Search

Background: Heterologous COVID vaccine priming schedules are immunogenic and effective. This report aims to understand the persistence of immune response to the viral vectored, mRNA and protein-based COVID-19 vaccine platforms used in homologous and heterologous priming combinations, which will inform the choice of vaccine platform in future vaccine development. Methods: Com-COV2 was a single-blinded trial in which adults ≥ 50 years, previously immunised with single dose ‘ChAd’ (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AZD1222, Vaxzevria, Astrazeneca) or ‘BNT’ (BNT162b2, tozinameran, Comirnaty, Pfizer/BioNTech), were randomised 1:1:1 to receive a second dose 8–12 weeks later with either the homologous vaccine, or ‘Mod’ (mRNA-1273, Spikevax, Moderna) or ‘NVX’ (NVX-CoV2373, Nuvaxovid, Novavax). Immunological follow-up and the secondary objective of safety monitoring were performed over nine months. Analyses of antibody and cellular assays were performed on an intention-to-treat population without evidence of COVID-19 infection at baseline or for the trial duration. Findings: In April/May 2021, 1072 participants were enrolled at a median of 9.4 weeks after receipt of a single dose of ChAd (N = 540, 45% female) or BNT (N = 532, 39% female) as part of the national vaccination programme. In ChAd-primed participants, ChAd/Mod had the highest anti-spike IgG from day 28 through to 6 months, although the heterologous vs homologous geometric mean ratio (GMR) dropped from 9.7 (95% CI (confidence interval): 8.2, 11.5) at D28 to 6.2 (95% CI: 5.0, 7.7) at D196. The heterologous/homologous GMR for ChAd/NVX similarly dropped from 3.0 (95% CI:2.5,3.5) to 2.4 (95% CI:1.9, 3.0). In BNT-primed participants, decay was similar between heterologous and homologous schedules with BNT/Mod inducing the highest anti-spike IgG for the duration of follow-up. The adjusted GMR (aGMR) for BNT/Mod compared with BNT/BNT increased from 1.36 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.58) at D28 to 1.52 (95% CI: 1.21, 1.90) at D196, whilst for BNT/NVX this aGMR was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.64) at day 28 and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.78) at day 196. Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules produced and maintained the largest T-cell responses until D196. Immunisation with BNT/NVX generated a qualitatively different antibody response to BNT/BNT, with the total IgG significantly lower than BNT/BNT during all follow-up time points, but similar levels of neutralising antibodies. Interpretation: Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to ChAd/ChAd. BNT-primed schedules with a second dose of either mRNA vaccine also remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to BNT/NVX. The emerging data on mixed schedules using the novel vaccine platforms deployed in the COVID-19 pandemic, suggest that heterologous priming schedules might be considered as a viable option sooner in future pandemics. ISRCTN:27841311 EudraCT:2021-001275-16.

Although medication adherence is commonly measured in electronic datasets using the proportion of days covered (PDC), no standardized approach is used to calculate and report this measure. We conducted a scoping review to understand the approaches taken to calculate and report the PDC for cardiovascular medicines to develop improved guidance for researchers using this measure. After prespecifying methods in a registered protocol, we searched Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Plus and grey literature (1 July 2012 to 14 December 2020) for articles containing the terms "proportion of days covered" and "cardiovascular medicine", or synonyms and subject headings. Of the 523 articles identified, 316 were reviewed in full and 76 were included (93% observational studies; 47% from the USA; 2 grey literature articles). In 45 articles (59%), the PDC was measured from the first dispensing/claim date. Good adherence was defined as 80% PDC in 61 articles, 56% of which contained a rationale for selecting this threshold. The following parameters, important for deriving the PDC, were often not reported/unclear: switching (53%), early refills (45%), in-hospital supplies (45%), presupply (28%) and survival (7%). Of the 46 articles where dosing information was unavailable, 59% reported how doses were imputed. To improve the transparent and systematic reporting of the PDC, we propose the TEN-SPIDERS tool, covering the following PDC parameters: Threshold, Eligibility criteria, Numerator and denominator, Survival, Presupply, In-hospital supplies, Dosing, Early Refills, and Switching. Use of this tool will standardize reporting of the PDC to facilitate reliable comparisons of medication adherence estimates between studies.

Background Priming COVID-19 vaccine schedules have been deployed at variable intervals globally, which might influence immune persistence and the relative importance of third-dose booster programmes. Here, we report exploratory analyses from the Com-COV trial, assessing the effect of 4-week versus 12-week priming intervals on reactogenicity and the persistence of immune response up to 6 months after homologous and heterologous priming schedules using the vaccines BNT162b2 (tozinameran, Pfizer/BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca). Methods Com-COV was a participant-masked, randomised immunogenicity trial. For these exploratory analyses, we used the trial's general cohort, in which adults aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned to four homologous and four heterologous vaccine schedules using BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with 4-week or 12-week priming intervals (eight groups in total). Immunogenicity analyses were done on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, comprising participants with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline or for the trial duration, to assess the effect of priming interval on humoral and cellular immune response 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, in addition to the effects on reactogenicity and safety. The Com-COV trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 69254139 (EudraCT 2020–005085–33). Findings Between Feb 11 and 26, 2021, 730 participants were randomly assigned in the general cohort, with 77–89 per group in the ITT analysis. At 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, the geometric mean concentration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG was significantly higher in the 12-week interval groups than in the 4-week groups for homologous schedules. In heterologous schedule groups, we observed a significant difference between intervals only for the BNT162b2–ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group at 28 days. Pseudotyped virus neutralisation titres were significantly higher in all 12-week interval groups versus 4-week groups, 28 days post-second dose, with geometric mean ratios of 1·4 (95% CI 1·1–1·8) for homologous BNT162b2, 1·5 (1·2–1·9) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19–BNT162b2, 1·6 (1·3–2·1) for BNT162b2–ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 2·4 (1·7–3·2) for homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. At 6 months post-second dose, anti-spike IgG geometric mean concentrations fell to 0·17–0·24 of the 28-day post-second dose value across all eight study groups, with only homologous BNT162b2 showing a slightly slower decay for the 12-week versus 4-week interval in the adjusted analysis. The rank order of schedules by humoral response was unaffected by interval, with homologous BNT162b2 remaining the most immunogenic by antibody response. T-cell responses were reduced in all 12-week priming intervals compared with their 4-week counterparts. 12-week schedules for homologous BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19–BNT162b2 were up to 80% less reactogenic than 4-week schedules. Interpretation These data support flexibility in priming interval in all studied COVID-19 vaccine schedules. Longer priming intervals might result in lower reactogenicity in schedules with BNT162b2 as a second dose and higher humoral immunogenicity in homologous schedules, but overall lower T-cell responses across all schedules. Future vaccines using these novel platforms might benefit from schedules with long intervals. Funding UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Background Typhoid fever remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in low-income and middle-income countries. Vi-tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine (Vi-TT) is recommended by WHO for implementation in high-burden countries, but there is little evidence about its ability to protect against clinical typhoid in such settings. Methods We did a participant-masked and observer-masked cluster-randomised trial preceded by a safety pilot phase in an urban endemic setting in Dhaka, Bangladesh. 150 clusters, each with approximately 1350 residents, were randomly assigned (1:1) to either Vi-TT or SA 14-14-2 Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccine. Children aged 9 months to less than 16 years were invited via parent or guardian to receive a single, parenteral dose of vaccine according to their cluster of residence. The study population was followed for an average of 17·1 months. Total and overall protection by Vi-TT against blood culture-confirmed typhoid were the primary endpoints assessed in the intention-to-treat population of vaccinees or all residents in the clusters. A subset of approximately 4800 participants was assessed with active surveillance for adverse events. The trial is registered at www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN11643110. Findings 41 344 children were vaccinated in April–May, 2018, with another 20 412 children vaccinated at catch-up vaccination campaigns between September and December, 2018, and April and May, 2019. The incidence of typhoid fever (cases per 100 000 person-years) was 635 in JE vaccinees and 96 in Vi-TT vaccinees (total Vi-TT protection 85%; 97·5% CI 76 to 91, pInterpretation Vi-TT provided protection against typhoid fever to children vaccinated between 9 months and less than 16 years. Longer-term follow-up will be needed to assess the duration of protection and the need for booster doses. Funding The study was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

AimTo analyse the timing and scale of temporal changes in rates of hospitalised myocardial infarction (MI) in England by age and sex from 1968 to 2016.MethodsMI admissions for adults aged 15–84 years were identified from electronic hospital data. We calculated age-standardised and age-specific rates, and examined trends using joinpoint.ResultsFrom 1968 to 2016, there were 3.5 million admissions for MI in England (68% men). Rates increased in the early years of the study in both men and women, peaked in the mid-1980s (355 per 100 000 population in men; 127 in women) and declined by 38.8% in men and 37.4% in women from 1990 to 2011. From 2012, however, modest increases were observed in both sexes. Long-term trends in rates over the study period varied by age and sex, with those aged 70 years and older having the greatest and most sustained increases in the early years (1968–1985). During subsequent years, rates decreased in most age groups until 2010–2011. The exception was younger women (35–49 years) and men (15–34 years) who experienced significant increases from the mid-1990s to 2007 (range +2.1%/year to 4.7%/year). From 2012 onwards, rates increased in all age groups except the oldest, with the most marked increases in men aged 15–34 years (7.2%/year) and women aged 40–49 (6.9%–7.3%/year) .ConclusionDespite substantial declines in hospital admission rates for MI in England since 1990, the burden of annual admissions remains high. Continued surveillance of trends and coronary disease preventive strategies are warranted.

There is currently limited evidence on the costs associated with late preterm pre-eclampsia beyond antenatal care and post-natal discharge from hospital. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the 24-month cost-utility of planned delivery for women with late preterm pre-eclampsia at 34Women between 34A total of 450 women were randomised to planned delivery, 451 to expectant management: 187 and 170 women, respectively, had complete data at 24 months. Planned delivery resulted in a significantly lower mean cost per woman and infant(s) over 24 months (- £2711, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 4840 to - 637), with a mean incremental difference in QALYs of 0.019 (95% CI - 0.039 to 0.063). Short-term and 24-month infant costs were not significantly different between the intervention arms. There is a 99% probability that planned delivery is cost-effective at all thresholds below £37,000 per QALY gained.There is a high probability that planned delivery is cost-effective compared to expectant management. These results need to be considered alongside clinical outcomes and in the wider context of maternity care.ISRCTN registry ISRCTN01879376. Registered 25 November 2013.

IntroductionThis is the first efficacy study of an oral live attenuated vaccine againstSalmonellaParatyphi A using a human challenge model of paratyphoid infection.S. Paratyphi A is responsible for 3.3 million cases of enteric fever every year, with over 19 000 deaths. Although improvements to sanitation and access to clean water are vital to reduce the burden of this condition, vaccination offers a cost-effective, medium-term solution. Efficacy trials of potentialS. Paratyphi vaccine candidates in the field are unlikely to be feasible given the large number of participants required. Human challenge models therefore offer a unique, cost-effective solution to test efficacy of such vaccines.Methods and analysisThis is an observer-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial phase I/II of the oral live-attenuated vaccine againstS. Paratyphi A, CVD 1902. Volunteers will be randomised 1:1 to receive two doses of CVD 1902 or placebo, 14 days apart. One month following second vaccination all volunteers will ingestS. Paratyphi A bacteria with a bicarbonate buffer solution. They will be reviewed daily in the following 14 days and diagnosed with paratyphoid infection if the predefined microbiological or clinical diagnostic criteria are met. All participants will be treated with antibiotics on diagnosis, or at day 14 postchallenge if not diagnosed. The vaccine efficacy will be determined by comparing the relative attack rate, that is, the proportion of those diagnosed with paratyphoid infection, in the vaccine and placebo groups.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this study has been obtained from the Berkshire Medical Research Ethics Committee (REC ref 21/SC/0330). The results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at international conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN15485902.

Background Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) remains a leading cause of pediatric morbidity, with no approved vaccine. We assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the Ad26.RSV.preF vaccine candidate in adults and children. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, phase 1/2a, placebo-controlled study, 12 adults (18–50 years) and 36 RSV-seropositive children (12–24 months) were randomized 2:1 to Ad26.RSV.preF (1 × 1011 viral particles [vp] for adults, 5 × 1010 vp for children) or placebo, at day 1 and 29, with 6-month immunogenicity and 1-year safety follow-up. Respiratory syncytial virus infection was an exploratory outcome in children. Results In adults, solicited adverse events (AEs) were generally mild to moderate, with no serious AEs. In children, no vaccination-related serious AEs were reported; fever was reported in 14 (58.3%) Ad26.RSV.preF recipients. Baseline pediatric geometric mean titers for RSV A2 neutralization increased from 121 (95% confidence interval [CI], 76–191) to 1608 (95% CI, 730–3544) at day 29, and 2235 (95% CI, 1586–3150) at day 57, remaining elevated over 7 months. Respiratory syncytial virus infection was confirmed in fewer children receiving Ad26.RSV.preF (1, 4.2%) than placebo (5, 41.7%). Conclusions Ad26.RSV.preF demonstrated immunogenicity in healthy adults and toddlers, with no safety concerns raised. Evaluations in RSV-seronegative children are underway.

International Classification of Diseases codes for rheumatic heart disease (RHD) (ICD-10 I05-I08) include valvular heart disease of unspecified origin, limiting their usefulness for estimating RHD burden. An expert opinion-based algorithm was developed to increase their accuracy for epidemiological case ascertainment. The algorithm included codes not defaulting to RHD ('probable') plus selected codes pertaining to mitral valve involvement in patients60 years ('possible'). We aimed to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) for RHD of algorithm-selected hospital admissions.Chart reviews of RHD-coded admissions (n=368) to Western Australian tertiary hospitals (2009-2016) authenticated RHD diagnosis. We selected all cases with algorithm-positive codes from populations at high-risk of RHD and an age-stratified random sample from low-risk groups. RHD status was determined from echocardiographic reports or clinical diagnosis in charts. PPVs were compared by population risk status (high-risk/low-risk), age group, gender, principal/secondary diagnosis and probable/possible codes.High-risk patients had higher PPVs than low-risk patients (83.8% vs 54.9%, p0.0001). PPVs were 91.5% and 51.5% respectively for algorithm-defined 'probable RHD' and 'possible' codes (p0.0001). The PPVs in low-risk patients were higher for principal diagnoses than secondary diagnoses (84.5% vs 44.8%, weighted p0.0001) but were similar in high-risk patients (92.5% vs 81.7%, p=0.096).The algorithm performs well for RHD coded as a principal diagnosis, 'probable' codes or in populations at high risk of RHD. Refinement is needed for identifying true RHD in low-risk groups.

Background and Purpose: Although a target of 80% medication adherence is commonly cited, it is unclear whether greater adherence improves survival after stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). We investigated associations between medication adherence during the first year postdischarge, and mortality up to 3 years, to provide evidence-based targets for medication adherence. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 1-year survivors of first-ever stroke or TIA, aged ≥18 years, from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (July 2010–June 2014) linked with nationwide prescription refill and mortality data (until August 2017). Adherence to antihypertensive agents, statins, and nonaspirin antithrombotic medications was based on the proportion of days covered from discharge until 1 year. Cox regression with restricted cubic splines was used to investigate nonlinear relationships between medication adherence and all-cause mortality (to 3 years postdischarge). Models were adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic position, stroke factors, primary care factors, and concomitant medication use. Results: Among 8363 one-year survivors of first-ever stroke or TIA (44% aged ≥75 years, 44% female, 18% TIA), 75% were supplied antihypertensive agents. In patients without intracerebral hemorrhage (N=7446), 84% were supplied statins, and 65% were supplied nonaspirin antithrombotic medications. Median adherence was ≈90% for each medication group. Between 1% and 100% adherence, greater adherence to statins or antihypertensive agents, but not nonaspirin antithrombotic agents, was associated with improved survival. When restricted to linear regions above 60% adherence, each 10% increase in adherence was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality of 13% for antihypertensive agents (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81–0.95]), 13% for statins (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80–0.95]), and 15% for nonaspirin antithrombotic agents (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.79–0.93]). Conclusions: Greater levels of medication adherence after stroke or TIA are associated with improved survival, even among patients with near-perfect adherence. Interventions to improve medication adherence are needed to maximize survival poststroke.

Background Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer–BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. Methods Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. Findings Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. Interpretation Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. Funding UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.

Background: Pregnancy is associated with complications which must be differentiated from adverse events associated with the administration of vaccines during pregnancy both in clinical trials and post licensure surveillance. The frequency of pregnancy related complications varies significantly by geographical location and the prevalence of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes are poorly documented in most low-resource settings. In preparation for Group B Streptococcus maternal vaccination trials, we describe a protocol for a pregnancy register at Kawempe National Referral Hospital, Kampala, Uganda to describe pregnancy maternal and infant outcomes. Methods: The study has two components. Firstly, an active, prospective surveillance cohort consisting of pregnant women in their first or second trimester recruited and followed up through their hospital scheduled antenatal visits, delivery and their infants through their extended programme of immunisation visits until 14 weeks of age. Data on obstetric and neonatal outcomes defined by the Brighton Collaboration Global Alliance of Immunisation Safety Assessment in Pregnancy criteria will be collected. Secondly, a passive surveillance cohort collecting data through routine electronic health records on all women and infants attending care at KNRH. Data will be collected on vaccinations and medications including antiretroviral therapy received in antenatal clinic and prior to hospital discharge. Discussion: Conducting vaccine research in resource-limited settings is essential for equity and to answer priority safety questions specific to these settings. It requires improved vaccine safety monitoring, which is especially pertinent in maternal vaccine research. During a trial, understanding the epidemiology and background rates of adverse events in the study population is essential to establish thresholds which indicate a safety signal. These data need to be systematically and reliably collected. This study will describe rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes in a cohort of 4,000 women and infants and any associated medications or vaccines received at a new vaccine trial site in Uganda.

It is generally recommended that medications only be used in pregnancy where the potential harms to both the mother and foetus are outweighed by the potential benefits. Despite the known harms associated with alcohol consumption during pregnancy, the use of medication for the treatment of pregnant women with an alcohol use disorder (AUD) appears to be rare. This is likely due to the lack of available data regarding the safety of these medications in pregnancy. We reviewed the literature and weighed up the harms associated with alcohol use and AUD during pregnancy with the potential benefits of medications for AUD in pregnancy, including acamprosate, naltrexone and disulfiram. There is little published evidence to support the safety of medications for AUD in pregnancy. However, from the research available it is likely that only disulfiram has the potential to cause serious foetal harm. While further research is required, acamprosate and naltrexone do not appear to be associated with substantial risks of congenital malformations or other serious consequences. Given the potential risks associated with alcohol consumption during pregnancy, the use of acamprosate and naltrexone should be considered for the treatment of pregnant women with AUD based on the current evidence base, although more research is warranted.

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

Background: Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation, however we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral-vectored vaccine (ChAd, Vaxzevria, Astrazeneca) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT, Comirnaty, Pfizer) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here we report the immunogenicity of these schedules. Methods: Com-COV (ISRCTN: 69254139, EudraCT: 2020-005085-33) is a participant-blind, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine reactogenicity and immunogenicity. Adults ≥ 50 years, including those with well-controlled comorbidities, were randomised across eight groups to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT or BNT/ChAd, administered at 28- or 84-day intervals. The primary endpoint is geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG levels (ELISA) at one-month post boost between heterologous and homologous schedules given the same prime vaccine. We tested non-inferiority of GMR using a margin of 0.63. The primary analysis was on a per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were performed amongst participants receiving at least one dose of study vaccines. Findings: In February 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 with a 28-day prime-boost interval whose results are reported in this paper. Participant mean age was 57.8 years, 45.8% were female, and 25.3% from ethnic minorities.The geometric mean concentration (GMC) of day 28 post-boost SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12,906 ELU/ml) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1,392 ELU/ml) with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 9.2 (one-sided 97.5% CI: 7.5, ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we failed to show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, GMC 7,133 ELU/ml) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, GMC 14,080 ELU/ml) with a GMR of 0.51 (one-sided 97.5% CI: 0.43, ∞). Geometric mean of T cell response at 28 days post boost in the ChAd/BNT group was 185 SFC/106 PBMCs (spot forming cells/106 peripheral blood mononuclear cells) compared to 50, 80 and 99 SFC/106 PBMCs for ChAd/ChAd, BNT/BNT, and BNT/ChAd, respectively. There were four serious adverse events across all groups, none of which were considered related to immunisation. Interpretation: Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the GMCs of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. These data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. Trial Registration: The trial is registered at www.isrctn.com as ISRCTN: 69254139. Funding: Funded by the UK Vaccine Task Force (VTF) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Declaration of Interest: MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an Investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM vaccines. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England. AMC and DMF are investigators on studies funded by Pfizer and Unilever. They receive no personal financial payment for this work. AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and Chair of the WHO European Technical Advisory Group of Experts (ETAGE) on Immunisation. He is an investigator and/or provides consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines produced by AstraZeneca, Janssen, Valneva, Pfizer and Sanofi and of other vaccines from these and other manufacturers including GSK, VPI, Takeda and Bionet Asia. He receives no personal remuneration or benefits for any of this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator and/or providing consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck and Valneva vaccines and antimicrobials. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St. George’s University of London as an Investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. CAG acts on behalf of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, CureVac, Moderna, and Valneva vaccines, and receives no personal financial payment for this work. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. TL is named as an inventor on a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and is an occasional consultant to Vaccitech unrelated to this work. Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Ethical Approval: The trial was reviewed and approved by the South-Central Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (21/SC/0022), the University of Oxford, and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency MHRA). An independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB) reviewed safety data, and local trial- site physicians provided oversight of all adverse events in real-time.

Background: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, MHRA, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of between 4 and 12 weeks. The planned rollout in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later.Here we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. Methods: We present data from phase III efficacy trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the United Kingdom and Brazil, and phase I/II clinical trials in the UK and South Africa, against symptomatic disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. The data cut-off date for these analyses was 7th December 2020. The accumulated cases of COVID-19 disease at this cut-off date exceeds the number required for a pre-specified final analysis, which is also presented. As previously described, individuals over 18 years of age were randomised 1:1 to receive two standard doses (SD) of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5x1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine/saline placebo. In the UK trial efficacy cohort a subset of participants received a lower dose (LD, 2.2x1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. All cases with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis, by a blinded independent endpoint review committee. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings: 17,177 baseline seronegative trial participants were eligible for inclusion in the efficacy analysis, 8948 in the UK, 6753 in Brazil and 1476 in South Africa, with 619 documented NAAT +ve infections of which 332 met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection >14 days post dose 2.The primary analysis of overall vaccine efficacy >14 days after the second dose including LD/SD and SD/SD groups, based on the prespecified criteria was 66.7% (57.4%, 74.0%). There were no hospitalisations in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21 day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group.Vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 post vaccination was 76% (59%, 86%), and modelled analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3 month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 day (GMR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59, 0.74).In the SD/SD group, after the second dose, efficacy was higher with a longer prime-boost interval: VE 82.4% 95%CI 62.7%, 91.7% at 12+ weeks, compared with VE 54.9%, 95%CI 32.7%, 69.7% at

Background: A new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7, emerged as the dominant cause of COVID-19infection in the United Kingdom from November 2020 with a transmission advantage over the previous variants of the virus. Here we report efficacy of the adenoviral vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, against this variant in comparison with non-B.1.1.7 lineages. Methods: Volunteers enrolled in phase II/III vaccine efficacy studies in the United Kingdom and randomised 1:1 to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a MenACWY control vaccine, providedupper airway swabs every week during the trial and also if they developed possible symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Swabs were tested by nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2, and positive samples were sequenced through the COVID-19Genomics UK consortium (COG UK). NAAT data were used to assess the duration ofdetectable viral RNA in diagnostic specimens and the viral load. Anti-spike IgG wasmeasured by ELISA at baseline, 14 and 28 days after prime and 28 days after boostervaccination. Neutralising antibody responses were measured using a live virus neutralisation assay against the B.1.1.7 and Victoria lineages of the virus. The efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a NAAT positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cut-off on Jan 14, 2021. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 − relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04400838 and ISRCTN 15281137.5 Findings: Between 1st October 2020 and 14th January 2021, 499 participants developed Covid-19infection. 1524 NAAT positive nose/throat swabs were collected from these participants during the trial. Of these, 323 swabs from 256 participants were successfully sequenced.ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients had a significantly lower viral load as represented byminimum PCR Ct value (p

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. \ud \ud \ud METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. \ud \ud \ud FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. \ud \ud \ud INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. \ud \ud \ud FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Background In 2018, the World Health Organization prioritized control of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD), including disease surveillance. We developed strategies for estimating contemporary ARF/RHD incidence and prevalence in Australia (2015–2017) by age group, sex, and region for Indigenous and non‐Indigenous Australians based on innovative, direct methods. Methods and Results This population‐based study used linked administrative data from 5 Australian jurisdictions. A cohort of ARF (age Conclusions This study provides the most accurate estimates to date of Australian ARF and RHD rates. The high Indigenous burden necessitates urgent government action. Findings suggest RHD may be underestimated in many high‐resource settings. The linked data methods outlined here have potential for global applicability.

Background The E-Freeze trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fresh versus frozen embryo transfer for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the E-Freeze trial. Methods and design E-Freeze is a two-arm parallel-group, multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial to determine if a policy of freezing embryos, followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer, results in a higher healthy baby rate when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation at fertility centres in the UK were randomised to either fresh or frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome is a healthy baby, defined as a live singleton baby born at term with an appropriate weight for gestation. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the trial, including the analysis principles, definitions of outcomes, methods for primary analysis, pre-specified subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis. This plan was finalised prior to completion of recruitment to the trial. Trial registration ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN61225414. Registered on 29 December 2015.

OBJECTIVE To investigate differences in the profile and outcomes between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Western Australians (WAs) hospitalized with traumatic brain injury (TBI). SETTING WA hospitals. PARTICIPANTS TBI cases aged 15 to 79 years surviving their first admission during 2002-2011. DESIGN Patients identified from diagnostic codes and followed up for 12 months or more using WA-wide person-based linked hospital and mortality data. MAIN MEASURES Demographic profile, 5-year comorbidity history, injury mechanism, injury severity, 12-month readmission, and mortality risks. Determinants of 12-month readmission. RESULTS Of 16 601 TBI survivors, 14% were Aboriginal. Aboriginal patients were more likely to be female, live remotely, and have comorbidities. The mechanism of injury was an assault in 57% of Aboriginal patients (vs 20%) and transport in 33% of non-Aboriginal patients (vs 17%), varying by remoteness. One in 10 Aboriginal TBI patients discharged themselves against medical advice. Crude 12-month readmission but not mortality risk was significantly higher in Aboriginal patients (48% vs 36%). The effect of age, sex, and injury mechanism on 12-month readmission was different for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal patients. CONCLUSION These findings suggest an urgent need for multisectoral primary prevention of TBI, as well as culturally secure and logistically appropriate medical and rehabilitation service delivery models to optimize outcomes.

The microbial dysbiosis associated with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants suggests that early exposure to probiotics may decrease and antibiotics may increase NEC risk. However, administration of Bifidobacterium breve strain BBG-001 to preterm infants did not affect NEC incidence in a multicenter randomised controlled phase 3 trial (PiPS trial). Using a subset of these subjects we compared the fecal microbiome of probiotic and placebo groups and assessed the impact of early antibiotic treatment. Extracted DNA from 103 fecal samples collected at 36 weeks post-menstrual age underwent PCR amplification of a fragment of the 16S rRNA gene. Heatmaps were constructed showing the proportions of sequences from bacterial families present at > 1% of the community. Stepwise logistic regression assessed the association between early antibiotic exposure and microbiome group. There was no difference in the microbial richness and diversity of the microbiome of preterm infants following treatment with probiotic or a placebo. Conversely, early antimicrobial exposure was associated with different patterns of colonisation, specifically a relative abundance of Proteobacteria. These findings highlight that the potential influence of probiotics on the microbiome of preterm infants remains unclear whereas the modulatory effect of antibiotic exposure on microbial colonisation requires further research., Highlights • Microbial dysbiosis has been associated with the development of neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis in premature infants. • Early administration of a probiotic compared to a placebo did not alter the microbiome of premature infants. • Early life exposure to antibiotics was associated with different patterns of colonisation in premature infants. The association of altered microbial gastrointestinal colonisation (dysbiosis) with neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis suggests that, through their effects on microbial colonisation, probiotics and antimicrobials may modulate necrotizing enterocolitis risk. We compared microbial colonisation patterns of premature infants administered a probiotic or placebo in the early stages of life. We found no significant effect of probiotic administration on microbial colonisation, a finding which disputes the suggestion that prophylactic use of probiotics prevents the dysbiosis associated with necrotizing enterocolitis. In contrast, antibiotic exposure did alter the pattern of colonisation, indicating the need for further research in order to clearly ascertain the nature of this relationship.

Adherence to cardioprotective medications following myocardial infarction (MI) is commonly assessed using a binary threshold of 80%. We investigated the relationship between medication adherence as a continuous measure and outcomes in MI survivors using restricted cubic splines (RCS). We identified all patients aged ≥65 years hospitalised for MI from 2003–2008 who survived one-year post-discharge (n = 5938). Adherence to statins, beta-blockers, renin angiotensin system inhibitors (RASI) and clopidogrel was calculated using proportion of days covered to one-year post-discharge (landmark date). Outcomes were 1-year all-cause death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after the landmark date. Adherence-outcome associations were estimated from RCS Cox regression models. RCS analyses indicated decreasing risk for both outcomes above 60% adherence for statins, RASI and clopidogrel, with each 10% increase in adherence associated with a 13.9%, 12.1% and 18.0% decrease respectively in adjusted risk of all-cause death (all p

Background Population-based coronary heart disease (CHD) studies have historically focused on myocardial infarction (MI) with limited data on trends across the spectrum of CHD. We investigated trends in hospitalisation rates for acute and chronic CHD subgroups in England and Australia from 1996–2013. Methods CHD hospitalisations for 35–84 year olds were identified using the primary diagnosis in electronic hospital records from 1996–2013 for England and Australia and from the Oxford Region and Western Australia (WA). CHD subgroups identified were acute coronary syndromes (MI and unstable angina) and chronic CHD (stable angina and ‘Other CHD’). We calculated age-standardised and age-specific rates, and estimated annual changes (95% CI) from age-adjusted Poisson regression separately for 1996–2003 and 2004–2013 to account for non-linear trends. Regional person-linked data from the Oxford Region and WA were used to account for the effect of transfers and coronary procedure admissions on trends. Results From 1996–2013, there were 4.9 million CHD hospitalisations in England and 2.6 million in Australia (67% men). From 1996–2003, there was between-country variation in the direction of trends in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and chronic CHD hospitalisation rates (p Conclusion Since 2004, rates of all CHD subgroups have fallen in both countries, with greater declines in acute than chronic presentations. The slower declines and high proportion of chronic CHD admissions involving coronary procedures requires greater focus. Differing MI trends in younger women in both countries warrant further investigation.

Background: In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the optimal time to initiate delivery is unclear because limitation of maternal disease progression needs to be balanced against infant complications. The aim of this trial was to determine whether planned earlier initiation of delivery reduces maternal adverse outcomes without substantial worsening of neonatal or infant outcomes, compared with expectant management (usual care) in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. Methods: In this parallel-group, non-masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 46 maternity units across England and Wales, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management (usual care) with individual randomisation in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia from 34 to less than 37 weeks' gestation and a singleton or dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy. The co-primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity or recorded systolic blood pressure of at least 160 mm Hg with a superiority hypothesis. The co-primary perinatal outcome was a composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admission up to infant hospital discharge with a non-inferiority hypothesis (non-inferiority margin of 10% difference in incidence). Analyses were by intention to treat, together with a per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN01879376. The trial is closed to recruitment but follow-up is ongoing. Findings: Between Sept 29, 2014, and Dec 10, 2018, 901 women were recruited. 450 women (448 women and 471 infants analysed) were allocated to planned delivery and 451 women (451 women and 475 infants analysed) to expectant management. The incidence of the co-primary maternal outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group (289 [65%] women) compared with the expectant management group (338 [75%] women; adjusted relative risk 0·86, 95% CI 0·79–0·94; p=0·0005). The incidence of the co-primary perinatal outcome by intention to treat was significantly higher in the planned delivery group (196 [42%] infants) compared with the expectant management group (159 [34%] infants; 1·26, 1·08–1·47; p=0·0034). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There were nine serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 12 in the expectant management group. Interpretation: There is strong evidence to suggest that planned delivery reduces maternal morbidity and severe hypertension compared with expectant management, with more neonatal unit admissions related to prematurity but no indicators of greater neonatal morbidity. This trade-off should be discussed with women with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision making on timing of delivery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

This retrospective study assessed maternal and perinatal outcomes for women with rheumatic heart disease (RHD) admitted to the largest tertiary obstetric hospital in Western Australia from 2009 to 2016. Of 54 women identified, 75.9% were Indigenous, 59.3% lived in rural areas and 40.7% had severe RHD. Heart failure developed in 10% who gave birth. Indigenous women were younger, had higher gravidity (P = 0.0305), were more likely to receive secondary prophylaxis (P = 0.0041) and have sub-optimal antenatal clinic attendance (P = 0.0078). There were no maternal deaths and two perinatal deaths (4.0%), reflecting vigilance in the obstetric management of women with RHD in Western Australia.

BackgroundPopulation-based coronary heart disease (CHD) studies have focused on myocardial infarction (MI) with limited data on trends across the spectrum of CHD. We investigated trends in hospitalisation rates for acute and chronic CHD subgroups in England and Australia from 1996 to 2013.MethodsCHD hospitalisations for individuals aged 35–84 years were identified from electronic hospital data from 1996 to 2013 for England and Australia and from the Oxford Region and Western Australia. CHD subgroups identified were acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (MI and unstable angina) and chronic CHD (stable angina and ‘other CHD’). We calculated age-standardised and age-specific rates and estimated annual changes (95% CI) from age-adjusted Poisson regression.ResultsFrom 1996 to 2013, there were 4.9 million CHD hospitalisations in England and 2.6 million in Australia (67% men). From 1996 to 2003, there was between-country variation in the direction of trends in ACS and chronic CHD hospitalisation rates (pConclusionsSince 2004, rates of all CHD subgroups have fallen, with greater declines in acute than chronic presentations. The slower declines and high proportion of chronic CHD admissions undergoing coronary procedures requires greater focus.

Isabelle Arnet,1 Melanie Greenland,2 Matthew W Knuiman,2 Jamie M Rankin,3 Joe Hung,4 Lee Nedkoff,2 Tom G Briffa,2 Frank M Sanfilippo2 1Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; 2School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; 3Cardiology Department, Fiona Stanley Hospital Murdoch, WA, Australia; 4School of Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Unit, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia Background: Electronic health care data contain rich information on medicine use from which adherence can be estimated. Various measures developed with medication claims data called for transparency of the equations used, predominantly because they may overestimate adherence, and even more when used with multiple medications. We aimed to operationalize a novel calculation of adherence with polypharmacy, the daily polypharmacy possession ratio (DPPR), and validate it against the common measure of adherence, the medication possession ratio (MPR) and a modified version (MPRm). Methods: We used linked health data from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Western Australian hospital morbidity dataset and mortality register. We identified a strict study cohort from 16,185 patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized for myocardial infarction in 2003–2008 in Western Australia as an illustrative example. We applied iterative exclusion criteria to standardize the dispensing histories according to previous literature. A SAS program was developed to calculate the adherence measures accounting for various drug parameters. Results: The study cohort was 348 incident patients (mean age 74.6±6.8 years; 69% male) with an admission for myocardial infarction who had cardiovascular medications over a median of 727 days (range 74 to 3,798 days) prior to readmission. There were statins (96.8%), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (88.8%), beta-blockers (85.6%), and angiotensin receptor blockers (13.2%) dispensed. As expected, observed adherence values were higher with mean MPR (median 89.2%; Q1: 73.3%; Q3: 104.6%) than mean MPRm (median 82.8%; Q1: 68.5%; Q3: 95.9%). DPPR values were the most narrow (median 83.8%; Q1: 70.9%; Q3: 96.4%). Mean MPR and DPPR yielded very close possession values for 37.9% of the patients. Values were similar in patients with longer observation windows. When the traditional threshold of 80% was applied to mean MPR and DPPR values to signify the threshold for good adherence, 11.6% of patients were classified as good adherers with the mean MPR relative to the DPPR. Conclusion: In the absence of transparent and standardized equations to calculate adherence to polypharmacy from refill databases, the novel DPPR algorithm represents a valid and robust method to estimate medication possession for multi-medication regimens. Keywords: medication adherence, claims database, DPPR, medication possession ratio, ­algorithm, administrative data