ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine if valganciclovir initiated after 1 month of age improves congenital cytomegalovirus-associated sensorineural hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of 6 weeks of oral valganciclovir at US (n = 12) and UK (n = 9) sites. Patients of ages 1 month through 3 years with baseline sensorineural hearing loss were enrolled. The primary outcome was change in total ear hearing between baseline and study month 6. Secondary outcome measures included change in best ear hearing and reduction in cytomegalovirus viral load in blood, saliva, and urine. RESULTS: Of 54 participants enrolled, 35 were documented to have congenital cytomegalovirus infection and were randomized (active group: 17; placebo group: 18). Mean age at enrollment was 17.8 ± 15.8 months (valganciclovir) vs 19.5 ± 13.1 months (placebo). Twenty (76.9%) of the 26 ears from subjects in the active treatment group did not have worsening of hearing, compared with 27 (96.4%) of 28 ears from subjects in the placebo group (P = .09). All other comparisons of total ear or best ear hearing outcomes were also not statistically significant. Saliva and urine viral loads decreased significantly in the valganciclovir group but did not correlate with change in hearing outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial, initiation of antiviral therapy beyond the first month of age did not improve hearing outcomes in children with congenital cytomegalovirus-associated sensorineural hearing loss. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01649869.
Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , Cytomegalovirus Infections , Ganciclovir , Hearing Loss, Sensorineural , Valganciclovir , Humans , Cytomegalovirus Infections/drug therapy , Cytomegalovirus Infections/congenital , Cytomegalovirus Infections/complications , Valganciclovir/therapeutic use , Valganciclovir/administration & dosage , Hearing Loss, Sensorineural/drug therapy , Hearing Loss, Sensorineural/virology , Hearing Loss, Sensorineural/etiology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Male , Female , Double-Blind Method , Infant , Administration, Oral , Ganciclovir/analogs & derivatives , Ganciclovir/therapeutic use , Ganciclovir/administration & dosage , Child, Preschool , Treatment Outcome , Viral Load , Infant, NewbornABSTRACT
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 5â×â1010 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 1â-ârelative 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, 23â848 participants were enrolled and 11â636 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 74â341 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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Brazil , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Single-Blind Method , South Africa , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom , Young AdultSubject(s)
Multiple Organ Failure/therapy , Pediatrics/standards , Sepsis/therapy , Shock, Septic/therapy , Adolescent , Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use , Child , Critical Care/standards , Fluid Therapy/methods , Hemodynamics , Humans , Infant , Multiple Organ Failure/etiology , Research Design , Sepsis/complications , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic useABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. DESIGN: A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process. METHODS: The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate. RESULTS: The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 52 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 49 research priorities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.