Cheapest place to buy levitra

Start Preamble cheapest place to buy levitra Centers for http://cz.keimfarben.de/buy-vardenafil-levitra/ Medicare &. Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Continuation of effectiveness cheapest place to buy levitra and extension of timeline for publication of the final rule. This document announces the continuation of, effectiveness of, and the extension of the timeline for publication of a final rule.

We are issuing this document in accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act (the Act), which allows an interim final rule to remain in effect after the expiration of the timeline specified in section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act if the Secretary publishes a notice of continuation explaining why we did not comply with the regular publication timeline. Effective September 4, 2020, the Medicare provisions adopted in the interim final rule published on September 6, 2016 (81 cheapest place to buy levitra FR 61538), continue in effect and the regular timeline for publication of the final rule is extended for an additional year, until September 6, 2021. Start Further Info Steve Forry (410) 786-1564 or Jaqueline Cipa (410) 786-3259. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information Section 1871(a) of the Social Security Act (the Act) sets forth certain procedures for promulgating regulations necessary to carry out the administration of the insurance programs under Title XVIII of the Act.

Section 1871(a)(3)(A) of the Act requires the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to establish a regular timeline for the publication cheapest place to buy levitra of final regulations based on the previous publication of a proposed rule or an interim final rule. In accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, such timeline may vary among different rules, based on the complexity of the rule, the number and scope of the comments received, and other relevant factors. However, the timeline for publishing the final rule, cannot exceed 3 years from the date of publication of the proposed or interim final rule, unless there are exceptional circumstances. After consultation with the Director of OMB, the Secretary published a document, which appeared in the December 30, 2004 Federal Register on (69 FR 78442), establishing a general 3-year timeline for publishing Medicare final cheapest place to buy levitra rules after the publication of a proposed or interim final rule.

Section 1871(a)(3)(C) of the Act states that upon expiration of the regular timeline for the publication of a final regulation after opportunity for public comment, a Medicare interim final rule shall not continue in effect unless the Secretary publishes a notice of continuation of the regulation that includes an explanation of why the regular timeline was not met. Upon publication of such notice, the regular timeline for publication of the final regulation is treated as having been extended for 1 additional year. On September 6, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR 61538), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a department-wide interim final rule titled “Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation” that established new regulations at cheapest place to buy levitra 45 CFR part 102 to adjust for inflation the maximum civil monetary penalty amounts for the various civil monetary penalty authorities for all agencies within the Department. HHS took this action to comply with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act) (28 U.S.C.

2461 note 2(a)), as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (section 701 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, (Pub. L. 114-74), enacted on November 2, 2015). In addition, this September 2016 interim final rule included updates to certain agency-specific regulations to reflect the new provisions governing the adjustment of civil monetary penalties for inflation in 45 CFR part 102.

One of the purposes of the Inflation Adjustment Act was to create a mechanism to allow for regular inflationary adjustments to federal civil monetary penalties. Section 2(b)(1) of the Inflation Adjustment Act. The 2015 amendments removed an inflation update exclusion that previously Start Printed Page 55386applied to the Social Security Act as well as to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The 2015 amendments also “reset” the inflation calculations by excluding prior inflationary adjustments under the Inflation Adjustment Act and requiring agencies to identify, for each penalty, the year and corresponding amount(s) for which the maximum penalty level or range of minimum and maximum penalties was established (that is, originally enacted by Congress) or last adjusted other than pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act.

In accordance with section 4 of the Inflation Adjustment Act, agencies were required to. (1) Adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking (IFR) to take effect by August 1, 2016. And (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. In the September 2016 interim final rule, HHS adopted new regulations at 45 CFR part 102 to govern adjustment of civil monetary penalties for inflation.

The regulation at 45 CFR 102.1 provides that part 102 applies to each statutory provision under the laws administered by the Department of Health and Human Services concerning civil monetary penalties, and that the regulations in part 102 supersede existing HHS regulations setting forth civil monetary penalty amounts. The civil money penalties and the adjusted penalty amounts administered by all HHS agencies are listed in tabular form in 45 CFR 102.3. In addition to codifying the adjusted penalty amounts identified in § 102.3, the HHS-wide interim final rule included several technical conforming updates to certain agency-specific regulations, including various CMS regulations, to identify their updated information, and incorporate a cross-reference to the location of HHS-wide regulations. Because the conforming changes to the Medicare provisions were part of a larger, omnibus departmental interim final rule, we inadvertently missed setting a target date for the final rule to make permanent the changes to the Medicare regulations in accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(A) of the Act and the procedures outlined in the December 2004 document.

Therefore, in the January 2, 2020 Federal Register (85 FR 7), we published a document continuing the effectiveness of effect and the regular timeline for publication of the final rule for an additional year, until September 6, 2020. Consistent with section 1871(a)(3)(C) of the Act, we are publishing this second notice of continuation extending the effectiveness of the technical conforming changes to the Medicare regulations that were implemented through interim final rule and to allow time to publish a final rule. On January 31, 2020, pursuant to section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), the Secretary determined that a Public Health Emergency (PHE) exists for the United States to aid the nation's healthcare community in responding to COVID-19. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) publicly declared COVID-19 a pandemic.

On March 13, 2020, the President declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency. This declaration, along with the Secretary's January 31, 2020 declaration of a PHE, conferred on the Secretary certain waiver authorities under section 1135 of the Act. On March 13, 2020, the Secretary authorized waivers under section 1135 of the Act, effective March 1, 2020.[] Effective July 25, 2020, the Secretary renewed the January 31, 2020 determination that was previously renewed on April 21, 2020, that a PHE exists and has existed since January 27, 2020. The unprecedented nature of this national emergency has placed enormous responsibilities upon CMS to respond appropriately, and resources have had to be re-allocated throughout the agency in order to be responsive.

Therefore, the Medicare provisions adopted in interim final regulation continue in effect and the regular timeline for publication of the final rule is extended for an additional year, until September 6, 2021. Start Signature Wilma M. Robinson, Deputy Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc.

2020-19657 Filed 9-4-20. 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4120-01-PThis document is unpublished. It is scheduled to be published on 09/18/2020. Once it is published it will be available on this page in an official form.

Until then, you can download the unpublished PDF version. Although we make a concerted effort to reproduce the original document in full on our Public Inspection pages, in some cases graphics may not be displayed, and non-substantive markup language may appear alongside substantive text. If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C.

Levitra generico precio usa

NONE
Levitra
Viagra plus
Viagra super force
Intagra
Vigora
Caverta
Over the counter
Yes
Yes
Ask your Doctor
Yes
Ask your Doctor
Ask your Doctor
Free pills
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Free samples
Yes
You need consultation
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Possible side effects
On the market
Yes
At walgreens
Nearby pharmacy
Online Pharmacy
Nearby pharmacy
Buy with credit card
Online
No
Online
Online
No
Yes
Dosage
Online
No
Yes
Yes
No
Online

At the start of field work levitra generico precio usa season, ecologist Jory Brinkerhoff usually advises his crew to watch out for summertime fevers Get More Info. If you develop a fever at that time of year, he tells them, it’s probably not the flu, but a tick-borne illness.But this year, Brinkerhoff, who studies human risk for flea- and tick-transmitted diseases at the University of Richmond, didn’t know exactly what to tell his field crew. A fever in the middle of summer 2020 could mean a levitra generico precio usa tick-borne illness. Or, it could mean COVID-19.With the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus still spreading across the country, some experts worry about the overlap between COVID-19 and Lyme disease, which is caused by a bacterium carried by black-legged ticks.

While it’s too soon to know exactly how the pandemic will affect Lyme disease rates this year, experts like Brinkerhoff wonder if more levitra generico precio usa people spending time outside beating the quarantine blues could lead to more people being exposed to disease-carrying ticks. Some overlapping symptoms might also lead to delayed diagnosis and treatment of Lyme, he notes. At the same time, weather patterns in some parts of the country may actually lead to fewer Lyme disease cases this year. No matter the broader trends, there are levitra generico precio usa things anyone getting outside can do to protect themselves from ticks.

Lyme Disease on the MoveOver the last few decades, Lyme disease has been on the rise in the United States. There are many overlapping reasons for this, says Brinkerhoff levitra generico precio usa. Awareness has gone up since the 1970s, when Lyme was first described in the U.S. Landscape changes like cutting forests and building suburbs near wooded areas has put humans in closer contact with ticks and tick-carrying animals.

Deer populations have levitra generico precio usa exploded in the last 100 years, he notes. And climate change is likely allowing ticks to spread to and thrive in new parts of the continent. This year, people levitra generico precio usa have flocked to the great outdoors to escape their home quarantines and engage in socially-distant fun. It’s possible that more people trying to get outside could mean more people exposed to ticks and, therefore, Lyme disease, says Brinkerhoff, who wrote an article in The Conversation on the issue earlier this year.

Animals have been behaving differently during the pandemic as well, especially during the early days of lockdown, and it’s unclear if that could also have an effect on Lyme disease rates, he says.In some parts of the country, however, Lyme may be less of a concern this summer than it normally is. Maine is usually a Lyme hotspot in early summer, but unusually hot and dry weather this year may be keeping ticks close to the ground and away from human contact, levitra generico precio usa says Robert P. Smith Jr., http://cz.keimfarben.de/buy-generic-levitra-uk/ an infectious disease physician and director of the division of infectious diseases at Maine Medical Center. While it’s too early to tell, Lyme disease rates in Maine could actually go down this summer as a result, he says.Overlapping SymptomsWith everyone rightfully concerned about COVID-19, Lyme disease likely isn’t at the forefront of someone’s mind if levitra generico precio usa they develop a fever.

Plus, about two-thirds of people with Lyme disease don’t remember being bitten by a tick, says Smith. Many who develop Lyme disease are bitten by poppy seed-sized immature ticks that can stay on the body unnoticed for two or three days before dropping off, he says.There is some overlap between COVID-19 and Lyme disease symptoms that could cause confusion. In both cases, people usually develop a fever and muscle aches, says levitra generico precio usa Smith. He has heard secondhand about a few cases in Maine in which patients with these symptoms were first tested for COVID-19 and were later found to have Lyme disease.However, there are some crucial differences between the two illnesses, Smith says.

The majority of people with symptomatic COVID-19 will have a cough or shortness levitra generico precio usa of breath, whereas Lyme disease generally has no respiratory component, says Smith. COVID-19 patients also have a higher risk for gastrointestinal issues, and Lyme patients do not. While not all people with Lyme disease develop a rash, 70 to 80 percent do, Smith notes. Rashes are not common symptoms levitra generico precio usa for COVID-19 infections.

Receiving an accurate diagnosis and relatively quick treatment can greatly reduce the severity of a Lyme disease infection. “It doesn’t have levitra generico precio usa to be immediate. If you think you might have Lyme disease, you need to get diagnosed with a week or so,” says Smith. “That’s usually very early in the disease and you can expect an excellent response to antibiotic treatment.” Delaying treatment by a couple of weeks can lead to more serious complications, including nerve-related symptoms, Lyme meningitis, facial muscle weakness (Bell’s palsy), Lyme arthritis and other conditions, he says.

While antibiotics are still effective at this stage, it tends to take longer to fully recover.Fortunately, for anyone concerned about levitra generico precio usa safe outdoor excursions here and now, there are several practical steps you can take to avoid ticks. Use insect repellant and wear protective layers. Stick to the levitra generico precio usa path instead of straying into dense underbrush, says Smith. When you return from an adventure, put your clothes in the washer and check yourself for ticks.

And if you do start to feel feverish a few days later, call your doctor and be sure to mention you’ve been spending time outside..

At the start of field work season, ecologist Jory Brinkerhoff usually advises his crew to watch out cheapest place to buy levitra for summertime fevers. If you develop a fever at that time of year, he tells them, it’s probably not the flu, but a tick-borne illness.But this year, Brinkerhoff, who studies human risk for flea- and tick-transmitted diseases at the University of Richmond, didn’t know exactly what to tell his field crew. A fever in cheapest place to buy levitra the middle of summer 2020 could mean a tick-borne illness. Or, it could mean COVID-19.With the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus still spreading across the country, some experts worry about the overlap between COVID-19 and Lyme disease, which is caused by a bacterium carried by black-legged ticks.

While it’s too soon to know exactly how the pandemic will affect Lyme disease rates this year, experts like Brinkerhoff wonder if more people spending time outside beating the quarantine blues could lead to more people being exposed cheapest place to buy levitra to disease-carrying ticks. Some overlapping symptoms might also lead to delayed diagnosis and treatment of Lyme, he notes. At the same time, weather patterns in some parts of the country may actually lead to fewer Lyme disease cases this year. No matter the broader trends, there are things anyone getting outside can do to protect cheapest place to buy levitra themselves from ticks.

Lyme Disease on the MoveOver the last few decades, Lyme disease has been on the rise in the United States. There are many overlapping reasons cheapest place to buy levitra for this, says Brinkerhoff. Awareness has gone up since the 1970s, when Lyme was first described in the U.S. Landscape changes like cutting forests and building suburbs near wooded areas has put humans in closer contact with ticks and tick-carrying animals.

Deer populations have exploded in the last 100 years, he notes cheapest place to buy levitra. And climate change is likely allowing ticks to spread to and thrive in new parts of the continent. This year, people have flocked to the great outdoors to cheapest place to buy levitra escape their home quarantines and engage in socially-distant fun. It’s possible that more people trying to get outside could mean more people exposed to ticks and, therefore, Lyme disease, says Brinkerhoff, who wrote an article in The Conversation on the issue earlier this year.

Animals have been behaving differently during the pandemic as well, especially during the early days of lockdown, and it’s unclear if that could also have an effect on Lyme disease rates, he says.In some parts of the country, however, Lyme may be less of a concern this summer than it normally is. Maine is usually a cheapest place to buy levitra Lyme hotspot in early summer, but unusually hot and dry weather this year may be keeping ticks close to the ground and away from human contact, says Robert P. Smith Jr., an infectious disease physician and director of the division of infectious diseases at Maine Medical Center. While it’s too early to tell, Lyme disease rates in Maine could actually go down this summer as a result, he says.Overlapping SymptomsWith everyone rightfully concerned about COVID-19, Lyme disease likely isn’t at the forefront of someone’s mind if cheapest place to buy levitra they develop a fever.

Plus, about two-thirds of people with Lyme disease don’t remember being bitten by a tick, says Smith. Many who develop Lyme disease are bitten by poppy seed-sized immature ticks that can stay on the body unnoticed for two or three days before dropping off, he says.There is some overlap between COVID-19 and Lyme disease symptoms that could cause confusion. In both cases, people usually develop a fever cheapest place to buy levitra and muscle aches, says Smith. He has heard secondhand about a few cases in Maine in which patients with these symptoms were first tested for COVID-19 and were later found to have Lyme disease.However, there are some crucial differences between the two illnesses, Smith says.

The majority of people with symptomatic COVID-19 will have a cough or shortness of breath, whereas Lyme disease cheapest place to buy levitra generally has no respiratory component, says Smith. COVID-19 patients also have a higher risk for gastrointestinal issues, and Lyme patients do not. While not all people with Lyme disease develop a rash, 70 to 80 percent do, Smith notes. Rashes are cheapest place to buy levitra not common symptoms for COVID-19 infections.

Receiving an accurate diagnosis and relatively quick treatment can greatly reduce the severity of a Lyme disease infection. “It doesn’t have to be cheapest place to buy levitra immediate. If you think you might have Lyme disease, you need to get diagnosed with a week or so,” says Smith. “That’s usually very early in the disease and you can expect an excellent response to antibiotic treatment.” Delaying treatment by a couple of weeks can lead to more serious complications, including nerve-related symptoms, Lyme meningitis, facial muscle weakness (Bell’s palsy), Lyme arthritis and other conditions, he says.

While antibiotics are still effective at this stage, cheapest place to buy levitra it tends to take longer to fully recover.Fortunately, for anyone concerned about safe outdoor excursions here and now, there are several practical steps you can take to avoid ticks. Use insect repellant and wear protective layers. Stick to cheapest place to buy levitra the path instead of straying into dense underbrush, says Smith. When you return from an adventure, put your clothes in the washer and check yourself for ticks.

And if you do start to feel feverish a few days later, call your doctor and be sure to mention you’ve been spending time outside..

How should Levitra be used?

Take vardenafil tablets by mouth with or without food. The dose is usually taken about 1 hour before sexual activity. Swallow the tablets with a drink of water. Do not take double or extra doses. Overdosage: If you think you have taken too much of Levitra contact a poison control center or emergency room at once. NOTE: Levitra is only for you. Do not share Levitra with others.

Can you drink alcohol with levitra

NONE

Imaging the encephalopathy of prematurityJulia Kline and colleagues assessed MRI findings at term in 110 preterm infants born before 32 weeks’ gestation and cared for in can you drink alcohol with levitra four neonatal units in Columbus, Ohio. Using automated cortical and sub-cortical segmentation they analysed cortical surface area, sulcal depth, gyrification index, inner cortical curvature and thickness. These measures of brain development and maturation were related can you drink alcohol with levitra to the outcomes of cognitive and language testing undertaken at 2 years corrected age using the Bayley-III.

Increased surface area in nearly every brain region was positively correlated with Bayley-III cognitive and language scores. Increased inner cortical curvature was negatively correlated with both outcomes. Gyrification index and can you drink alcohol with levitra sulcal depth did not follow consistent trends.

These metrics retained their significance after sex, gestational age, socio-economic status and global injury score on structural MRI were included in the analysis. Surface area and inner cortical curvature explained approximately one-third of the variance in Bayley-III scores.In an accompanying editorial, David Edwards characterises the complexity of imaging and interpreting the combined effects of injury and dysmaturation on the developing brain. Major structural lesions are present in a minority of infants and the problems observed in later childhood can you drink alcohol with levitra require a much broader understanding of the effects of prematurity on brain development.

Presently these more sophisticated image-analysis techniques provide insights at a population level but the variation between individuals is such that they are not sufficiently predictive at an individual patient level to be of practical use to parents or clinicians in prognostication. Studies like this highlight the importance of follow-up programmes and help clinicians to avoid falling into the trap of equating normal (no major structural lesion) imaging studies with normal long term outcomes. See pages F460 and F458Drift at 10 yearsKaren Luuyt and colleagues report the cognitive outcomes at 10 years of the DRIFT (drainage, irrigation and fibrinolytic therapy) randomised controlled trial of treatment for can you drink alcohol with levitra post haemorrhagic ventricular dilatation.

They are to be congratulated for continuing to track these children and confirming the persistence of the cognitive advantage of the treatment that was apparent from earlier follow-up. Infants who received DRIFT were almost twice as likely to survive without severe cognitive disability can you drink alcohol with levitra than those who received standard treatment. While the confidence intervals were wide, the point estimate suggests that the number needed to treat for DRIFT to prevent one death or one case of severe cognitive disability was 3.

The original trial took place between 2003 and 2006 and was stopped early because of concerns about secondary intraventricular haemorrhage and it was only on follow-up that the advantages of the treatment became apparent. The study shows that secondary brain injury can be reduced by washing can you drink alcohol with levitra away the harmful debris of IVH. No other treatment for post-haemorrhagic ventricular dilatation has been shown to be beneficial in a randomised controlled trial.

Less invasive approaches to CSF drainage at different thresholds of ventricular enlargement later in the clinical course have not been associated with similar advantage. However the DRIFT treatment is complex can you drink alcohol with levitra and invasive and could only be provided in a small number of specialist referral centres and logistical challenges will need to be overcome to evaluate the treatment approach further. See page F466Chest compressionsWith a stable infant in the neonatal unit, it is common to review the events of the initial stabilisation and to speculate on whether chest compressions were truly needed to establish an effective circulation, or whether their use reflected clinician uncertainty in the face of other challenges.

Anne Marthe Boldinge and colleagues provide some objective data on the subject. They analysed videos can you drink alcohol with levitra that were recorded during neonatal stabilisation in a single centre with 5000 births per annum. From a birth population of almost 1200 infants there were good quality video recordings from 327 episodes of initial stabilisation where positive pressure ventilation was provided and 29 of these episodes included the provision of chest compressions, mostly in term infants.

6/29 of the infants who received chest compressions were retrospectively judged to have needed them. 8/29 had can you drink alcohol with levitra adequate spontaneous respiration. 18/29 received ineffective positive pressure ventilation prior to chest compressions.

5/29 had a heart rate greater than can you drink alcohol with levitra 60 beats per minute at the time of chest compressions. A consistent pattern of ventilation corrective actions was not identified. One infant received chest compressions without prior heart rate assessment.

See page 545Propofol for neonatal endotracheal intubationMost clinicians provide sedation/analgesia for neonatal intubations but there can you drink alcohol with levitra is still a lot of uncertainty about the best approach. Ellen de Kort and colleagues set out to identify the dose of propofol that would provide adequate sedation for neonatal intubation without side-effects. They conducted a dose-finding trial which evaluated a range of doses in infants of different gestations.

They ended their study after 91 infants can you drink alcohol with levitra because they only achieved adequate sedation without side effects in 13% of patients. Hypotension (mean blood pressure below post-mentrual age in the hour after treatment) was observed in 59% of patients. See page 489Growth to early adulthood following extremely preterm birthThe EPICure cohort comprised all babies born at 25 completed weeks of gestation or less in all 276 maternity units in the UK and Ireland from March to December 1995.

Growth data into adulthood are sparse for such immature can you drink alcohol with levitra infants. Yanyan Ni and colleagues report the growth to 19 years of 129 of the cohort in comparison with contemporary term born controls. The extremely preterm can you drink alcohol with levitra infants were on average 4.0 cm shorter and 6.8 kg lighter with a 1.5 cm smaller head circumference relative to controls at 19 years.

Body mass index was significantly elevated to +0.32 SD. With practice changing to include the provision of life sustaining treatment to greater numbers of infants born at 22 and 23 weeks of gestation there is a strong case for further cohort studies to include this population of infants. See page F496Premature birth is a worldwide problem, and the most significant cause of loss of disability-adjusted life can you drink alcohol with levitra years in children.

Impairment and disability among survivors are common. Cerebral palsy is diagnosed in around 10% of infants born before 33 weeks of gestation, although the rates approximately double in the smallest and most vulnerable infants, and other motor disturbances are being detected in 25%–40%. Cognitive, socialisation and behavioural problems are apparent in around half of can you drink alcohol with levitra preterm infants, and there is increased incidence of neuropsychiatric disorders, which develop as the children grow older.

Adults born preterm are approximately seven times more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disease.1 2The neuropathological basis for these long-term and debilitating disorders is often unclear. Brain imaging by ultrasound or MRI shows that only a relatively small proportion of infants have significant destructive brain lesions, and these major lesions are not detected commonly enough to account for the prevalence of long-term impairments. However, abnormalities of brain growth and maturation are common, and it is now apparent that, in addition to recognisable cerebral damage, adverse neurological, cognitive and psychiatric outcomes are consistently associated with abnormal cerebral maturation and development.Currently, most clinical decision-making remains focused around a number of well-described cerebral lesions usually can you drink alcohol with levitra detected in routine practice using cranial ultrasound.

Periventricular haemorrhage is common. Severe haemorrhages are associated with long-term adverse outcomes, and in infants born before 33 weeks of gestation, haemorrhagic parenchymal infarction predicts motor deficits ….

Imaging the encephalopathy of prematurityJulia Kline and colleagues assessed MRI findings at term in 110 preterm infants born before 32 weeks’ gestation http://cz.keimfarben.de/buy-generic-levitra-uk/ and cared for in four neonatal units in Columbus, cheapest place to buy levitra Ohio. Using automated cortical and sub-cortical segmentation they analysed cortical surface area, sulcal depth, gyrification index, inner cortical curvature and thickness. These measures of brain development and maturation were related to the outcomes of cognitive and language testing undertaken at 2 years corrected age using the cheapest place to buy levitra Bayley-III. Increased surface area in nearly every brain region was positively correlated with Bayley-III cognitive and language scores.

Increased inner cortical curvature was negatively correlated with both outcomes. Gyrification index cheapest place to buy levitra and sulcal depth did not follow consistent trends. These metrics retained their significance after sex, gestational age, socio-economic status and global injury score on structural MRI were included in the analysis. Surface area and inner cortical curvature explained approximately one-third of the variance in Bayley-III scores.In an accompanying editorial, David Edwards characterises the complexity of imaging and interpreting the combined effects of injury and dysmaturation on the developing brain.

Major structural lesions are present in a minority of infants and the problems observed in later childhood require a much broader understanding of the effects of cheapest place to buy levitra prematurity on brain development. Presently these more sophisticated image-analysis techniques provide insights at a population level but the variation between individuals is such that they are not sufficiently predictive at an individual patient level to be of practical use to parents or clinicians in prognostication. Studies like this highlight the importance of follow-up programmes and help clinicians to avoid falling into the trap of equating normal (no major structural lesion) imaging studies with normal long term outcomes. See pages F460 and F458Drift at 10 yearsKaren Luuyt and colleagues report the cognitive outcomes at 10 years of the DRIFT (drainage, irrigation and fibrinolytic therapy) randomised cheapest place to buy levitra controlled trial of treatment for post haemorrhagic ventricular dilatation.

They are to be congratulated for continuing to track these children and confirming the persistence of the cognitive advantage of the treatment that was apparent from earlier follow-up. Infants who received DRIFT were almost twice cheapest place to buy levitra as likely to survive without severe cognitive disability than those who received standard treatment. While the confidence intervals were wide, the point estimate suggests that the number needed to treat for DRIFT to prevent one death or one case of severe cognitive disability was 3. The original trial took place between 2003 and 2006 and was stopped early because of concerns about secondary intraventricular haemorrhage and it was only on follow-up that the advantages of the treatment became apparent.

The study shows that secondary brain injury cheapest place to buy levitra can be reduced by washing away the harmful debris of IVH. No other treatment for post-haemorrhagic ventricular dilatation has been shown to be beneficial in a randomised controlled trial. Less invasive approaches to CSF drainage at different thresholds of ventricular enlargement later in the clinical course have not been associated with similar advantage. However the DRIFT treatment is complex and invasive and could only be provided in a cheapest place to buy levitra small number of specialist referral centres and logistical challenges will need to be overcome to evaluate the treatment approach further.

See page F466Chest compressionsWith a stable infant in the neonatal unit, it is common to review the events of the initial stabilisation and to speculate on whether chest compressions were truly needed to establish an effective circulation, or whether their use reflected clinician uncertainty in the face of other challenges. Anne Marthe Boldinge and colleagues provide some objective data on the subject. They analysed videos that were recorded during neonatal stabilisation in cheapest place to buy levitra a single centre with 5000 births per annum. From a birth population of almost 1200 infants there were good quality video recordings from 327 episodes of initial stabilisation where positive pressure ventilation was provided and 29 of these episodes included the provision of chest compressions, mostly in term infants.

6/29 of the infants who received chest compressions were retrospectively judged to have needed them. 8/29 had cheapest place to buy levitra adequate this hyperlink spontaneous respiration. 18/29 received ineffective positive pressure ventilation prior to chest compressions. 5/29 had a heart rate greater than 60 beats per minute at cheapest place to buy levitra the time of chest compressions.

A consistent pattern of ventilation corrective actions was not identified. One infant received chest compressions without prior heart rate assessment. See page 545Propofol for neonatal endotracheal intubationMost clinicians provide sedation/analgesia for neonatal intubations but there is still a lot of uncertainty about the cheapest place to buy levitra best approach. Ellen de Kort and colleagues set out to identify the dose of propofol that would provide adequate sedation for neonatal intubation without side-effects.

They conducted a dose-finding trial which evaluated a range of doses in infants of different gestations. They ended their study after 91 infants because they only achieved adequate sedation without side effects in 13% of patients cheapest place to buy levitra. Hypotension (mean blood pressure below post-mentrual age in the hour after treatment) was observed in 59% of patients. See page 489Growth to early adulthood following extremely preterm birthThe EPICure cohort comprised all babies born at 25 completed weeks of gestation or less in all 276 maternity units in the UK and Ireland from March to December 1995.

Growth data into adulthood cheapest place to buy levitra are sparse for such immature infants. Yanyan Ni and colleagues report the growth to 19 years of 129 of the cohort in comparison with contemporary term born controls. The extremely preterm infants were on average 4.0 cm cheapest place to buy levitra shorter and 6.8 kg lighter with a 1.5 cm smaller head circumference relative to controls at 19 years. Body mass index was significantly elevated to +0.32 SD.

With practice changing to include the provision of life sustaining treatment to greater numbers of infants born at 22 and 23 weeks of gestation there is a strong case for further cohort studies to include this population of infants. See page F496Premature birth is a worldwide problem, and the most significant cause of loss of disability-adjusted life years in cheapest place to buy levitra children. Impairment and disability among survivors are common. Cerebral palsy is diagnosed in around 10% of infants born before 33 weeks of gestation, although the rates approximately double in the smallest and most vulnerable infants, and other motor disturbances are being detected in 25%–40%.

Cognitive, socialisation and behavioural problems are cheapest place to buy levitra apparent in around half of preterm infants, and there is increased incidence of neuropsychiatric disorders, which develop as the children grow older. Adults born preterm are approximately seven times more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disease.1 2The neuropathological basis for these long-term and debilitating disorders is often unclear. Brain imaging by ultrasound or MRI shows that only a relatively small proportion of infants have significant destructive brain lesions, and these major lesions are not detected commonly enough to account for the prevalence of long-term impairments. However, abnormalities of brain growth and maturation are common, and it is now apparent that, in addition to recognisable cerebral damage, adverse cheapest place to buy levitra neurological, cognitive and psychiatric outcomes are consistently associated with abnormal cerebral maturation and development.Currently, most clinical decision-making remains focused around a number of well-described cerebral lesions usually detected in routine practice using cranial ultrasound.

Periventricular haemorrhage is common. Severe haemorrhages are associated with long-term adverse outcomes, and in infants born before 33 weeks of gestation, haemorrhagic parenchymal infarction predicts motor deficits ….

Levitra purchase cheap

NONE

Source Search levitra purchase cheap http://cz.keimfarben.de/genuine-levitra-online/ for this keyword SearchFunding support. Shockwave Medical, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA)Disclosures. Dr. Hill reports fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Abiomed, Shockwave Medical and is a stockholder in Shockwave Medical.

Dr. Kereiakes is a consultant for SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Inc., Boston Scientific, Elixir Medical, Svelte Medical Systems, Inc., Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed, Shockwave Medical and is a stockholder in Ablative Solutions, Inc. Dr. Shlofmitz is a speaker for Shockwave Medical, Inc. Dr.

Klein reports no relationships with industry. Dr. Riley reports honoraria from Boston Scientific, Asahi Intecc, and Medtronic. Dr. Price reports personal fees from ACIST Medical, AstraZeneca, Abbott visit the site Vascular, Boston Scientific, Chiesi USA, Medtronic, and W.L.

Gore. Dr. Herrmann reports research funding from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Shockwave Medical and is a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, and Shockwave. Dr. Bachinsky reports consultant, speakers bureau and research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, BD Bard Vascular, Medtronic, Shockwave Medical.

Dr. Waksman is on the Advisory Board of Amgen, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems Inc., Medtronic, Philips, Pi-Cardia Ltd. Is a consultant for Amgen, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems Inc., Medtronic, Philips, Pi-Cardia Ltd.. Has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Chiesi. Is a speaker for AstraZeneca, Chiesi.

And is a stockholder in MedAlliance. Dr. Stone is a speaker for Cook Medical.

(Santa Clara, CA)Disclosures cheapest place to buy levitra. Dr. Hill reports fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Abiomed, Shockwave Medical and is a stockholder in Shockwave Medical. Dr. Kereiakes is a consultant for SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Inc., Boston Scientific, Elixir Medical, Svelte Medical Systems, Inc., Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed, Shockwave Medical and is a stockholder in Ablative Solutions, Inc.

Dr. Shlofmitz is a speaker for Shockwave Medical, Inc. Dr. Klein reports no relationships with industry. Dr.

Riley reports honoraria from Boston Scientific, Asahi Intecc, and Medtronic. Dr. Price reports personal fees from ACIST Medical, AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Chiesi USA, Medtronic, and W.L. Gore. Dr.

Herrmann reports research funding from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Shockwave Medical and is a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, and Shockwave. Dr. Bachinsky reports consultant, speakers bureau and research grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, BD Bard Vascular, Medtronic, Shockwave Medical. Dr. Waksman is on the Advisory Board of Amgen, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems Inc., Medtronic, Philips, Pi-Cardia Ltd.

Is a consultant for Amgen, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardioset, Cardiovascular Systems Inc., Medtronic, Philips, Pi-Cardia Ltd.. Has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Chiesi. Is a speaker for AstraZeneca, Chiesi. And is a stockholder in MedAlliance. Dr.

Stone is a speaker for Cook Medical. Is a consultant for Valfix Medical, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore, Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, V-Wave, Abiomed, Ancora, MAIA Pharmaceuticals, Vectorious, Reva, Cardiomech. And has equity/options from Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, and Valfix.Twitter summary.

Buy levitra 10mg

NONE

We live buy levitra 10mg in unprecedented where is better to buy levitra times. But what makes them without parallel is not the current pandemic crisis nor the continued problems facing minorities in our institutions. Rather, it’s that for the first time, the problems buy levitra 10mg of accessibility, rights and freedoms are now invading privileged spaces. There can be no ‘getting back to normal’, because ‘normal’ only ever benefited the white, Western, patriarchal, abled and cis ideals. For many, the world is buy levitra 10mg not suddenly on fire.

It has long been burning.The present pandemic lays bare systemic prejudice against the most vulnerable among us. We at Medical Humanities, with our focus on global health and social justice, welcome discussion about how the crisis has disproportionately affected racial and fiscal minorities, those from the disabled community, those who are LGBTQA+ and other vulnerable groups. What we focus on here, now, can lead to greater accessibility and equity in the future.In this buy levitra 10mg expanded issue, we offer some of the incredible work being done across the field of medical humanities prior to the COVID-19 crisis, and we are already reviewing articles on the role of health humanities during the pandemic. The process of academic publishing tends not to lend itself to immediacy, however, and the challenges of pandemic means greater pressure on everyone, from the authors to the reviewers and readers.To remedy this, we at Medical Humanities have been increasing the work on our blog platform, a place where content can be quickly updated, and where conversations can occur among readers and writers. We openly invite submissions concerning the virus, as well as topics relevant to our wider CFP (call for posts/papers) this year on social justice and health, to both buy levitra 10mg blog and journal.

We will do our best to expedite. Finally, we have also been addressing social justice and access in our podcast, where we interviewed disability activist Alice Wong and most recently Dr Oni Blackstock, primary care physician and HIV specialist in New York. We hope to have many more on these critical subjects.We wish all of you good health and safety and know that many of you are buy levitra 10mg yet on the front lines. Thank you for being part of the community of Medical Humanities.IntroductionMinecraft is a computer game with no specific goals to accomplish. The gameworld consists of three-dimensional (3D) cubes and objects buy levitra 10mg which the player (Steve) can mine and build into infinitely complex (and logically impossible) structures.

Steve sometimes encounters other characters (‘mobs’), such as animals and hostile creatures. He can ‘spawn’ and destroy them. While it looks like a harmless game of logical construction, it buy levitra 10mg conveys some worryingly delusive ideas about the real world. The difference between real and imagined structures is at the heart of the age-old debate around categorising mental disorders.Classification in mental health has had various forms throughout history. Mack and colleagues set out a history of psychiatric classification beginning in 2600 BC with Egyptian references buy levitra 10mg to melancholia and hysteria.

Through the Ancient Greeks with Hippocrates’ phrenitis, mania, melancholia, epilepsy, hysteria and Scythian disease. Through the Renaissance period. Through to 19th-century psychiatry featuring Pinel (known as the first psychiatrist), Kraepelin (known for observational classification) and Freud (known for classifying neurosis and psychosis).1Although the history of psychiatric classification identifies some common buy levitra 10mg trends such as the labels ‘melancholia’ and ‘hysteria’ which have survived millennia, the label ‘depression’ is relatively new. The earliest usage noted by Snaith is from 1899. €˜in simple pathological depression…the patient exhibits a growing indifference to his former pursuits…’.2 Snaith noted that early 20th-century psychiatrists like Adolf Meyer hoped that ‘depression’ would come to encompass buy levitra 10mg a broad category under which descriptions of subtypes would emerge.

This did not happen until the middle of the 20th century. With the publication of the sixth International Classification of Diseases (ICD) in 1948 and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1952 and their subsequent revisions, the latter half of the 20th century has seen depression subtype labels proliferate. In their study of the social determinants of diagnostic labels in depression, McPherson and Armstrong illustrate how the codification of depression subtypes in the latter half of the 20th century has been shaped by the evolving context of psychiatry, including power struggles within the profession, a move to community care and the development of psychopharmacology.3During this period, McPherson and Armstrong describe how subsequent versions of the DSM buy levitra 10mg served as battlegrounds for professional disputes and philosophical quarrels around categorisation of mental disorders. DSM I and DSM II have been described as products of an American Psychiatric Association dominated by psychoanalytic psychiatrists.4 DSM III and DSM III-R have been described as a radical rejection of psychoanalytic thinking, a ‘neo-Kraepelinian revolution’, a reference to the observational descriptive techniques of 19th-century psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin who classified mental disorders into two broad categories. €˜dementia praecox’ and ‘manic-depression’.5 DSM III was seen by some as a turning point in the use of the medical model of mental illness, through provision of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, and use of field trials and a multiaxial system.6 These latter technocratic additions to psychiatric buy levitra 10mg labelling served to engender a much closer alignment between psychiatry, science and medicine.The codification of mental disorders in manuals has been described by Thomas Schacht as intrinsic to the relationship between science and politics and the way in which psychiatrists gain significant social power by aligning themselves to science.7 His argument drew on Szasz, who saw the mental health establishment as a therapeutic state.

Zimbardo, who described psychiatric care as a controlling force. And Foucault, who described the categorisation of the mentally ill as a force for isolating ‘the other’. Diagnostic critique has been further developed through a cultural relativist lens in that what Western psychiatrists classify as a depression is constructed differently in buy levitra 10mg other cultures.8 Considering these limitations, some critics have gone so far as to argue that psychiatric diagnostic systems should be abolished.9Yet architects of DSM manuals have worked hard to ensure the technology of classification is regarded as genuine scientific activity with sound roots in philosophy of science. In their philosophical defence of DSM IV, Allen Frances and colleagues address their critics under the headings ‘nominalism vs realism’, ‘empiricism vs rationalism’ and ‘categorical vs dimensional’.10 The implication is that there are opposing stances in which a choice must be made or a middle ground forged by those reasonable enough to recognise the need for pragmatism in the service of clinical utility. The nominalism–realism debate is illustrated using as metaphor three different stances a cricket umpire might take on calling strikes and buy levitra 10mg balls.

The discussion sets out two of these as extreme views. €˜at one extreme…those who take a reductionistically realistic view of the world’ versus ‘the solipsistic nominalists…might content that nothing exists’. Szasz, who is characterised as holding particularly buy levitra 10mg extreme views, is named as an archetypal solipsist. There is implied to be a degree of arrogance associated with this view in the illustrative example in which the umpire states ‘there are no balls and there are no strikes until I call them’. Frances therefore buy levitra 10mg sets up a means of grouping two kinds of people as philosophical extremists who can be dismissed, while avoiding addressing the philosophical problems they pose.Frances provides little if any justification for the middle ground stance, ‘There are balls and there are strikes and I call them as I see them’, other than to focus on its clinical utility and the lack of clinical utility in the alternatives ‘naïve realism’ and ‘heuristically barren solipsism’.

The natural conclusion the reader is invited to reach is that a middle ground of a heuristic concept is naturally right because it is not extreme and is naturally useful clinically, without specifying in what way this stance is coherent, resolves the two alternatives, and in what way a heuristic construct that is not ‘real’ can be subject to scientific testing.Similarly, in discussing the ‘categorical vs dimensional’, Frances promotes the ‘prototype approach’. Those holding opposing views are labelled as ‘dualists’ or ‘dichotomisers’. The prototypical approach is again buy levitra 10mg put forward as a clinically useful middle ground. Illustrations are drawn from natural science. €˜a triangle and a square are never the same’, inciting the reader to consider science as buy levitra 10mg value-free.

The prototypical approach emerges as a natural solution, yet the authors do not address how a diagnostic prototype resolves the issues posed by the two alternatives, nor how a prototype can be subjected to natural science methods.The argument presented here is not a defence of solipsism or dualism. Rather it aims to illustrate that if for pragmatic purposes clinicians and policymakers choose to gloss over the philosophical flaws in classification practices, it is then risky to move beyond the heuristic and apply natural science methods to these constructs adding multiple layers of technocratic subclassification. Doing so buy levitra 10mg is more like playing Minecraft than cricket. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for depression is taken as an example of the philosophical errors that can follow from playing Minecraft with unsound heuristic devices, specifically subcategories of persistent forms of depression. As well as serving a clinical purpose, diagnosis in medicine is a way of allocating resources for insurance companies and constructing clinical guidelines, which in turn determine buy levitra 10mg rationing within the National Health Service.

The consequences for recipients of healthcare are therefore significant. Clinical utility is arguably not being served at all and patients are left at risk of poor-quality care.Heterogeneity of persistent depressionAndrea Jobst and colleagues note that ‘because of their chronic clinical course, approximately 40% of CD [chronic depression] patients also fulfil criteria for TRD [treatment resistant depression]…usually defined by the number of non-successful biological treatments’.11 This position is reflected in the DSM VAmerican Psychiatric Association (2013), the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance and the ICD-11(World Health Organisation, 2018), which all use a ‘persistent’ depression category, acknowledging a loosely defined mixed group of long-term, difficult-to-treat depressive conditions, often associated with dysthymia and comorbid common mental disorders, various personality traits and psychosocial disability.In contrast, the NICE 2018 draft guideline separates treatments into those for ‘new episodes’ of depression. €˜further-line’ treatment of depression (equivalent buy levitra 10mg to TRD), CD and ‘depression with co-morbidities’. The latter is subdivided into treatments for ‘complex depression’ and ‘psychotic depression’. These categories and subcategories introduce an buy levitra 10mg unfortunate sense of certainty as though these labels represent real things.

An analysis follows of how these definitions play out in terms of grouping of randomised controlled trials in the NICE evidence review. Specifically, the analysis reveals the overlap between populations in trials which have been separated into discrete categories, revealing significant limitations to the utility of the category labels.The NICE definition of CD requires trial samples to meet the criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) for 2 years. Dysthymia and double buy levitra 10mg depression (MDD superimposed on dysthymia) were included. If 75% of the trial population met these criteria, the trial was reviewed in the CD category.12 The definition of TRD (or ‘further-line treatments’) required that the trial sample had demonstrated a ‘limited response to previous treatment’ and randomised to the further-line treatment at this point. If 80% of the trial participants met these criteria, it was reviewed in the TRD category.13 Complex buy levitra 10mg depression was defined as ‘depression co-existing with personality disorder’.

To be classed as complex, 51% of trial participants had to have personality disorder (PD).14It is immediately clear from these definitions that there is a potential problem with attempting to categorise trial populations into just one of these categories. These populations are likely to overlap, whether or not a trial protocol sets out to explicitly record all of this information. The analysis below will illustrate this using buy levitra 10mg examples from within the NICE review.Cataloguing complexity in trial populationsWithin the category of further-line treatments (TRD), 64 trials were reviewed. Comparisons within these trials were further subcategorised into ‘dose escalation strategies’, ‘augmentation strategies’ and ‘switching strategies’. In drilling down buy levitra 10mg by way of illustration, this analysis considers the 51 trials in the augmentation strategy evidence review.

Of these, two were classified by the reviewers as also fulfilling the criteria for CD but were not analysed in the CD category (Study IDs. Fonagy 2015 and Kocsis 200915). About half of the trials (23/51) did not report the mean duration of episode, meaning that it is not buy levitra 10mg possible to know what percentage of participants also met the criteria for CD. Of trials that did report episode duration, 17 reported a mean duration longer than 24 months. While the standard deviations varied in size or were unreported, the mean indicates a good likelihood that a significant proportion of the participants across these 51 trials met the criteria for CD.Details of baseline employment, trauma history, suicidality, physical comorbidity, axis I comorbidity and PD (all clinical indicators of complexity, buy levitra 10mg severity and chronicity) were not collated by NICE.

For the present analysis, all 51 publications were examined and data compiled concerning clinical complexity in the trial populations. Only 14 of 51 trials report employment data. Of those that do, unemployment ranges from buy levitra 10mg 12% to 56% across trial samples. None of the trials report trauma history. About half of buy levitra 10mg the trials (26/51) excluded people who were considered a suicide risk.

The others did not.A large proportion of trials (30/51) did not provide any data on axis 1 comorbidity. Of these, 18 did not exclude any diagnoses, while 12 excluded some (but not all) disorders. The most common diagnoses excluded were psychotic disorders, substance or alcohol abuse, buy levitra 10mg and bipolar disorder (excluded in 26, 25 and 23 trials, respectively). Only 7 of 51 trials clearly stated that all axis 1 diagnoses were excluded. This leaves buy levitra 10mg only 13 studies providing any data about comorbidity.

Of these, 9 gave partial data on one or two conditions, while 4 reported either the mean number of disorders (range 1.96–2.9) or the percentage of participants (range 68.1–96.7) with any comorbid diagnosis (Nierenberg 2003a, Nierenberg 2006, Watkins 2011a, Town 201715).The majority of trials (46/51) did not report the prevalence of PD. Many stated PD as an exclusion criterion but without defining a threshold for exclusion. For example, PD could be excluded if it ‘impacted’ the depression, if buy levitra 10mg it was ‘significant’, ‘severe’ or ‘persistent’. Some excluded certain PDs (such as antisocial or borderline) and not others but without reporting the prevalence of those not excluded. In the five trials where prevalence was buy levitra 10mg clear, prevalence ranged from 0% (Ravindran 2008a15), where all PDs were excluded, to 87.5% of the sample (Town 201715).

Two studies reported the mean number of PDs. 2.0 (Nierenberg 2003a) and 0.85 (Watkins 2011a15).The majority of trials (43/51) did not report the prevalence of physical illness. Many stated illness as an exclusion criterion, but the definitions and thresholds were vague and could be interpreted buy levitra 10mg in different ways. For example, illness could be excluded if it was ‘unstable’, ‘serious’, ‘significant’, ‘relevant’, or would ‘contraindicate’ or ‘impact’ the medication. Of the eight trials buy levitra 10mg reporting information about physical health, there was a wide variation.

Four reported prevalence varying from 7.6% having a disability (Eisendrath 201615) to 90.9% having an illness or disability (Town 201715). Four used scales of physical health. Two indicating mild problems (Nierenberg 2006, Lavretsky 201115) and two indicating moderately high levels of illness (Thase 2007, Fang 201015).The NICE review also divided trial populations into a dichotomy of ‘more severe’ and ‘less severe’ on buy levitra 10mg the grounds that this would be a clinically useful classification for general practitioners. NICE applied a bespoke methodology for creating this dichotomy, abandoning validated measure thresholds in order first to generate two ‘homogeneous’ groups to ‘facilitate analysis’, and second to create an algorithm to ‘read across’ different measures (such as the Beck Depression Inventory, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale).16 Examining trials which use more than one of these measures reveals problems in the algorithm. Of the 51 trials, there are 6 instances in which the study population falls into NICE’s more severe category according to one measure and buy levitra 10mg into the less severe category according to another.

In four of these trials, NICE chose the less severe category (Souza 2016, Watkins 2011a, Fonagy 2015, Town 201715). The other two trials were designated more severe (Barbee 2011, Dunner 200715). Only 17 of 51 trials reported two or more depression scale measures, leaving much unknown about whether other study populations could count as both more severe and less severe.Absence of knowledge or knowledge of absence? buy levitra 10mg. A key philosophical error in science is to confuse an absence of knowledge with knowledge of absence. It is likely that some of the study populations deemed lacking in complexity or buy levitra 10mg severity could actually have high degrees of complexity and/or severity.

Data to demonstrate this may either fall foul of a guideline committee decision to prioritise certain information over other conflicting information (as in the severity algorithm). The information may be non-existent as it was not collected. It may be buy levitra 10mg somewhere in the publication pipeline. Or it may be sitting in a database with a research team that has run out of funds for supplementary analyses. Wherever those data are or are buy levitra 10mg not, their absence from published articles does not define the phenomenology of depression for the patients who took part.

As a case in point, data from the Fonagy 2015 trial presented at conferences but not published reveal that PD prevalence data would place the trial well within the NICE complex depression category, and that the sample had high levels of past trauma and physical condition comorbidity. The trial also meets the guideline criteria for CD according to the guideline’s own appendices.17 Reported axis 1 comorbidity was high (75.2% had anxiety disorder, 18.6% had substance abuse disorder, 13.2% had eating disorder).18 The mean depression scores at baseline were 36.5 on the Beck Depression Inventory and 20.1 on the HRSD (severe and very severe, respectively, according to published cut-off scores). NICE categorised this population as less severe TRD, not CD and not complex.Notes1 buy levitra 10mg. Avram H. Mack et al buy levitra 10mg.

(1994), “A Brief History of Psychiatric Classification. From the Ancients to DSM-IV,” Psychiatric Clinics 17, no. 3. 515–9.2. R.

P. Snaith (1987), “The Concepts of Mild Depression,” British Journal of Psychiatry 150, no. 3. 387.3. Susan McPherson and David Armstrong (2006), “Social Determinants of Diagnostic Labels in Depression,” Social Science &.

Medicine 62, no. 1. 52–7.4. Gerald N. Grob (1991), “Origins of DSM-I.

A Study in Appearance and Reality,” The American Journal of Psychiatry. 421–31.5. Wilson M. Compton and Samuel B. Guze (1995), “The Neo-Kraepelinian Revolution in Psychiatric Diagnosis,” European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 245, no.

4. 198–9.6. Gerald L. Klerman (1984), “A Debate on DSM-III. The Advantages of DSM-III,” The American Journal of Psychiatry.

539–42.7. Thomas E. Schacht (1985), “DSM-III and the Politics of Truth,” American Psychologist. 513–5.8. Daniel F.

Hartner and Kari L. Theurer (2018), “Psychiatry Should Not Seek Mechanisms of Disorder,” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 38, no. 4. 189–204.9. Sami Timimi (2014), “No More Psychiatric Labels.

Why Formal Psychiatric Diagnostic Systems Should Be Abolished,” Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 14, no. 3. 208–15.10. Allen Frances et al. (1994), “DSM-IV Meets Philosophy,” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.

A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 19, no. 3. 207–18.11. Andrea Jobst et al. (2016), “European Psychiatric Association Guidance on Psychotherapy in Chronic Depression Across Europe,” European Psychiatry 33.

20.12. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018), Depression in Adults. Treatment and Management. Draft for Consultation, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-cgwave0725/documents/full-guideline-updated, 507.13. Ibid., 351–62.14.

Ibid., 597.15. Note that in order to refer to specific trials reviewed in the guideline, rather than the full citation, the Study IDs from column A in appendix J5 have been used. See www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-cgwave0725/documents/addendum-appendix-9 for details and full references.16. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018), Depression in Adults. Treatment and Management.

Second Consultation on Draft Guideline – Stakeholder Comments Table, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-cgwave0725/documents/consultation-comments-and-responses-2, 420–1.17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018), Depression in Adults, appendix J5.18. Peter Fonagy et al. (2015), “Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Long-Term Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression. The Tavistock Adult Depression Study (TADS),” World Psychiatry 14, no.

3. 312–21.19. American Psychological Association (2018), Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Depression in Children, Adolescents, and Young, Middle-aged, and Older Adults. Draft.20. Jacqui Thornton (2018), “Depression in Adults.

Campaigners and Doctors Demand Full Revision of NICE Guidance,” BMJ 361. K2681..

We live in unprecedented cheapest place to buy levitra times. But what makes them without parallel is not the current pandemic crisis nor the continued problems facing minorities in our institutions. Rather, it’s that for cheapest place to buy levitra the first time, the problems of accessibility, rights and freedoms are now invading privileged spaces.

There can be no ‘getting back to normal’, because ‘normal’ only ever benefited the white, Western, patriarchal, abled and cis ideals. For many, the world is not suddenly cheapest place to buy levitra on fire. It has long been burning.The present pandemic lays bare systemic prejudice against the most vulnerable among us.

We at Medical Humanities, with our focus on global health and social justice, welcome discussion about how the crisis has disproportionately affected racial and fiscal minorities, those from the disabled community, those who are LGBTQA+ and other vulnerable groups. What we focus on here, now, can lead to greater accessibility and equity in the future.In this expanded issue, we offer some of the incredible work being done across the field of medical humanities prior to the COVID-19 crisis, and we cheapest place to buy levitra are already reviewing articles on the role of health humanities during the pandemic. The process of academic publishing tends not to lend itself to immediacy, however, and the challenges of pandemic means greater pressure on everyone, from the authors to the reviewers and readers.To remedy this, we at Medical Humanities have been increasing the work on our blog platform, a place where content can be quickly updated, and where conversations can occur among readers and writers.

We openly invite submissions concerning the virus, as well as topics relevant to our wider CFP (call for posts/papers) this year on social cheapest place to buy levitra justice and health, to both blog and journal. We will do our best to expedite. Finally, we have also been addressing social justice and access in our podcast, where we interviewed disability activist Alice Wong and most recently Dr Oni Blackstock, primary care physician and HIV specialist in New York.

We hope to have many more on these critical subjects.We wish all of you good health and safety and know that many of you are cheapest place to buy levitra yet on the front lines. Thank you for being part of the community of Medical Humanities.IntroductionMinecraft is a computer game with no specific goals to accomplish. The gameworld cheapest place to buy levitra consists of three-dimensional (3D) cubes and objects which the player (Steve) can mine and build into infinitely complex (and logically impossible) structures.

Steve sometimes encounters other characters (‘mobs’), such as animals and hostile creatures. He can ‘spawn’ and destroy them. While it cheapest place to buy levitra looks like a harmless game of logical construction, it conveys some worryingly delusive ideas about the real world.

The difference between real and imagined structures is at the heart of the age-old debate around categorising mental disorders.Classification in mental health has had various forms throughout history. Mack and colleagues set cheapest place to buy levitra out a history of psychiatric classification beginning in 2600 BC with Egyptian references to melancholia and hysteria. Through the Ancient Greeks with Hippocrates’ phrenitis, mania, melancholia, epilepsy, hysteria and Scythian disease.

Through the Renaissance period. Through to 19th-century psychiatry featuring Pinel (known as the first psychiatrist), Kraepelin (known for observational classification) and Freud (known for classifying neurosis and psychosis).1Although the history of psychiatric classification identifies some common trends such as the labels ‘melancholia’ and ‘hysteria’ which have survived millennia, the label ‘depression’ is relatively new cheapest place to buy levitra. The earliest usage noted by Snaith is from 1899.

€˜in simple pathological depression…the patient exhibits a growing indifference to his former pursuits…’.2 Snaith noted that early 20th-century psychiatrists like Adolf Meyer hoped that ‘depression’ would come to encompass a broad category under which descriptions of subtypes would cheapest place to buy levitra emerge. This did not happen until the middle of the 20th century. With the publication of the sixth International Classification of Diseases (ICD) in 1948 and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1952 and their subsequent revisions, the latter half of the 20th century has seen depression subtype labels proliferate.

In their study of the social determinants of diagnostic labels in depression, McPherson and Armstrong illustrate how the codification of depression subtypes in the latter half of the 20th century has been shaped by the evolving context of psychiatry, including power struggles within the profession, a move to community care and the development of psychopharmacology.3During this period, McPherson and Armstrong describe how subsequent versions cheapest place to buy levitra of the DSM served as battlegrounds for professional disputes and philosophical quarrels around categorisation of mental disorders. DSM I and DSM II have been described as products of an American Psychiatric Association dominated by psychoanalytic psychiatrists.4 DSM III and DSM III-R have been described as a radical rejection of psychoanalytic thinking, a ‘neo-Kraepelinian revolution’, a reference to the observational descriptive techniques of 19th-century psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin who classified mental disorders into two broad categories. €˜dementia praecox’ and ‘manic-depression’.5 DSM III was seen by some as a turning point in the use of the medical model of mental illness, through provision of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, and use of field trials and a multiaxial system.6 These latter technocratic additions to psychiatric labelling served to engender a much closer alignment between psychiatry, science and medicine.The codification of mental disorders in manuals has been described by Thomas Schacht as intrinsic to the relationship between science and politics and the way cheapest place to buy levitra in which psychiatrists gain significant social power by aligning themselves to science.7 His argument drew on Szasz, who saw the mental health establishment as a therapeutic state.

Zimbardo, who described psychiatric care as a controlling force. And Foucault, who described the categorisation of the mentally ill as a force for isolating ‘the other’. Diagnostic critique has been further developed through a cultural relativist lens in that what Western psychiatrists classify as a depression is constructed differently in other cultures.8 Considering these cheapest place to buy levitra limitations, some critics have gone so far as to argue that psychiatric diagnostic systems should be abolished.9Yet architects of DSM manuals have worked hard to ensure the technology of classification is regarded as genuine scientific activity with sound roots in philosophy of science.

In their philosophical defence of DSM IV, Allen Frances and colleagues address their critics under the headings ‘nominalism vs realism’, ‘empiricism vs rationalism’ and ‘categorical vs dimensional’.10 The implication is that there are opposing stances in which a choice must be made or a middle ground forged by those reasonable enough to recognise the need for pragmatism in the service of clinical utility. The nominalism–realism debate is illustrated using as metaphor three different stances a cricket cheapest place to buy levitra umpire might take on calling strikes and balls. The discussion sets out two of these as extreme views.

€˜at one extreme…those who take a reductionistically realistic view of the world’ versus ‘the solipsistic nominalists…might content that nothing exists’. Szasz, who is characterised as holding cheapest place to buy levitra particularly extreme views, is named as an archetypal solipsist. There is implied to be a degree of arrogance associated with this view in the illustrative example in which the umpire states ‘there are no balls and there are no strikes until I call them’.

Frances therefore sets up a means of grouping cheapest place to buy levitra two kinds of people as philosophical extremists who can be dismissed, while avoiding addressing the philosophical problems they pose.Frances provides little if any justification for the middle ground stance, ‘There are balls and there are strikes and I call them as I see them’, other than to focus on its clinical utility and the lack of clinical utility in the alternatives ‘naïve realism’ and ‘heuristically barren solipsism’. The natural conclusion the reader is invited to reach is that a middle ground of a heuristic concept is naturally right because it is not extreme and is naturally useful clinically, without specifying in what way this stance is coherent, resolves the two alternatives, and in what way a heuristic construct that is not ‘real’ can be subject to scientific testing.Similarly, in discussing the ‘categorical vs dimensional’, Frances promotes the ‘prototype approach’. Those holding opposing views are labelled as ‘dualists’ or ‘dichotomisers’.

The prototypical approach is again put forward as cheapest place to buy levitra a clinically useful middle ground. Illustrations are drawn from natural science. €˜a triangle and a square are never cheapest place to buy levitra the same’, inciting the reader to consider science as value-free.

The prototypical approach emerges as a natural solution, yet the authors do not address how a diagnostic prototype resolves the issues posed by the two alternatives, nor how a prototype can be subjected to natural science methods.The argument presented here is not a defence of solipsism or dualism. Rather it aims to illustrate that if for pragmatic purposes clinicians and policymakers choose to gloss over the philosophical flaws in classification practices, it is then risky to move beyond the heuristic and apply natural science methods to these constructs adding multiple layers of technocratic subclassification. Doing so is more cheapest place to buy levitra like playing Minecraft than cricket.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for depression is taken as an example of the philosophical errors that can follow from playing Minecraft with unsound heuristic devices, specifically subcategories of persistent forms of depression. As well as serving a clinical purpose, diagnosis in medicine is a way of allocating resources for cheapest place to buy levitra insurance companies and constructing clinical guidelines, which in turn determine rationing within the National Health Service. The consequences for recipients of healthcare are therefore significant.

Clinical utility is arguably not being served at all and patients are left at risk of poor-quality care.Heterogeneity of persistent depressionAndrea Jobst and colleagues note that ‘because of their chronic clinical course, approximately 40% of CD [chronic depression] patients also fulfil criteria for TRD [treatment resistant depression]…usually defined by the number of non-successful biological treatments’.11 This position is reflected in the DSM VAmerican Psychiatric Association (2013), the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance and the ICD-11(World Health Organisation, 2018), which all use a ‘persistent’ depression category, acknowledging a loosely defined mixed group of long-term, difficult-to-treat depressive conditions, often associated with dysthymia and comorbid common mental disorders, various personality traits and psychosocial disability.In contrast, the NICE 2018 draft guideline separates treatments into those for ‘new episodes’ of depression. €˜further-line’ treatment of depression (equivalent to TRD), CD cheapest place to buy levitra and ‘depression with co-morbidities’. The latter is subdivided into treatments for ‘complex depression’ and ‘psychotic depression’.

These categories and subcategories cheapest place to buy levitra introduce an unfortunate sense of certainty as though these labels represent real things. An analysis follows of how these definitions play out in terms of grouping of randomised controlled trials in the NICE evidence review. Specifically, the analysis reveals the overlap between populations in trials which have been separated into discrete categories, revealing significant limitations to the utility of the category labels.The NICE definition of CD requires trial samples to meet the criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) for 2 years.

Dysthymia and double depression (MDD superimposed on dysthymia) were included cheapest place to buy levitra. If 75% of the trial population met these criteria, the trial was reviewed in the CD category.12 The definition of TRD (or ‘further-line treatments’) required that the trial sample had demonstrated a ‘limited response to previous treatment’ and randomised to the further-line treatment at this point. If 80% of the trial participants met these criteria, it was cheapest place to buy levitra reviewed in the TRD category.13 Complex depression was defined as ‘depression co-existing with personality disorder’.

To be classed as complex, 51% of trial participants had to have personality disorder (PD).14It is immediately clear from these definitions that there is a potential problem with attempting to categorise trial populations into just one of these categories. These populations are likely to overlap, whether or not a trial protocol sets out to explicitly record all of this information. The analysis below will illustrate this using examples from within the NICE review.Cataloguing complexity cheapest place to buy levitra in trial populationsWithin the category of further-line treatments (TRD), 64 trials were reviewed.

Comparisons within these trials were further subcategorised into ‘dose escalation strategies’, ‘augmentation strategies’ and ‘switching strategies’. In drilling down by way of illustration, this analysis considers the 51 trials in the augmentation strategy evidence cheapest place to buy levitra review. Of these, two were classified by the reviewers as also fulfilling the criteria for CD but were not analysed in the CD category (Study IDs.

Fonagy 2015 and Kocsis 200915). About half of the trials (23/51) did not report the mean duration of episode, meaning that cheapest place to buy levitra it is not possible to know what percentage of participants also met the criteria for CD. Of trials that did report episode duration, 17 reported a mean duration longer than 24 months.

While the standard deviations varied in cheapest place to buy levitra size or were unreported, the mean indicates a good likelihood that a significant proportion of the participants across these 51 trials met the criteria for CD.Details of baseline employment, trauma history, suicidality, physical comorbidity, axis I comorbidity and PD (all clinical indicators of complexity, severity and chronicity) were not collated by NICE. For the present analysis, all 51 publications were examined and data compiled concerning clinical complexity in the trial populations. Only 14 of 51 trials report employment data.

Of those that do, unemployment ranges cheapest place to buy levitra from 12% to 56% across trial samples. None of the trials report trauma history. About half of the trials (26/51) cheapest place to buy levitra excluded people who were considered a suicide risk.

The others did not.A large proportion of trials (30/51) did not provide any data on axis 1 comorbidity. Of these, 18 did not exclude any diagnoses, while 12 excluded some (but not all) disorders. The most common diagnoses excluded were psychotic disorders, substance or alcohol abuse, and bipolar disorder (excluded in cheapest place to buy levitra 26, 25 and 23 trials, respectively).

Only 7 of 51 trials clearly stated that all axis 1 diagnoses were excluded. This leaves only 13 studies providing any data cheapest place to buy levitra about comorbidity. Of these, 9 gave partial data on one or two conditions, while 4 reported either the mean number of disorders (range 1.96–2.9) or the percentage of participants (range 68.1–96.7) with any comorbid diagnosis (Nierenberg 2003a, Nierenberg 2006, Watkins 2011a, Town 201715).The majority of trials (46/51) did not report the prevalence of PD.

Many stated PD as an exclusion criterion but without defining a threshold for exclusion. For example, PD could be excluded if it cheapest place to buy levitra ‘impacted’ the depression, if it was ‘significant’, ‘severe’ or ‘persistent’. Some excluded certain PDs (such as antisocial or borderline) and not others but without reporting the prevalence of those not excluded.

In the five trials cheapest place to buy levitra where prevalence was clear, prevalence ranged from 0% (Ravindran 2008a15), where all PDs were excluded, to 87.5% of the sample (Town 201715). Two studies reported the mean number of PDs. 2.0 (Nierenberg 2003a) and 0.85 (Watkins 2011a15).The majority of trials (43/51) did not report the prevalence of physical illness.

Many stated illness as an exclusion criterion, but the definitions cheapest place to buy levitra and thresholds were vague and could be interpreted in different ways. For example, illness could be excluded if it was ‘unstable’, ‘serious’, ‘significant’, ‘relevant’, or would ‘contraindicate’ or ‘impact’ the medication. Of the eight trials reporting information about physical health, there was a cheapest place to buy levitra wide variation.

Four reported prevalence varying from 7.6% having a disability (Eisendrath 201615) to 90.9% having an illness or disability (Town 201715). Four used scales of physical health. Two indicating mild problems (Nierenberg 2006, Lavretsky 201115) and two indicating moderately high levels of illness (Thase 2007, Fang 201015).The NICE review also divided trial populations into a dichotomy of ‘more severe’ cheapest place to buy levitra and ‘less severe’ on the grounds that this would be a clinically useful classification for general practitioners.

NICE applied a bespoke methodology for creating this dichotomy, abandoning validated measure thresholds in order first to generate two ‘homogeneous’ groups to ‘facilitate analysis’, and second to create an algorithm to ‘read across’ different measures (such as the Beck Depression Inventory, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale).16 Examining trials which use more than one of these measures reveals problems in the algorithm. Of the 51 trials, there are 6 instances in which the study population falls into NICE’s more severe category according to one measure and into the less severe category cheapest place to buy levitra according to another. In four of these trials, NICE chose the less severe category (Souza 2016, Watkins 2011a, Fonagy 2015, Town 201715).

The other two trials were designated more severe (Barbee 2011, Dunner 200715). Only 17 of 51 trials reported two or more depression scale cheapest place to buy levitra measures, leaving much unknown about whether other study populations could count as both more severe and less severe.Absence of knowledge or knowledge of absence?. A key philosophical error in science is to confuse an absence of knowledge with knowledge of absence.

It is likely that some of the study cheapest place to buy levitra populations deemed lacking in complexity or severity could actually have high degrees of complexity and/or severity. Data to demonstrate this may either fall foul of a guideline committee decision to prioritise certain information over other conflicting information (as in the severity algorithm). The information may be non-existent as it was not collected.

It may cheapest place to buy levitra be somewhere in the publication pipeline. Or it may be sitting in a database with a research team that has run out of funds for supplementary analyses. Wherever those data are or are not, their absence cheapest place to buy levitra from published articles does not define the phenomenology of depression for the patients who took part.

As a case in point, data from the Fonagy 2015 trial presented at conferences but not published reveal that PD prevalence data would place the trial well within the NICE complex depression category, and that the sample had high levels of past trauma and physical condition comorbidity. The trial also meets the guideline criteria for CD according to the guideline’s own appendices.17 Reported axis 1 comorbidity was high (75.2% had anxiety disorder, 18.6% had substance abuse disorder, 13.2% had eating disorder).18 The mean depression scores at baseline were 36.5 on the Beck Depression Inventory and 20.1 on the HRSD (severe and very severe, respectively, according to published cut-off scores). NICE categorised this population as less severe TRD, not CD and not complex.Notes1 cheapest place to buy levitra.

Avram H. Mack et cheapest place to buy levitra al. (1994), “A Brief History of Psychiatric Classification.

From the Ancients to DSM-IV,” Psychiatric Clinics 17, no. 3. 515–9.2.

R. P. Snaith (1987), “The Concepts of Mild Depression,” British Journal of Psychiatry 150, no.

3. 387.3. Susan McPherson and David Armstrong (2006), “Social Determinants of Diagnostic Labels in Depression,” Social Science &.

Gerald N. Grob (1991), “Origins of DSM-I. A Study in Appearance and Reality,” The American Journal of Psychiatry.

421–31.5. Wilson M. Compton and Samuel B.

Guze (1995), “The Neo-Kraepelinian Revolution in Psychiatric Diagnosis,” European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 245, no. 4. 198–9.6.

Gerald L. Klerman (1984), “A Debate on DSM-III. The Advantages of DSM-III,” The American Journal of Psychiatry.

539–42.7. Thomas E. Schacht (1985), “DSM-III and the Politics of Truth,” American Psychologist.

Theurer (2018), “Psychiatry Should Not Seek Mechanisms of Disorder,” Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 38, no. 4. 189–204.9.

Sami Timimi (2014), “No More Psychiatric Labels. Why Formal Psychiatric Diagnostic Systems Should Be Abolished,” Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 14, no. 3.

208–15.10. Allen Frances et al. (1994), “DSM-IV Meets Philosophy,” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.

A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 19, no. 3. 207–18.11.

Andrea Jobst et al. (2016), “European Psychiatric Association Guidance on Psychotherapy in Chronic Depression Across Europe,” European Psychiatry 33. 20.12.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018), Depression in Adults. Treatment and Management. Draft for Consultation, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-cgwave0725/documents/full-guideline-updated, 507.13.

Ibid., 351–62.14. Ibid., 597.15. Note that in order to refer to specific trials reviewed in the guideline, rather than the full citation, the Study IDs from column A in appendix J5 have been used.

See www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-cgwave0725/documents/addendum-appendix-9 for details and full references.16. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018), Depression in Adults. Treatment and Management.

Second Consultation on Draft Guideline – Stakeholder Comments Table, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-cgwave0725/documents/consultation-comments-and-responses-2, 420–1.17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2018), Depression in Adults, appendix J5.18. Peter Fonagy et al.

(2015), “Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of Long-Term Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression. The Tavistock Adult Depression Study (TADS),” World Psychiatry 14, no. 3.

312–21.19. American Psychological Association (2018), Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Depression in Children, Adolescents, and Young, Middle-aged, and Older Adults. Draft.20.

Jacqui Thornton (2018), “Depression in Adults. Campaigners and Doctors Demand Full Revision of NICE Guidance,” BMJ 361. K2681..

Levitra 20mg half life

NONE

(AP) — Rural Jerauld County in South Dakota didn't see a single levitra 20mg half life case of the coronavirus for more than two months stretching from June to August. But over the last two weeks, its rate of new cases per person soared to one of the highest in the nation."All of a sudden levitra 20mg half life it hit, and as it does, it just exploded," said Dr. Tom Dean, one of just three doctors who work in the county.As the brunt of the virus has blown into the Upper Midwest and northern Plains, the severity of outbreaks in rural communities has come into focus. Doctors and health officials in small towns worry that infections may overwhelm communities levitra 20mg half life with limited medical resources. And many say they are still running up against attitudes on wearing masks that have hardened along political lines and a false notion that rural areas are immune to widespread infections.Dean took to writing a column levitra 20mg half life in the local weekly newspaper, the True Dakotan, to offer his guidance.

In recent weeks, he's watched as one in roughly every 37 people in his county has tested positive for the virus. It ripped through the nursing home in Wessington Springs where both his parents lived, killing his levitra 20mg half life father. The community's six deaths may appear minimal compared with thousands who have died in cities, but they have propelled the county of about 2,000 people to a death rate roughly four times higher than the nationwide rate.Rural counties across Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana sit among the top in the nation for new cases per capita over the last two weeks, according to Johns Hopkins University researchers levitra 20mg half life. Overall, the nation topped 8 million confirmed coronavirus cases in the university's count on Friday. The true number of levitra 20mg half life infections is believed to be much higher because many people have not been tested.

In counties with just a few thousand people, levitra 20mg half life the number of cases per capita can soar with even a small outbreak — and the toll hits close to home in tight-knit towns."One or two people with infections can really cause a large impact when you have one grocery store or gas station," said Misty Rudebusch, the medical director at a network of rural health clinics in South Dakota called Horizon Health Care. "There is such a ripple effect."Wessington Springs is a hub for the generations of farmers and ranchers that work the surrounding land. Residents send their children to the same schoolhouse they attended and have preserved cultural offerings like a Shakespeare garden and opera house.They trust Dean, who for 42 years has tended to everything from broken bones to high blood levitra 20mg half life pressure. When a patient needs a higher level of levitra 20mg half life care, the family physician usually depends on a transfer to a hospital 130 miles (209 kilometers) away.As cases surge, hospitals in rural communities are having trouble finding beds. A recent request to transfer a "not desperately ill, but pretty" sick COVID-19 patient was denied for several days, until the patient's condition had worsened, Dean said."We're proud of what we got, but it's been a struggle," he said of the 16-bed hospital.The outbreak that killed Dean's dad forced Wessington Springs' only nursing home to put out a statewide request for nurses.Thin resources and high death rates have plagued other small communities.

Blair Tomsheck, interim levitra 20mg half life director of the health department in Toole County, Montana, worried that the region's small hospitals would need to start caring for serious COVID-19 patients after cases spiked to the nation's highest per capita. One out of every 28 people in the county has tested positive in levitra 20mg half life the last two weeks, according to Johns Hopkins researchers."It's very, very challenging when your resources are poor — living in a small, rural county," she said.Infections can also spread quickly in places like Toole County, where most everyone shops at the same grocery store, attends the same school or worships at a handful of churches. "The Sunday family dinners are killing us," Tomsheck said.Even as outbreaks threaten to spiral out of control, doctors and health officials said they are struggling to convince people of the seriousness of a virus that took months to arrive in force."It's kind of like getting a blizzard warning and then the blizzard doesn't hit that week, so then the next time, people say they are not going to worry about it," said Kathleen Taylor, a 67-year-old author who lives in Redfield, South Dakota.In swaths of the country decorated by flags supporting President Donald Trump, people took their cues on wearing masks from his often-cavalier attitude towards the virus. Dean draws a direct connection between Trump's approach and the lack of precautions in his town of levitra 20mg half life 956 people."There's the foolish idea that mask-wearing or refusal is some kind of a political statement," Dean said. "It has seriously interfered with our levitra 20mg half life ability to get it under control."Even amid the surge, Republican governors in the region have been reluctant to act.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum said recently, "We are caught in the middle of a COVID storm" levitra 20mg half life as he raised advisory risk levels in counties across the state. But he has refused to issue a mask levitra 20mg half life mandate.South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who has carved out a reputation among conservatives by foregoing lockdowns, blamed the surge in cases on testing increases, even though the state has had the highest positivity rate in the nation over the last two weeks, according to the COVID Tracking Project. Positivity rates are an indication of how widespread infections are.In Wisconsin, conservative groups have sued over Democratic Gov levitra 20mg half life.

Tony Evers mask mandate.Whether the levitra 20mg half life requirement survives doesn't matter to Jody Bierhals, a resident of Gillett who doubts the efficacy of wearing a mask. Her home county of Oconto, which stretches from the northern border of Green Bay into forests and farmland, has the state's second-highest growth in coronavirus cases per person.Bierhals, a single mother with three kids, is more worried about the drop in business at her small salon. The region depends on tourists, but many have stayed away during the pandemic."Do I want to levitra 20mg half life keep the water on, or do I want to be able to put food on the table?. " she levitra 20mg half life asked. "It's a difficult situation."Bierhals said she thought the virus couldn't be stopped and it would be best to let it run its course.

But local attitudes like that levitra 20mg half life have left the county's health officer, Debra Koniter, desperate.Konitzer warned that the uncontrolled spread of infections has overwhelmed the county's health systems."I'm just waiting to see if our community can change our behavior," she said. "Otherwise, I don't see the end in sight."Strong demand for novel coronavirus tests is propping up Abbott Laboratories, obscuring downturns in the company's other business segments.Without surging sales of COVID-19 tests, the North Chicago medical device maker's 8% second-quarter revenue decline would have been levitra 20mg half life twice as bad. Sales are down sharply in the company's medical device and drug businesses, and flat in its nutritionals unit.Even so, COVID test sales lifted Abbott earnings past Wall Street estimates in the second quarter, helping its shares defy a tough market for medical stocks. Abbott stock is levitra 20mg half life up 23% this year, compared to a 5% decline for a Wall Street Journal index of health care and life sciences shares.But COVID tests can't carry Abbott forever. Test sales will likely level levitra 20mg half life off when a vaccine becomes widely available, pushing the company's other businesses into the spotlight.

If they're still lagging, Abbott's overall performance will worsen."We expect there's going to be widespread vaccines available in the first half of 2021, in which case, in the second half of 2021, there's probably going to be diminishing demand for a lot of the COVID-19 testing," Morningstar analyst Debbie Wang says.Abbott's third-quarter earnings report on Oct. 21 will provide fresh data on trends in the business levitra 20mg half life units that have been hurt by the novel coronavirus. That data may also test investors' willingness to continue forgiving underperformance in nearly three-quarters of Abbott's business.COVID-19 tests that detect current and recent COVID-19 infections have been responsible for 5% growth in Abbott's diagnostics business, which accounts for levitra 20mg half life 24% of the company's $32 billion in annual revenue. Sales of other diagnostics products have been down during the pandemic amid lower patient volumes.Total sales of COVID tests are expected to reach at least $2 billion this year, William Blair analyst Margaret Kaczor wrote in a recent report. Most are molecular diagnostic tests run on the company's "m2000" and "Alinity m" platforms levitra 20mg half life.

Abbott has levitra 20mg half life called the latter its "most advanced laboratory molecular instrument." And the pandemic has helped the company roll it out to customers.CEO Robert Ford recently told analysts he's looking to expand capacity for the system, which could "get a really nice jump-start here in terms of its launch with the COVID test."Abbott this month launched its seventh COVID test, which is designed to show whether patients recently were exposed to the novel coronavirus based on infection-fighting antibodies in their blood. Ford has said he expects demand for antibody testing to continue as a way to assess vaccine-related immune response, but doctors and analysts question the usefulness of such tests.Medical devices, Abbott's biggest business at 38% of total sales, plunged 21% in the second quarter. A sharp decline in elective procedures at hospitals overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients hurt sales of pacemakers, catheters and some devices used to levitra 20mg half life manage chronic pain. A bright spot in medical devices has been Abbott's FreeStyle Libre continuous glucose monitoring system for diabetics, sales of which grew nearly 50% to $1.2 billion in the first half of the year.Abbott's branded generic drug sales fell more than 8% in the quarter as coronavirus spread in emerging markets like Russia, Brazil and Columbia—which represent the most attractive long-term growth opportunities for the business unit.Sales were flat in Abbott's nutritionals business, which makes infant formula levitra 20mg half life under brands like Pediasure and Similac and adult nutritional drinks like Ensure. Abbott blamed declining birth rates in China, a key nutritionals market."The market conditions are shifting there a little bit, and we're continuing to be as competitive as we can there with our new product launches," Ford said on Abbott's second-quarter earnings call.

"We'll see that dynamic play out a little bit here in the next quarter or so, until we can get some of our new launches rolled out."But growth in the segment could continue to slow if the pandemic-fueled recession causes birth rates to drop further.Ford, who succeeded longtime Abbott CEO Miles White in April, sounded an upbeat note on near-term prospects for Abbott's broader levitra 20mg half life portfolio. The company expects full-year 2020 adjusted earnings per share of at least $3.25, a levitra 20mg half life decline of 1 cent from 2019 but better than the $2.91 Wall Street was predicting before the earnings call."As we progressed through the quarter, we saw steady improvements in both testing and procedure volumes across our hospital-based businesses," Ford said. "At the same time, our more consumer-facing businesses, which include diabetes care, nutrition and established pharmaceuticals, continued to be resilient in this environment."This article first appeared in sister publication Crain's Chicago Business.In Episode #10 of Next Up, Northwell Health CEO Michael Dowling talks about his new book, Leading Through a Pandemic. The Inside Story of Humanity, Innovation, and Lessons Learned During the COVID-19 levitra 20mg half life Crisis. The book shares details of how the levitra 20mg half life clinical and administrative teams at the New York-based private system prepared years in advance and stepped up during the height of the pandemic.

They treated nearly 100,000 COVID-19 patients. Being the CEO of a health system in the city’s epicenter of the pandemic has levitra 20mg half life led to some lessons that are non-negotiable take-home messages for other health systems across the country.For a transcript of this podcast, read here.A federal appeals court has upheld a decades-old Kentucky law requiring abortion clinics to have written agreements with a hospital and an ambulance service in case of medical emergencies.The 2-1 decision by the 6th U.S. Court of levitra 20mg half life Appeals reverses a federal judge's ruling, who had said the 1998 Kentucky law violated constitutionally protected due process rights. However, in Friday's ruling, the appeals court rejected that argument and countered the "district court erred in concluding that Kentucky would be left without an abortion facility."In 2017, EMW Women's Surgical Center — the state's only clinic that provided abortions at the time — decided to challenge the state law after becoming embroiled in a licensing fight with then Gov. Matt Bevin levitra 20mg half life.

The Republican's administration had claimed the clinic levitra 20mg half life lacked proper transfer agreements and took steps to shut it down.Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky later joined the suit, claiming Bevin's administration had used the transfer agreements to block its request for a license to provide abortions in Louisville.Critics of the law claimed such licensing requirements were designed to give the state a reason to ban abortions. Supporters said the law bolstered patient safety.The two clinics have since been allowed to provide abortions after Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, who supports abortion levitra 20mg half life rights, took office in late 2019.According to the 73-page ruling, the appeals court rejected the clinics' argument their facilities were in jeopardy of closing because the Kentucky law allows clinics to apply for a 90-day waiver if they are denied a licensing agreement. Facilities could theoretically reapply for the waiver every quarter and thus be allowed to continue to operate, the justices argued."(We) must presume that the Inspector General will consider waiver applications in good faith and will not act levitra 20mg half life 'simply to make it more difficult for (women) to obtain an abortion,'" the ruling stated."EMW and Planned Parenthood have failed to make a clear showing that both of their abortion facilities would close if (the laws) go into effect," the justices continued.The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, which had represented the clinics in the case, said Friday's ruling would result in health care providers being subject to "needless red tape.""Abortion providers should not have to jump through medically irrelevant hoops to keep their clinic doors open. We will continue to fight to make sure that people are able to get the care they need," said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project.

Meanwhile, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron praised the appeals court's decision."The Sixth Circuit's ruling keeps in place levitra 20mg half life an important Kentucky law for protecting the health and safety of patients by finding that Planned Parenthood and EMW failed to prove that they could not comply with the statute and regulation," Cameron said in a statement. Kentucky is one of many levitra 20mg half life Republican-dominated states seeking to enact restrictions on abortion as conservatives take aim at the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. That fight has become reenergized as the GOP-controlled Senate is poised to lock a 6-3 conservative court majority with the appointment of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.Antibiotic-resistant bacteria could get stung by a new development—antibiotics developed with wasp venom.Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine tinkered with a highly toxic protein in wasp venom to help it target bacteria while reducing its damage to human cells.“Novel antibiotics are urgently needed to combat multidrug-resistant pathogens. We think that venom-derived molecules … are going to be a valuable source of new antibiotics,” study senior author César de la Fuente, an assistant professor at Penn, said in a news release.The levitra 20mg half life study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tells how de la Fuente and his team worked with a peptide called mastoparan-L, an essential part of the venom of Korean yellow-jacket wasps. Their stings usually aren’t dangerous for levitra 20mg half life humans.

But the venom can destroy red blood cells and produce anaphylaxis in those who are allergic or otherwise susceptible.But the peptide poses another danger. To bacteria.The researchers replaced the part of the peptide believed to be more toxic to humans with the levitra 20mg half life one associated with antibacterial action, creating a molecule called mastoparan-MO, or mast-MO.Mice infected with sepsis-inducing strains of bacteria were treated with mast-MO, with 80% surviving. €œVenoms represent previously untapped sources of novel drugs,” the researchers wrote..

(AP) — Rural Jerauld County in South cheapest place to buy levitra Dakota didn't see a single case http://cz.keimfarben.de/buy-vardenafil-levitra/ of the coronavirus for more than two months stretching from June to August. But over the last two weeks, its rate of new cases per person soared cheapest place to buy levitra to one of the highest in the nation."All of a sudden it hit, and as it does, it just exploded," said Dr. Tom Dean, one of just three doctors who work in the county.As the brunt of the virus has blown into the Upper Midwest and northern Plains, the severity of outbreaks in rural communities has come into focus. Doctors and health officials in small towns worry cheapest place to buy levitra that infections may overwhelm communities with limited medical resources.

And many say they are still running up against attitudes on cheapest place to buy levitra wearing masks that have hardened along political lines and a false notion that rural areas are immune to widespread infections.Dean took to writing a column in the local weekly newspaper, the True Dakotan, to offer his guidance. In recent weeks, he's watched as one in roughly every 37 people in his county has tested positive for the virus. It ripped through the nursing home cheapest place to buy levitra in Wessington Springs where both his parents lived, killing his father. The community's six deaths may appear minimal compared with thousands who have died in cities, but cheapest place to buy levitra they have propelled the county of about 2,000 people to a death rate roughly four times higher than the nationwide rate.Rural counties across Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana sit among the top in the nation for new cases per capita over the last two weeks, according to Johns Hopkins University researchers.

Overall, the nation topped 8 million confirmed coronavirus cases in the university's count on Friday. The true number of infections is believed to be much higher because many people have not been cheapest place to buy levitra tested. In counties with just a few thousand people, the number of cases per capita can soar with even a small outbreak — and the toll hits close to home in tight-knit towns."One or two people with infections can really cause a large impact when you have one grocery store or gas station," said Misty Rudebusch, the medical director at a network of rural health clinics in cheapest place to buy levitra South Dakota called Horizon Health Care. "There is such a ripple effect."Wessington Springs is a hub for the generations of farmers and ranchers that work the surrounding land.

Residents send their children to the same schoolhouse they attended and have preserved cultural offerings like a Shakespeare garden and opera cheapest place to buy levitra house.They trust Dean, who for 42 years has tended to everything from broken bones to high blood pressure. When a cheapest place to buy levitra patient needs a higher level of care, the family physician usually depends on a transfer to a hospital 130 miles (209 kilometers) away.As cases surge, hospitals in rural communities are having trouble finding beds. A recent request to transfer a "not desperately ill, but pretty" sick COVID-19 patient was denied for several days, until the patient's condition had worsened, Dean said."We're proud of what we got, but it's been a struggle," he said of the 16-bed hospital.The outbreak that killed Dean's dad forced Wessington Springs' only nursing home to put out a statewide request for nurses.Thin resources and high death rates have plagued other small communities. Blair Tomsheck, interim director of the health department in Toole County, Montana, worried that the region's small hospitals would need to start caring for serious COVID-19 patients after cases spiked to the nation's highest per cheapest place to buy levitra capita.

One out of every 28 cheapest place to buy levitra people in the county has tested positive in the last two weeks, according to Johns Hopkins researchers."It's very, very challenging when your resources are poor — living in a small, rural county," she said.Infections can also spread quickly in places like Toole County, where most everyone shops at the same grocery store, attends the same school or worships at a handful of churches. "The Sunday family dinners are killing us," Tomsheck said.Even as outbreaks threaten to spiral out of control, doctors and health officials said they are struggling to convince people of the seriousness of a virus that took months to arrive in force."It's kind of like getting a blizzard warning and then the blizzard doesn't hit that week, so then the next time, people say they are not going to worry about it," said Kathleen Taylor, a 67-year-old author who lives in Redfield, South Dakota.In swaths of the country decorated by flags supporting President Donald Trump, people took their cues on wearing masks from his often-cavalier attitude towards the virus. Dean draws a direct connection between Trump's approach and the lack of precautions in his town of 956 people."There's the foolish idea cheapest place to buy levitra that mask-wearing or refusal is some kind of a political statement," Dean said. "It has seriously interfered with our ability to get it under cheapest place to buy levitra control."Even amid the surge, Republican governors in the region have been reluctant to act.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum cheapest place to buy levitra said recently, "We are caught in the middle of a COVID storm" as he raised advisory risk levels in counties across the state. But he has refused to issue cheapest place to buy levitra a mask mandate.South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who has carved out a reputation among conservatives by foregoing lockdowns, blamed the surge in cases on testing increases, even though the state has had the highest positivity rate in the nation over the last two weeks, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Positivity rates are an indication of how widespread infections cheapest place to buy levitra are.In Wisconsin, conservative groups have sued over Democratic Gov. Tony Evers mask mandate.Whether the requirement survives doesn't matter to Jody Bierhals, a resident of Gillett who doubts the cheapest place to buy levitra efficacy of wearing a mask. Her home county of Oconto, which stretches from the northern border of Green Bay into forests and farmland, has the state's second-highest growth in coronavirus cases per person.Bierhals, a single mother with three kids, is more worried about the drop in business at her small salon. The region depends on tourists, but many have stayed away cheapest place to buy levitra during the pandemic."Do I want to keep the water on, or do I want to be able to put food on the table?.

" she asked cheapest place to buy levitra. "It's a difficult situation."Bierhals said she thought the virus couldn't be stopped and it would be best to let it run its course. But local attitudes like that have left the county's health officer, Debra Koniter, desperate.Konitzer warned that the uncontrolled spread of infections has overwhelmed the county's health cheapest place to buy levitra systems."I'm just waiting to see if our community can change our behavior," she said. "Otherwise, I don't see the end in sight."Strong demand for cheapest place to buy levitra novel coronavirus tests is propping up Abbott Laboratories, obscuring downturns in the company's other business segments.Without surging sales of COVID-19 tests, the North Chicago medical device maker's 8% second-quarter revenue decline would have been twice as bad.

Sales are down sharply in the company's medical device and drug businesses, and flat in its nutritionals unit.Even so, COVID test sales lifted Abbott earnings past Wall Street estimates in the second quarter, helping its shares defy a tough market for medical stocks. Abbott stock is up 23% this year, compared to a 5% decline for a Wall Street Journal index of health care and cheapest place to buy levitra life sciences shares.But COVID tests can't carry Abbott forever. Test sales will likely level off when a vaccine becomes widely available, pushing the company's other businesses into the cheapest place to buy levitra http://cz.keimfarben.de/cheapest-place-to-buy-levitra/ spotlight. If they're still lagging, Abbott's overall performance will worsen."We expect there's going to be widespread vaccines available in the first half of 2021, in which case, in the second half of 2021, there's probably going to be diminishing demand for a lot of the COVID-19 testing," Morningstar analyst Debbie Wang says.Abbott's third-quarter earnings report on Oct.

21 will provide fresh data on trends in cheapest place to buy levitra the business units that have been hurt by the novel coronavirus. That data may also test investors' willingness to continue forgiving underperformance in nearly three-quarters of Abbott's business.COVID-19 tests that detect current and recent COVID-19 infections have been responsible for 5% cheapest place to buy levitra growth in Abbott's diagnostics business, which accounts for 24% of the company's $32 billion in annual revenue. Sales of other diagnostics products have been down during the pandemic amid lower patient volumes.Total sales of COVID tests are expected to reach at least $2 billion this year, William Blair analyst Margaret Kaczor wrote in a recent report. Most are molecular diagnostic cheapest place to buy levitra tests run on the company's "m2000" and "Alinity m" platforms.

Abbott has called the latter its "most advanced laboratory molecular instrument." And the pandemic has helped the company roll it out to customers.CEO Robert Ford recently told analysts he's looking to expand capacity for the system, which could "get a really nice jump-start here in terms of its launch with the COVID test."Abbott this month launched its seventh COVID test, which is designed to show cheapest place to buy levitra whether patients recently were exposed to the novel coronavirus based on infection-fighting antibodies in their blood. Ford has said he expects demand for antibody testing to continue as a way to assess vaccine-related immune response, but doctors and analysts question the usefulness of such tests.Medical devices, Abbott's biggest business at 38% of total sales, plunged 21% in the second quarter. A sharp decline in elective procedures at hospitals overwhelmed by COVID-19 cheapest place to buy levitra patients hurt sales of pacemakers, catheters and some devices used to manage chronic pain. A bright spot in medical devices cheapest place to buy levitra has been Abbott's FreeStyle Libre continuous glucose monitoring system for diabetics, sales of which grew nearly 50% to $1.2 billion in the first half of the year.Abbott's branded generic drug sales fell more than 8% in the quarter as coronavirus spread in emerging markets like Russia, Brazil and Columbia—which represent the most attractive long-term growth opportunities for the business unit.Sales were flat in Abbott's nutritionals business, which makes infant formula under brands like Pediasure and Similac and adult nutritional drinks like Ensure.

Abbott blamed declining birth rates in China, a key nutritionals market."The market conditions are shifting there a little bit, and we're continuing to be as competitive as we can there with our new product launches," Ford said on Abbott's second-quarter earnings call. "We'll see cheapest place to buy levitra that dynamic play out a little bit here in the next quarter or so, until we can get some of our new launches rolled out."But growth in the segment could continue to slow if the pandemic-fueled recession causes birth rates to drop further.Ford, who succeeded longtime Abbott CEO Miles White in April, sounded an upbeat note on near-term prospects for Abbott's broader portfolio. The company cheapest place to buy levitra expects full-year 2020 adjusted earnings per share of at least $3.25, a decline of 1 cent from 2019 but better than the $2.91 Wall Street was predicting before the earnings call."As we progressed through the quarter, we saw steady improvements in both testing and procedure volumes across our hospital-based businesses," Ford said. "At the same time, our more consumer-facing businesses, which include diabetes care, nutrition and established pharmaceuticals, continued to be resilient in this environment."This article first appeared in sister publication Crain's Chicago Business.In Episode #10 of Next Up, Northwell Health CEO Michael Dowling talks about his new book, Leading Through a Pandemic.

The Inside Story of cheapest place to buy levitra Humanity, Innovation, and Lessons Learned During the COVID-19 Crisis. The book shares details of how the clinical and administrative teams cheapest place to buy levitra at the New York-based private system prepared years in advance and stepped up during the height of the pandemic. They treated nearly 100,000 COVID-19 patients. Being the CEO of a health system in the city’s epicenter of the pandemic has led to some lessons that are non-negotiable take-home messages for other health systems across the country.For a transcript of this podcast, read here.A federal appeals court cheapest place to buy levitra has upheld a decades-old Kentucky law requiring abortion clinics to have written agreements with a hospital and an ambulance service in case of medical emergencies.The 2-1 decision by the 6th U.S.

Court of Appeals reverses a federal cheapest place to buy levitra judge's ruling, who had said the 1998 Kentucky law violated constitutionally protected due process rights. However, in Friday's ruling, the appeals court rejected that argument and countered the "district court erred in concluding that Kentucky would be left without an abortion facility."In 2017, EMW Women's Surgical Center — the state's only clinic that provided abortions at the time — decided to challenge the state law after becoming embroiled in a licensing fight with then Gov. Matt Bevin cheapest place to buy levitra. The Republican's administration had claimed the clinic lacked proper transfer agreements and took steps to shut it down.Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky later joined the suit, claiming Bevin's administration had used the cheapest place to buy levitra transfer agreements to block its request for a license to provide abortions in Louisville.Critics of the law claimed such licensing requirements were designed to give the state a reason to ban abortions.

Supporters said the law bolstered patient safety.The two clinics have since been allowed to provide abortions after Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, who supports abortion rights, took office cheapest place to buy levitra in late 2019.According to the 73-page ruling, the appeals court rejected the clinics' argument their facilities were in jeopardy of closing because the Kentucky law allows clinics to apply for a 90-day waiver if they are denied a licensing agreement. Facilities could theoretically reapply for the waiver every quarter and thus be allowed to continue cheapest place to buy levitra to operate, the justices argued."(We) must presume that the Inspector General will consider waiver applications in good faith and will not act 'simply to make it more difficult for (women) to obtain an abortion,'" the ruling stated."EMW and Planned Parenthood have failed to make a clear showing that both of their abortion facilities would close if (the laws) go into effect," the justices continued.The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, which had represented the clinics in the case, said Friday's ruling would result in health care providers being subject to "needless red tape.""Abortion providers should not have to jump through medically irrelevant hoops to keep their clinic doors open. We will continue to fight to make sure that people are able to get the care they need," said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project.

Meanwhile, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron praised the appeals court's decision."The Sixth Circuit's ruling keeps in place an important Kentucky law for protecting the health and safety of patients cheapest place to buy levitra by finding that Planned Parenthood and EMW failed to prove that they could not comply with the statute and regulation," Cameron said in a statement. Kentucky is one cheapest place to buy levitra of many Republican-dominated states seeking to enact restrictions on abortion as conservatives take aim at the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. That fight has become reenergized as the GOP-controlled Senate is poised to lock a 6-3 conservative court majority with the appointment of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.Antibiotic-resistant bacteria could get stung by a new development—antibiotics developed with wasp venom.Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine tinkered with a highly toxic protein in wasp venom to help it target bacteria while reducing its damage to human cells.“Novel antibiotics are urgently needed to combat multidrug-resistant pathogens. We think that venom-derived molecules … are going to be a valuable source cheapest place to buy levitra of new antibiotics,” study senior author César de la Fuente, an assistant professor at Penn, said in a news release.The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tells how de la Fuente and his team worked with a peptide called mastoparan-L, an essential part of the venom of Korean yellow-jacket wasps.

Their stings cheapest place to buy levitra usually aren’t dangerous for humans. But the venom can destroy red blood cells and produce anaphylaxis in those who are allergic or otherwise susceptible.But the peptide poses another danger. To bacteria.The researchers replaced the part of the peptide believed to be more toxic to humans with the one associated with antibacterial action, cheapest place to buy levitra creating a molecule called mastoparan-MO, or mast-MO.Mice infected with sepsis-inducing strains of bacteria were treated with mast-MO, with 80% surviving. €œVenoms represent previously untapped sources of novel drugs,” the researchers wrote..

Levitra skroutz

NONE

SALT LAKE buy cheap generic levitra online CITY, Sept levitra skroutz. 09, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Health Catalyst, Inc. ("Health Catalyst", levitra skroutz Nasdaq. HCAT), a leading provider of data and analytics technology and services to healthcare organizations, today announced that Patrick Nelli, Chief Financial Officer, and Adam Brown, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations, will participate in the 2020 Cantor Global Virtual Healthcare Conference on Tuesday, September 15, 2020, which will include a fireside chat presentation at 1:20 p.m.

ET. A live audio webcast and replay of this presentation will be available at https://ir.healthcatalyst.com/investor-relations.About Health CatalystHealth Catalyst is a leading provider of data and analytics technology and services to healthcare organizations committed to being the catalyst for massive, measurable, data-informed healthcare improvement. Its customers leverage the cloud-based data platform—powered by data from more than 100 million patient records and encompassing trillions of facts—as well as its analytics software and professional services expertise to make data-informed decisions and realize measurable clinical, financial, and operational improvements. Health Catalyst envisions a future in which all healthcare decisions are data informed.Health Catalyst Investor Relations Contact:Adam BrownSenior Vice President, Investor Relations+1 (855)-309-6800ir@healthcatalyst.comHealth Catalyst Media Contact:Kristen BerryVice President, Public Relations+1 (617) 234-4123+1 (774) 573-0455 (m)kberry@we-worldwide.com Source.

Health Catalyst, Inc.SALT LAKE CITY, Sept. 8, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Health Catalyst, Inc. ("Health Catalyst," Nasdaq. HCAT), a leading provider of data and analytics technology and services to healthcare organizations, today announced that it has completed its seventh annual and first ever virtual Healthcare Analytics Summit (HAS), with record registration of more than 3,500 attendees.

Keynotes included Dr. Amy Abernethy, Principal Deputy Commissioner and Acting CIO of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Michael Dowling, CEO of Northwell Health, Vice Admiral Raquel Bono, MD, and many others. Other business updates include:The Vitalware, LLC ("VitalWare"), transaction has closed, and integration is underway of the Yakima, Washington-based provider of revenue workflow optimization and analytics SaaS technology solutions for health organizations.

This is another example of Health Catalyst's ability to scale software on top of its cloud-based Data Operating System (DOS™). DOS will further enhance the analytics insights made available by Vitalware's technology by combining charge and revenue data with claims, cost, and quality data. Vitalware's flagship offering is a Best in KLAS chargemaster management solution that delivers results for the complex regulatory and compliance functions needed by all healthcare provider systems. "As announced on August 11, 2020, we entered into an acquisition agreement to acquire Vitalware and expected to close the acquisition in Q3 or Q4 of 2020.

We are pleased to announce that we closed the acquisition on September 1, 2020. We are thrilled to formalize the combination of our solutions for the benefit of our customers and the industry," said CEO Dan Burton. On its upcoming Q3 2020 earnings call, Health Catalyst will share the impact of Vitalware on its Q3 2020 financial performance, which will not be significant given the timing of the acquisition, as well as update its full year 2020 guidance to include the impact of Vitalware. Health Catalyst Co-Founder Steve Barlow has returned from his three-year full-time volunteer mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, having served as Mission President of the Ecuador Quito Mission.

He has rejoined Health Catalyst's companywide Leadership Team as a Senior Vice President, responsible for some of the company's largest customer relationships. Dan Burton said, "We couldn't be more excited about Steve's return to Health Catalyst. His energy, dedication and commitment to transforming healthcare launched our journey and will continue to make us better and stronger. Steve is leading and overseeing all aspects of our partnerships with some of our largest and longest-standing customers.

Steve's extraordinary experience and capability enable him to be a critical partner and leader in enabling these customers' continued improvement and success." "My experience over the past three years in Ecuador reinforced for me how fortunate I am to be in a country with high-quality healthcare," said Barlow. "It has been invigorating to return to Health Catalyst and witness the incredible growth and expansion that has occurred over the past few years. We are better positioned than ever before to achieve our mission of being the catalyst for massive, measurable, data-informed healthcare improvement. I am grateful to be reunited with our longstanding team members and customers, and I'm thrilled to get to know and work alongside our new customers and teammates in this critical work." Effective October 1, 2020, Chief Technology Officer Dale Sanders will be transitioning to a Senior Advisor role with Health Catalyst, and the company is pleased to announce that one of Dale's longtime protégés and colleagues, Bryan Hinton, will serve as Health Catalyst's next Chief Technology Officer.

Hinton joined Health Catalyst in 2012 and currently serves as the Senior Vice President and General Manager of the DOS Platform Business. He will continue to lead this business in addition to assuming the responsibilities of CTO. He has been instrumental in the development and integration of DOS and has been working directly with Dale and other technology leaders at Health Catalyst for many years. His experience prior to joining Health Catalyst includes four years with the .NET Development Center of Excellence at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, where he established the architectural guidance of all .NET projects.

Previously, at Intel, he was responsible for the development and implementation of Intel's factory data warehouse product installed at Intel global factories. Hinton graduated from Brigham Young University with a BS in Computer Science. "Dale has been central to Health Catalyst's growth and success and we are grateful to him for his many years of service to our company and to the broader healthcare industry," said Dan Burton, CEO of Health Catalyst. "Thanks to Dale's vision, passion, innovative thinking and broad-based industry experience and perspective, Health Catalyst has grown from a handful of clients to a large number of organizations relying on us as their digital transformation partner, helping the healthcare ecosystem to constantly learn and improve.

Dale's technology leadership was critical to the company's overall maturation, and I am convinced that we could not have grown and scaled as we have without Dale's foundational leadership and contributions. We are grateful to continue our association with Dale in the months and years ahead in his next role as a Senior Advisor to the company." Burton added, "We are thrilled to see Bryan Hinton take on this added role after having demonstrated his technology leadership prowess during the course of his tenure at Health Catalyst and having been mentored by Dale for many years. Bryan is well-prepared and ready for this additional responsibility, and we extend our congratulations to him." "I feel like a parent saying goodbye to my kids at their college graduation," said Dale Sanders. "Many of the concepts we first developed and applied over 20 years ago at Intermountain and then later refined during my tenure as CIO at Northwestern had a big influence on our technology and products at Health Catalyst.

The vision of the Data Operating System and its application ecosystem originated in the real-world healthcare operations and research trenches of Northwestern. At Health Catalyst, I had the wonderful opportunity to lead the teams who made that vision a reality for the benefit of the entire industry. None of it would have been possible without Bryan Hinton leading the DOS team and Eric Just and Dan Unger leading the application development teams. We've been working side-by-side for many years to make the vision real.

Bryan is the consummate modern CTO from outside of healthcare that healthcare needs. I've always described Eric as having a manufacturing engineer's mindset with a healthcare data and software engineer's skills, with Dan Unger leveraging his deep domain expertise in financial transformation to oversee the development of meaningful applications and solutions so relevant for CFOs. I'm honored and thrilled to step aside and turn the future over to their very capable hands. Under their leadership, the best is yet to come for Health Catalyst's technology." About Health CatalystHealth Catalyst is a leading provider of data and analytics technology and services to healthcare organizations, and is committed to being the catalyst for massive, measurable, data-informed healthcare improvement.

Its customers leverage the cloud-based data platform—powered by data from more than 100 million patient records and encompassing trillions of facts—as well as its analytics software and professional services expertise to make data-informed decisions and realize measurable clinical, financial and operational improvements. Health Catalyst envisions a future in which all healthcare decisions are data informed.Health Catalyst Media Contact:Kristen BerrySenior Vice President, Public Relations+1 (617) 234-4123HealthCatalyst@we-worldwide.com View original content to download multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/health-catalyst-completes-hosting-of-the-largest-ever-healthcare-analytics-summit-and-announces-the-close-of-the-vitalware-acquisition-301125125.htmlSOURCE Health Catalyst.

SALT LAKE cheapest place to buy levitra CITY, click now Sept. 09, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Health Catalyst, Inc. ("Health Catalyst", cheapest place to buy levitra Nasdaq. HCAT), a leading provider of data and analytics technology and services to healthcare organizations, today announced that Patrick Nelli, Chief Financial Officer, and Adam Brown, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations, will participate in the 2020 Cantor Global Virtual Healthcare Conference on Tuesday, September 15, 2020, which will include a fireside chat presentation at 1:20 p.m.

ET. A live audio webcast and replay of this presentation will be available at https://ir.healthcatalyst.com/investor-relations.About Health CatalystHealth Catalyst is a leading provider of data and analytics technology and services to healthcare organizations committed to being the catalyst for massive, measurable, data-informed healthcare improvement. Its customers leverage the cloud-based data platform—powered by data from more than 100 million patient records and encompassing trillions of facts—as well as its analytics software and professional services expertise to make data-informed decisions and realize measurable clinical, financial, and operational improvements. Health Catalyst envisions a future in which all healthcare decisions are data informed.Health Catalyst Investor Relations Contact:Adam BrownSenior Vice President, Investor Relations+1 (855)-309-6800ir@healthcatalyst.comHealth Catalyst Media Contact:Kristen BerryVice President, Public Relations+1 (617) 234-4123+1 (774) 573-0455 (m)kberry@we-worldwide.com Source.

Health Catalyst, Inc.SALT LAKE CITY, Sept. 8, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Health Catalyst, Inc. ("Health Catalyst," Nasdaq. HCAT), a leading provider of data and analytics technology and services to healthcare organizations, today announced that it has completed its seventh annual and first ever virtual Healthcare Analytics Summit (HAS), with record registration of more than 3,500 attendees.

Keynotes included Dr. Amy Abernethy, Principal Deputy Commissioner and Acting CIO of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Michael Dowling, CEO of Northwell Health, Vice Admiral Raquel Bono, MD, and many others. Other business updates include:The Vitalware, LLC ("VitalWare"), transaction has closed, and integration is underway of the Yakima, Washington-based provider of revenue workflow optimization and analytics SaaS technology solutions for health organizations.

This is another example of Health Catalyst's ability to scale software on top of its cloud-based Data Operating System (DOS™). DOS will further enhance the analytics insights made available by Vitalware's technology by combining charge and revenue data with claims, cost, and quality data. Vitalware's flagship offering is a Best in KLAS chargemaster management solution that delivers results for the complex regulatory and compliance functions needed by all healthcare provider systems. "As announced on August 11, 2020, we entered into an acquisition agreement to acquire Vitalware and expected to close the acquisition in Q3 or Q4 of 2020.

We are pleased to announce that we closed the acquisition on September 1, 2020. We are thrilled to formalize the combination of our solutions for the benefit of our customers and the industry," said CEO Dan Burton. On its upcoming Q3 2020 earnings call, Health Catalyst will share the impact of Vitalware on its Q3 2020 financial performance, which will not be significant given the timing of the acquisition, as well as update its full year 2020 guidance to include the impact of Vitalware. Health Catalyst Co-Founder Steve Barlow has returned from his three-year full-time volunteer mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, having served as Mission President of the Ecuador Quito Mission.

He has rejoined Health Catalyst's companywide Leadership Team as a Senior Vice President, responsible for some of the company's largest customer relationships. Dan Burton said, "We couldn't be more excited about Steve's return to Health Catalyst. His energy, dedication and commitment to transforming healthcare launched our journey and will continue to make us better and stronger. Steve is leading and overseeing all aspects of our partnerships with some of our largest and get redirected here longest-standing customers.

Steve's extraordinary experience and capability enable him to be a critical partner and leader in enabling these customers' continued improvement and success." "My experience over the past three years in Ecuador reinforced for me how fortunate I am to be in a country with high-quality healthcare," said Barlow. "It has been invigorating to return to Health Catalyst and witness the incredible growth and expansion that has occurred over the past few years. We are better positioned than ever before to achieve our mission of being the catalyst for massive, measurable, data-informed healthcare improvement. I am grateful to be reunited with our longstanding team members and customers, and I'm thrilled to get to know and work alongside our new customers and teammates in this critical work." Effective October 1, 2020, Chief Technology Officer Dale Sanders will be transitioning to a Senior Advisor role with Health Catalyst, and the company is pleased to announce that one of Dale's longtime protégés and colleagues, Bryan Hinton, will serve as Health Catalyst's next Chief Technology Officer.

Hinton joined Health Catalyst in 2012 and currently serves as the Senior Vice President and General Manager of the DOS Platform Business. He will continue to lead this business in addition to assuming the responsibilities of CTO. He has been instrumental in the development and integration of DOS and has been working directly with Dale and other technology leaders at Health Catalyst for many years. His experience prior to joining Health Catalyst includes four years with the .NET Development Center of Excellence at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, where he established the architectural guidance of all .NET projects.

Previously, at Intel, he was responsible for the development and implementation of Intel's factory data warehouse product installed at Intel global factories. Hinton graduated from Brigham Young University with a BS in Computer Science. "Dale has been central to Health Catalyst's growth and success and we are grateful to him for his many years of service to our company and to the broader healthcare industry," said Dan Burton, CEO of Health Catalyst. "Thanks to Dale's vision, passion, innovative thinking and broad-based industry experience and perspective, Health Catalyst has grown from a handful of clients to a large number of organizations relying on us as their digital transformation partner, helping the healthcare ecosystem to constantly learn and improve.

Dale's technology leadership was critical to the company's overall maturation, and I am convinced that we could not have grown and scaled as we have without Dale's foundational leadership and contributions. We are grateful to continue our association with Dale in the months and years ahead in his next role as a Senior Advisor to the company." Burton added, "We are thrilled to see Bryan Hinton take on this added role after having demonstrated his technology leadership prowess during the course of his tenure at Health Catalyst and having been mentored by Dale for many years. Bryan is well-prepared and ready for this additional responsibility, and we extend our congratulations to him." "I feel like a parent saying goodbye to my kids at their college graduation," said Dale Sanders. "Many of the concepts we first developed and applied over 20 years ago at Intermountain and then later refined during my tenure as CIO at Northwestern had a big influence on our technology and products at Health Catalyst.

The vision of the Data Operating System and its application ecosystem originated in the real-world healthcare operations and research trenches of Northwestern. At Health Catalyst, I had the wonderful opportunity to lead the teams who made that vision a reality for the benefit of the entire industry. None of it would have been possible without Bryan Hinton leading the DOS team and Eric Just and Dan Unger leading the application development teams. We've been working side-by-side for many years to make the vision real.

Bryan is the consummate modern CTO from outside of healthcare that healthcare needs. I've always described Eric as having a manufacturing engineer's mindset with a healthcare data and software engineer's skills, with Dan Unger leveraging his deep domain expertise in financial transformation to oversee the development of meaningful applications and solutions so relevant for CFOs. I'm honored and thrilled to step aside and turn the future over to their very capable hands. Under their leadership, the best is yet to come for Health Catalyst's technology." About Health CatalystHealth Catalyst is a leading provider of data and analytics technology and services to healthcare organizations, and is committed to being the catalyst for massive, measurable, data-informed healthcare improvement.

Its customers leverage the cloud-based data platform—powered by data from more than 100 million patient records and encompassing trillions of facts—as well as its analytics software and professional services expertise to make data-informed decisions and realize measurable clinical, financial and operational improvements. Health Catalyst envisions a future in which all healthcare decisions are data informed.Health Catalyst Media Contact:Kristen BerrySenior Vice President, Public Relations+1 (617) 234-4123HealthCatalyst@we-worldwide.com View original content to download multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/health-catalyst-completes-hosting-of-the-largest-ever-healthcare-analytics-summit-and-announces-the-close-of-the-vitalware-acquisition-301125125.htmlSOURCE Health Catalyst.

Levitra professional pills

NONE

Trial Population levitra professional pills Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants in levitra professional pills the mRNA-1273 Trial at Enrollment. The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig. S1).

Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected Covid-19 while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending. All continued to attend scheduled trial visits. The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1. Vaccine Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met. As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination.

Figure 1. Figure 1. Systemic and Local Adverse Events. The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2).

Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events. None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination. After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever. One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common.

Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site. Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3). SARS-CoV-2 Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2. Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens.

Figure 2. Figure 2. SARS-CoV-2 Antibody and Neutralization Responses. Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live virus PRNT80 responses (Panel D). In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively.

Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants. Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel. In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively.

Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR.

The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays. Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A). Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident. Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B). For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens.

The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]). SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination. After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50]. Figure 2C, Fig. S8, and Table 2.

80% inhibitory dilution [ID80]. Fig. S2 and Table S6). However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants. The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43.

The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43). These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens. Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-virus neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay. At day 43, wild-type virus–neutralizing activity capable of reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay.

Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs. S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273. SARS-CoV-2 T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs. S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >. Interleukin 2 >.

Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13). CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig. S11).Patients Figure 1. Figure 1. Enrollment and Randomization.

Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization. 541 were assigned to the remdesivir group and 522 to the placebo group (Figure 1). Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned. Forty-nine patients had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned.

Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2). As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients in the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died. Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. There were 132 patients in the remdesivir group and 169 in the placebo group who had not recovered and had not completed the day 29 follow-up visit. The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have at least some postbaseline data available (538 in the remdesivir group and 521 in the placebo group).

Four of the 1063 patients were not included in the primary analysis because no postbaseline data were available at the time of the database freeze. Table 1. Table 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean age of patients was 58.9 years, and 64.3% were male (Table 1).

On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of Covid-19 during the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, and 13.6% were designated as other or not reported. 249 (23.4%) were Hispanic or Latino. Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of days between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to 12).

Nine hundred forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix. 272 (25.6%) patients met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 (39.6%) category 5, and 127 (11.9%) category 4. There were 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group. Primary Outcome Figure 2.

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Cumulative Recoveries. Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen. Panel B), in those with a baseline score of 5 (receiving oxygen. Panel C), in those with a baseline score of 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

Panel D), and in those with a baseline score of 7 (receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO. Panel E). Table 2. Table 2. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population.

Figure 3. Figure 3. Time to Recovery According to Subgroup. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects. Race and ethnic group were reported by the patients.

Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 11 days, as compared with 15 days. Rate ratio for recovery, 1.32. 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients (Figure 2 and Table 2).

Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline score of 4 (127 patients) and those with a baseline score of 6 (197 patients), the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively. For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7. 272 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.42). A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant.

An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable was conducted to evaluate the overall effect (of the percentage of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome. This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31. 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54. 1017 patients). Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe.

Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57. 664 patients), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81. 380 patients) (Figure 3). Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.50. 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.91.

P=0.001. 844 patients) (Table 2 and Fig. S5). Mortality was numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04.

1059 patients). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients that had yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10). Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group and 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3).

4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients). Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group. No deaths were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4).

The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]). Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose level (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]).

Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.Announced on May 15, Operation Warp Speed (OWS) — a partnership of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the private sector — aims to accelerate control of the Covid-19 pandemic by advancing development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. OWS is providing support to promising candidates and enabling the expeditious, parallel execution of the necessary steps toward approval or authorization of safe products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The partnership grew out of an acknowledged need to fundamentally restructure the way the U.S. Government typically supports product development and vaccine distribution. The initiative was premised on setting a “stretch goal” — one that initially seemed impossible but that is becoming increasingly achievable.The concept of an integrated structure for Covid-19 countermeasure research and development across the U.S. Government was based on experience with Zika and the Zika Leadership Group led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the assistant secretary for preparedness and response (ASPR).

One of us (M.S.) serves as OWS chief advisor. We are drawing on expertise from the NIH, ASPR, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and the DOD, including the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. OWS has engaged experts in all critical aspects of medical countermeasure research, development, manufacturing, and distribution to work in close coordination.The initiative set ambitious objectives. To deliver tens of millions of doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine — with demonstrated safety and efficacy, and approved or authorized by the FDA for use in the U.S. Population — beginning at the end of 2020 and to have as many as 300 million doses of such vaccines available and deployed by mid-2021.

The pace and scope of such a vaccine effort are unprecedented. The 2014 West African Ebola virus epidemic spurred rapid vaccine development, but though preclinical data existed before the outbreak, a period of 12 months was required to progress from phase 1 first-in-human trials to phase 3 efficacy trials. OWS aims to compress this time frame even further. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development began in January, phase 1 clinical studies in March, and the first phase 3 trials in July. Our objectives are based on advances in vaccine platform technology, improved understanding of safe and efficacious vaccine design, and similarities between the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 disease mechanisms.OWS’s role is to enable, accelerate, harmonize, and advise the companies developing the selected vaccines.

The companies will execute the clinical or process development and manufacturing plans, while OWS leverages the full capacity of the U.S. Government to ensure that no technical, logistic, or financial hurdles hinder vaccine development or deployment.OWS selected vaccine candidates on the basis of four criteria. We required candidates to have robust preclinical data or early-stage clinical trial data supporting their potential for clinical safety and efficacy. Candidates had to have the potential, with our acceleration support, to enter large phase 3 field efficacy trials this summer or fall (July to November 2020) and, assuming continued active transmission of the virus, to deliver efficacy outcomes by the end of 2020 or the first half of 2021. Candidates had to be based on vaccine-platform technologies permitting fast and effective manufacturing, and their developers had to demonstrate the industrial process scalability, yields, and consistency necessary to reliably produce more than 100 million doses by mid-2021.

Finally, candidates had to use one of four vaccine-platform technologies that we believe are the most likely to yield a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19. The mRNA platform, the replication-defective live-vector platform, the recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein platform, or the attenuated replicating live-vector platform.OWS’s strategy relies on a few key principles. First, we sought to build a diverse project portfolio that includes two vaccine candidates based on each of the four platform technologies. Such diversification mitigates the risk of failure due to safety, efficacy, industrial manufacturability, or scheduling factors and may permit selection of the best vaccine platform for each subpopulation at risk for contracting or transmitting Covid-19, including older adults, frontline and essential workers, young adults, and pediatric populations. In addition, advancing eight vaccines in parallel will increase the chances of delivering 300 million doses in the first half of 2021.Second, we must accelerate vaccine program development without compromising safety, efficacy, or product quality.

Clinical development, process development, and manufacturing scale-up can be substantially accelerated by running all streams, fully resourced, in parallel. Doing so requires taking on substantial financial risk, as compared with the conventional sequential development approach. OWS will maximize the size of phase 3 trials (30,000 to 50,000 participants each) and optimize trial-site location by consulting daily epidemiologic and disease-forecasting models to ensure the fastest path to an efficacy readout. Such large trials also increase the safety data set for each candidate vaccine.With heavy up-front investment, companies can conduct clinical operations and site preparation for these phase 3 efficacy trials even as they file their Investigational New Drug application (IND) for their phase 1 studies, thereby ensuring immediate initiation of phase 3 when they get a green light from the FDA. To permit appropriate comparisons among the vaccine candidates and to optimize vaccine utilization after approval by the FDA, the phase 3 trial end points and assay readouts have been harmonized through a collaborative effort involving the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Coronavirus Prevention Network, OWS, and the sponsor companies.Finally, OWS is supporting the companies financially and technically to commence process development and scale up manufacturing while their vaccines are in preclinical or very early clinical stages.

To ensure that industrial processes are set, running, and validated for FDA inspection when phase 3 trials end, OWS is also supporting facility building or refurbishing, equipment fitting, staff hiring and training, raw-material sourcing, technology transfer and validation, bulk product processing into vials, and acquisition of ample vials, syringes, and needles for each vaccine candidate. We aim to have stockpiled, at OWS’s expense, a few tens of millions of vaccine doses that could be swiftly deployed once FDA approval is obtained.This strategy aims to accelerate vaccine development without curtailing the critical steps required by sound science and regulatory standards. The FDA recently reissued guidance and standards that will be used to assess each vaccine for a Biologics License Application (BLA). Alternatively, the agency could decide to issue an Emergency Use Authorization to permit vaccine administration before all BLA procedures are completed.Of the eight vaccines in OWS’s portfolio, six have been announced and partnerships executed with the companies. Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech (both mRNA), AstraZeneca and Janssen (both replication-defective live-vector), and Novavax and Sanofi/GSK (both recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein).

These candidates cover three of the four platform technologies and are currently in clinical trials. The remaining two candidates will enter trials soon.Moderna developed its RNA vaccine in collaboration with the NIAID, began its phase 1 trial in March, recently published encouraging safety and immunogenicity data,1 and entered phase 3 on July 27. Pfizer and BioNTech’s RNA vaccine also produced encouraging phase 1 results2 and started its phase 3 trial on July 27. The ChAdOx replication-defective live-vector vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University is in phase 3 trials in the United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Africa, and it should enter U.S. Phase 3 trials in August.3 The Janssen Ad26 Covid-19 replication-defective live-vector vaccine has demonstrated excellent protection in nonhuman primate models and began its U.S.

Phase 1 trial on July 27. It should be in phase 3 trials in mid-September. Novavax completed a phase 1 trial of its recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein vaccine in Australia and should enter phase 3 trials in the United States by the end of September.4 Sanofi/GSK is completing preclinical development steps and plans to commence a phase 1 trial in early September and to be well into phase 3 by year’s end.5On the process-development front, the RNA vaccines are already being manufactured at scale. The other candidates are well advanced in their scale-up development, and manufacturing sites are being refurbished.While development and manufacturing proceed, the HHS–DOD partnership is laying the groundwork for vaccine distribution, subpopulation prioritization, financing, and logistic support. We are working with bioethicists and experts from the NIH, the CDC, BARDA, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to address these critical issues.

We will receive recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and we are working to ensure that the most vulnerable and at-risk persons will receive vaccine doses once they are ready. Prioritization will also depend on the relative performance of each vaccine and its suitability for particular populations. Because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies.No scientific enterprise could guarantee success by January 2021, but the strategic decisions and choices we’ve made, the support the government has provided, and the accomplishments to date make us optimistic that we will succeed in this unprecedented endeavor.Trial Design and Oversight We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate postexposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine after exposure to Covid-19.12 We randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive either hydroxychloroquine or placebo. Participants had known exposure (by participant report) to a person with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19, whether as a household contact, a health care worker, or a person with other occupational exposures. Trial enrollment began on March 17, 2020, with an eligibility threshold to enroll within 3 days after exposure.

The objective was to intervene before the median incubation period of 5 to 6 days. Because of limited access to prompt testing, health care workers could initially be enrolled on the basis of presumptive high-risk exposure to patients with pending tests. However, on March 23, eligibility was changed to exposure to a person with a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay for SARS-CoV-2, with the eligibility window extended to within 4 days after exposure. This trial was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Minnesota and conducted under a Food and Drug Administration Investigational New Drug application. In Canada, the trial was approved by Health Canada.

Ethics approvals were obtained from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, the University of Manitoba, and the University of Alberta. Participants We included participants who had household or occupational exposure to a person with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Participants were excluded if they were younger than 18 years of age, were hospitalized, or met other exclusion criteria (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org). Persons with symptoms of Covid-19 or with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded from this prevention trial but were separately enrolled in a companion clinical trial to treat early infection. Setting Recruitment was performed primarily with the use of social media outreach as well as traditional media platforms.

Participants were enrolled nationwide in the United States and in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta. Participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.13 After participants read the consent form, their comprehension of its contents was assessed. Participants provided a digitally captured signature to indicate informed consent. We sent follow-up e-mail surveys on days 1, 5, 10, and 14. A survey at 4 to 6 weeks asked about any follow-up testing, illness, or hospitalizations.

Participants who did not respond to follow-up surveys received text messages, e-mails, telephone calls, or a combination of these to ascertain their outcomes. When these methods were unsuccessful, the emergency contact provided by the enrollee was contacted to determine the participant’s illness and vital status. When all communication methods were exhausted, Internet searches for obituaries were performed to ascertain vital status. Interventions Randomization occurred at research pharmacies in Minneapolis and Montreal. The trial statisticians generated a permuted-block randomization sequence using variably sized blocks of 2, 4, or 8, with stratification according to country.

A research pharmacist sequentially assigned participants. The assignments were concealed from investigators and participants. Only pharmacies had access to the randomization sequence. Hydroxychloroquine sulfate or placebo was dispensed and shipped overnight to participants by commercial courier. The dosing regimen for hydroxychloroquine was 800 mg (4 tablets) once, then 600 mg (3 tablets) 6 to 8 hours later, then 600 mg (3 tablets) daily for 4 more days for a total course of 5 days (19 tablets total).

If participants had gastrointestinal upset, they were advised to divide the daily dose into two or three doses. We chose this hydroxychloroquine dosing regimen on the basis of pharmacokinetic simulations to achieve plasma concentrations above the SARS-CoV-2 in vitro half maximal effective concentration for 14 days.14 Placebo folate tablets, which were similar in appearance to the hydroxychloroquine tablets, were prescribed as an identical regimen for the control group. Rising Pharmaceuticals provided a donation of hydroxychloroquine, and some hydroxychloroquine was purchased. Outcomes The primary outcome was prespecified as symptomatic illness confirmed by a positive molecular assay or, if testing was unavailable, Covid-19–related symptoms. We assumed that health care workers would have access to Covid-19 testing if symptomatic.

However, access to testing was limited throughout the trial period. Covid-19–related symptoms were based on U.S. Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists criteria for confirmed cases (positivity for SARS-Cov-2 on PCR assay), probable cases (the presence of cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing, or the presence of two or more symptoms of fever, chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, and new olfactory and taste disorders), and possible cases (the presence of one or more compatible symptoms, which could include diarrhea).15 All the participants had epidemiologic linkage,15 per trial eligibility criteria. Four infectious disease physicians who were unaware of the trial-group assignments reviewed symptomatic participants to generate a consensus with respect to whether their condition met the case definition.15 Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hospitalization for Covid-19 or death, the incidence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the incidence of Covid-19 symptoms, the incidence of discontinuation of the trial intervention owing to any cause, and the severity of symptoms (if any) at days 5 and 14 according to a visual analogue scale (scores ranged from 0 [no symptoms] to 10 [severe symptoms]). Data on adverse events were also collected with directed questioning for common side effects along with open-ended free text.

Outcome data were measured within 14 days after trial enrollment. Outcome data including PCR testing results, possible Covid-19–related symptoms, adherence to the trial intervention, side effects, and hospitalizations were all collected through participant report. Details of trial conduct are provided in the protocol and statistical analysis plan, available at NEJM.org. Sample Size We anticipated that illness compatible with Covid-19 would develop in 10% of close contacts exposed to Covid-19.9 Using Fisher’s exact method with a 50% relative effect size to reduce new symptomatic infections, a two-sided alpha of 0.05, and 90% power, we estimated that 621 persons would need to be enrolled in each group. With a pragmatic, Internet-based, self-referral recruitment strategy, we planned for a 20% incidence of attrition by increasing the sample size to 750 participants per group.

We specified a priori that participants who were already symptomatic on day 1 before receiving hydroxychloroquine or placebo would be excluded from the prophylaxis trial and would instead be separately enrolled in the companion symptomatic treatment trial. Because the estimates for both incident symptomatic Covid-19 after an exposure and loss to follow-up were relatively unknown in early March 2020,9 the protocol prespecified a sample-size reestimation at the second interim analysis. This reestimation, which used the incidence of new infections in the placebo group and the observed percentage of participants lost to follow-up, was aimed at maintaining the ability to detect an effect size of a 50% relative reduction in new symptomatic infections. Interim Analyses An independent data and safety monitoring board externally reviewed the data after 25% and 50% of the participants had completed 14 days of follow-up. Stopping guidelines were provided to the data and safety monitoring board with the use of a Lan–DeMets spending function analogue of the O’Brien–Fleming boundaries for the primary outcome.

A conditional power analysis was performed at the second and third interim analysis with the option of early stopping for futility. At the second interim analysis on April 22, 2020, the sample size was reduced to 956 participants who could be evaluated with 90% power on the basis of the higher-than-expected event rate of infections in the control group. At the third interim analysis on May 6, the trial was halted on the basis of a conditional power of less than 1%, since it was deemed futile to continue. Statistical Analysis We assessed the incidence of Covid-19 disease by day 14 with Fisher’s exact test. Secondary outcomes with respect to percentage of patients were also compared with Fisher’s exact test.

Among participants in whom incident illness compatible with Covid-19 developed, we summarized the symptom severity score at day 14 with the median and interquartile range and assessed the distributions with a Kruskal–Wallis test. We conducted all analyses with SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), according to the intention-to-treat principle, with two-sided type I error with an alpha of 0.05. For participants with missing outcome data, we conducted a sensitivity analysis with their outcomes excluded or included as an event. Subgroups that were specified a priori included type of contact (household vs. Health care), days from exposure to enrollment, age, and sex.Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network.

(Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor. Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, tocilizumab, or convalescent plasma. Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial. Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020. Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible.

Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients or from a legal representative if they were unable to provide consent. The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net. The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee.

The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in the preparation or approval of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan. Randomization We collected baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site. Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment. Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial.

For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated. These patients were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included in this report. The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician. Patients and local members of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments. Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first.

Information was recorded regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death). In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization. Further analyses were specified at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death.

Other prespecified clinical outcomes included cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and receipt and duration of ventilation. Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups. Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients. For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was used to estimate the mortality rate ratio.

Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the absence of any information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period. Cox regression was used to analyze the secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization. For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio.

Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support. Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1). To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years).

This adjustment was not specified in the first version of the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent. Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk. (One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest.

Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford..

Trial Population Table 1 cheapest place to buy levitra http://cz.keimfarben.de/cheapest-place-to-buy-levitra/. Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants in the mRNA-1273 Trial cheapest place to buy levitra at Enrollment. The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig. S1).

Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected Covid-19 while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending. All continued to attend scheduled trial visits. The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1. Vaccine Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met. As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination.

Figure 1. Figure 1. Systemic and Local Adverse Events. The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2).

Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events. None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination. After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever. One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common.

Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site. Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3). SARS-CoV-2 Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2. Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens.

Figure 2. Figure 2. SARS-CoV-2 Antibody and Neutralization Responses. Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live virus PRNT80 responses (Panel D). In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively.

Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants. Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel. In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively.

Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR.

The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays. Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A). Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident. Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B). For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens.

The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]). SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination. After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50]. Figure 2C, Fig. S8, and Table 2.

80% inhibitory dilution [ID80]. Fig. S2 and Table S6). However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants. The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43.

The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43). These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens. Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-virus neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay. At day 43, wild-type virus–neutralizing activity capable of reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay.

Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs. S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273. SARS-CoV-2 T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs. S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >. Interleukin 2 >.

Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13). CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig. S11).Patients Figure 1. Figure 1. Enrollment and Randomization.

Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization. 541 were assigned to the remdesivir group and 522 to the placebo group (Figure 1). Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned. Forty-nine patients had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned.

Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2). As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients in the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died. Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. There were 132 patients in the remdesivir group and 169 in the placebo group who had not recovered and had not completed the day 29 follow-up visit. The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have at least some postbaseline data available (538 in the remdesivir group and 521 in the placebo group).

Four of the 1063 patients were not included in the primary analysis because no postbaseline data were available at the time of the database freeze. Table 1. Table 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean age of patients was 58.9 years, and 64.3% were male (Table 1).

On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of Covid-19 during the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, and 13.6% were designated as other or not reported. 249 (23.4%) were Hispanic or Latino. Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of days between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to 12).

Nine hundred forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix. 272 (25.6%) patients met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 (39.6%) category 5, and 127 (11.9%) category 4. There were 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group. Primary Outcome Figure 2.

Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Cumulative Recoveries. Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen. Panel B), in those with a baseline score of 5 (receiving oxygen. Panel C), in those with a baseline score of 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

Panel D), and in those with a baseline score of 7 (receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO. Panel E). Table 2. Table 2. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population.

Figure 3. Figure 3. Time to Recovery According to Subgroup. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects. Race and ethnic group were reported by the patients.

Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 11 days, as compared with 15 days. Rate ratio for recovery, 1.32. 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients (Figure 2 and Table 2).

Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline score of 4 (127 patients) and those with a baseline score of 6 (197 patients), the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively. For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7. 272 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.42). A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant.

An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable was conducted to evaluate the overall effect (of the percentage of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome. This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31. 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54. 1017 patients). Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe.

Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57. 664 patients), whereas patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81. 380 patients) (Figure 3). Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.50. 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.91.

P=0.001. 844 patients) (Table 2 and Fig. S5). Mortality was numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04.

1059 patients). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients that had yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10). Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group and 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3).

4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients). Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group. No deaths were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4).

The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]). Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose level (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]).

Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.Announced on May 15, Operation Warp Speed (OWS) — a partnership of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the private sector — aims to accelerate control of the Covid-19 pandemic by advancing development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. OWS is providing support to promising candidates and enabling the expeditious, parallel execution of the necessary steps toward approval or authorization of safe products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The partnership grew out of an acknowledged need to fundamentally restructure the way the U.S. Government typically supports product development and vaccine distribution. The initiative was premised on setting a “stretch goal” — one that initially seemed impossible but that is becoming increasingly achievable.The concept of an integrated structure for Covid-19 countermeasure research and development across the U.S. Government was based on experience with Zika and the Zika Leadership Group led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the assistant secretary for preparedness and response (ASPR).

One of us (M.S.) serves as OWS chief advisor. We are drawing on expertise from the NIH, ASPR, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and the DOD, including the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. OWS has engaged experts in all critical aspects of medical countermeasure research, development, manufacturing, and distribution to work in close coordination.The initiative set ambitious objectives. To deliver tens of millions of doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine — with demonstrated safety and efficacy, and approved or authorized by the FDA for use in the U.S. Population — beginning at the end of 2020 and to have as many as 300 million doses of such vaccines available and deployed by mid-2021.

The pace and scope of such a vaccine effort are unprecedented. The 2014 West African Ebola virus epidemic spurred rapid vaccine development, but though preclinical data existed before the outbreak, a period of 12 months was required to progress from phase 1 first-in-human trials to phase 3 efficacy trials. OWS aims to compress this time frame even further. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development began in January, phase 1 clinical studies in March, and the first phase 3 trials in July. Our objectives are based on advances in vaccine platform technology, improved understanding of safe and efficacious vaccine design, and similarities between the SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 disease mechanisms.OWS’s role is to enable, accelerate, harmonize, and advise the companies developing the selected vaccines.

The companies will execute the clinical or process development and manufacturing plans, while OWS leverages the full capacity of the U.S. Government to ensure that no technical, logistic, or financial hurdles hinder vaccine development or deployment.OWS selected vaccine candidates on the basis of four criteria. We required candidates to have robust preclinical data or early-stage clinical trial data supporting their potential for clinical safety and efficacy. Candidates had to have the potential, with our acceleration support, to enter large phase 3 field efficacy trials this summer or fall (July to November 2020) and, assuming continued active transmission of the virus, to deliver efficacy outcomes by the end of 2020 or the first half of 2021. Candidates had to be based on vaccine-platform technologies permitting fast and effective manufacturing, and their developers had to demonstrate the industrial process scalability, yields, and consistency necessary to reliably produce more than 100 million doses by mid-2021.

Finally, candidates had to use one of four vaccine-platform technologies that we believe are the most likely to yield a safe and effective vaccine against Covid-19. The mRNA platform, the replication-defective live-vector platform, the recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein platform, or the attenuated replicating live-vector platform.OWS’s strategy relies on a few key principles. First, we sought to build a diverse project portfolio that includes two vaccine candidates based on each of the four platform technologies. Such diversification mitigates the risk of failure due to safety, efficacy, industrial manufacturability, or scheduling factors and may permit selection of the best vaccine platform for each subpopulation at risk for contracting or transmitting Covid-19, including older adults, frontline and essential workers, young adults, and pediatric populations. In addition, advancing eight vaccines in parallel will increase the chances of delivering 300 million doses in the first half of 2021.Second, we must accelerate vaccine program development without compromising safety, efficacy, or product quality.

Clinical development, process development, and manufacturing scale-up can be substantially accelerated by running all streams, fully resourced, in parallel. Doing so requires taking on substantial financial risk, as compared with the conventional sequential development approach. OWS will maximize the size of phase 3 trials (30,000 to 50,000 participants each) and optimize trial-site location by consulting daily epidemiologic and disease-forecasting models to ensure the fastest path to an efficacy readout. Such large trials also increase the safety data set for each candidate vaccine.With heavy up-front investment, companies can conduct clinical operations and site preparation for these phase 3 efficacy trials even as they file their Investigational New Drug application (IND) for their phase 1 studies, thereby ensuring immediate initiation of phase 3 when they get a green light from the FDA. To permit appropriate comparisons among the vaccine candidates and to optimize vaccine utilization after approval by the FDA, the phase 3 trial end points and assay readouts have been harmonized through a collaborative effort involving the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Coronavirus Prevention Network, OWS, and the sponsor companies.Finally, OWS is supporting the companies financially and technically to commence process development and scale up manufacturing while their vaccines are in preclinical or very early clinical stages.

To ensure that industrial processes are set, running, and validated for FDA inspection when phase 3 trials end, OWS is also supporting facility building or refurbishing, equipment fitting, staff hiring and training, raw-material sourcing, technology transfer and validation, bulk product processing into vials, and acquisition of ample vials, syringes, and needles for each vaccine candidate. We aim to have stockpiled, at OWS’s expense, a few tens of millions of vaccine doses that could be swiftly deployed once FDA approval is obtained.This strategy aims to accelerate vaccine development without curtailing the critical steps required by sound science and regulatory standards. The FDA recently reissued guidance and standards that will be used to assess each vaccine for a Biologics License Application (BLA). Alternatively, the agency could decide to issue an Emergency Use Authorization to permit vaccine administration before all BLA procedures are completed.Of the eight vaccines in OWS’s portfolio, six have been announced and partnerships executed with the companies. Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech (both mRNA), AstraZeneca and Janssen (both replication-defective live-vector), and Novavax and Sanofi/GSK (both recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein).

These candidates cover three of the four platform technologies and are currently in clinical trials. The remaining two candidates will enter trials soon.Moderna developed its RNA vaccine in collaboration with the NIAID, began its phase 1 trial in March, recently published encouraging safety and immunogenicity data,1 and entered phase 3 on July 27. Pfizer and BioNTech’s RNA vaccine also produced encouraging phase 1 results2 and started its phase 3 trial on July 27. The ChAdOx replication-defective live-vector vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University is in phase 3 trials in the United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Africa, and it should enter U.S. Phase 3 trials in August.3 The Janssen Ad26 Covid-19 replication-defective live-vector vaccine has demonstrated excellent protection in nonhuman primate models and began its U.S.

Phase 1 trial on July 27. It should be in phase 3 trials in mid-September. Novavax completed a phase 1 trial of its recombinant-subunit-adjuvanted protein vaccine in Australia and should enter phase 3 trials in the United States by the end of September.4 Sanofi/GSK is completing preclinical development steps and plans to commence a phase 1 trial in early September and to be well into phase 3 by year’s end.5On the process-development front, the RNA vaccines are already being manufactured at scale. The other candidates are well advanced in their scale-up development, and manufacturing sites are being refurbished.While development and manufacturing proceed, the HHS–DOD partnership is laying the groundwork for vaccine distribution, subpopulation prioritization, financing, and logistic support. We are working with bioethicists and experts from the NIH, the CDC, BARDA, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to address these critical issues.

We will receive recommendations from the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and we are working to ensure that the most vulnerable and at-risk persons will receive vaccine doses once they are ready. Prioritization will also depend on the relative performance of each vaccine and its suitability for particular populations. Because some technologies have limited previous data on safety in humans, the long-term safety of these vaccines will be carefully assessed using pharmacovigilance surveillance strategies.No scientific enterprise could guarantee success by January 2021, but the strategic decisions and choices we’ve made, the support the government has provided, and the accomplishments to date make us optimistic that we will succeed in this unprecedented endeavor.Trial Design and Oversight We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate postexposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine after exposure to Covid-19.12 We randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive either hydroxychloroquine or placebo. Participants had known exposure (by participant report) to a person with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19, whether as a household contact, a health care worker, or a person with other occupational exposures. Trial enrollment began on March 17, 2020, with an eligibility threshold to enroll within 3 days after exposure.

The objective was to intervene before the median incubation period of 5 to 6 days. Because of limited access to prompt testing, health care workers could initially be enrolled on the basis of presumptive high-risk exposure to patients with pending tests. However, on March 23, eligibility was changed to exposure to a person with a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay for SARS-CoV-2, with the eligibility window extended to within 4 days after exposure. This trial was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Minnesota and conducted under a Food and Drug Administration Investigational New Drug application. In Canada, the trial was approved by Health Canada.

Ethics approvals were obtained from the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, the University of Manitoba, and the University of Alberta. Participants We included participants who had household or occupational exposure to a person with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure). Participants were excluded if they were younger than 18 years of age, were hospitalized, or met other exclusion criteria (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org). Persons with symptoms of Covid-19 or with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded from this prevention trial but were separately enrolled in a companion clinical trial to treat early infection. Setting Recruitment was performed primarily with the use of social media outreach as well as traditional media platforms.

Participants were enrolled nationwide in the United States and in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta. Participants enrolled themselves through a secure Internet-based survey using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system.13 After participants read the consent form, their comprehension of its contents was assessed. Participants provided a digitally captured signature to indicate informed consent. We sent follow-up e-mail surveys on days 1, 5, 10, and 14. A survey at 4 to 6 weeks asked about any follow-up testing, illness, or hospitalizations.

Participants who did not respond to follow-up surveys received text messages, e-mails, telephone calls, or a combination of these to ascertain their outcomes. When these methods were unsuccessful, the emergency contact provided by the enrollee was contacted to determine the participant’s illness and vital status. When all communication methods were exhausted, Internet searches for obituaries were performed to ascertain vital status. Interventions Randomization occurred at research pharmacies in Minneapolis and Montreal. The trial statisticians generated a permuted-block randomization sequence using variably sized blocks of 2, 4, or 8, with stratification according to country.

A research pharmacist sequentially assigned participants. The assignments were concealed from investigators and participants. Only pharmacies had access to the randomization sequence. Hydroxychloroquine sulfate or placebo was dispensed and shipped overnight to participants by commercial courier. The dosing regimen for hydroxychloroquine was 800 mg (4 tablets) once, then 600 mg (3 tablets) 6 to 8 hours later, then 600 mg (3 tablets) daily for 4 more days for a total course of 5 days (19 tablets total).

If participants had gastrointestinal upset, they were advised to divide the daily dose into two or three doses. We chose this hydroxychloroquine dosing regimen on the basis of pharmacokinetic simulations to achieve plasma concentrations above the SARS-CoV-2 in vitro half maximal effective concentration for 14 days.14 Placebo folate tablets, which were similar in appearance to the hydroxychloroquine tablets, were prescribed as an identical regimen for the control group. Rising Pharmaceuticals provided a donation of hydroxychloroquine, and some hydroxychloroquine was purchased. Outcomes The primary outcome was prespecified as symptomatic illness confirmed by a positive molecular assay or, if testing was unavailable, Covid-19–related symptoms. We assumed that health care workers would have access to Covid-19 testing if symptomatic.

However, access to testing was limited throughout the trial period. Covid-19–related symptoms were based on U.S. Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists criteria for confirmed cases (positivity for SARS-Cov-2 on PCR assay), probable cases (the presence of cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing, or the presence of two or more symptoms of fever, chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, and new olfactory and taste disorders), and possible cases (the presence of one or more compatible symptoms, which could include diarrhea).15 All the participants had epidemiologic linkage,15 per trial eligibility criteria. Four infectious disease physicians who were unaware of the trial-group assignments reviewed symptomatic participants to generate a consensus with respect to whether their condition met the case definition.15 Secondary outcomes included the incidence of hospitalization for Covid-19 or death, the incidence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, the incidence of Covid-19 symptoms, the incidence of discontinuation of the trial intervention owing to any cause, and the severity of symptoms (if any) at days 5 and 14 according to a visual analogue scale (scores ranged from 0 [no symptoms] to 10 [severe symptoms]). Data on adverse events were also collected with directed questioning for common side effects along with open-ended free text.

Outcome data were measured within 14 days after trial enrollment. Outcome data including PCR testing results, possible Covid-19–related symptoms, adherence to the trial intervention, side effects, and hospitalizations were all collected through participant report. Details of trial conduct are provided in the protocol and statistical analysis plan, available at NEJM.org. Sample Size We anticipated that illness compatible with Covid-19 would develop in 10% of close contacts exposed to Covid-19.9 Using Fisher’s exact method with a 50% relative effect size to reduce new symptomatic infections, a two-sided alpha of 0.05, and 90% power, we estimated that 621 persons would need to be enrolled in each group. With a pragmatic, Internet-based, self-referral recruitment strategy, we planned for a 20% incidence of attrition by increasing the sample size to 750 participants per group.

We specified a priori that participants who were already symptomatic on day 1 before receiving hydroxychloroquine or placebo would be excluded from the prophylaxis trial and would instead be separately enrolled in the companion symptomatic treatment trial. Because the estimates for both incident symptomatic Covid-19 after an exposure and loss to follow-up were relatively unknown in early March 2020,9 the protocol prespecified a sample-size reestimation at the second interim analysis. This reestimation, which used the incidence of new infections in the placebo group and the observed percentage of participants lost to follow-up, was aimed at maintaining the ability to detect an effect size of a 50% relative reduction in new symptomatic infections. Interim Analyses An independent data and safety monitoring board externally reviewed the data after 25% and 50% of the participants had completed 14 days of follow-up. Stopping guidelines were provided to the data and safety monitoring board with the use of a Lan–DeMets spending function analogue of the O’Brien–Fleming boundaries for the primary outcome.

A conditional power analysis was performed at the second and third interim analysis with the option of early stopping for futility. At the second interim analysis on April 22, 2020, the sample size was reduced to 956 participants who could be evaluated with 90% power on the basis of the higher-than-expected event rate of infections in the control group. At the third interim analysis on May 6, the trial was halted on the basis of a conditional power of less than 1%, since it was deemed futile to continue. Statistical Analysis We assessed the incidence of Covid-19 disease by day 14 with Fisher’s exact test. Secondary outcomes with respect to percentage of patients were also compared with Fisher’s exact test.

Among participants in whom incident illness compatible with Covid-19 developed, we summarized the symptom severity score at day 14 with the median and interquartile range and assessed the distributions with a Kruskal–Wallis test. We conducted all analyses with SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute), according to the intention-to-treat principle, with two-sided type I error with an alpha of 0.05. For participants with missing outcome data, we conducted a sensitivity analysis with their outcomes excluded or included as an event. Subgroups that were specified a priori included type of contact (household vs. Health care), days from exposure to enrollment, age, and sex.Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network.

(Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor. Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, tocilizumab, or convalescent plasma. Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial. Initially, recruitment was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020. Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible.

Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients or from a legal representative if they were unable to provide consent. The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net. The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee.

The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in the preparation or approval of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan. Randomization We collected baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site. Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment. Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial.

For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated. These patients were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included in this report. The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician. Patients and local members of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments. Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first.

Information was recorded regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death). In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization. Further analyses were specified at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death.

Other prespecified clinical outcomes included cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and receipt and duration of ventilation. Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups. Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients. For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was used to estimate the mortality rate ratio.

Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the absence of any information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period. Cox regression was used to analyze the secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization. For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio.

Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support. Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1). To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years).

This adjustment was not specified in the first version of the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent. Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix. Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk. (One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest.

Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford..