VACCELERATE Site Network: Real-time definition of clinical study capacity in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The inconsistent European vaccine trial landscape rendered the continent of limited interest for vaccine developers. The VACCELERATE consortium created a network of capable clinical trial sites throughout Europe. VACCELERATE identifies and provides access to state-of-the-art vaccine trial sites to accelerate clinical development of vaccines. METHODS: Login details for the VACCELERATE Site Network (vaccelerate.eu/site-network/) questionnaire can be obtained after sending an email to. Interested sites provide basic information, such as contact details, affiliation with infectious disease networks, main area of expertise, previous vaccine trial experience, site infrastructure and preferred vaccine trial settings. In addition, sites can recommend other clinical researchers for registration in the network. If directly requested by a sponsor or sponsor representative, the VACCELERATE Site Network pre-selects vaccine trial sites and shares basic study characteristics provided by the sponsor. Interested sites provide feedback with short surveys and feasibility questionnaires developed by VACCELERATE and are connected with the sponsor to initiate the site selection process. RESULTS: As of April 2023, 481 sites from 39 European countries have registered in the VACCELERATE Site Network. Of these, 137 (28.5 %) sites have previous experience conducting phase I trials, 259 (53.8 %) with phase II, 340 (70.7 %) with phase III, and 205 (42.6 %) with phase IV trials, respectively. Infectious diseases were reported as main area of expertise by 274 sites (57.0 %), followed by any kind of immunosuppression by 141 (29.3 %) sites. Numbers are super additive as sites may report clinical trial experience in several indications. Two hundred and thirty-one (47.0 %) sites have the expertise and capacity to enrol paediatric populations and 391 (79.6 %) adult populations. Since its launch in October 2020, the VACCELERATE Site Network has been used 21 times for academic and industry trials, mostly interventional studies, focusing on different pathogens such as fungi, monkeypox virus, Orthomyxoviridae/influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, or Streptococcus pneumoniae/pneumococcus. CONCLUSIONS: The VACCELERATE Site Network enables a constantly updated Europe-wide mapping of experienced clinical sites interested in executing vaccine trials. The network is already in use as a rapid-turnaround single contact point for the identification of vaccine trials sites in Europe.

Enhancing Public Health Communication Regarding Vaccine Trials: Design and Development of the Pan-European VACCELERATE Toolkit.

BACKGROUND: The pan-European VACCELERATE network aims to implement the first transnational harmonized and sustainable vaccine trial Volunteer Registry, being a single entry point for potential volunteers of large-scale vaccine trials across Europe. This work exhibits a set of harmonized vaccine trial-related educational and promotional tools for the general public, designed and disseminated by the pan-European VACCELERATE network. OBJECTIVE: This study primarily aimed to design and develop a standard toolkit to increase positive attitudes and access to trustworthy information for better access and increased recruitment to vaccine trials for the public. More specifically, the produced tools are focused on inclusiveness and equity, and are targeting different population groups, including underserved ones, as potential volunteers for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry (older individuals, migrants, children, and adolescents). The promotional and educational material is aligned with the main objectives of the Volunteer Registry to increase public literacy and awareness regarding vaccine-related clinical research or trials and trial participation, including informed consent and legal issues, side effects, and frequently asked questions regarding vaccine trial design. METHODS: Tools were developed per the aims and principles of the VACCELERATE project, focusing on trial inclusiveness and equity, and are adjusted to local country-wise requirements to improve public health communication. The produced tools are selected based on the cognitive theory, inclusiveness, and equity of differently aged and underrepresented groups, and standardized material from several official trustworthy sources (eg, COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access; the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and the World Health Organization). A team of multidisciplinary specialists (infectious diseases, vaccine research, medicine, and education) edited and reviewed the subtitles and scripts of the educational videos, extended brochures, interactive cards, and puzzles. Graphic designers selected the color palette, audio settings, and dubbing for the video story-tales and implemented QR codes. RESULTS: This study presents the first set of harmonized promotional and educational materials and tools (ie, educational cards, educational and promotional videos, extended brochures, flyers, posters, and puzzles) for vaccine clinical research (eg, COVID-19 vaccines). These tools inform the public about possible benefits and disadvantages of trial participation and build confidence among participants about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and the health care system. This material has been translated into several languages and is intended to be freely and easily accessible to facilitate dissemination among VACCELERATE network participant countries and the European and global scientific, industrial, and public community. CONCLUSIONS: The produced material could help fill knowledge gaps of health care personnel, providing the appropriate future patient education for vaccine trials, and tackling vaccine hesitancy and parents' concerns for potential participation of children in vaccine trials.

Blood leukocyte transcriptomes in Gram-positive and Gram-negative community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria are the most common causative pathogens in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) on the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was to determine whether the host immune response differs between Gram-positive and Gram-negative CAP upon ICU admission. METHODS: 16 host response biomarkers providing insight into pathophysiological mechanisms implicated in sepsis and blood leukocyte transcriptomes were analysed in patients with CAP upon ICU admission in two tertiary hospitals in the Netherlands. RESULTS: 309 patients with CAP with a definite or probable likelihood (determined by predefined criteria) were included. A causative pathogen was determined in 74.4% of admissions. Patients admitted with Gram-positive CAP (n=90) were not different from those admitted with Gram-negative CAP (n=75) regarding demographics, chronic comorbidities, severity of disease and mortality. Host response biomarkers reflective of systemic inflammation, coagulation activation and endothelial cell function, as well as blood leukocyte transcriptomes, were largely similar between Gram-positive and Gram-negative CAP. Blood leukocyte transcriptomes were also similar in Gram-positive and Gram-negative CAP in two independent validation cohorts. On a pathogen-specific level, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Escherichia coli induced the most distinct host immune response. CONCLUSION: Outcome and host response are similar in critically ill patients with CAP due to Gram-positive bacteria compared with Gram-negative bacteria.

Association between delay in intensive care unit admission and the host response in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: A delay in admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) has been associated with an increased mortality. Decisions regarding interventions and eligibility for immune modulatory therapy are often made at the time of admission to the ICU. The primary aim of this study was to compare the host immune response measured upon ICU admission in CAP patients admitted immediately from the emergency department (direct ICU admission) with those who were transferred within 72 h after admission to the general ward (delayed ICU admission). METHODS: Sixteen host response biomarkers providing insight in pathophysiological mechanisms implicated in sepsis and blood leukocyte transcriptomes were analysed in patients with CAP upon ICU admission in two tertiary hospitals in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Of 530 ICU admissions with CAP, 387 (73.0%) were directly admitted and 143 (27.0%) had a delayed admission. Patients with a delayed ICU admission were more often immunocompromised (35.0 versus 21.2%, P = .002) and had more malignancies (23.1 versus 13.4%, P = .011). Shock was more present in patients who were admitted to the ICU directly (46.6 versus 33.6%, P = .010). Delayed ICU admission was not associated with an increased hospital mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI 0.89-1.78, P = .20). The plasma levels of biomarkers (n = 297) reflecting systemic inflammation, endothelial cell activation and coagulation activation were largely similar between groups, with exception of C-reactive protein, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 and angiopoietin-1, which were more aberrant in delayed admissions compared to direct ICU admissions. Blood leukocyte transcriptomes (n = 132) of patients with a delayed ICU admission showed blunted innate and adaptive immune response signalling when compared with direct ICU admissions, as well as decreased gene expression associated with tissue repair and extracellular matrix remodelling pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Blood leukocytes of CAP patients with delayed ICU admission show evidence of a more immune suppressive phenotype upon ICU admission when compared with blood leukocytes from patients directly transferred to the ICU. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Molecular Diagnosis and Risk Stratification of Sepsis (MARS) project, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01905033.

Recommendations for antibacterial therapy in adults with COVID-19 - an evidence based guideline.

SCOPE: The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy constituted a multidisciplinary expert committee to provide evidence-based recommendation for the use of antibacterial therapy in hospitalized adults with a respiratory infection and suspected or proven 2019 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). METHODS: We performed a literature search to answer four key questions. The committee graded the evidence and developed recommendations by using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS: We assessed evidence on the risk of bacterial infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the associated bacterial pathogens, how to diagnose bacterial infections and how to treat bacterial infections. Bacterial co-infection upon admission was reported in 3.5% of COVID-19 patients, while bacterial secondary infections during hospitalization occurred up to 15%. No or very low quality evidence was found to answer the other key clinical questions. Although the evidence base on bacterial infections in COVID-19 is currently limited, available evidence supports restrictive antibiotic use from an antibiotic stewardship perspective, especially upon admission. To support restrictive antibiotic use, maximum efforts should be undertaken to obtain sputum and blood culture samples as well as pneumococcal urinary antigen testing. We suggest to stop antibiotics in patients who started antibiotic treatment upon admission when representative cultures as well as urinary antigen tests show no signs of involvement of bacterial pathogens after 48 hours. For patients with secondary bacterial respiratory infection we recommend to follow other guideline recommendations on antibacterial treatment for patients with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia. An antibiotic treatment duration of five days in patients with COVID-19 and suspected bacterial respiratory infection is recommended upon improvement of signs, symptoms and inflammatory markers. Larger, prospective studies about the epidemiology of bacterial infections in COVID-19 are urgently needed to confirm our conclusions and ultimately prevent unnecessary antibiotic use during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

OBJECTIVE: To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. DESIGN: Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. DATA EXTRACTION: At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). RESULTS: 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. CONCLUSION: Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

Association of Gender With Outcome and Host Response in Critically Ill Sepsis Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of gender with the presentation, outcome, and host response in critically ill patients with sepsis. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective observational cohort study in the ICU of two tertiary hospitals between January 2011 and January 2014. PATIENTS: All consecutive critically ill patients admitted with sepsis, involving 1,815 admissions (1,533 patients). INTERVENTIONS: The host response was evaluated on ICU admission by measuring 19 plasma biomarkers reflecting organ systems implicated in sepsis pathogenesis (1,205 admissions) and by applying genome-wide blood gene expression profiling (582 admissions). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sepsis patients admitted to the ICU were more frequently males (61.0%; p < 0.0001 vs females). Baseline characteristics were not different between genders. Urosepsis was more common in females; endocarditis and mediastinitis in men. Disease severity was similar throughout ICU stay. Mortality was similar up to 1 year after ICU admission, and gender was not associated with 90-day mortality in multivariate analyses in a variety of subgroups. Although plasma proteome analyses (including systemic inflammatory and cytokine responses, and activation of coagulation) were largely similar between genders, females showed enhanced endothelial cell activation; this difference was virtually absent in patients more than 55 years old. More than 80% of the leukocyte blood gene expression response was similar in male and female patients. CONCLUSIONS: The host response and outcome in male and female sepsis patients requiring ICU admission are largely similar.

The Host Response in Patients with Sepsis Developing Intensive Care Unit-acquired Secondary Infections.

RATIONALE: Sepsis can be complicated by secondary infections. We explored the possibility that patients with sepsis developing a secondary infection while in the intensive care unit (ICU) display sustained inflammatory, vascular, and procoagulant responses. OBJECTIVES: To compare systemic proinflammatory host responses in patients with sepsis who acquire a new infection with those who do not. METHODS: Consecutive patients with sepsis with a length of ICU stay greater than 48 hours were prospectively analyzed for the development of ICU-acquired infections. Twenty host response biomarkers reflective of key pathways implicated in sepsis pathogenesis were measured during the first 4 days after ICU admission and at the day of an ICU-acquired infection or noninfectious complication. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 1,237 admissions for sepsis (1,089 patients), 178 (14.4%) admissions were complicated by ICU-acquired infections (at Day 10 [6-13], median with interquartile range). Patients who developed a secondary infection showed higher disease severity scores and higher mortality up to 1 year than those who did not. Analyses of biomarkers in patients who later went on to develop secondary infections revealed a more dysregulated host response during the first 4 days after admission, as reflected by enhanced inflammation, stronger endothelial cell activation, a more disturbed vascular integrity, and evidence for enhanced coagulation activation. Host response reactions were similar at the time of ICU-acquired infectious or noninfectious complications. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with sepsis who developed an ICU-acquired infection showed a more dysregulated proinflammatory and vascular host response during the first 4 days of ICU admission than those who did not develop a secondary infection.

Association of diabetes and diabetes treatment with the host response in critically ill sepsis patients.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is associated with chronic inflammation and activation of the vascular endothelium and the coagulation system, which in a more acute manner are also observed in sepsis. Insulin and metformin exert immune modulatory effects. In this study, we aimed to determine the association of diabetes and preadmission insulin and metformin use with sepsis outcome and host response. METHODS: We evaluated 1104 patients with sepsis, admitted to the intensive care unit and stratified according to the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus. The host response was examined by a targeted approach (by measuring 15 plasma biomarkers reflective of pathways implicated in sepsis pathogenesis) and an unbiased approach (by analyzing whole genome expression profiles in blood leukocytes). RESULTS: Diabetes mellitus was not associated with differences in sepsis presentation or mortality up to 90 days after admission. Plasma biomarker measurements revealed signs of systemic inflammation, and strong endothelial and coagulation activation in patients with sepsis, none of which were altered in those with diabetes. Patients with and without diabetes mellitus, who had sepsis demonstrated similar transcriptional alterations, comprising 74 % of the expressed gene content and involving over-expression of genes associated with pro-inflammatory, anti-inflammatory, Toll-like receptor and metabolic signaling pathways and under-expression of genes associated with T cell signaling pathways. Amongst patients with diabetes mellitus and sepsis, preadmission treatment with insulin or metformin was not associated with an altered sepsis outcome or host response. CONCLUSIONS: Neither diabetes mellitus nor preadmission insulin or metformin use are associated with altered disease presentation, outcome or host response in patients with sepsis requiring intensive care.

Comparative Analysis of the Host Response to Community-acquired and Hospital-acquired Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients.

RATIONALE: Preclinical studies suggest that hospitalized patients are susceptible to infections caused by nosocomial respiratory pathogens at least in part because of immune suppression caused by the condition for which they were admitted. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterize the systemic host response in hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) when compared with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: We performed a prospective study in two intensive care units (ICUs) in 453 patients with HAP (n = 222) or CAP (n = 231). Immune responses were determined on ICU admission by measuring 19 plasma biomarkers reflecting organ systems implicated in infection pathogenesis (in 192 patients with HAP and 183 patients with CAP) and by applying genome-wide blood gene expression profiling (in 111 patients with HAP and 110 patients with CAP). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients with HAP and CAP presented with similar disease severities and mortality rates did not differ up to 1 year after admission. Plasma proteome analysis revealed largely similar responses, including systemic inflammatory and cytokine responses, and activation of coagulation and the vascular endothelium. The blood leukocyte genomic response was greater than 75% common in patients with HAP and CAP, comprising proinflammatory, antiinflammatory, T-cell signaling, and metabolic pathway gene sets. Patients with HAP showed overexpression of genes involved in cell-cell junction remodeling, adhesion, and diapedesis, which corresponded with lower plasma levels of matrix metalloproteinase-8 and soluble E-selectin. In addition, patients with HAP demonstrated underexpression of a type-I interferon signaling gene signature. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HAP and CAP present with a largely similar host response at ICU admission.

Admission Hyperglycemia in Critically Ill Sepsis Patients: Association With Outcome and Host Response.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether admission hyperglycemia is associated with the presentation and/or outcome of sepsis, what the influence of hyperglycemia is on key host responses to sepsis, and whether hyperglycemia differentially affects patients with diabetes mellitus. DESIGN AND SETTING: A substudy of a prospective observational cohort study was conducted in the intensive care of two tertiary hospitals between January 2011 and July 2013. PATIENTS: Of all consecutive critically ill sepsis patients, admission glucose was used to stratify patients in euglycemia (71-140 mg/dL), mild hyperglycemia (141-199 mg/dL), and severe hyperglycemia (≥ 200 mg/dL), and patients with hypoglycemia were excluded. Fifteen plasma biomarkers providing insight in key host responses implicated in sepsis pathogenesis were measured on admission. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 987 sepsis patients with admission glucose levels greater than 70 mg/dL, 519 (52.6%) had normal glucose levels, 267 (27.1%) had mild, and 201 (20.4%) severe hyperglycemia. Admission hyperglycemia was accompanied by mitigated alterations in plasma host response biomarker levels indicative of activation of the cytokine network, the vascular endothelium, and the coagulation system in patients without a history of diabetes. Severe, but not mild, admission hyperglycemia was associated with increased 30-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.24-2.23]), in both patients without diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.12-2.42]) and with diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.01-3.62]). CONCLUSION: Admission hyperglycemia is associated with adverse outcome of sepsis irrespective of the presence or absence of preexisting diabetes by a mechanism unrelated to exaggerated inflammation or coagulation.