Background BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and is currently approved, conditionally approved, or authorized for emergency use worldwide. At the time of initial authorization, data beyond 2 months after vaccination were unavailable. Methods In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned 44,165 participants 16 years of age or older and 2264 participants 12 to 15 years of age to receive two 30-μg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 or placebo. The trial end points were vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety, which were both evaluated through 6 months after vaccination. Results BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile. Few participants had adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.0 to 93.2) through 6 months of follow-up among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated. There was a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy. Vaccine efficacy of 86 to 100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse ages, sexes, race or ethnic groups, and risk factors for Covid-19 among participants without evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine efficacy against severe disease was 96.7% (95% CI, 80.3 to 99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.351 (or beta) was predominant, a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI, 53.5 to 100) was observed. Conclusions Through 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728 .)

Background: BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against COVID-19 and is currently authorized for emergency use or conditional approval worldwide. At the time of authorization, data beyond 2 months post-vaccination were unavailable. Methods: In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy study, 44,165 ≥16-year-old participants and 2,264 12-15-year-old participants were randomized to receive 2 doses, 21 days apart, of 30 μg BNT162b2 or placebo. Study endpoints reported here are vaccine efficacy (VE) against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and safety data, both up to 6 months post-vaccination. Results: BNT162b2 continued to be safe and well tolerated. Few participants had adverse events leading to study withdrawal. VE against COVID-19 was 91% (95% CI 89.0‒93.2) through up to 6 months of follow-up, among evaluable participants and irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE of 86%‒100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse characteristics of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and COVID-19 risk factors in participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE against severe disease was 97% % (95% CI 80.3‒99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, B.1.351 (beta), was predominant, 100% (95% CI 53.5, 100.0) VE was observed. Conclusion: With up to 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradually declining trend in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728)

Our data suggest that H pylori infection is associated with surrogate markers of fecal exposure. Thus, we conclude that the fecal-oral route is relevant in the transmission of HP among children in an urban setting of a developing country. The association observed between G. lamblia and H pylori infection may have several explanations. Further studies to investigate this relationship are warranted.

This is the largest population-based survey of LUTS in Brazil, using the 2002 ICS definitions. LUTS prevalence was high and increased with age among both genders in Brazil, whereas the rates of OAB were somewhat lower than previously reported. The high prevalence of urinary symptoms and the bother commonly associated with them highlight their importance to overall well-being.

ObjectiveExamine whether glycaemic control varies according to sex and whether the latter plays a role in modifying factors associated with inadequate glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Brazil and Venezuela.Design, setting and participantsThis was a cross-sectional, nationwide survey conducted in Brazil and Venezuela from February 2006 to June 2007 to obtain information about glycaemic control and its determinants in patients with diabetes mellitus attending outpatient clinics.Main outcome measuresHaemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level was measured by liquid chromatography, and patients with HbA1c ≥7.0% (53 mmol/mol) were considered to have inadequate glycaemic control. The association of selected variables with glycaemic control was analysed by multivariate linear regression, using HbA1c as the dependent variable.ResultsA total of 9418 patients with T2D were enrolled in Brazil (n=5692) and in Venezuela (n=3726). They included 6214 (66%) women and 3204 (34%) men. On average, HbA1c levels in women were 0.13 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.24; p=0.015) higher than in men, after adjusting for age, marital status, education, race, country, body mass index, duration of disease, complications, type of healthcare, adherence to diet, adherence to treatment and previous measurement of HbA1c. Sex modified the effect of some factors associated with glycaemic control in patients with T2D in our study, but had no noteworthy effect in others.ConclusionsWomen with T2D had worse glycaemic control than men. Possible causes for poorer glycaemic control in women compared with men include differences in glucose homeostasis, treatment response and psychological factors. In addition, sex modified factors associated with glycaemic control, suggesting the need to develop specific treatment guidelines for men and women.

No abstract

In observational studies, identification of associations within particular subgroups is the usual method of investigation. As an exploratory method, it is the bread and butter of epidemiological research. Nearly everything that has been learned in epidemiology has been derived from the analysis of subgroups. In a randomized clinical trial, the entire purpose is the comparison of the test subjects and the controls, and when there is particular interest in the results of treatment in a certain section of trial participants, a subgroup analysis is performed. These subgroups are examined to see if they are liable to a greater benefit or risk from treatment. Thus, analyzing patient subsets is a natural part of the process of improving therapeutic knowledge through clinical trials. Nevertheless, the reliability of subgroup analysis can often be poor because of problems of multiplicity and limitations in the numbers of patients studied. The naive interpretation of the results of such examinations is a cause of great confusion in the therapeutic literature. We emphasize the need for readers to be aware that inferences based on comparisons between subgroups in randomized clinical trials should be approached more cautiously than those based on the main comparison. That is, subgroup analysis results derived from a sound clinical trial are not necessarily valid; one must not jump to conclusions and accept the validity of subgroup analysis results without an appropriate judgment.

No abstract