No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionStudies show alcohol-preferring mice reduce their alcohol intake during pregnancy; this study questions if the same is true for humans. The current investigation compares women's pre-pregnancy and first trimester alcohol consumption, examines if women with problem drinking diminish their alcohol intake during pregnancy, and determines if prenatal alcohol reduction is associated with characteristics of pregnancy, patients or smoking.Methods126 participants in weeks 1–12 of pregnancy, recruited from Obstetric and Family Practices, completed a survey during their initial prenatal visit including two gender-specific AUDITs (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Tests) querying current and pre-pregnancy alcohol use. AUDIT-C (AUDIT items 1–3) scores measuring pre-pregnancy and first trimester alcohol consumption were compared, analyzed and tested using general linear model repeated. A p ≤ 0.05 was accepted as significant.ResultsMost participants were multiparous, Caucasian high school graduates experiencing nausea and vomiting. Pre-pregnancy alcohol use was significantly (p = 0.019, Fisher's exact) higher among women seeing obstetricians. Pre-pregnancy AUDIT-C scores (m (mean) = 2.22, sd (standard deviation) = 2.19) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than first trimester scores (m = 0.143, sd = 0.532). Among 49 with pre-pregnancy AUDIT-C scores ≥ 3, 45/49 (92%) reduced their alcohol use to zero during the first trimester. Age, race, education, marital status, parity, nausea and vomiting, gestational age and smoking were non-factors in score reduction.ConclusionsWomen reported reducing their alcohol consumption during pregnancy, including those screening positive for pre-pregnancy problem drinking. First trimester alcohol reduction cannot be accounted for by smoking, patient or pregnancy characteristics; public health initiatives, psychological factors and hormonal mechanisms may be implicated.

IMPORTANCEThe monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced viral load, hospitalization, or death when administered as a 1200-mg or greater intravenous (IV) dose in a phase 3 COVID-19 outpatient study. Subcutaneous (SC) and/or lower IV doses should increase accessibility and/or drug supplies for patients. OBJECTIVE To assess the virologic efficacy of casirivimab and imdevimab across different IV and SC doses compared with placebo. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study included outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at 47 sites across the United States. Participants could be symptomatic or asymptomatic; symptomatic patients with risk factors for severe COVID-19 were excluded. Data were collected from December 15, 2020, to March 4, 2021. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to a single IV dose (523 patients) of casirivimab and imdevimab at 300, 600, 1200, or 2400 mg or placebo; or a single SC dose (292 patients) of casirivimab and imdevimab at 600 or 1200 mg or placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was the time-weighted average daily change from baseline (TWACB) in viral load from day 1 (baseline) through day 7 in patients seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. RESULTS Among 815 randomized participants, 507 (282 randomized to IV treatment, 148 randomized to SC treatment, and 77 randomized to placebo) were seronegative at baseline and included in the primary efficacy analysis. Participants randomized to IV had a mean (SD) age of 34.6 (9.6) years (160 [44.6%] men; 14 [3.9%] Black; 121 [33.7%] Hispanic or Latino; 309 [86.1%] White); those randomized to SC had a mean age of 34.1 (10.0) years (102 [45.3%] men; 75 [34.7%] Hispanicor Latino; 6 [2.7%] Black; 190 [84.4%] White). All casirivimab and imdevimab treatments showed significant virologic reduction through day 7. Least-squares mean differences in TWACB viral load for casirivimab and imdevimab vs placebo ranged from -0.56 (95% CI; -0.89 to -0.24) log 10 copies/mL for the 1200-mg IV dose to -0.71 (95% CI, -1.05 to -0.38) log 10 copies/mL for the 2400-mg IV dose. There were no adverse safety signals or dose-related safety findings, grade 2 or greater infusionrelated or hypersensitivity reactions, grade 3 or greater injection-site reactions, or fatalities. Two serious adverse events not related to COVID-19 or the study drug were reported.

Background Booster vaccines providing protection against emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants are needed. In an international phase 3 study, we evaluated booster vaccines containing prototype (D614) and/or Beta (B.1.351) variant recombinant spike proteins and AS03 adjuvant (CoV2 preS dTM-AS03). Methods Adults, primed 4-10 months earlier with mRNA (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273]), adenovirus-vectored (Ad26.CoV2.S, ChAdOx1nCoV-19) or adjuvanted protein (CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 [D614]) vaccines and stratified by age (18-55 and ≥56 years), were boosted with monovalent (MV) D614 (5≥g, n=1285), MV (B.1351) (5μg, n=707) or bivalent (BiV) (2.5≥g D614 plus 2.5≥g B.1.351, n=625) CoV2 preS dTM-AS03. SARS-CoV-2-naïve adults (controls, n=479) received a primary series (two injections, 21 days apart) of CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 containing 10μg D614. Antibodies to D614G, B.1.351 and Omicron BA.2 and BA.1 variants were evaluated using validated pseudovirus (lentivirus) neutralization (PsVN) assay. D614G or B.1.351 PsVN titers 14 days (D15) post-booster were compared with pre-booster (D1) titers in BNT162b2-primed participants (18-55 years old) and controls (D36), for each booster formulation (co-primary objectives). Safety was evaluated throughout the trial. Results of a planned interim analysis are presented. Results Among BNT162b2-primed adults (18-55 years old), PsVN titers against D614G or B.1.351 were significantly higher post-booster than anti-D614G titers post-primary vaccination in controls, for all booster formulations, with an anti-D614G GMT ratio (98.3% CI) of 2.16 (1.69; 2.75) for MV(D614), an anti-B.1.351 ratio of 1.96 (1.54; 2.50) for MV (B.1.351) and anti-D614G and anti-B.1.351 ratios of 2.34 (1.84; 2.96) and 1.39 (1.09; 1.77), respectively, for BiV. All booster formulations elicited cross-neutralizing antibodies against Omicron BA.2 across vaccine priming subgroups and against Omicron BA.1 (evaluated in BNT162b2-primed participants). Similar patterns in antibody responses were observed for participants aged ≥56 years. No safety concerns were identified. Conclusion CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 boosters demonstrated acceptable safety and elicited robust neutralizing antibodies against multiple variants, regardless of priming vaccine. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT04762680