Randomized study of immune responses to two Tdap vaccines among adolescents primed with DTaP and comparison with results among adolescents primed with DTwP

BackgroundIt has been reported that persons primed with acellular (DTaP) pertussis vaccines have reduced duration of pertussis protection compared with those primed with whole-cell (DTwP) vaccines. However, due to the rapid transition to acellular vaccines, studies attempting directly to compare protection among DTaP-primed vs DTwP-primed individuals are subject to confounding by age and other limitations of ecological studies. Using validated assay results and stored sera from multiple Tdap studies, we evaluated two licensed Tdap vaccines among DTaP-primed adolescents to allow comparison with results obtained in the same laboratory from earlier studies involving DTwP-primed adolescents.MethodsParticipants 11–12 years of age who had received exactly 5 doses of DTaP vaccine prior to 7 years of age were randomly assigned in 2012 to receive one of two licensed Tdap vaccines. Serum specimens obtained pre- and post-vaccination were assayed for responses to the vaccines. Current results were then compared to results obtained in the same laboratory from prior randomized Tdap studies conducted among adolescents primed with DTwP or DTaP.ResultsBoth Tdap vaccines produced strong antibody responses to diphtheria and tetanus; responses to contained pertussis antigens were consistent with the differing levels of those antigens in each Tdap vaccine. However, postvaccination pertussis antibody responses were as much as 71% lower in these DTaP-primed adolescents compared with responses among DTwP-primed adolescents in a prior study of the same two Tdap vaccines. In contrast, results from the present study were similar to those seen in another study of Tdap among DTaP-primed adolescents.DiscussionTaken together, these results from randomized clinical trials provide direct evidence of reduced antibody responses to both licensed Tdap vaccines among adolescents primed with DTaP vaccine, compared with adolescents primed with DTwP vaccine.Clinical trial registry number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01629589.     

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID) trial—Protocol and statistical analysis plan

Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with many patients developing hypoxic respiratory failure. Corticosteroids reduce the time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and potentially also mortality in similar patient populations. However, corticosteroids have undesirable effects, including longer time to viral clearance. Clinical equipoise on the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 exists.

Methods

The COVID STEROID trial is an international, randomised, stratified, blinded clinical trial. We will allocate 1000 adult patients with COVID-19 receiving ≥10 L/min of oxygen or on mechanical ventilation to intravenous hydrocortisone 200 mg daily vs placebo (0.9% saline) for 7 days. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (ie mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse reactions at day 14; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; all-cause mortality at day 28, day 90, and 1 year; and health-related quality of life at 1 year. We will conduct the statistical analyses according to this protocol, including interim analyses for every 250 patients followed for 28 days. The primary outcome will be compared using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test in the intention to treat population and reported as differences in means and medians with 95% confidence intervals.

Discussion

The COVID STEROID trial will provide important evidence to guide the use of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and severe hypoxia.

     

004Topical Zinc Oxide for Open Pilonidal Wounds

Extended healing time and lack of documented effective treatments of sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease create substantial problems. Locally applied zinc oxide has been reported to promote wound healing. We have compared topical zinc oxide (3%) with placebo meshes for pilonidal wounds healing by secondary intention in a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled multicenter trial. Sixty‐four consecutive patients, 53 males, aged between 18 and 60 years (median 26 years) with excised pilonidal wounds were centrally randomized to local zinc oxide (30 mg/g, n = 33) or to placebo (n = 31) mesh treatment. Patients were followed with strict recording of beneficial and harmful effects. The median healing times were 54 days (42–71 days, interquartile range, n = 33) for the zinc group and 62 days (55–82 days, n = 31) for the placebo group. This difference was not statistically different (p = 0.32). Based on Cox regression analysis initial wound volume influenced healing negatively (p = 0.016) while smoking (p = 0.011) was associated with faster wound healing. Significantly (p < 0.01) more placebo (n = 12) than zinc oxide‐treated patients (n = 3) needed antibiotics postoperatively. Although topical zinc oxide increased (p < 0.001) wound fluid zinc levels (1830 ± 405 μM, mean ± SEM) compared with placebo (3.1 ± 1.6 μM) serum‐zinc levels did not differ significantly between the zinc (13.5 ± 0.4 μM) and placebo (12.8 ± 0.4 μm) groups on postoperative day 7. No adverse events were recorded. Topical zinc oxide treatment did not accelerate time to closure of open pilonidal wounds but was associated with reduced antibiotic usage.