Learning lessons from lipids to make COVID-19 vaccines.

A game-changing intervention in the COVID-19 pandemic has been the rapid implementation of highly effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. The 2022 Canada Gairdner International Award recognizes Pieter Cullis, Katalin Karikó, and Drew Weissman "for their pioneering work developing nucleoside-modified mRNA and lipid nanoparticle (LNP) drug delivery: the foundational technologies for the highly effective COVID-19 mRNA vaccines." Cell editor Cheri Sirois caught up with Pieter to discuss how a long interest in basic and applied questions in lipid biology led to this fortuitous collaboration. Excerpts of the conversation are presented below.

Monkeypox emergency: Urgent questions and perspectives.

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, we now face another public health emergency in the form of monkeypox virus. As of August 1, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report over 23,000 cases in 80 countries. An inclusive and global collaborative effort to understand the biology, evolution, and spread of the virus as well as commitment to vaccine equity will be critical toward containing this outbreak. We share the voices of leading experts in this space on what they see as the most pressing questions and directions for the community.

Scientific misinformation: A perfect storm, missteps, and moving forward.

The spread of scientific misinformation is not new but rather has long posed threats to human health, environmental well-being, and the creation of a sustainable and equitable future. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic, the need to develop strategies to counteract scientific misinformation has taken on an acute urgency. Cell editor Nicole Neuman sat down with Walter Quattrociocchi and Dietram Scheufele to gain insights on how we got here and what does-and does not-work to fight the spread of scientific misinformation. Excerpts from this conversation, edited for clarity and length, are presented below, and the full conversation is available with the article online.

Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to COVID-19.

Infectious diseases prevalent in humans and animals are caused by pathogens that once emerged from other animal hosts. In addition to these established infections, new infectious diseases periodically emerge. In extreme cases they may cause pandemics such as COVID-19; in other cases, dead-end infections or smaller epidemics result. Established diseases may also re-emerge, for example by extending geographically or by becoming more transmissible or more pathogenic. Disease emergence reflects dynamic balances and imbalances, within complex globally distributed ecosystems comprising humans, animals, pathogens, and the environment. Understanding these variables is a necessary step in controlling future devastating disease emergences.

Pandemic Preparedness: Developing Vaccines and Therapeutic Antibodies For COVID-19.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that causes COVID-19 respiratory syndrome has caused global public health and economic crises, necessitating rapid development of vaccines and therapeutic countermeasures. The world-wide response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been unprecedented with government, academic, and private partnerships working together to rapidly develop vaccine and antibody countermeasures. Many of the technologies being used are derived from prior government-academic partnerships for response to other emerging infections.

Biomedical Research Goes Viral: Dangers and Opportunities.

Researchers around the globe have been mounting, accelerating, and redeploying efforts across disciplines and organizations to tackle the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. However, humankind continues to be afflicted by numerous other devastating diseases in increasing numbers. Here, we outline considerations and opportunities toward striking a good balance between maintaining and redefining research priorities.

SARS-CoV-2 in immunocompromised individuals.

Immunocompromised individuals and particularly those with hematologic malignancies are at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2-associated morbidity and mortality due to immunologic deficits that limit prevention, treatment, and clearance of the virus. Understanding the natural history of viral infections in people with impaired immunity due to underlying conditions, immunosuppressive therapy, or a combination thereof has emerged as a critical area of investigation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies focused on these individuals have provided key insights into aspects of innate and adaptive immunity underlying both the antiviral immune response and excess inflammation in the setting of COVID-19. This review presents what is known about distinct states of immunologic vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 and how this information can be harnessed to improve prevention and treatment strategies for immunologically high-risk populations.

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19.

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations ('claims') detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms 'physical distancing' and 'social distancing'. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.

The burden and dynamics of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 in England.

Hospital-based transmission had a dominant role in Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) epidemics1,2, but large-scale studies of its role in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic are lacking. Such transmission risks spreading the virus to the most vulnerable individuals and can have wider-scale impacts through hospital-community interactions. Using data from acute hospitals in England, we quantify within-hospital transmission, evaluate likely pathways of spread and factors associated with heightened transmission risk, and explore the wider dynamical consequences. We estimate that between June 2020 and March 2021 between 95,000 and 167,000 inpatients acquired SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals (1% to 2% of all hospital admissions in this period). Analysis of time series data provided evidence that patients who themselves acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospital were the main sources of transmission to other patients. Increased transmission to inpatients was associated with hospitals having fewer single rooms and lower heated volume per bed. Moreover, we show that reducing hospital transmission could substantially enhance the efficiency of punctuated lockdown measures in suppressing community transmission. These findings reveal the previously unrecognized scale of hospital transmission, have direct implications for targeting of hospital control measures and highlight the need to design hospitals better equipped to limit the transmission of future high-consequence pathogens.

Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation.

COVID-19 accelerated a decade-long shift to remote work by normalizing working from home on a large scale. Indeed, 75% of US employees in a 2021 survey reported a personal preference for working remotely at least one day per week1, and studies estimate that 20% of US workdays will take place at home after the pandemic ends2. Here we examine how this shift away from in-person interaction affects innovation, which relies on collaborative idea generation as the foundation of commercial and scientific progress3. In a laboratory study and a field experiment across five countries (in Europe, the Middle East and South Asia), we show that videoconferencing inhibits the production of creative ideas. By contrast, when it comes to selecting which idea to pursue, we find no evidence that videoconferencing groups are less effective (and preliminary evidence that they may be more effective) than in-person groups. Departing from previous theories that focus on how oral and written technologies limit the synchronicity and extent of information exchanged4-6, we find that our effects are driven by differences in the physical nature of videoconferencing and in-person interactions. Specifically, using eye-gaze and recall measures, as well as latent semantic analysis, we demonstrate that videoconferencing hampers idea generation because it focuses communicators on a screen, which prompts a narrower cognitive focus. Our results suggest that virtual interaction comes with a cognitive cost for creative idea generation.

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat.

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

Effects on Cancer Prevention from the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruption of health services around the world, including cancer services. We carried out a narrative review of the effect of the pandemic on cancer prevention services, including screening. Services were severely affected in the early months of the pandemic, and in some areas are still recovering. Large numbers of additional cancers or additional late-stage cancers have been predicted to arise over the coming years as a result of this disruption. To minimize the effects on cancer outcomes, it is necessary to return as quickly as possible to prepandemic levels of screening and prevention activity or indeed to exceed these levels. The recovery of services should address health inequalities.

Improve how science advice is provided to governments by learning from "experts in expert advice".

During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, science advisory mechanisms did not always live up to expectations. What practical steps can the expert community take to improve advisory mechanisms in an emergency?

Minding the "T"s beyond the "B"s: Shaping vaccines for future pandemics.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the development of vaccines for viral infections. However, a failure to integrate T cell immunity as a determinant of vaccine efficacy could curtail advancement of newer vaccines for pandemic preparedness.

Coupled models of genomic surveillance and evolving pandemics with applications for timely public health interventions.

Disease surveillance systems provide early warnings of disease outbreaks before they become public health emergencies. However, pandemics containment would be challenging due to the complex immunity landscape created by multiple variants. Genomic surveillance is critical for detecting novel variants with diverse characteristics and importation/emergence times. Yet, a systematic study incorporating genomic monitoring, situation assessment, and intervention strategies is lacking in the literature. We formulate an integrated computational modeling framework to study a realistic course of action based on sequencing, analysis, and response. We study the effects of the second variant's importation time, its infectiousness advantage and, its cross-infection on the novel variant's detection time, and the resulting intervention scenarios to contain epidemics driven by two-variants dynamics. Our results illustrate the limitation in the intervention's effectiveness due to the variants' competing dynamics and provide the following insights: i) There is a set of importation times that yields the worst detection time for the second variant, which depends on the first variant's basic reproductive number; ii) When the second variant is imported relatively early with respect to the first variant, the cross-infection level does not impact the detection time of the second variant. We found that depending on the target metric, the best outcomes are attained under different interventions' regimes. Our results emphasize the importance of sustained enforcement of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions on preventing epidemic resurgence due to importation/emergence of novel variants. We also discuss how our methods can be used to study when a novel variant emerges within a population.

Multimodeling approach to evaluating the efficacy of layering pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical interventions for influenza pandemics.

When an influenza pandemic emerges, temporary school closures and antiviral treatment may slow virus spread, reduce the overall disease burden, and provide time for vaccine development, distribution, and administration while keeping a larger portion of the general population infection free. The impact of such measures will depend on the transmissibility and severity of the virus and the timing and extent of their implementation. To provide robust assessments of layered pandemic intervention strategies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a network of academic groups to build a framework for the development and comparison of multiple pandemic influenza models. Research teams from Columbia University, Imperial College London/Princeton University, Northeastern University, the University of Texas at Austin/Yale University, and the University of Virginia independently modeled three prescribed sets of pandemic influenza scenarios developed collaboratively by the CDC and network members. Results provided by the groups were aggregated into a mean-based ensemble. The ensemble and most component models agreed on the ranking of the most and least effective intervention strategies by impact but not on the magnitude of those impacts. In the scenarios evaluated, vaccination alone, due to the time needed for development, approval, and deployment, would not be expected to substantially reduce the numbers of illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths that would occur. Only strategies that included early implementation of school closure were found to substantially mitigate early spread and allow time for vaccines to be developed and administered, especially under a highly transmissible pandemic scenario.