RESUMEN
BackgroundCovid-19 vaccines are urgently needed, especially against emerging variants. NVX-CoV2373 is a recombinant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 rS) nanoparticle vaccine containing trimeric full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and Matrix-M adjuvant. MethodsA phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in adults 18-84 years old who received two intramuscular 5-{micro}g doses, 21 days apart, of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) across 33 sites in the United Kingdom. The primary efficacy endpoint was virologically confirmed symptomatic Covid-19 with onset 7 days after second vaccination in serologically negative participants. ResultsA total of 15,187 participants were randomized, of whom 7569 received NVX-CoV2373 and 7570 received placebo; 27.2% were 65 years or older, 44.7% had comorbidities and 4.2% had baseline serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2. There were 10 cases of Covid-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 96 cases among placebo recipients, with symptom onset at least 7 days after second vaccination; NVX-CoV2373 was 89.7% (95% confidence interval, 80.2 to 94.6) effective in preventing Covid-19, with no hospitalizations or deaths reported. There were five cases of severe Covid-19, all in the placebo group. Post hoc analysis revealed efficacies of 96.4% (73.8 to 99.5) and 86.3% (71.3 to 93.5) against the prototype strain and B.1.1.7 variant, respectively. Vaccine efficacy was similar across subgroups, including participants with comorbidities and those [≥]65 years old. Reactogenicity was generally mild and transient. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the two groups. ConclusionA two-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred 89.7% protection against a blend of prototype and variant Covid-19, demonstrated high efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant, and had a reassuring safety profile. (Funded by Novavax, Inc. EudraCT number, 2020-004123-16).
RESUMEN
"Compassion and mercy" are important values for humanizing medicine. There are limits, however, in their ability to help resolve disputes between physicians and families regarding appropriate end-of-life care. The recent cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans in England highlight the issue. The English courts resolve such conflicts by an independent assessment of a court. The American judicial system does not share the centralized system of the English courts. In the United States Federal structure some 50 state legislatures and 50 state court systems go their separate ways. The result is differing, frequently conflicting, standards. We explore possible ways to avoid court involvement in the American context for resolving such disputes within the patient-physician relationship.
