ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6978-0768
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 27-09-2021
DOI: 10.1101/2021.09.26.21264122
Abstract: The oral rotavirus vaccine, Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline), is licensed for use in infants as two doses in the first six months of life. For infants living in settings with high child-mortality, and also for rural and remote Australian Aboriginal infants, clinical protection conferred by two doses of Rotarix appears to be reduced. We assessed the effect of an additional dose of Rotarix on vaccine immune responses among Aboriginal children who are 6 to 12 months old. ORVAC is a two-stage, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted across regional urban and remote locations of Australia’s Northern Territory. Aboriginal children 6 to 12 months old who had received one or two prior doses of Rotarix were randomised 1:1 to receive an additional dose of Rotarix or matched placebo. The primary immunological endpoint was seroresponse defined as an anti-rotavirus IgA level ≥ 20 AU/mL, approximately one month following Rotarix or placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02941107 ). Between March 2018 and August 2020, 253 infants were enrolled. Of these, 178 infants (70%) had analysable serological results after follow-up 89 randomised to Rotarix and 89 to placebo. The proportion with a seroresponse was 85% after Rotarix compared to 71% after placebo the probability of a higher rate of seroresponse in the Rotarix than the placebo arm was 99%. There were no occurrences of intussusception or any serious adverse events attributed to Rotarix or placebo in the 28 days following the additional dose of Rotarix or placebo. An additional dose of Rotarix among Australian Aboriginal infants 6 to 12 months old increased the proportion with a vaccine seroresponse. If it can be proven that this translates into better protection against disease, scheduling an additional dose may be a viable strategy for further reducing the global burden of rotavirus disease. NHMRC (GNT1086952). Rotavirus vaccine programs have reduced the global burden of gastroenteritis disease among young children, but rotavirus still causes ,000 child deaths each year. A recent systematic review in the Lancet Global Healt h found that the effectiveness of oral rotavirus vaccines is variable, from 45 – 58% in settings with high child mortality to 83%-85% in settings with low child mortality. In high child mortality settings there is also evidence of waning effectiveness after 12 months old. Reduced vaccine effectiveness has also been reported among Australian Aboriginal children. Previous trials have failed to demonstrate improved rotavirus vaccine effectiveness with strategies such as withholding breastfeeding, or co-administering vaccines with probiotics or zinc. Pre-licensure studies of Rotarix in Africa did not clearly indicate whether a three-dose Rotarix schedule had benefit over a two-dose schedule, although all vaccine doses were given before infants were six months old when maternal antibodies may impede vaccine responses. Trials in Bangladesh and Mali found that a third Rotarix dose given after 6 months old improved the immune response to vaccine. In the first stage of our novel two-stage randomised clinical trial, we showed that scheduling an additional Rotarix dose for remote Australian Aboriginal infants after 6 months old increased the proportion with evidence of vaccine seroresponse. Scheduling an additional dose of Rotarix after 6 months old is feasible, and trials in three settings have now demonstrated that it improves immune responses. Trials should now be conducted in a number of high burden settings to determine whether this strategy results in improved clinical protection against severe gastroenteritis.
Publisher: Intellect
Date: 12-2019
DOI: 10.1386/AP3_00005_1
Abstract: My drawn animation practice has always focused on the gestural mark and messy materiality. This article is about what happened to that practice in the transition from analogue to digital animation, questioning what was lost forever and what might still be worth fighting for. This practitioner’s account of a ‘before digital, after digital’ career describes the experience of making work, as work itself changed forever. Ushered in with little reflection or resistance in the mid-1990s, the new digital doctrine slowly consumed hand-drawn 2D animation production to the point where few but the most determined independent makers keep this vital practice alive. My contention is that a reckoning on why and how we engage with digital technology is long overdue. The article will set out why – after working with digital tools for more than twenty years – I have now abandoned all but the most cursory engagement with new media tools and taken the long walk back to a material analogue practice. The ideas under discussion here can be traced back to one overriding concern – the unsolvable relationship between movement in drawing and drawing for movement. This dichotomy is unique to 2D animation, because freedom of gesture in drawing does not produce continuity of movement in animation. Mining this seam drives my independent animation practice as I try to reconcile the page and the frame.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Damian Gascoigne.