A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Evaluation of Host Protein Biomarkers by ELISA From Whole Lysed Peripheral Blood for Development of Diagnostic Tests for Active Tuberculosis

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a significant global health crisis and the number one cause of death for an infectious disease. The health consequences in high-burden countries are significant. Barriers to TB control and eradication are in part caused by difficulties in diagnosis. Improvements in diagnosis are required for organisations like the World Health Organisation (WHO) to meet their ambitious target of reducing the incidence of TB by 50% by the year 2025, which has become hard to reach due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Development of new tests for TB are key priorities of the WHO, as defined in their 2014 report for target product profiles (TPPs). Rapid triage and biomarker-based confirmatory tests would greatly enhance the diagnostic capability for identifying and diagnosing TB-infected individuals. Protein-based test methods e.g. lateral flow devices (LFDs) have a significant advantage over other technologies with regard to assay turnaround time (minutes as opposed to hours) field-ability, ease of use by relatively untrained staff and without the need for supporting laboratory infrastructure. Here we evaluate the diagnostic performance of nine biomarkers from our previously published biomarker qPCR validation study; CALCOCO2, CD274, CD52, GBP1, IFIT3, IFITM3, SAMD9L, SNX10 and TMEM49, as protein targets assayed by ELISA. This preliminary evaluation study was conducted to quantify the level of biomarker protein expression across latent, extra-pulmonary or pulmonary TB groups and negative controls, collected across the UK and India, in whole lysed blood samples (WLB). We also investigated associative correlations between the biomarkers and assessed their suitability for ongoing diagnostic test development, using receiver operating characteristic/area under the curve (ROC) analyses, singly and in panel combinations. The top performing single biomarkers for pulmonary TB versus controls were CALCOCO2, SAMD9L, GBP1, IFITM3, IFIT3 and SNX10. TMEM49 was also significantly differentially expressed but downregulated in TB groups. CD52 expression was not highly differentially expressed across most of the groups but may provide additional patient stratification information and some limited use for incipient latent TB infection. These show therefore great potential for diagnostic test development either in minimal configuration panels for rapid triage or more complex formulations to capture the diversity of disease presentations

Male breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: pathology data from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2

Background BRCA1 and, more commonly, BRCA2 mutations are associated with increased risk of male breast cancer (MBC). However, only a paucity of data exists on the pathology of breast cancers (BCs) in men with BRCA1/2 mutations. Using the largest available dataset, we determined whether MBCs arising in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers display specific pathologic features and whether these features differ from those of BRCA1/2 female BCs (FBCs). Methods We characterised the pathologic features of 419 BRCA1/2 MBCs and, using logistic regression analysis, contrasted those with data from 9675 BRCA1/2 FBCs and with population-based data from 6351 MBCs in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Results Among BRCA2 MBCs, grade significantly decreased with increasing age at diagnosis (P = 0.005). Compared with BRCA2 FBCs, BRCA2 MBCs were of significantly higher stage (P for trend = 2 × 10−5) and higher grade (P for trend = 0.005) and were more likely to be oestrogen receptor–positive [odds ratio (OR) 10.59; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 5.15–21.80] and progesterone receptor–positive (OR 5.04; 95 % CI 3.17–8.04). With the exception of grade, similar patterns of associations emerged when we compared BRCA1 MBCs and FBCs. BRCA2 MBCs also presented with higher grade than MBCs from the SEER database (P for trend = 4 × 10−12). Conclusions On the basis of the largest series analysed to date, our results show that BRCA1/2 MBCs display distinct pathologic characteristics compared with BRCA1/2 FBCs, and we identified a specific BRCA2-associated MBC phenotype characterised by a variable suggesting greater biological aggressiveness (i.e., high histologic grade). These findings could lead to the development of gender-specific risk prediction models and guide clinical strategies appropriate for MBC management

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

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

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

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

The DEMS-DOSS study: validating a delirium monitoring tool in hospitalised older adults

Abstract Objective to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity and test–retest reliability of the Delirium Early Monitoring System-Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DEMS-DOSS). Design prospective diagnostic accuracy study of a convenience sample of admitted older adults with DEMS-DOSS and reference standard assessments. Setting 60-bed aged care precinct at a metropolitan hospital in Sydney, Australia. Participants 156 patients (aged ≥65 years old) were recruited to participate between April 2018 and March 2020. One hundred participants were included in the analysis. Measurements Participants were scored on the DEMS-DOSS. Trained senior aged care nurses conducted a standardised clinical interview based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM)-IV delirium criteria, within two hours of DEMS-DOSS completion. The senior aged care nurse undertaking the DSM-IV interview was blinded to the results of the DEMS-DOSS. Results Participants’ mean age was 84 (SD ±7.3) years and 39% (n = 39) had a documented diagnosis of dementia. Delirium was detected in 38% (n = 38) according to the reference standard. The DEMS-DOSS had a sensitivity of 76.3% and a specificity of 75.8% for delirium. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for delirium was 0.76. The test–retest reliability of the DEMS-DOSS was found to be high (r = 0.915). Conclusion DEMS-DOSS is a sensitive and specific tool to assist with monitoring new onset and established delirium in hospitalised older adults. Further studies are required to evaluate the impact of the monitoring tool on health outcomes. </jats:sec

The DEMS-DOSS study: validating a delirium monitoring tool in hospitalised older adults

OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity and test-retest reliability of the Delirium Early Monitoring System-Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DEMS-DOSS). DESIGN: prospective diagnostic accuracy study of a convenience sample of admitted older adults with DEMS-DOSS and reference standard assessments. SETTING: 60-bed aged care precinct at a metropolitan hospital in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 156 patients (aged ≥65 years old) were recruited to participate between April 2018 and March 2020. One hundred participants were included in the analysis. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were scored on the DEMS-DOSS. Trained senior aged care nurses conducted a standardised clinical interview based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM)-IV delirium criteria, within two hours of DEMS-DOSS completion. The senior aged care nurse undertaking the DSM-IV interview was blinded to the results of the DEMS-DOSS. RESULTS: Participants\u27 mean age was 84 (SD ±7.3) years and 39% (n = 39) had a documented diagnosis of dementia. Delirium was detected in 38% (n = 38) according to the reference standard. The DEMS-DOSS had a sensitivity of 76.3% and a specificity of 75.8% for delirium. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for delirium was 0.76. The test-retest reliability of the DEMS-DOSS was found to be high (r = 0.915). CONCLUSION: DEMS-DOSS is a sensitive and specific tool to assist with monitoring new onset and established delirium in hospitalised older adults. Further studies are required to evaluate the impact of the monitoring tool on health outcomes