Search

Background: Prinflammatory extracellular chromatin from neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) and other cellular sources is found in COVID-19 patients and may promote pathology. We determined whether pulmonary administration of the endonuclease dornase alfa reduced systemic inflammation by clearing extracellular chromatin., Methods: Eligible patients were randomized (3:1) to the best available care including dexamethasone (R-BAC) or to BAC with twice-daily nebulized dornase alfa (R-BAC + DA) for seven days or until discharge. A 2:1 ratio of matched contemporary controls (CC-BAC) provided additional comparators. The primary endpoint was the improvement in C-reactive protein (CRP) over time, analyzed using a repeated-measures mixed model, adjusted for baseline factors., Results: We recruited 39 evaluable participants: 30 randomized to dornase alfa (R-BAC +DA), 9 randomized to BAC (R-BAC), and included 60 CC-BAC participants. Dornase alfa was well tolerated and reduced CRP by 33% compared to the combined BAC groups (T-BAC). Least squares (LS) mean post-dexamethasone CRP fell from 101.9 mg/L to 23.23 mg/L in R-BAC +DA participants versus a 99.5 mg/L to 34.82 mg/L reduction in the T-BAC group at 7 days; p=0.01. The anti-inflammatory effect of dornase alfa was further confirmed with subgroup and sensitivity analyses on randomised participants only, mitigating potential biases associated with the use of CC-BAC participants. Dornase alfa increased live discharge rates by 63% (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.01-2.61, p=0.03), increased lymphocyte counts (LS mean: 1.08 vs 0.87, p=0.02) and reduced circulating cf-DNA and the coagulopathy marker D-dimer (LS mean: 570.78 vs 1656.96 μg/mL, p=0.004)., Conclusions: Dornase alfa reduces pathogenic inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia, demonstrating the benefit of cost-effective therapies that target extracellular chromatin., Funding: LifeArc, Breathing Matters, The Francis Crick Institute (CRUK, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust)., Clinical Trial Number: NCT04359654., Competing Interests: JP, VS, ED, RE, MT, ND, IA, DH, DB, TC, JG, AW, HE, VJ, AL, TR, LL, EH, FK, BW, VB, VP No competing interests declared, JI, AF Employee of Exploristics, PL Employee of Target to Treatment Consulting Ltd, (© 2023, Porter et al.)

Background: An increase in acute severe hepatitis of unknown aetiology in previously healthy children in the UK in March, 2022, triggered global case-finding. We aimed to describe UK epidemiological investigations of cases and their possible causes., Methods: We actively surveilled unexplained paediatric acute hepatitis (transaminase >500 international units per litre) in children younger than 16 years presenting since Jan 1, 2022, through notifications from paediatricians, microbiologists, and paediatric liver units; we collected demographic, clinical, and exposure information. Then, we did a case-control study to investigate the association between adenoviraemia and other viruses and case-status using multivariable Firth penalised logistic regression. Cases aged 1-10 years and tested for adenovirus were included and compared with controls (ie, children admitted to hospital with an acute non-hepatitis illness who had residual blood samples collected between Jan 1 and May 28, 2022, and without known laboratory-confirmed diagnosis or previous adenovirus testing). Controls were frequency-matched on sex, age band, sample months, and nation or supra-region with randomised selection. We explored temporal associations between frequency of circulating viruses identified through routine laboratory pathogen surveillance and occurrence of cases by linear regression. SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity of cases was examined against residual serum from age-matched clinical comparison groups., Findings: Between Jan 1 and July 4, 2022, 274 cases were identified (median age 3 years [IQR 2-5]). 131 (48%) participants were male, 142 (52%) were female, and one (<1%) participant had sex data unknown. Jaundice (195 [83%] of 235) and gastrointestinal symptoms (202 [91%] of 222) were common. 15 (5%) children required liver transplantation and none died. Adenovirus was detected in 172 (68%) of 252 participants tested, regardless of sample type; 137 (63%) of 218 samples were positive for adenovirus in the blood. For cases that were successfully genotyped, 58 (81%) of 72 had Ad41F, and 57 were identified as positive via blood samples (six of these were among participants who had undergone a transplant). In the case-control analysis, adenoviraemia was associated with hepatitis case-status (adjusted OR 37·4 [95% CI 15·5-90·3]). Increases in the detection of adenovirus from faecal samples, but not other infectious agents, in routine laboratory pathogen surveillance correlated with hepatitis cases 4 weeks later, which independently suggested an association (β 0·06 [95% CI 0·02-0·11]). No association was identified for SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity., Interpretation: We observed an association between adenovirus 41F viraemia and paediatric acute hepatitis. These results can inform diagnostic testing recommendations, clinical management, and exploratory in vitro or clinical studies of paediatric acute hepatitis of unknown aetiology. The role of potential co-factors, including other viruses and host susceptibility, requires further investigation., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose in June 2021. Monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines were subsequently widely used for the third and fourth-dose vaccination campaigns in high-income countries. Real-world vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infections following third doses declined during the Omicron wave. This report compares the immunogenicity and kinetics of responses to third doses of vaccines from day (D) 28 to D242 following third doses in seven study arms., Methods: The trial initially included ten experimental vaccine arms (seven full-dose, three half-dose) delivered at three groups of six sites. Participants in each site group were randomised to three or four experimental vaccines, or MenACWY control. The trial was stratified such that half of participants had previously received two primary doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and half had received two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hereafter referred to as BNT). The D242 follow-up was done in seven arms (five full-dose, two half-dose). The BNT vaccine was used as the reference as it was the most commonly deployed third-dose vaccine in clinical practice in high-income countries. The primary analysis was conducted using all randomised and baseline seronegative participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study and who had not received a further COVID-19 vaccine for any reason since third dose randomisation., Results: Among the 817 participants included in this report, the median age was 72 years (IQR: 55-78) with 50.7% being female. The decay rates of anti-spike IgG between vaccines are different among both populations who received initial doses of ChAd/ChAd and BNT/BNT. In the population that previously received ChAd/ChAd, mRNA vaccines had the highest titre at D242 following their vaccine dose although Ad26. COV2. S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) showed slower decay. For people who received BNT/BNT as their initial doses, a slower decay was also seen in the Ad26 and ChAd arms. The anti-spike IgG became significantly higher in the Ad26 arm compared to the BNT arm as early as 3 months following vaccination. Similar decay rates were seen between BNT and half-BNT; the geometric mean ratios ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 at different time points. The difference in decay rates between vaccines was similar for wild-type live virus-neutralising antibodies and that seen for anti-spike IgG. For cellular responses, the persistence was similar between study arms., Conclusions: Heterologous third doses with viral vector vaccines following two doses of mRNA achieve more durable humoral responses compared with three doses of mRNA vaccines. Lower doses of mRNA vaccines could be considered for future booster campaigns., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest KC acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi and Valneva. She receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator and/or providing consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck and Valneva vaccines and antimicrobials. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG may benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University’s revenue-sharing policy. JH has received payments for presentations for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Ciple & Teva. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PM acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and The Adam Practice as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Medicago, and Sanofi. He received no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England until 31st March 2022. He has subsequently received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi Pasteur and has performed paid consultancy for Janssen and Seqirus. MR has provided post marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GSK for which a cost recover charge is made. MDS acted until September 2022 on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax. Janssen, Medimmune and MCM vaccines. He received no personal financial payment for this work. MDS became an employee of Moderna in September 2022 and holds stock options in this company. He did not perform this study in relation to his new employment and Moderna have had no a priori access to the data., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Historically SARS-CoV-2 secondary attack rates (SAR) have been based on PCR positivity on screening symptomatic contacts; this misses transmission events and identifies only symptomatic contacts who are PCR positive at the time of sampling. We used serology to detect the relative transmissibility of Alpha Variant of Concern (VOC) to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 to calculate household secondary attack rates. We identified index patients diagnosed with Alpha and non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 across two London Hospitals between November 2020 and January 2021 during a prolonged and well adhered national lockdown. We completed a household seroprevalence survey and found that 61.8% of non-VOC exposed household contacts were seropositive compared to 82.1% of Alpha exposed household contacts. The odds of infection doubled with exposure to an index diagnosed with Alpha. There was evidence of transmission events in almost all households. Our data strongly support that estimates of SAR should include serological data to improve accuracy and understanding., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Gaskell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19., Methods: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 μg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 μg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6-77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3-214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030-27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996-43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41-1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996-30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826-64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90-2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37-14·32) and 15·90 (12·92-19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24-16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90-9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group)., Interpretation: Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose., Funding: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KCa acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Valneva, and receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator or consults on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva, and receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering the use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and could benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the university's revenue sharing policy. JH has received payments for presentations for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, and Cipla & Teva. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva, and receives no personal financial payment for this work. PM acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and The Adam Practice as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Medicago, and Sanofi, and receives no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England, until March 31, 2022. MR has provided post-marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, for which a cost recovery charge is made. MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM, and has received no personal financial payment for this work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters., Methods: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study., Results: Amongst the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd), schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10,085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT)). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 μg) or BNT (30 μg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 μg) versus BNT (30 μg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses., Conclusions: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentrations at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were similar to or even higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest KC acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi and Valneva. She receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator and/or providing consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck and Valneva vaccines and antimicrobials. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG may benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University's revenue sharing policy. JH has received payments for presentations for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Ciple & Teva. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PM acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and The Adam Practice as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Medicago and Sanofi. He received no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England until 31st March 2022. MR has provided post marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GSK for which a cost recover charge is made. MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax. Janssen, Medimmune and MCM vaccines. He received no personal financial payment for this work., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT)., Methods: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130., Findings: Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5-2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8-42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4-5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0-1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4-14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1-7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30-69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273., Interpretation: All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination., Funding: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KCa acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Valneva. She receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust as an investigator or providing consultative advice, or both, on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG might benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University's revenue sharing policy. JH has received payments for presentations for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Ciple, and Teva. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PM acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and The Adam Practice as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Medicago, and Sanofi. He received no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England. MR has provided post marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline for which a cost recover charge is made. MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM vaccines. He received no personal financial payment for this work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Emergence of variants with specific mutations in key epitopes in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 raises concerns pertinent to mass vaccination campaigns and use of monoclonal antibodies. We aimed to describe the emergence of the B.1.1.7 variant of concern (VOC), including virological characteristics and clinical severity in contemporaneous patients with and without the variant., Methods: In this cohort study, samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 on PCR that were collected from Nov 9, 2020, for patients acutely admitted to one of two hospitals on or before Dec 20, 2020, in London, UK, were sequenced and analysed for the presence of VOC-defining mutations. We fitted Poisson regression models to investigate the association between B.1.1.7 infection and severe disease (defined as point 6 or higher on the WHO ordinal scale within 14 days of symptoms or positive test) and death within 28 days of a positive test and did supplementary genomic analyses in a cohort of chronically shedding patients and in a cohort of remdesivir-treated patients. Viral load was compared by proxy, using PCR cycle threshold values and sequencing read depths., Findings: Of 496 patients with samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 on PCR and who met inclusion criteria, 341 had samples that could be sequenced. 198 (58%) of 341 had B.1.1.7 infection and 143 (42%) had non-B.1.1.7 infection. We found no evidence of an association between severe disease and death and lineage (B.1.1.7 vs non-B.1.1.7) in unadjusted analyses (prevalence ratio [PR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·72-1·31]), or in analyses adjusted for hospital, sex, age, comorbidities, and ethnicity (adjusted PR 1·02 [0·76-1·38]). We detected no B.1.1.7 VOC-defining mutations in 123 chronically shedding immunocompromised patients or in 32 remdesivir-treated patients. Viral load by proxy was higher in B.1.1.7 samples than in non-B.1.1.7 samples, as measured by cycle threshold value (mean 28·8 [SD 4·7] vs 32·0 [4·8]; p=0·0085) and genomic read depth (1280 [1004] vs 831 [682]; p=0·0011)., Interpretation: Emerging evidence exists of increased transmissibility of B.1.1.7, and we found increased virus load by proxy for B.1.1.7 in our data. We did not identify an association of the variant with severe disease in this hospitalised cohort., Funding: University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, University College London/University College London Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MS reports funding support for at-cost development and manufacture of UCL-Ventura continuous positive airway pressure device for patients with COVID-19 from the UK Department of Health and Social Care, during the conduct of the study; grants and advisory board fees paid to institution research fund from NewB; grants from DSTL; advisory board and speaking fees paid into institutional research fund from Amormed, Biotest, General ElectricBaxter, Baxter, Roche, Bayer, and Shionogi; and grants from Critical Pressure and Apollo Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Most reported cases of human monkeypox occur in Central and West Africa, where the causing virus is endemic. We describe the identification and public health response to an imported case of West African monkeypox from Nigeria to the United Kingdom (UK) in May 2021. Secondary transmission from the index case occurred within the family to another adult and a toddler. Concurrent COVID-19-related control measures upon arrival and at the hospital, facilitated detection and limited the number of potential contacts.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause deadly healthcare-associated outbreaks. In a major London teaching hospital, 66 of 435 (15%) COVID-19 inpatient cases between 2 March and 12 April 2020 were definitely or probably hospital-acquired, through varied transmission routes. The case fatality was 36%. Nosocomial infection rates fell following comprehensive infection prevention and control measures., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The number of proposed prognostic models for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is growing rapidly, but it is unknown whether any are suitable for widespread clinical implementation.We independently externally validated the performance of candidate prognostic models, identified through a living systematic review, among consecutive adults admitted to hospital with a final diagnosis of COVID-19. We reconstructed candidate models as per original descriptions and evaluated performance for their original intended outcomes using predictors measured at the time of admission. We assessed discrimination, calibration and net benefit, compared to the default strategies of treating all and no patients, and against the most discriminating predictors in univariable analyses.We tested 22 candidate prognostic models among 411 participants with COVID-19, of whom 180 (43.8%) and 115 (28.0%) met the endpoints of clinical deterioration and mortality, respectively. Highest areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves were achieved by the NEWS2 score for prediction of deterioration over 24 h (0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.83), and a novel model for prediction of deterioration <14 days from admission (0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.82). The most discriminating univariable predictors were admission oxygen saturation on room air for in-hospital deterioration (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81), and age for in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81). No prognostic model demonstrated consistently higher net benefit than these univariable predictors, across a range of threshold probabilities.Admission oxygen saturation on room air and patient age are strong predictors of deterioration and mortality among hospitalised adults with COVID-19, respectively. None of the prognostic models evaluated here offered incremental value for patient stratification to these univariable predictors., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M. Marks has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T.H.A. Samuels has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Luintel has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T. Rampling has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: H. Chowdhury has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Quartagno has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Nair reports non-financial support from AIDENCE BV and grants from NIHR UCL Biomedical Research Centre, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Lipman has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: I. Abubakar has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. van Smeden has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: W.K. Wong has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: B. Williams has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Noursadeghi reports grants from Wellcome Trust and National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at University College London NHS Foundation Trust, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: R.K. Gupta has nothing to disclose., (Copyright ©ERS 2020.)