Search

Background: Although generally mild, the 2009-2010 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic caused two major surges in hospital admissions in the UK. The characteristics of patients admitted during successive waves are described.Methods: Data were systematically obtained on 1520 patients admitted to 75 UK hospitals between May 2009 and January 2010. Multivariable analyses identified factors predictive of severe outcome.Results: Patients aged 5-54 years were over-represented compared with winter seasonal admissions for acute respiratory infection, as were non-white ethnic groups (first wave only). In the second wave patients were less likely to be school age than in the first wave, but their condition was more likely to be severe on presentation to hospital and they were more likely to have delayed admission. Overall, 45% had comorbid conditions, 16.5% required high dependency (level 2) or critical (level 3) care and 5.3% died. As in 1918-1919, the likelihood of severe outcome by age followed a W-shaped distribution. Pre-admission antiviral drug use decreased from 13.3% to 10% between the first and second waves (p=0.048), while antibiotic prescribing increased from 13.6% to 21.6% (p<0.001). Independent predictors of severe outcome were age 55-64 years, chronic lung disease (non-asthma, non-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), neurological disease, recorded obesity, delayed admission (≥5 days after illness onset), pneumonia, C-reactive protein ≥100 mg/litre, and the need for supplemental oxygen or intravenous fluid replacement on admission.Conclusions: There were demographic, ethnic and clinical differences between patients admitted with pandemic H1N1 infection and those hospitalised during seasonal influenza activity. Despite national policies favouring use of antiviral drugs, few patients received these before admission and many were given antibiotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sixty years ago, Saint's triad (hiatus hernia, diverticulosis of the colon, and gallbladder disease) was first described in three patients. Since then, the association of these conditions has been questioned. We tested the hypothesis that these conditions are associated, and, based on recent research, propose a common etiology.Methods: Data from the U.S. Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 16 Data Warehouse were analyzed. Chi-square tests and calculated odds ratios (ORs) were utilized to describe the magnitude of association, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the variables associated with Saint's triad.Results: Among 637,518 patient records (1996-2005), any hernia was diagnosed among 22,181 (3.5%) patients, hiatus hernia among 1,661 (0.3%), diverticulosis of the colon among 14,375 (2.3%), and gallbladder disease among 5,284 (0.8%). The following associations were observed: diverticulosis, hiatus hernia (OR: 6.9), hiatus hernia, gallbladder disease (OR = 3.8), and gallbladder disease, diverticulosis (OR = 5.9). Patients with both diverticulosis and gallbladder disease were more likely to have hiatus hernia (OR = 3.8; P = 0.0012) or any hernia (OR = 10.7; P < 0.0001). Diseases associated with Saint's triad (incorporating any hernia) included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 4.3), hypertension (OR = 3.1), aortic aneurysm (OR = 2.2), and diabetes (OR = 1.8).Conclusions: Herniosis, the systemic connective tissue disease known to cause diverticulosis and herniae, may be responsible for Saint's triad. Diabetes, like aging, enhanced herniosis. Further research on the gallbladder wall pathology in patients with cholelithiasis or cholecystitis is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Genetic variation in the gene for interleukin-6 (IL-6) contributes to the pathogenesis of inflammatory arthritis, but the role, if any, of epigenetic variability has not been reported. The aims of this study were to compare the DNA methylation status of the IL6 promoter in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and control subjects and to study the effects on gene expression. METHODS: Genomic DNA was isolated from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) obtained from RA patients and healthy controls. Macrophages from healthy controls were isolated and stimulated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Methylation status was determined using bisulfite genomic sequencing and IL6 messenger RNA (mRNA) levels by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Gel shift assays were performed with methylated or unmethylated probes and HeLa cell nuclear extract. RESULTS: The proximal CpG motifs (-666 to +27) were predominantly unmethylated and the upstream motifs (-1099 to -1001) were highly methylated in PBMCs from patients and controls. Methylation of individual CpG motifs was similar, except at -1099C, which was less methylated in the patients than in the controls (58% versus 98%; P = 1 x 10(-6)). To test whether this observation might relate to gene regulation, LPS-stimulated macrophages were grouped according to their IL6 mRNA stimulation index (SI). The level of methylation at -1099C was significantly lower in the group with high (SI >75) compared with the group with low (SI <10) induced mRNA levels (71% versus 93%; P = 0.007). Gel shift assays revealed decreased protein binding to the -1099C unmethylated probe. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that methylation of a single CpG in the IL6 promoter region may affect IL6 gene regulation and may play a role in the pathogenesis of RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most extramedullary plasmacytomas are associated with the upper respiratory tract. Primary pulmonary plasmacytomas are rare, and the treatment is surgical excision. This malignancy advances to multiple myeloma in a minority of patients. The patient in our case report is the first to experience renal failure due to hematologic monoclonal gammopathy. Postoperatively, serum protein electrophoresis reverted to normal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective antigen-sparing vaccines are needed to confront pandemic influenza. Whole-virion and oil-in-water adjuvanted vaccines are the most effective formulations against H5N1 avian influenza. We assessed the safety and immunogenicity in adults in the UK of pandemic H1N1 whole-virion vaccine and oil-in-water adjuvanted vaccine purchased by the UK government in 2009.Methods: In our randomised, observer-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial, healthy adults aged 18-44 years, 45-64 years, and 65 years and older (from Oct 19, to Nov 12, 2009) received two doses of vaccine given 21 days apart: either 7·5 μg of haemagglutinin formulated as whole-virion vaccine, or 3·75 μg of haemagglutinin formulated as split-virion vaccine with AS03(A) oil-in-water adjuvant. Assignment was by a computer-generated code, with random permuted blocks of two, four, and six. All participants and investigators were unaware of vaccine assignments. The trial was done at three hospitals in the UK. We measured antibody titres with a haemagglutination-inhibition assay at baseline; 7, 14, and 21 days after each vaccination; and at 6 months after the first dose. Primary outcome was vaccine immunogenicity of the full analysis set by the EU Committee of Human Medicinal Products licensing criteria. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN92328241.Findings: At day 0, baseline antibody (titre ≥1/8) was detected in 44 (13%) of 347 participants. Sera from 95% to 98% of participants were assessed for immunogenicity on days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42, and at 6 months. On day 21 after one dose of adjuvanted AS03(A) or whole-virion vaccine, 63 (94%, 95 CI 85·4-98·4) of 67 and 50 (71%, 59·4-81·6) of 70 participants aged 18-44 years, 51 (77%, 65·3-86·7) of 66 and 26 (39%, 27·1-51·5) of 67 aged 45-64 years, and 19 (51%, 34·4-68·1) of 37 and 11 (32%, 17·4-50·5) of 34 aged 65 years or older had titres of 1:40 or greater. On day 42 (21 days after the second dose), 64 (100%, 94·4-100) of 64 and 49 (73%, 60·9-83·2) of 67 participants aged 18-44 years, 59 (91%, 81·0-96·5) of 65 and 29 (43·9%, 31·7-56·7) of 66 aged 45-64 years, and 28 (76%, 58·8-88·2) of 37 and 12 (36%, 20·4-54·9) of 33 aged 65 years or older had titres of 1/40 or greater. At 6 months, 62 (98%, 91·5-100) of 63 and 54 (78%, 66·7-87·3) of 69 participants aged 18-44 years, 54 (82%, 70·4-90·2) of 66 and 37 (55%, 42·6-67·4) of 67 aged 45-64 years, and 21 (57%, 39·5-72·9) of 37 and 10 (29%, 15·1-47·5) of 34 aged 65 years or older had titres of 1/40 or greater. There were no vaccine-related serious adverse events. Whole-virion vaccine was associated with fewer local and systemic reactions than adjuvanted vaccine.Interpretation: AS03(A)-adjuvanted vaccine was more immunogenic against pandemic influenza A H1N1 virus than whole-virion vaccine and offers greater antigen-sparing capacity. A two-dose strategy should be considered for older people.Funding: Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bordetella pertussis, a slow-growing Gram-negative coccobacillus and the causative agent of whooping cough, is one of the leading causes of vaccine-preventable death and morbidity globally. A state of asymptomatic human carriage has not yet been demonstrated by population studies but is likely to be an important reservoir for community transmission of infection. Such a carriage state may be a target for future vaccine strategies. This chapter presents a short summary of the characteristics of B. pertussis, which should be taken into account when developing a human challenge model and any future experimental medicine interventions. Three studies involving deliberate infection with B. pertussis have been described to date. The first of these was a scientifically and ethically unacceptable paediatric challenge study involving four children in 1930. The second was an investigation of a putative live vaccine using a genetically modified and attenuated strain of B. pertussis. Finally, a systematically constructed human challenge model using a wild-type, potentially pathogenic strain has been established. The latter study has demonstrated that deliberate induction of asymptomatic colonisation in humans is safe and immunogenic, with colonised participants exhibiting seroconversion to pertussis antigens. It has also shown nasal wash to be a more sensitive method of detecting the presence of B. pertussis than either pernasal swab or throat swab, and that B. pertussis carriage can be cleared effectively with Azithromycin. The development of this wild-type B. pertussis human challenge model will allow the investigation of host-pathogen and facilitate future vaccine development., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Introduction: Pregnant women have been historically excluded from interventional research. While recent efforts have been made to improve their involvement, there remains a disparity in the evidence base for treatments available to pregnant women compared with the non-pregnant population. A significant barrier to the enrolment of pregnant women within research is risk perception and a poor understanding of decision-making in this population., Objective: Assess the risk perception and influences on decision-making in pregnant women, when considering whether to enrol in a hypothetical interventional research study., Design: Semistructured interviews were undertaken, and thematic analysis was undertaken of participant responses., Participants: Twelve pregnant women were enrolled from an antenatal outpatient clinic., Results: Participants were unanimously positive about enrolling in the proposed hypothetical interventional study. Risk perception was influenced by potential risks to their fetus and their previous experiences of healthcare and research. Participants found the uncertainty in quantifying risk for new research interventions challenging. They were motivated to enrol in research by altruism and found less invasive research interventions more tolerable., Conclusion: It is vital to understand how pregnant women balance the perceived risks and benefits of interventional research. This may help clinicians and scientists better communicate risk to pregnant women and address the ongoing under-representation of pregnant women in interventional research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Pregnant women have historically been excluded from most medical research, including human challenge studies. The proof-of-concept Lactamica 9 human challenge study investigated whether nasal inoculation of pregnant women with commensal bacteria leads to horizontal transmission to the neonate. Given the unique practical and ethical considerations of both human challenge studies and interventional research involving pregnant women and their newborns, we sought to investigate the motivations, concerns and experiences of these volunteers., Methods: Pre- and post-participation questionnaires were given to all participants in the Lactamica 9 study. These fully anonymized qualitative and Semi-quantitative questionnaires used forced Likert scales, word association and free-text questions., Results: Pre- and post-participation questionnaires were completed by 87.1% (27/31) and 62.5% (15/24) of eligible participants, respectively. Almost all pre-participation respondents agreed with altruistic motivations for participation, and most concerns were related to discomfort from study procedures, with few concerned about the theoretical risks of inoculation to themselves (5/27; 18.5%) or their baby (6/27; 22.2%). Participants most frequently associated the study intervention with the terms "bacteria," "natural," "protective" and "safe." For the post-participation questionnaire, 93.3% (14/15) found all study procedures acceptable, and qualitative feedback was almost entirely positive, with particular emphasis on the research team's flexibility, approachability and friendliness., Conclusions: The successful completion of the Lactamica 9 study demonstrates that human challenge research in healthy pregnant women can be acceptable and feasible. Participants' initial concerns of potential discomfort were outweighed by predominantly altruistic motivations and perception of the intervention as "natural.", Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Purpose of Review: Antibiotic use is associated with development of antimicrobial resistance and dysregulation of the microbiome (the overall host microbial community). These changes have in turn been associated with downstream adverse health outcomes. This review analyses recent important publications in a rapidly evolving field, contextualizing the available evidence to assist clinicians weighing the potential risks of antibiotics on a patient's microbiome., Recent Finding: Although the majority of microbiome research is observational, we highlight recent interventional studies probing the associations between antibiotic use, microbiome disruption, and ill-health. These studies include germ-free mouse models, antibiotic challenge in healthy human volunteers, and a phase III study of the world's first approved microbiome-based medicine., Summary: The growing body of relevant clinical and experimental evidence for antibiotic-mediated microbiome perturbation is concerning, although further causal evidence is required. Within the limits of this evidence, we propose the novel term 'microbiotoxicity' to describe the unintended harms of antibiotics on a patient's microbiome. We suggest a framework for prescribers to weigh microbiotoxic effects against the intended benefits of antibiotic use., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and deep learning (including generative AI) are increasingly being investigated in the context of research and management of human infection., Objectives: We summarise recent and potential future applications of AI and its relevance to clinical infection practice., Methods: 1617 PubMed results were screened, with priority given to clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This narrative review focusses on studies using prospectively collected real-world data with clinical validation, and on research with translational potential, such as novel drug discovery and microbiome-based interventions., Results: There is some evidence of clinical utility of AI applied to laboratory diagnostics (e.g. digital culture plate reading, malaria diagnosis, antimicrobial resistance profiling), clinical imaging analysis (e.g. pulmonary tuberculosis diagnosis), clinical decision support tools (e.g. sepsis prediction, antimicrobial prescribing) and public health outbreak management (e.g. COVID-19). Most studies to date lack any real-world validation or clinical utility metrics. Significant heterogeneity in study design and reporting limits comparability. Many practical and ethical issues exist, including algorithm transparency and risk of bias., Conclusions: Interest in and development of AI-based tools for infection research and management are undoubtedly gaining pace, although the real-world clinical utility to date appears much more modest., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Both authors conceived of and planned this Editorial Commentary. AT screened the literature and prepared the first draft of the manuscript, both authors discussed and edited the manuscript. Artificial intelligence was not used in the preparation of this manuscript. The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: This was the first study to investigate the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous or fractional second dose COVID-19 vaccine regimens in adolescents., Methods: A phase II, single-blind, multi-centre, randomised-controlled trial recruited across seven UK sites from September to November 2021, with follow-up visits to August 2022. Healthy 12-to-16 years olds were randomised (1:1:1) to either 30 µg BNT162b2 (BNT-30), 10 µg BNT162b2 (BNT-10), or NVX-CoV2373 (NVX), 8 weeks after a first 30 µg dose of BNT162b2. The primary outcome was solicited systemic reactions in the week following vaccination. Secondary outcomes included immunogenicity and safety. 'Breakthrough infection' analyses were exploratory., Findings: 148 participants were recruited (median age 14 years old, 62% female, 26% anti-nucleocapsid IgG seropositive pre-second dose); 132 participants received a second dose. Reactions were mostly mild-to-moderate, with lower rates in BNT-10 recipients. No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred. Compared to BNT-30, at 28 days post-second dose anti-spike antibody responses were similar for NVX (adjusted geometric mean ratio [aGMR]) 1.09 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84, 1.42] and lower for BNT-10 (aGMR 0.78 [95% CI: 0.61, 0.99]). For Omicron BA.1 and BA.2, the neutralising antibody titres for BNT-30 at day 28 were similar for BNT-10 (aGMR 1.0 [95% CI: 0.65, 1.54] and 1.02 [95% CI: 0.71, 1.48], respectively), but higher for NVX (aGMR 1.7 [95% CI: 1.07, 2.69] and 1.43 [95% CI: 0.96, 2.12], respectively). Compared to BNT-30, cellular immune responses were greatest for NVX (aGMR 1.73 [95% CI: 0.94, 3.18]), and lowest for BNT-10 (aGMR 0.65 [95% CI: 0.37, 1.15]) at 14 days post-second dose. Cellular responses were similar across the study arms by day 236 post-second dose. Amongst SARS-CoV-2 infection naïve participants, NVX participants had an 89% reduction in risk of self-reported 'breakthrough infection' compared to BNT-30 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.11 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.86]) up until day 132 after second dose. BNT-10 recipients were more likely to have a 'breakthrough infection' compared to BNT-30 (aHR 2.14 [95% CI: 1.02, 4.51]) up to day 132 and day 236 post-second dose. Antibody responses at 132 and 236 days after second dose were similar for all vaccine schedules., Interpretation: Heterologous and fractional dose COVID-19 vaccine schedules in adolescents are safe, well-tolerated and immunogenic. The enhanced performance of the heterologous schedule using NVX-CoV2373 against the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant suggests this mRNA prime and protein-subunit boost schedule may provide a greater breadth of protection than the licensed homologous schedule., Funding: National Institute for Health Research and Vaccine Task Force., Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry: 12348322., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MDS acted until September 2022 on behalf of the University of Oxford as an Investigator on research studies funded or supported by the vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Novavax, MCM vaccines and Pfizer. He received no direct personal benefit for this work. From September 2022 he has been an employee at Moderna Biotech and holds stock options in this company. 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. KC acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator and/or providing consultative advice 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. AMM acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on research studies funded + /- sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Valneva SE and Novavax. She receives no personal financial benefit for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St George’s University of London as an Investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Novavax and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. He is a member of the JCVI. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) from October 2017-March 2022 as Deputy Chief Medical Officer, England, receiving no benefits, other than salary, for this work. Since leaving DHSC he has received a lecture fee from AstraZeneca and will undertake paid consulting for Moderna BioTech from 3rd May 2023. The views expressed in this paper are those of its authors and not necessarily those of DHSC or JCVI., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. 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.)

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat. Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for children with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections, but there is little randomised evidence to support the effectiveness of antibiotics in treating these infections, either overall or relating to key clinical subgroups in which antibiotic prescribing is common (chest signs; fever; physician rating of unwell; sputum/rattly chest; shortness of breath)., Objectives: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of amoxicillin for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children both overall and in clinical subgroups., Design: Placebo-controlled trial with qualitative, observational and cost-effectiveness studies., Setting: UK general practices., Participants: Children aged 1-12 years with acute uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections., Outcomes: The primary outcome was the duration in days of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary). Secondary outcomes were symptom severity on days 2-4 (0 = no problem to 6 = as bad as it could be); symptom duration until very little/no problem; reconsultations for new or worsening symptoms; complications; side effects; and resource use., Methods: Children were randomised to receive 50 mg/kg/day of oral amoxicillin in divided doses for 7 days, or placebo using pre-prepared packs, using computer-generated random numbers by an independent statistician. Children who were not randomised could participate in a parallel observational study. Semistructured telephone interviews explored the views of 16 parents and 14 clinicians, and the data were analysed using thematic analysis. Throat swabs were analysed using multiplex polymerase chain reaction., Results: A total of 432 children were randomised (antibiotics, n = 221; placebo, n = 211). The primary analysis imputed missing data for 115 children. The duration of moderately bad symptoms was similar in the antibiotic and placebo groups overall (median of 5 and 6 days, respectively; hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.42), with similar results for subgroups, and when including antibiotic prescription data from the 326 children in the observational study. Reconsultations for new or worsening symptoms (29.7% and 38.2%, respectively; risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.05), illness progression requiring hospital assessment or admission (2.4% vs. 2.0%) and side effects (38% vs. 34%) were similar in the two groups. Complete-case ( n = 317) and per-protocol ( n = 185) analyses were similar, and the presence of bacteria did not mediate antibiotic effectiveness. NHS costs per child were slightly higher (antibiotics, £29; placebo, £26), with no difference in non-NHS costs (antibiotics, £33; placebo, £33). A model predicting complications (with seven variables: baseline severity, difference in respiratory rate from normal for age, duration of prior illness, oxygen saturation, sputum/rattly chest, passing urine less often, and diarrhoea) had good discrimination (bootstrapped area under the receiver operator curve 0.83) and calibration. Parents found it difficult to interpret symptoms and signs, used the sounds of the child's cough to judge the severity of illness, and commonly consulted to receive a clinical examination and reassurance. Parents acknowledged that antibiotics should be used only when 'necessary', and clinicians noted a reduction in parents' expectations for antibiotics., Limitations: The study was underpowered to detect small benefits in key subgroups., Conclusion: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective or to reduce health or societal costs. Parents need better access to information, as well as clear communication about the self-management of their child's illness and safety-netting., Future Work: The data can be incorporated in the Cochrane review and individual patient data meta-analysis., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN79914298., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 27, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Heterologous COVID vaccine priming schedules are immunogenic and effective. This report aims to understand the persistence of immune response to the viral vectored, mRNA and protein-based COVID-19 vaccine platforms used in homologous and heterologous priming combinations, which will inform the choice of vaccine platform in future vaccine development., Methods: Com-COV2 was a single-blinded trial in which adults ≥ 50 years, previously immunised with single dose 'ChAd' (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AZD1222, Vaxzevria, Astrazeneca) or 'BNT' (BNT162b2, tozinameran, Comirnaty, Pfizer/BioNTech), were randomised 1:1:1 to receive a second dose 8-12 weeks later with either the homologous vaccine, or 'Mod' (mRNA-1273, Spikevax, Moderna) or 'NVX' (NVX-CoV2373, Nuvaxovid, Novavax). Immunological follow-up and the secondary objective of safety monitoring were performed over nine months. Analyses of antibody and cellular assays were performed on an intention-to-treat population without evidence of COVID-19 infection at baseline or for the trial duration., Findings: In April/May 2021, 1072 participants were enrolled at a median of 9.4 weeks after receipt of a single dose of ChAd (N = 540, 45% female) or BNT (N = 532, 39% female) as part of the national vaccination programme. In ChAd-primed participants, ChAd/Mod had the highest anti-spike IgG from day 28 through to 6 months, although the heterologous vs homologous geometric mean ratio (GMR) dropped from 9.7 (95% CI (confidence interval): 8.2, 11.5) at D28 to 6.2 (95% CI: 5.0, 7.7) at D196. The heterologous/homologous GMR for ChAd/NVX similarly dropped from 3.0 (95% CI:2.5,3.5) to 2.4 (95% CI:1.9, 3.0). In BNT-primed participants, decay was similar between heterologous and homologous schedules with BNT/Mod inducing the highest anti-spike IgG for the duration of follow-up. The adjusted GMR (aGMR) for BNT/Mod compared with BNT/BNT increased from 1.36 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.58) at D28 to 1.52 (95% CI: 1.21, 1.90) at D196, whilst for BNT/NVX this aGMR was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.64) at day 28 and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.78) at day 196. Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules produced and maintained the largest T-cell responses until D196. Immunisation with BNT/NVX generated a qualitatively different antibody response to BNT/BNT, with the total IgG significantly lower than BNT/BNT during all follow-up time points, but similar levels of neutralising antibodies., Interpretation: Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to ChAd/ChAd. BNT-primed schedules with a second dose of either mRNA vaccine also remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to BNT/NVX. The emerging data on mixed schedules using the novel vaccine platforms deployed in the COVID-19 pandemic, suggest that heterologous priming schedules might be considered as a viable option sooner in future pandemics., Isrctn: 27841311 EudraCT:2021-001275-16., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests At the time of this study, MDS acted 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. Subsequent to this study MDS is employed by Moderna Biotech UK and holds equity in this company. Moderna Biotech had no role in the study design, analysis of data or interpretation of results. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), England from October 2017 to March 2022; since leaving DHSC he reports a lecture fee from AstraZeneca. AMC and DMF are investigators on studies funded by Pfizer and Unilever. They receive no personal financial payment for this work. AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and chair of the WHO European Technical Advisory Group of Experts (ETAGE) on Immunisation. He is an investigator and/or provides consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines produced by AstraZeneca, Janssen, Valneva, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and of other vaccines from these and other manufacturers, including GlaxoSmithKline, VPI Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and Bionet Asia. He receives no personal remuneration or benefits for any of 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. PTH acts on behalf of St. George's University of London as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. CAG acts on behalf of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, CureVac, Moderna, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. 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. TL is named as an inventor on a patent application covering the ChAd vaccine and is an occasional consultant to Vaccitech, unrelated to this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in -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. Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. All other authors declare no competing interests. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of its authors and not necessarily those of DHSC, VTF or NIHR., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUNDTo date, only limited data are available on the mechanisms of protection against colonization with Bordetella pertussis in humans.METHODSIn this study, the cellular responses to B. pertussis challenge were monitored longitudinally using high-dimensional EuroFlow-based flow cytometry, allowing quantitative detection of more than 250 different immune cell subsets in the blood of 15 healthy donors.RESULTSParticipants who were protected against colonization showed different early cellular responses compared with colonized participants. Especially prominent for colonization-protected participants were the early expansion of CD36- nonclassical monocytes on day 1 (D1), natural killer cells (D3), follicular T helper cells (D1-D3), and plasma cells (D3). Plasma cell expansion on D3 correlated negatively with the CFU load on D7 and D9 after challenge. Increased plasma cell maturation on D11-D14 was found in participants with seroconversion.CONCLUSIONThese early cellular immune responses following experimental infection can now be further characterized and potentially linked to an efficient mucosal immune response, preventing colonization. Ultimately, their presence may be used to evaluate whether new B. pertussis vaccine candidates are protective against B. pertussis colonization, e.g., by bacterial challenge after vaccination.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT03751514.FUNDINGInnovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking and the EuroFlow Consortium.

Bordetella pertussis (Bp), the causative agent of pertussis, continues to circulate despite widespread vaccination programs. An important question is whether and how (sub)clinical infections shape immune memory to Bp, particularly in populations primed with acellular pertussis vaccines (aP). Here, we examine the prevalence of mucosal antibodies against non-vaccine antigens in aP-primed children and adolescents of the BERT study (NCT03697798), using antibody binding to a Bp mutant strain lacking aP antigens (Bp&#95;mut). Our study identifies increased levels of mucosal IgG and IgA binding to Bp&#95;mut in older aP-primed individuals, suggesting different Bp exposure between aP-primed birth cohorts, in line with pertussis disease incidence data. To examine whether Bp exposure influences vaccination responses, we measured mucosal antibody responses to aP booster vaccination as a secondary study outcome. Although booster vaccination induces significant increases in mucosal antibodies to Bp in both cohorts, the older age group that had higher baseline antibodies to Bp&#95; mut shows increased persistence of antibodies after vaccination., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

High quality health care research must involve patients and the public. This ensures research is important, relevant and acceptable to those it is designed to benefit. The world's first human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 undertook detailed public involvement to inform study design despite the urgency to review and establish the study. The work was integral to the UK Research Ethics Committee review and approval of the study. Discussion with individuals from ethnic minorities within the UK population supported decision-making around the study exclusion criteria. Public review of study materials for consent processes led to the addition of new information, comparisons and visual aids to help volunteers consider the practicalities and risks involved in participating. A discussion exploring the acceptability of a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 taking place in the UK, given the current context of the pandemic, identified overall support for the study. Public concern for the wellbeing of trial participants, as a consequence of isolation, was identified. We outline our approach to public involvement and its impact on study design., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pharyngeal colonisation by the commensal bacterium Neisseria lactamica inhibits colonisation by Neisseria meningitidis and has an inverse epidemiological association with meningococcal disease. The mechanisms that underpin this relationship are unclear, but could involve the induction of cross-reactive immunity. In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether colonisation with N lactamica induces N lactamica-specific B-cell responses that are cross-reactive with N meningitidis., Methods: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, human infection trial at University Hospital Southampton Clinical Research Facility (Southampton, UK), healthy adults aged 18-45 years were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive intranasal inoculation with either 10 5 colony-forming units of N lactamica in 1 mL phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) or 1 mL PBS alone. Participants and researchers conducting participant sampling and immunological assays were masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was the frequency of circulating N lactamica-specific plasma cells and memory B cells after N lactamica inoculation (day 7-28) compared with baseline values (day 0), measured using enzyme-linked immunospot assays. The secondary endpoint was to measure the frequency of N meningitidis-specific B cells. In a second study, we measured the effect of duration of N lactamica colonisation on seroconversion by terminating carriage at either 4 days or 14 days with single-dose oral ciprofloxacin. The studies are now closed to participants. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03633474 and NCT03549325., Findings: Of 50 participants assessed for eligibility between Sept 5, 2018, and March 3, 2019, 31 were randomly assigned (n=20 N lactamica, n=11 PBS). Among the 17 participants who were colonised with N lactamica, the median baselines compared with peak post-colonisation N lactamica-specific plasma-cell frequencies (per 10 5 peripheral blood mononuclear cells) were 0·0 (IQR 0·0-0·0) versus 5·0 (1·5-10·5) for IgA-secreting plasma cells (p<0·0001), and 0·0 (0·0-0·0) versus 3·0 (1·5-9·5) for IgG-secreting plasma cells (p<0·0001). Median N lactamica-specific IgG memory-B-cell frequencies (percentage of total IgG memory B cells) increased from 0·0024% (0·0000-0·0097) at baseline to 0·0384% (0·0275-0·0649) at day 28 (p<0·0001). The frequency of N meningitidis-specific IgA-secreting and IgG-secreting plasma cells and memory B cells also increased signficantly in participants who were colonised with N lactamica. Upper respiratory tract symptoms were reported in ten (50%) of 20 participants who were inoculated with N lactamica and six (55%) of 11 participants who were inoculated with PBS (p>0·99). Three additional adverse events (two in the N lactamica group and one in the PBS group) and no serious adverse events were reported. In the second study, anti-N lactamica and anti-N meningitidis serum IgG titres increased only in participants who were colonised with N lactamica for 14 days., Interpretation: Natural immunity to N meningitidis after colonisation with N lactamica might be due to cross-reactive adaptive responses. Exploitation of this microbial mechanism with a genetically modified live vector could protect against N meningitidis colonisation and disease., Funding: Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton National Health Service 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. JRL is a named inventor on patent WO2017103593A1: meningococcal infection and modified Neisseria lactamica. 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.)

Background: Priming COVID-19 vaccine schedules have been deployed at variable intervals globally, which might influence immune persistence and the relative importance of third-dose booster programmes. Here, we report exploratory analyses from the Com-COV trial, assessing the effect of 4-week versus 12-week priming intervals on reactogenicity and the persistence of immune response up to 6 months after homologous and heterologous priming schedules using the vaccines BNT162b2 (tozinameran, Pfizer/BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca)., Methods: Com-COV was a participant-masked, randomised immunogenicity trial. For these exploratory analyses, we used the trial's general cohort, in which adults aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned to four homologous and four heterologous vaccine schedules using BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with 4-week or 12-week priming intervals (eight groups in total). Immunogenicity analyses were done on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, comprising participants with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline or for the trial duration, to assess the effect of priming interval on humoral and cellular immune response 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, in addition to the effects on reactogenicity and safety. The Com-COV trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 69254139 (EudraCT 2020-005085-33)., Findings: Between Feb 11 and 26, 2021, 730 participants were randomly assigned in the general cohort, with 77-89 per group in the ITT analysis. At 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, the geometric mean concentration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG was significantly higher in the 12-week interval groups than in the 4-week groups for homologous schedules. In heterologous schedule groups, we observed a significant difference between intervals only for the BNT162b2-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group at 28 days. Pseudotyped virus neutralisation titres were significantly higher in all 12-week interval groups versus 4-week groups, 28 days post-second dose, with geometric mean ratios of 1·4 (95% CI 1·1-1·8) for homologous BNT162b2, 1·5 (1·2-1·9) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-BNT162b2, 1·6 (1·3-2·1) for BNT162b2-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 2·4 (1·7-3·2) for homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. At 6 months post-second dose, anti-spike IgG geometric mean concentrations fell to 0·17-0·24 of the 28-day post-second dose value across all eight study groups, with only homologous BNT162b2 showing a slightly slower decay for the 12-week versus 4-week interval in the adjusted analysis. The rank order of schedules by humoral response was unaffected by interval, with homologous BNT162b2 remaining the most immunogenic by antibody response. T-cell responses were reduced in all 12-week priming intervals compared with their 4-week counterparts. 12-week schedules for homologous BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-BNT162b2 were up to 80% less reactogenic than 4-week schedules., Interpretation: These data support flexibility in priming interval in all studied COVID-19 vaccine schedules. Longer priming intervals might result in lower reactogenicity in schedules with BNT162b2 as a second dose and higher humoral immunogenicity in homologous schedules, but overall lower T-cell responses across all schedules. Future vaccines using these novel platforms might benefit from schedules with long intervals., Funding: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM vaccines, receiving no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), England. AMC and DMF are investigators on studies funded by Pfizer and Unilever, receiving no personal financial payment for this work. AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and Chair of the WHO European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on immunisation; he is an investigator, provides consultative advice, or both on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines produced by AstraZeneca, Janssen, Valneva, Pfizer, and Sanofi and of other vaccines from these and other manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline, VPI, Takeda, and Bionet Asia, receiving no personal remuneration or benefits for any of this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator, provider of consultative advice, or both on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva vaccines and antimicrobials, receiving no personal financial payment for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St George's University of London as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, and Valneva, receiving no personal financial payment for this work. CAG acts on behalf of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, CureVac, Moderna, and Valneva vaccines, receiving no personal financial payment for this work. 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 Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva, receiving no personal financial payment for this work. TL is named as an inventor on a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (GB2003670.3) and is an occasional consultant to Vaccitech, unrelated to this work. Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19., (Copyright © 2022 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.)

Objectives: This study aimed to assess whether the presence of bacteria or viruses in the upper airway of children presenting with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) predicts the benefit of antibiotics., Methods: Children between 6 months and 12 years presenting to UK general practices with an acute LRTI were randomized to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg/d for 7 days or placebo. Children not randomized (ineligible or clinician/parental choice) could participate in a parallel observational study. The primary outcome was the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse. Throat swabs were taken and analyzed for the presence of bacteria and viruses by multiplex PCR., Results: Swab results were available for most participants in the trial (306 of 432; 71%) and in the observational (182 of 326; 59%) studies. Bacterial pathogens potentially sensitive to amoxicillin (Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Streptococcus pneumoniae) were detected among 51% of the trial placebo group and 49% of the trial antibiotic group. The median difference in the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse between antibiotic and placebo was similar when potentially antibiotic-susceptible bacteria were present (median: -1 day; 99% CI, -12.3 to 10.3) or not present (median: -1 day; 99% CI, -4.5 to 2.5). Furthermore, bacterial genome copy number did not predict benefit. There were similar findings for all secondary outcomes and when including the data from the observational study., Discussion: There was no clear evidence that antibiotics improved clinical outcomes conditional on the presence or concentration of bacteria or viruses in the upper airway. Before deploying microbiologic point-of-care tests for children with uncomplicated LRTI in primary care, rigorous validating trials are needed., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)