence of intraventricular blood. Estimated severity and prognosis for ICH remained significantly worse compared with AIS after adjustment for estimated volumes. Conclusions- Clinicians overestimated ICH volume and severity compared with AIS of equivalent volume and also assigned significantly worse prognosis independent of volume estimates.

BACKGROUND: Embolic strokes of undetermined source represent 20% of ischemic strokes and are associated with a high rate of recurrence. Anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, may result in a lower risk of recurrent stroke than aspirin. METHODS: We compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban (at a daily dose of 15 mg) with aspirin (at a daily dose of 100 mg) for the prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with recent ischemic stroke that was presumed to be from cerebral embolism but without arterial stenosis, lacune, or an identified cardioembolic source. The primary efficacy outcome was the first recurrence of ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism in a time-to-event analysis; the primary safety outcome was the rate of major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 7213 participants were enrolled at 459 sites; 3609 patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban and 3604 to receive aspirin. Patients had been followed for a median of 11 months when the trial was terminated early because of a lack of benefit with regard to stroke risk and because of bleeding associated with rivaroxaban. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 172 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 5.1%) and in 160 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.8%) (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.33; P=0.52). Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 158 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 4.7%) and in 156 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 4.7%). Major bleeding occurred in 62 patients in the rivaroxaban group (annualized rate, 1.8%) and in 23 in the aspirin group (annualized rate, 0.7%) (hazard ratio, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.68 to 4.39; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was not superior to aspirin with regard to the prevention of recurrent stroke after an initial embolic stroke of undetermined source and was associated with a higher risk of bleeding. (Funded by Bayer and Janssen Research and Development; NAVIGATE ESUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02313909 .).

BACKGROUND: The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. METHODS: We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. RESULTS: Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of -1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, -5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927 .).

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegeneration characterized by the abnormal accumulation of hyperphosphorylated tau protein within the brain. Like many other neurodegenerative conditions, at present, CTE can only be definitively diagnosed by post-mortem examination of brain tissue. As the first part of a series of consensus panels funded by the NINDS/NIBIB to define the neuropathological criteria for CTE, preliminary neuropathological criteria were used by 7 neuropathologists to blindly evaluate 25 cases of various tauopathies, including CTE, Alzheimer's disease, progressive supranuclear palsy, argyrophilic grain disease, corticobasal degeneration, primary age-related tauopathy, and parkinsonism dementia complex of Guam. The results demonstrated that there was good agreement among the neuropathologists who reviewed the cases (Cohen's kappa, 0.67) and even better agreement between reviewers and the diagnosis of CTE (Cohen's kappa, 0.78). Based on these results, the panel defined the pathognomonic lesion of CTE as an accumulation of abnormal hyperphosphorylated tau (p-tau) in neurons and astroglia distributed around small blood vessels at the depths of cortical sulci and in an irregular pattern. The group also defined supportive but non-specific p-tau-immunoreactive features of CTE as: pretangles and NFTs affecting superficial layers (layers II-III) of cerebral cortex; pretangles, NFTs or extracellular tangles in CA2 and pretangles and proximal dendritic swellings in CA4 of the hippocampus; neuronal and astrocytic aggregates in subcortical nuclei; thorn-shaped astrocytes at the glial limitans of the subpial and periventricular regions; and large grain-like and dot-like structures. Supportive non-p-tau pathologies include TDP-43 immunoreactive neuronal cytoplasmic inclusions and dot-like structures in the hippocampus, anteromedial temporal cortex and amygdala. The panel also recommended a minimum blocking and staining scheme for pathological evaluation and made recommendations for future study. This study provides the first step towards the development of validated neuropathological criteria for CTE and will pave the way towards future clinical and mechanistic studies.

INTRODUCTION: The development of reporting guidelines over the past 20 years represents a major advance in scholarly publishing with recent evidence showing positive impacts. Whilst over 350 reporting guidelines exist, there are few that are specific to surgery. Here we describe the development of the STROCSS guideline (Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We published our protocol apriori. Current guidelines for case series (PROCESS), cohort studies (STROBE) and randomised controlled trials (CONSORT) were analysed to compile a list of items which were used as baseline material for developing a suitable checklist for surgical cohort guidelines. These were then put forward in a Delphi consensus exercise to an expert panel of 74 surgeons and academics via Google Forms. RESULTS: The Delphi exercise was completed by 62% (46/74) of the participants. All the items were passed in a single round to create a STROCSS guideline consisting of 17 items. CONCLUSION: We present the STROCSS guideline for surgical cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies consisting of a 17-item checklist. We hope its use will increase the transparency and reporting quality of such studies. This guideline is also suitable for cross-sectional and case control studies. We encourage authors, reviewers, journal editors and publishers to adopt these guidelines.

PURPOSE: We recently reported that the mRNA-based, 21-gene Genomic Health recurrence score (GHI-RS) provided additional prognostic information regarding distant recurrence beyond that obtained from classical clinicopathologic factors (age, nodal status, tumor size, grade, endocrine treatment) in women with early breast cancer, confirming earlier reports. The aim of this article is to determine how much of this information is contained in standard immunohistochemical (IHC) markers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary cohort comprised 1,125 estrogen receptor-positive (ER-positive) patients from the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, had the GHI-RS computed, and had adequate tissue for the four IHC measurements: ER, progesterone receptor (PgR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and Ki-67. Distant recurrence was the primary end point, and proportional hazards models were used with sample splitting to control for overfitting. A prognostic model that used classical variables and the four IHC markers (IHC4 score) was created and assessed in a separate cohort of 786 patients. RESULTS: All four IHC markers provided independent prognostic information in the presence of classical variables. In sample-splitting analyses, the information in the IHC4 score was found to be similar to that in the GHI-RS, and little additional prognostic value was seen in the combined use of both scores. The prognostic value of the IHC4 score was further validated in the second separate cohort. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the amount of prognostic information contained in four widely performed IHC assays is similar to that in the GHI-RS. Additional studies are needed to determine the general applicability of the IHC4 score.

A complete understanding of how exposure to environmental substances promotes cancer formation is lacking. More than 70 years ago, tumorigenesis was proposed to occur in a two-step process: an initiating step that induces mutations in healthy cells, followed by a promoter step that triggers cancer development1. Here we propose that environmental particulate matter measuring ≤2.5 μm (PM2.5), known to be associated with lung cancer risk, promotes lung cancer by acting on cells that harbour pre-existing oncogenic mutations in healthy lung tissue. Focusing on EGFR-driven lung cancer, which is more common in never-smokers or light smokers, we found a significant association between PM2.5 levels and the incidence of lung cancer for 32,957 EGFR-driven lung cancer cases in four within-country cohorts. Functional mouse models revealed that air pollutants cause an influx of macrophages into the lung and release of interleukin-1β. This process results in a progenitor-like cell state within EGFR mutant lung alveolar type II epithelial cells that fuels tumorigenesis. Ultradeep mutational profiling of histologically normal lung tissue from 295 individuals across 3 clinical cohorts revealed oncogenic EGFR and KRAS driver mutations in 18% and 53% of healthy tissue samples, respectively. These findings collectively support a tumour-promoting role for PM2.5 air pollutants and provide impetus for public health policy initiatives to address air pollution to reduce disease burden. Combination of epidemiology, preclinical models and ultradeep DNA profiling of clinical cohorts unpicks the inflammatory mechanism by which air pollution promotes lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Fetal structural anomalies, which are detected by ultrasonography, have a range of genetic causes, including chromosomal aneuploidy, copy number variations (CNVs; which are detectable by chromosomal microarrays), and pathogenic sequence variants in developmental genes. Testing for aneuploidy and CNVs is routine during the investigation of fetal structural anomalies, but there is little information on the clinical usefulness of genome-wide next-generation sequencing in the prenatal setting. We therefore aimed to evaluate the proportion of fetuses with structural abnormalities that had identifiable variants in genes associated with developmental disorders when assessed with whole-exome sequencing (WES). METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, two groups in Birmingham and London recruited patients from 34 fetal medicine units in England and Scotland. We used whole-exome sequencing (WES) to evaluate the presence of genetic variants in developmental disorder genes (diagnostic genetic variants) in a cohort of fetuses with structural anomalies and samples from their parents, after exclusion of aneuploidy and large CNVs. Women were eligible for inclusion if they were undergoing invasive testing for identified nuchal translucency or structural anomalies in their fetus, as detected by ultrasound after 11 weeks of gestation. The partners of these women also had to consent to participate. Sequencing results were interpreted with a targeted virtual gene panel for developmental disorders that comprised 1628 genes. Genetic results related to fetal structural anomaly phenotypes were then validated and reported postnatally. The primary endpoint, which was assessed in all fetuses, was the detection of diagnostic genetic variants considered to have caused the fetal developmental anomaly. FINDINGS: The cohort was recruited between Oct 22, 2014, and June 29, 2017, and clinical data were collected until March 31, 2018. After exclusion of fetuses with aneuploidy and CNVs, 610 fetuses with structural anomalies and 1202 matched parental samples (analysed as 596 fetus-parental trios, including two sets of twins, and 14 fetus-parent dyads) were analysed by WES. After bioinformatic filtering and prioritisation according to allele frequency and effect on protein and inheritance pattern, 321 genetic variants (representing 255 potential diagnoses) were selected as potentially pathogenic genetic variants (diagnostic genetic variants), and these variants were reviewed by a multidisciplinary clinical review panel. A diagnostic genetic variant was identified in 52 (8·5%; 95% CI 6·4-11·0) of 610 fetuses assessed and an additional 24 (3·9%) fetuses had a variant of uncertain significance that had potential clinical usefulness. Detection of diagnostic genetic variants enabled us to distinguish between syndromic and non-syndromic fetal anomalies (eg, congenital heart disease only vs a syndrome with congenital heart disease and learning disability). Diagnostic genetic variants were present in 22 (15·4%) of 143 fetuses with multisystem anomalies (ie, more than one fetal structural anomaly), nine (11·1%) of 81 fetuses with cardiac anomalies, and ten (15·4%) of 65 fetuses with skeletal anomalies; these phenotypes were most commonly associated with diagnostic variants. However, diagnostic genetic variants were least common in fetuses with isolated increased nuchal translucency (≥4·0 mm) in the first trimester (in three [3·2%] of 93 fetuses). INTERPRETATION: WES facilitates genetic diagnosis of fetal structural anomalies, which enables more accurate predictions of fetal prognosis and risk of recurrence in future pregnancies. However, the overall detection of diagnostic genetic variants in a prospectively ascertained cohort with a broad range of fetal structural anomalies is lower than that suggested by previous smaller-scale studies of fewer phenotypes. WES improved the identification of genetic disorders in fetuses with structural abnormalities; however, before clinical implementation, careful consideration should be given to case selection to maximise clinical usefulness. FUNDING: UK Department of Health and Social Care and The Wellcome Trust.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT). METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130. FINDINGS: Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5-2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8-42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4-5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0-1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4-14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1-7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30-69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273. INTERPRETATION: All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research.

BACKGROUND: A new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7, emerged as the dominant cause of COVID-19 disease in the UK from November, 2020. We report a post-hoc analysis of the efficacy of the adenoviral vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), against this variant. METHODS: Volunteers (aged ≥18 years) who were enrolled in phase 2/3 vaccine efficacy studies in the UK, and who were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a meningococcal conjugate control (MenACWY) vaccine, provided upper airway swabs on a weekly basis and also if they developed symptoms of COVID-19 disease (a cough, a fever of 37·8°C or higher, shortness of breath, anosmia, or ageusia). Swabs were tested by nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2 and positive samples were sequenced through the COVID-19 Genomics UK consortium. Neutralising antibody responses were measured using a live-virus microneutralisation assay against the B.1.1.7 lineage and a canonical non-B.1.1.7 lineage (Victoria). The efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a NAAT positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to vaccine received. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vs MenACWY groups) derived from a robust Poisson regression model. This study is continuing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137. FINDINGS: Participants in efficacy cohorts were recruited between May 31 and Nov 13, 2020, and received booster doses between Aug 3 and Dec 30, 2020. Of 8534 participants in the primary efficacy cohort, 6636 (78%) were aged 18-55 years and 5065 (59%) were female. Between Oct 1, 2020, and Jan 14, 2021, 520 participants developed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 1466 NAAT positive nose and throat swabs were collected from these participants during the trial. Of these, 401 swabs from 311 participants were successfully sequenced. Laboratory virus neutralisation activity by vaccine-induced antibodies was lower against the B.1.1.7 variant than against the Victoria lineage (geometric mean ratio 8·9, 95% CI 7·2-11·0). Clinical vaccine efficacy against symptomatic NAAT positive infection was 70·4% (95% CI 43·6-84·5) for B.1.1.7 and 81·5% (67·9-89·4) for non-B.1.1.7 lineages. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed reduced neutralisation activity against the B.1.1.7 variant compared with a non-B.1.1.7 variant in vitro, but the vaccine showed efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

TEST 02 - Elsevier's Scopus, the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature. Search and access research from the science, technology, medicine, social sciences and arts and humanities fields.

The human respiratory tract hosts a diverse community of cocirculating viruses that are responsible for acute respiratory infections. This shared niche provides the opportunity for virus-virus interactions which have the potential to affect individual infection risks and in turn influence dynamics of infection at population scales. However, quantitative evidence for interactions has lacked suitable data and appropriate analytical tools. Here, we expose and quantify interactions among respiratory viruses using bespoke analyses of infection time series at the population scale and coinfections at the individual host scale. We analyzed diagnostic data from 44,230 cases of respiratory illness that were tested for 11 taxonomically broad groups of respiratory viruses over 9 y. Key to our analyses was accounting for alternative drivers of correlated infection frequency, such as age and seasonal dependencies in infection risk, allowing us to obtain strong support for the existence of negative interactions between influenza and noninfluenza viruses and positive interactions among noninfluenza viruses. In mathematical simulations that mimic 2-pathogen dynamics, we show that transient immune-mediated interference can cause a relatively ubiquitous common cold-like virus to diminish during peak activity of a seasonal virus, supporting the potential role of innate immunity in driving the asynchronous circulation of influenza A and rhinovirus. These findings have important implications for understanding the linked epidemiological dynamics of viral respiratory infections, an important step towards improved accuracy of disease forecasting models and evaluation of disease control interventions.