skip to Main Content

Lowest price prednisone

Dewsnap C, Sauer U, Evans lowest price prednisone C. Sex Transm Infect 2020;96:79. Doi. 10.1136/sextrans-2019-054397This article was previously published with missing information.

Please note the below:The authors would like to acknowledge their gratitude to Daniel Richardson, Zara Haider, Ceri Evans, Janet Michaelis and Elizabeth Foley for providing a helpful format for this piece.Richardson D, Haider Z, Evans C, et al. The joint BASHH-FSRH conference. Sex Transm Infect 2017;93:380. Doi.

10.1136/sextrans-2017-053184Using cytokine expression to distinguish between active and treated syphilis. Promising but not yet ready for prime timeDistinguishing between previously treated and active syphilis can be challenging in the subset of treated patients with serofast status, defined as persistent non-treponemal seropositivity (<4-fold decline in rapid plasma reagin titre ≥6 months after treatment). The study investigated whether serum cytokine expression levels, measured with a 62-cytokine multiplex bead-based ELISA, can help guide clinical management. Using samples from patients with active, treated and serofast syphilis, the authors developed a two-cytokine (brain-derived neurotrophic factor and tumour necrosis factor β) decision tree that showed good accuracy (82%) and sensitivity (100%) but moderate specificity (45%).

While further studies will be needed to confirm and refine the diagnostic algorithm, there also remain important technical, operational and financial barriers to implementing such cytokine assays in routine care.Kojima N, Siebert JC, Maecker H, et al. The application of cytokine expression assays to differentiate active from previously treated syphilis. J Infect Dis. 2020 [published online ahead of print, 2020 Mar 19].Global and regional prevalence of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection.

Updated estimates for people aged 15–49 yearsEstimates of genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections across regions inform advocacy and resource planning and guide the development of improved control measures, including vaccines. In 2016, HSV-2 affected 13% of the global population aged 15–49 years (high-risk groups excluded), totalling 491 million people. Of note, by excluding people aged >49 years, the analysis knowingly underestimated the true burden of HSV-2 infection.1 Prevalence showed a slight increase relative to 2012 and was highest in Africa and Americas and among women. Given the association between HSV-2 and subsequent HIV infection,2 it is concerning that HSV-2 was estimated to affect ~50% of women aged 25–34 years in the African region.

The analysis also estimated the prevalence of genital HSV-1 (3%), but uncertainty intervals were wide.James C, Harfouche M, Welton NJ, et al. Herpes simplex virus. Global infection prevalence and incidence estimates, 2016. Bull World Health Organ.

2020. 98. 315-329.Observed pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in women with HIV exposed to recommended antiretroviral regimensThis large Italian observational cohort study analysed data from 794 pregnant women who were exposed within 32 weeks of gestation to recommended antiretroviral regimens in the period 2008–2018. Treatment comprised three-drug combinations of an nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone plus a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (78%, predominantly atazanavir), an non-NRTI (NNRTI) (15%, predominantly nevirapine) or an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI.

6%, predominantly raltegravir). No major differences were found for a wide range of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, including major congenital defects. The rate of HIV transmission ranged up to 2.4% in this study. This comprehensive evaluation will be useful for clinicians caring for women with HIV.

More outcome data are needed for regimens comprising second-generation INSTIs.Floridia M, Dalzero S, Giacomet V, et al. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in women with HIV-1 exposed to integrase inhibitors, protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. An observational study. Infection 2020;48:249–258.HIV status and sexual practice independently correlate with gut dysbiosis and unique microbiota signaturesGut dysbiosis may contribute to persistent inflammation in people with HIV (PWH) who receive antiretroviral therapy (ART).

The study compared the gut microbiota of ART-treated PWH and HIV-negative controls matched for age, gender, country of birth, body mass index and sexual practice. Regardless of sex and sexual practice, the gut microbiota differed significantly in PWH vrsus controls, with expansion of proinflammatory gut bacteria and depletion of homeostasis-promoting microbiota members. The extent of dysbiosis correlated with serum inflammatory markers, nadir and pre-ART CD4 cell counts, and prevalence of non-infectious comorbidities. Further studies are warranted to elucidate causality and investigate microbiota-mediated strategies to alleviate HIV-associated inflammation.

Independent of HIV status, and in both men and women, receptive anal intercourse was associated with a unique microbiota signature.Vujkovic-Cvijin I, Sortino O, Verheij E, et al. HIV-associated gut dysbiosis is independent of sexual practice and correlates with non-communicable diseases. Nat Commun. 2020;11:2448.Reducing the cost of molecular STI screening in resource-limited settings.

An optimised sample-pooling algorithmInfections with Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) are frequently asymptomatic and, if untreated, may lead to severe reproductive complications in women. Molecular testing is highly sensitive but costly, especially for resource-limited settings. This modelling study explored a sample pooling strategy for CT and NG testing among women in Zambia. Based on cross-sectional data, participants were stratified into high, intermediate and low prevalence groups, and the respective specimens were mathematically modelled to be tested individually, in pools of 3, or pools of 4, using the GeneXpert instrument.

Overall, the pooling strategy was found to maintain acceptable sensitivity (ranging from 80% to 100%), while significantly lowering cost per sample. Investigation in additional cohorts will validate whether the approach may increase access to STI screening where resourced are constrained.Connolly S, Kilembe W, Inambao M, et al. A population-specific optimized GeneXpert pooling algorithm for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae to reduce cost of molecular STI screening in resource-limited settings. J Clin Microbiol.

2020 [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jun 10].Girl-only HPV vaccination can eliminate cervical cancer in most low and lower middle income countries by the end of the century, but must be supplemented by screening in high incidence countriesProgress towards the global elimination of cervical cancer must include effective interventions in lower-middle income countries (LMICs). The study modelled the effect over the next century of girls-only human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination with or without once-lifetime or twice-lifetime cervical screening in 78 LMICs, assuming 90% vaccine coverage, 100% lifetime protection and screening uptake increasing from 45% (2023) to 90% (2045 onwards). Vaccination alone would substantially reduce cancer incidence (61 million cases averted) and achieve elimination (<5 cases per 100 000 women-years) in 60% of LMICs. However, high-incidence countries, predominantly in Africa, might not reach elimination by vaccination alone.

Adding twice-lifetime screening would achieve elimination of cervical cancer in 100% of LMICs. Results have informed the targets of 90% HPV vaccination coverage, 70% screening coverage and 90% of cervical lesions treated by 2030 recently announced by the WHO.Brisson M, Kim JJ, Canfell K, et al. Impact of HPV vaccination and cervical screening on cervical cancer elimination. A comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

Prednisone for lower back pain

Prednisone
Isotroin
Benzac
Bactroban
USA pharmacy price
No
Yes
No
No
Buy with american express
21h
22h
23h
11h
Can women take
2h
11h
20h
22h
Possible side effects
$
20mg 30 tablet $74.95
2.5% 20g 4 gel $34.00
2% 5g 2 tube $69.95
Does medicare pay
No
Online
Yes
Yes
How often can you take
10mg
2.5% 20g
2% 5g

Patients Figure prednisone for lower back pain 1. Figure 1. Enrollment and Randomization prednisone for lower back pain. Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization.

541 were assigned to prednisone for lower back pain the remdesivir group and 522 to the placebo group (Figure 1). Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned. Forty-nine patients had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death prednisone for lower back pain (36 patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned.

Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2). As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients in the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died prednisone for lower back pain. Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. There were prednisone for lower back pain 132 patients in the remdesivir group and 169 in the placebo group who had not recovered and had not completed the day 29 follow-up visit.

The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have at least some postbaseline data available (538 in the remdesivir group and 521 in the placebo group). Four of the 1063 patients were not included in the prednisone for lower back pain primary analysis because no postbaseline data were available at the time of the database freeze. Table 1. Table 1 prednisone for lower back pain.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean age of patients was 58.9 years, and 64.3% were male (Table 1). On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of Covid-19 during the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% prednisone for lower back pain in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, and 13.6% were designated as other or not reported.

249 (23.4%) were Hispanic prednisone for lower back pain or Latino. Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of days between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, prednisone for lower back pain 6 to 12). Nine hundred forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix.

272 (25.6%) patients met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 prednisone for lower back pain (39.6%) category 5, and 127 (11.9%) category 4. There were 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group. Primary Outcome Figure 2 prednisone for lower back pain.

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates prednisone for lower back pain of Cumulative Recoveries. Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen. Panel B), in those with prednisone for lower back pain a baseline score of 5 (receiving oxygen.

Panel C), in those with a baseline score of 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Panel D), and in those with a baseline score of 7 prednisone for lower back pain (receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO. Panel E). Table 2.

Table 2 prednisone for lower back pain. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population. Figure 3 prednisone for lower back pain. Figure 3.

Time to Recovery prednisone for lower back pain According to Subgroup. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects. Race and ethnic group were reported by the prednisone for lower back pain patients. Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 11 days, as compared with 15 days.

Rate ratio for recovery, 1.32. 95% confidence interval [CI], prednisone for lower back pain 1.12 to 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients (Figure 2 and Table 2) prednisone for lower back pain.

Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline score of 4 (127 patients) and those with a baseline score of prednisone for lower back pain 6 (197 patients), the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively. For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7. 272 patients), the prednisone for lower back pain rate ratio for recovery was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.42).

A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant. An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable was conducted to evaluate the overall effect (of the percentage of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome. This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate prednisone for lower back pain (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31. 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54.

1017 patients) prednisone for lower back pain. Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe. Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms had prednisone for lower back pain a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57. 664 patients), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81.

380 patients) (Figure 3) prednisone for lower back pain. Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.50. 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.91. P=0.001.

844 patients) (Table 2 and Fig. S5). Mortality was numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04.

1059 patients). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients that had yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10).

Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group and 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3). 4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients). Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group.

No deaths were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4). The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]).

Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose level (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]). Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.Trial Population Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants in the mRNA-1273 Trial at Enrollment. The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig. S1).

Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected Covid-19 while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending. All continued to attend scheduled trial visits. The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1. Vaccine Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met.

As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination. Figure 1. Figure 1. Systemic and Local Adverse Events.

The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2). Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events. None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination.

After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever. One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common. Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site.

Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3). SARS-CoV-2 Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2. Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens.

Figure 2. Figure 2. SARS-CoV-2 Antibody and Neutralization Responses. Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live virus PRNT80 responses (Panel D).

In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively. Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants. Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel. In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays.

Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A). Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident. Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B). For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens.

The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]). SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination. After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50]. Figure 2C, Fig.

S8, and Table 2. 80% inhibitory dilution [ID80]. Fig. S2 and Table S6).

However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants. The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43. The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43). These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens.

Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-virus neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay. At day 43, wild-type virus–neutralizing activity capable of reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay. Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs.

S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273. SARS-CoV-2 T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs. S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >. Interleukin 2 >.

Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13). CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig. S11).Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. (Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor.

Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, tocilizumab, or convalescent plasma. Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial. Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020. Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible.

Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients or from a legal representative if they were unable to provide consent. The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net.

The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee. The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in the preparation or approval of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan. Randomization We collected baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site.

Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment. Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial. For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated. These patients were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included in this report.

The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician. Patients and local members of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments. Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first. Information was recorded regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death).

In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization. Further analyses were specified at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death.

Other prespecified clinical outcomes included cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and receipt and duration of ventilation. Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups. Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients.

For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was used to estimate the mortality rate ratio. Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the absence of any information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period.

Cox regression was used to analyze the secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization. For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio. Table 1. Table 1.

Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support. Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1). To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years). This adjustment was not specified in the first version of the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent.

Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk. (One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest.

Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford.Trial Design and Oversight We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate postexposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine after exposure to Covid-19.12 We randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive either hydroxychloroquine or placebo.

Participants had known exposure (by participant report) to a person with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19, whether as a household contact, a health care worker, or a person with other occupational exposures. Trial enrollment began on March 17, 2020, with an eligibility threshold to enroll within 3 days after exposure. The objective was to intervene before the median incubation period of 5 to 6 days. Because of limited access to prompt testing, health care workers could initially be enrolled on the basis of presumptive high-risk exposure to patients with pending tests.

However, on March 23, eligibility was changed to exposure to a person with a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay for SARS-CoV-2, with the eligibility window extended to within 4 days after exposure. This trial was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Minnesota and conducted under a Food and Drug Administration Investigational New Drug application. In Canada, the trial was approved by Health Canada. Ethics approvals were obtained from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, the University of Manitoba, and the University of Alberta.

Participants We included participants who had household or occupational exposure to a person with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Participants were excluded if they were younger than 18 years of age, were hospitalized, or met other exclusion criteria (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org). Persons with symptoms of Covid-19 or with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded from this prevention trial but were separately enrolled in a companion clinical trial to treat early infection. Setting Recruitment was performed primarily with the use of social media outreach as well as traditional media platforms.

Participants were enrolled nationwide in the United States and in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta. Participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.13 After participants read the consent form, their comprehension of its contents was assessed. Participants provided a digitally captured signature to indicate informed consent. We sent follow-up e-mail surveys on days 1, 5, 10, and 14.

A survey at 4 to 6 weeks asked about any follow-up testing, illness, or hospitalizations. Participants who did not respond to follow-up surveys received text messages, e-mails, telephone calls, or a combination of these to ascertain their outcomes. When these methods were unsuccessful, the emergency contact provided by the enrollee was contacted to determine the participant’s illness and vital status. When all communication methods were exhausted, Internet searches for obituaries were performed to ascertain vital status.

Interventions Randomization occurred at research pharmacies in Minneapolis and Montreal. The trial statisticians generated a permuted-block randomization sequence using variably sized blocks of 2, 4, or 8, with stratification according to country. A research pharmacist sequentially assigned participants. The assignments were concealed from investigators and participants.

Only pharmacies had access to the randomization sequence. Hydroxychloroquine sulfate or placebo was dispensed and shipped overnight to participants by commercial courier. The dosing regimen for hydroxychloroquine was 800 mg (4 tablets) once, then 600 mg (3 tablets) 6 to 8 hours later, then 600 mg (3 tablets) daily for 4 more days for a total course of 5 days (19 tablets total). If participants had gastrointestinal upset, they were advised to divide the daily dose into two or three doses.

We chose this hydroxychloroquine dosing regimen on the basis of pharmacokinetic simulations to achieve plasma concentrations above the SARS-CoV-2 in vitro half maximal effective concentration for 14 days.14 Placebo folate tablets, which were similar in appearance to the hydroxychloroquine tablets, were prescribed as an identical regimen for the control group. Rising Pharmaceuticals provided a donation of hydroxychloroquine, and some hydroxychloroquine was purchased. Outcomes The primary outcome was prespecified as symptomatic illness confirmed by a positive molecular assay or, if testing was unavailable, Covid-19–related symptoms. We assumed that health care workers would have access to Covid-19 testing if symptomatic.

However, access to testing was limited throughout the trial period. Covid-19–related symptoms were based on U.S. Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists criteria for confirmed cases (positivity for SARS-Cov-2 on PCR assay), probable cases (the presence of cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing, or the presence of two or more symptoms of fever, chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, and new olfactory and taste disorders), and possible cases (the presence of one or more compatible symptoms, which could include diarrhea).15 All the participants had epidemiologic linkage,15 per trial eligibility criteria. Four infectious disease physicians who were unaware of the trial-group assignments reviewed symptomatic participants to generate a consensus with respect to whether their condition met the case definition.15 Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hospitalization for Covid-19 or death, the incidence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the incidence of Covid-19 symptoms, the incidence of discontinuation of the trial intervention owing to any cause, and the severity of symptoms (if any) at days 5 and 14 according to a visual analogue scale (scores ranged from 0 [no symptoms] to 10 [severe symptoms]).

Data on adverse events were also collected with directed questioning for common side effects along with open-ended free text. Outcome data were measured within 14 days after trial enrollment. Outcome data including PCR testing results, possible Covid-19–related symptoms, adherence to the trial intervention, side effects, and hospitalizations were all collected through participant report. Details of trial conduct are provided in the protocol and statistical analysis plan, available at NEJM.org.

Sample Size We anticipated that illness compatible with Covid-19 would develop in 10% of close contacts exposed to Covid-19.9 Using Fisher’s exact method with a 50% relative effect size to reduce new symptomatic infections, a two-sided alpha of 0.05, and 90% power, we estimated that 621 persons would need to be enrolled in each group. With a pragmatic, Internet-based, self-referral recruitment strategy, we planned for a 20% incidence of attrition by increasing the sample size to 750 participants per group. We specified a priori that participants who were already symptomatic on day 1 before receiving hydroxychloroquine or placebo would be excluded from the prophylaxis trial and would instead be separately enrolled in the companion symptomatic treatment trial. Because the estimates for both incident symptomatic Covid-19 after an exposure and loss to follow-up were relatively unknown in early March 2020,9 the protocol prespecified a sample-size reestimation at the second interim analysis.

This reestimation, which used the incidence of new infections in the placebo group and the observed percentage of participants lost to follow-up, was aimed at maintaining the ability to detect an effect size of a 50% relative reduction in new symptomatic infections. Interim Analyses An independent data and safety monitoring board externally reviewed the data after 25% and 50% of the participants had completed 14 days of follow-up. Stopping guidelines were provided to the data and safety monitoring board with the use of a Lan–DeMets spending function analogue of the O’Brien–Fleming boundaries for the primary outcome. A conditional power analysis was performed at the second and third interim analysis with the option of early stopping for futility.

At the second interim analysis on April 22, 2020, the sample size was reduced to 956 participants who could be evaluated with 90% power on the basis of the higher-than-expected event rate of infections in the control group. At the third interim analysis on May 6, the trial was halted on the basis of a conditional power of less than 1%, since it was deemed futile to continue. Statistical Analysis We assessed the incidence of Covid-19 disease by day 14 with Fisher’s exact test. Secondary outcomes with respect to percentage of patients were also compared with Fisher’s exact test.

Among participants in whom incident illness compatible with Covid-19 developed, we summarized the symptom severity score at day 14 with the median and interquartile range and assessed the distributions with a Kruskal–Wallis test. We conducted all analyses with SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), according to the intention-to-treat principle, with two-sided type I error with an alpha of 0.05. For participants with missing outcome data, we conducted a sensitivity analysis with their outcomes excluded or included as an event. Subgroups that were specified a priori included type of contact (household vs.

Health care), days from exposure to enrollment, age, and sex.Announced on May 15, Operation Warp Speed (OWS) — a partnership of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the private sector — aims to accelerate control of the Covid-19 pandemic by advancing development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. OWS is providing support to promising candidates and enabling the expeditious, parallel execution of the necessary steps toward approval or authorization of safe products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The partnership grew out of an acknowledged need to fundamentally restructure the way the U.S. Government typically supports product development and vaccine distribution. The initiative was premised on setting a “stretch goal” — one that initially seemed impossible but that is becoming increasingly achievable.The concept of an integrated structure for Covid-19 countermeasure research and development across the U.S.

Government was based on experience with Zika and the Zika Leadership Group led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the assistant secretary for preparedness and response (ASPR). One of us (M.S.) serves as OWS chief advisor. We are drawing on expertise from the NIH, ASPR, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and the DOD, including the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. OWS has engaged experts in all critical aspects of medical countermeasure research, development, manufacturing, and distribution to work in close coordination.The initiative set ambitious objectives.

To deliver tens of millions of doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine — with demonstrated safety and efficacy, and approved or authorized by the FDA for use in the U.S. Population — beginning at the end of 2020 and to have as many as 300 million doses of such vaccines available and deployed by mid-2021. The pace and scope of such a vaccine effort are unprecedented. The 2014 West African Ebola virus epidemic spurred rapid vaccine development, but though preclinical data existed before the outbreak, a period of 12 months was required to progress from phase 1 first-in-human trials to phase 3 efficacy trials.

OWS aims to compress this time frame even further. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development began in January, phase 1 clinical studies in March, and the first phase 3 trials in July. Our objectives are based on advances in vaccine platform technology, improved understanding of safe and efficacious vaccine design, and similarities between the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 disease mechanisms.OWS’s role is to enable, accelerate, harmonize, and advise the companies developing the selected vaccines. The companies will execute the clinical or process development and manufacturing plans, while OWS leverages the full capacity of the U.S.

Government to ensure that no technical, logistic, or financial hurdles hinder vaccine development or deployment.OWS selected vaccine candidates on the basis of four criteria. We required candidates to have robust preclinical data or early-stage clinical trial data supporting their potential for clinical safety and efficacy. Candidates had to have the potential, with our acceleration support, to enter large phase 3 field efficacy trials this summer or fall (July to November 2020) and, assuming continued active transmission of the virus, to deliver efficacy outcomes by the end of 2020 or the first half of 2021. Candidates had to be based on vaccine-platform technologies permitting fast and effective manufacturing, and their developers had to demonstrate the industrial process scalability, yields, and consistency necessary to reliably produce more than 100 million doses by mid-2021.

Finally, candidates had to use one of four vaccine-platform technologies that we believe are the most likely to yield a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19. The mRNA platform, the replication-defective live-vector platform, the recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein platform, or the attenuated replicating live-vector platform.OWS’s strategy relies on a few key principles. First, we sought to build a diverse project portfolio that includes two vaccine candidates based on each of the four platform technologies. Such diversification mitigates the risk of failure due to safety, efficacy, industrial manufacturability, or scheduling factors and may permit selection of the best vaccine platform for each subpopulation at risk for contracting or transmitting Covid-19, including older adults, frontline and essential workers, young adults, and pediatric populations.

In addition, advancing eight vaccines in parallel will increase the chances of delivering 300 million doses in the first half of 2021.Second, we must accelerate vaccine program development without compromising safety, efficacy, or product quality. Clinical development, process development, and manufacturing scale-up can be substantially accelerated by running all streams, fully resourced, in parallel. Doing so requires taking on substantial financial risk, as compared with the conventional sequential development approach. OWS will maximize the size of phase 3 trials (30,000 to 50,000 participants each) and optimize trial-site location by consulting daily epidemiologic and disease-forecasting models to ensure the fastest path to an efficacy readout.

Such large trials also increase the safety data set for each candidate vaccine.With heavy up-front investment, companies can conduct clinical operations and site preparation for these phase 3 efficacy trials even as they file their Investigational New Drug application (IND) for their phase 1 studies, thereby ensuring immediate initiation of phase 3 when they get a green light from the FDA. To permit appropriate comparisons among the vaccine candidates and to optimize vaccine utilization after approval by the FDA, the phase 3 trial end points and assay readouts have been harmonized through a collaborative effort involving the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Coronavirus Prevention Network, OWS, and the sponsor companies.Finally, OWS is supporting the companies financially and technically to commence process development and scale up manufacturing while their vaccines are in preclinical or very early clinical stages. To ensure that industrial processes are set, running, and validated for FDA inspection when phase 3 trials end, OWS is also supporting facility building or refurbishing, equipment fitting, staff hiring and training, raw-material sourcing, technology transfer and validation, bulk product processing into vials, and acquisition of ample vials, syringes, and needles for each vaccine candidate. We aim to have stockpiled, at OWS’s expense, a few tens of millions of vaccine doses that could be swiftly deployed once FDA approval is obtained.This strategy aims to accelerate vaccine development without curtailing the critical steps required by sound science and regulatory standards.

The FDA recently reissued guidance and standards that will be used to assess each vaccine for a Biologics License Application (BLA). Alternatively, the agency could decide to issue an Emergency Use Authorization to permit vaccine administration before all BLA procedures are completed.Of the eight vaccines in OWS’s portfolio, six have been announced and partnerships executed with the companies. Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech (both mRNA), AstraZeneca and Janssen (both replication-defective live-vector), and Novavax and Sanofi/GSK (both recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein). These candidates cover three of the four platform technologies and are currently in clinical trials.

The remaining two candidates will enter trials soon.Moderna developed its RNA vaccine in collaboration with the NIAID, began its phase 1 trial in March, recently published encouraging safety and immunogenicity data,1 and entered phase 3 on July 27. Pfizer and BioNTech’s RNA vaccine also produced encouraging phase 1 results2 and started its phase 3 trial on July 27. The ChAdOx replication-defective live-vector vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University is in phase 3 trials in the United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Africa, and it should enter U.S. Phase 3 trials in August.3 The Janssen Ad26 Covid-19 replication-defective live-vector vaccine has demonstrated excellent protection in nonhuman primate models and began its U.S.

Phase 1 trial on July 27. It should be in phase 3 trials in mid-September. Novavax completed a phase 1 trial of its recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein vaccine in Australia and should enter phase 3 trials in the United States by the end of September.4 Sanofi/GSK is completing preclinical development steps and plans to commence a phase 1 trial in early September and to be well into phase 3 by year’s end.5On the process-development front, the RNA vaccines are already being manufactured at scale. The other candidates are well advanced in their scale-up development, and manufacturing sites are being refurbished.While development and manufacturing proceed, the HHS–DOD partnership is laying the groundwork for vaccine distribution, subpopulation prioritization, financing, and logistic support.

We are working with bioethicists and experts from the NIH, the CDC, BARDA, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to address these critical issues. We will receive recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and we are working to ensure that the most vulnerable and at-risk persons will receive vaccine doses once they are ready. Prioritization will also depend on the relative performance of each vaccine and its suitability for particular populations. Because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies.No scientific enterprise could guarantee success by January 2021, but the strategic decisions and choices we’ve made, the support the government has provided, and the accomplishments to date make us optimistic that we will succeed in this unprecedented endeavor..

Patients Figure 1 lowest price prednisone. Figure 1. Enrollment and lowest price prednisone Randomization. Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization.

541 were assigned to the remdesivir group and 522 to the placebo group lowest price prednisone (Figure 1). Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned. Forty-nine patients had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 lowest price prednisone patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned.

Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2). As of lowest price prednisone April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients in the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died. Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. There were 132 patients in the remdesivir group and 169 in the placebo group who lowest price prednisone had not recovered and had not completed the day 29 follow-up visit.

The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have at least some postbaseline data available (538 in the remdesivir group and 521 in the placebo group). Four of the 1063 patients were not included in the primary analysis because no postbaseline data were available at the time lowest price prednisone of the database freeze. Table 1. Table 1 lowest price prednisone.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean age of patients was 58.9 years, and 64.3% were male (Table 1). On the basis lowest price prednisone of the evolving epidemiology of Covid-19 during the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, and 13.6% were designated as other or not reported.

249 (23.4%) were lowest price prednisone Hispanic or Latino. Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of days between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to lowest price prednisone 12). Nine hundred forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix.

272 (25.6%) patients met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 (39.6%) category 5, and lowest price prednisone 127 (11.9%) category 4. There were 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group. Primary Outcome Figure lowest price prednisone 2.

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates lowest price prednisone of Cumulative Recoveries. Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen. Panel B), in lowest price prednisone those with a baseline score of 5 (receiving oxygen.

Panel C), in those with a baseline score of 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Panel D), and in those with a baseline score of 7 (receiving mechanical ventilation or lowest price prednisone ECMO. Panel E). Table 2.

Table 2 lowest price prednisone. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population. Figure 3 lowest price prednisone. Figure 3.

Time to Recovery lowest price prednisone According to Subgroup. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects. Race and ethnic lowest price prednisone group were reported by the patients. Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 11 days, as compared with 15 days.

Rate ratio for recovery, 1.32. 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to lowest price prednisone 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients (Figure 2 and lowest price prednisone Table 2).

Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline score of 4 (127 patients) and those with a baseline score of 6 (197 patients), the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and 1.20 lowest price prednisone (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively. For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7. 272 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 0.95 (95% CI, lowest price prednisone 0.64 to 1.42).

A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant. An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable was conducted to evaluate the overall effect (of the percentage of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome. This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate lowest price prednisone (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31. 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54.

1017 patients) lowest price prednisone. Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe. Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% lowest price prednisone CI, 1.05 to 1.57. 664 patients), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81.

380 patients) lowest price prednisone (Figure 3). Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.50. 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.91. P=0.001.

844 patients) (Table 2 and Fig. S5). Mortality was numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04.

1059 patients). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients that had yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10).

Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group and 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3). 4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients). Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group.

No deaths were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4). The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]).

Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose level (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]). Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.Trial Population Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants in the mRNA-1273 Trial at Enrollment. The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig. S1).

Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected Covid-19 while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending. All continued to attend scheduled trial visits. The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1. Vaccine Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met.

As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination. Figure 1. Figure 1. Systemic and Local Adverse Events.

The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2). Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events. None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination.

After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever. One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common. Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site.

Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3). SARS-CoV-2 Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2. Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens.

Figure 2. Figure 2. SARS-CoV-2 Antibody and Neutralization Responses. Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live virus PRNT80 responses (Panel D).

In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively. Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants. Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel. In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays.

Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A). Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident. Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B). For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens.

The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]). SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination. After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50]. Figure 2C, Fig.

S8, and Table 2. 80% inhibitory dilution [ID80]. Fig. S2 and Table S6).

However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants. The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43. The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43). These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens.

Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-virus neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay. At day 43, wild-type virus–neutralizing activity capable of reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay. Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs.

S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273. SARS-CoV-2 T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs. S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >. Interleukin 2 >.

Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13). CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig. S11).Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. (Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor.

Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, tocilizumab, or convalescent plasma. Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial. Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020. Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible.

Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients or from a legal representative if they were unable to provide consent. The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net.

The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee. The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in the preparation or approval of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan. Randomization We collected baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site.

Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment. Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial. For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated. These patients were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included in this report.

The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician. Patients and local members of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments. Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first. Information was recorded regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death).

In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization. Further analyses were specified at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death.

Other prespecified clinical outcomes included cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and receipt and duration of ventilation. Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups. Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients.

For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was used to estimate the mortality rate ratio. Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the absence of any information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period.

Cox regression was used to analyze the secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization. For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio. Table 1. Table 1.

Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support. Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1). To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years). This adjustment was not specified in the first version of the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent.

Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk. (One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest.

Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford.Trial Design and Oversight We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate postexposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine after exposure to Covid-19.12 We randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive either hydroxychloroquine or placebo.

Participants had known exposure (by participant report) to a person with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19, whether as a household contact, a health care worker, or a person with other occupational exposures. Trial enrollment began on March 17, 2020, with an eligibility threshold to enroll within 3 days after exposure. The objective was to intervene before the median incubation period of 5 to 6 days. Because of limited access to prompt testing, health care workers could initially be enrolled on the basis of presumptive high-risk exposure to patients with pending tests.

However, on March 23, eligibility was changed to exposure to a person with a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay for SARS-CoV-2, with the eligibility window extended to within 4 days after exposure. This trial was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Minnesota and conducted under a Food and Drug Administration Investigational New Drug application. In Canada, the trial was approved by Health Canada. Ethics approvals were obtained from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, the University of Manitoba, and the University of Alberta.

Participants We included participants who had household or occupational exposure to a person with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Participants were excluded if they were younger than 18 years of age, were hospitalized, or met other exclusion criteria (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org). Persons with symptoms of Covid-19 or with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded from this prevention trial but were separately enrolled in a companion clinical trial to treat early infection. Setting Recruitment was performed primarily with the use of social media outreach as well as traditional media platforms.

Participants were enrolled nationwide in the United States and in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta. Participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.13 After participants read the consent form, their comprehension of its contents was assessed. Participants provided a digitally captured signature to indicate informed consent. We sent follow-up e-mail surveys on days 1, 5, 10, and 14.

A survey at 4 to 6 weeks asked about any follow-up testing, illness, or hospitalizations. Participants who did not respond to follow-up surveys received text messages, e-mails, telephone calls, or a combination of these to ascertain their outcomes. When these methods were unsuccessful, the emergency contact provided by the enrollee was contacted to determine the participant’s illness and vital status. When all communication methods were exhausted, Internet searches for obituaries were performed to ascertain vital status.

Interventions Randomization occurred at research pharmacies in Minneapolis and Montreal. The trial statisticians generated a permuted-block randomization sequence using variably sized blocks of 2, 4, or 8, with stratification according to country. A research pharmacist sequentially assigned participants. The assignments were concealed from investigators and participants.

Only pharmacies had access to the randomization sequence. Hydroxychloroquine sulfate or placebo was dispensed and shipped overnight to participants by commercial courier. The dosing regimen for hydroxychloroquine was 800 mg (4 tablets) once, then 600 mg (3 tablets) 6 to 8 hours later, then 600 mg (3 tablets) daily for 4 more days for a total course of 5 days (19 tablets total). If participants had gastrointestinal upset, they were advised to divide the daily dose into two or three doses.

We chose this hydroxychloroquine dosing regimen on the basis of pharmacokinetic simulations to achieve plasma concentrations above the SARS-CoV-2 in vitro half maximal effective concentration for 14 days.14 Placebo folate tablets, which were similar in appearance to the hydroxychloroquine tablets, were prescribed as an identical regimen for the control group. Rising Pharmaceuticals provided a donation of hydroxychloroquine, and some hydroxychloroquine was purchased. Outcomes The primary outcome was prespecified as symptomatic illness confirmed by a positive molecular assay or, if testing was unavailable, Covid-19–related symptoms. We assumed that health care workers would have access to Covid-19 testing if symptomatic.

However, access to testing was limited throughout the trial period. Covid-19–related symptoms were based on U.S. Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists criteria for confirmed cases (positivity for SARS-Cov-2 on PCR assay), probable cases (the presence of cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing, or the presence of two or more symptoms of fever, chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, and new olfactory and taste disorders), and possible cases (the presence of one or more compatible symptoms, which could include diarrhea).15 All the participants had epidemiologic linkage,15 per trial eligibility criteria. Four infectious disease physicians who were unaware of the trial-group assignments reviewed symptomatic participants to generate a consensus with respect to whether their condition met the case definition.15 Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hospitalization for Covid-19 or death, the incidence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the incidence of Covid-19 symptoms, the incidence of discontinuation of the trial intervention owing to any cause, and the severity of symptoms (if any) at days 5 and 14 according to a visual analogue scale (scores ranged from 0 [no symptoms] to 10 [severe symptoms]).

Data on adverse events were also collected with directed questioning for common side effects along with open-ended free text. Outcome data were measured within 14 days after trial enrollment. Outcome data including PCR testing results, possible Covid-19–related symptoms, adherence to the trial intervention, side effects, and hospitalizations were all collected through participant report. Details of trial conduct are provided in the protocol and statistical analysis plan, available at NEJM.org.

Sample Size We anticipated that illness compatible with Covid-19 would develop in 10% of close contacts exposed to Covid-19.9 Using Fisher’s exact method with a 50% relative effect size to reduce new symptomatic infections, a two-sided alpha of 0.05, and 90% power, we estimated that 621 persons would need to be enrolled in each group. With a pragmatic, Internet-based, self-referral recruitment strategy, we planned for a 20% incidence of attrition by increasing the sample size to 750 participants per group. We specified a priori that participants who were already symptomatic on day 1 before receiving hydroxychloroquine or placebo would be excluded from the prophylaxis trial and would instead be separately enrolled in the companion symptomatic treatment trial. Because the estimates for both incident symptomatic Covid-19 after an exposure and loss to follow-up were relatively unknown in early March 2020,9 the protocol prespecified a sample-size reestimation at the second interim analysis.

This reestimation, which used the incidence of new infections in the placebo group and the observed percentage of participants lost to follow-up, was aimed at maintaining the ability to detect an effect size of a 50% relative reduction in new symptomatic infections. Interim Analyses An independent data and safety monitoring board externally reviewed the data after 25% and 50% of the participants had completed 14 days of follow-up. Stopping guidelines were provided to the data and safety monitoring board with the use of a Lan–DeMets spending function analogue of the O’Brien–Fleming boundaries for the primary outcome. A conditional power analysis was performed at the second and third interim analysis with the option of early stopping for futility.

At the second interim analysis on April 22, 2020, the sample size was reduced to 956 participants who could be evaluated with 90% power on the basis of the higher-than-expected event rate of infections in the control group. At the third interim analysis on May 6, the trial was halted on the basis of a conditional power of less than 1%, since it was deemed futile to continue. Statistical Analysis We assessed the incidence of Covid-19 disease by day 14 with Fisher’s exact test. Secondary outcomes with respect to percentage of patients were also compared with Fisher’s exact test.

Among participants in whom incident illness compatible with Covid-19 developed, we summarized the symptom severity score at day 14 with the median and interquartile range and assessed the distributions with a Kruskal–Wallis test. We conducted all analyses with SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), according to the intention-to-treat principle, with two-sided type I error with an alpha of 0.05. For participants with missing outcome data, we conducted a sensitivity analysis with their outcomes excluded or included as an event. Subgroups that were specified a priori included type of contact (household vs.

Health care), days from exposure to enrollment, age, and sex.Announced on May 15, Operation Warp Speed (OWS) — a partnership of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the private sector — aims to accelerate control of the Covid-19 pandemic by advancing development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. OWS is providing support to promising candidates and enabling the expeditious, parallel execution of the necessary steps toward approval or authorization of safe products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The partnership grew out of an acknowledged need to fundamentally restructure the way the U.S. Government typically supports product development and vaccine distribution. The initiative was premised on setting a “stretch goal” — one that initially seemed impossible but that is becoming increasingly achievable.The concept of an integrated structure for Covid-19 countermeasure research and development across the U.S.

Government was based on experience with Zika and the Zika Leadership Group led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the assistant secretary for preparedness and response (ASPR). One of us (M.S.) serves as OWS chief advisor. We are drawing on expertise from the NIH, ASPR, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and the DOD, including the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. OWS has engaged experts in all critical aspects of medical countermeasure research, development, manufacturing, and distribution to work in close coordination.The initiative set ambitious objectives.

To deliver tens of millions of doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine — with demonstrated safety and efficacy, and approved or authorized by the FDA for use in the U.S. Population — beginning at the end of 2020 and to have as many as 300 million doses of such vaccines available and deployed by mid-2021. The pace and scope of such a vaccine effort are unprecedented. The 2014 West African Ebola virus epidemic spurred rapid vaccine development, but though preclinical data existed before the outbreak, a period of 12 months was required to progress from phase 1 first-in-human trials to phase 3 efficacy trials.

OWS aims to compress this time frame even further. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development began in January, phase 1 clinical studies in March, and the first phase 3 trials in July. Our objectives are based on advances in vaccine platform technology, improved understanding of safe and efficacious vaccine design, and similarities between the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 disease mechanisms.OWS’s role is to enable, accelerate, harmonize, and advise the companies developing the selected vaccines. The companies will execute the clinical or process development and manufacturing plans, while OWS leverages the full capacity of the U.S.

Government to ensure that no technical, logistic, or financial hurdles hinder vaccine development or deployment.OWS selected vaccine candidates on the basis of four criteria. We required candidates to have robust preclinical data or early-stage clinical trial data supporting their potential for clinical safety and efficacy. Candidates had to have the potential, with our acceleration support, to enter large phase 3 field efficacy trials this summer or fall (July to November 2020) and, assuming continued active transmission of the virus, to deliver efficacy outcomes by the end of 2020 or the first half of 2021. Candidates had to be based on vaccine-platform technologies permitting fast and effective manufacturing, and their developers had to demonstrate the industrial process scalability, yields, and consistency necessary to reliably produce more than 100 million doses by mid-2021.

Finally, candidates had to use one of four vaccine-platform technologies that we believe are the most likely to yield a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19. The mRNA platform, the replication-defective live-vector platform, the recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein platform, or the attenuated replicating live-vector platform.OWS’s strategy relies on a few key principles. First, we sought to build a diverse project portfolio that includes two vaccine candidates based on each of the four platform technologies. Such diversification mitigates the risk of failure due to safety, efficacy, industrial manufacturability, or scheduling factors and may permit selection of the best vaccine platform for each subpopulation at risk for contracting or transmitting Covid-19, including older adults, frontline and essential workers, young adults, and pediatric populations.

In addition, advancing eight vaccines in parallel will increase the chances of delivering 300 million doses in the first half of 2021.Second, we must accelerate vaccine program development without compromising safety, efficacy, or product quality. Clinical development, process development, and manufacturing scale-up can be substantially accelerated by running all streams, fully resourced, in parallel. Doing so requires taking on substantial financial risk, as compared with the conventional sequential development approach. OWS will maximize the size of phase 3 trials (30,000 to 50,000 participants each) and optimize trial-site location by consulting daily epidemiologic and disease-forecasting models to ensure the fastest path to an efficacy readout.

Such large trials also increase the safety data set for each candidate vaccine.With heavy up-front investment, companies can conduct clinical operations and site preparation for these phase 3 efficacy trials even as they file their Investigational New Drug application (IND) for their phase 1 studies, thereby ensuring immediate initiation of phase 3 when they get a green light from the FDA. To permit appropriate comparisons among the vaccine candidates and to optimize vaccine utilization after approval by the FDA, the phase 3 trial end points and assay readouts have been harmonized through a collaborative effort involving the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Coronavirus Prevention Network, OWS, and the sponsor companies.Finally, OWS is supporting the companies financially and technically to commence process development and scale up manufacturing while their vaccines are in preclinical or very early clinical stages. To ensure that industrial processes are set, running, and validated for FDA inspection when phase 3 trials end, OWS is also supporting facility building or refurbishing, equipment fitting, staff hiring and training, raw-material sourcing, technology transfer and validation, bulk product processing into vials, and acquisition of ample vials, syringes, and needles for each vaccine candidate. We aim to have stockpiled, at OWS’s expense, a few tens of millions of vaccine doses that could be swiftly deployed once FDA approval is obtained.This strategy aims to accelerate vaccine development without curtailing the critical steps required by sound science and regulatory standards.

The FDA recently reissued guidance and standards that will be used to assess each vaccine for a Biologics License Application (BLA). Alternatively, the agency could decide to issue an Emergency Use Authorization to permit vaccine administration before all BLA procedures are completed.Of the eight vaccines in OWS’s portfolio, six have been announced and partnerships executed with the companies. Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech (both mRNA), AstraZeneca and Janssen (both replication-defective live-vector), and Novavax and Sanofi/GSK (both recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein). These candidates cover three of the four platform technologies and are currently in clinical trials.

The remaining two candidates will enter trials soon.Moderna developed its RNA vaccine in collaboration with the NIAID, began its phase 1 trial in March, recently published encouraging safety and immunogenicity data,1 and entered phase 3 on July 27. Pfizer and BioNTech’s RNA vaccine also produced encouraging phase 1 results2 and started its phase 3 trial on July 27. The ChAdOx replication-defective live-vector vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University is in phase 3 trials in the United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Africa, and it should enter U.S. Phase 3 trials in August.3 The Janssen Ad26 Covid-19 replication-defective live-vector vaccine has demonstrated excellent protection in nonhuman primate models and began its U.S.

Phase 1 trial on July 27. It should be in phase 3 trials in mid-September. Novavax completed a phase 1 trial of its recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein vaccine in Australia and should enter phase 3 trials in the United States by the end of September.4 Sanofi/GSK is completing preclinical development steps and plans to commence a phase 1 trial in early September and to be well into phase 3 by year’s end.5On the process-development front, the RNA vaccines are already being manufactured at scale. The other candidates are well advanced in their scale-up development, and manufacturing sites are being refurbished.While development and manufacturing proceed, the HHS–DOD partnership is laying the groundwork for vaccine distribution, subpopulation prioritization, financing, and logistic support.

We are working with bioethicists and experts from the NIH, the CDC, BARDA, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to address these critical issues. We will receive recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and we are working to ensure that the most vulnerable and at-risk persons will receive vaccine doses once they are ready. Prioritization will also depend on the relative performance of each vaccine and its suitability for particular populations. Because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies.No scientific enterprise could guarantee success by January 2021, but the strategic decisions and choices we’ve made, the support the government has provided, and the accomplishments to date make us optimistic that we will succeed in this unprecedented endeavor..

Buy prednisone online usa

This interim order (IO) buy prednisone online usa provides more tools for urgently addressing drug shortages related to COVID-19. Under certain conditions, the IO authorizes the Minister of Health to. require anyone who sells a drug to provide information relevant to a shortage or potential shortage of that drug related to COVID-19 impose or amend terms and conditions on authorizations to sell drugs for the purpose of preventing or alleviating a drug shortage related to COVID-19 On this page Why the interim order was introduced The COVID-19 pandemic has. caused an unprecedented demand for some drugs contributed to drug shortages in Canada posed a significant risk to the health of Canadians How the interim order will address drug shortages in Canada Reliable and timely information is required buy prednisone online usa for Health Canada to act quickly and effectively to minimize the effects of these shortages on Canadians.

Tools such as this new IO will better prepare Canada to respond to the imminent threat of drug shortages from a possible future resurgence of COVID-19. The IO will allow the Minister to require any person who sells a drug to provide information about a shortage or potential shortage of that drug. The IO buy prednisone online usa gives the Minister this authority if there are reasonable grounds to believe that. the drug is at risk of going into shortage or is in shortage the shortage is caused or made worse, directly or indirectly, by the COVID-19 pandemic the shortage poses a risk of injury to human health the requested information is necessary to identify or assess the shortage.

why it occurred its effects on human health what measures could be taken to prevent or alleviate the shortage the person would not provide the information without a legal obligation To prevent or alleviate a shortage, the Minister may also add or amend terms and conditions to an authorization to sell a drug. The Minister may do so if there are reasonable grounds to believe that buy prednisone online usa. the drug is at risk of going into shortage or is in shortage the shortage is caused or made worse, directly or indirectly, by the COVID-19 pandemic the shortage poses a risk of injury to human health If you have any questions, please contact us by email at. Hc.prsd-questionsdspr.sc@canada.ca.

Related links and guidanceOn this page Policy objectiveThis guidance is to provide Canadians buy prednisone online usa with access to information on the safety and efficacy/effectiveness of products being used for the COVID-19 pandemic. These products are being imported and sold in Canada under 2 interim orders. All personal and confidential business information (CBI) will be protected prior to release. The disclosed information will buy prednisone online usa be made publicly available for non-commercial purposes after Health Canada completes its regulatory review process, while adhering to Canada’s Privacy Act.Providing public access to this information supports Canada’s objective for transparent decision-making.

Public access also provides valuable information that may help with the use or development of COVID19 drugs and medical devices.This guidance document outlines the process for publicly disclosing information in a market authorization application under the 2 interim orders. The process includes. procedures when releasing information types of information that fall under the guidelines for CBI and that may be eligible for redaction protection of personal informationScope and application This document applies buy prednisone online usa to information relied upon to issue a market authorization under the. Interim order respecting the importation, sale and advertising of drugs for use in relation to COVID-19 (September 16, 2020) and interim order respecting the importation and sale of medical devices for use in relation to COVID-19(March 18, 2020)The public release of safety and efficacy/effectiveness information reviewed under the 2 interim orders is governed by common law.

Information requested for release is assessed case by case to determine what is CBI. Personal information is removed before the safety and efficacy/effectiveness buy prednisone online usa information is released to the public.Following Health Canada’s review of an application, safety and efficacy information will be released as follows. Automatically disclosed in applications submitted under the interim order for importing, selling and advertising drugs (proactive release) disclosed on request in applications submitted under the interim order for importing and selling medical devices (released upon request)Information in applications that have been authorized, including those authorized and then revoked, is in scope for public release. This includes.

Original application documents documents filed after market authorization is issued (filed at Health Canada’s request buy prednisone online usa or to meet a condition of approval)Information in applications that are refused and were never authorized is out of scope for public release. This document does not apply to clinical information submitted to support the market authorization of a medical device under the Medical Device Regulations or of a new drug submission under the Food and Drug Regulations (FDR). The exception are new drug submissions for COVID-19 indications submitted under the FDR. For more information on the public release of this information, see the Public Release of Clinical buy prednisone online usa Information.

Guidance document.Also not applicable under this document is the CBI disclosure authority under section 21.1(3)(c) of the Food and Drugs Act. This section permits the Minister of Health to disclose CBI to certain persons for the purpose of protection or promotion of human health or the safety of the public. For information on this authority, see the guidance document Disclosure of Confidential Business Information under Paragraph 21.1(3)(c) of buy prednisone online usa the Food and Drugs Act.Proactive release of drug application informationWe will proactively publish safety and efficacy information used to support interim order drug applications upon authorization. This includes clinical information in applications submitted under sections 3, 6 and 14 of the interim order.How to request clinical information in medical device applicationsWe will publish safety and effectiveness information used to support interim order medical device applications when we receive a request from the public and within the limits of our administrative capacity.

Requests made for multiple applications will be processed in sequence and subject to prioritization. Further prioritization may be given to products that have a greater impact on the buy prednisone online usa health system, such as. Products that are used a lot products that have a higher public interestRequests received for information in applications under the interim order will be prioritized over requests for clinical information in non-COVID19-related drugs submissions and device applications.To request clinical information on medical device applications, use our special portal to submit an electronic request form. Be sure to identify the product name listed on the following sites.

Publication process Publication of safety and efficacy information used to support drug interim order applications The publication buy prednisone online usa of information follows the process described in section 4 and Appendix C of the Public Release of Clinical Information guidance document.In accordance with PRCI timelines, we aim to publish a final redacted and anonymized package on our clinical information portal within 120 calendar days from starting the process. The process starts automatically on the day an authorization is issued.Step 1. Notice to the company and request for proposed CBI redactions and anonymizationFollowing the authorization of a drug under the interim order, Health Canada will give the manufacturer an opportunity to take part in a process initiation meeting. The first buy prednisone online usa 60 days of the 120-day publication process is allocated for the company to review the clinical information.

The company uses the Proposed Redaction Control Sheet (Appendix E, Public Release of Clinical Information (PRCI) guidance document) to propose any redaction of CBI. Proposed CBI redactions should pertain to information that meets the definition of confidential business information. This is defined in Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act, which mirrors common law buy prednisone online usa in the context of confidential business information that meets each of the following 3 elements of the definition. That is not publicly available in respect of which the person has taken measures that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that it remains not publicly available and that has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and its disclosure would result in a material financial loss to the person or a material financial gain to their competitorsFollowing an assessment of the proposals, text within an in-scope document found to meet the above definition will be protected.

Similar to Public Release of Clinical Information policies, any information that meets the definition of “clinical information” will not be considered confidential business information. Exceptions to buy prednisone online usa the PRCI regulations described in C.08.009.2(2)(a) and (b) of the Food and Drug Regulations or section 43.12(2)(a) and (b) of the Medical Device Regulations will be considered when applying redactions to confidential business information. Further information on the application of these exceptions can be found in the Health Canada PRCI guidance document.All personal information should be anonymized in accordance with section 6 of the Public Release of Clinical Information guidance document. The proposal package from the manufacturer should include.

The proposed redaction control sheet the draft anonymization report annotated documentsManufacturers submit for buy prednisone online usa Health Canada assessment using either CanadaPost ePost Connect or a suitable secure file transfer site of the manufacturer’s choosing.Step 2. Health Canada assessment of company representationsWithin 30 days of receiving the proposal package, Health Canada will complete and return our assessment of the proposed CBI redactions and anonymization methodology. Proposed redactions that meet the definition of confidential business information will be protected. We will review the anonymization methodology to ensure all personal information is protected while maximizing buy prednisone online usa the disclosure of useful clinical information.

Step 3. Revision of proposed CBI redactions and anonymizationIf proposed CBI redactions are rejected or revision is required to the anonymization methodology, in accordance with the Public Release of Clinical Information. Guidance document, the manufacturer will be given 15 days to make buy prednisone online usa the revisions and resubmit. We will send our final assessment to the manufacturer within 5 days of receiving the revised package.

Step 4. Finalization and publicationWithin 5 days of receiving our final assessment, the manufacturer must format and submit the final redacted and anonymization clinical documents within 5 buy prednisone online usa days of receiving our final assessment. The final documents must comply with the Guidance Document. Preparation of Regulatory Activities using the Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) Format.

These documents are to be buy prednisone online usa submitted using the Common Electronic Submission Gateway. We will publish the final redacted documents within 5 days of receiving the final sequence.Publication of safety and effectiveness information used to support medical device interim order applicationsThe publication of information within an interim order application will proceed through the abbreviated process described below. Our goal is to publish a final redacted and anonymized package on our clinical information portal within 120 calendar days from initiation of the process.Step 1. Health Canada screening of requestsAfter we receive a request for information, we will retrieve the interim order application from docubridge (or other buy prednisone online usa location).

Information related to safety and effectiveness will be considered in-scope of publication. Other information will not be released publicly. Only information available at the time the request is made will be considered buy prednisone online usa for disclosure. Information submitted after the original request for disclosure will be considered for public release upon receipt of a subsequent request.Examples of in scope information include.

Clinical testing information validation testing that supports the effectiveness of the product, including testing performed in vitro or in silico summaries or overviews on safety or efficacy pre- or post-market, including literature reviewsExamples of out of scope information include. Manufacturing details not related to safety or efficacy engineering and design details general documents, such as user manuals, package inserts and instructions for buy prednisone online usa use individual patient information, such as patient listings and case report forms, that require extensive anonymization interim clinical study data (see the PRCI guidance)Step 2a. Health Canada assessment of confidential business information To reduce administrative burden on the manufacturer, we will review in-scope records for confidential business information, as defined in Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act, which mirrors common law in the context of confidential business information that meets each of the following 3 elements of the definition will be protected. That is not publicly available in respect of which the person has taken measures that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that it remains not publicly available and that has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and its disclosure would result in a material financial loss to the person or a material financial gain to their competitorsText in an in-scope document found to meet this definition will be redacted using a PDF redaction tool.

Similar to Public Release of Clinical Information policies, any information that meets the definition of “clinical information” will not be considered confidential buy prednisone online usa business information. Exceptions to the PRCI regulations are outlined section 43.12(2)(a) and (b) of the Medical Device Regulations. These exceptions will be considered when applying redactions to confidential business information. Further information on the application of these exceptions can be buy prednisone online usa found in the PRCI guidance document.Step 2b.

Assessing personal informationIn general, in-scope records do not contain a large volume of personal identification information. Any personal information, as defined in the Privacy Act and in accordance with PRCI guidance, information that could help to identify an individual will be protected. For example, this can include the names buy prednisone online usa of authors and investigators as well as subject identification numbers.A large volume of indirectly identifying information is not expected in the medical device records that are in-scope of publication. Consequently, limited protection of personal information is anticipated.Personal information will be redacted using a PDF redaction tool.

Step 3. Notice to the company and request for redaction proposalFollowing the buy prednisone online usa review and redaction of in scope documents, we will send the manufacturer a written notice indicating our intent to publish the identified documents. A copy of the release package will be sent for the manufacturer’s review. Any further proposed redactions by the manufacturer must be received within 14 calendar days.Manufacturer are asked to use the Proposed Redaction Control Sheet (see Appendix E of the PRCI guidance document) to suggest further redactions.Step 4.

Health Canada assessment of company representationsAny further redactions proposed by the manufacturer will be assessed in buy prednisone online usa accordance with the process outlined in step 2, above. Those that meet the definition of personal or confidential business information will be accepted.Step 5. PublicationIn-scope documents will be published within 120 days following receipt of the request. The redacted information will be buy prednisone online usa uploaded to the Clinical Information Portal, indexed by application number.

Published documents will carry a watermark and be subject to terms of use, as described in the PRCI guidance.Mailing addressInformation Science and Openness DivisionResource Management and Operations DirectorateHealth Products and Food BranchHealth Canada Graham Spry Building 250 Lanark Ave Ottawa ON K1A 0K9 Telephone. 613-960-4687Email. Hc.clinicaldata-donneescliniques.sc@canada.ca Terminology buy prednisone online usa and definitions Anonymization. Means the process through which personal information is modified by.

removing direct identifiers and any related code that would enable linkage with identifying information and ensuring that the remaining indirect identifiers no longer present a serious possibility of re-identifying an individual CBI. Confidential business information, as meant in common buy prednisone online usa law and as defined in Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act. in respect of a person to whose business or affairs the information relates, means (subject to the regulations) business information that. Is not publicly available in respect of which the person has taken measures that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that it remains not publicly available has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and its disclosure would result in a material financial loss to the person or a material financial gain to their competitors Clinical information.

Means information in respect of a clinical trial, clinical studies or investigational buy prednisone online usa testing, such as. clinical overviews, clinical summaries and clinical study reports for drugs summaries and detailed information of all clinical studies and investigational testing that provided evidence of safety and effectiveness for medical devices Clinical study report. Means an "integrated" full report of an individual study of any therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic agent (drug or treatment) conducted in patients, in which. the clinical buy prednisone online usa and statistical description, presentations and analyses are integrated into a single report incorporating tables and figures into the main text of the report or at the end of the text appendices contain the protocol, sample case report forms, investigator-related information, information related to the test drugs/investigational products, including active control/comparators, technical statistical documentation, related publications, patient data listings and technical statistical details such as derivations, computations, analyses and computer output FDA.

Food and Drugs Act FDR. Food and Drug Regulations IMDRF ToC. International Medical Device Regulators Forum Table of buy prednisone online usa Contents Medical device. Has the same meaning as insee the Medical Devices Regulations.

For information on the classification of medical devices, please see the guidance documents on the. risk-based classification system buy prednisone online usa for in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDDs) risk-based classification system for non-in vitro diagnostic devices (non-IVDDs) Non-commercial purpose. Means the information will not be used to support a marketing authorization application anywhere in the world or sold or traded to another person Personal information. Has the same meaning as in Section 3 of the Privacy Act Related linksDate published.

October 19, 2020 The Interim Order Respecting the Prevention and Alleviation of Shortages of Drugs in Relation to Covid-19 was signed on October 16, buy prednisone online usa 2020. This interim order (IO) provides more tools for urgently addressing drug shortages related to COVID-19. Under certain conditions, the IO authorizes the Minister of Health to. require anyone who sells a drug to provide information relevant to a shortage or potential shortage of that drug related to COVID-19 impose or amend terms and conditions on authorizations buy prednisone online usa to sell drugs for the purpose of preventing or alleviating a drug shortage related to COVID-19 On this page Why the interim order was introduced The COVID-19 pandemic has.

caused an unprecedented demand for some drugs contributed to drug shortages in Canada posed a significant risk to the health of Canadians How the interim order will address drug shortages in Canada Reliable and timely information is required for Health Canada to act quickly and effectively to minimize the effects of these shortages on Canadians. Tools such as this new IO will better prepare Canada to respond to the imminent threat of drug shortages from a possible future resurgence of COVID-19. The IO buy prednisone online usa will allow the Minister to require any person who sells a drug to provide information about a shortage or potential shortage of that drug. The IO gives the Minister this authority if there are reasonable grounds to believe that.

the drug is at risk of going into shortage or is in shortage the shortage is caused or made worse, directly or indirectly, by the COVID-19 pandemic the shortage poses a risk of injury to human health the requested information is necessary to identify or assess the shortage. why it occurred its effects on human health what measures could be taken to prevent or alleviate the shortage the person would not provide the information without a legal obligation To prevent or alleviate a shortage, the Minister may also add or amend terms and conditions to an authorization to sell a buy prednisone online usa drug. The Minister may do so if there are reasonable grounds to believe that. the drug is at risk of going into shortage or is in shortage the shortage is caused or made worse, directly or indirectly, by the COVID-19 pandemic the shortage poses a risk of injury to human health If you have any questions, please contact us by email at.

the drug is at risk of going into shortage or is in shortage the lowest price prednisone shortage is caused or made worse, directly or indirectly, by the COVID-19 pandemic the shortage poses a risk of injury to human health If you have any questions, please contact us by email at. Hc.prsd-questionsdspr.sc@canada.ca. Related links and guidanceOn this page Policy objectiveThis guidance is to provide Canadians with access to information on the safety and efficacy/effectiveness of products being used for the COVID-19 pandemic. These products are lowest price prednisone being imported and sold in Canada under 2 interim orders.

All personal and confidential business information (CBI) will be protected prior to release. The disclosed information will be made publicly available for non-commercial purposes after Health Canada completes its regulatory review process, while adhering to Canada’s Privacy Act.Providing public access to this information supports Canada’s objective for transparent decision-making. Public access also provides valuable information that may help with the use or development of COVID19 drugs and medical lowest price prednisone devices.This guidance document outlines the process for publicly disclosing information in a market authorization application under the 2 interim orders. The process includes.

procedures when releasing information types of information that fall under the guidelines for CBI and that may be eligible for redaction protection of personal informationScope and application This document applies to information relied upon to issue a market authorization under the. Interim order respecting the importation, sale and advertising of drugs for use in relation to COVID-19 (September 16, 2020) and interim order respecting the importation and sale of medical devices for use in relation to COVID-19(March 18, 2020)The lowest price prednisone public release of safety and efficacy/effectiveness information reviewed under the 2 interim orders is governed by common law. Information requested for release is assessed case by case to determine what is CBI. Personal information is removed before the safety and efficacy/effectiveness information is released to the public.Following Health Canada’s review of an application, safety and efficacy information will be released as follows.

Automatically disclosed lowest price prednisone in applications submitted under the interim order for importing, selling and advertising drugs (proactive release) disclosed on request in applications submitted under the interim order for importing and selling medical devices (released upon request)Information in applications that have been authorized, including those authorized and then revoked, is in scope for public release. This includes. Original application documents documents filed after market authorization is issued (filed at Health Canada’s request or to meet a condition of approval)Information in applications that are refused and were never authorized is out of scope for public release. This document does not apply to clinical information submitted to support the market authorization of a medical device under the Medical Device Regulations or of a new drug submission under the Food and Drug Regulations lowest price prednisone (FDR).

The exception are new drug submissions for COVID-19 indications submitted under the FDR. For more information on the public release of this information, see the Public Release of Clinical Information. Guidance document.Also not lowest price prednisone applicable under this document is the CBI disclosure authority under section 21.1(3)(c) of the Food and Drugs Act. This section permits the Minister of Health to disclose CBI to certain persons for the purpose of protection or promotion of human health or the safety of the public.

For information on this authority, see the guidance document Disclosure of Confidential Business Information under Paragraph 21.1(3)(c) of the Food and Drugs Act.Proactive release of drug application informationWe will proactively publish safety and efficacy information used to support interim order drug applications upon authorization. This includes clinical information in applications submitted under sections lowest price prednisone 3, 6 and 14 of the interim order.How to request clinical information in medical device applicationsWe will publish safety and effectiveness information used to support interim order medical device applications when we receive a request from the public and within the limits of our administrative capacity. Requests made for multiple applications will be processed in sequence and subject to prioritization. Further prioritization may be given to products that have a greater impact on the health system, such as.

Products that are used a lot products that have a higher public interestRequests received for information in applications under the interim order will be prioritized over requests for clinical information in non-COVID19-related drugs submissions lowest price prednisone and device applications.To request clinical information on medical device applications, use our special portal to submit an electronic request form. Be sure to identify the product name listed on the following sites. Publication process Publication of safety and efficacy information used to support drug interim order applications The publication of information follows the process described in section 4 and Appendix C of the Public Release of Clinical Information guidance document.In accordance with PRCI timelines, we aim to publish a final redacted and anonymized package on our clinical information portal within 120 calendar days from starting the process. The process lowest price prednisone starts automatically on the day an authorization is issued.Step 1.

Notice to the company and request for proposed CBI redactions and anonymizationFollowing the authorization of a drug under the interim order, Health Canada will give the manufacturer an opportunity to take part in a process initiation meeting. The first 60 days of the 120-day publication process is allocated for the company to review the clinical information. The company uses the Proposed Redaction Control Sheet (Appendix E, Public Release of Clinical Information (PRCI) lowest price prednisone guidance document) to propose any redaction of CBI. Proposed CBI redactions should pertain to information that meets the definition of confidential business information.

This is defined in Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act, which mirrors common law in the context of confidential business information that meets each of the following 3 elements of the definition. That is not publicly available in respect of which the person has taken measures that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that it remains not publicly available and that has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it lowest price prednisone is not publicly available and its disclosure would result in a material financial loss to the person or a material financial gain to their competitorsFollowing an assessment of the proposals, text within an in-scope document found to meet the above definition will be protected. Similar to Public Release of Clinical Information policies, any information that meets the definition of “clinical information” will not be considered confidential business information. Exceptions to the PRCI regulations described in C.08.009.2(2)(a) and (b) of the Food and Drug Regulations or section 43.12(2)(a) and (b) of the Medical Device Regulations will be considered when applying redactions to confidential business information.

Further information on the application of these exceptions can be found in the Health Canada PRCI guidance document.All personal information should be anonymized in accordance with section lowest price prednisone 6 of the Public Release of Clinical Information guidance document. The proposal package from the manufacturer should include. The proposed redaction control sheet the draft anonymization report annotated documentsManufacturers submit for Health Canada assessment using either CanadaPost ePost Connect or a suitable secure file transfer site of the manufacturer’s choosing.Step 2. Health Canada assessment of company representationsWithin 30 days of receiving the proposal package, lowest price prednisone Health Canada will complete and return our assessment of the proposed CBI redactions and anonymization methodology.

Proposed redactions that meet the definition of confidential business information will be protected. We will review the anonymization methodology to ensure all personal information is protected while maximizing the disclosure of useful clinical information. Step 3 lowest price prednisone. Revision of proposed CBI redactions and anonymizationIf proposed CBI redactions are rejected or revision is required to the anonymization methodology, in accordance with the Public Release of Clinical Information.

Guidance document, the manufacturer will be given 15 days to make the revisions and resubmit. We will send our final lowest price prednisone assessment to the manufacturer within 5 days of receiving the revised package. Step 4. Finalization and publicationWithin 5 days of receiving our final assessment, the manufacturer must format and submit the final redacted and anonymization clinical documents within 5 days of receiving our final assessment.

The final documents must comply with the Guidance Document lowest price prednisone. Preparation of Regulatory Activities using the Electronic Common Technical Document (eCTD) Format. These documents are to be submitted using the Common Electronic Submission Gateway. We will publish the final redacted documents within 5 days of receiving the final sequence.Publication of safety and effectiveness information used lowest price prednisone to support medical device interim order applicationsThe publication of information within an interim order application will proceed through the abbreviated process described below.

Our goal is to publish a final redacted and anonymized package on our clinical information portal within 120 calendar days from initiation of the process.Step 1. Health Canada screening of requestsAfter we receive a request for information, we will retrieve the interim order application from docubridge (or other location). Information related to safety and effectiveness will be considered in-scope of lowest price prednisone publication. Other information will not be released publicly.

Only information available at the time the request is made will be considered for disclosure. Information submitted after the original request for disclosure will be considered for public release upon receipt of a subsequent request.Examples of in scope lowest price prednisone information include. Clinical testing information validation testing that supports the effectiveness of the product, including testing performed in vitro or in silico summaries or overviews on safety or efficacy pre- or post-market, including literature reviewsExamples of out of scope information include. Manufacturing details not related to safety or efficacy engineering and design details general documents, such as user manuals, package inserts and instructions for use individual patient information, such as patient listings and case report forms, that require extensive anonymization interim clinical study data (see the PRCI guidance)Step 2a.

Health Canada assessment of confidential business information To reduce administrative burden on the manufacturer, we will review in-scope records for confidential business information, as defined lowest price prednisone in Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act, which mirrors common law in the context of confidential business information that meets each of the following 3 elements of the definition will be protected. That is not publicly available in respect of which the person has taken measures that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that it remains not publicly available and that has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and its disclosure would result in a material financial loss to the person or a material financial gain to their competitorsText in an in-scope document found to meet this definition will be redacted using a PDF redaction tool. Similar to Public Release of Clinical Information policies, any information that meets the definition of “clinical information” will not be considered confidential business information. Exceptions to the PRCI regulations are outlined section 43.12(2)(a) and (b) of the lowest price prednisone Medical Device Regulations.

These exceptions will be considered when applying redactions to confidential business information. Further information on the application of these exceptions can be found in the PRCI guidance document.Step 2b. Assessing personal informationIn general, in-scope records do not contain lowest price prednisone a large volume of personal identification information. Any personal information, as defined in the Privacy Act and in accordance with PRCI guidance, information that could help to identify an individual will be protected.

For example, this can include the names of authors and investigators as well as subject identification numbers.A large volume of indirectly identifying information is not expected in the medical device records that are in-scope of publication. Consequently, limited protection of personal information is anticipated.Personal information lowest price prednisone will be redacted using a PDF redaction tool. Step 3. Notice to the company and request for redaction proposalFollowing the review and redaction of in scope documents, we will send the manufacturer a written notice indicating our intent to publish the identified documents.

A copy of the release package will be lowest price prednisone sent for the manufacturer’s review. Any further proposed redactions by the manufacturer must be received within 14 calendar days.Manufacturer are asked to use the Proposed Redaction Control Sheet (see Appendix E of the PRCI guidance document) to suggest further redactions.Step 4. Health Canada assessment of company representationsAny further redactions proposed by the manufacturer will be assessed in accordance with the process outlined in step 2, above. Those that meet the definition of personal or confidential business information lowest price prednisone will be accepted.Step 5.

PublicationIn-scope documents will be published within 120 days following receipt of the request. The redacted information will be uploaded to the Clinical Information Portal, indexed by application number. Published documents will carry a watermark and be subject to terms of use, as described in the PRCI guidance.Mailing addressInformation Science and Openness DivisionResource Management and Operations DirectorateHealth Products and Food lowest price prednisone BranchHealth Canada Graham Spry Building 250 Lanark Ave Ottawa ON K1A 0K9 Telephone. 613-960-4687Email.

Hc.clinicaldata-donneescliniques.sc@canada.ca Terminology and definitions Anonymization. Means the process through lowest price prednisone which personal information is modified by. removing direct identifiers and any related code that would enable linkage with identifying information and ensuring that the remaining indirect identifiers no longer present a serious possibility of re-identifying an individual CBI. Confidential business information, as meant in common law and as defined in Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act.

in respect of a lowest price prednisone person to whose business or affairs the information relates, means (subject to the regulations) business information that. Is not publicly available in respect of which the person has taken measures that are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that it remains not publicly available has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and its disclosure would result in a material financial loss to the person or a material financial gain to their competitors Clinical information. Means information in respect of a clinical trial, clinical studies or investigational testing, such as. clinical overviews, clinical summaries and clinical study reports for drugs summaries lowest price prednisone and detailed information of all clinical studies and investigational testing that provided evidence of safety and effectiveness for medical devices Clinical study report.

Means an "integrated" full report of an individual study of any therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic agent (drug or treatment) conducted in patients, in which. the clinical and statistical description, presentations and analyses are integrated into a single report incorporating tables and figures into the main text of the report or at the end of the text appendices contain the protocol, sample case report forms, investigator-related information, information related to the test drugs/investigational products, including active control/comparators, technical statistical documentation, related publications, patient data listings and technical statistical details such as derivations, computations, analyses and computer output FDA. Food and Drugs Act FDR lowest price prednisone. Food and Drug Regulations IMDRF ToC.

International Medical Device Regulators Forum Table of Contents Medical device. Has the same meaning lowest price prednisone as insee the Medical Devices Regulations. For information on the classification of medical devices, please see the guidance documents on the. risk-based classification system for in vitro diagnostic devices (IVDDs) risk-based classification system for non-in vitro diagnostic devices (non-IVDDs) Non-commercial purpose.

Means the information will not be used to support a marketing lowest price prednisone authorization application anywhere in the world or sold or traded to another person Personal information. Has the same meaning as in Section 3 of the Privacy Act Related linksDate published. October 19, 2020 The Interim Order Respecting the Prevention and Alleviation of Shortages of Drugs in Relation to Covid-19 was signed on October 16, 2020. This interim order (IO) provides more tools for lowest price prednisone urgently addressing drug shortages related to COVID-19.

Under certain conditions, the IO authorizes the Minister of Health to. require anyone who sells a drug to provide information relevant to a shortage or potential shortage of that drug related to COVID-19 impose or amend terms and conditions on authorizations to sell drugs for the purpose of preventing or alleviating a drug shortage related to COVID-19 On this page Why the interim order was introduced The COVID-19 pandemic has. caused an unprecedented demand for some drugs contributed lowest price prednisone to drug shortages in Canada posed a significant risk to the health of Canadians How the interim order will address drug shortages in Canada Reliable and timely information is required for Health Canada to act quickly and effectively to minimize the effects of these shortages on Canadians. Tools such as this new IO will better prepare Canada to respond to the imminent threat of drug shortages from a possible future resurgence of COVID-19.

The IO will allow the Minister to require any person who sells a drug to provide information about a shortage or potential shortage of that drug. The IO gives the Minister this authority lowest price prednisone if there are reasonable grounds to believe that. the drug is at risk of going into shortage or is in shortage the shortage is caused or made worse, directly or indirectly, by the COVID-19 pandemic the shortage poses a risk of injury to human health the requested information is necessary to identify or assess the shortage. why it occurred its effects on human health what measures could be taken to prevent or alleviate the shortage the person would not provide the information without a legal obligation To prevent or alleviate a shortage, the Minister may also add or amend terms and conditions to an authorization to sell a drug.

The Minister lowest price prednisone may do so if there are reasonable grounds to believe that. the drug is at risk of going into shortage or is in shortage the shortage is caused or made worse, directly or indirectly, by the COVID-19 pandemic the shortage poses a risk of injury to human health If you have any questions, please contact us by email at. Hc.prsd-questionsdspr.sc@canada.ca. Related links and lowest price prednisone guidanceOctober 9, 2020Our file number.

20-113699-873 As a standing regulatory member of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), Health Canada is committed to the adoption and implementation of all ICH guidance. By way of this Notice, Health Canada is advising of its intent to implement ICH Q12. Technical and lowest price prednisone Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management and the ICH Q12 associated annexes. This guidance has been developed by the appropriate ICH Expert Working Group and has been subject to consultation by the regulatory parties, in accordance with the ICH Process.

The ICH Assembly has endorsed the final draft and recommended its implementation by membership of ICH. The target timeframe for Health Canada implementation of ICH Q12 has been set to the third quarter of 2021 in order to allow sufficient lowest price prednisone time for the preparation of regulators and stakeholders. Health Canada will be launching a stakeholder consultation in early 2021 to gather feedback on the final elements of the implementation of the Q12 guidance in Canada.This new Guideline is proposed to provide a framework to facilitate the management of post-approval Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) changes in a more predictable and efficient manner across the product lifecycle. Implementation of this new ICH Guideline will promote innovation and continual improvement in the biopharmaceutical sector and strengthen quality assurance and reliable supply of product, including proactive planning of supply chain adjustments.

It will allow regulators (assessors and inspectors) to better understand the firms' Pharmaceutical Quality Systems (PQSs) for management of post-approval CMC changes.ICH Q12 should be read in conjunction with this accompanying notice and with the relevant sections of other applicable Health Canada guidances.

Prednisone face

Patients Figure prednisone face 1. Figure 1. Enrollment and prednisone face Randomization. Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization. 541 were assigned to prednisone face the remdesivir group and 522 to the placebo group (Figure 1).

Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned. Forty-nine patients had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death prednisone face (36 patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned. Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2). As of prednisone face April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients in the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died.

Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. There were 132 patients in the remdesivir group and 169 in the placebo group who had not recovered and had prednisone face not completed the day 29 follow-up visit. The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have at least some postbaseline data available (538 in the remdesivir group and 521 in the placebo group). Four of the 1063 patients were not included in the primary analysis because no postbaseline data were available prednisone face at the time of the database freeze. Table 1.

Table 1 prednisone face. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean age of patients was 58.9 years, and 64.3% were male (Table 1). On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of Covid-19 during the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% prednisone face in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, and 13.6% were designated as other or not reported.

249 (23.4%) were Hispanic prednisone face or Latino. Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of days prednisone face between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to 12). Nine hundred forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix. 272 (25.6%) prednisone face patients met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 (39.6%) category 5, and 127 (11.9%) category 4.

There were 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group. Primary Outcome prednisone face Figure 2. Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates of prednisone face Cumulative Recoveries.

Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen. Panel B), in those with a baseline score prednisone face of 5 (receiving oxygen. Panel C), in those with a baseline score of 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Panel D), and in those with a baseline score of 7 (receiving mechanical ventilation prednisone face or ECMO. Panel E).

Table 2. Table 2 prednisone face. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population. Figure 3 prednisone face. Figure 3.

Time to Recovery According to Subgroup prednisone face. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects. Race and ethnic group were reported prednisone face by the patients. Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 11 days, as compared with 15 days. Rate ratio for recovery, 1.32.

95% confidence interval [CI], prednisone face 1.12 to 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients (Figure 2 and Table prednisone face 2). Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline score of 4 (127 patients) and those with prednisone face a baseline score of 6 (197 patients), the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively.

For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7. 272 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was prednisone face 0.95 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.42). A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant. An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable was conducted to evaluate the overall effect (of the percentage of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome. This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate (rate prednisone face ratio for recovery, 1.31.

95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54. 1017 patients) prednisone face. Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe. Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms had prednisone face a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57. 664 patients), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81.

380 patients) prednisone face (Figure 3). Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.50. 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.91. P=0.001. 844 patients) (Table 2 and Fig.

S5). Mortality was numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04. 1059 patients). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2).

The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients that had yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10). Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group and 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3). 4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients).

Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group. No deaths were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4). The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]).

Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose level (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]). Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.Trial Population Table 1. Table 1.

Characteristics of the Participants in the mRNA-1273 Trial at Enrollment. The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig. S1). Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected Covid-19 while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending. All continued to attend scheduled trial visits.

The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1. Vaccine Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met. As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination. Figure 1. Figure 1.

Systemic and Local Adverse Events. The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2). Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events. None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination.

After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever. One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common. Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site. Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3).

SARS-CoV-2 Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2. Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens. Figure 2. Figure 2.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody and Neutralization Responses. Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live virus PRNT80 responses (Panel D). In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively. Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants.

Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel. In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays. Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A).

Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident. Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B). For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens. The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]). SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination.

After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50]. Figure 2C, Fig. S8, and Table 2. 80% inhibitory dilution [ID80]. Fig.

S2 and Table S6). However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants. The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43. The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43). These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens.

Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-virus neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay. At day 43, wild-type virus–neutralizing activity capable of reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay. Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs. S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273.

SARS-CoV-2 T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs. S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >. Interleukin 2 >. Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13). CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig.

S11).Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. (Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor. Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, tocilizumab, or convalescent plasma. Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial. Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020.

Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible. Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients or from a legal representative if they were unable to provide consent. The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net.

The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee. The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in the preparation or approval of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan. Randomization We collected baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site. Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment.

Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial. For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated. These patients were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included in this report. The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician. Patients and local members of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments.

Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first. Information was recorded regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death). In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization. Further analyses were specified at 6 months.

Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death. Other prespecified clinical outcomes included cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and receipt and duration of ventilation. Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups. Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients.

For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was used to estimate the mortality rate ratio. Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the absence of any information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period. Cox regression was used to analyze the secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization.

For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio. Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support. Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1).

To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years). This adjustment was not specified in the first version of the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent. Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk.

(One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest. Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford.Trial Design and Oversight We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate postexposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine after exposure to Covid-19.12 We randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive either hydroxychloroquine or placebo.

Participants had known exposure (by participant report) to a person with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19, whether as a household contact, a health care worker, or a person with other occupational exposures. Trial enrollment began on March 17, 2020, with an eligibility threshold to enroll within 3 days after exposure. The objective was to intervene before the median incubation period of 5 to 6 days. Because of limited access to prompt testing, health care workers could initially be enrolled on the basis of presumptive high-risk exposure to patients with pending tests. However, on March 23, eligibility was changed to exposure to a person with a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay for SARS-CoV-2, with the eligibility window extended to within 4 days after exposure.

This trial was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Minnesota and conducted under a Food and Drug Administration Investigational New Drug application. In Canada, the trial was approved by Health Canada. Ethics approvals were obtained from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, the University of Manitoba, and the University of Alberta. Participants We included participants who had household or occupational exposure to a person with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Participants were excluded if they were younger than 18 years of age, were hospitalized, or met other exclusion criteria (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org).

Persons with symptoms of Covid-19 or with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded from this prevention trial but were separately enrolled in a companion clinical trial to treat early infection. Setting Recruitment was performed primarily with the use of social media outreach as well as traditional media platforms. Participants were enrolled nationwide in the United States and in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta. Participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.13 After participants read the consent form, their comprehension of its contents was assessed. Participants provided a digitally captured signature to indicate informed consent.

We sent follow-up e-mail surveys on days 1, 5, 10, and 14. A survey at 4 to 6 weeks asked about any follow-up testing, illness, or hospitalizations. Participants who did not respond to follow-up surveys received text messages, e-mails, telephone calls, or a combination of these to ascertain their outcomes. When these methods were unsuccessful, the emergency contact provided by the enrollee was contacted to determine the participant’s illness and vital status. When all communication methods were exhausted, Internet searches for obituaries were performed to ascertain vital status.

Interventions Randomization occurred at research pharmacies in Minneapolis and Montreal. The trial statisticians generated a permuted-block randomization sequence using variably sized blocks of 2, 4, or 8, with stratification according to country. A research pharmacist sequentially assigned participants. The assignments were concealed from investigators and participants. Only pharmacies had access to the randomization sequence.

Hydroxychloroquine sulfate or placebo was dispensed and shipped overnight to participants by commercial courier. The dosing regimen for hydroxychloroquine was 800 mg (4 tablets) once, then 600 mg (3 tablets) 6 to 8 hours later, then 600 mg (3 tablets) daily for 4 more days for a total course of 5 days (19 tablets total). If participants had gastrointestinal upset, they were advised to divide the daily dose into two or three doses. We chose this hydroxychloroquine dosing regimen on the basis of pharmacokinetic simulations to achieve plasma concentrations above the SARS-CoV-2 in vitro half maximal effective concentration for 14 days.14 Placebo folate tablets, which were similar in appearance to the hydroxychloroquine tablets, were prescribed as an identical regimen for the control group. Rising Pharmaceuticals provided a donation of hydroxychloroquine, and some hydroxychloroquine was purchased.

Outcomes The primary outcome was prespecified as symptomatic illness confirmed by a positive molecular assay or, if testing was unavailable, Covid-19–related symptoms. We assumed that health care workers would have access to Covid-19 testing if symptomatic. However, access to testing was limited throughout the trial period. Covid-19–related symptoms were based on U.S. Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists criteria for confirmed cases (positivity for SARS-Cov-2 on PCR assay), probable cases (the presence of cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing, or the presence of two or more symptoms of fever, chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, and new olfactory and taste disorders), and possible cases (the presence of one or more compatible symptoms, which could include diarrhea).15 All the participants had epidemiologic linkage,15 per trial eligibility criteria.

Four infectious disease physicians who were unaware of the trial-group assignments reviewed symptomatic participants to generate a consensus with respect to whether their condition met the case definition.15 Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hospitalization for Covid-19 or death, the incidence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the incidence of Covid-19 symptoms, the incidence of discontinuation of the trial intervention owing to any cause, and the severity of symptoms (if any) at days 5 and 14 according to a visual analogue scale (scores ranged from 0 [no symptoms] to 10 [severe symptoms]). Data on adverse events were also collected with directed questioning for common side effects along with open-ended free text. Outcome data were measured within 14 days after trial enrollment. Outcome data including PCR testing results, possible Covid-19–related symptoms, adherence to the trial intervention, side effects, and hospitalizations were all collected through participant report. Details of trial conduct are provided in the protocol and statistical analysis plan, available at NEJM.org.

Sample Size We anticipated that illness compatible with Covid-19 would develop in 10% of close contacts exposed to Covid-19.9 Using Fisher’s exact method with a 50% relative effect size to reduce new symptomatic infections, a two-sided alpha of 0.05, and 90% power, we estimated that 621 persons would need to be enrolled in each group. With a pragmatic, Internet-based, self-referral recruitment strategy, we planned for a 20% incidence of attrition by increasing the sample size to 750 participants per group. We specified a priori that participants who were already symptomatic on day 1 before receiving hydroxychloroquine or placebo would be excluded from the prophylaxis trial and would instead be separately enrolled in the companion symptomatic treatment trial. Because the estimates for both incident symptomatic Covid-19 after an exposure and loss to follow-up were relatively unknown in early March 2020,9 the protocol prespecified a sample-size reestimation at the second interim analysis. This reestimation, which used the incidence of new infections in the placebo group and the observed percentage of participants lost to follow-up, was aimed at maintaining the ability to detect an effect size of a 50% relative reduction in new symptomatic infections.

Interim Analyses An independent data and safety monitoring board externally reviewed the data after 25% and 50% of the participants had completed 14 days of follow-up. Stopping guidelines were provided to the data and safety monitoring board with the use of a Lan–DeMets spending function analogue of the O’Brien–Fleming boundaries for the primary outcome. A conditional power analysis was performed at the second and third interim analysis with the option of early stopping for futility. At the second interim analysis on April 22, 2020, the sample size was reduced to 956 participants who could be evaluated with 90% power on the basis of the higher-than-expected event rate of infections in the control group. At the third interim analysis on May 6, the trial was halted on the basis of a conditional power of less than 1%, since it was deemed futile to continue.

Statistical Analysis We assessed the incidence of Covid-19 disease by day 14 with Fisher’s exact test. Secondary outcomes with respect to percentage of patients were also compared with Fisher’s exact test. Among participants in whom incident illness compatible with Covid-19 developed, we summarized the symptom severity score at day 14 with the median and interquartile range and assessed the distributions with a Kruskal–Wallis test. We conducted all analyses with SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), according to the intention-to-treat principle, with two-sided type I error with an alpha of 0.05. For participants with missing outcome data, we conducted a sensitivity analysis with their outcomes excluded or included as an event.

Subgroups that were specified a priori included type of contact (household vs. Health care), days from exposure to enrollment, age, and sex.Announced on May 15, Operation Warp Speed (OWS) — a partnership of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the private sector — aims to accelerate control of the Covid-19 pandemic by advancing development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. OWS is providing support to promising candidates and enabling the expeditious, parallel execution of the necessary steps toward approval or authorization of safe products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The partnership grew out of an acknowledged need to fundamentally restructure the way the U.S. Government typically supports product development and vaccine distribution. The initiative was premised on setting a “stretch goal” — one that initially seemed impossible but that is becoming increasingly achievable.The concept of an integrated structure for Covid-19 countermeasure research and development across the U.S.

Government was based on experience with Zika and the Zika Leadership Group led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the assistant secretary for preparedness and response (ASPR). One of us (M.S.) serves as OWS chief advisor. We are drawing on expertise from the NIH, ASPR, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and the DOD, including the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. OWS has engaged experts in all critical aspects of medical countermeasure research, development, manufacturing, and distribution to work in close coordination.The initiative set ambitious objectives. To deliver tens of millions of doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine — with demonstrated safety and efficacy, and approved or authorized by the FDA for use in the U.S.

Population — beginning at the end of 2020 and to have as many as 300 million doses of such vaccines available and deployed by mid-2021. The pace and scope of such a vaccine effort are unprecedented. The 2014 West African Ebola virus epidemic spurred rapid vaccine development, but though preclinical data existed before the outbreak, a period of 12 months was required to progress from phase 1 first-in-human trials to phase 3 efficacy trials. OWS aims to compress this time frame even further. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development began in January, phase 1 clinical studies in March, and the first phase 3 trials in July.

Our objectives are based on advances in vaccine platform technology, improved understanding of safe and efficacious vaccine design, and similarities between the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 disease mechanisms.OWS’s role is to enable, accelerate, harmonize, and advise the companies developing the selected vaccines. The companies will execute the clinical or process development and manufacturing plans, while OWS leverages the full capacity of the U.S. Government to ensure that no technical, logistic, or financial hurdles hinder vaccine development or deployment.OWS selected vaccine candidates on the basis of four criteria. We required candidates to have robust preclinical data or early-stage clinical trial data supporting their potential for clinical safety and efficacy. Candidates had to have the potential, with our acceleration support, to enter large phase 3 field efficacy trials this summer or fall (July to November 2020) and, assuming continued active transmission of the virus, to deliver efficacy outcomes by the end of 2020 or the first half of 2021.

Candidates had to be based on vaccine-platform technologies permitting fast and effective manufacturing, and their developers had to demonstrate the industrial process scalability, yields, and consistency necessary to reliably produce more than 100 million doses by mid-2021. Finally, candidates had to use one of four vaccine-platform technologies that we believe are the most likely to yield a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19. The mRNA platform, the replication-defective live-vector platform, the recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein platform, or the attenuated replicating live-vector platform.OWS’s strategy relies on a few key principles. First, we sought to build a diverse project portfolio that includes two vaccine candidates based on each of the four platform technologies. Such diversification mitigates the risk of failure due to safety, efficacy, industrial manufacturability, or scheduling factors and may permit selection of the best vaccine platform for each subpopulation at risk for contracting or transmitting Covid-19, including older adults, frontline and essential workers, young adults, and pediatric populations.

In addition, advancing eight vaccines in parallel will increase the chances of delivering 300 million doses in the first half of 2021.Second, we must accelerate vaccine program development without compromising safety, efficacy, or product quality. Clinical development, process development, and manufacturing scale-up can be substantially accelerated by running all streams, fully resourced, in parallel. Doing so requires taking on substantial financial risk, as compared with the conventional sequential development approach. OWS will maximize the size of phase 3 trials (30,000 to 50,000 participants each) and optimize trial-site location by consulting daily epidemiologic and disease-forecasting models to ensure the fastest path to an efficacy readout. Such large trials also increase the safety data set for each candidate vaccine.With heavy up-front investment, companies can conduct clinical operations and site preparation for these phase 3 efficacy trials even as they file their Investigational New Drug application (IND) for their phase 1 studies, thereby ensuring immediate initiation of phase 3 when they get a green light from the FDA.

To permit appropriate comparisons among the vaccine candidates and to optimize vaccine utilization after approval by the FDA, the phase 3 trial end points and assay readouts have been harmonized through a collaborative effort involving the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Coronavirus Prevention Network, OWS, and the sponsor companies.Finally, OWS is supporting the companies financially and technically to commence process development and scale up manufacturing while their vaccines are in preclinical or very early clinical stages. To ensure that industrial processes are set, running, and validated for FDA inspection when phase 3 trials end, OWS is also supporting facility building or refurbishing, equipment fitting, staff hiring and training, raw-material sourcing, technology transfer and validation, bulk product processing into vials, and acquisition of ample vials, syringes, and needles for each vaccine candidate. We aim to have stockpiled, at OWS’s expense, a few tens of millions of vaccine doses that could be swiftly deployed once FDA approval is obtained.This strategy aims to accelerate vaccine development without curtailing the critical steps required by sound science and regulatory standards. The FDA recently reissued guidance and standards that will be used to assess each vaccine for a Biologics License Application (BLA). Alternatively, the agency could decide to issue an Emergency Use Authorization to permit vaccine administration before all BLA procedures are completed.Of the eight vaccines in OWS’s portfolio, six have been announced and partnerships executed with the companies.

Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech (both mRNA), AstraZeneca and Janssen (both replication-defective live-vector), and Novavax and Sanofi/GSK (both recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein). These candidates cover three of the four platform technologies and are currently in clinical trials. The remaining two candidates will enter trials soon.Moderna developed its RNA vaccine in collaboration with the NIAID, began its phase 1 trial in March, recently published encouraging safety and immunogenicity data,1 and entered phase 3 on July 27. Pfizer and BioNTech’s RNA vaccine also produced encouraging phase 1 results2 and started its phase 3 trial on July 27. The ChAdOx replication-defective live-vector vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University is in phase 3 trials in the United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Africa, and it should enter U.S.

Phase 3 trials in August.3 The Janssen Ad26 Covid-19 replication-defective live-vector vaccine has demonstrated excellent protection in nonhuman primate models and began its U.S. Phase 1 trial on July 27. It should be in phase 3 trials in mid-September. Novavax completed a phase 1 trial of its recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein vaccine in Australia and should enter phase 3 trials in the United States by the end of September.4 Sanofi/GSK is completing preclinical development steps and plans to commence a phase 1 trial in early September and to be well into phase 3 by year’s end.5On the process-development front, the RNA vaccines are already being manufactured at scale. The other candidates are well advanced in their scale-up development, and manufacturing sites are being refurbished.While development and manufacturing proceed, the HHS–DOD partnership is laying the groundwork for vaccine distribution, subpopulation prioritization, financing, and logistic support.

We are working with bioethicists and experts from the NIH, the CDC, BARDA, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to address these critical issues. We will receive recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and we are working to ensure that the most vulnerable and at-risk persons will receive vaccine doses once they are ready. Prioritization will also depend on the relative performance of each vaccine and its suitability for particular populations. Because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies.No scientific enterprise could guarantee success by January 2021, but the strategic decisions and choices we’ve made, the support the government has provided, and the accomplishments to date make us optimistic that we will succeed in this unprecedented endeavor..

Patients Figure lowest price prednisone 1. Figure 1. Enrollment and lowest price prednisone Randomization. Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization. 541 were lowest price prednisone assigned to the remdesivir group and 522 to the placebo group (Figure 1).

Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned. Forty-nine patients had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 lowest price prednisone patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned. Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2). As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients in lowest price prednisone the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died.

Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. There were 132 patients in the remdesivir group and 169 in the placebo group who had not recovered and had not completed lowest price prednisone the day 29 follow-up visit. The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have at least some postbaseline data available (538 in the remdesivir group and 521 in the placebo group). Four of the 1063 patients were not included in the primary analysis lowest price prednisone because no postbaseline data were available at the time of the database freeze. Table 1.

Table 1 lowest price prednisone. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean age of patients was 58.9 years, and 64.3% were male (Table 1). On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of Covid-19 during the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites lowest price prednisone in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, and 13.6% were designated as other or not reported.

249 (23.4%) were Hispanic or lowest price prednisone Latino. Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of lowest price prednisone days between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to 12). Nine hundred forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix. 272 (25.6%) patients met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 (39.6%) category 5, and 127 (11.9%) category 4 lowest price prednisone.

There were 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group. Primary Outcome lowest price prednisone Figure 2. Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Cumulative lowest price prednisone Recoveries.

Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen. Panel B), in those with a baseline score of 5 lowest price prednisone (receiving oxygen. Panel C), in those with a baseline score of 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Panel D), and in those with a baseline score of 7 (receiving mechanical ventilation lowest price prednisone or ECMO. Panel E).

Table 2. Table 2 lowest price prednisone. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population. Figure 3 lowest price prednisone. Figure 3.

Time to lowest price prednisone Recovery According to Subgroup. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects. Race and ethnic group were lowest price prednisone reported by the patients. Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 11 days, as compared with 15 days. Rate ratio for recovery, 1.32.

95% confidence interval [CI], lowest price prednisone 1.12 to 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients (Figure 2 and Table lowest price prednisone 2). Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline score of 4 (127 patients) and those with a baseline score of 6 (197 patients), the rate ratio estimates lowest price prednisone for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively.

For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7. 272 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.64 to lowest price prednisone 1.42). A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant. An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable was conducted to evaluate the overall effect (of the percentage of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome. This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31 lowest price prednisone.

95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54. 1017 patients) lowest price prednisone. Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe. Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57 lowest price prednisone. 664 patients), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81.

380 patients) lowest price prednisone (Figure 3). Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.50. 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.91. P=0.001. 844 patients) (Table 2 and Fig.

S5). Mortality was numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04. 1059 patients). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2).

The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients that had yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10). Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group and 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3). 4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients).

Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group. No deaths were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4). The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]).

Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose level (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]). Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.Trial Population Table 1. Table 1.

Characteristics of the Participants in the mRNA-1273 Trial at Enrollment. The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig. S1). Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected Covid-19 while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending. All continued to attend scheduled trial visits.

The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1. Vaccine Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met. As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination. Figure 1. Figure 1.

Systemic and Local Adverse Events. The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2). Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events. None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination.

After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever. One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common. Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site. Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3).

SARS-CoV-2 Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2. Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens. Figure 2. Figure 2.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody and Neutralization Responses. Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live virus PRNT80 responses (Panel D). In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively. Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants.

Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel. In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays. Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A).

Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident. Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B). For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens. The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]). SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination.

After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50]. Figure 2C, Fig. S8, and Table 2. 80% inhibitory dilution [ID80]. Fig.

S2 and Table S6). However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants. The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43. The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43). These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens.

Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-virus neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay. At day 43, wild-type virus–neutralizing activity capable of reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay. Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs. S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273.

SARS-CoV-2 T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs. S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >. Interleukin 2 >. Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13). CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig.

S11).Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. (Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor. Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, tocilizumab, or convalescent plasma. Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial. Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020.

Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible. Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients or from a legal representative if they were unable to provide consent. The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net.

The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee. The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in the preparation or approval of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan. Randomization We collected baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site. Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment.

Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial. For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated. These patients were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included in this report. The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician. Patients and local members of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments.

Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first. Information was recorded regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death). In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization. Further analyses were specified at 6 months.

Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death. Other prespecified clinical outcomes included cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and receipt and duration of ventilation. Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups. Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients.

For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was used to estimate the mortality rate ratio. Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the absence of any information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period. Cox regression was used to analyze the secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization.

For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio. Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support. Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1).

To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years). This adjustment was not specified in the first version of the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent. Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk.

(One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest. Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford.Trial Design and Oversight We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate postexposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine after exposure to Covid-19.12 We randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive either hydroxychloroquine or placebo.

Participants had known exposure (by participant report) to a person with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19, whether as a household contact, a health care worker, or a person with other occupational exposures. Trial enrollment began on March 17, 2020, with an eligibility threshold to enroll within 3 days after exposure. The objective was to intervene before the median incubation period of 5 to 6 days. Because of limited access to prompt testing, health care workers could initially be enrolled on the basis of presumptive high-risk exposure to patients with pending tests. However, on March 23, eligibility was changed to exposure to a person with a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay for SARS-CoV-2, with the eligibility window extended to within 4 days after exposure.

This trial was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Minnesota and conducted under a Food and Drug Administration Investigational New Drug application. In Canada, the trial was approved by Health Canada. Ethics approvals were obtained from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, the University of Manitoba, and the University of Alberta. Participants We included participants who had household or occupational exposure to a person with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Participants were excluded if they were younger than 18 years of age, were hospitalized, or met other exclusion criteria (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org).

Persons with symptoms of Covid-19 or with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded from this prevention trial but were separately enrolled in a companion clinical trial to treat early infection. Setting Recruitment was performed primarily with the use of social media outreach as well as traditional media platforms. Participants were enrolled nationwide in the United States and in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta. Participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.13 After participants read the consent form, their comprehension of its contents was assessed. Participants provided a digitally captured signature to indicate informed consent.

We sent follow-up e-mail surveys on days 1, 5, 10, and 14. A survey at 4 to 6 weeks asked about any follow-up testing, illness, or hospitalizations. Participants who did not respond to follow-up surveys received text messages, e-mails, telephone calls, or a combination of these to ascertain their outcomes. When these methods were unsuccessful, the emergency contact provided by the enrollee was contacted to determine the participant’s illness and vital status. When all communication methods were exhausted, Internet searches for obituaries were performed to ascertain vital status.

Interventions Randomization occurred at research pharmacies in Minneapolis and Montreal. The trial statisticians generated a permuted-block randomization sequence using variably sized blocks of 2, 4, or 8, with stratification according to country. A research pharmacist sequentially assigned participants. The assignments were concealed from investigators and participants. Only pharmacies had access to the randomization sequence.

Hydroxychloroquine sulfate or placebo was dispensed and shipped overnight to participants by commercial courier. The dosing regimen for hydroxychloroquine was 800 mg (4 tablets) once, then 600 mg (3 tablets) 6 to 8 hours later, then 600 mg (3 tablets) daily for 4 more days for a total course of 5 days (19 tablets total). If participants had gastrointestinal upset, they were advised to divide the daily dose into two or three doses. We chose this hydroxychloroquine dosing regimen on the basis of pharmacokinetic simulations to achieve plasma concentrations above the SARS-CoV-2 in vitro half maximal effective concentration for 14 days.14 Placebo folate tablets, which were similar in appearance to the hydroxychloroquine tablets, were prescribed as an identical regimen for the control group. Rising Pharmaceuticals provided a donation of hydroxychloroquine, and some hydroxychloroquine was purchased.

Outcomes The primary outcome was prespecified as symptomatic illness confirmed by a positive molecular assay or, if testing was unavailable, Covid-19–related symptoms. We assumed that health care workers would have access to Covid-19 testing if symptomatic. However, access to testing was limited throughout the trial period. Covid-19–related symptoms were based on U.S. Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists criteria for confirmed cases (positivity for SARS-Cov-2 on PCR assay), probable cases (the presence of cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing, or the presence of two or more symptoms of fever, chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, and new olfactory and taste disorders), and possible cases (the presence of one or more compatible symptoms, which could include diarrhea).15 All the participants had epidemiologic linkage,15 per trial eligibility criteria.

Four infectious disease physicians who were unaware of the trial-group assignments reviewed symptomatic participants to generate a consensus with respect to whether their condition met the case definition.15 Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hospitalization for Covid-19 or death, the incidence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the incidence of Covid-19 symptoms, the incidence of discontinuation of the trial intervention owing to any cause, and the severity of symptoms (if any) at days 5 and 14 according to a visual analogue scale (scores ranged from 0 [no symptoms] to 10 [severe symptoms]). Data on adverse events were also collected with directed questioning for common side effects along with open-ended free text. Outcome data were measured within 14 days after trial enrollment. Outcome data including PCR testing results, possible Covid-19–related symptoms, adherence to the trial intervention, side effects, and hospitalizations were all collected through participant report. Details of trial conduct are provided in the protocol and statistical analysis plan, available at NEJM.org.

Sample Size We anticipated that illness compatible with Covid-19 would develop in 10% of close contacts exposed to Covid-19.9 Using Fisher’s exact method with a 50% relative effect size to reduce new symptomatic infections, a two-sided alpha of 0.05, and 90% power, we estimated that 621 persons would need to be enrolled in each group. With a pragmatic, Internet-based, self-referral recruitment strategy, we planned for a 20% incidence of attrition by increasing the sample size to 750 participants per group. We specified a priori that participants who were already symptomatic on day 1 before receiving hydroxychloroquine or placebo would be excluded from the prophylaxis trial and would instead be separately enrolled in the companion symptomatic treatment trial. Because the estimates for both incident symptomatic Covid-19 after an exposure and loss to follow-up were relatively unknown in early March 2020,9 the protocol prespecified a sample-size reestimation at the second interim analysis. This reestimation, which used the incidence of new infections in the placebo group and the observed percentage of participants lost to follow-up, was aimed at maintaining the ability to detect an effect size of a 50% relative reduction in new symptomatic infections.

Interim Analyses An independent data and safety monitoring board externally reviewed the data after 25% and 50% of the participants had completed 14 days of follow-up. Stopping guidelines were provided to the data and safety monitoring board with the use of a Lan–DeMets spending function analogue of the O’Brien–Fleming boundaries for the primary outcome. A conditional power analysis was performed at the second and third interim analysis with the option of early stopping for futility. At the second interim analysis on April 22, 2020, the sample size was reduced to 956 participants who could be evaluated with 90% power on the basis of the higher-than-expected event rate of infections in the control group. At the third interim analysis on May 6, the trial was halted on the basis of a conditional power of less than 1%, since it was deemed futile to continue.

Statistical Analysis We assessed the incidence of Covid-19 disease by day 14 with Fisher’s exact test. Secondary outcomes with respect to percentage of patients were also compared with Fisher’s exact test. Among participants in whom incident illness compatible with Covid-19 developed, we summarized the symptom severity score at day 14 with the median and interquartile range and assessed the distributions with a Kruskal–Wallis test. We conducted all analyses with SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), according to the intention-to-treat principle, with two-sided type I error with an alpha of 0.05. For participants with missing outcome data, we conducted a sensitivity analysis with their outcomes excluded or included as an event.

Subgroups that were specified a priori included type of contact (household vs. Health care), days from exposure to enrollment, age, and sex.Announced on May 15, Operation Warp Speed (OWS) — a partnership of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the private sector — aims to accelerate control of the Covid-19 pandemic by advancing development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. OWS is providing support to promising candidates and enabling the expeditious, parallel execution of the necessary steps toward approval or authorization of safe products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The partnership grew out of an acknowledged need to fundamentally restructure the way the U.S. Government typically supports product development and vaccine distribution. The initiative was premised on setting a “stretch goal” — one that initially seemed impossible but that is becoming increasingly achievable.The concept of an integrated structure for Covid-19 countermeasure research and development across the U.S.

Government was based on experience with Zika and the Zika Leadership Group led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the assistant secretary for preparedness and response (ASPR). One of us (M.S.) serves as OWS chief advisor. We are drawing on expertise from the NIH, ASPR, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and the DOD, including the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. OWS has engaged experts in all critical aspects of medical countermeasure research, development, manufacturing, and distribution to work in close coordination.The initiative set ambitious objectives. To deliver tens of millions of doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine — with demonstrated safety and efficacy, and approved or authorized by the FDA for use in the U.S.

Population — beginning at the end of 2020 and to have as many as 300 million doses of such vaccines available and deployed by mid-2021. The pace and scope of such a vaccine effort are unprecedented. The 2014 West African Ebola virus epidemic spurred rapid vaccine development, but though preclinical data existed before the outbreak, a period of 12 months was required to progress from phase 1 first-in-human trials to phase 3 efficacy trials. OWS aims to compress this time frame even further. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development began in January, phase 1 clinical studies in March, and the first phase 3 trials in July.

Our objectives are based on advances in vaccine platform technology, improved understanding of safe and efficacious vaccine design, and similarities between the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 disease mechanisms.OWS’s role is to enable, accelerate, harmonize, and advise the companies developing the selected vaccines. The companies will execute the clinical or process development and manufacturing plans, while OWS leverages the full capacity of the U.S. Government to ensure that no technical, logistic, or financial hurdles hinder vaccine development or deployment.OWS selected vaccine candidates on the basis of four criteria. We required candidates to have robust preclinical data or early-stage clinical trial data supporting their potential for clinical safety and efficacy. Candidates had to have the potential, with our acceleration support, to enter large phase 3 field efficacy trials this summer or fall (July to November 2020) and, assuming continued active transmission of the virus, to deliver efficacy outcomes by the end of 2020 or the first half of 2021.

Candidates had to be based on vaccine-platform technologies permitting fast and effective manufacturing, and their developers had to demonstrate the industrial process scalability, yields, and consistency necessary to reliably produce more than 100 million doses by mid-2021. Finally, candidates had to use one of four vaccine-platform technologies that we believe are the most likely to yield a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19. The mRNA platform, the replication-defective live-vector platform, the recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein platform, or the attenuated replicating live-vector platform.OWS’s strategy relies on a few key principles. First, we sought to build a diverse project portfolio that includes two vaccine candidates based on each of the four platform technologies. Such diversification mitigates the risk of failure due to safety, efficacy, industrial manufacturability, or scheduling factors and may permit selection of the best vaccine platform for each subpopulation at risk for contracting or transmitting Covid-19, including older adults, frontline and essential workers, young adults, and pediatric populations.

In addition, advancing eight vaccines in parallel will increase the chances of delivering 300 million doses in the first half of 2021.Second, we must accelerate vaccine program development without compromising safety, efficacy, or product quality. Clinical development, process development, and manufacturing scale-up can be substantially accelerated by running all streams, fully resourced, in parallel. Doing so requires taking on substantial financial risk, as compared with the conventional sequential development approach. OWS will maximize the size of phase 3 trials (30,000 to 50,000 participants each) and optimize trial-site location by consulting daily epidemiologic and disease-forecasting models to ensure the fastest path to an efficacy readout. Such large trials also increase the safety data set for each candidate vaccine.With heavy up-front investment, companies can conduct clinical operations and site preparation for these phase 3 efficacy trials even as they file their Investigational New Drug application (IND) for their phase 1 studies, thereby ensuring immediate initiation of phase 3 when they get a green light from the FDA.

To permit appropriate comparisons among the vaccine candidates and to optimize vaccine utilization after approval by the FDA, the phase 3 trial end points and assay readouts have been harmonized through a collaborative effort involving the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Coronavirus Prevention Network, OWS, and the sponsor companies.Finally, OWS is supporting the companies financially and technically to commence process development and scale up manufacturing while their vaccines are in preclinical or very early clinical stages. To ensure that industrial processes are set, running, and validated for FDA inspection when phase 3 trials end, OWS is also supporting facility building or refurbishing, equipment fitting, staff hiring and training, raw-material sourcing, technology transfer and validation, bulk product processing into vials, and acquisition of ample vials, syringes, and needles for each vaccine candidate. We aim to have stockpiled, at OWS’s expense, a few tens of millions of vaccine doses that could be swiftly deployed once FDA approval is obtained.This strategy aims to accelerate vaccine development without curtailing the critical steps required by sound science and regulatory standards. The FDA recently reissued guidance and standards that will be used to assess each vaccine for a Biologics License Application (BLA). Alternatively, the agency could decide to issue an Emergency Use Authorization to permit vaccine administration before all BLA procedures are completed.Of the eight vaccines in OWS’s portfolio, six have been announced and partnerships executed with the companies.

Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech (both mRNA), AstraZeneca and Janssen (both replication-defective live-vector), and Novavax and Sanofi/GSK (both recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein). These candidates cover three of the four platform technologies and are currently in clinical trials. The remaining two candidates will enter trials soon.Moderna developed its RNA vaccine in collaboration with the NIAID, began its phase 1 trial in March, recently published encouraging safety and immunogenicity data,1 and entered phase 3 on July 27. Pfizer and BioNTech’s RNA vaccine also produced encouraging phase 1 results2 and started its phase 3 trial on July 27. The ChAdOx replication-defective live-vector vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University is in phase 3 trials in the United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Africa, and it should enter U.S.

Phase 3 trials in August.3 The Janssen Ad26 Covid-19 replication-defective live-vector vaccine has demonstrated excellent protection in nonhuman primate models and began its U.S. Phase 1 trial on July 27. It should be in phase 3 trials in mid-September. Novavax completed a phase 1 trial of its recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein vaccine in Australia and should enter phase 3 trials in the United States by the end of September.4 Sanofi/GSK is completing preclinical development steps and plans to commence a phase 1 trial in early September and to be well into phase 3 by year’s end.5On the process-development front, the RNA vaccines are already being manufactured at scale. The other candidates are well advanced in their scale-up development, and manufacturing sites are being refurbished.While development and manufacturing proceed, the HHS–DOD partnership is laying the groundwork for vaccine distribution, subpopulation prioritization, financing, and logistic support.

We are working with bioethicists and experts from the NIH, the CDC, BARDA, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to address these critical issues. We will receive recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and we are working to ensure that the most vulnerable and at-risk persons will receive vaccine doses once they are ready. Prioritization will also depend on the relative performance of each vaccine and its suitability for particular populations. Because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies.No scientific enterprise could guarantee success by January 2021, but the strategic decisions and choices we’ve made, the support the government has provided, and the accomplishments to date make us optimistic that we will succeed in this unprecedented endeavor..

Prednisone for poison oak

No one prednisone for poison oak goes into motherhood thinking it’ll be a walk in the park. We expect the sleepless nights (and the anxiety that follows), we know there’ll be times when we don’t look after ourselves like we should, and we’re all-too-aware of the huge, life-altering responsibility of raising a human and the perpetual juggle that comes with it. But everlasting exhaustion, perennial baby brain and prednisone for poison oak overwhelm?. Not only is that unhealthy, it’s not something we should be wearing as a badge of honour.Part of the framework of being a modern day Mum is not only the expectation “do it all” but also to do it without complaint.

But at what prednisone for poison oak point do you draw the line between being tired and chronically depleted?. And how do you even know the difference?. This is prednisone for poison oak where Dr. Oscar Serrallach comes in.

The Byron Bay-based family health doctor and author or The Post Natal Depletion Cure, practices at The Health Lodge and is a longtime, passionate advocate for mother’s health, dedicating his time and research to this very thing.He is also, incidentally, the person who coined the terminology “postnatal depletion” after seeing an endless stream of mothers come into his practice chronically depleted, most complaining of an prednisone for poison oak everlasting baby brain. His hunch that there was more to the story was right, and the more he looked into it the more he uncovered.What is postnatal depletion?. According to Dr prednisone for poison oak. Serrallach, the hallmark of postnatal depletion is significant fatigue, but it “can also present with cognitive symptoms such as brain fog, concentration issues, difficulty remembering nouns (known as nominal aphasia), hypervigilance, noise sensitivity and having a loud inner critic.”Occasionally it can also affect mothers physically too with taste, receding gums, hair loss, and the worsening of existing inflammatory issues.Like what you see?.

Sign up to our bodyandsoul.com.au newsletter for more stories like this.“Most of the issues that occur to mothers postnatally – including the postnatal mood disorders – are actually neuro-inflammatory in nature,” he prednisone for poison oak says. That is, they are literally inflammation in the brain.Let’s backtrack for a bit. What happens to your brain in pregnancy prednisone for poison oak and motherhoodTo understand postnatal depletion, you first need to know what happens to a woman’s brain in pregnancy and motherhood. Your brain rewires itself.

Or, as Dr prednisone for poison oak. Serrallach says, “neuro-hormonal remodeling of the brain” takes place.“The greatest time of neurogenesis as a child or adult is during pregnancy,” he says, “and it starts at conception.”These changes are so significant that you can actually tell from an MRI if a woman has carried a baby to full term or not.“There are major upgrades to the brain happening in matrescence, the biggest ones being taste and smell. But EQ (emotional intelligence), social reasoning and facial prednisone for poison oak recognition all get an upgrade, and even IQ even goes up slightly,” says Dr. Serrallach.So there is literal proof of both “baby brain” and “mum brain” and the effect it has on a woman.The problem with modern-day mummingKnowing that our brains have undergone such heavy-duty transformation, it seems kind of absurd that we would consider rushing back to life as “normal”.

Our bodies and our brains have just done something completely wild, yet we’re all so insistent on “doing it all” that we’re not taking care of ourselves when we need it the most.This coupled with the fact that we’re having children later means that we’re already coming at motherhood from a more depleted state.But the real clincher is the fact that we have normalised feeling this way to a point that most women just brush it off as “being a mum”.That feeling overwhelmed and exhausted is just the way life is now, and there’s also an element of us feeling like we shouldn’t say anything because it’s what we signed up for.How can you tell the difference between “normal” tired and postnatal depletion?. Knowing all of the above, the big question here is prednisone for poison oak. How do we tell if we are just tired… or if it’s actually something more?. Dr.

Serrallach explains, “The key feature of postnatal depletion is fatigue. That is, even if you get two or three nights of good sleep you can’t seem to recover from that fatigue and you still don’t feel yourself. That’s your first indicator, because if you’re just tired, it should correct itself with some sleep, but of course, with a neuro-inflammatory disorder the cure isn’t sleep.”What’s the difference between postnatal depletion and postnatal depression?. One of the key differences between the two, as Dr.

Serrallach explains, is in the sense of joy.“With depletion, there is still an underlying feeling that things will be ok, but with depression, there isn’t that sense, and there aren’t those moments of joy.”However, with both of these diagnoses part of the issue is in the definition of the postnatal period.To be classed as having postnatal depression it has to happen within the first six months postpartum, with symptoms beginning as early as four weeks. However, Dr. Serrallach notes that the peak incidence of depression post-natally is actually at the four to five-year mark, though technically that doesn’t count at “postnatal depression” anymore.And with postnatal depletion, the effects could linger for up to seven years – or longer.What can you do about it?. As you could guess, there is no quick fix for this, but rather a multi-pronged approach that looks at restoring macro and micronutrients, emotional support and also a reshaping of our own expectations (and society’s) around motherhood.“One of my favourite sayings is ‘it takes a village to raise a mother’”, says Dr.

Serrallach. But what most of our modern life is missing is both the village and asking for that support.“One of the most vital things I feel is to start having these discussions as part of your postnatal plan. That way you’ll be responding, but not reacting after the fact.”Part of that is building in some self-care of your own, and really taking that time to look after yourself.“Building a mental health practice into your day is one of the best things you can do to help yourself,” says Dr. Serrallach, “whether that be breath work, guided meditations, gratitude practices, yoga or creative pursuits.”Oh, and another big one?.

Getting some restful sleep. And this isn’t just a pipe dream, nor is it a badge of honour to survive on little sleep for so long. It’s a fundamental human necessity, and one we all need to be investing in.Dr. Serrallach is available for telehealth appointments through The Health Lodge in Byron Bay..

No one goes lowest price prednisone into motherhood thinking it’ll be a walk in the park. We expect the sleepless nights (and the anxiety that follows), we know there’ll be times when we don’t look after ourselves like we should, and we’re all-too-aware of the huge, life-altering responsibility of raising a human and the perpetual juggle that comes with it. But everlasting exhaustion, perennial lowest price prednisone baby brain and overwhelm?. Not only is that unhealthy, it’s not something we should be wearing as a badge of honour.Part of the framework of being a modern day Mum is not only the expectation “do it all” but also to do it without complaint.

But at what point do you lowest price prednisone draw the line between being tired and chronically depleted?. And how do you even know the difference?. This is lowest price prednisone where Dr. Oscar Serrallach comes in.

The Byron Bay-based family health doctor and author or The Post Natal Depletion Cure, practices at The Health Lodge and is a longtime, passionate advocate for mother’s health, dedicating his time and research to this very thing.He is also, incidentally, the person who lowest price prednisone coined the terminology “postnatal depletion” after seeing an endless stream of mothers come into his practice chronically depleted, most complaining of an everlasting baby brain. His hunch that there was more to the story was right, and the more he looked into it the more he uncovered.What is postnatal depletion?. According to lowest price prednisone Dr. Serrallach, the hallmark of postnatal depletion is significant fatigue, but it “can also present with cognitive symptoms such as brain fog, concentration issues, difficulty remembering nouns (known as nominal aphasia), hypervigilance, noise sensitivity and having a loud inner critic.”Occasionally it can also affect mothers physically too with taste, receding gums, hair loss, and the worsening of existing inflammatory issues.Like what you see?.

Sign up to our bodyandsoul.com.au newsletter for more stories like this.“Most of the issues that occur to mothers postnatally – including lowest price prednisone the postnatal mood disorders – are actually neuro-inflammatory in nature,” he says. That is, they are literally inflammation in the brain.Let’s backtrack for a bit. What happens to your lowest price prednisone brain in pregnancy and motherhoodTo understand postnatal depletion, you first need to know what happens to a woman’s brain in pregnancy and motherhood. Your brain rewires itself.

Or, as lowest price prednisone Dr. Serrallach says, “neuro-hormonal remodeling of the brain” takes place.“The greatest time of neurogenesis as a child or adult is during pregnancy,” he says, “and it starts at conception.”These changes are so significant that you can actually tell from an MRI if a woman has carried a baby to full term or not.“There are major upgrades to the brain happening in matrescence, the biggest ones being taste and smell. But EQ (emotional intelligence), social reasoning and facial recognition all get an upgrade, and lowest price prednisone even IQ even goes up slightly,” says Dr. Serrallach.So there is literal proof of both “baby brain” and “mum brain” and the effect it has on a woman.The problem with modern-day mummingKnowing that our brains have undergone such heavy-duty transformation, it seems kind of absurd that we would consider rushing back to life as “normal”.

Our bodies and our brains have just done something completely wild, yet we’re all so insistent on “doing it all” that we’re not taking care of ourselves when we need it the most.This coupled with the fact that we’re having children later means that we’re already coming at motherhood from a more depleted state.But the real clincher is the fact that we have normalised feeling this way to a point that most women just brush it off as “being a mum”.That feeling overwhelmed and exhausted is just the way life is now, and there’s also an element of us feeling like we shouldn’t say anything because it’s what we signed up for.How can you tell the difference between “normal” tired and postnatal depletion?. Knowing all lowest price prednisone of the above, the big question here is. How do we tell if we are just tired… or if it’s actually something more?. Dr.

Serrallach explains, “The key feature of postnatal depletion is fatigue. That is, even if you get two or three nights of good sleep you can’t seem to recover from that fatigue and you still don’t feel yourself. That’s your first indicator, because if you’re just tired, it should correct itself with some sleep, but of course, with a neuro-inflammatory disorder the cure isn’t sleep.”What’s the difference between postnatal depletion and postnatal depression?. One of the key differences between the two, as Dr.

Serrallach explains, is in the sense of joy.“With depletion, there is still an underlying feeling that things will be ok, but with depression, there isn’t that sense, and there aren’t those moments of joy.”However, with both of these diagnoses part of the issue is in the definition of the postnatal period.To be classed as having postnatal depression it has to happen within the first six months postpartum, with symptoms beginning as early as four weeks. However, Dr. Serrallach notes that the peak incidence of depression post-natally is actually at the four to five-year mark, though technically that doesn’t count at “postnatal depression” anymore.And with postnatal depletion, the effects could linger for up to seven years – or longer.What can you do about it?. As you could guess, there is no quick fix for this, but rather a multi-pronged approach that looks at restoring macro and micronutrients, emotional support and also a reshaping of our own expectations (and society’s) around motherhood.“One of my favourite sayings is ‘it takes a village to raise a mother’”, says Dr.

Serrallach. But what most of our modern life is missing is both the village and asking for that support.“One of the most vital things I feel is to start having these discussions as part of your postnatal plan. That way you’ll be responding, but not reacting after the fact.”Part of that is building in some self-care of your own, and really taking that time to look after yourself.“Building a mental health practice into your day is one of the best things you can do to help yourself,” says Dr. Serrallach, “whether that be breath work, guided meditations, gratitude practices, yoga or creative pursuits.”Oh, and another big one?.

Getting some restful sleep. And this isn’t just a pipe dream, nor is it a badge of honour to survive on little sleep for so long. It’s a fundamental human necessity, and one we all need to be investing in.Dr. Serrallach is available for telehealth appointments through The Health Lodge in Byron Bay..

Prednisone what is it

Sport is predicated on the idea of victors emerging from a level prednisone what is it playing field. All ethically informed evaluate practices are like this. They require an equality of respect, consideration, and opportunity, while trying to achieve substantively prednisone what is it unequal outcomes. For instance. Limited resources mean that physicians must treat some patients and not others, while still treating them with equal respect.

Examiners must prednisone what is it pass some students and not others, while still giving their work equal consideration. Employers may only be able to hire one applicant, while still being required to treat all applicants fairly, and so on. The 800 m is meant to be prednisone what is it one of these practices. A level and equidistance running track from which one victor is intended to emerge. The case of Caster Semenya raises challenging questions about what makes level-playing-fields level, questions that extend beyond any given playing field.In the Feature Article for this issue Loland provides us with new and engaging reasons to support of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision in the Casta Semenya case.

The impact of the CAS decision requires Casta Semenya to supress her naturally occurring testosterone if she is to compete in an international prednisone what is it athletics events. The Semenya case is described by Loland as creating a ‘dilemma of rights’.i The dilemma lies in the choice between ‘the right of Semenya to compete in sport according to her legal sex and gender identity’ and ‘the right of other athletes within the average female testosterone range to compete under fair conditions’ (see footnote i).No one denies the importance of Semenya’s right. As Carpenter explains, ‘even prednisone what is it where inconvenient, sex assigned at birth should always be respected unless an individual seeks otherwise’.2 Loland’s conclusions, Carpenter argues, ‘support a convenience-based approach to classification of sex where choices about the status of people with intersex variations are made by others according to their interests at that time’ (see footnote ii). Carpenter then further explains how the CAS decision is representative of ‘systemic forms of discrimination and human rights violations’ and provides no assistance in ‘how we make the world more hospitable and more accepting of difference’ (see footnote ii).What is therefore at issue is the existence of the second right. Let me explain how Loland constructs it.

The background principle is the principle of fair equality of opportunity, which requires that ‘individuals with similar endowments and talents and similar ambitions should be given similar opportunities prednisone what is it and roughly equivalent prospects for competitive success’(see footnote i). This principle reflects, according to Loland, a deeper deontological right of respect and fair treatment. As we can appreciate, when it comes to the principle of fair equality of opportunity, a lot turns on what counts as ‘similar’ (or sufficiently different) endowments and talents and what counts as ‘similar’ (or sufficiently different) opportunities and prospects for success.For Loland, ‘dynamic inequalities’ concern differences in capabilities (such as strength, speed, and endurance, and in technical and tactical skills) that can be ‘cultivated by hard work and effort’ (see footnote i). These are capabilities that are ‘relevant’ and therefore permit a range differences between prednisone what is it otherwise ‘similar’ athletes. €˜Stable inequalities’ are characterises (such as in age, sex, body size, and disability/ability) are ‘not-relevant’ and therefore require classification to ensure that ‘similar’ athletes are given ‘roughly equivalent prospects for success’.

It follows for Loland that athletes with ‘46 XY prednisone what is it DSD conditions (and not for individuals with normal female XX chromosones), with testosterone levels above five nanomoles per litre blood (nmol/L), and who experience a ‘material androgenizing effect’’ benefit from a stable inequality (see footnote i). Hence, the ‘other athletes within the average female testosterone range’ therefore have a right not to compete under conditions of stable inequality. The solution, according to Knox and Anderson, lies in more nuance classifications. Commenting in (qualified) support of Loland, they suggest that ‘classification according to sex alone is no longer adequate’.3 Instead, ‘all athletes would be categorised, making classification the prednisone what is it norm’ (see footnote iii).However, as we have just seen, Loland’s distinction between stable and dynamic inequalities depends on their ‘relevance’, and ‘relevance’ is a term that does not travel alone. Something is relevant (or irrelevant) only in relation to the value, purpose, or aim, of some practice.

One interpretation (which I take Loland to be saying) is that strength, speed, and endurance (and so on) prednisone what is it are ‘relevant’ to ‘performance outcomes’. This can be misleading. Both dynamic and stable inequalities are relevant to (ie, can have an impact on) an athletic performance. Is a question of whether we ought to permit them to have an impact prednisone what is it. The temptation is then to say that dynamic inequalities are relevant (and stable inequalities are irrelevant) where the aim is ‘respect and fair treatment’.

But here the snake begins to eat its tail (the principle of fair treatment requires sufficiently similar prospects for success >similar prospects for success require only dynamic inequalities>dynamic inequalities are capabilities that are permitted by the principle of fair treatment).In order to determine questions of relevance, we need to identify the value, purpose, or aim, of the social practice in question. If the aim of an athletic event is to have a victor emerge from a completely level playing field, then, as Chambers notes, socioeconomic inequalities are a larger affront to fair treatment than athletes with 46 XY DSD conditions.4 If the aim is to have a victor emerge from completely level hormonal playing field then ‘a man with low testosterone levels is unfairly disadvantaged against a man whose natural levels are higher, and so prednisone what is it men’s competitions are unfair’ (see footnote iv). Or, at least very high testosterone males should be on hormone suppressants in order to give the ‘average’ competitor a ‘roughly equivalent prospect for competitive success’.The problem is that we are not interested in the average competitor. We are prednisone what is it interested in the exceptional among us. Unless, it is for light relief.

In every Olympiad there is the observation that, in every Olympic event, one average person should be included in the competition for the spectators’ reference. The humour lies in the absurd scenarios that would prednisone what is it follow, whether it be the 100 m sprint, high jump, or synchronised swimming. Great chasms of natural ability would be laid bare, the results of a lifetime of training and dedication would be even clearer to see, and the last place result would be entirely predictable. But note how these are different prednisone what is it attributes. While we may admire Olympians, it is unclear whether it is because of their God-given ability, their grit and determination, or their role in the unpredictable theatre of sport.

If sport is a worthwhile social practice, we need to start spelling out its worth. Without doing so, prednisone what is it we are unable to identify what capabilities are ‘relevant’ or ‘irrelevant’ to its aims, purpose or value. And until we can explain why one naturally occurring capability is ‘irrelevant’ to the aims, purposes, or values, of sport, while the remainder of them are relevant, I can only identify one right in play in the Semenya case.IntroductionSince the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many medical systems have needed to divert routine services in order to support the large number of patients with acute COVID-19 disease. For example, in the prednisone what is it National Health Service (NHS) almost all elective surgery has been postponed1 and outpatient clinics have been cancelled or conducted on-line treatment regimens for many forms of cancer have changed2. This diversion inevitably reduces availability of routine treatments for non-COVID-19-related illness.

Even urgent treatments have needed to be modified. Patients with acute surgical emergencies such as appendicitis still present for care, cancers continue to prednisone what is it be discovered in patients, and may require urgent management. Health systems are focused on making sure that these urgent needs are met. However, to achieve this goal, many patients are offered treatments that deviate from standard, non-pandemic management.Deviations from standard management are required for multiple factors such as:Limited resources (staff and equipment reallocated).Risk of nosocomial acquired infection in high-risk patients.Increased risk for medical staff to deliver treatments due to aerosolisation1.Treatments requiring intensive care therapy that is in limited availability.Operative procedures that are long and difficult or that are technically challenging if conducted in personal protective equipment. The outcomes from prednisone what is it such procedures may be worse than in normal circumstances.Treatments that render patients more susceptible to COVID-19 disease, for example chemotherapy.There are many instances of compromise, but some examples that we are aware of include open appendectomy rather than laparoscopy to reduce risk of aerosolisation3 and offering a percutaneousCoronary intervention (PCI) rather than coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for coronary artery disease, to reduce need for intensive care.

Surgery for cancers ordinarily operated on urgently maybe deferred for up to 3 months4 and surgery might be conducted under local anaesthesia that would typically have merited a general anaesthetic (both to reduce the aerosol risk of General anaesthesia, and because of relative lack of anaesthetists).The current emergency offers a unique difficulty. A significant number of treatments with proven benefit might be unavailable to patients while those alternatives prednisone what is it that are available are not usually considered best practice and might be actually inferior. In usual circumstances, where two treatment options for a particular problem are considered appropriate, the decision of which option to pursue would often depend on the personal preference of the patient.But during the pandemic what is ethically and legally required of the doctor or medical professional informing patients about treatment and seeking their consent?. In particular, do health professionals need to make patients aware of the usual forms of treatment that they are not being offered in the current setting?. We consider two theoretical case examples:Case 1Jenny2 is a model in her mid-20s who presents to hospital at prednisone what is it the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic with acute appendicitis.

Her surgeon, Miss Schmidt, approaches Jenny to obtain consent for an open appendectomy. Miss Schmidt explains the risks of the operative procedure, and the prednisone what is it alternative of conservative management (with intravenous antibiotics). Jenny consents to the procedure. However, she develops a postoperative wound infection and an unsightly scar. She does some research and discovers that a laparoscopic procedure would ordinarily have been performed and would have had a lower chance of wound infection prednisone what is it.

She sues Miss Schmidt and the hospital trust where she was treated.Case 2June2s a retired teacher in her early 70s who has well-controlled diabetes and hypertension. She is active and runs a local food bank. Immediately prior to the pandemic prednisone what is it lockdown in the UK June had an episode of severe chest pain and investigations revealed that she has had a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. The cardiothoracic surgical team recommends that June undergo a PCI although normally her pattern of coronary artery disease would be treated by CABG. When the cardiologist explains that surgery would prednisone what is it be normally offered in this situation, and is theoretically superior to PCI, June’s husband becomes angry and demands that June is listed for surgery.In favour of non-disclosureIt might appear at first glance that doctors should obviously inform Jenny and June about the usual standard of care.

After all, consent cannot be informed if crucial information is lacking. However, one reason that this may be called into question is that it is not immediately clear how it benefits a patient to be informed about alternatives that are not actually available?. In usual circumstances, doctors are not obliged to inform patients about prednisone what is it treatments that are performed overseas but not in the UK. In the UK, for example, there is a rigorous process for assessment of new treatments (not including experimental therapies). Some treatments prednisone what is it that are available in other jurisdictions have not been deemed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to be sufficiently beneficial and cost-effective to be offered by the NHS.

It is hard to imagine that a health professional would be found negligent for not discussing with a patient a treatment that NICE has explicitly rejected. The same might apply for novel therapies that are currently unfunded pending formal evaluation by NICE.Of course, the difference is that the treatments we are discussing have been proven (or are believed) to be beneficial and would normally be provided. The Montgomery Ruling of 2015 in the UK established that patients must be prednisone what is it informed of material risks of treatment and reasonable alternatives to treatment. The Bayley –v- George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust5case established that those reasonable alternative treatments must be ‘appropriate treatment’ not just a ‘possible treatment’6. In the current crisis, prednisone what is it many previously standard treatments are no longer appropriate given the restrictions outlined.

In other circumstances they are appropriate. During a pandemic they are no longer appropriate, even if they become appropriate again at some unknown time in the future.In both ethical and legal terms, it is widely accepted that, for consent to be valid, if must be given voluntarily by a person who has capacity to consent and who understands the nature and risks of the treatment. A failure to prednisone what is it obtain valid consent, or performing interventions in the absence of consent, could result in criminal proceedings for assault. Failing to provide adequate information in the consent process could support a claim of negligence. Ethically, adequate information about treatments is essential for the patient to enable them to weigh up options and decide which treatments they wish to undertake.

However, information about unavailable treatments arguably does not help the prednisone what is it patient make an informed decision because it does not give them information that is relevant to consenting or to refusal of treatment that is actually available. If Miss Schmidt had given Jenny information about the relative benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy, that could not have helped Jenny’s decision to proceed with surgery. Her available choices were open appendectomy or no prednisone what is it surgery. Moreover, as the case of June highlights, providing information about alternatives may lead them to desire or even demand those alternative options. This could cause distress both to the patient and the health professional (who is unable to acquiesce).Consideration might also be paid to the effect on patients of disclosure.

How would it affect a patient with newly diagnosed cancer to tell them that an alternative, perhaps better therapy, might be routinely available in usual circumstances but is not available prednisone what is it now?. There is provision in the Montgomery Ruling, in rare circumstances, for therapeutic exception. That is, prednisone what is it if information is significantly detrimental to the health of a patient it might be omitted. We could imagine a version of the case where Jenny was so intensely anxious about the proposed surgery that her surgeon comes to a sincere belief that discussion of the laparoscopic alternative would be extremely distressing or might even lead her to refuse surgery. In most cases, though, it would be hard to be sure that the risks of disclosing alternative (non-available) treatments would be so great that non-disclosure would be justified.In favour of disclosureIn the UK, professional guidance issued by the GMC (General Medical Council) requires doctors to take a personalised approach to information sharing about treatments by sharing ‘with patients the information they want or need in order to make decisions’.

The Montgomery judgement of 20157 broadly endorsed the position of the GMC, requiring patients to be told about any material risks and reasonable alternatives relevant to prednisone what is it the decision at hand. The Supreme Court clarifies that materiality here should be judged by reference to a new two-limbed test founded on the notions of the ‘reasonable person in the patient’s position’ and the ‘particular patient’. One practical test might be for the clinician to ask themselves whether patients in general, or this particular patient might wish to know about alternative forms of treatment that would usually be offered.The GMC has recently produced pandemic-specific guidance8 on consent and decision-making, but this guidance is focused on managing consent in COVID-19-related interventions. While the GMC takes the view that its consent guidelines continue to apply as far as is practical, it also notes that the patient is enabled to consider the ‘reasonable alternatives’, and that the doctor is ‘open and honest with patients about the decision-making prednisone what is it process and the criteria for setting priorities in individual cases’.In some situations, there might be the option of delaying treatment until later. When other surgical procedures are possible.

In that setting, it would be prednisone what is it important to ensure that the patient is aware of those future options (including the risks of delay). For example, if Jenny had symptomatic gallstones, her surgeons might be offering an open cholecystectomy now or the possibility of a laparoscopic surgery at some later point. Understanding the full options open to her now and in the future may have considerable influence on Jenny’s decision. Likewise, if June is aware that she is not prednisone what is it being offered standard treatment she may wish to delay treatment of her atherosclerosis until a later date. Of course, such a delay might lead to greater harm overall.

However, it would be ethically permissible to delay treatment if that was the patient’s informed choice (just as it would be permissible for the patient to refuse treatment altogether).In the appendicitis case, Jenny does not have the option for delaying her treatment, but the choice for June is more complicated, prednisone what is it between immediate PCI which is a second-best treatment versus waiting for standard therapy. Immediate surgery also raises a risk of acquiring nosocomial COVID-19 infection and June is in an age group and has comorbidities that put her at risk of severe COVID-19 disease. Waiting for surgery leaves June at risk of sudden death. For an active and otherwise well patient with coronary disease like June, PCI procedure is not as good a treatment as CABG and June might legitimately wish to take her chances and wait for the standard prednisone what is it treatment. The decision to operate or wait is a balance of risks that only June is fully able to make.

Patients in prednisone what is it this scenario will take different approaches. Patients will need different amounts of information to form their decisions, many patients will need as much information as is available including information about procedures not currently available to make up their mind.June’s husband insists that she should receive the best treatment, and that she should therefore be listed for CABG. Although this treatment would appear to be in June’s best interests, and would respect her autonomy, those ethical considerations are potentially outweighed by distributive justice. The COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 is being characterised prednisone what is it by limitations. Liberties curtailed and choices restricted, this is justified by a need to protect healthcare systems from demand exceeding availability.

While resource allocation is always a relevant ethical concern in publicly funded healthcare systems, it is a dominant concern in a setting where there is a high demand for medical care and scare resources.It is well established that competent adult patients can consent to or refuse medical treatment but they cannot demand that health professionals provide treatments that are contrary to their professional judgement or (even more importantly) would consume scarce healthcare resources. In June’s case, agreeing to perform CABG at a time when large numbers of patients are critically ill with COVID-19 might mean that another patient is denied access to intensive care (and even prednisone what is it dies as a result). Of course, it may be that there are actually available beds in intensive care, and June’s operation would not directly lead to denial of treatment for another patient. However, that does prednisone what is it not automatically mean that surgery must proceed. The hospital may have been justified in making a decision to suspend some forms of cardiac surgery.

That could be on the basis of the need to use the dedicated space, staff and equipment of the cardiothoracic critical care unit for patients with COVID-19. Even if all that physical prednisone what is it space is not currently occupied if may not be feasible or practical to try to simultaneously accommodate some non-COVID-19 patients. (There would be a risk that June would contract COVID-19 postoperatively and end up considerably worse off than she would have been if she had instead received PCI.) Moreover, it seems problematic for individual patients to be able to circumvent policies about allocation of resources purely on the basis that they stand to be disadvantaged by the policy.Perhaps the most significant benefit of disclosure of non-options is transparency and honesty. We suggest that the main reason why Miss Schmidt ought to have included discussion of the laparoscopic alternative prednisone what is it is so that Jenny understands the reasoning behind the decision. If Miss Schmidt had explained to Jenny that in the current circumstances laparoscopic surgery has been stopped, that might have helped her to appreciate that she was being offered the best available management.

It might have enabled a frank discussion about the challenges faced by health professionals in the context of the pandemic and the inevitable need for compromise. It may have avoided awkward discussions later after prednisone what is it Jenny developed her complication.Transparent disclosure should not mean that patients can demand treatment. But it might mean that patients could appeal against a particular policy if they feel that it has been reached unfairly, or applied unfairly. For example, if June became aware that some patients were still being offered CABG, she might (or might not) be justified in appealing against the decision not to offer it to her. Obviously such an appeal would only be possible if the patient were prednisone what is it aware of the alternatives that they were being denied.For patients faced by decisions such as that faced by June, balancing risks of either option is highly personal.

Individuals need to weigh up these decisions for them and require all of the information available to do so. Some information is readily available, for prednisone what is it example, the rate of infection for Jenny and the risk of death without treatment for June. But other risks are unknown, such as the risk of acquiring nosocomial infection with COVID-19. Doctors might feel discomfort talking about unquantifiable risks, but we argue that it is important that the patient has all available information to weigh up options for them, including information that is unknown.ConclusionIn a pandemic, as in other times, doctors should ensure that they offer appropriate medical treatment, based on the needs of an individual. They should aim to provide available treatment that is beneficial and prednisone what is it should not offer treatment that is unavailable or contrary to the patient best interests.

It is ethical. Indeed it is vital within a public healthcare system, to consider distributive justice in the prednisone what is it allocation of treatment. Where treatment is scarce, it may not be possible or appropriate to offer to patients some treatments that would be beneficial and desired by them.Informed consent needs to be individualised. Doctors are obliged to tailor their information to the needs of an individual. We suggest that in the current climate this should include, for most patients, a nuanced open discussion about alternative treatments that would have been available to them prednisone what is it in usual circumstances.

That will sometimes be a difficult conversation, and require clinicians to be frank about limited resources and necessary rationing. However, transparency and honesty will usually be the best policy..

Sport is predicated on the idea of victors emerging from a level playing field lowest price prednisone. All ethically informed evaluate practices are like this. They require an equality lowest price prednisone of respect, consideration, and opportunity, while trying to achieve substantively unequal outcomes. For instance. Limited resources mean that physicians must treat some patients and not others, while still treating them with equal respect.

Examiners must pass some students and not others, while lowest price prednisone still giving their work equal consideration. Employers may only be able to hire one applicant, while still being required to treat all applicants fairly, and so on. The 800 m is meant to be one lowest price prednisone of these practices. A level and equidistance running track from which one victor is intended to emerge. The case of Caster Semenya raises challenging questions about what makes level-playing-fields level, questions that extend beyond any given playing field.In the Feature Article for this issue Loland provides us with new and engaging reasons to support of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision in the Casta Semenya case.

The impact of the CAS decision requires Casta Semenya to supress her naturally occurring testosterone if she is to compete in an international lowest price prednisone athletics events. The Semenya case is described by Loland as creating a ‘dilemma of rights’.i The dilemma lies in the choice between ‘the right of Semenya to compete in sport according to her legal sex and gender identity’ and ‘the right of other athletes within the average female testosterone range to compete under fair conditions’ (see footnote i).No one denies the importance of Semenya’s right. As Carpenter explains, ‘even where inconvenient, sex assigned at birth should always be respected unless an individual seeks otherwise’.2 Loland’s conclusions, Carpenter argues, ‘support a convenience-based approach to classification of sex lowest price prednisone where choices about the status of people with intersex variations are made by others according to their interests at that time’ (see footnote ii). Carpenter then further explains how the CAS decision is representative of ‘systemic forms of discrimination and human rights violations’ and provides no assistance in ‘how we make the world more hospitable and more accepting of difference’ (see footnote ii).What is therefore at issue is the existence of the second right. Let me explain how Loland constructs it.

The background principle is the principle of fair equality of opportunity, which requires that ‘individuals with similar endowments and talents and similar ambitions should be given similar opportunities and roughly equivalent prospects lowest price prednisone for competitive success’(see footnote i). This principle reflects, according to Loland, a deeper deontological right of respect and fair treatment. As we can appreciate, when it comes to the principle of fair equality of opportunity, a lot turns on what counts as ‘similar’ (or sufficiently different) endowments and talents and what counts as ‘similar’ (or sufficiently different) opportunities and prospects for success.For Loland, ‘dynamic inequalities’ concern differences in capabilities (such as strength, speed, and endurance, and in technical and tactical skills) that can be ‘cultivated by hard work and effort’ (see footnote i). These are capabilities that are ‘relevant’ and therefore permit a range lowest price prednisone differences between otherwise ‘similar’ athletes. €˜Stable inequalities’ are characterises (such as in age, sex, body size, and disability/ability) are ‘not-relevant’ and therefore require classification to ensure that ‘similar’ athletes are given ‘roughly equivalent prospects for success’.

It follows for Loland that athletes with ‘46 XY DSD conditions (and not for individuals with normal female XX chromosones), with testosterone levels above five nanomoles per litre blood (nmol/L), and who experience a ‘material androgenizing effect’’ lowest price prednisone benefit from a stable inequality (see footnote i). Hence, the ‘other athletes within the average female testosterone range’ therefore have a right not to compete under conditions of stable inequality. The solution, according to Knox and Anderson, lies in more nuance classifications. Commenting in (qualified) support of Loland, they suggest that ‘classification according to sex alone is no longer adequate’.3 Instead, ‘all athletes would be categorised, making classification the norm’ (see footnote iii).However, as we have just seen, Loland’s distinction lowest price prednisone between stable and dynamic inequalities depends on their ‘relevance’, and ‘relevance’ is a term that does not travel alone. Something is relevant (or irrelevant) only in relation to the value, purpose, or aim, of some practice.

One interpretation (which I take Loland to be saying) is that lowest price prednisone strength, speed, and endurance (and so on) are ‘relevant’ to ‘performance outcomes’. This can be misleading. Both dynamic and stable inequalities are relevant to (ie, can have an impact on) an athletic performance. Is a question of whether we ought to permit them to have lowest price prednisone an impact. The temptation is then to say that dynamic inequalities are relevant (and stable inequalities are irrelevant) where the aim is ‘respect and fair treatment’.

But here the snake begins to eat its tail (the principle of fair treatment requires sufficiently similar prospects for success >similar prospects for success require only dynamic inequalities>dynamic inequalities are capabilities that are permitted by the principle of fair treatment).In order to determine questions of relevance, we need to identify the value, purpose, or aim, of the social practice in question. If the aim of an athletic event is to have a victor emerge from a completely level playing field, then, as Chambers notes, socioeconomic inequalities are a larger affront to fair treatment than athletes with 46 XY DSD conditions.4 If the aim is to have a victor emerge from completely level hormonal playing field then ‘a man with low testosterone levels is unfairly lowest price prednisone disadvantaged against a man whose natural levels are higher, and so men’s competitions are unfair’ (see footnote iv). Or, at least very high testosterone males should be on hormone suppressants in order to give the ‘average’ competitor a ‘roughly equivalent prospect for competitive success’.The problem is that we are not interested in the average competitor. We are interested in the exceptional among lowest price prednisone us. Unless, it is for light relief.

In every Olympiad there is the observation that, in every Olympic event, one average person should be included in the competition for the spectators’ reference. The humour lies in the absurd scenarios that would follow, whether it be the 100 m sprint, high jump, or synchronised lowest price prednisone swimming. Great chasms of natural ability would be laid bare, the results of a lifetime of training and dedication would be even clearer to see, and the last place result would be entirely predictable. But note how these lowest price prednisone are different attributes. While we may admire Olympians, it is unclear whether it is because of their God-given ability, their grit and determination, or their role in the unpredictable theatre of sport.

If sport is a worthwhile social practice, we need to start spelling out its worth. Without doing so, we are unable to lowest price prednisone identify what capabilities are ‘relevant’ or ‘irrelevant’ to its aims, purpose or value. And until we can explain why one naturally occurring capability is ‘irrelevant’ to the aims, purposes, or values, of sport, while the remainder of them are relevant, I can only identify one right in play in the Semenya case.IntroductionSince the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many medical systems have needed to divert routine services in order to support the large number of patients with acute COVID-19 disease. For example, in the National lowest price prednisone Health Service (NHS) almost all elective surgery has been postponed1 and outpatient clinics have been cancelled or conducted on-line treatment regimens for many forms of cancer have changed2. This diversion inevitably reduces availability of routine treatments for non-COVID-19-related illness.

Even urgent treatments have needed to be modified. Patients with acute surgical emergencies such as appendicitis still lowest price prednisone present for care, cancers continue to be discovered in patients, and may require urgent management. Health systems are focused on making sure that these urgent needs are met. However, to achieve this goal, many patients are offered treatments that deviate from standard, non-pandemic management.Deviations from standard management are required for multiple factors such as:Limited resources (staff and equipment reallocated).Risk of nosocomial acquired infection in high-risk patients.Increased risk for medical staff to deliver treatments due to aerosolisation1.Treatments requiring intensive care therapy that is in limited availability.Operative procedures that are long and difficult or that are technically challenging if conducted in personal protective equipment. The outcomes from such procedures may be worse than in normal circumstances.Treatments that render patients more susceptible to COVID-19 disease, for example chemotherapy.There are many instances of compromise, but some examples that we are aware of include open appendectomy rather than laparoscopy to reduce risk of aerosolisation3 and offering lowest price prednisone a percutaneousCoronary intervention (PCI) rather than coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for coronary artery disease, to reduce need for intensive care.

Surgery for cancers ordinarily operated on urgently maybe deferred for up to 3 months4 and surgery might be conducted under local anaesthesia that would typically have merited a general anaesthetic (both to reduce the aerosol risk of General anaesthesia, and because of relative lack of anaesthetists).The current emergency offers a unique difficulty. A significant number of treatments with proven benefit might lowest price prednisone be unavailable to patients while those alternatives that are available are not usually considered best practice and might be actually inferior. In usual circumstances, where two treatment options for a particular problem are considered appropriate, the decision of which option to pursue would often depend on the personal preference of the patient.But during the pandemic what is ethically and legally required of the doctor or medical professional informing patients about treatment and seeking their consent?. In particular, do health professionals need to make patients aware of the usual forms of treatment that they are not being offered in the current setting?. We consider two theoretical case examples:Case 1Jenny2 is a model lowest price prednisone in her mid-20s who presents to hospital at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic with acute appendicitis.

Her surgeon, Miss Schmidt, approaches Jenny to obtain consent for an open appendectomy. Miss Schmidt explains the risks of the operative procedure, and the alternative of conservative management (with intravenous lowest price prednisone antibiotics). Jenny consents to the procedure. However, she develops a postoperative wound infection and an unsightly scar. She does some lowest price prednisone research and discovers that a laparoscopic procedure would ordinarily have been performed and would have had a lower chance of wound infection.

She sues Miss Schmidt and the hospital trust where she was treated.Case 2June2s a retired teacher in her early 70s who has well-controlled diabetes and hypertension. She is active and runs a local food bank. Immediately prior to the pandemic lockdown in the UK June had an episode of severe chest pain and lowest price prednisone investigations revealed that she has had a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. The cardiothoracic surgical team recommends that June undergo a PCI although normally her pattern of coronary artery disease would be treated by CABG. When the cardiologist explains that surgery would be normally offered in this situation, and is theoretically superior to PCI, June’s husband becomes angry and demands lowest price prednisone that June is listed for surgery.In favour of non-disclosureIt might appear at first glance that doctors should obviously inform Jenny and June about the usual standard of care.

After all, consent cannot be informed if crucial information is lacking. However, one reason that this may be called into question is that it is not immediately clear how it benefits a patient to be informed about alternatives that are not actually available?. In usual circumstances, doctors are not obliged to inform patients about treatments that are performed lowest price prednisone overseas but not in the UK. In the UK, for example, there is a rigorous process for assessment of new treatments (not including experimental therapies). Some treatments that are available in other jurisdictions have not been deemed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to be sufficiently beneficial and cost-effective lowest price prednisone to be offered by the NHS.

It is hard to imagine that a health professional would be found negligent for not discussing with a patient a treatment that NICE has explicitly rejected. The same might apply for novel therapies that are currently unfunded pending formal evaluation by NICE.Of course, the difference is that the treatments we are discussing have been proven (or are believed) to be beneficial and would normally be provided. The Montgomery Ruling lowest price prednisone of 2015 in the UK established that patients must be informed of material risks of treatment and reasonable alternatives to treatment. The Bayley –v- George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust5case established that those reasonable alternative treatments must be ‘appropriate treatment’ not just a ‘possible treatment’6. In the lowest price prednisone current crisis, many previously standard treatments are no longer appropriate given the restrictions outlined.

In other circumstances they are appropriate. During a pandemic they are no longer appropriate, even if they become appropriate again at some unknown time in the future.In both ethical and legal terms, it is widely accepted that, for consent to be valid, if must be given voluntarily by a person who has capacity to consent and who understands the nature and risks of the treatment. A failure to obtain valid consent, or performing interventions in the absence of consent, could result in criminal proceedings lowest price prednisone for assault. Failing to provide adequate information in the consent process could support a claim of negligence. Ethically, adequate information about treatments is essential for the patient to enable them to weigh up options and decide which treatments they wish to undertake.

However, information about unavailable treatments arguably does not help the patient make an informed decision because it does not give them information that is relevant to consenting or to refusal of treatment that is actually available lowest price prednisone. If Miss Schmidt had given Jenny information about the relative benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy, that could not have helped Jenny’s decision to proceed with surgery. Her available choices were open appendectomy lowest price prednisone or no surgery. Moreover, as the case of June highlights, providing information about alternatives may lead them to desire or even demand those alternative options. This could cause distress both to the patient and the health professional (who is unable to acquiesce).Consideration might also be paid to the effect on patients of disclosure.

How would it affect a patient with newly diagnosed cancer to tell them that an alternative, perhaps better therapy, lowest price prednisone might be routinely available in usual circumstances but is not available now?. There is provision in the Montgomery Ruling, in rare circumstances, for therapeutic exception. That is, if information lowest price prednisone is significantly detrimental to the health of a patient it might be omitted. We could imagine a version of the case where Jenny was so intensely anxious about the proposed surgery that her surgeon comes to a sincere belief that discussion of the laparoscopic alternative would be extremely distressing or might even lead her to refuse surgery. In most cases, though, it would be hard to be sure that the risks of disclosing alternative (non-available) treatments would be so great that non-disclosure would be justified.In favour of disclosureIn the UK, professional guidance issued by the GMC (General Medical Council) requires doctors to take a personalised approach to information sharing about treatments by sharing ‘with patients the information they want or need in order to make decisions’.

The Montgomery judgement of 20157 broadly endorsed the position of the GMC, requiring patients lowest price prednisone to be told about any material risks and reasonable alternatives relevant to the decision at hand. The Supreme Court clarifies that materiality here should be judged by reference to a new two-limbed test founded on the notions of the ‘reasonable person in the patient’s position’ and the ‘particular patient’. One practical test might be for the clinician to ask themselves whether patients in general, or this particular patient might wish to know about alternative forms of treatment that would usually be offered.The GMC has recently produced pandemic-specific guidance8 on consent and decision-making, but this guidance is focused on managing consent in COVID-19-related interventions. While the GMC takes the view that its consent guidelines continue to apply as far as is practical, it also notes that the patient is enabled to consider the ‘reasonable alternatives’, and that the doctor is lowest price prednisone ‘open and honest with patients about the decision-making process and the criteria for setting priorities in individual cases’.In some situations, there might be the option of delaying treatment until later. When other surgical procedures are possible.

In that setting, it would be important to ensure that the patient is aware of those future options (including the risks lowest price prednisone of delay). For example, if Jenny had symptomatic gallstones, her surgeons might be offering an open cholecystectomy now or the possibility of a laparoscopic surgery at some later point. Understanding the full options open to her now and in the future may have considerable influence on Jenny’s decision. Likewise, if June is lowest price prednisone aware that she is not being offered standard treatment she may wish to delay treatment of her atherosclerosis until a later date. Of course, such a delay might lead to greater harm overall.

However, it would be ethically permissible to delay treatment if that was the patient’s informed choice (just as it would be permissible for lowest price prednisone the patient to refuse treatment altogether).In the appendicitis case, Jenny does not have the option for delaying her treatment, but the choice for June is more complicated, between immediate PCI which is a second-best treatment versus waiting for standard therapy. Immediate surgery also raises a risk of acquiring nosocomial COVID-19 infection and June is in an age group and has comorbidities that put her at risk of severe COVID-19 disease. Waiting for surgery leaves June at risk of sudden death. For an active and otherwise well patient with coronary disease like June, PCI procedure is not as good a treatment lowest price prednisone as CABG and June might legitimately wish to take her chances and wait for the standard treatment. The decision to operate or wait is a balance of risks that only June is fully able to make.

Patients in this scenario will lowest price prednisone take different approaches. Patients will need different amounts of information to form their decisions, many patients will need as much information as is available including information about procedures not currently available to make up their mind.June’s husband insists that she should receive the best treatment, and that she should therefore be listed for CABG. Although this treatment would appear to be in June’s best interests, and would respect her autonomy, those ethical considerations are potentially outweighed by distributive justice. The COVID-19 pandemic lowest price prednisone of 2020 is being characterised by limitations. Liberties curtailed and choices restricted, this is justified by a need to protect healthcare systems from demand exceeding availability.

While resource allocation is always a relevant ethical concern in publicly funded healthcare systems, it is a dominant concern in a setting where there is a high demand for medical care and scare resources.It is well established that competent adult patients can consent to or refuse medical treatment but they cannot demand that health professionals provide treatments that are contrary to their professional judgement or (even more importantly) would consume scarce healthcare resources. In June’s case, agreeing to perform CABG at a time when large lowest price prednisone numbers of patients are critically ill with COVID-19 might mean that another patient is denied access to intensive care (and even dies as a result). Of course, it may be that there are actually available beds in intensive care, and June’s operation would not directly lead to denial of treatment for another patient. However, that does not lowest price prednisone automatically mean that surgery must proceed. The hospital may have been justified in making a decision to suspend some forms of cardiac surgery.

That could be on the basis of the need to use the dedicated space, staff and equipment of the cardiothoracic critical care unit for patients with COVID-19. Even if all that lowest price prednisone physical space is not currently occupied if may not be feasible or practical to try to simultaneously accommodate some non-COVID-19 patients. (There would be a risk that June would contract COVID-19 postoperatively and end up considerably worse off than she would have been if she had instead received PCI.) Moreover, it seems problematic for individual patients to be able to circumvent policies about allocation of resources purely on the basis that they stand to be disadvantaged by the policy.Perhaps the most significant benefit of disclosure of non-options is transparency and honesty. We suggest that the main reason why Miss Schmidt ought to have included discussion of the laparoscopic alternative is so that lowest price prednisone Jenny understands the reasoning behind the decision. If Miss Schmidt had explained to Jenny that in the current circumstances laparoscopic surgery has been stopped, that might have helped her to appreciate that she was being offered the best available management.

It might have enabled a frank discussion about the challenges faced by health professionals in the context of the pandemic and the inevitable need for compromise. It may have avoided awkward discussions later after Jenny developed her complication.Transparent disclosure should not lowest price prednisone mean that patients can demand treatment. But it might mean that patients could appeal against a particular policy if they feel that it has been reached unfairly, or applied unfairly. For example, if June became aware that some patients were still being offered CABG, she might (or might not) be justified in appealing against the decision not to offer it to her. Obviously such an appeal would only be possible if the patient were lowest price prednisone aware of the alternatives that they were being denied.For patients faced by decisions such as that faced by June, balancing risks of either option is highly personal.

Individuals need to weigh up these decisions for them and require all of the information available to do so. Some information is lowest price prednisone readily available, for example, the rate of infection for Jenny and the risk of death without treatment for June. But other risks are unknown, such as the risk of acquiring nosocomial infection with COVID-19. Doctors might feel discomfort talking about unquantifiable risks, but we argue that it is important that the patient has all available information to weigh up options for them, including information that is unknown.ConclusionIn a pandemic, as in other times, doctors should ensure that they offer appropriate medical treatment, based on the needs of an individual. They should aim to provide available treatment that is beneficial and lowest price prednisone should not offer treatment that is unavailable or contrary to the patient best interests.

It is ethical. Indeed it is vital within a public healthcare system, to consider lowest price prednisone distributive justice in the allocation of treatment. Where treatment is scarce, it may not be possible or appropriate to offer to patients some treatments that would be beneficial and desired by them.Informed consent needs to be individualised. Doctors are obliged to tailor their information to the needs of an individual. We suggest that in the current climate this should include, for most patients, a lowest price prednisone nuanced open discussion about alternative treatments that would have been available to them in usual circumstances.

That will sometimes be a difficult conversation, and require clinicians to be frank about limited resources and necessary rationing. However, transparency and honesty will usually be the best policy..

Does prednisone cause headaches

The New Zealand Maternity Clinical Indicators present comparative maternity interventions does prednisone cause headaches and outcomes data across a set of 20 indicators for pregnant women and their babies by maternity facility and district health board region. One indicator applies to women who registered with a lead maternity carer (LMC). Eight indicators apply to standard primiparae (definition used to identify a group of women for whom interventions and outcomes should be similar). Seven indicators apply to all women giving does prednisone cause headaches birth in New Zealand.

Four apply to all babies born in New Zealand. This is the tenth year in the New Zealand Maternity Clinical Indicators series, with a focus on women giving birth and babies born in the 2018 calendar year. As the previous years’ data demonstrated, reported maternity service delivery and outcomes for women and babies vary between district health boards (DHBs) and between individual secondary and does prednisone cause headaches tertiary facilities. These findings merit further investigation of data quality and integrity as well as variations in local clinical practice management.

Since 2012, DHBs and maternity stakeholders have used national benchmarked data in their local maternity quality and safety programs to identify areas warranting further investigation. To support further investigation, the Ministry of does prednisone cause headaches Health provides unit record clinical indicators data to DHB maternity quality and safety programme coordinators. Access the data A web-based tool is available for you to explore the numbers and rates for 2018 and trends across the full 10-year time series. This includes numbers and rates of each indicator from 2009 to 2018 by ethnic group and DHB of residence, and by facility of birth.

The same data is also available as an does prednisone cause headaches Excel file. Trends. Graphs and summary tables (Excel, 3.4 MB). The Ministry of Health is no longer producing the does prednisone cause headaches New Zealand Maternity Clinical Indicators Report.

The web-based tool provides the full indicators dataset as tables and figures. Background, methodology and metadata are available in the following guide:Health care and support workers are an essential and valuable workforce. The nature of their occupation or workplace means they may be at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 does prednisone cause headaches during a time of community transmission. The first case of COVID-19 in a health care or support worker was reported on 17 March 2020.

After exclusions, 167 people diagnosed with COVID-19 were recorded as health care and support workers during the ‘first wave’ of the virus in Aotearoa New Zealand, as at 12 June. The report gives an overview of the occupation and demographics of health care and support workers diagnosed with COVID-19 does prednisone cause headaches with a focus on transmission pathways in the workplace. This report is descriptive and is therefore not able to explain how transmission occurred. It provides valuable information we can apply and touches on some of the work that is underway at the time of publication to address those areas..

The New Zealand Maternity Clinical Indicators present comparative maternity interventions and outcomes data across a set of 20 indicators for pregnant women and their babies by maternity facility and district health board region lowest price prednisone. One indicator applies to women who registered with a lead maternity carer (LMC). Eight indicators apply to standard primiparae (definition used to identify a group of women for whom interventions and outcomes should be similar). Seven indicators apply to all women lowest price prednisone giving birth in New Zealand.

Four apply to all babies born in New Zealand. This is the tenth year in the New Zealand Maternity Clinical Indicators series, with a focus on women giving birth and babies born in the 2018 calendar year. As the previous years’ data lowest price prednisone demonstrated, reported maternity service delivery and outcomes for women and babies vary between district health boards (DHBs) and between individual secondary and tertiary facilities. These findings merit further investigation of data quality and integrity as well as variations in local clinical practice management.

Since 2012, DHBs and maternity stakeholders have used national benchmarked data in their local maternity quality and safety programs to identify areas warranting further investigation. To support further investigation, the Ministry of Health provides unit record clinical indicators data to DHB maternity quality and lowest price prednisone safety programme coordinators. Access the data A web-based tool is available for you to explore the numbers and rates for 2018 and trends across the full 10-year time series. This includes numbers and rates of each indicator from 2009 to 2018 by ethnic group and DHB of residence, and by facility of birth.

The same data is also available lowest price prednisone as an Excel file. Trends. Graphs and summary tables (Excel, 3.4 MB). The Ministry of Health is no longer producing the New Zealand lowest price prednisone Maternity Clinical Indicators Report.

The web-based tool provides the full indicators dataset as tables and figures. Background, methodology and metadata are available in the following guide:Health care and support workers are an essential and valuable workforce. The nature of their occupation or workplace means they may be at increased risk of contracting lowest price prednisone COVID-19 during a time of community transmission. The first case of COVID-19 in a health care or support worker was reported on 17 March 2020.

After exclusions, 167 people diagnosed with COVID-19 were recorded as health care and support workers during the ‘first wave’ of the virus in Aotearoa New Zealand, as at 12 June. The report gives an lowest price prednisone overview of the occupation and demographics of health care and support workers diagnosed with COVID-19 with a focus on transmission pathways in the workplace. This report is descriptive and is therefore not able to explain how transmission occurred. It provides valuable information we can apply and touches on some of the work that is underway at the time of publication to address those areas..

Best time to take prednisone

First-of-its-kind study, based on a mouse model, finds living in a polluted environment could be comparable to eating best time to take prednisone a high-fat diet, leading to a pre-diabetic state CLEVELAND—Air pollution is the world’s leading environmental risk factor, and causes more than nine million deaths per year. New research published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation shows air pollution may play a role in the development of cardiometabolic diseases, such as diabetes. Importantly, the effects were reversible with best time to take prednisone cessation of exposure.

Researchers found that air pollution was a “risk factor for a risk factor” that contributed to the common soil of other fatal problems like heart attack and stroke. Similar to how an unhealthy diet and lack of exercise can lead to disease, exposure to air pollution could be added to this risk factor list as well. “In this study, we created an environment that mimicked a polluted day in New Delhi or Beijing,” said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, first author on the study, Chief of Cardiovascular best time to take prednisone Medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, and Director of the Case Western Reserve University Cardiovascular Research Institute.

€œWe concentrated fine particles of air pollution, called PM2.5 (particulate matter component <. 2.5 microns) best time to take prednisone. Concentrated particles like this develop from human impact on the environment, such as automobile exhaust, power generation and other fossil fuels.” These particles have been strongly connected to risk factors for disease.

For example, cardiovascular effects of air pollution can lead to heart attack and stroke. The research team has shown exposure to air pollution can best time to take prednisone increase the likelihood of the same risk factors that lead to heart disease, such as insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. In the mouse model study, three groups were observed.

A control group receiving clean filtered air, a group exposed to polluted air for 24 weeks, and a group fed a high-fat diet. Interestingly, the researchers found that being exposed to air pollution was best time to take prednisone comparable to eating a high-fat diet. Both the air pollution and high-fat diet groups showed insulin resistance and abnormal metabolism – just like one would see in a pre-diabetic state.

These changes were associated with changes best time to take prednisone in the epigenome, a layer of control that can masterfully turn on and turn off thousands of genes, representing a critical buffer in response to environmental factors. This study is the first-of-its-kind to compare genome-wide epigenetic changes in response to air pollution, compare and contrast these changes with that of eating an unhealthy diet, and examine the impact of air pollution cessation on these changes.“The good news is that these effects were reversible, at least in our experiments” added Dr. Rajagopalan.

€œOnce the air pollution was removed best time to take prednisone from the environment, the mice appeared healthier and the pre-diabetic state seemed to reverse.” Dr. Rajagopalan explains that if you live in a densely polluted environment, taking actions such as wearing an N95 mask, using portable indoor air cleaners, utilizing air conditioning, closing car windows while commuting, and changing car air filters frequently could all be helpful in staying healthy and limiting air pollution exposure.Next steps in this research involve meeting with a panel of experts, as well as the National Institutes of Health, to discuss conducting clinical trials that compare heart health and the level of air pollution in the environment. For example, if someone has a heart attack, should they be wearing an N95 mask or using a portable air filter at home during recovery?.

Dr best time to take prednisone. Rajagopalan and his team believe that it is important to address the environment as a population health risk factor and continue to diligently research these issues. The authors also note that these findings should encourage policymakers to enact measures aimed at reducing air pollution.Shyam Biswal, PhD, Professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering at Johns best time to take prednisone Hopkins University School of Public Health, is the joint senior author on the study.

Drs. Rajagopalan and Biswal are co-PIs on the NIH grant that supported this work.###Rajagopalan, S., Biswal, S., et al. €œMetabolic effects best time to take prednisone of air pollution exposure and reversibility.” Journal of Clinical Investigation.

DOI. 10.1172/JCI137315. This work was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences TaRGET II Consortium grant U01ES026721, as well as grants R01ES015146 and R01ES019616.About one in five women experience some form of depression during pregnancy, with poorly understood effects on the fetus.

Prenatal depression is linked to behavioural and developmental issues in children as well as an increased risk for depression as young adults. But how prenatal depression leads to these changes remains unclear. UCalgary researcher Dr.

Catherine Lebel, PhD, is helping understand what may be happening in the developing brains of these children. The research team has shown that young children whose mothers experienced more numerous symptoms of depression in pregnancy have weakened connectivity in brain pathways involved in emotion. These structural changes can be related to increased hyperactivity and aggression in boys.

The research is based on diffusion magnetic resonance imaging, an imaging technique that probes the strength of structural connections between brain regions. The findings are published in The Journal of Neuroscience. Catherine Lebel, senior author and investigator.

Riley Brandt, University of Calgary “The results help us understand how depression can have multigenerational impacts, and speaks to the importance of helping mothers who may be experiencing depression during pregnancy,” says Lebel, an associate professor at the Cumming School of Medicine, and researcher in the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. She holds the Canada Research Chair in Paediatric Neuroimaging. Lebel and her team studied 54 Calgary mothers and their children.

They were enrolled from the ongoing, prospective study called the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition study. Mothers answered a survey about their depression symptoms at several points during their pregnancy. Their children were followed after birth and undertook an MRI scan at the Alberta Children’s Hospital at around age four.

As well, the children’s behaviour was assessed within six months of their MRI scan. The team found a significant reduction in structural brain connectivity between the amygdala, a structure essential for emotional processing, and the frontal cortex. Weakened connectivity between the amygdala and frontal cortex is associated with disruptive behaviours and vulnerability to depression.

The first author on the study, Dr. Rebecca Hay, MD, stresses the importance of recognition of depression and intervention in prenatal health. €œThese results suggest complex associations between the prenatal environment and children’s brain development, and may help us to understand why children of depressed mothers are more vulnerable to depression themselves,” says Hay, a resident physician in paediatrics and recent Cumming School of Medicine graduate.

The main clinical takeaway from this is to emphasize the importance of recognizing, treating prenatal depression and supporting mothers, both for better maternal outcomes and to help future child development. Rebecca Hay, the study's first author. Courtesy Rebecca Hay Current study looks at stress during pandemic Lebel and her research team are currently trying to understand how stress and mental health are affecting pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic.

She is examining how factors such as social supports might mitigate stress, and how this may influence pregnancy and birth outcomes. If you are interested, you can get involved here in the Pregnancy During the COVID-19 Pandemic study at the University of Calgary. So far, approximately 7,500 women from across Canada are enrolled and supplying information through questionnaires.

€œIt is critical to appropriately recognize and treat prenatal maternal mental health problems, both for the mothers and to improve child outcomes,” says Lebel. €œNow more than ever, with increased stress, anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic, we should do more to support mothers to positively impact the health of their children.” Lebel is an associate professor in the Department of Radiology at the Cumming School of Medicine, adjunct associate professor in the Werklund School of Education and a member of The Mathison Centre for Mental Health Research &. Education, Owerko Centre at ACHRI, Hotchkiss Brain Institute and Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research, Alberta Innovates - Health Solutions, the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Mach-Gaensslen Foundation, and an Eyes High University of Calgary Postdoctoral Scholar. Led by the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Brain and Mental Health is one of six research strategies guiding the University of Calgary toward its Eyes High goals. The strategy provides a unifying direction for brain and mental health research at the university..

First-of-its-kind study, based on a mouse model, finds living in a polluted environment could be comparable to eating a high-fat diet, leading to a pre-diabetic state CLEVELAND—Air pollution is the world’s leading environmental risk factor, and causes more than nine lowest price prednisone million deaths per year. New research published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation shows air pollution may play a role in the development of cardiometabolic diseases, such as diabetes. Importantly, the effects were reversible with lowest price prednisone cessation of exposure. Researchers found that air pollution was a “risk factor for a risk factor” that contributed to the common soil of other fatal problems like heart attack and stroke. Similar to how an unhealthy diet and lack of exercise can lead to disease, exposure to air pollution could be added to this risk factor list as well.

“In this study, we created an environment that mimicked a polluted day in New Delhi or Beijing,” said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, first author on the study, Chief of Cardiovascular Medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, and Director of the Case Western Reserve University Cardiovascular lowest price prednisone Research Institute. €œWe concentrated fine particles of air pollution, called PM2.5 (particulate matter component <. 2.5 microns) lowest price prednisone. Concentrated particles like this develop from human impact on the environment, such as automobile exhaust, power generation and other fossil fuels.” These particles have been strongly connected to risk factors for disease. For example, cardiovascular effects of air pollution can lead to heart attack and stroke.

The research team has shown exposure to air pollution can increase the likelihood of the same risk factors that lead to heart disease, such as insulin resistance and lowest price prednisone type 2 diabetes. In the mouse model study, three groups were observed. A control group receiving clean filtered air, a group exposed to polluted air for 24 weeks, and a group fed a high-fat diet. Interestingly, the lowest price prednisone researchers found that being exposed to air pollution was comparable to eating a high-fat diet. Both the air pollution and high-fat diet groups showed insulin resistance and abnormal metabolism – just like one would see in a pre-diabetic state.

These changes were associated with changes in the epigenome, a layer of control that can masterfully turn on and turn off thousands of genes, representing a lowest price prednisone critical buffer in response to environmental factors. This study is the first-of-its-kind to compare genome-wide epigenetic changes in response to air pollution, compare and contrast these changes with that of eating an unhealthy diet, and examine the impact of air pollution cessation on these changes.“The good news is that these effects were reversible, at least in our experiments” added Dr. Rajagopalan. €œOnce the air pollution was removed from the environment, the mice appeared healthier and the pre-diabetic state seemed lowest price prednisone to reverse.” Dr. Rajagopalan explains that if you live in a densely polluted environment, taking actions such as wearing an N95 mask, using portable indoor air cleaners, utilizing air conditioning, closing car windows while commuting, and changing car air filters frequently could all be helpful in staying healthy and limiting air pollution exposure.Next steps in this research involve meeting with a panel of experts, as well as the National Institutes of Health, to discuss conducting clinical trials that compare heart health and the level of air pollution in the environment.

For example, if someone has a heart attack, should they be wearing an N95 mask or using a portable air filter at home during recovery?. Dr lowest price prednisone. Rajagopalan and his team believe that it is important to address the environment as a population health risk factor and continue to diligently research these issues. The authors also note that these findings should encourage policymakers to enact measures aimed at reducing air pollution.Shyam Biswal, lowest price prednisone PhD, Professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, is the joint senior author on the study. Drs.

Rajagopalan and Biswal are co-PIs on the NIH grant that supported this work.###Rajagopalan, S., Biswal, S., et al. €œMetabolic effects of lowest price prednisone air pollution exposure and reversibility.” Journal of Clinical Investigation. DOI. 10.1172/JCI137315. This work was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences TaRGET II Consortium grant U01ES026721, as well as grants R01ES015146 and R01ES019616.About one in five women experience some form of depression during pregnancy, with poorly understood effects on the fetus.

Prenatal depression is linked to behavioural and developmental issues in children as well as an increased risk for depression as young adults. But how prenatal depression leads to these changes remains unclear. UCalgary researcher Dr. Catherine Lebel, PhD, is helping understand what may be happening in the developing brains of these children. The research team has shown that young children whose mothers experienced more numerous symptoms of depression in pregnancy have weakened connectivity in brain pathways involved in emotion.

These structural changes can be related to increased hyperactivity and aggression in boys. The research is based on diffusion magnetic resonance imaging, an imaging technique that probes the strength of structural connections between brain regions. The findings are published in The Journal of Neuroscience. Catherine Lebel, senior author and investigator. Riley Brandt, University of Calgary “The results help us understand how depression can have multigenerational impacts, and speaks to the importance of helping mothers who may be experiencing depression during pregnancy,” says Lebel, an associate professor at the Cumming School of Medicine, and researcher in the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute.

She holds the Canada Research Chair in Paediatric Neuroimaging. Lebel and her team studied 54 Calgary mothers and their children. They were enrolled from the ongoing, prospective study called the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition study. Mothers answered a survey about their depression symptoms at several points during their pregnancy. Their children were followed after birth and undertook an MRI scan at the Alberta Children’s Hospital at around age four.

As well, the children’s behaviour was assessed within six months of their MRI scan. The team found a significant reduction in structural brain connectivity between the amygdala, a structure essential for emotional processing, and the frontal cortex. Weakened connectivity between the amygdala and frontal cortex is associated with disruptive behaviours and vulnerability to depression. The first author on the study, Dr. Rebecca Hay, MD, stresses the importance of recognition of depression and intervention in prenatal health.

€œThese results suggest complex associations between the prenatal environment and children’s brain development, and may help us to understand why children of depressed mothers are more vulnerable to depression themselves,” says Hay, a resident physician in paediatrics and recent Cumming School of Medicine graduate. The main clinical takeaway from this is to emphasize the importance of recognizing, treating prenatal depression and supporting mothers, both for better maternal outcomes and to help future child development. Rebecca Hay, the study's first author. Courtesy Rebecca Hay Current study looks at stress during pandemic Lebel and her research team are currently trying to understand how stress and mental health are affecting pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic. She is examining how factors such as social supports might mitigate stress, and how this may influence pregnancy and birth outcomes.

If you are interested, you can get involved here in the Pregnancy During the COVID-19 Pandemic study at the University of Calgary. So far, approximately 7,500 women from across Canada are enrolled and supplying information through questionnaires. €œIt is critical to appropriately recognize and treat prenatal maternal mental health problems, both for the mothers and to improve child outcomes,” says Lebel. €œNow more than ever, with increased stress, anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic, we should do more to support mothers to positively impact the health of their children.” Lebel is an associate professor in the Department of Radiology at the Cumming School of Medicine, adjunct associate professor in the Werklund School of Education and a member of The Mathison Centre for Mental Health Research &. Education, Owerko Centre at ACHRI, Hotchkiss Brain Institute and Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research, Alberta Innovates - Health Solutions, the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Mach-Gaensslen Foundation, and an Eyes High University of Calgary Postdoctoral Scholar. Led by the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Brain and Mental Health is one of six research strategies guiding the University of Calgary toward its Eyes High goals. The strategy provides a unifying direction for brain and mental health research at the university..

Back To Top