Search

What is this summary about? This is a summary of an article about part of a clinical study for the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine, also called the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The article was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September 2021. The part of the study described in the article began in July 2020 and is ongoing. This means that the final results may be different from the results included in this summary. What happened in this study? The participants in this study received 2 injections of either the BNT162b2 vaccine or a placebo, 21 days apart. The placebo looked like the BNT162b2 vaccine but had no active vaccine in it. None of the trial participants or study teams knew who received vaccine or placebo. What were the results? Most of the reactions to the injections were mild or moderate and lasted for a short period of time. The most common reactions were pain at the injection site, extreme tiredness (fatigue), and headache. These reactions usually happened in the first 7 days after receiving a vaccine dose. A small number of participants had severe reactions to the vaccine. Compared to participants who received the placebo, participants who received the BNT162b2 vaccine were much less likely to become ill if they were infected with the virus that causes COVID-19. The vaccine also had very good efficacy at preventing severe COVID-19. Participants in South Africa who received the BNT162b2 vaccine were less likely to become ill after infection with the beta variant of the virus compared to participants who received the placebo. The beta variant was very common in South Africa when the study was taking place. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04368728 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )

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.)

Guidelines and recommendations developed and endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) are intended to provide guidance for particular pattern of practice for physicians who usually prescribe glucocorticoid (GC) therapy, and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. Adherence to the recommendations within this guideline is voluntary and the ultimate determination regarding their application should be made by the physician in light of each patient's circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote a desirable outcome but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. This guideline and its recommendations are not intended to dictate payment, reimbursement or insurance decisions. Guidelines and recommendations are subjected to periodic revisions as a consequence of the evolution of medicine, technology and clinical practice. A panel of Latin American (LATAM) experts specialized in osteoporosis with recognized clinical experience in managing patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) met to produce evidence-based LATAM recommendations for the diagnosis and management of GIO. These guidelines are particularly intended to general practitioners and primary care physicians who prescribe GC treatments in LATAM to guide their daily clinical practice in terms of evaluation, prevention and treatment of GIO. These recommendations were based on systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE Library database during the period from 2012 to 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCT), systematic reviews of RCT, controlled observational studies, guidelines and consensus were considered. Based on the review and expert opinion the panel members voted recommendations during two successive rounds of voting by panel members. Agreements for each statement were considered if a concordance of at least 70% was achieved following Delphi methodology. Grading of recommendations was made according to the Oxford Centre for the Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) criteria. Among five GIO guidelines and consensus initially identified, two of them (American College of Rheumatology 2017 and the Brazilian Guidelines 2021) were selected for comparison considering the latter as the most current guides in the LATAM region. Based on this methodology fifty statements were issued. All of them but four (1.20, 1.21, 1.23 and 4.2) attained agreement.

Approximately 10 years after vaccination with the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV), an interim analysis of this follow-up study of the ZOE-50/70 trials demonstrated that efficacy against herpes zoster remained high. Moreover, the safety profile remained clinically acceptable, suggesting that the clinical benefit of the RZV in ≥50-year-olds is sustained up to 10 years.

Background This ongoing follow-up study evaluated the persistence of efficacy and immune responses for 6 additional years in adults vaccinated with the glycoprotein E (gE)-based adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) at age ≥50 years in 2 pivotal efficacy trials (ZOE-50 and ZOE-70). The present interim analysis was performed after ≥2 additional years of follow-up (between 5.1 and 7.1 years [mean] post-vaccination) and includes partial data for year (Y) 8 post-vaccination. Methods Annual assessments were performed for efficacy against herpes zoster (HZ) from Y6 post-vaccination and for anti-gE antibody concentrations and gE-specific CD4[2+] T-cell (expressing ≥2 of 4 assessed activation markers) frequencies from Y5 post-vaccination. Results Of 7413 participants enrolled for the long-term efficacy assessment, 7277 (mean age at vaccination, 67.2 years), 813, and 108 were included in the cohorts evaluating efficacy, humoral immune responses, and cell-mediated immune responses, respectively. Efficacy of RZV against HZ through this interim analysis was 84.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.9–89.8) from the start of this follow-up study and 90.9% (95% CI, 88.2–93.2) from vaccination in ZOE-50/70. Annual vaccine efficacy estimates were >84% for each year since vaccination and remained stable through this interim analysis. Anti-gE antibody geometric mean concentrations and median frequencies of gE-specific CD4[2+] T cells reached a plateau at approximately 6-fold above pre-vaccination levels. Conclusions Efficacy against HZ and immune responses to RZV remained high, suggesting that the clinical benefit of RZV in older adults is sustained for at least 7 years post-vaccination. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02723773.

Active immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) has been a critical mitigation tool against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In light of reports of waning protection occurring 6 months after the primary two-dose vaccine series, data are needed on the safety and efficacy of offering a third (booster) dose in persons 16 years of age or older.In this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned participants who had received two 30-μg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least 6 months earlier to be injected with a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine or with placebo. We assessed vaccine safety and efficacy against Covid-19 starting 7 days after the third dose.A total of 5081 participants received a third BNT162b2 dose and 5044 received placebo. The median interval between dose 2 and dose 3 was 10.8 months in the vaccine group and 10.7 months in the placebo group; the median follow-up was 2.5 months. Local and systemic reactogenicity events from the third dose were generally of low grade. No new safety signals were identified, and no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported. Among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated, Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after dose 3 was observed in 6 participants in the vaccine group and in 123 participants in the placebo group, which corresponded to a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.3% (95% confidence interval, 89.5 to 98.3).A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered a median of 10.8 months after the second dose provided 95.3% efficacy against Covid-19 as compared with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine during a median follow-up of 2.5 months. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591031 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.).

BackgroundBNT162b2 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsBNT162b2 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.ConclusionWith 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.govnumber,NCT04368728)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently.In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety.A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups.A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.).

SummaryAge-specific intervention and assessment thresholds were developed for seven Latin American countries. The inter-vention threshold ranged from 1.2% (Ecuador) to 27.5% (Argentina) at the age of 50 and 90 years, respectively. In the LatinAmerican countries, FRAX offers a substantial advance for the detection of subjects at high fracture risk.IntroductionIntervention thresholds are proposed using the Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX) tool. We recommended their useto calculate the ten-year probability of fragility fracture (FF) in both, men and women with or without the inclusion of bonemineral density (BMD). The purpose of this study is to compute FRAX-based intervention and BMD assessment thresholds forseven Latin American countries in men and women≥40 years.MethodsThe intervention threshold (IT) was set at a 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) equivalent to awoman with a prior FF and a body mass index (BMI) equal to 25.0 kg/m2without BMD or other clinical risk factors. The lowerassessment threshold was set at a 10-year probability of a MOF in women with BMI equal to 25.0 kg/m2, no previous fracture andno clinical risk factors. The upper assessment threshold was set at 1.2 times the IT.ResultsFor the seven LA countries, the age-specific IT varied from 1.5 to 27.5% in Argentina, 3.8 to 25.2% in Brazil, 1.6 up to20.0% in Chile, 0.6 to 10.2% in Colombia, 0.9 up to 13.6% in Ecuador, 2.6 to 20.0% in Mexico, and 0.7 up to 22.0% inVenezuela at the age of 40 and 90 years, respectively.ConclusionsIn the LA countries, FRAX-based IT offers a substantial advance for the detection of men and women at highfracture risk, particularly in the elderly. The heterogeneity of IT between the LA countries indicates that country-specific FRAXmodels are appropriate rather than a global LA model.

Glucocorticoids (GC) are used in almost all medical specialties, and approximately 0.5% of the general population of the United Kingdom receives those medications. With the increased survival of patients with rheumatological diseases, morbidity secondary to the use of those medications represents an important aspect of the management of our patients. The incidences of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures are elevated, ranging from 30% to 50% of the individuals on GC for over three months. Thus, osteoporosis and frailty fractures should be prevented and treated in all patients initiating or already on GC. There are several recommendations on this topic elaborated by several international societies, but consensus still lacks. Recently, the American College of Rheumatology has published new recommendations, but they are based on the WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) to evaluate the risk for each individual, and, thus, cannot be completely used for the Brazilian population. Thus, the Committee for Osteoporosis and Bone Metabolic Disorders of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology, along with the Brazilian Medical Association and the Brazilian Association of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, has elaborated the Brazilian Guidelines for Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis (GIO), based on the better available scientific evidence and/or expert experience.The bibliographic review of scientific articles of this guideline was performed in the MEDLINE database. The search for evidence was based on real clinical scenarios, and used the following keywords (MeSH terms): Osteoporosis, Osteoporosis/ chemically induced*= (Glucocorticoids= Adrenal Cortex Hormones, Steroids), Glucocorticoids, Glucocorticoids/administration and dosage, Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use, Glucocorticoids/adverse effects, Prednisone/adverse effects, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Bone Density/drug effects, Bone Density Conservation Agents/pharmacological action, Osteoporosis/preventioncontrol, Calcium, Vitamin D, Vitamin D deficiency, Calcitriol, Receptors, Calcitriol; 1-hydroxycholecalciferol, Hydroxycholecalciferols, 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 1-alpha-hydroxylase OR Steroid Hydroxylases, Prevention and Control, Spinal fractures/preventioncontrol, Fractures, Spontaneous, Lumbar Vertebrae/injuries, Lifestyle, Alcohol Drinking, Smoking OR tobacco use disorder, Movement, Resistance Training, Exercise Therapy, Bone density OR Bone and Bones, Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry OR Absorptiometry Photon OR DXA, Densitometry, Radiography, (Diphosphonates Alendronate OR Risedronate Pamidronate OR propanolamines OR Ibandronate OR Zoledronic acid, Teriparatide OR PTH 1-34, Men AND premenopause, pregnancy, pregnancy outcome maternal, fetus, lactation, breast-feeding, teratogens, Children (6-12 years), adolescence (13-18 years).A) Data derived from more consistent experimental and observational studies; B) Data derived from less consistent experimental and observational studies; C) Case reports (uncontrolled studies); D) Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on consensus, physiological studies or animal models.To establish guidelines for the prevention and treatment of GIO.

Changes in bone mineral density and bone strength following treatment with zoledronic acid (ZOL) were measured by quantitative computed analysis (QCT) or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). ZOL treatment increased spine and hip BMD vs placebo, assessed by QCT and DXA. Changes in trabecular bone resulted in increased bone strength.To investigate bone mineral density (BMD) changes in trabecular and cortical bone, estimated by quantitative computed analysis (QCT) or dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and whether zoledronic acid 5 mg (ZOL) affects bone strength.In 233 women from a randomized, controlled trial of once-yearly ZOL, lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and trochanter were assessed by DXA and QCT (baseline, Month 36). Mean percentage changes from baseline and between-treatment differences (ZOL vs placebo, t-test) were evaluated.Mean between-treatment differences for lumbar spine BMD were significant by DXA (7.0%, p0.01) and QCT (5.7%, p0.0001). Between-treatment differences were significant for trabecular spine (p = 0.0017) [non-parametric test], trabecular trochanter (10.7%, p0.0001), total hip (10.8%, p0.0001), and compressive strength indices at femoral neck (8.6%, p = 0.0001), and trochanter (14.1%, p0.0001).Once-yearly ZOL increased hip and spine BMD vs placebo, assessed by QCT vs DXA. Changes in trabecular bone resulted in increased indices of compressive strength.