Safety and immunogenicity of a variant-adapted SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03 adjuvant as a booster in adults primed with authorized vaccines: a phase 3, parallel-group study.

Background: In a parallel-group, international, phase 3 study (ClinicalTrials.govNCT04762680), we evaluated prototype (D614) and Beta (B.1.351) variant recombinant spike protein booster vaccines with AS03-adjuvant (CoV2 preS dTM-AS03). Methods: Adults, previously primed with mRNA (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273), adenovirus-vectored (Ad26.CoV2.S, ChAdOx1nCoV-19) or protein (CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 [monovalent D614; MV(D614)]) vaccines were enrolled between 29 July 2021 and 22 February 2022. Participants were stratified by age (18-55 and ≥ 56 years) and received one of the following CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 booster formulations: MV(D614) (n = 1285), MV(B.1.351) (n = 707) or bivalent D614 + B.1.351 (BiV; n = 625). Unvaccinated adults who tested negative on a SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic test (control group, n = 479) received two primary doses, 21 days apart, of MV(D614). Anti-D614G and anti-B.1.351 antibodies were evaluated using validated pseudovirus (lentivirus) neutralization (PsVN) assay 14 days post-booster (day [D]15) in 18-55-year-old BNT162b2-primed participants and compared with those pre-booster (D1) and on D36 in 18-55-year-old controls (primary immunogenicity endpoints). PsVN titers to Omicron BA.1, BA.2 and BA.4/5 subvariants were also evaluated. Safety was evaluated over a 12-month follow-up period. Planned interim analyses are presented up to 14 days post-last vaccination for immunogenicity and over a median duration of 5 months for safety. Findings: All three boosters elicited robust anti-D614G or -B.1.351 PsVN responses for mRNA, adenovirus-vectored and protein vaccine-primed groups. Among BNT162b2-primed adults (18-55 years), geometric means of the individual post-booster versus pre-booster titer ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) were: for MV (D614), 23.37 (18.58-29.38) (anti-D614G); for MV(B.1.351), 35.41 (26.71-46.95) (anti-B.1.351); and for BiV, 14.39 (11.39-18.28) (anti-D614G) and 34.18 (25.84-45.22 (anti-B.1.351). GMT ratios (98.3% CI) versus post-primary vaccination GMTs in controls, were: for MV(D614) booster, 2.16 (1.69; 2.75) [anti-D614G]; for MV(B.1.351), 1.96 (1.54; 2.50) [anti-B.1.351]; and for BiV, 2.34 (1.84; 2.96) [anti-D614G] and 1.39 (1.09; 1.77) [anti-B.1.351]. All booster formulations elicited cross-neutralizing antibodies against Omicron BA.2 (across priming vaccine subgroups), Omicron BA.1 (BNT162b2-primed participants) and Omicron BA.4/5 (BNT162b2-primed participants and MV D614-primed participants). Similar patterns in antibody responses were observed for participants aged ≥56 years. Reactogenicity tended to be transient and mild-to-moderate severity in all booster groups. No safety concerns were identified. Interpretation: CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 boosters demonstrated acceptable safety and elicited robust neutralizing antibodies against multiple variants, regardless of priming vaccine. Funding: Sanofi and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).

Changing estimates of leadership ability before a programme: retrospective self-assessments and response-shift bias.

BACKGROUND: Most evaluations of clinical leadership development programmes rely on self-assessments. Self-assessments are vulnerable to response-shift bias. Using retrospective then-tests may help to avoid this bias.In this study, we investigate whether post-programme then-tests (retrospective self-assessments) are more sensitive to change in clinical leadership development programme participants than traditional pre-programme pre-tests when paired with post-test self-assessments. METHODS: 17 healthcare professionals participated in an 8-month single-centre multidisciplinary leadership development programme. Participants completed prospective pre-test, retrospective then-test and traditional post-test self-assessments using the Primary Colours Questionnaire (PCQ) and Medical Leadership Competency Framework Self-Assessment Tool (MLCFQ). Pre-post pairs and then-post pairs were analysed for changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and compared with a parallel multimethod evaluation organised by Kirkpatrick levels. RESULTS: A greater number of significant changes were detected using then-test pairs than pre-test pairs for both the PCQ (11 of 12 vs 4 of 12 items) and MLCFQ (7 of 7 vs 3 of 7 domains). The multimethods data showed positive outcomes at all Kirkpatrick levels. CONCLUSIONS: In ideal circumstances, both pre-test and then-test evaluations should be conducted. We cautiously suggest that if only one post-programme evaluation can be conducted, then-tests may be appropriate means of detecting change.

Safety and immunogenicity of an AS03-adjuvanted SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) in healthy adults: interim findings from a phase 2, randomised, dose-finding, multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated our SARS-CoV-2 prefusion spike recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) with different adjuvants, unadjuvanted, and in a one-injection and two-injection dosing schedule in a previous phase 1-2 study. Based on interim results from that study, we selected a two-injection schedule and the AS03 adjuvant for further clinical development. However, lower than expected antibody responses, particularly in older adults, and higher than expected reactogenicity after the second vaccination were observed. In the current study, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of an optimised formulation of CoV2 preS dTM adjuvanted with AS03 to inform progression to phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: This phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, dose-ranging study was done in adults (≥18 years old), including those with pre-existing medical conditions, those who were immunocompromised (except those with recent organ transplant or chemotherapy) and those with a potentially increased risk for severe COVID-19, at 20 clinical research centres in the USA and Honduras. Women who were pregnant or lactating or, for those of childbearing potential, not using an effective method of contraception or abstinence, and those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine, were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive response technology system, with stratification by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years), rapid serodiagnostic test result (positive or negative), and high-risk medical conditions (yes or no), to receive two injections (day 1 and day 22) of 5 7mu;g (low dose), 10 7mu;g (medium dose), or 15 7mu;g (high dose) CoV2 preS dTM antigen with fixed AS03 content. All participants and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment; unmasked study staff involved in vaccine preparation were not involved in safety outcome assessments. All laboratory staff performing the assays were masked to treatment. The primary safety objective was to describe the safety profile in all participants, for each candidate vaccine formulation. Safety endpoints were evaluated for all randomised participants who received at least one dose of the study vaccine (safety analysis set), and are presented here for the interim study period (up to day 43). The primary immunogenicity objective was to describe the neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant 14 days after the second vaccination (day 36) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naive who received both injections, provided samples at day 1 and day 36, did not have protocol deviations, and did not receive an authorised COVID-19 vaccine before day 36. Neutralising antibodies were measured using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay and are presented here up to 14 days after the second dose. As a secondary immunogenicity objective, we assessed neutralising antibodies in non-naive participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04762680) and is closed to new participants for the cohort reported here. FINDINGS: Of 722 participants enrolled and randomly assigned between Feb 24, 2021, and March 8, 2021, 721 received at least one injection (low dose=240, medium dose=239, and high dose=242). The proportion of participants reporting at least one solicited adverse reaction (injection site or systemic) in the first 7 days after any vaccination was similar between treatment groups (217 [91%] of 238 in the low-dose group, 213 [90%] of 237 in the medium-dose group, and 218 [91%] of 239 in the high-dose group); these adverse reactions were transient, were mostly mild to moderate in intensity, and occurred at a higher frequency and intensity after the second vaccination. Four participants reported immediate unsolicited adverse events; two (one each in the low-dose group and medium-dose group) were considered by the investigators to be vaccine related and two (one each in the low-dose and high-dose groups) were considered unrelated. Five participants reported seven vaccine-related medically attended adverse events (two in the low-dose group, one in the medium-dose group, and four in the high-dose group). No vaccine-related serious adverse events and no adverse events of special interest were reported. Among participants naive to SARS-CoV-2 at day 36, 158 (98%) of 162 in the low-dose group, 166 (99%) of 168 in the medium-dose group, and 163 (98%) of 166 in the high-dose group had at least a two-fold increase in neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant from baseline. Neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMTs) at day 36 for participants who were naive were 2189 (95% CI 1744-2746) for the low-dose group, 2269 (1792-2873) for the medium-dose group, and 2895 (2294-3654) for the high-dose group. GMT ratios (day 36: day 1) were 107 (95% CI 85-135) in the low-dose group, 110 (87-140) in the medium-dose group, and 141 (111-179) in the high-dose group. Neutralising antibody titres in non-naive adults 21 days after one injection tended to be higher than titres after two injections in adults who were naive, with GMTs 21 days after one injection for participants who were non-naive being 3143 (95% CI 836-11 815) in the low-dose group, 2338 (593-9226) in the medium-dose group, and 7069 (1361-36 725) in the high-dose group. INTERPRETATION: Two injections of CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 showed acceptable safety and reactogenicity, and robust immunogenicity in adults who were SARS-CoV-2 naive and non-naive. These results supported progression to phase 3 evaluation of the 10 7mu;g antigen dose for primary vaccination and a 5 7mu;g antigen dose for booster vaccination. FUNDING: Sanofi Pasteur and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

What it takes to become an orthopaedic surgeon: A comparison of orthopaedic surgical training programmes in 10 countries focusing on structure and fellowship requirements.

BACKGROUND: The quality of surgical training has been highlighted as one of the most important patient safety issues in the future. Training surgeons and supporting them to do their best should be considered integral in providing optimum and safe care for the individual patient and the best possible return on investment in training medical professionals. In 2011, an international consensus statement defined fundamental principles for surgical training. PURPOSE: This study examines orthopaedic surgical training to explore the similarities and differences in the requirements for trainees to obtain board certification in ten countries. METHODS: Countries of the Commonwealth Health Care Comparison: Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland were chosen to be compared. The relevant information was extracted from official information from authorities and administrative bodies. RESULTS: The study revealed significant differences in duration, organisation and assessment of training. So-called "competency-based" training is not featured in every country, and the manner of its implementation is variable. In particular, the numbers in surgical cases required to be accredited varies by country ranging from 1260 (UK) to 340 (Norway). CONCLUSION: Despite the recommendation in 2011 for some degree of uniformity across surgical training in industrialised countries, evidence suggests wide variation in the training programmes which is likely to be a concern in both quality of training as well as present and future patient safety.

Impact of reduced working time on surgical training in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

The European Working Time Directive (EWTD) 48 h working week has been law in European countries since 1998. A phased approach to implementation was agreed for doctors in training, which steadily brought down working hours to 58 in 2004, 56 in 2007 and 48 in 2009. Medical trainees can "opt out" to a 54 h working week but this has to be voluntary and rotas cannot be constructed that assume an opt out is taking place. A key component of the working week arrangements is that the maximum period of work for a resident doctor without rest is 13 h. Shorter sessions of work have led to complex rotas, frequent handovers with difficulties maintaining continuity of care with implications for patient safety. Although there has been over 10 years notice of the changes to the working week and progress has up to now been reasonable (helped, in part by a steady increase in consultant numbers) this latest reduction from 56 h to 48 h seems to have been the most difficult to manage.

The importance of international consensus statements in surgery.

The article is a summary of some of the pertinent literature on professionalism, highlighting the difference between how physicians understand professionalism and how other groups e.g. politicians, nurses and hospital managers might view the professionalism of doctors. It partly explains why surgeons have become increasingly 'managerialised' and lost autonomy since the 1970s. I speculate what might be the logical conclusion of this process if surgeons continue to be seen as technicians. The choice facing the surgical profession appears to be between retrenching, by this is meant resisting the challenges to traditional notions of professionalism, or reforming, i.e. to develop new workable models that better serve society and the profession. Some of this might make uncomfortable reading for physicians and surgeons; it is meant to.