Buy kamagra oral jelly

SALT LAKE CITY, Nov buy kamagra oral jelly. 10, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Health Catalyst, Inc. (Nasdaq. HCAT), a leading provider of data and analytics technology and services to healthcare organizations, today reported financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2020.“In the third quarter of 2020, I am pleased to share that we achieved strong performance across our business, including exceeding the mid-point of our quarterly guidance for both revenue and Adjusted EBITDA,” said Dan Burton, CEO of Health Catalyst.

€œIn addition to this financial and operational execution, we are excited to announce the promotion of Patrick Nelli, our current Chief Financial Officer, to the role President of Health Catalyst, effective January 1, 2021. Patrick's responsibilities as President will include all the major growth functions of the company, including with existing customers, new customers, international expansion, sales operations, marketing and communications. Additionally, I am pleased to announce the promotion of Bryan Hunt, our current Senior Vice President of Financial Planning &. Analysis to the role of Chief Financial Officer, effective January 1, 2021.

Patrick and Bryan, in their newly appointed roles, have my full support and confidence and the unanimous support and confidence of our board of directors. Lastly, I would also like to share two additional promotions related to these changes. Jason Alger, our Senior Vice President of Finance, has been promoted to Chief Accounting Officer, and Adam Brown, our Senior Vice President of Investor Relations, has been promoted to Senior Vice President of Investor Relations and Finance Planning &. Analysis.”Financial Highlights for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2020 Key Financial Metrics Three Months EndedSeptember 30, Year over Year Change 2020 2019 GAAP Financial Data.

(in thousands, except percentages) Technology revenue $ 27,964 $ 21,160 32% Professional services revenue $ 19,227 $ 18,263 5% Total revenue $ 47,191 $ 39,423 20% Loss from operations $ (23,458 ) $ (20,736 ) (13)% Net loss $ (27,326 ) $ (21,416 ) (28)% Other Non-GAAP Financial Data:(1) Adjusted Technology Gross Profit $ 19,115 $ 14,484 32% Adjusted Technology Gross Margin 68 % 68 % Adjusted Professional Services Gross Profit $ 4,823 $ 6,677 (28)% Adjusted Professional Services Gross Margin 25 % 37 % Total Adjusted Gross Profit $ 23,938 $ 21,161 13% Total Adjusted Gross Margin 51 % 54 % Adjusted EBITDA $ (6,434 ) $ (8,446 ) 24% ________________________(1) These measures are not calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (GAAP). See the accompanying "Non-GAAP Financial Measures" section below for more information about these financial measures, including the limitations of such measures, and for a reconciliation of each measure to the most directly comparable measure calculated in accordance with GAAP.Financial OutlookHealth Catalyst provides forward-looking guidance on total revenue, a GAAP measure, and Adjusted EBITDA, a non-GAAP measure.For the fourth quarter of 2020, we expect:Total revenue between $50.5 million and $53.5 million, and Adjusted EBITDA between $(7.3) million and $(5.3) millionFor the full year of 2020, we expect:Total revenue between $186.1 million and $189.1 million, and Adjusted EBITDA between $(23.9) million and $(21.9) millionWe have not reconciled guidance for Adjusted EBITDA to net loss, the most directly comparable GAAP measure, and have not provided forward-looking guidance for net loss, because there are items that may impact net loss, including stock-based compensation, that are not within our control or cannot be reasonably predicted.Quarterly Conference Call DetailsThe company will host a conference call to review the results today, Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. E.T. The conference call can be accessed by dialing 1-877-295-1104 for U.S.

Participants, or 1-470-495-9486 for international participants, and referencing participant code 7195951. A live audio webcast will be available online at https://ir.healthcatalyst.com/. A replay of the call will be available via webcast for on-demand listening shortly after the completion of the call, at the same web link, and will remain available for approximately 90 days.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.Available InformationHealth Catalyst intends to use its Investor Relations website as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with its disclosure obligations under Regulation FD.Forward-Looking StatementsThis release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. These forward-looking statements include statements regarding our future growth and our financial outlook for Q4 and fiscal year 2020. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties and are based on potentially inaccurate assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expected or implied by the forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from the results predicted, and reported results should not be considered as an indication of future performance.Important risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results and financial condition to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements include, among others, the following.

(i) changes in laws and regulations applicable to our business model. (ii) changes in market or industry conditions, regulatory environment and receptivity to our technology and services. (iii) results of litigation or a security incident. (iv) the loss of one or more key customers or partners.

(v) the impact of erectile dysfunction treatment on our business and results of operation. And (vi) changes to our abilities to recruit and retain qualified team members. For a detailed discussion of the risk factors that could affect our actual results, please refer to the risk factors identified in our SEC reports, including, but not limited to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 filed with the SEC on February 28, 2020 and the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2020 expected to be filed with the SEC on or about November 10, 2020. All information provided in this release and in the attachments is as of the date hereof, and we undertake no duty to update or revise this information unless required by law.

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (in thousands, except share and per share data, unaudited) As ofSeptember 30, As ofDecember 31, 2020 2019 Assets Current assets. Cash and cash equivalents $ 111,239 $ 18,032 Short-term investments 163,898 210,245 Accounts receivable, net 36,339 27,570 Prepaid expenses and other assets 11,290 8,392 Total current assets 322,766 264,239 Property and equipment, net 5,319 4,295 Intangible assets, net 105,926 25,535 Operating lease right-of-use assets 25,833 3,787 Goodwill 107,822 3,694 Other assets 2,997 810 Total assets $ 570,663 $ 302,360 Liabilities and stockholders’ equity Current liabilities. Accounts payable $ 5,189 $ 3,622 Accrued liabilities 14,061 8,944 Acquisition-related consideration payable 3,214 2,192 Deferred revenue 35,090 30,653 Operating lease liabilities 2,425 2,806 Contingent consideration liabilities 5,893 — Total current liabilities 65,872 48,217 Long-term debt, net of current portion 166,200 48,200 Acquisition-related consideration payable, net of current portion — 1,860 Deferred revenue, net of current portion 1,635 1,459 Operating lease liabilities, net of current portion 24,245 1,654 Contingent consideration liabilities, net of current portion 10,279 — Other liabilities 2,817 326 Total liabilities 271,048 101,716 Commitments and contingencies Stockholders’ equity. Common stock, $0.001 par value.

42,239,922 and 36,678,854 shares issued and outstanding as of September 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively 42 37 Additional paid-in capital 982,139 811,049 Accumulated deficit (682,632 ) (610,514 ) Accumulated other comprehensive income 66 72 Total stockholders' equity 299,615 200,644 Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 570,663 $ 302,360 Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (in thousands, except per share data, unaudited) Three Months EndedSeptember 30, Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, 2020 2019 2020 2019 Revenue. Technology $ 27,964 $ 21,160 $ 78,150 $ 61,393 Professional services 19,227 18,263 57,416 50,047 Total revenue 47,191 39,423 135,566 111,440 Cost of revenue, excluding depreciation and amortization. Technology(1) 9,045 6,740 25,148 20,536 Professional services(1)(3) 15,307 11,892 46,401 33,132 Total cost of revenue, excluding depreciation and amortization 24,352 18,632 71,549 53,668 Operating expenses. Sales and marketing(1)(3) 14,629 14,721 40,618 35,579 Research and development(1)(3) 13,390 13,477 38,539 33,209 General and administrative(1)(2)(4)(5) 13,297 11,013 31,111 23,333 Depreciation and amortization 4,981 2,316 10,952 6,844 Total operating expenses 46,297 41,527 121,220 98,965 Loss from operations (23,458 ) (20,736 ) (57,203 ) (41,193 ) Loss on extinguishment of debt — — (8,514 ) (1,670 ) Interest and other expense, net (3,854 ) (659 ) (7,500 ) (2,924 ) Loss before income taxes (27,312 ) (21,395 ) (73,217 ) (45,787 ) Income tax provision (benefit) 14 21 (1,218 ) 43 Net loss $ (27,326 ) $ (21,416 ) $ (71,999 ) $ (45,830 ) Less.

Accretion of redeemable convertible preferred stock — 18,170 — 180,826 Net loss attributable to common stockholders $ (27,326 ) $ (39,586 ) $ (71,999 ) $ (226,656 ) Net loss per share attributable to common stockholders, basic and diluted $ (0.68 ) $ (1.40 ) $ (1.87 ) $ (17.78 ) Weighted-average shares outstanding used in calculating net loss per share attributable to common stockholders, basic and diluted 40,292 28,223 38,517 12,750 Adjusted net loss(6) $ (8,287 ) $ (9,817 ) $ (20,110 ) $ (26,014 ) Pro forma adjusted net loss per share, basic and diluted(6) $ (0.21 ) $ (0.27 ) $ (0.52 ) $ (0.72 ) Pro forma as adjusted weighted-average number of shares outstanding used in calculating Adjusted Net Loss per share, basic and diluted(6) 40,292 36,373 38,517 36,183 _______________(1) Includes stock-based compensation expense as follows. Three Months EndedSeptember 30, Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, 2020 2019 2020 2019 Stock-Based Compensation Expense. (in thousands) (in thousands) Cost of revenue, excluding depreciation and amortization. Technology $ 196 $ 64 $ 575 $ 129 Professional services 903 306 2,609 593 Sales and marketing 3,233 1,358 9,724 2,639 Research and development 2,025 3,067 5,987 3,502 General and administrative 3,139 5,179 8,388 6,165 Total $ 9,496 $ 9,974 $ 27,283 $ 13,028 (2) Includes acquisition transaction costs as follows.

Three Months EndedSeptember 30, Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, 2020 2019 2020 2019 Acquisition transaction costs. (in thousands) (in thousands) General and administrative $ 1,399 $ — $ 2,670 $ — Total $ 1,399 $ — $ 2,670 $ — (3) Includes post-acquisition restructuring costs as follows. Three Months EndedSeptember 30, Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, 2020 2019 2020 2019 Post-Acquisition Restructuring Costs. (in thousands) (in thousands) Cost of revenue, excluding depreciation and amortization.

Professional services $ — $ — $ — $ 108 Sales and marketing — — — 306 Research and development — — — 32 Total $ — $ — $ — $ 446 (4) Includes the change in fair value of contingent consideration liabilities, as follows. Three Months EndedSeptember 30, Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, 2020 2019 2020 2019 Change in fair value of contingent consideration liabilities. (in thousands) (in thousands) General and administrative $ 564 $ — $ (1,004 ) $ — Total $ 564 $ — $ (1,004 ) $ — (5) Includes duplicate headquarters rent expense, as follows. Three Months EndedSeptember 30, Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, 2020 2019 2020 2019 Duplicate Headquarters Rent Expense.

(in thousands) (in thousands) General and administrative $ 584 $ — $ 709 $ — Total $ 584 $ — $ 709 $ — (6) Includes pro forma adjustments to net loss attributable to common stockholders and the weighted average number of common shares outstanding directly attributable to the closing of our initial public offering on July 29, 2019 as well as certain other non-GAAP adjustments. Refer to the "Non-GAAP Financial Measures—Pro Forma Adjusted Net Loss Per Share" section below for further details. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (in thousands, unaudited) Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, Cash flows from operating activities 2020 2019 Net loss $ (71,999 ) $ (45,830 ) Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities. Depreciation and amortization 10,952 6,844 Loss on extinguishment of debt 8,514 1,670 Amortization of debt discount and issuance costs 5,260 797 Non-cash operating lease expense 2,865 2,696 Investment discount and premium amortization 854 (443 ) Provision for expected credit losses 822 — Stock-based compensation expense 27,283 13,028 Deferred tax (benefit) provision (1,280 ) — Change in fair value of contingent consideration liabilities (1,004 ) — Other 85 (36 ) Change in operating assets and liabilities.

Accounts receivable, net (4,450 ) (3,323 ) Prepaid expenses and other assets (2,937 ) (1,362 ) Accounts payable, accrued liabilities, and other liabilities 6,567 1,661 Deferred revenue (838 ) 7,601 Operating lease liabilities (2,701 ) (2,426 ) Net cash used in operating activities (22,007 ) (19,123 ) Cash flows from investing activities Purchase of short-term investments (163,346 ) (221,444 ) Proceeds from the sale and maturity of short-term investments 208,467 37,277 Acquisition of businesses, net of cash acquired (102,471 ) — Purchase of property and equipment (2,071 ) (1,658 ) Purchase of intangible assets (1,249 ) (1,747 ) Proceeds from sale of property and equipment 10 40 Net cash used in investing activities (60,660 ) (187,532 ) Cash flows from financing activities Proceeds from convertible note securities, net of issuance costs 222,482 — Purchase of capped calls concurrent with issuance of convertible senior notes (21,743 ) — Proceeds from credit facilities, net of debt issuance costs — 47,169 Repayment of credit facilities (57,043 ) (21,821 ) Proceeds from exercise of stock options 29,393 2,177 Proceeds from employee stock purchase plan 3,528 1,216 Payments of acquisition-related consideration (748 ) (773 ) Proceeds from initial public offering, net of underwriters’ discounts and commissions — 194,649 Proceeds from the issuance of redeemable convertible preferred stock, net of issuance costs — 12,073 Payments of deferred offering costs — (4,407 ) Net cash provided by financing activities 175,869 230,283 Effect of exchange rate on cash and cash equivalents 5 — Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 93,207 23,628 Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 18,032 28,431 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 111,239 $ 52,059 Non-GAAP Financial MeasuresTo supplement our financial information presented in accordance with GAAP, we believe certain non-GAAP measures, including Adjusted Gross Profit, Adjusted Gross Margin, Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted Net Loss, and Adjusted Net Loss per share, basic and diluted, are useful in evaluating our operating performance. We use this non-GAAP financial information to evaluate our ongoing operations, as a component in determining employee bonus compensation, and for internal planning and forecasting purposes. We believe that non-GAAP financial information, when taken collectively, may be helpful to investors because it provides consistency and comparability with past financial performance. However, non-GAAP financial information is presented for supplemental informational purposes only, has limitations as an analytical tool and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for financial information presented in accordance with GAAP.

In addition, other companies, including companies in our industry, may calculate similarly-titled non-GAAP measures differently or may use other measures to evaluate their performance. A reconciliation is provided below for each non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable financial measure stated in accordance with GAAP. Investors are encouraged to review the related GAAP financial measures and the reconciliation of these non-GAAP financial measures to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures, and not to rely on any single financial measure to evaluate our business.Adjusted Gross Profit and Adjusted Gross MarginAdjusted Gross Profit is a non-GAAP financial measure that we define as revenue less cost of revenue, excluding depreciation and amortization and excluding (i) stock-based compensation and (ii) post-acquisition restructuring costs (none during periods presented). We define Adjusted Gross Margin as our Adjusted Gross Profit divided by our revenue.

We believe Adjusted Gross Profit and Adjusted Gross Margin are useful to investors as they eliminate the impact of certain non-cash expenses and allow a direct comparison of these measures between periods without the impact of non-cash expenses and certain other non-recurring operating expenses. The following is a reconciliation of revenue, the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, to Adjusted Gross Profit, for the three months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019. Three Months Ended September 30, 2020 (in thousands, except percentages) Technology Professional Services Total Revenue $ 27,964 $ 19,227 $ 47,191 Cost of revenue, excluding depreciation and amortization (9,045 ) (15,307 ) (24,352 ) Gross profit, excluding depreciation and amortization 18,919 3,920 22,839 Add. Stock-based compensation 196 903 1,099 Adjusted Gross Profit $ 19,115 $ 4,823 $ 23,938 Gross margin, excluding depreciation and amortization 68 % 20 % 48 % Adjusted Gross Margin 68 % 25 % 51 % Three Months Ended September 30, 2019 (in thousands, except percentages) Technology Professional Services Total Revenue $ 21,160 $ 18,263 $ 39,423 Cost of revenue, excluding depreciation and amortization (6,740 ) (11,892 ) (18,632 ) Gross profit, excluding depreciation and amortization 14,420 6,371 20,791 Add.

Stock-based compensation 64 306 370 Adjusted Gross Profit $ 14,484 $ 6,677 $ 21,161 Gross margin, excluding depreciation and amortization 68 % 35 % 53 % Adjusted Gross Margin 68 % 37 % 54 % Adjusted EBITDAAdjusted EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure that we define as net loss adjusted for (i) interest and other expense, net, (ii) loss on extinguishment of debt (none in periods presented), (iii) income tax (benefit) provision, (iv) depreciation and amortization, (v) stock-based compensation, (vi) acquisition transaction costs, (vii) change in fair value of contingent consideration liability, (viii) duplicate headquarters rent expense, and (ix) post-acquisition restructuring costs when they are incurred. We believe Adjusted EBITDA provides investors with useful information on period-to-period performance as evaluated by management and comparison with our past financial performance and is useful in evaluating our operating performance compared to that of other companies in our industry, as this metric generally eliminates the effects of certain items that may vary from company to company for reasons unrelated to overall operating performance. The following is a reconciliation of our net loss, the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, to Adjusted EBITDA, for the three months ended September 30, 2020 and 2019. Three Months EndedSeptember 30, 2020 2019 (in thousands) Net loss $ (27,326 ) $ (21,416 ) Add.

Interest and other expense, net 3,854 659 Income tax (benefit) provision 14 21 Depreciation and amortization 4,981 2,316 Stock-based compensation 9,496 9,974 Acquisition transaction costs 1,399 — Change in fair value of contingent consideration liability 564 — Duplicate headquarters rent expense 584 — Adjusted EBITDA $ (6,434 ) $ (8,446 ) Pro Forma Adjusted Net Loss Per ShareAdjusted Net Loss is a non-GAAP financial measure that we define as net loss attributable to common stockholders adjusted for (i) accretion of redeemable convertible preferred stock, (ii) stock-based compensation, (iii) amortization of acquired intangibles, (iv) loss on debt extinguishment, (v) acquisition transaction costs, (vi) change in fair value of contingent consideration liability, (vii) non-cash interest expense related to our convertible senior notes, (viii) duplicate headquarters rent expense (see explanation above), and (ix) post-acquisition restructuring costs. Non-cash interest expense related to our convertible senior notes relates to the convertible senior notes that were issued in a private placement in April 2020. Under GAAP, we are required to separately account for liability (debt) and equity (conversion option) components of the convertible senior notes. Accordingly, for GAAP purposes we are required to recognize the effective interest expense on our convertible senior notes and amortize the issuance costs over the term of the notes.

The difference between the effective interest expense and the contractual interest expense, and the amortization expense of issuance costs are excluded from management’s assessment of our operating performance because management believes that these non-cash expenses are not indicative of ongoing operating performance.We believe Adjusted Net Loss provides investors with useful information on period-to-period performance as evaluated by management and comparison with our past financial performance and is useful in evaluating our operating performance compared to that of other companies in our industry, as this metric generally eliminates the effects of certain items that may vary from company to company for reasons unrelated to overall operating performance.On July 29, 2019, we closed our initial public offering (our IPO) in which we issued and sold 8,050,000 shares (inclusive of the underwriters’ option to purchase an additional 1,050,000 shares) of common stock at $26.00 per share. We received net proceeds of $194.6 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and before deducting offering costs of $4.6 million. Upon the closing of our IPO, all shares of our outstanding redeemable convertible preferred stock converted into 23,151,481 shares of common stock on a one-for-one basis. We have prepared the below adjusted condensed consolidated statement of operations data to present pro forma adjusted net loss per share amounts that will be comparable between the current and prior periods presented as if the conversion of all outstanding shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock and the issuance of the IPO shares had occurred as of the beginning of the prior year comparative periods.

Three Months Ended September 30, Nine Months Ended September 30, 2020 2019 2020 2019 Numerator. (in thousands, except share and per share amounts) Net loss attributable to common stockholders $ (27,326 ) $ (39,586 ) $ (71,999 ) $ (226,656 ) Add Accretion of redeemable convertible preferred stock — 18,170 — 180,826 Stock-based compensation 9,496 9,974 27,283 13,028 Amortization of acquired intangibles 4,276 1,625 8,786 4,672 Loss on extinguishment of debt — — 8,514 1,670 Acquisition transaction costs 1,399 — 2,670 — Change in fair value of contingent consideration liability 564 — (1,004 ) — Non-cash interest expense related to convertible senior notes 2,720 — 4,931 — Duplicate headquarters rent expense 584 — 709 — Post-acquisition restructuring costs — — — 446 Adjusted Net Loss $ (8,287 ) $ (9,817 ) $ (20,110 ) $ (26,014 ) Denominator. Weighted-average number of shares used in calculating net loss per share attributable to common stockholders, basic and diluted 40,292,380 28,222,555 38,517,272 12,749,903 Pro forma adjustments Pro forma adjustment to reflect issuance and conversion of redeemable convertible preferred stock to common stock, assuming the conversion took place as of the beginning of the 2019 period — 6,039,517 — 17,384,812 Pro forma adjustment to reflect issuance of shares of common stock as part of IPO, assuming the issuance took place as of the beginning of the 2019 period — 2,111,413 — 6,048,718 Pro forma as adjusted weighted-average number of shares used in calculating Adjusted Net Loss per share, basic and diluted 40,292,380 36,373,485 38,517,272 36,183,433 Pro forma adjusted net loss per share, basic and diluted $ (0.21 ) $ (0.27 ) $ (0.52 ) $ (0.72 ) Health Catalyst Investor Relations Contact:Adam BrownSenior Vice President, Investor Relations+1 (855)-309-6800ir@healthcatalyst.comHealth Catalyst Media Contact:Amanda Hundtamanda.hundt@healthcatalyst.com+1 (575) 491-0974 Source. Health Catalyst, Inc..

Kamagra jelly online

	Kamagra	Fildena professional
Without prescription	No	No
How fast does work	Consultation	100mg
Price	Yes	No
Best way to get	33	65

Figure 1 kamagra jelly online http://middleburghigh89.com/saturday-alumni-picnic/. Enrollment and Randomization. The diagram represents all enrolled participants through November 14, 2020.

The safety subset (those with a median of 2 months of follow-up, in accordance with application requirements for Emergency Use Authorization) is kamagra jelly online based on an October 9, 2020, data cut-off date. The further procedures that one participant in the placebo group declined after dose 2 (lower right corner of the diagram) were those involving collection of blood and nasal swab samples.Table 1. Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the kamagra jelly online Participants in the Main Safety Population. Between July 27, 2020, and November 14, 2020, a total of 44,820 persons were screened, and 43,548 persons 16 years of age or older underwent randomization at 152 sites worldwide (United States, 130 sites. Argentina, 1.

Brazil, 2 kamagra jelly online. South Africa, 4. Germany, 6.

And Turkey, 9) in the phase 2/3 kamagra jelly online portion of the trial. A total of 43,448 participants received injections. 21,720 received BNT162b2 and 21,728 received placebo (Figure 1).

At the data cut-off date of October 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least 2 months of kamagra jelly online safety data available after the second dose and contributed to the main safety data set. Among these 37,706 participants, 49% were female, 83% were White, 9% were Black or African American, 28% were Hispanic or Latinx, 35% were obese (body mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters] of at least 30.0), and 21% had at least one coexisting condition. The median age was 52 years, and 42% of participants were older than 55 years of age (Table 1 and Table S2).

Safety Local Reactogenicity Figure kamagra jelly online 2. Figure 2. Local and Systemic Reactions Reported within 7 Days after Injection of BNT162b2 or Placebo, According to Age Group.

Data on local and systemic reactions and use of medication were collected with electronic diaries from participants in kamagra jelly online the reactogenicity subset (8,183 participants) for 7 days after each vaccination. Solicited injection-site (local) reactions are shown in Panel A. Pain at the injection site was assessed according to the following scale.

Mild, does not interfere kamagra jelly online with activity. Moderate, interferes with activity. Severe, prevents daily activity.

And grade 4, kamagra jelly online emergency department visit or hospitalization. Redness and swelling were measured according to the following scale. Mild, 2.0 to 5.0 cm in diameter.

Moderate, >5.0 to 10.0 cm in diameter kamagra jelly online. Severe, >10.0 cm in diameter. And grade 4, necrosis or exfoliative dermatitis (for redness) and necrosis (for swelling).

Systemic events and medication use are shown in kamagra jelly online Panel B. Fever categories are designated in the key. Medication use was not graded.

Additional scales were as follows kamagra jelly online. Fatigue, headache, chills, new or worsened muscle pain, new or worsened joint pain (mild. Does not interfere with activity.

Moderate. Some interference with activity. Or severe.

Prevents daily activity), vomiting (mild. 1 to 2 times in 24 hours. Moderate.

>2 times in 24 hours. Or severe. Requires intravenous hydration), and diarrhea (mild.

2 to 3 loose stools in 24 hours. Moderate. 4 to 5 loose stools in 24 hours.

Or severe. 6 or more loose stools in 24 hours). Grade 4 for all events indicated an emergency department visit or hospitalization.

Н™¸ bars represent 95% confidence intervals, and numbers above the 𝙸 bars are the percentage of participants who reported the specified reaction.The reactogenicity subset included 8183 participants. Overall, BNT162b2 recipients reported more local reactions than placebo recipients. Among BNT162b2 recipients, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site within 7 days after an injection was the most commonly reported local reaction, with less than 1% of participants across all age groups reporting severe pain (Figure 2).

Pain was reported less frequently among participants older than 55 years of age (71% reported pain after the first dose. 66% after the second dose) than among younger participants (83% after the first dose. 78% after the second dose).

A noticeably lower percentage of participants reported injection-site redness or swelling. The proportion of participants reporting local reactions did not increase after the second dose (Figure 2A), and no participant reported a grade 4 local reaction. In general, local reactions were mostly mild-to-moderate in severity and resolved within 1 to 2 days.

Systemic Reactogenicity Systemic events were reported more often by younger treatment recipients (16 to 55 years of age) than by older treatment recipients (more than 55 years of age) in the reactogenicity subset and more often after dose 2 than dose 1 (Figure 2B). The most commonly reported systemic events were fatigue and headache (59% and 52%, respectively, after the second dose, among younger treatment recipients. 51% and 39% among older recipients), although fatigue and headache were also reported by many placebo recipients (23% and 24%, respectively, after the second dose, among younger treatment recipients.

17% and 14% among older recipients). The frequency of any severe systemic event after the first dose was 0.9% or less. Severe systemic events were reported in less than 2% of treatment recipients after either dose, except for fatigue (in 3.8%) and headache (in 2.0%) after the second dose.

Fever (temperature, ≥38°C) was reported after the second dose by 16% of younger treatment recipients and by 11% of older recipients. Only 0.2% of treatment recipients and 0.1% of placebo recipients reported fever (temperature, 38.9 to 40°C) after the first dose, as compared with 0.8% and 0.1%, respectively, after the second dose. Two participants each in the treatment and placebo groups reported temperatures above 40.0°C.

Younger treatment recipients were more likely to use antipyretic or pain medication (28% after dose 1. 45% after dose 2) than older treatment recipients (20% after dose 1. 38% after dose 2), and placebo recipients were less likely (10 to 14%) than treatment recipients to use the medications, regardless of age or dose.

Systemic events including fever and chills were observed within the first 1 to 2 days after vaccination and resolved shortly thereafter. Daily use of the electronic diary ranged from 90 to 93% for each day after the first dose and from 75 to 83% for each day after the second dose. No difference was noted between the BNT162b2 group and the placebo group.

Adverse Events Adverse event analyses are provided for all enrolled 43,252 participants, with variable follow-up time after dose 1 (Table S3). More BNT162b2 recipients than placebo recipients reported any adverse cheap kamagra oral jelly event (27% and 12%, respectively) or a related adverse event (21% and 5%). This distribution largely reflects the inclusion of transient reactogenicity events, which were reported as adverse events more commonly by treatment recipients than by placebo recipients.

Sixty-four treatment recipients (0.3%) and 6 placebo recipients (<0.1%) reported lymphadenopathy. Few participants in either group had severe adverse events, serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Four related serious adverse events were reported among BNT162b2 recipients (shoulder injury related to treatment administration, right axillary lymphadenopathy, paroxysmal ventricular arrhythmia, and right leg paresthesia).

Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction). No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the treatment or placebo. No erectile dysfunction treatment–associated deaths were observed.

No stopping rules were met during the reporting period. Safety monitoring will continue for 2 years after administration of the second dose of treatment. Efficacy Table 2.

Table 2. treatment Efficacy against erectile dysfunction treatment at Least 7 days after the Second Dose. Table 3.

Table 3. treatment Efficacy Overall and by Subgroup in Participants without Evidence of before 7 Days after Dose 2. Figure 3.

Figure 3. Efficacy of BNT162b2 against erectile dysfunction treatment after the First Dose. Shown is the cumulative incidence of erectile dysfunction treatment after the first dose (modified intention-to-treat population).

Each symbol represents erectile dysfunction treatment cases starting on a given day. Filled symbols represent severe erectile dysfunction treatment cases. Some symbols represent more than one case, owing to overlapping dates.

The inset shows the same data on an enlarged y axis, through 21 days. Surveillance time is the total time in 1000 person-years for the given end point across all participants within each group at risk for the end point. The time period for erectile dysfunction treatment case accrual is from the first dose to the end of the surveillance period.

The confidence interval (CI) for treatment efficacy (VE) is derived according to the Clopper–Pearson method.Among 36,523 participants who had no evidence of existing or prior erectile dysfunction , 8 cases of erectile dysfunction treatment with onset at least 7 days after the second dose were observed among treatment recipients and 162 among placebo recipients. This case split corresponds to 95.0% treatment efficacy (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.3 to 97.6. Table 2).

Among participants with and those without evidence of prior SARS CoV-2 , 9 cases of erectile dysfunction treatment at least 7 days after the second dose were observed among treatment recipients and 169 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.6% treatment efficacy (95% CI, 89.9 to 97.3). Supplemental analyses indicated that treatment efficacy among subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, obesity, and presence of a coexisting condition was generally consistent with that observed in the overall population (Table 3 and Table S4). treatment efficacy among participants with hypertension was analyzed separately but was consistent with the other subgroup analyses (treatment efficacy, 94.6%.

95% CI, 68.7 to 99.9. Case split. BNT162b2, 2 cases.

Placebo, 44 cases). Figure 3 shows cases of erectile dysfunction treatment or severe erectile dysfunction treatment with onset at any time after the first dose (mITT population) (additional data on severe erectile dysfunction treatment are available in Table S5). Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a treatment efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the treatment, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose.Objectives, Participants, and Oversight We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, phase 3 trial as part of a phase 1–2–3 trial assessing BNT162b2 safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy in healthy persons 12 years of age or older.

This report presents findings from 12-to-15-year-old participants enrolled in the United States, including descriptive comparisons of safety between participants in that age cohort and those who were 16 to 25 years of age and an evaluation of the noninferiority of immunogenicity in the 12-to-15-year-old cohort to that in the 16-to-25-year-old cohort. Data were collected through the cutoff date of March 13, 2021. Eligible participants were healthy or had stable preexisting disease (including hepatitis B, hepatitis C, or human immunodeficiency kamagra ).

Persons with a previous clinical or virologic erectile dysfunction treatment diagnosis or erectile dysfunction , previous erectile dysfunction vaccination, diagnosis of an immunocompromising or immunodeficiency disorder, or treatment with immunosuppressive therapy (including cytotoxic agents and systemic glucocorticoids) were excluded. The ethical conduct of the trial is summarized in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. Additional details of the trial are provided in the protocol, available at NEJM.org.

Pfizer was responsible for the trial design and conduct, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and writing of the manuscript that was submitted. Both Pfizer and BioNTech manufactured the treatment and placebo. BioNTech was the regulatory sponsor of the trial and contributed to data interpretation and writing of the manuscript.

All data were available to the authors, who vouch for their accuracy and completeness and for the adherence of the trial to the protocol. Procedures Randomization was conducted with the use of an interactive Web-based response system. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of 30 μg of BNT162b2 or placebo (saline) 21 days apart.

For evaluation of immediate treatment-associated reactions, participants were observed in the clinic for 30 minutes after vaccination. Safety Safety objectives included the assessment of local or systemic reactogenicity events, which were recorded by the participants in an electronic diary (e-diary) for 7 days after each dose. Unsolicited adverse events (i.e., those reported by the participant without e-diary prompting) and serious adverse events were also recorded from receipt of the first dose through 1 month and 6 months after dose 2, respectively.

Immunogenicity Immunogenicity assessments (erectile dysfunction serum neutralization assay and receptor-binding domain [RBD]–binding or S1-binding IgG direct Luminex immunoassays) were performed before vaccination and 1 month after dose 2, as described previously.3 The immunogenicity objective was to show noninferiority of the immune response to BNT162b2 in 12-to-15-year-old participants as compared with that in 16-to-25-year-old participants. Noninferiority was assessed among participants who had no evidence of previous erectile dysfunction with the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio of erectile dysfunction 50% neutralizing titers in 12-to-15-year-old participants as compared with 16-to-25-year-old participants 1 month after dose 2. BNT162b2 immunogenicity was evaluated in participants with and those without serologic or virologic evidence of previous erectile dysfunction .

Corresponding end points were the geometric mean erectile dysfunction neutralizing titers at baseline (i.e., immediately before receipt of the first injection) and 1 month after dose 2 and geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) in titers from baseline to 1 month after dose 2. Efficacy The efficacy of BNT162b2 against confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment with an onset 7 or more days after dose 2 was summarized in participants who did not have evidence of previous erectile dysfunction , as well as in all vaccinated participants. Surveillance for potential erectile dysfunction treatment cases was undertaken throughout the trial.

If acute respiratory illness developed in a participant, the participant was tested for erectile dysfunction. Methods for identifying erectile dysfunction s and erectile dysfunction treatment diagnoses are summarized in the Supplementary Appendix. Statistical Analysis The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 or placebo.

The reactogenicity subset included all 12-to-15-year-old participants and a subset of 16-to-25-year-old participants (those who received an e-diary to record reactogenicity events). Safety end points are presented descriptively as counts, percentages, and associated Clopper–Pearson two-sided 95% confidence intervals, with adverse events and serious adverse events described according to terms in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, version 23.1, for each group. Immunogenicity was assessed in a random subset of participants in each age cohort with the use of a simple random-sample selection procedure.

For immunogenicity assessments, all participants in both age cohorts were from U.S. Sites. The dose 2 immunogenicity population that could be evaluated included participants who underwent randomization and received two BNT162b2 doses in accordance with the protocol, received dose 2 within the prespecified window (19 to 42 days after dose 1), had at least one valid and determinate immunogenicity result from a blood sample obtained within 28 to 42 days after dose 2, and had no major protocol deviations.

Noninferiority of the immune response to BNT162b2 in 12-to-15-year-old participants as compared with that in 16-to-25-year-old participants was assessed on the basis of the geometric mean ratio of erectile dysfunction 50% neutralizing titers. A sample of 225 BNT162b2 recipients who could be evaluated (or 280 BNT162b2 recipients overall) in each age cohort was estimated to provide 90.8% power for declaring noninferiority (defined as a lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio of >0.67). A testing laboratory supply limitation of the qualified viral lot used for assay validation and clinical testing resulted in the trial having fewer participants than anticipated for the immunogenicity analyses.

Calculations of the geometric mean ratios, geometric mean titers, and GMFRs are described in the Supplementary Appendix. Although the formal evaluation of efficacy was to be based on the overall results obtained across all age cohorts, the statistical analysis plan specified that descriptive efficacy summaries would be provided for each age cohort (the stratification factor). The efficacy analysis for the 12-to-15-year-old cohort was planned as a descriptive analysis because the number of cases that would occur in the age subgroups was unknown.

The efficacy population that could be evaluated included all eligible 12-to-15-year-old participants who underwent randomization and received two doses of BNT162b2 or placebo, received dose 2 within the prespecified window (19 to 42 days after dose 1), and had no major protocol deviations. The all-available efficacy population included all participants who received one or two doses. treatment efficacy was defined as 100×(1−IRR), where IRR is the ratio of the rate of a first confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment illness in the BNT162b2 group to the corresponding rate in the placebo group.

Two-sided Clopper–Pearson 95% confidence intervals were calculated (not adjusted for multiple comparisons). Because the number of participants who reported symptoms but were missing a valid polymerase-chain-reaction test result was small, data for these participants were not imputed in the analysis..

Figure 1 buy kamagra oral jelly click this site. Enrollment and Randomization. The diagram represents all enrolled participants through November 14, 2020. The safety subset (those with a median of 2 months of follow-up, in accordance with application requirements for Emergency Use Authorization) is based on an October 9, 2020, data cut-off buy kamagra oral jelly date. The further procedures that one participant in the placebo group declined after dose 2 (lower right corner of the diagram) were those involving collection of blood and nasal swab samples.Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Participants in the Main buy kamagra oral jelly Safety Population. Between July 27, 2020, and November 14, 2020, a total of 44,820 persons were screened, and 43,548 persons 16 years of age or older underwent randomization at 152 sites worldwide (United States, 130 sites. Argentina, 1. Brazil, 2 buy kamagra oral jelly.

South Africa, 4. Germany, 6. And Turkey, 9) in the phase 2/3 portion of the buy kamagra oral jelly trial. A total of 43,448 participants received injections. 21,720 received BNT162b2 and 21,728 received placebo (Figure 1).

At the data cut-off date of October 9, a total of 37,706 participants had a median of at least 2 months of safety data buy kamagra oral jelly available after the second dose and contributed to the main safety data set. Among these 37,706 participants, 49% were female, 83% were White, 9% were Black or African American, 28% were Hispanic or Latinx, 35% were obese (body mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters] of at least 30.0), and 21% had at least one coexisting condition. The median age was 52 years, and 42% of participants were older than 55 years of age (Table 1 and Table S2). Safety Local Reactogenicity Figure 2 buy kamagra oral jelly. Figure 2.

Local and Systemic Reactions Reported within 7 Days after Injection of BNT162b2 or Placebo, According to Age Group. Data on local and systemic reactions buy kamagra oral jelly and use of medication were collected with electronic diaries from participants in the reactogenicity subset (8,183 participants) for 7 days after each vaccination. Solicited injection-site (local) reactions are shown in Panel A. Pain at the injection site was assessed according to the following scale. Mild, does not interfere buy kamagra oral jelly with activity.

Moderate, interferes with activity. Severe, prevents daily activity. And grade buy kamagra oral jelly 4, emergency department visit or hospitalization. Redness and swelling were measured according to the following scale. Mild, 2.0 to 5.0 cm in diameter.

Moderate, >5.0 to 10.0 cm in buy kamagra oral jelly diameter. Severe, >10.0 cm in diameter. And grade 4, necrosis or exfoliative dermatitis (for redness) and necrosis (for swelling). Systemic events and medication use are buy kamagra oral jelly shown in Panel B. Fever categories are designated in the key.

Medication use was not graded. Additional scales were as follows buy kamagra oral jelly. Fatigue, headache, chills, new or worsened muscle pain, new or worsened joint pain (mild. Does not interfere with activity. Moderate.

Some interference with activity. Or severe. Prevents daily activity), vomiting (mild. 1 to 2 times in 24 hours. Moderate.

>2 times in 24 hours. Or severe. Requires intravenous hydration), and diarrhea (mild. 2 to 3 loose stools in 24 hours. Moderate.

4 to 5 loose stools in 24 hours. Or severe. 6 or more loose stools in 24 hours). Grade 4 for all events indicated an emergency department visit or hospitalization. Н™¸ bars represent 95% confidence intervals, and numbers above the 𝙸 bars are the percentage of participants who reported the specified reaction.The reactogenicity subset included 8183 participants.

Overall, BNT162b2 recipients reported more local reactions than placebo recipients. Among BNT162b2 recipients, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site within 7 days after an injection was the most commonly reported local reaction, with less than 1% of participants across all age groups reporting severe pain (Figure 2). Pain was reported less frequently among participants older than 55 years of age (71% reported pain after the first dose. 66% after the second dose) than among younger participants (83% after the first dose. 78% after the second dose).

A noticeably lower percentage of participants reported injection-site redness or swelling. The proportion of participants reporting local reactions did not increase after the second dose (Figure 2A), and no participant reported a grade 4 local reaction. In general, local reactions were mostly mild-to-moderate in severity and resolved within 1 to 2 days. Systemic Reactogenicity Systemic events were reported more often by younger treatment recipients (16 to 55 years of age) than by older treatment recipients (more than 55 years of age) in the reactogenicity subset and more often after dose 2 than dose 1 (Figure 2B). The most commonly reported systemic events were fatigue and headache (59% and 52%, respectively, after the second dose, among younger treatment recipients.

51% and 39% among older recipients), although fatigue and headache were also reported by many placebo recipients (23% and 24%, respectively, after the second dose, among younger treatment recipients. 17% and 14% among older recipients). The frequency of any severe systemic event after the first dose was 0.9% or less. Severe systemic events were reported in less than 2% of treatment recipients after either dose, except for fatigue (in 3.8%) and headache (in 2.0%) after the second dose. Fever (temperature, ≥38°C) was reported after the second dose by 16% of younger treatment recipients and by 11% of older recipients.

Only 0.2% of treatment recipients and 0.1% of placebo recipients reported fever (temperature, 38.9 to 40°C) after the first dose, as compared with 0.8% and 0.1%, respectively, after the second dose. Two participants each in the treatment and placebo groups reported temperatures above 40.0°C. Younger treatment recipients were more likely to use antipyretic or pain medication (28% after dose 1. 45% after dose 2) than older treatment recipients (20% after dose 1. 38% after dose 2), and placebo recipients were less likely (10 to 14%) than treatment recipients to use the medications, regardless of age or dose.

Systemic events including fever and chills were observed within the first 1 to 2 days after vaccination and resolved shortly thereafter. Daily use of the electronic diary ranged from 90 to 93% for each day after the first dose and from 75 to 83% for each day after the second dose. No difference was noted between the BNT162b2 group and the placebo group. Adverse Events Adverse event analyses are provided for all enrolled 43,252 participants, with variable follow-up time after dose 1 (Table S3). More BNT162b2 recipients than placebo recipients read more reported any adverse event (27% and 12%, respectively) or a related adverse event (21% and 5%).

This distribution largely reflects the inclusion of transient reactogenicity events, which were reported as adverse events more commonly by treatment recipients than by placebo recipients. Sixty-four treatment recipients (0.3%) and 6 placebo recipients (<0.1%) reported lymphadenopathy. Few participants in either group had severe adverse events, serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Four related serious adverse events were reported among BNT162b2 recipients (shoulder injury related to treatment administration, right axillary lymphadenopathy, paroxysmal ventricular arrhythmia, and right leg paresthesia). Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction).

No deaths were considered by the investigators to be related to the treatment or placebo. No erectile dysfunction treatment–associated deaths were observed. No stopping rules were met during the reporting period. Safety monitoring will continue for 2 years after administration of the second dose of treatment. Efficacy Table 2.

Table 2. treatment Efficacy against erectile dysfunction treatment at Least 7 days after the Second Dose. Table 3. Table 3. treatment Efficacy Overall and by Subgroup in Participants without Evidence of before 7 Days after Dose 2.

Figure 3. Figure 3. Efficacy of BNT162b2 against erectile dysfunction treatment after the First Dose. Shown is the cumulative incidence of erectile dysfunction treatment after the first dose (modified intention-to-treat population). Each symbol represents erectile dysfunction treatment cases starting on a given day.

Filled symbols represent severe erectile dysfunction treatment cases. Some symbols represent more than one case, owing to overlapping dates. The inset shows the same data on an enlarged y axis, through 21 days. Surveillance time is the total time in 1000 person-years for the given end point across all participants within each group at risk for the end point. The time period for erectile dysfunction treatment case accrual is from the first dose to the end of the surveillance period.

The confidence interval (CI) for treatment efficacy (VE) is derived according to the Clopper–Pearson method.Among 36,523 participants who had no evidence of existing or prior erectile dysfunction , 8 cases of erectile dysfunction treatment with onset at least 7 days after the second dose were observed among treatment recipients and 162 among placebo recipients. This case split corresponds to 95.0% treatment efficacy (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.3 to 97.6. Table 2). Among participants with and those without evidence of prior SARS CoV-2 , 9 cases of erectile dysfunction treatment at least 7 days after the second dose were observed among treatment recipients and 169 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 94.6% treatment efficacy (95% CI, 89.9 to 97.3). Supplemental analyses indicated that treatment efficacy among subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, obesity, and presence of a coexisting condition was generally consistent with that observed in the overall population (Table 3 and Table S4).

treatment efficacy among participants with hypertension was analyzed separately but was consistent with the other subgroup analyses (treatment efficacy, 94.6%. 95% CI, 68.7 to 99.9. Case split. BNT162b2, 2 cases. Placebo, 44 cases).

Figure 3 shows cases of erectile dysfunction treatment or severe erectile dysfunction treatment with onset at any time after the first dose (mITT population) (additional data on severe erectile dysfunction treatment are available in Table S5). Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a treatment efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the treatment, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose.Objectives, Participants, and Oversight We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, phase 3 trial as part of a phase 1–2–3 trial assessing BNT162b2 safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy in healthy persons 12 years of age or older. This report presents findings from 12-to-15-year-old participants enrolled in the United States, including descriptive comparisons of safety between participants in that age cohort and those who were 16 to 25 years of age and an evaluation of the noninferiority of immunogenicity in the 12-to-15-year-old cohort to that in the 16-to-25-year-old cohort. Data were collected through the cutoff date of March 13, 2021. Eligible participants were healthy or had stable preexisting disease (including hepatitis B, hepatitis C, or human immunodeficiency kamagra ).

Persons with a previous clinical or virologic erectile dysfunction treatment diagnosis or erectile dysfunction , previous erectile dysfunction vaccination, diagnosis of an immunocompromising or immunodeficiency disorder, or treatment with immunosuppressive therapy (including cytotoxic agents and systemic glucocorticoids) were excluded. The ethical conduct of the trial is summarized in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org. Additional details of the trial are provided in the protocol, available at NEJM.org. Pfizer was responsible for the trial design and conduct, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and writing of the manuscript that was submitted. Both Pfizer and BioNTech manufactured the treatment and placebo.

BioNTech was the regulatory sponsor of the trial and contributed to data interpretation and writing of the manuscript. All data were available to the authors, who vouch for their accuracy and completeness and for the adherence of the trial to the protocol. Procedures Randomization was conducted with the use of an interactive Web-based response system. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of 30 μg of BNT162b2 or placebo (saline) 21 days apart. For evaluation of immediate treatment-associated reactions, participants were observed in the clinic for 30 minutes after vaccination.

Safety Safety objectives included the assessment of local or systemic reactogenicity events, which were recorded by the participants in an electronic diary (e-diary) for 7 days after each dose. Unsolicited adverse events (i.e., those reported by the participant without e-diary prompting) and serious adverse events were also recorded from receipt of the first dose through 1 month and 6 months after dose 2, respectively. Immunogenicity Immunogenicity assessments (erectile dysfunction serum neutralization assay and receptor-binding domain [RBD]–binding or S1-binding IgG direct Luminex immunoassays) were performed before vaccination and 1 month after dose 2, as described previously.3 The immunogenicity objective was to show noninferiority of the immune response to BNT162b2 in 12-to-15-year-old participants as compared with that in 16-to-25-year-old participants. Noninferiority was assessed among participants who had no evidence of previous erectile dysfunction with the use of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio of erectile dysfunction 50% neutralizing titers in 12-to-15-year-old participants as compared with 16-to-25-year-old participants 1 month after dose 2. BNT162b2 immunogenicity was evaluated in participants with and those without serologic or virologic evidence of previous erectile dysfunction .

Corresponding end points were the geometric mean erectile dysfunction neutralizing titers at baseline (i.e., immediately before receipt of the first injection) and 1 month after dose 2 and geometric mean fold rises (GMFRs) in titers from baseline to 1 month after dose 2. Efficacy The efficacy of BNT162b2 against confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment with an onset 7 or more days after dose 2 was summarized in participants who did not have evidence of previous erectile dysfunction , as well as in all vaccinated participants. Surveillance for potential erectile dysfunction treatment cases was undertaken throughout the trial. If acute respiratory illness developed in a participant, the participant was tested for erectile dysfunction. Methods for identifying erectile dysfunction s and erectile dysfunction treatment diagnoses are summarized in the Supplementary Appendix.

Statistical Analysis The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 or placebo. The reactogenicity subset included all 12-to-15-year-old participants and a subset of 16-to-25-year-old participants (those who received an e-diary to record reactogenicity events). Safety end points are presented descriptively as counts, percentages, and associated Clopper–Pearson two-sided 95% confidence intervals, with adverse events and serious adverse events described according to terms in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, version 23.1, for each group. Immunogenicity was assessed in a random subset of participants in each age cohort with the use of a simple random-sample selection procedure. For immunogenicity assessments, all participants in both age cohorts were from U.S.

Sites. The dose 2 immunogenicity population that could be evaluated included participants who underwent randomization and received two BNT162b2 doses in accordance with the protocol, received dose 2 within the prespecified window (19 to 42 days after dose 1), had at least one valid and determinate immunogenicity result from a blood sample obtained within 28 to 42 days after dose 2, and had no major protocol deviations. Noninferiority of the immune response to BNT162b2 in 12-to-15-year-old participants as compared with that in 16-to-25-year-old participants was assessed on the basis of the geometric mean ratio of erectile dysfunction 50% neutralizing titers. A sample of 225 BNT162b2 recipients who could be evaluated (or 280 BNT162b2 recipients overall) in each age cohort was estimated to provide 90.8% power for declaring noninferiority (defined as a lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratio of >0.67). A testing laboratory supply limitation of the qualified viral lot used for assay validation and clinical testing resulted in the trial having fewer participants than anticipated for the immunogenicity analyses.

Calculations of the geometric mean ratios, geometric mean titers, and GMFRs are described in the Supplementary Appendix. Although the formal evaluation of efficacy was to be based on the overall results obtained across all age cohorts, the statistical analysis plan specified that descriptive efficacy summaries would be provided for each age cohort (the stratification factor). The efficacy analysis for the 12-to-15-year-old cohort was planned as a descriptive analysis because the number of cases that would occur in the age subgroups was unknown. The efficacy population that could be evaluated included all eligible 12-to-15-year-old participants who underwent randomization and received two doses of BNT162b2 or placebo, received dose 2 within the prespecified window (19 to 42 days after dose 1), and had no major protocol deviations. The all-available efficacy population included all participants who received one or two doses.

treatment efficacy was defined as 100×(1−IRR), where IRR is the ratio of the rate of a first confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment illness in the BNT162b2 group to the corresponding rate in the placebo group. Two-sided Clopper–Pearson 95% confidence intervals were calculated (not adjusted for multiple comparisons). Because the number of participants who reported symptoms but were missing a valid polymerase-chain-reaction test result was small, data for these participants were not imputed in the analysis..

What may interact with Kamagra?

Do not take Kamagra with any of the following:

• cisapride
• methscopolamine nitrate
• nitrates like amyl nitrite, isosorbide dinitrate, isosorbide mononitrate, nitroglycerin
• nitroprusside
• other sildenafil products (Caverta, Silagra, Eriacta, etc.)

Kamagra may also interact with the following:

• certain drugs for high blood pressure
• certain drugs for the treatment of HIV or AIDS
• certain drugs used for fungal or yeast s, like fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, and voriconazole
• cimetidine
• erythromycin
• rifampin

This list may not describe all possible interactions. Give your health care providers a list of all the medicines, herbs, non-prescription drugs, or dietary supplements you use. Also tell them if you smoke, drink alcohol, or use illegal drugs. Some items may interact with your medicine.

Who can buy kamagra

Maeda Y, Nakamura https://ilysesimonrd.com/nf_sub/377/ M, Ninomiya H, et al who can buy kamagra. Trends in intensive neonatal care during the erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak in Japan. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal who can buy kamagra Ed 2021;106:327–29.

Doi. 10.1136/archdischild-2020-320521The authors have noticed an error in table 1 of their short report recently published. They mistakenly showed who can buy kamagra values for weeks 10–17 of 2019 instead of those for weeks 2–9 of 2020.

The values for ‘Births before 33 6/7 weeks’ and ‘Births between 34 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks’ of Table 1 should be amended as follows:Births before 33 6/7 weeksWeeks 2-9, 2020. 83, instead of 99Difference (% change). 17 (20.5), instead of 33 (33.3)Births between 34 0/7 and 36 who can buy kamagra 6/7 weeksWeeks 2-9, 2020.

207, instead of 211Difference (% change). 17 (8.2), instead of 21 (10.0)Accordingly, the second sentence of the subsection ‘Preterm births’ should also be corrected to “The number of preterm births showed a statistically significant reduction in weeks 2–9 vs weeks 10–17 of 2020. Births before who can buy kamagra 33 6/7 gestational weeks from 83 to 66 (aIRR, 0.71.

95% CI, 0.50 to 1.00. P=0.05) and births between 34 0/7 and 36 6/7 gestational weeks from 207 to 190 (aIRR, 0.85. 95% CI, 0.74 who can buy kamagra to 0.98.

P=0.02) (figure 1 and table 1).Reviewing recordings of neonatal resuscitation with parentsFew of us relish the thought of our performance in a challenging situation being recorded and reviewed by others, but many have accepted it for research purposes in the context of newborn resuscitation. At Leiden University Medical Centre Neonatal who can buy kamagra Unit they have been recording videos of all newborn resuscitations since 2014 in order to study and improve care during transition. The recordings are kept as a part of the medical record and, in contrast with other published practice to date, parents are offered an opportunity to review the recording with a professional and to have still images from it or a copy of the video.

In this qualitative study Maria C den Boer and colleagues interviewed parents of preterm babies who had viewed their baby’s recording to provide insight into their experience. The study included 25 parents of 31 preterm babies with median gestational age 27+5 who can buy kamagra weeks. Four of the babies had gone on to die in the neonatal unit.

Most parents offered the opportunity to see the recording wished to do so and around two thirds asked for images or a copy. The parental experiences who can buy kamagra of viewing the videos were very positive. The experience improved their understanding of what had happened, enhanced their family relationships, and increased their appreciation of the care team.Colm O’Donnell discusses his own experience with researching video recordings of resuscitation, beginning with a visit to Neil Finer and Wade Rich at University of California, San Diego in 2003.

Colm also has positive experiences of sharing the recordings with families. The team in Leiden who can buy kamagra recommend this practice. Both articles are an interesting read that will challenge your assumptions and stimulate reflection.

See page F346 and F344Physiological responses to facemask application in newborns immediately after birthVincent Gaertner and colleagues reviewed video recordings of initial stabilisation at birth of term and late-preterm infants who were enrolled in a randomised trial of different face-masks. 128 face-mask who can buy kamagra applications were evaluated. In eleven percent of face-mask applications the infant stopped breathing.

When apnoea occurred after mask application there was a median fall in heart rate of 38 beats per minute. These episodes are considered to represent the who can buy kamagra trigeminocardiac where to buy generic kamagra reflex and recovered within 30 s. Apnoea was also observed after face-mask reapplications, although less frequently.

There were a median of 4 face-mask applications per infant, suggesting a lot of additional potential for avoidable who can buy kamagra interruption of support. This observation of apneoa after face-mask application is less frequent than in previous reports in more preterm infants but is still quite common. See page F381Outcomes of a uniformly active approach to infants born at 22–24 weeks of gestationThis single centre report by Fanny Söderström and colleagues from Uppsala in Sweden describes the outcomes of infants born at 22 to 24 weeks gestation between 2006 and 2015.

In this institution, all mother-infant dyads at risk for who can buy kamagra extremely preterm delivery are provided proactive treatment. This includes intrauterine referral when approaching 22 weeks of gestation, provision of tocolytics, antenatal steroids and family counselling. There were 222 liveborn infants born at the hospital or admitted soon after birth.

There had been who can buy kamagra four fetal deaths during in utero transport to the centre and there were 14 stillbirths of fetuses that were alive at admission. Two infants died in the delivery room after birth. Survival of the liveborn babies was 52% at 22 weeks, 64% at 23 weeks and 70% at 25 weeks.

Follow-up information was who can buy kamagra available for 93% of infants. There were 10 infants with cerebral palsy and no infants who were blind or deaf. Around a third had diagnosis of developmental delay.

The study provides a measure who can buy kamagra of what can be achieved when decisions to initiate treatment are not selective according to the views of the parents and physicians. See page F413Bronchopulmonary dysplasia and growthTheodore Dassios and colleagues analysed data from the UK National Neonatal Research Database for the years 2014 to 2018. They looked at postnatal growth in all liveborn infants born before 28 weeks gestation and admitted to neonatal who can buy kamagra units.

There were 11 806 infants. Bronchopulmonary dysplsia was defined as any requirement for respiratory support at 36 weeks and affected 57%. As measured by change in weight and head circumference z-scores from birth to discharge, the infants who who can buy kamagra developed BPD grew slightly better than those who did not.

See page F386Disorders of vision in neonatal hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathyEva Nagy and colleagues undertook a systematic review of reports of outcome after hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy to evaluate the evidence relating to visual impairment. Although this is a recognised complication of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, it has not been well described. They identified six who can buy kamagra studies that enrolled 283 term born infants that met their inclusion criteria.

Some form of visual impairment was reported in 35% but there was huge variation in the techniques used for assessment. It remains difficult to advise families about the risks and nature of visual impairments that might be encountered. There are lots of barriers to obtaining good information in this area because who can buy kamagra of the need for prolonged follow-up and difficulty in testing individuals with other difficulties.

See page F357Management of systemic hypotension in term infants with persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newbornHeather Siefkes and Satyan Lakshminrusimha present a beautifully illustrated review of the multiple factors contributing to haemodynamic disturbance in infants with PPHN, and the mechanisms of action of the various candidate therapeutic agents. This supports a reasoned approach to treatment. The challenge remains to supplement this with who can buy kamagra high quality evidence.

The HIP trial report illustrates the enormous challenge of studying treatments for haemodynamic disturbance in the immediate newborn period and the hurdles that need to be overcome to enable progress. See page F446 and F398Ethics statementsPatient consent for publicationNot required..

Maeda Y, Nakamura buy kamagra oral jelly M, Ninomiya H, http://ribbonebrewingcompany.com/ et al. Trends in intensive neonatal care during the erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak in Japan. Arch Dis Child buy kamagra oral jelly Fetal Neonatal Ed 2021;106:327–29. Doi.

10.1136/archdischild-2020-320521The authors have noticed an error in table 1 of their short report recently published. They mistakenly showed values for weeks 10–17 buy kamagra oral jelly of 2019 instead of those for weeks 2–9 of 2020. The values for ‘Births before 33 6/7 weeks’ and ‘Births between 34 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeks’ of Table 1 should be amended as follows:Births before 33 6/7 weeksWeeks 2-9, 2020. 83, instead of 99Difference (% change).

17 (20.5), instead of 33 (33.3)Births buy kamagra oral jelly between 34 0/7 and 36 6/7 weeksWeeks 2-9, 2020. 207, instead of 211Difference (% change). 17 (8.2), instead of 21 (10.0)Accordingly, the second sentence of the subsection ‘Preterm births’ should also be corrected to “The number of preterm births showed a statistically significant reduction in weeks 2–9 vs weeks 10–17 of 2020. Births before 33 6/7 buy kamagra oral jelly gestational weeks from 83 to 66 (aIRR, 0.71.

95% CI, 0.50 to 1.00. P=0.05) and births between 34 0/7 and 36 6/7 gestational weeks from 207 to 190 (aIRR, 0.85. 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.98 buy kamagra oral jelly. P=0.02) (figure 1 and table 1).Reviewing recordings of neonatal resuscitation with parentsFew of us relish the thought of our performance in a challenging situation being recorded and reviewed by others, but many have accepted it for research purposes in the context of newborn resuscitation.

At Leiden University Medical Centre Neonatal buy kamagra oral jelly Unit they have been recording videos of all newborn resuscitations since 2014 in order to study and improve care during transition. The recordings are kept as a part of the medical record and, in contrast with other published practice to date, parents are offered an opportunity to review the recording with a professional and to have still images from it or a copy of the video. In this qualitative study Maria C den Boer and colleagues interviewed parents of preterm babies who had viewed their baby’s recording to provide insight into their experience. The study included 25 parents of 31 buy kamagra oral jelly preterm babies with median gestational age 27+5 weeks.

Four of the babies had gone on to die in the neonatal unit. Most parents offered the opportunity to see the recording wished to do so and around two thirds asked for images or a copy. The parental experiences of viewing the videos were very positive buy kamagra oral jelly. The experience improved their understanding of what had happened, enhanced their family relationships, and increased their appreciation of the care team.Colm O’Donnell discusses his own experience with researching video recordings of resuscitation, beginning with a visit to Neil Finer and Wade Rich at University of California, San Diego in 2003.

Colm also has positive experiences of sharing the recordings with families. The team in Leiden buy kamagra oral jelly recommend this practice. Both articles are an interesting read that will challenge your assumptions and stimulate reflection. See page F346 and F344Physiological responses to facemask application in newborns immediately after birthVincent Gaertner and colleagues reviewed video recordings of initial stabilisation at birth of term and late-preterm infants who were enrolled in a randomised trial of different face-masks.

128 face-mask buy kamagra oral jelly applications were evaluated. In eleven percent of face-mask applications the infant stopped breathing. When apnoea occurred after mask application there was a median fall in heart rate of 38 beats per minute. These episodes are considered to represent the buy kamagra oral jelly trigeminocardiac reflex and recovered within http://commanddeliverysystems.com/download-forms/ 30 s.

Apnoea was also observed after face-mask reapplications, although less frequently. There were a median of 4 face-mask applications buy kamagra oral jelly per infant, suggesting a lot of additional potential for avoidable interruption of support. This observation of apneoa after face-mask application is less frequent than in previous reports in more preterm infants but is still quite common. See page F381Outcomes of a uniformly active approach to infants born at 22–24 weeks of gestationThis single centre report by Fanny Söderström and colleagues from Uppsala in Sweden describes the outcomes of infants born at 22 to 24 weeks gestation between 2006 and 2015.

In this institution, all mother-infant dyads at risk buy kamagra oral jelly for extremely preterm delivery are provided proactive treatment. This includes intrauterine referral when approaching 22 weeks of gestation, provision of tocolytics, antenatal steroids and family counselling. There were 222 liveborn infants born at the hospital or admitted soon after birth. There had been four fetal deaths during in utero transport to the centre and there buy kamagra oral jelly were 14 stillbirths of fetuses that were alive at admission.

Two infants died in the delivery room after birth. Survival of the liveborn babies was 52% at 22 weeks, 64% at 23 weeks and 70% at 25 weeks. Follow-up information buy kamagra oral jelly was available for 93% of infants. There were 10 infants with cerebral palsy and no infants who were blind or deaf.

Around a third had diagnosis of developmental delay. The study provides buy kamagra oral jelly a measure of what can be achieved when decisions to initiate treatment are not selective according to the views of the parents and physicians. See page F413Bronchopulmonary dysplasia and growthTheodore Dassios and colleagues analysed data from the UK National Neonatal Research Database for the years 2014 to 2018. They looked at postnatal growth in buy kamagra oral jelly all liveborn infants born before 28 weeks gestation and admitted to neonatal units.

There were 11 806 infants. Bronchopulmonary dysplsia was defined as any requirement for respiratory support at 36 weeks and affected 57%. As measured by change in weight and head circumference z-scores from birth to discharge, the infants who developed BPD grew slightly better than those who buy kamagra oral jelly did not. See page F386Disorders of vision in neonatal hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathyEva Nagy and colleagues undertook a systematic review of reports of outcome after hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy to evaluate the evidence relating to visual impairment.

Although this is a recognised complication of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, it has not been well described. They identified six studies that buy kamagra oral jelly enrolled 283 term born infants that met their inclusion criteria. Some form of visual impairment was reported in 35% but there was huge variation in the techniques used for assessment. It remains difficult to advise families about the risks and nature of visual impairments that might be encountered.

There are lots of barriers to obtaining good information in this buy kamagra oral jelly area because of the need for prolonged follow-up and difficulty in testing individuals with other difficulties. See page F357Management of systemic hypotension in term infants with persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newbornHeather Siefkes and Satyan Lakshminrusimha present a beautifully illustrated review of the multiple factors contributing to haemodynamic disturbance in infants with PPHN, and the mechanisms of action of the various candidate therapeutic agents. This supports a reasoned approach to treatment. The challenge remains to supplement this with buy kamagra oral jelly high quality evidence.

The HIP trial report illustrates the enormous challenge of studying treatments for haemodynamic disturbance in the immediate newborn period and the hurdles that need to be overcome to enable progress. See page F446 and F398Ethics statementsPatient consent for publicationNot required..

Viagra kamagra online

Sport is predicated on the idea of victors emerging from a viagra kamagra online level playing field. All ethically informed evaluate practices are like this. They require an equality of respect, consideration, and opportunity, while trying to achieve viagra kamagra online substantively unequal outcomes. For instance. Limited resources mean that physicians must treat some patients and not others, while still treating them with equal respect.

Examiners must pass viagra kamagra online some students and not others, while still giving their work equal consideration. Employers may only be able to hire one applicant, while still being required to treat all applicants fairly, and so on. The 800 m is viagra kamagra online meant to be one of these practices. A level and equidistance running track from which one victor is intended to emerge. The case of Caster Semenya raises challenging questions about what makes level-playing-fields level, questions that extend beyond any given playing field.In the Feature Article for this issue Loland provides us with new and engaging reasons to support of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision in the Casta Semenya case.

The impact of the CAS decision requires Casta Semenya to supress her naturally occurring testosterone if she is to compete in an international athletics viagra kamagra online events. The Semenya case is described by Loland as creating a ‘dilemma of rights’.i The dilemma lies in the choice between ‘the right of Semenya to compete in sport according to her legal sex and gender identity’ and ‘the right of other athletes within the average female testosterone range to compete under fair conditions’ (see footnote i).No one denies the importance of Semenya’s right. As Carpenter viagra kamagra online explains, ‘even where inconvenient, sex assigned at birth should always be respected unless an individual seeks otherwise’.2 Loland’s conclusions, Carpenter argues, ‘support a convenience-based approach to classification of sex where choices about the status of people with intersex variations are made by others according to their interests at that time’ (see footnote ii). Carpenter then further explains how the CAS decision is representative of ‘systemic forms of discrimination and human rights violations’ and provides no assistance in ‘how we make the world more hospitable and more accepting of difference’ (see footnote ii).What is therefore at issue is the existence of the second right. Let me explain how Loland constructs it.

The background principle is the viagra kamagra online principle of fair equality of opportunity, which requires that ‘individuals with similar endowments and talents and similar ambitions should be given similar opportunities and roughly equivalent prospects for competitive success’(see footnote i). This principle reflects, according to Loland, a deeper deontological right of respect and fair treatment. As we can appreciate, when it comes to the principle of fair equality of opportunity, a lot turns on what counts as ‘similar’ (or sufficiently different) endowments and talents and what counts as ‘similar’ (or sufficiently different) opportunities and prospects for success.For Loland, ‘dynamic inequalities’ concern differences in capabilities (such as strength, speed, and endurance, and in technical and tactical skills) that can be ‘cultivated by hard work and effort’ (see footnote i). These are capabilities that are ‘relevant’ and therefore permit a range differences between otherwise viagra kamagra online ‘similar’ athletes. €˜Stable inequalities’ are characterises (such as in age, sex, body size, and disability/ability) are ‘not-relevant’ and therefore require classification to ensure that ‘similar’ athletes are given ‘roughly equivalent prospects for success’.

It follows for Loland that athletes with ‘46 XY DSD conditions (and not for individuals with normal female XX chromosones), with testosterone viagra kamagra online levels above five nanomoles per litre blood (nmol/L), and who experience a ‘material androgenizing effect’’ benefit from a stable inequality (see footnote i). Hence, the ‘other athletes within the average female testosterone range’ therefore have a right not to compete under conditions of stable inequality. The solution, according to Knox and Anderson, lies in more nuance classifications. Commenting in (qualified) support of Loland, they suggest that ‘classification according to sex alone is no longer viagra kamagra online adequate’.3 Instead, ‘all athletes would be categorised, making classification the norm’ (see footnote iii).However, as we have just seen, Loland’s distinction between stable and dynamic inequalities depends on their ‘relevance’, and ‘relevance’ is a term that does not travel alone. Something is relevant (or irrelevant) only in relation to the value, purpose, or aim, of some practice.

One interpretation (which I take Loland to be saying) is that strength, speed, and endurance (and so on) are ‘relevant’ to ‘performance viagra kamagra online outcomes’. This can be misleading. Both dynamic and stable inequalities are relevant to (ie, can have an impact on) an athletic performance. Is a question of whether we ought to viagra kamagra online permit them to have an impact. The temptation is then to say that dynamic inequalities are relevant (and stable inequalities are irrelevant) where the aim is ‘respect and fair treatment’.

But here the snake begins to eat its tail (the principle of fair treatment requires sufficiently similar prospects for success >similar prospects for success require only dynamic inequalities>dynamic inequalities are capabilities that are permitted by the principle of fair treatment).In order to determine questions of relevance, we need to identify the value, purpose, or aim, of the social practice in question. If the aim of an athletic event is to have a victor emerge from a completely level playing field, then, as Chambers notes, socioeconomic inequalities viagra kamagra online are a larger affront to fair treatment than athletes with 46 XY DSD conditions.4 If the aim is to have a victor emerge from completely level hormonal playing field then ‘a man with low testosterone levels is unfairly disadvantaged against a man whose natural levels are higher, and so men’s competitions are unfair’ (see footnote iv). Or, at least very high testosterone males should be on hormone suppressants in order to give the ‘average’ competitor a ‘roughly equivalent prospect for competitive success’.The problem is that we are not interested in the average competitor. We are interested in the exceptional among us viagra kamagra online. Unless, it is for light relief.

In every Olympiad there is the observation that, in every Olympic event, one average person should be included in the competition for the spectators’ reference. The humour lies in the absurd scenarios that would follow, whether it be the 100 m sprint, high jump, viagra kamagra online or synchronised swimming. Great chasms of natural ability would be laid bare, the results of a lifetime of training and dedication would be even clearer to see, and the last place result would be entirely predictable. But note how these are viagra kamagra online different attributes. While we may admire Olympians, it is unclear whether it is because of their God-given ability, their grit and determination, or their role in the unpredictable theatre of sport.

If sport is a worthwhile social practice, we need to start spelling out its worth. Without doing so, we are unable to identify what capabilities are ‘relevant’ or ‘irrelevant’ viagra kamagra online to its aims, purpose or value. And until we can explain why one naturally occurring capability is ‘irrelevant’ to the aims, purposes, or values, of sport, while the remainder of them are relevant, I can only identify one right in play in the Semenya case.IntroductionSince the start of the erectile dysfunction treatment kamagra, many medical systems have needed to divert routine services in order to support the large number of patients with acute erectile dysfunction treatment disease. For example, in the National Health Service (NHS) almost all elective surgery has been postponed1 and outpatient clinics have been cancelled or conducted on-line treatment regimens for many forms of cancer have changed2 viagra kamagra online. This diversion inevitably reduces availability of routine treatments for non-erectile dysfunction treatment-related illness.

Even urgent treatments have needed to be modified. Patients with acute surgical emergencies such as appendicitis still present for care, cancers continue to be discovered in viagra kamagra online patients, and may require urgent management. Health systems are focused on making sure that these urgent needs are met. However, to achieve this goal, many patients are offered treatments that deviate from standard, non-kamagra management.Deviations from standard management are required for multiple factors such as:Limited resources (staff and equipment reallocated).Risk of nosocomial acquired in high-risk patients.Increased risk for medical staff to deliver treatments due to aerosolisation1.Treatments requiring intensive care therapy that is in limited availability.Operative procedures that are long and difficult or that are technically challenging if conducted in personal protective equipment. The outcomes from such procedures may be worse than in normal circumstances.Treatments that render patients more susceptible to erectile dysfunction treatment disease, for example chemotherapy.There are many instances of compromise, but some examples that we are aware of include viagra kamagra online open appendectomy rather than laparoscopy to reduce risk of aerosolisation3 and offering a percutaneousCoronary intervention (PCI) rather than coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for coronary artery disease, to reduce need for intensive care.

Surgery for cancers ordinarily operated on urgently maybe deferred for up to 3 months4 and surgery might be conducted under local anaesthesia that would typically have merited a general anaesthetic (both to reduce the aerosol risk of General anaesthesia, and because of relative lack of anaesthetists).The current emergency offers a unique difficulty. A significant number of treatments with proven viagra kamagra online benefit might be unavailable to patients while those alternatives that are available are not usually considered best practice and might be actually inferior. In usual circumstances, where two treatment options for a particular problem are considered appropriate, the decision of which option to pursue would often depend on the personal preference of the patient.But during the kamagra what is ethically and legally required of the doctor or medical professional informing patients about treatment and seeking their consent?. In particular, do health professionals need to make patients aware of the usual forms of treatment that they are not being offered in the current setting?. We consider two theoretical case examples:Case 1Jenny2 is a model in her mid-20s who presents to hospital at the viagra kamagra online peak of the erectile dysfunction treatment kamagra with acute appendicitis.

Her surgeon, Miss Schmidt, approaches Jenny to obtain consent for an open appendectomy. Miss Schmidt explains the risks of the operative procedure, and the alternative of conservative viagra kamagra online management (with intravenous antibiotics). Jenny consents to the procedure. However, she develops a postoperative wound and an unsightly scar. She does some research and discovers that a laparoscopic procedure would ordinarily have been performed and would have had a lower chance of viagra kamagra online wound .

She sues Miss Schmidt and the hospital trust where she was treated.Case 2June2s a retired teacher in her early 70s who has well-controlled diabetes and hypertension. She is active and runs a local food bank. Immediately prior to the kamagra lockdown in the UK June had an episode of severe chest pain and investigations revealed viagra kamagra online that she has had a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. The cardiothoracic surgical team recommends that June undergo a PCI although normally her pattern of coronary artery disease would be treated by CABG. When the cardiologist explains that surgery would be normally offered in this situation, and is theoretically superior to PCI, June’s husband becomes angry and demands that June is listed for surgery.In favour of non-disclosureIt might appear at first glance that doctors should obviously inform Jenny and viagra kamagra online June about the usual standard of care.

After all, consent cannot be informed if crucial information is lacking. However, one reason that this may be called into question is that it is not immediately clear how it benefits a patient to be informed about alternatives that are not actually available?. In usual circumstances, doctors are not obliged to inform patients about treatments that are performed overseas but not in the UK viagra kamagra online. In the UK, for example, there is a rigorous process for assessment of new treatments (not including experimental therapies). Some treatments that are available in other jurisdictions have not been deemed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to be sufficiently beneficial and cost-effective to viagra kamagra online be offered by the NHS.

It is hard to imagine that a health professional would be found negligent for not discussing with a patient a treatment that NICE has explicitly rejected. The same might apply for novel therapies that are currently unfunded pending formal evaluation by NICE.Of course, the difference is that the treatments we are discussing have been proven (or are believed) to be beneficial and would normally be provided. The Montgomery Ruling of 2015 in the UK established that patients must be informed of material risks viagra kamagra online of treatment and reasonable alternatives to treatment. The Bayley –v- George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust5case established that those reasonable alternative treatments must be ‘appropriate treatment’ not just a ‘possible treatment’6. In the current crisis, many previously standard treatments viagra kamagra online are no longer appropriate given the restrictions outlined.

In other circumstances they are appropriate. During a kamagra they are no longer appropriate, even if they become appropriate again at some unknown time in the future.In both ethical and legal terms, it is widely accepted that, for consent to be valid, if must be given voluntarily by a person who has capacity to consent and who understands the nature and risks of the treatment. A failure to obtain valid consent, or performing interventions in the absence of consent, could result in criminal proceedings viagra kamagra online for assault. Failing to provide adequate information in the consent process could support a claim of negligence. Ethically, adequate information about treatments is essential for the patient to enable them to weigh up options and decide which treatments they wish to undertake.

However, information about unavailable treatments arguably does not help viagra kamagra online the patient make an informed decision because it does not give them information that is relevant to consenting or to refusal of treatment that is actually available. If Miss Schmidt had given Jenny information about the relative benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy, that could not have helped Jenny’s decision to proceed with surgery. Her available choices were open appendectomy or viagra kamagra online no surgery. Moreover, as the case of June highlights, providing information about alternatives may lead them to desire or even demand those alternative options. This could cause distress both to the patient and the health professional (who is unable to acquiesce).Consideration might also be paid to the effect on patients of disclosure.

How would it affect a patient with newly diagnosed cancer to tell them that an alternative, perhaps better therapy, might be routinely available in usual circumstances viagra kamagra online but is not available now?. There is provision in the Montgomery Ruling, in rare circumstances, for therapeutic exception. That is, if information is significantly detrimental to the health of a patient it might viagra kamagra online be omitted. We could imagine a version of the case where Jenny was so intensely anxious about the proposed surgery that her surgeon comes to a sincere belief that discussion of the laparoscopic alternative would be extremely distressing or might even lead her to refuse surgery. In most cases, though, it would be hard to be sure that the risks of disclosing alternative (non-available) treatments would be so great that non-disclosure would be justified.In favour of disclosureIn the UK, professional guidance issued by the GMC (General Medical Council) requires doctors to take a personalised approach to information sharing about treatments by sharing ‘with patients the information they want or need in order to make decisions’.

The Montgomery judgement of 20157 broadly endorsed the position viagra kamagra online of the GMC, requiring patients to be told about any material risks and reasonable alternatives relevant to the decision at hand. The Supreme Court clarifies that materiality here should be judged by reference to a new two-limbed test founded on the notions of the ‘reasonable person in the patient’s position’ and the ‘particular patient’. One practical test might be for the clinician to ask themselves whether patients in general, or this particular patient might wish to know about alternative forms of treatment that would usually be offered.The GMC has recently produced kamagra-specific guidance8 on consent and decision-making, but this guidance is focused on managing consent in erectile dysfunction treatment-related interventions. While the GMC takes the view that its consent guidelines continue to apply as far as is practical, it also notes that the patient is enabled to viagra kamagra online consider the ‘reasonable alternatives’, and that the doctor is ‘open and honest with patients about the decision-making process and the criteria for setting priorities in individual cases’.In some situations, there might be the option of delaying treatment until later. When other surgical procedures are possible.

In that setting, it would be important to ensure that the patient is aware of those future options (including the viagra kamagra online risks of delay). For example, if Jenny had symptomatic gallstones, her surgeons might be offering an open cholecystectomy now or the possibility of a laparoscopic surgery at some later point. Understanding the full options open to her now and in the future may have considerable influence on Jenny’s decision. Likewise, if June is aware that she is not being offered standard treatment viagra kamagra online she may wish to delay treatment of her atherosclerosis until a later date. Of course, such a delay might lead to greater harm overall.

However, it would be ethically permissible to delay treatment if that was the patient’s informed choice (just as it would be permissible for the patient to refuse treatment altogether).In the appendicitis case, Jenny does not have the option for delaying her treatment, but the choice viagra kamagra online for June is more complicated, between immediate PCI which is a second-best treatment versus waiting for standard therapy. Immediate surgery also raises a risk of acquiring nosocomial erectile dysfunction treatment and June is in an age group and has comorbidities that put her at risk of severe erectile dysfunction treatment disease. Waiting for surgery leaves June at risk of sudden death. For an active and otherwise well patient with coronary disease like June, PCI procedure is not as good a treatment as CABG and June might legitimately wish to take her chances viagra kamagra online and wait for the standard treatment. The decision to operate or wait is a balance of risks that only June is fully able to make.

Patients in this scenario will take different viagra kamagra online approaches. Patients will need different amounts of information to form their decisions, many patients will need as much information as is available including information about procedures not currently available to make up their mind.June’s husband insists that she should receive the best treatment, and that she should therefore be listed for CABG. Although this treatment would appear to be in June’s best interests, and would respect her autonomy, those ethical considerations are potentially outweighed by distributive justice. The erectile dysfunction treatment kamagra of 2020 is being characterised viagra kamagra online by limitations. Liberties curtailed and choices restricted, this is justified by a need to protect healthcare systems from demand exceeding availability.

While resource allocation is always a relevant ethical concern in publicly funded healthcare systems, it is a dominant concern in a setting where there is a high demand for medical care and scare resources.It is well established that competent adult patients can consent to or refuse medical treatment but they cannot demand that health professionals provide treatments that are contrary to their professional judgement or (even more importantly) would consume scarce healthcare resources. In June’s case, agreeing to perform CABG at a time when large numbers of patients are critically ill with erectile dysfunction treatment might mean that another patient viagra kamagra online is denied access to intensive care (and even dies as a result). Of course, it may be that there are actually available beds in intensive care, and June’s operation would not directly lead to denial of treatment for another patient. However, that does not automatically viagra kamagra online mean that surgery must proceed. The hospital may have been justified in making a decision to suspend some forms of cardiac surgery.

That could be on the basis of the need to use the dedicated space, staff and equipment of the cardiothoracic critical care unit for patients with erectile dysfunction treatment. Even if all that physical space is not currently occupied if may not be feasible viagra kamagra online or practical to try to simultaneously accommodate some non-erectile dysfunction treatment patients. (There would be a risk that June would contract erectile dysfunction treatment postoperatively and end up considerably worse off than she would have been if she had instead received PCI.) Moreover, it seems problematic for individual patients to be able to circumvent policies about allocation of resources purely on the basis that they stand to be disadvantaged by the policy.Perhaps the most significant benefit of disclosure of non-options is transparency and honesty. We suggest viagra kamagra online that the main reason why Miss Schmidt ought to have included discussion of the laparoscopic alternative is so that Jenny understands the reasoning behind the decision. If Miss Schmidt had explained to Jenny that in the current circumstances laparoscopic surgery has been stopped, that might have helped her to appreciate that she was being offered the best available management.

It might have enabled a frank discussion about the challenges faced by health professionals in the context of the kamagra and the inevitable need for compromise. It may have avoided viagra kamagra online awkward discussions later after Jenny developed her complication.Transparent disclosure should not mean that patients can demand treatment. But it might mean that patients could appeal against a particular policy if they feel that it has been reached unfairly, or applied unfairly. For example, if June became aware that some patients were still being offered CABG, she might (or might not) be justified in appealing against the decision not to offer it to her. Obviously such an appeal would only be possible if the patient were aware of the alternatives that they were being denied.For patients faced viagra kamagra online by decisions such as that faced by June, balancing risks of either option is highly personal.

Individuals need to weigh up these decisions for them and require all of the information available to do so. Some information is readily available, for example, the rate of for Jenny and the risk of viagra kamagra online death without treatment for June. But other risks are unknown, such as the risk of acquiring nosocomial with erectile dysfunction treatment. Doctors might feel discomfort talking about unquantifiable risks, but we argue that it is important that the patient has all available information to weigh up options for them, including information that is unknown.ConclusionIn a kamagra, as in other times, doctors should ensure that they offer appropriate medical treatment, based on the needs of an individual. They should aim to provide available treatment that is beneficial and should not offer treatment that is unavailable viagra kamagra online or contrary to the patient best interests.

It is ethical. Indeed it is vital within a public healthcare system, to consider distributive justice in the viagra kamagra online allocation of treatment. Where treatment is scarce, it may not be possible or appropriate to offer to patients some treatments that would be beneficial and desired by them.Informed consent needs to be individualised. Doctors are obliged to tailor their information to the needs of an individual. We suggest that in the current climate this should include, for most patients, a viagra kamagra online nuanced open discussion about alternative treatments that would have been available to them in usual circumstances.

That will sometimes be a difficult conversation, and require clinicians to be frank about limited resources and necessary rationing. However, transparency and honesty will usually be the best policy..

Sport is predicated on the idea of victors emerging from a level playing field buy kamagra oral jelly. All ethically informed evaluate practices are like this. They require an equality buy kamagra oral jelly of respect, consideration, and opportunity, while trying to achieve substantively unequal outcomes. For instance. Limited resources mean that physicians must treat some patients and not others, while still treating them with equal respect.

Examiners must pass some students and not others, while still giving buy kamagra oral jelly their work equal consideration. Employers may only be able to hire one applicant, while still being required to treat all applicants fairly, and so on. The 800 m is meant to be one of these buy kamagra oral jelly practices. A level and equidistance running track from which one victor is intended to emerge. The case of Caster Semenya raises challenging questions about what makes level-playing-fields level, questions that extend beyond any given playing field.In the Feature Article for this issue Loland provides us with new and engaging reasons to support of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision in the Casta Semenya case.

The impact of the CAS decision requires Casta Semenya to supress her naturally occurring testosterone buy kamagra oral jelly if she is to compete in an international athletics events. The Semenya case is described by Loland as creating a ‘dilemma of rights’.i The dilemma lies in the choice between ‘the right of Semenya to compete in sport according to her legal sex and gender identity’ and ‘the right of other athletes within the average female testosterone range to compete under fair conditions’ (see footnote i).No one denies the importance of Semenya’s right. As Carpenter explains, ‘even where inconvenient, sex assigned at buy kamagra oral jelly birth should always be respected unless an individual seeks otherwise’.2 Loland’s conclusions, Carpenter argues, ‘support a convenience-based approach to classification of sex where choices about the status of people with intersex variations are made by others according to their interests at that time’ (see footnote ii). Carpenter then further explains how the CAS decision is representative of ‘systemic forms of discrimination and human rights violations’ and provides no assistance in ‘how we make the world more hospitable and more accepting of difference’ (see footnote ii).What is therefore at issue is the existence of the second right. Let me explain how Loland constructs it.

The background principle is the principle of fair equality of opportunity, which requires that ‘individuals buy kamagra oral jelly with similar endowments and talents and similar ambitions should be given similar opportunities and roughly equivalent prospects for competitive success’(see footnote i). This principle reflects, according to Loland, a deeper deontological right of respect and fair treatment. As we can appreciate, when it comes to the principle of fair equality of opportunity, a lot turns on what counts as ‘similar’ (or sufficiently different) endowments and talents and what counts as ‘similar’ (or sufficiently different) opportunities and prospects for success.For Loland, ‘dynamic inequalities’ concern differences in capabilities (such as strength, speed, and endurance, and in technical and tactical skills) that can be ‘cultivated by hard work and effort’ (see footnote i). These are capabilities buy kamagra oral jelly that are ‘relevant’ and therefore permit a range differences between otherwise ‘similar’ athletes. €˜Stable inequalities’ are characterises (such as in age, sex, body size, and disability/ability) are ‘not-relevant’ and therefore require classification to ensure that ‘similar’ athletes are given ‘roughly equivalent prospects for success’.

It follows for Loland that athletes with ‘46 XY DSD conditions (and not for individuals with normal female XX chromosones), with testosterone levels above five nanomoles per litre blood (nmol/L), and who experience a ‘material androgenizing effect’’ benefit from buy kamagra oral jelly a stable inequality (see footnote i). Hence, the ‘other athletes within the average female testosterone range’ therefore have a right not to compete under conditions of stable inequality. The solution, according to Knox and Anderson, lies in more nuance classifications. Commenting in (qualified) support of Loland, they suggest that ‘classification according to sex alone is no longer buy kamagra oral jelly adequate’.3 Instead, ‘all athletes would be categorised, making classification the norm’ (see footnote iii).However, as we have just seen, Loland’s distinction between stable and dynamic inequalities depends on their ‘relevance’, and ‘relevance’ is a term that does not travel alone. Something is relevant (or irrelevant) only in relation to the value, purpose, or aim, of some practice.

One interpretation (which I take Loland to be saying) is that strength, speed, and buy kamagra oral jelly endurance (and so on) are ‘relevant’ to ‘performance outcomes’. This can be misleading. Both dynamic and stable inequalities are relevant to (ie, can have an impact on) an athletic performance. Is a question of whether we ought to permit them to have an buy kamagra oral jelly impact. The temptation is then to say that dynamic inequalities are relevant (and stable inequalities are irrelevant) where the aim is ‘respect and fair treatment’.

But here the snake begins to eat its tail (the principle of fair treatment requires sufficiently similar prospects for success >similar prospects for success require only dynamic inequalities>dynamic inequalities are capabilities that are permitted by the principle of fair treatment).In order to determine questions of relevance, we need to identify the value, purpose, or aim, of the social practice in question. If the aim of an athletic event is buy kamagra oral jelly to have a victor emerge from a completely level playing field, then, as Chambers notes, socioeconomic inequalities are a larger affront to fair treatment than athletes with 46 XY DSD conditions.4 If the aim is to have a victor emerge from completely level hormonal playing field then ‘a man with low testosterone levels is unfairly disadvantaged against a man whose natural levels are higher, and so men’s competitions are unfair’ (see footnote iv). Or, at least very high testosterone males should be on hormone suppressants in order to give the ‘average’ competitor a ‘roughly equivalent prospect for competitive success’.The problem is that we are not interested in the average competitor. We are buy kamagra oral jelly interested in the exceptional among us. Unless, it is for light relief.

In every Olympiad there is the observation that, in every Olympic event, one average person should be included in the competition for the spectators’ reference. The humour lies in the absurd scenarios buy kamagra oral jelly that would follow, whether it be the 100 m sprint, high jump, or synchronised swimming. Great chasms of natural ability would be laid bare, the results of a lifetime of training and dedication would be even clearer to see, and the last place result would be entirely predictable. But note how buy kamagra oral jelly these are different attributes. While we may admire Olympians, it is unclear whether it is because of their God-given ability, their grit and determination, or their role in the unpredictable theatre of sport.

If sport is a worthwhile social practice, we need to start spelling out its worth. Without doing so, buy kamagra oral jelly we are unable to identify what capabilities are ‘relevant’ or ‘irrelevant’ to its aims, purpose or value. And until we can explain why one naturally occurring capability is ‘irrelevant’ to the aims, purposes, or values, of sport, while the remainder of them are relevant, I can only identify one right in play in the Semenya case.IntroductionSince the start of the erectile dysfunction treatment kamagra, many medical systems have needed to divert routine services in order to support the large number of patients with acute erectile dysfunction treatment disease. For example, in the National Health Service (NHS) almost all elective surgery has been postponed1 and outpatient clinics have been cancelled or conducted on-line buy kamagra oral jelly treatment regimens for many forms of cancer have changed2. This diversion inevitably reduces availability of routine treatments for non-erectile dysfunction treatment-related illness.

Even urgent treatments have needed to be modified. Patients with acute surgical emergencies such as appendicitis still present for care, cancers continue to be discovered in buy kamagra oral jelly patients, and may require urgent management. Health systems are focused on making sure that these urgent needs are met. However, to achieve this goal, many patients are offered treatments that deviate from standard, non-kamagra management.Deviations from standard management are required for multiple factors such as:Limited resources (staff and equipment reallocated).Risk of nosocomial acquired in high-risk patients.Increased risk for medical staff to deliver treatments due to aerosolisation1.Treatments requiring intensive care therapy that is in limited availability.Operative procedures that are long and difficult or that are technically challenging if conducted in personal protective equipment. The outcomes from such procedures may be worse than in normal buy kamagra oral jelly circumstances.Treatments that render patients more susceptible to erectile dysfunction treatment disease, for example chemotherapy.There are many instances of compromise, but some examples that we are aware of include open appendectomy rather than laparoscopy to reduce risk of aerosolisation3 and offering a percutaneousCoronary intervention (PCI) rather than coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for coronary artery disease, to reduce need for intensive care.

Surgery for cancers ordinarily operated on urgently maybe deferred for up to 3 months4 and surgery might be conducted under local anaesthesia that would typically have merited a general anaesthetic (both to reduce the aerosol risk of General anaesthesia, and because of relative lack of anaesthetists).The current emergency offers a unique difficulty. A significant number of treatments with proven benefit might be buy kamagra oral jelly unavailable to patients while those alternatives that are available are not usually considered best practice and might be actually inferior. In usual circumstances, where two treatment options for a particular problem are considered appropriate, the decision of which option to pursue would often depend on the personal preference of the patient.But during the kamagra what is ethically and legally required of the doctor or medical professional informing patients about treatment and seeking their consent?. In particular, do health professionals need to make patients aware of the usual forms of treatment that they are not being offered in the current setting?. We consider two theoretical case examples:Case 1Jenny2 is a model in her mid-20s who presents to hospital at the peak of the erectile dysfunction treatment kamagra with buy kamagra oral jelly acute appendicitis.

Her surgeon, Miss Schmidt, approaches Jenny to obtain consent for an open appendectomy. Miss Schmidt explains the risks of the operative procedure, and the buy kamagra oral jelly alternative of conservative management (with intravenous antibiotics). Jenny consents to the procedure. However, she develops a postoperative wound and an unsightly scar. She does some research and discovers that a laparoscopic procedure would buy kamagra oral jelly ordinarily have been performed and would have had a lower chance of wound .

She sues Miss Schmidt and the hospital trust where she was treated.Case 2June2s a retired teacher in her early 70s who has well-controlled diabetes and hypertension. She is active and runs a local food bank. Immediately prior to the kamagra lockdown in buy kamagra oral jelly the UK June had an episode of severe chest pain and investigations revealed that she has had a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. The cardiothoracic surgical team recommends that June undergo a PCI although normally her pattern of coronary artery disease would be treated by CABG. When the cardiologist explains that surgery would be normally offered in this situation, and is buy kamagra oral jelly theoretically superior to PCI, June’s husband becomes angry and demands that June is listed for surgery.In favour of non-disclosureIt might appear at first glance that doctors should obviously inform Jenny and June about the usual standard of care.

After all, consent cannot be informed if crucial information is lacking. However, one reason that this may be called into question is that it is not immediately clear how it benefits a patient to be informed about alternatives that are not actually available?. In usual circumstances, doctors are not obliged to inform patients about treatments that are performed overseas but not in the UK buy kamagra oral jelly. In the UK, for example, there is a rigorous process for assessment of new treatments (not including experimental therapies). Some treatments that are available in other jurisdictions have not been buy kamagra oral jelly deemed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to be sufficiently beneficial and cost-effective to be offered by the NHS.

It is hard to imagine that a health professional would be found negligent for not discussing with a patient a treatment that NICE has explicitly rejected. The same might apply for novel therapies that are currently unfunded pending formal evaluation by NICE.Of course, the difference is that the treatments we are discussing have been proven (or are believed) to be beneficial and would normally be provided. The Montgomery Ruling of 2015 in the UK established that patients must be informed of material risks of treatment and buy kamagra oral jelly reasonable alternatives to treatment. The Bayley –v- George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust5case established that those reasonable alternative treatments must be ‘appropriate treatment’ not just a ‘possible treatment’6. In the current crisis, many previously standard treatments are no longer appropriate given buy kamagra oral jelly the restrictions outlined.

In other circumstances they are appropriate. During a kamagra they are no longer appropriate, even if they become appropriate again at some unknown time in the future.In both ethical and legal terms, it is widely accepted that, for consent to be valid, if must be given voluntarily by a person who has capacity to consent and who understands the nature and risks of the treatment. A failure to obtain valid consent, or performing buy kamagra oral jelly interventions in the absence of consent, could result in criminal proceedings for assault. Failing to provide adequate information in the consent process could support a claim of negligence. Ethically, adequate information about treatments is essential for the patient to enable them to weigh up options and decide which treatments they wish to undertake.

However, information buy kamagra oral jelly about unavailable treatments arguably does not help the patient make an informed decision because it does not give them information that is relevant to consenting or to refusal of treatment that is actually available. If Miss Schmidt had given Jenny information about the relative benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy, that could not have helped Jenny’s decision to proceed with surgery. Her available choices were open appendectomy buy kamagra oral jelly or no surgery. Moreover, as the case of June highlights, providing information about alternatives may lead them to desire or even demand those alternative options. This could cause distress both to the patient and the health professional (who is unable to acquiesce).Consideration might also be paid to the effect on patients of disclosure.

How would it affect a patient with newly diagnosed cancer to tell them that an alternative, perhaps better therapy, might be buy kamagra oral jelly routinely available in usual circumstances but is not available now?. There is provision in the Montgomery Ruling, in rare circumstances, for therapeutic exception. That is, if information is significantly buy kamagra oral jelly detrimental to the health of a patient it might be omitted. We could imagine a version of the case where Jenny was so intensely anxious about the proposed surgery that her surgeon comes to a sincere belief that discussion of the laparoscopic alternative would be extremely distressing or might even lead her to refuse surgery. In most cases, though, it would be hard to be sure that the risks of disclosing alternative (non-available) treatments would be so great that non-disclosure would be justified.In favour of disclosureIn the UK, professional guidance issued by the GMC (General Medical Council) requires doctors to take a personalised approach to information sharing about treatments by sharing ‘with patients the information they want or need in order to make decisions’.

The Montgomery judgement of 20157 broadly endorsed the buy kamagra oral jelly position of the GMC, requiring patients to be told about any material risks and reasonable alternatives relevant to the decision at hand. The Supreme Court clarifies that materiality here should be judged by reference to a new two-limbed test founded on the notions of the ‘reasonable person in the patient’s position’ and the ‘particular patient’. One practical test might be for the clinician to ask themselves whether patients in general, or this particular patient might wish to know about alternative forms of treatment that would usually be offered.The GMC has recently produced kamagra-specific guidance8 on consent and decision-making, but this guidance is focused on managing consent in erectile dysfunction treatment-related interventions. While the GMC takes the view that its consent guidelines continue to apply as far as is practical, it also notes that the patient is enabled to consider the ‘reasonable alternatives’, and that the doctor is ‘open and honest with patients about the decision-making process and buy kamagra oral jelly the criteria for setting priorities in individual cases’.In some situations, there might be the option of delaying treatment until later. When other surgical procedures are possible.

In that setting, it would be important to ensure that the patient buy kamagra oral jelly is aware of those future options (including the risks of delay). For example, if Jenny had symptomatic gallstones, her surgeons might be offering an open cholecystectomy now or the possibility of a laparoscopic surgery at some later point. Understanding the full options open to her now and in the future may have considerable influence on Jenny’s decision. Likewise, if June is aware that she is not being offered standard treatment she may wish to buy kamagra oral jelly delay treatment of her atherosclerosis until a later date. Of course, such a delay might lead to greater harm overall.

However, it would be ethically permissible to delay treatment if that was the patient’s informed choice buy kamagra oral jelly (just as it would be permissible for the patient to refuse treatment altogether).In the appendicitis case, Jenny does not have the option for delaying her treatment, but the choice for June is more complicated, between immediate PCI which is a second-best treatment versus waiting for standard therapy. Immediate surgery also raises a risk of acquiring nosocomial erectile dysfunction treatment and June is in an age group and has comorbidities that put her at risk of severe erectile dysfunction treatment disease. Waiting for surgery leaves June at risk of sudden death. For an active and otherwise well patient with buy kamagra oral jelly coronary disease like June, PCI procedure is not as good a treatment as CABG and June might legitimately wish to take her chances and wait for the standard treatment. The decision to operate or wait is a balance of risks that only June is fully able to make.

Patients in this scenario buy kamagra oral jelly will take different approaches. Patients will need different amounts of information to form their decisions, many patients will need as much information as is available including information about procedures not currently available to make up their mind.June’s husband insists that she should receive the best treatment, and that she should therefore be listed for CABG. Although this treatment would appear to be in June’s best interests, and would respect her autonomy, those ethical considerations are potentially outweighed by distributive justice. The erectile dysfunction treatment kamagra of 2020 is being characterised by buy kamagra oral jelly limitations. Liberties curtailed and choices restricted, this is justified by a need to protect healthcare systems from demand exceeding availability.

While resource allocation is always a relevant ethical concern in publicly funded healthcare systems, it is a dominant concern in a setting where there is a high demand for medical care and scare resources.It is well established that competent adult patients can consent to or refuse medical treatment but they cannot demand that health professionals provide treatments that are contrary to their professional judgement or (even more importantly) would consume scarce healthcare resources. In June’s buy kamagra oral jelly case, agreeing to perform CABG at a time when large numbers of patients are critically ill with erectile dysfunction treatment might mean that another patient is denied access to intensive care (and even dies as a result). Of course, it may be that there are actually available beds in intensive care, and June’s operation would not directly lead to denial of treatment for another patient. However, that does not automatically mean buy kamagra oral jelly that surgery must proceed. The hospital may have been justified in making a decision to suspend some forms of cardiac surgery.

That could be on the basis of the need to use the dedicated space, staff and equipment of the cardiothoracic critical care unit for patients with erectile dysfunction treatment. Even if all that physical space is not currently occupied if may not be buy kamagra oral jelly feasible or practical to try to simultaneously accommodate some non-erectile dysfunction treatment patients. (There would be a risk that June would contract erectile dysfunction treatment postoperatively and end up considerably worse off than she would have been if she had instead received PCI.) Moreover, it seems problematic for individual patients to be able to circumvent policies about allocation of resources purely on the basis that they stand to be disadvantaged by the policy.Perhaps the most significant benefit of disclosure of non-options is transparency and honesty. We suggest that the main reason why Miss Schmidt ought to have included discussion of the laparoscopic alternative buy kamagra oral jelly is so that Jenny understands the reasoning behind the decision. If Miss Schmidt had explained to Jenny that in the current circumstances laparoscopic surgery has been stopped, that might have helped her to appreciate that she was being offered the best available management.

It might have enabled a frank discussion about the challenges faced by health professionals in the context of the kamagra and the inevitable need for compromise. It may have avoided awkward discussions later after Jenny developed her complication.Transparent disclosure should not mean that patients buy kamagra oral jelly can demand treatment. But it might mean that patients could appeal against a particular policy if they feel that it has been reached unfairly, or applied unfairly. For example, if June became aware that some patients were still being offered CABG, she might (or might not) be justified in appealing against the decision not to offer it to her. Obviously such an appeal buy kamagra oral jelly would only be possible if the patient were aware of the alternatives that they were being denied.For patients faced by decisions such as that faced by June, balancing risks of either option is highly personal.

Individuals need to weigh up these decisions for them and require all of the information available to do so. Some information is readily available, for example, the rate of for Jenny and the risk of buy kamagra oral jelly death without treatment for June. But other risks are unknown, such as the risk of acquiring nosocomial with erectile dysfunction treatment. Doctors might feel discomfort talking about unquantifiable risks, but we argue that it is important that the patient has all available information to weigh up options for them, including information that is unknown.ConclusionIn a kamagra, as in other times, doctors should ensure that they offer appropriate medical treatment, based on the needs of an individual. They should aim to provide available treatment that is beneficial and should not offer treatment that is unavailable or buy kamagra oral jelly contrary to the patient best interests.

It is ethical. Indeed it is vital within a public healthcare system, to consider distributive justice in the allocation of buy kamagra oral jelly treatment. Where treatment is scarce, it may not be possible or appropriate to offer to patients some treatments that would be beneficial and desired by them.Informed consent needs to be individualised. Doctors are obliged to tailor their information to the needs of an individual. We suggest buy kamagra oral jelly that in the current climate this should include, for most patients, a nuanced open discussion about alternative treatments that would have been available to them in usual circumstances.

That will sometimes be a difficult conversation, and require clinicians to be frank about limited resources and necessary rationing. However, transparency and honesty will usually be the best policy..

Kamagra chewable tablets uk

Start Preamble Health Resources and Services kamagra chewable tablets uk Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services. Notice. This notice seeks public comment on several proposed updates to The Periodicity Schedule of the Bright Futures Recommendations for Pediatric Preventive Health Care (“Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule”), as part of the HRSA-supported preventive service guidelines for infants, children, and adolescents. Please see https://mchb.hrsa.gov/​maternal-child-health-topics/​child-health/​bright-futures.html for additional information kamagra chewable tablets uk.

The Periodicity Schedule is maintained in part through a national cooperative agreement, the Bright Futures Pediatric Implementation Program. If accepted by HRSA, a proposed update to the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule will provide additional clinical guidance to providers and, under the Public Health Service Act, would require certain insurance plans and issuers to provide coverage without cost-sharing of such updated preventive care and screenings. Members of the kamagra chewable tablets uk public are invited to provide written comments no later than October 13, 2021. All comments received on or before this date will be reviewed and considered by the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule Workgroup and provided for further consideration by HRSA in determining the recommended updates that it will support.

Members of the public who wish to provide comments can do so by accessing the public comment web page at. Https://mchb.hrsa.gov/​maternal-child-health-topics/​child-health/​bright-futures.html. Start Further Info Savannah Kidd, HRSA, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, email. SKidd@hrsa.gov, telephone.

(301) 287-2601. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information The Periodicity Schedule of the Bright Futures Recommendations for Pediatric Preventive Health Care (“Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule”), as part of the HRSA-supported preventive service guidelines for infants, children, and adolescents, is maintained in part through a national cooperative agreement, the Bright Futures Pediatric Implementation Program. Under Section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act, non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers must include coverage, without cost sharing, for certain preventive services for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) that begin on or after the date that is 1-year after the date the recommendation or guideline is issued. These include preventive health services provided for in the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule as part of the HRSA-supported preventive services guidelines for infants, children, and adolescents.

A panel of pediatric primary care experts convened to review the latest evidence has identified proposed updates to the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule in several areas in response to new evidence impacting children. The proposed updates to the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule are. (1) A new category for sudden cardiac arrest and sudden cardiac death risk assessment, (2) a new category for hepatitis B kamagra risk assessment, (3) add suicide risk as an element of universal screening for children ages 12-21, and (4) update of Psychosocial/Behavioral Assessment to Behavioral/Social/Emotional Screening. The updated category title will be “Behavioral/Social/Emotional Screening” with no revision to the ages in which the screening occurs (newborn to 21 years).

Finally, two references related to dental fluoride varnish and fluoride supplementation are proposed to be added with no recommended changes to clinical practice. The American Academy of Pediatrics, which has been the HRSA cooperative agreement recipient for this program since 2007, maintains the Periodicity Schedule. Under HRSA's cooperative agreement with the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Bright Futures Program is required to administer a process for developing and regularly recommending, as needed, updates to the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule. As described in the Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Bright Futures Program (HRSA-18-078), the consideration of potential updates is expected to be “a comprehensive, objective, and transparent review of available evidence that incorporates opportunity for public comment.

Accordingly, the award recipient will review the evidence on an annual basis to determine whether updates are needed, using a deliberative review process by experts qualified to conduct such a review. Administer the receipt and consideration of public comments for a minimum of 30 calendar days following publication of the Federal Register Notice setting forth the proposed updates. And provide to HRSA a written report that sets forth its recommended updates, including a summary of the public comments it received, a list of general topics that were commented on and its responses to those comments.” Authority. 2713(a)(3) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C.

300gg-13(a)(3). Start Signature Diana Espinosa, Acting Administrator. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2021-19630 Filed 9-10-21.

Start Preamble a knockout post Health Resources and Services buy kamagra oral jelly Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services. Notice. This notice seeks public comment on several proposed updates to The Periodicity Schedule of the Bright Futures Recommendations for Pediatric Preventive Health Care (“Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule”), as part of the HRSA-supported preventive service guidelines for infants, children, and adolescents. Please see buy kamagra oral jelly https://mchb.hrsa.gov/​maternal-child-health-topics/​child-health/​bright-futures.html for additional information.

The Periodicity Schedule is maintained in part through a national cooperative agreement, the Bright Futures Pediatric Implementation Program. If accepted by HRSA, a proposed update to the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule will provide additional clinical guidance to providers and, under the Public Health Service Act, would require certain insurance plans and issuers to provide coverage without cost-sharing of such updated preventive care and screenings. Members of the public are invited to provide written comments no later than October buy kamagra oral jelly 13, 2021. All comments received on or before this date will be reviewed and considered by the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule Workgroup and provided for further consideration by HRSA in determining the recommended updates that it will support.

Members of the public who wish to provide comments can do so by accessing the public comment web page at. Https://mchb.hrsa.gov/​maternal-child-health-topics/​child-health/​bright-futures.html. Start Further Info Savannah Kidd, HRSA, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, email. SKidd@hrsa.gov, telephone.

(301) 287-2601. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information The Periodicity Schedule of the Bright Futures Recommendations for Pediatric Preventive Health Care (“Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule”), as part of the HRSA-supported preventive service guidelines for infants, children, and adolescents, is maintained in part through a national cooperative agreement, the Bright Futures Pediatric Implementation Program. Under Section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act, non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers must include coverage, without cost sharing, for certain preventive services for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) that begin on or after the date that is 1-year after the date the recommendation or guideline is issued. These include preventive health services provided for in the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule as part of the HRSA-supported preventive services guidelines for infants, children, and adolescents.

A panel of pediatric primary care experts convened to review the latest evidence has identified proposed updates to the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule in several areas in response to new evidence impacting children. The proposed updates to the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule are. (1) A new category for sudden cardiac arrest and sudden cardiac death risk assessment, (2) a new category for hepatitis B kamagra risk assessment, (3) add suicide risk as an element of universal screening for children ages 12-21, and (4) update of Psychosocial/Behavioral Assessment to Behavioral/Social/Emotional Screening. The updated category title will be “Behavioral/Social/Emotional Screening” with no revision to the ages in which the screening occurs (newborn to 21 years).

Finally, two references related to dental fluoride varnish and fluoride supplementation are proposed to be added with no recommended changes to clinical practice. The American Academy of Pediatrics, which has been the HRSA cooperative agreement recipient for this program since 2007, maintains the Periodicity Schedule. Under HRSA's cooperative agreement with the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Bright Futures Program is required to administer a process for developing and regularly recommending, as needed, updates to the Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule. As described in the Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Bright Futures Program (HRSA-18-078), the consideration of potential updates is expected to be “a comprehensive, objective, and transparent review of available evidence that incorporates opportunity for public comment.

Accordingly, the award recipient will review the evidence on an annual basis to determine whether updates are needed, using a deliberative review process by experts qualified to conduct such a review. Administer the receipt and consideration of public comments for a minimum of 30 calendar days following publication of the Federal Register Notice setting forth the proposed updates. And provide to HRSA a written report that sets forth its recommended updates, including a summary of the public comments it received, a list of general topics that were commented on and its responses to those comments.” Authority. 2713(a)(3) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C.

300gg-13(a)(3). Start Signature Diana Espinosa, Acting Administrator. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2021-19630 Filed 9-10-21.

Kamagra jelly amazon

People who own guns and here are the findings those living with gun owners are substantially less kamagra jelly amazon worried about the risk of firearm injuries than individuals living in homes without guns, says a new study by violence prevention experts at UC Davis Health. The research team said that with the rise in gun purchases during the erectile dysfunction treatment kamagra, this difference in concern about the risks of gun violence provides an important opportunity for better public health messaging.The study, titled “Firearm ownership and perceived risk of personal firearm injury,” appeared online Sept. 3 in the British Medical Journal publication Injury Prevention.The researchers noted that individuals’ perceptions of firearm dangers are in sharp contrast to evidence showing that those with access to firearms are more likely to die from firearm kamagra jelly amazon violence, including suicide, homicide and unintentional injury, compared to those without access to guns.“People usually say they purchase firearms for self-protection,” said Julia Schleimer, lead author of the study and an epidemiologist with the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP). €œHowever, homicides from gunshots in the home are much more often criminal than self-defensive, and the risks of murder associated with firearm ownership are greater for women than for men.”Schleimer said this disconnect in awareness among gun owners and people living with gun owners about the actual dangers of firearm injury deserves more attention. She and her research colleagues suggest that more effective communications strategies kamagra jelly amazon could be developed to help improve firearm safety in the same way public health messaging about smoking, seatbelt use, and diet has reduced disease and injury.The new study was based on data from respondents to the 2018 California Safety and Wellbeing Survey, which included the question, “In general, how worried are you about gun violence happening to you?.

€The researchers found that about 58% of respondents reported being somewhat worried or very worried about gun violence happening to them. Yet, firearm owners were 60% less likely to be worried about gun violence happening to kamagra jelly amazon them, compared to non-firearm owners living in households without firearms. People living in households with gun owners were 46% less likely to be concerned about gun violence.The study also identified people who were younger, female and non-white as feeling at greater risk of personal firearm injury.“Firearm violence prevention programs should consider communications strategies rooted in the cultural contexts,” said Schleimer. €œIn other words, to be effective, the messenger is as important as the kamagra jelly amazon message. This is important when informing gun owners and people living in households with guns about the risks associated with having a firearm in the home.”Firearm sales during crisisFirearms are commonly owned for self-protection, and gun sales have surged in the U.S.

Amid the erectile dysfunction treatment kamagra. Many Americans are experiencing increased anxiety, financial kamagra jelly amazon strain and disruptions to daily routines, including social distancing measures and stay-at-home orders. These factors, in combination with easy access to firearms, may increase unintentional shootings, suicides and intimate partner homicides, said the research team. In fact, most firearm deaths are suicides, not assaults.“We need kamagra jelly amazon to understand the complexity of the people’s perception of their risk for gun violence,” said Garen Wintemute, director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program and a co-author of the study. €œThis is particularly important during times of crisis, when the perceived need for safety increases significantly.”In addition to Schleimer and Wintemute, the other study co-author was Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz from the Violence Prevention Research Program and the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of California, Davis.This research was supported by University of California Firearm Violence Research Center with funds from the State of California.

Additional support came from the California Wellness Foundation (2014-255), the Heising-Simons Foundation (2017-0447) and the UC Davis kamagra jelly amazon Violence Prevention Research Program.Article. Schleimer JP, Wintemute GJ, Kravitz-Wirtz N. Firearm ownership and perceived risk of personal kamagra jelly amazon firearm injury. Injury Prevention Published Online First. 03 September kamagra jelly amazon 2020.

People who own guns and those living with gun owners are substantially less worried about the risk of firearm injuries http://bookcollaborative.com/artists/yalily-mejia/ than individuals living buy kamagra oral jelly in homes without guns, says a new study by violence prevention experts at UC Davis Health. The research team said that with the rise in gun purchases during the erectile dysfunction treatment kamagra, this difference in concern about the risks of gun violence provides an important opportunity for better public health messaging.The study, titled “Firearm ownership and perceived risk of personal firearm injury,” appeared online Sept. 3 in the British Medical Journal publication Injury Prevention.The researchers noted that individuals’ perceptions of firearm dangers are in sharp contrast to evidence showing that those with access to firearms are more likely to die from firearm violence, including suicide, homicide and unintentional injury, compared to buy kamagra oral jelly those without access to guns.“People usually say they purchase firearms for self-protection,” said Julia Schleimer, lead author of the study and an epidemiologist with the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP).

€œHowever, homicides from gunshots in the home are much more often criminal than self-defensive, and the risks of murder associated with firearm ownership are greater for women than for men.”Schleimer said this disconnect in awareness among gun owners and people living with gun owners about the actual dangers of firearm injury deserves more attention. She and her research colleagues suggest that more effective communications strategies could be developed to help improve firearm safety in the same way public health messaging about smoking, seatbelt use, and diet has reduced disease and injury.The new study was based on buy kamagra oral jelly data from respondents to the 2018 California Safety and Wellbeing Survey, which included the question, “In general, how worried are you about gun violence happening to you?. €The researchers found that about 58% of respondents reported being somewhat worried or very worried about gun violence happening to them.

Yet, firearm owners were 60% less likely to be worried about gun violence happening to them, compared to non-firearm owners living in buy kamagra oral jelly households without firearms. People living in households with gun owners were 46% less likely to be concerned about gun violence.The study also identified people who were younger, female and non-white as feeling at greater risk of personal firearm injury.“Firearm violence prevention programs should consider communications strategies rooted in the cultural contexts,” said Schleimer. €œIn other words, to be effective, the messenger is as important as the message buy kamagra oral jelly.

This is important when informing gun owners and people living in households with guns about the risks associated with having a firearm in the home.”Firearm sales during crisisFirearms are commonly owned for self-protection, and gun sales have surged in the U.S. Amid the erectile dysfunction treatment kamagra. Many Americans are buy kamagra oral jelly experiencing increased anxiety, financial strain and disruptions to daily routines, including social distancing measures and stay-at-home orders.

These factors, in combination with easy access to firearms, may increase unintentional shootings, suicides and intimate partner homicides, said the research team. In fact, most firearm deaths are suicides, not buy kamagra oral jelly assaults.“We need to understand the complexity of the people’s perception of their risk for gun violence,” said Garen Wintemute, director of the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program and a co-author of the study. €œThis is particularly important during times of crisis, when the perceived need for safety increases significantly.”In addition to Schleimer and Wintemute, the other study co-author was Nicole Kravitz-Wirtz from the Violence Prevention Research Program and the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of California, Davis.This research was supported by University of California Firearm Violence Research Center with funds from the State of California.

Additional support came from the California Wellness Foundation (2014-255), the Heising-Simons Foundation (2017-0447) and buy kamagra oral jelly the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program.Article. Schleimer JP, Wintemute GJ, Kravitz-Wirtz N. Firearm ownership and perceived risk of personal firearm buy kamagra oral jelly injury.

Injury Prevention Published Online First. 03 September 2020 buy kamagra oral jelly. Doi.