Search

Background CoronaVac, an inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, has been shown to be well tolerated with a good safety profile in individuals aged 18 years and older in phase 1/2 trials, and provided a good humoral response against SARS-CoV-2. We present the interim efficacy and safety results of a phase 3 clinical trial of CoronaVac in Turkey. Methods This was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Volunteers aged 18-59 years with no history of COVID-19 and with negative PCR and antibody test results for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled at 24 centres in Turkey. Exclusion criteria included (but were not limited to) immunosuppressive therapy (including steroids) within the past 6 months, bleeding disorders, asplenia, and receipt of any blood products or immunoglobulins within the past 3 months. The K1 cohort consisted of health-care workers (randomised in a 1:1 ratio), and individuals other than health-care workers were also recruited into the K2 cohort (randomised in a 2:1 ratio) using an interactive web response system. The study vaccine was 3 mu g inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virion adsorbed to aluminium hydroxide in a 0.5 mL aqueous suspension. Participants received either vaccine or placebo (consisting of all vaccine components except inactivated virus) intramuscularly on days 0 and 14. The primary efficacy outcome was the prevention of PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 at least 14 days after the second dose in the per protocol population. Safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04582344) and is active but no longer recruiting. Findings Among 11 303 volunteers screened between Sept 14, 2020, and Jan 5, 2021, 10 218 were randomly allocated. After exclusion of four participants from the vaccine group because of protocol deviations, the intention-to-treat group consisted of 10 214 participants (6646 [65.1%] in the vaccine group and 3568 [34.9%] in the placebo group) and the per protocol group consisted of 10 029 participants (6559 [65.4%] and 3470 [34.6%]) who received two doses of vaccine or placebo. During a median follow-up period of 43 days (IQR 36-48), nine cases of PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 were reported in the vaccine group (31.7 cases [14.6-59.3] per 1000 person-years) and 32 cases were reported in the placebo group (192.3 cases [135.7-261.1] per 1000 person-years) 14 days or more after the second dose, yielding a vaccine efficacy of 83.5% (95% CI 65.4-92.1; p, TUSEB, We are grateful to all participants who volunteered to be part of this study and to all members of the clinical research teams of the participating sites. We thank TUSEB for funding the study and Omega-CRO for the statistical analyses and production of figures, and providing the study protocol. We also thank the members of the data and safety monitoring board for their contributions in the safe execution of this study.

Summary Background Wuhan was the epicentre of the COVID-19 outbreak in China. We aimed to determine the seroprevalence and kinetics of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at population level in Wuhan to inform the development of vaccination strategies. Methods In this longitudinal cross-sectional study, we used a multistage, population-stratified, cluster random sampling method to systematically select 100 communities from the 13 districts of Wuhan. Households were systematically selected from each community and all family members were invited to community health-care centres to participate. Eligible individuals were those who had lived in Wuhan for at least 14 days since Dec 1, 2019. All eligible participants who consented to participate completed a standardised electronic questionnaire of demographic and clinical questions and self-reported any symptoms associated with COVID-19 or previous diagnosis of COVID-19. A venous blood sample was taken for immunological testing on April 14–15, 2020. Blood samples were tested for the presence of pan-immunoglobulins, IgM, IgA, and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and neutralising antibodies were assessed. We did two successive follow-ups between June 11 and June 13, and between Oct 9 and Dec 5, 2020, at which blood samples were taken. Findings Of 4600 households randomly selected, 3599 families (78·2%) with 9702 individuals attended the baseline visit. 9542 individuals from 3556 families had sufficient samples for analyses. 532 (5·6%) of 9542 participants were positive for pan-immunoglobulins against SARS-CoV-2, with a baseline adjusted seroprevalence of 6·92% (95% CI 6·41–7·43) in the population. 437 (82·1%) of 532 participants who were positive for pan-immunoglobulins were asymptomatic. 69 (13·0%) of 532 individuals were positive for IgM antibodies, 84 (15·8%) were positive for IgA antibodies, 532 (100%) were positive for IgG antibodies, and 212 (39·8%) were positive for neutralising antibodies at baseline. The proportion of individuals who were positive for pan-immunoglobulins who had neutralising antibodies in April remained stable for the two follow-up visits (162 [44·6%] of 363 in June, 2020, and 187 [41·2%] of 454 in October–December, 2020). On the basis of data from 335 individuals who attended all three follow-up visits and who were positive for pan-immunoglobulins, neutralising antibody levels did not significantly decrease over the study period (median 1/5·6 [IQR 1/2·0 to 1/14·0] at baseline vs 1/5·6 [1/4·0 to 1/11·2] at first follow-up [p=1·0] and 1/6·3 [1/2·0 to 1/12·6] at second follow-up [p=0·29]). However, neutralising antibody titres were lower in asymptomatic individuals than in confirmed cases and symptomatic individuals. Although titres of IgG decreased over time, the proportion of individuals who had IgG antibodies did not decrease substantially (from 30 [100%] of 30 at baseline to 26 [89·7%] of 29 at second follow-up among confirmed cases, 65 [100%] of 65 at baseline to 58 [92·1%] of 63 at second follow-up among symptomatic individuals, and 437 [100%] of 437 at baseline to 329 [90·9%] of 362 at second follow-up among asymptomatic individuals). Interpretation 6·92% of a cross-sectional sample of the population of Wuhan developed antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, with 39·8% of this population seroconverting to have neutralising antibodies. Our durability data on humoral responses indicate that mass vaccination is needed to effect herd protection to prevent the resurgence of the epidemic. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, National Natural Science Foundation, and Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology. Translation For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Background: Antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat. Antibiotics are very commonly prescribed for children presenting with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness of antibiotics, both overall or among key clinical subgroups. In ARTIC PC, we assessed whether amoxicillin reduces the duration of moderately bad symptoms in children presenting with uncomplicated (non-pneumonic) LRTI in primary care, overall and in key clinical subgroups. Methods: ARTIC PC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 56 general practices in England. Eligible children were those aged 6 months to 12 years presenting in primary care with acute uncomplicated LRTI judged to be infective in origin, where pneumonia was not suspected clinically, with symptoms for less than 21 days. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day or placebo oral suspension, in three divided doses orally for 7 days. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary) for up to 28 days or until symptoms resolved. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN79914298). Findings: Between Nov 9, 2016, and March 17, 2020, 432 children (not including six who withdrew permission for use of their data after randomisation) were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group (n=221) or the placebo group (n=211). Complete data for symptom duration were available for 317 (73%) patients; missing data were imputed for the primary analysis. Median durations of moderately bad or worse symptoms were similar between the groups (5 days [IQR 4–11] in the antibiotics group vs 6 days [4–15] in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 1·13 [95% CI 0·90–1·42]). No differences were seen for the primary outcome between the treatment groups in the five prespecified clinical subgroups (patients with chest signs, fever, physician rating of unwell, sputum or chest rattle, and short of breath). Estimates from complete-case analysis and a per-protocol analysis were similar to the imputed data analysis. Interpretation: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated chest infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective either overall or for key subgroups in whom antibiotics are commonly prescribed. Unless pneumonia is suspected, clinicians should provide safety-netting advice but not prescribe antibiotics for most children presenting with chest infections.

Background Diagnosis of transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs) can be difficult. There is consensus on classic symptoms (eg, motor weakness, dysphasia, hemianopia, monocular visual loss) but no consensus on several monosymptomatic events with sudden-onset, non-progressive, focal negative symptoms (eg, isolated diplopia, dysarthria, vertigo, ataxia, sensory loss, and bilateral visual disturbance), with much variation in investigation and treatment. Methods We prospectively ascertained and investigated all strokes and sudden onset transient neurological symptoms in a population of 92 728 people (no age restrictions) from Oxfordshire, UK, who sought medical attention at nine primary care practices or at the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK (Oxford Vascular Study). Patients classified at baseline with minor ischaemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Score Findings Between April 1, 2002, and March 31, 2018, 2878 patients were identified with minor ischaemic stroke (n=1287), classic TIA (n=1021), or non-consensus TIA (n=570). Follow-up was to Oct 1, 2018 (median 5·2 [IQR 2·6–9·2] years). 577 first recurrent strokes after the index event occurred during 17 009 person-years of follow-up. 90-day stroke risk from time of the index event after a non-consensus TIA was similar to that after classic TIA (10·6% [95% CI 7·8–12·9] vs 11·6% [95% CI 9·6–13·6]; hazard ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·64–1·19; p=0·43), and higher than after amaurosis fugax (4·3% [95% CI 0·6–8·0]; p=0·042). However, patients with non-consensus TIA were less likely to seek medical attention on the day of the event than were those with classic TIA (336 of 570 [59%] vs 768 of 1021 [75%]; odds ratio [OR] 0·47, 95% CI 0·38–0·59; p Interpretation Patients with non-consensus TIA are at high early and long-term risk of stroke and have cardiovascular pathological findings on investigation similar to those of classic TIA. Designation of non-consensus TIAs as definite cerebrovascular events will increase overall TIA diagnoses by about 50%. Funding Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Wolfson Foundation, Masonic Charitable Foundation, and British Heart Foundation.

Medir la vacunación infantil de rutina es crucial para informar las políticas mundiales de vacunación y la implementación de programas, y para hacer un seguimiento del progreso hacia los objetivos establecidos por el Plan de Acción Mundial sobre Vacunas (GVAP) y la Agenda de Inmunización 2030. Se necesitan estimaciones sólidas de la cobertura de vacunación de rutina para identificar los éxitos pasados ​​y persistentes. vulnerabilidades. A partir del Estudio de la carga global de enfermedades, lesiones y factores de riesgo (GBD) 2020, versión 1, realizamos un análisis sistemático de las tendencias de cobertura de vacunas a nivel mundial, regional y nacional utilizando un marco estadístico, por vacuna y a lo largo del tiempo. Métodos Para este análisis recopilamos 55 326 observaciones específicas del país, de la cohorte, del año, de la vacuna y de la dosis de la cobertura de vacunación infantil de rutina entre 1980 y 2019. Utilizando el proceso de regresión gaussiana espaciotemporal, Estimaciones específicas por año de 11 indicadores de cobertura de vacunación infantil de rutina para 204 países y territorios desde 1980 hasta 2019, ajustando los sesgos en los datos informados por los países y reflejando los desabastecimientos informados y las interrupciones en el suministro. Analizamos las tendencias mundiales y regionales en la cobertura y el número de niños con dosis cero (definidos como aquellos que nunca recibieron una dosis de vacuna contra la difteria, el tétanos y la tos ferina [DTP]), el progreso hacia los objetivos del GVAP y la relación entre la cobertura de la vacuna y el desarrollo sociodemográfico. Recomendaciones Para 2019, la cobertura mundial de la tercera dosis de DTP (DTP3; 81,6 % [intervalo de incertidumbre del 95 % 80,4–82,7]) se duplicó con creces con respecto a los niveles estimados en 1980 (39,9 % [37,5–42 ·1]), al igual que la cobertura mundial de la vacuna antisarampionosa de primera dosis (MCV1; del 38,5 % [35,4–41,3] en 1980 al 83,6 % [82,3–84,8 ] en 2019). La cobertura de la vacuna antipoliomielítica de tercera dosis (Pol3) también aumentó, del 42,6 % (41,4–44,1) en 1980 al 79,8 % (78,4–81,1) en 2019, y la cobertura mundial de vacunas más nuevas Las vacunas aumentaron rápidamente entre 2000 y 2019. La cantidad mundial de niños que recibieron dosis cero se redujo en casi un 75 % entre 1980 y 2019, de 56,8 millones (52,6–60,9) a 14,5 millones (13,4– 15·9). Sin embargo, durante la última década, la cobertura mundial de vacunas se estabilizó en general; 94 países y territorios registraron una disminución de la cobertura de DTP3 desde 2010. Se estimó que solo 11 países y territorios alcanzaron el objetivo nacional del GVAP de al menos una cobertura del 90 % para todas las vacunas evaluadas en 2019. Interpretación Después de lograr grandes avances en la cobertura de vacunación infantil en todo el mundo, en gran parte del mundo este progreso se estancó o se revirtió de 2010 a 2019. Estos hallazgos subrayan la importancia de revisar las estrategias de inmunización de rutina y los enfoques programáticos, centrando la prestación de servicios en torno a la equidad y las poblaciones desatendidas. Fortalecer los datos de vacunas y los sistemas de monitoreo es crucial para estas actividades, ahora y hasta 2030, para garantizar que todos los niños tengan acceso y puedan beneficiarse de las vacunas que salvan vidas. Measuring routine childhood vaccination is crucial to inform global vaccine policies and programme implementation, and to track progress towards targets set by the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) and Immunization Agenda 2030. Robust estimates of routine vaccine coverage are needed to identify past successes and persistent vulnerabilities. Drawing from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020, Release 1, we did a systematic analysis of global, regional, and national vaccine coverage trends using a statistical framework, by vaccine and over time. Methods For this analysis we collated 55 326 country-specific, cohort-specific, year-specific, vaccine-specific, and dose-specific observations of routine childhood vaccination coverage between 1980 and 2019. Using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, we produced location-specific and year-specific estimates of 11 routine childhood vaccine coverage indicators for 204 countries and territories from 1980 to 2019, adjusting for biases in country-reported data and reflecting reported stockouts and supply disruptions. We analysed global and regional trends in coverage and numbers of zero-dose children (defined as those who never received a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis [DTP] vaccine dose), progress towards GVAP targets, and the relationship between vaccine coverage and sociodemographic development. Findings By 2019, global coverage of third-dose DTP (DTP3; 81·6% [95% uncertainty interval 80·4–82·7]) more than doubled from levels estimated in 1980 (39·9% [37·5–42·1]), as did global coverage of the first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1; from 38·5% [35·4–41·3] in 1980 to 83·6% [82·3–84·8] in 2019). Third-dose polio vaccine (Pol3) coverage also increased, from 42·6% (41·4–44·1) in 1980 to 79·8% (78·4–81·1) in 2019, and global coverage of newer vaccines increased rapidly between 2000 and 2019. The global number of zero-dose children fell by nearly 75% between 1980 and 2019, from 56·8 million (52·6–60·9) to 14·5 million (13·4–15·9). However, over the past decade, global vaccine coverage broadly plateaued; 94 countries and territories recorded decreasing DTP3 coverage since 2010. Only 11 countries and territories were estimated to have reached the national GVAP target of at least 90% coverage for all assessed vaccines in 2019. Interpretation After achieving large gains in childhood vaccine coverage worldwide, in much of the world this progress was stalled or reversed from 2010 to 2019. These findings underscore the importance of revisiting routine immunisation strategies and programmatic approaches, recentring service delivery around equity and underserved populations. Strengthening vaccine data and monitoring systems is crucial to these pursuits, now and through to 2030, to ensure that all children have access to, and can benefit from, lifesaving vaccines.

Background The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19. Methods We did a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19—EAVE II—database comprising linked vaccination, primary care, real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing, and hospital admission patient records for 5·4 million people in Scotland (about 99% of the population) registered at 940 general practices. Individuals who had previously tested positive were excluded from the analysis. A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models with inverse propensity weights were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission (defined as 1–adjusted rate ratio) following the first dose of vaccine. Findings Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65·0 years (SD 16·2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85–94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28–34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75–94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72–89 at 28–34 days post-vaccination). Interpretation Mass roll-out of the first doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 vaccines was associated with substantial reductions in the risk of hospital admission due to COVID-19 in Scotland. There remains the possibility that some of the observed effects might have been due to residual confounding. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK.

Summary Background The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. Methods We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278. Findings 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94–1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. Interpretation In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. Funding COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Intragastric balloons are anatomy-preserving, minimally invasive obesity therapies. Enhanced tolerance and durability could help broaden clinical adoption. We investigated the safety and efficacy of an adjustable intragastric balloon (aIGB) in adults with obesity.In this prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised clinical trial done at seven US sites, adults aged 22-65 years with obesity were randomly assigned (2:1) to aIGB with lifestyle intervention or lifestyle intervention alone (control) for 32 weeks. Balloon volume could be increased to facilitate weight loss or decreased for tolerability. Coprimary endpoints included mean percentage total bodyweight loss and responder rate (≥5% total bodyweight loss) at 32 weeks. We used a multiple imputed intention-to-treat population analysis. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02812160.Between Aug 9, 2016, and Dec 7, 2018, we randomly assigned 288 patients to aIGB (n=187 [65%]) or control (n=101 [35%]) groups. Mean total bodyweight loss at 32 weeks was 15·0% (95% CI 13·9-16·1) in the aIGB group versus 3·3% (2·0-4·6) in the control group (p0·0001). Clinical response was observed in 171 (92%) patients in the aIGB group. Adjustments to the aIGB occurred in 145 (80%) patients for weight loss plateau or intolerance. Upward volume adjustment facilitated an additional mean 5·2% (4·5-5·8) total bodyweight loss. Downward volume adjustment allowed 21 (75%) patients in the aIGB group to complete the full duration of therapy. Intolerance caused early removal of the device in 31 (17%) patients. No micronutrient deficiencies were observed in the aIGB cohort. Device-related serious adverse events were observed in seven (4%) patients, without any deaths.When aIGB was combined with lifestyle modification, significant weight loss was achieved and maintained for 6 months following removal. Balloon volume adjustability permitted individualised therapy, maximising weight loss and tolerance.Spatz Medical.

Background Before 2020, mental disorders were leading causes of the global health-related burden, with depressive and anxiety disorders being leading contributors to this burden. The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment where many determinants of poor mental health are exacerbated. The need for up-to-date information on the mental health impacts of COVID-19 in a way that informs health system responses is imperative. In this study, we aimed to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence and burden of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders globally in 2020. Methods We conducted a systematic review of data reporting the prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic and published between Jan 1, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, preprint servers, grey literature sources, and consulted experts. Eligible studies reported prevalence of depressive or anxiety disorders that were representative of the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic and had a pre-pandemic baseline. We used the assembled data in a meta-regression to estimate change in the prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders between pre-pandemic and mid-pandemic (using periods as defined by each study) via COVID-19 impact indicators (human mobility, daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, and daily excess mortality rate). We then used this model to estimate the change from pre-pandemic prevalence (estimated using Disease Modelling Meta-Regression version 2.1 [known as DisMod-MR 2.1]) by age, sex, and location. We used final prevalence estimates and disability weights to estimate years lived with disability and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. Findings We identified 5683 unique data sources, of which 48 met inclusion criteria (46 studies met criteria for major depressive disorder and 27 for anxiety disorders). Two COVID-19 impact indicators, specifically daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and reductions in human mobility, were associated with increased prevalence of major depressive disorder (regression coefficient [B] 0·9 [95% uncertainty interval 0·1 to 1·8; p=0·029] for human mobility, 18·1 [7·9 to 28·3; p=0·0005] for daily SARS-CoV-2 infection) and anxiety disorders (0·9 [0·1 to 1·7; p=0·022] and 13·8 [10·7 to 17·0; p

As part of the accelerated development of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), we report a dose-finding and adjuvant justification study of SCB-2019, a protein subunit vaccine candidate containing a stabilised trimeric form of the spike (S)-protein (S-Trimer) combined with two different adjuvants.Our study is a phase 1, randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial at a specialised clinical trials centre in Australia. We enrolled healthy adult volunteers in two age groups: younger adults (aged 18-54 years) and older adults (aged 55-75 years). Participants were randomly allocated either vaccine or placebo using a list prepared by the study funder. Participants were to receive two doses of SCB-2019 (either 3 μg, 9 μg, or 30 μg) or a placebo (0·9% NaCl) 21 days apart. SCB-2019 either had no adjuvant (S-Trimer protein alone) or was adjuvanted with AS03 or CpG/Alum. The assigned treatment was administered in opaque syringes to maintain masking of assignments. Reactogenicity was assessed for 7 days after each vaccination. Humoral responses were measured as SCB-2019 binding IgG antibodies and ACE2-competitive blocking IgG antibodies by ELISA and as neutralising antibodies by wild-type SARS-CoV-2 microneutralisation assay. Cellular responses to pooled S-protein peptides were measured by flow-cytometric intracellular cytokine staining. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04405908; this is an interim analysis and the study is continuing.Between June 19 and Sept 23, 2020, 151 volunteers were enrolled; three people withdrew, two for personal reasons and one with an unrelated serious adverse event (pituitary adenoma). 148 participants had at least 4 weeks of follow-up after dose two and were included in this analysis (database lock, Oct 23, 2020). Vaccination was well tolerated, with two grade 3 solicited adverse events (pain in 9 μg AS03-adjuvanted and 9 μg CpG/Alum-adjuvanted groups). Most local adverse events were mild injection-site pain, and local events were more frequent with SCB-2019 formulations containing AS03 adjuvant (44-69%) than with those containing CpG/Alum adjuvant (6-44%) or no adjuvant (3-13%). Systemic adverse events were more frequent in younger adults (38%) than in older adults (17%) after the first dose but increased to similar levels in both age groups after the second dose (30% in older and 34% in younger adults). SCB-2019 with no adjuvant elicited minimal immune responses (three seroconversions by day 50), but SCB-2019 with fixed doses of either AS03 or CpG/Alum adjuvants induced high titres and seroconversion rates of binding and neutralising antibodies in both younger and older adults (anti-SCB-2019 IgG antibody geometric mean titres at day 36 were 1567-4452 with AS03 and 174-2440 with CpG/Alum). Titres in all AS03 dose groups and the CpG/Alum 30 μg group were higher than were those recorded in a panel of convalescent serum samples from patients with COVID-19. Both adjuvanted SCB-2019 formulations elicited T-helper-1-biased CD4The SCB-2019 vaccine, comprising S-Trimer protein formulated with either AS03 or CpG/Alum adjuvants, elicited robust humoral and cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2, with high viral neutralising activity. Both adjuvanted vaccine formulations were well tolerated and are suitable for further clinical development.Clover Biopharmaceuticals and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Summary Background Contrast-associated acute kidney injury can occur after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Prediction of the contrast-associated acute kidney injury risk is important for a tailored prevention and mitigation strategy. We sought to develop a simple risk score to estimate contrast-associated acute kidney injury risk based on a large contemporary PCI cohort. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing PCI at a large tertiary care centre between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2020, with available creatinine measurements both before and within 48 h after the procedure, were included; only patients on chronic dialysis were excluded. Patients treated between 2012 and 2017 comprised the derivation cohort and those treated between 2018 and 2020 formed the validation cohort. The primary endpoint was contrast-associated acute kidney injury, defined according to the Acute Kidney Injury Network. Independent predictors of contrast-associated acute kidney injury were derived from multivariate logistic regression analysis. Model 1 included only pre-procedural variables, whereas Model 2 also included procedural variables. A weighted integer score based on the effect estimate of each independent variable was used to calculate the final risk score for each patient. The impact of contrast-associated acute kidney injury on 1-year deaths was also evaluated. Findings 32 378 PCI procedures were performed and screened for inclusion in the present analysis. After the exclusion of patients without paired creatinine measurements, patients on chronic dialysis, and multiple procedures, 14 616 patients were included in the derivation cohort (mean age 66·2 years, 29·2% female) and 5606 were included in the validation cohort (mean age 67·0 years, 26·4% female). Contrast-associated acute kidney injury occurred in 860 (4·3%) patients. Independent predictors of contrast-associated acute kidney injury included in Model 1 were: clinical presentation, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, diabetes, haemoglobin, basal glucose, congestive heart failure, and age. Additional independent predictors in Model 2 were: contrast volume, peri-procedural bleeding, no flow or slow flow post procedure, and complex PCI anatomy. The occurrence of contrast-associated acute kidney injury in the derivation cohort increased gradually from the lowest to the highest of the four risk score groups in both models (2·3% to 34·9% in Model 1, and 2·0% to 38·8% in Model 2). Inclusion of procedural variables in the model only slightly improved the discrimination of the risk score (C-statistic in the derivation cohort: 0·72 for Model 1 and 0·74 for model 2; in the validation cohort: 0·84 for Model 1 and 0·86 for Model 2). The risk of 1-year deaths significantly increased in patients with contrast-associated acute kidney injury (10·2% vs 2·5%; adjusted hazard ratio 1·76, 95% CI 1·31–2·36; p=0·0002), which was mainly due to excess 30-day deaths. Interpretation A contemporary simple risk score based on readily available variables from patients undergoing PCI can accurately discriminate the risk of contrast-associated acute kidney injury, the occurrence of which is strongly associated with subsequent death. Funding None.

Summary Background Many countries are experiencing a resurgence of COVID-19, driven predominantly by the delta (B.1.617.2) variant of SARS-CoV-2. In response, these countries are considering the administration of a third dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as a booster dose to address potential waning immunity over time and reduced effectiveness against the delta variant. We aimed to use the data repositories of Israel's largest health-care organisation to evaluate the effectiveness of a third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. Methods Using data from Clalit Health Services, which provides mandatory health-care coverage for over half of the Israeli population, individuals receiving a third vaccine dose between July 30, 2020, and Sept 23, 2021, were matched (1:1) to demographically and clinically similar controls who did not receive a third dose. Eligible participants had received the second vaccine dose at least 5 months before the recruitment date, had no previous documented SARS-CoV-2 infection, and had no contact with the health-care system in the 3 days before recruitment. Individuals who are health-care workers, live in long-term care facilities, or are medically confined to their homes were excluded. Primary outcomes were COVID-19-related admission to hospital, severe disease, and COVID-19-related death. The third dose effectiveness for each outcome was estimated as 1 – risk ratio using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Findings 1 158 269 individuals were eligible to be included in the third dose group. Following matching, the third dose and control groups each included 728 321 individuals. Participants had a median age of 52 years (IQR 37–68) and 51% were female. The median follow-up time was 13 days (IQR 6–21) in both groups. Vaccine effectiveness evaluated at least 7 days after receipt of the third dose, compared with receiving only two doses at least 5 months ago, was estimated to be 93% (231 events for two doses vs 29 events for three doses; 95% CI 88–97) for admission to hospital, 92% (157 vs 17 events; 82–97) for severe disease, and 81% (44 vs seven events; 59–97) for COVID-19-related death. Interpretation Our findings suggest that a third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine is effective in protecting individuals against severe COVID-19-related outcomes, compared with receiving only two doses at least 5 months ago. Funding The Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute.

Summary Background Compared with visual angiographic assessment, pressure wire-based physiological measurement more accurately identifies flow-limiting lesions in patients with coronary artery disease. Nonetheless, angiography remains the most widely used method to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In FAVOR III China, we aimed to establish whether clinical outcomes might be improved by lesion selection for PCI using the quantitative flow ratio (QFR), a novel angiography-based approach to estimate the fractional flow reserve. Methods FAVOR III China is a multicentre, blinded, randomised, sham-controlled trial done at 26 hospitals in China. Patients aged 18 years or older, with stable or unstable angina pectoris or patients who had a myocardial infarction at least 72 h before screening, who had at least one lesion with a diameter stenosis of 50–90% in a coronary artery with a reference vessel of at least 2·5 mm diameter by visual assessment were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to a QFR-guided strategy (PCI performed only if QFR ≤0·80) or an angiography-guided strategy (PCI based on standard visual angiographic assessment). Participants and clinical assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the 1-year rate of major adverse cardiac events, a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven revascularisation. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03656848 ). Findings Between Dec 25, 2018, and Jan 19, 2020, 3847 patients were enrolled. After exclusion of 22 patients who elected not to undergo PCI or who were withdrawn by their physicians, 3825 participants were included in the intention-to-treat population (1913 in the QFR-guided group and 1912 in the angiography-guided group). The mean age was 62·7 years (SD 10·1), 2699 (70·6%) were men and 1126 (29·4%) were women, 1295 (33·9%) had diabetes, and 2428 (63·5%) presented with an acute coronary syndrome. The 1-year primary endpoint occurred in 110 (Kaplan-Meier estimated rate 5·8%) participants in the QFR-guided group and in 167 (8·8%) participants in the angiography-guided group (difference, –3·0% [95% CI –4·7 to –1·4]; hazard ratio 0·65 [95% CI 0·51 to 0·83]; p=0·0004), driven by fewer myocardial infarctions and ischaemia-driven revascularisations in the QFR-guided group than in the angiography-guided group. Interpretation In FAVOR III China, among patients undergoing PCI, a QFR-guided strategy of lesion selection improved 1-year clinical outcomes compared with standard angiography guidance. Funding Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the National Clinical Research Centre for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital.

Summary Background Vaccine effectiveness studies have not differentiated the effect of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant and potential waning immunity in observed reductions in effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections. We aimed to evaluate overall and variant-specific effectiveness of BNT162b2 (tozinameran, Pfizer–BioNTech) against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19-related hospital admissions by time since vaccination among members of a large US health-care system. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we analysed electronic health records of individuals (≥12 years) who were members of the health-care organisation Kaiser Permanente Southern California (CA, USA), to assess BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19-related hospital admissions for up to 6 months. Participants were required to have 1 year or more previous membership of the organisation. Outcomes comprised SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive tests and COVID-19-related hospital admissions. Effectiveness calculations were based on hazard ratios from adjusted Cox models. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04848584. Findings Between Dec 14, 2020, and Aug 8, 2021, of 4 920 549 individuals assessed for eligibility, we included 3 436 957 (median age 45 years [IQR 29–61]; 1 799 395 [52·4%] female and 1 637 394 [47·6%] male). For fully vaccinated individuals, effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections was 73% (95% CI 72–74) and against COVID-19-related hospital admissions was 90% (89–92). Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months. Among sequenced infections, vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months. Effectiveness against other (non-delta) variants the first month after full vaccination was also high at 97% (95% CI 95–99), but waned to 67% (45–80) at 4–5 months. Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions for infections with the delta variant for all ages was high overall (93% [95% CI 84–96]) up to 6 months. Interpretation Our results provide support for high effectiveness of BNT162b2 against hospital admissions up until around 6 months after being fully vaccinated, even in the face of widespread dissemination of the delta variant. Reduction in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections over time is probably primarily due to waning immunity with time rather than the delta variant escaping vaccine protection. Funding Pfizer.

No abstract available.

Summary Background The effects of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals aged 70 years and older, particularly when blood pressure is not substantially increased, is uncertain. We compared the effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events in groups of patients stratified by age and blood pressure at baseline. Methods We did a meta-analysis using individual participant-level data from randomised controlled trials of pharmacological blood-pressure-lowering versus placebo or other classes of blood-pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment strategies, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each treatment group. Participants with previous history of heart failure were excluded. Data were obtained from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Triallists' Collaboration. We pooled the data and categorised participants into baseline age groups (

No abstract available.

Summary Background COVID-19 vaccine supply shortages are causing concerns about compromised immunity in some countries as the interval between the first and second dose becomes longer. Conversely, countries with no supply constraints are considering administering a third dose. We assessed the persistence of immunogenicity after a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), immunity after an extended interval (44–45 weeks) between the first and second dose, and response to a third dose as a booster given 28–38 weeks after the second dose. Methods In this substudy, volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in the phase 1/2 (COV001) controlled trial in the UK and had received either a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles were invited back for vaccination. Here we report the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a delayed second dose (44–45 weeks after first dose) or a third dose of the vaccine (28–38 weeks after second dose). Data from volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in either the phase 1/2 (COV001) or phase 2/3 (COV002), single-blinded, randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and who had previously received a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles are used for comparison purposes. COV001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and COV002 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and both are continuing but not recruiting. Findings Between March 11 and 21, 2021, 90 participants were enrolled in the third-dose boost substudy, of whom 80 (89%) were assessable for reactogenicity, 75 (83%) were assessable for evaluation of antibodies, and 15 (17%) were assessable for T-cells responses. The two-dose cohort comprised 321 participants who had reactogenicity data (with prime-boost interval of 8–12 weeks: 267 [83%] of 321; 15–25 weeks: 24 [7%]; or 44–45 weeks: 30 [9%]) and 261 who had immunogenicity data (interval of 8–12 weeks: 115 [44%] of 261; 15–25 weeks: 116 [44%]; and 44–45 weeks: 30 [11%]). 480 participants from the single-dose cohort were assessable for immunogenicity up to 44–45 weeks after vaccination. Antibody titres after a single dose measured approximately 320 days after vaccination remained higher than the titres measured at baseline (geometric mean titre of 66·00 ELISA units [EUs; 95% CI 47·83–91·08] vs 1·75 EUs [1·60–1·93]). 32 participants received a late second dose of vaccine 44–45 weeks after the first dose, of whom 30 were included in immunogenicity and reactogenicity analyses. Antibody titres were higher 28 days after vaccination in those with a longer interval between first and second dose than for those with a short interval (median total IgG titre: 923 EUs [IQR 525–1764] with an 8–12 week interval; 1860 EUs [917–4934] with a 15–25 week interval; and 3738 EUs [1824–6625] with a 44–45 week interval). Among participants who received a third dose of vaccine, antibody titres (measured in 73 [81%] participants for whom samples were available) were significantly higher 28 days after a third dose (median total IgG titre: 3746 EUs [IQR 2047–6420]) than 28 days after a second dose (median 1792 EUs [IQR 899–4634]; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·0043). T-cell responses were also boosted after a third dose (median response increased from 200 spot forming units [SFUs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs; IQR 127–389] immediately before the third dose to 399 SFUs per milion PBMCs [314–662] by day 28 after the third dose; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·012). Reactogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose was lower than reactogenicity after a first dose. Interpretation An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses. Funding UK Research and Innovation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, AstraZeneca, and Wellcome.

Summary Background Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Background Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer–BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. Methods Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. Findings Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. Interpretation Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. Funding UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.

Summary Background Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication worldwide. WHO guidelines to prevent SSI recommend alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation and fascial closure using triclosan-coated sutures, but called for assessment of both interventions in low-resource settings. This study aimed to test both interventions in low-income and middle-income countries. Methods FALCON was a 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial stratified by whether surgery was clean-contaminated, or contaminated or dirty, including patients undergoing abdominal surgery with a skin incision of 5 cm or greater. This trial was undertaken in 54 hospitals in seven countries (Benin, Ghana, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa). Patients were computer randomised 1:1:1:1 to: (1) 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine and non-coated suture, (2) 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine and triclosan-coated suture, (3) 10% aqueous povidone–iodine and non-coated suture, or (4) 10% aqueous povidone–iodine and triclosan-coated suture. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to intervention allocation. The primary outcome was SSI, reported by trained outcome assessors, and presented using adjusted relative risks and 95% CIs. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03700749. Findings Between Dec 10, 2018, and Sept 7, 2020, 5788 patients (3091 in clean-contaminated stratum, 2697 in contaminated or dirty stratum) were randomised (1446 to alcoholic chlorhexidine and non-coated suture, 1446 to alcoholic chlorhexidine and triclosan-coated suture, 1447 to aqueous povidone–iodine and non-coated suture, and 1449 to aqueous povidone–iodine and triclosan-coated suture). 14·0% (810/5788) of patients were children and 66·9% (3873/5788) had emergency surgery. The overall SSI rate was 22·0% (1163/5284; clean-contaminated stratum 15·5% [454/2923], contaminated or dirty stratum 30·0% [709/2361]). For both strata, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI with alcoholic chlorhexidine versus povidone–iodine (clean-contaminated stratum 15·3% [223/1455] vs 15·7% [231/1468], relative risk 0·97 [95% CI 0·82–1·14]; contaminated or dirty stratum 28·3% [338/1194] vs 31·8% [371/1167], relative risk 0·91 [95% CI 0·81–1·02]), or with triclosan-coated sutures versus non-coated sutures (clean-contaminated stratum 14·7% [215/1459] vs 16·3% [239/1464], relative risk 0·90 [95% CI 0·77–1·06]; contaminated or dirty stratum 29·4% [347/1181] vs 30·7% [362/1180], relative risk 0·98 [95% CI 0·87–1·10]). With both strata combined, there were no differences using alcoholic chlorhexidine or triclosan-coated sutures. Interpretation This trial did not show benefit from 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation compared with povidone–iodine, or with triclosan-coated sutures compared with non-coated sutures, in preventing SSI in clean-contaminated or contaminated or dirty surgical wounds. Both interventions are more expensive than alternatives, and these findings do not support recommendations for routine use. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit Grant, BD.