Healthcare Resource Utilization Associated with Intermittent Oral Corticosteroid Prescribing Patterns in Asthma.

Purpose: Oral corticosteroid (OCS) use for asthma is associated with considerable healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. However, no study has investigated this in relation to patterns of intermittent OCS prescription. Methods: This historical UK cohort study used primary care medical records, linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, from 2008 to 2019, of patients (≥4 years old) with asthma prescribed intermittent OCS. Patients were categorized by OCS prescribing pattern (one-off [single], less frequent [≥90-day gap] and frequent [<90-day gap]) and matched 1:1 (by sex, age and index date) with people never prescribed OCS with/without asthma. HCRU (reported as episodes, except for length of hospital stay [days] and any prescription [records]) and associated costs were compared between intermittent OCS and non-OCS cohorts, and among intermittent OCS prescribing patterns. Results: Of 149,191 eligible patients, 50.3% had one-off, 27.4% less frequent, and 22.3% frequent intermittent OCS prescribing patterns. Annualized non-respiratory HCRU rates were greater in the intermittent OCS versus non-OCS cohorts for GP visits (5.93 vs 4.70 episodes, p < 0.0001), hospital admissions (0.24 vs 0.16 episodes, p < 0.0001), and length of stay (1.87 vs 1.58 days, p < 0.0001). In the intermittent OCS cohort, rates were highest in the frequent prescribing group for GP visits (7.49 episodes; p < 0.0001 vs one-off), length of stay (2.15 days; p < 0.0001) and any prescription including OCS (25.22 prescriptions; p < 0.0001). Mean per-patient non-respiratory related and all-cause HCRU-related costs were higher with intermittent OCS than no OCS (£3902 vs £2722 and £8623 vs £4929, respectively), as were mean annualized costs (£565 vs £313 and £1526 vs £634, respectively). A dose-response relationship existed; HCRU-related costs were highest in the frequent prescribing cohort (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Intermittent OCS use and more frequent intermittent OCS prescription patterns were associated with increased HCRU and associated costs. Improved asthma management is needed to reduce reliance on intermittent OCS in primary care.

Bisoprolol in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease at High Risk of Exacerbation: The BICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Observational studies report that ß-blocker use may be associated with reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. However, a recent trial reported that metoprolol did not reduce COPD exacerbations and increased COPD exacerbations requiring hospital admission. Objective: To test whether bisoprolol decreased COPD exacerbations in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbations. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bisoprolol in COPD Study (BICS) was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in 76 UK sites (45 primary care clinics and 31 secondary clinics). Patients with COPD who had at least moderate airflow obstruction on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] to forced vital capacity <0.7; FEV1 <80% predicted) and at least 2 COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both in the prior 12 months were enrolled from October 17, 2018, to May 31, 2022. Follow-up concluded on April 18, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to bisoprolol (n = 261) or placebo (n = 258). Bisoprolol was started at 1.25 mg orally daily and was titrated as tolerated during 4 sessions to a maximum dose of 5 mg/d, using a standardized protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was the number of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both during the 1-year treatment period. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events and adverse reactions. Results: Although the trial planned to enroll 1574 patients, recruitment was suspended from March 16, 2020, to July 31, 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients in each group were excluded postrandomization. Among the 515 patients (mean [SD] age, 68 [7.9] years; 274 men [53%]; mean FEV1, 50.1%), primary outcome data were available for 514 patients (99.8%) and 371 (72.0%) continued taking the study drug. The primary outcome of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both was 526 in the bisoprolol group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.03/y, vs 513 exacerbations in the placebo group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.01/y. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.13; P = .72). Serious adverse events occurred in 37 of 255 patients in the bisoprolol group (14.5%) vs 36 of 251 in the placebo group (14.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.66; P = .96). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, treatment with bisoprolol did not reduce the number of self-reported COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10497306.

Assessing asthma symptoms in children: qualitative research supporting the development of the Pediatric Asthma Diary-Child (PAD-C) and Pediatric Asthma Diary-Observer (PAD-O).

BACKGROUND: Pediatric asthma has been identified by regulators, clinicians, clinical trial sponsors, and caregivers as an area in need of novel fit-for-purpose clinical outcome assessments (COAs) developed in accordance with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) regulatory guidance for evaluating clinical benefit in treatment trials. To address this gap, the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium's Pediatric Asthma Working Group has continued development of 2 COAs to assess asthma signs and symptoms in pediatric asthma clinical trials to support efficacy endpoints: a PRO measure, the Pediatric Asthma Diary-Child (PAD-C) for children 8-11 years old (y.o.) and an observer-reported outcome measure, the Pediatric Asthma Diary-Observer (PAD-O) for caregivers of children 4-11 y.o. This qualitative research aimed to generate evidence regarding the content validity of the PAD-C and PAD-O. METHODS: Semi-structured combined concept elicitation and cognitive interviews were conducted with a diverse sample of U.S. participants (15 children 8-11 y.o. and 30 caregivers of children 4-11 y.o.). All children had clinician-diagnosed mild to severe asthma. Interviews explored the experience of pediatric asthma and assessed the understanding and relevance of both measures. Interviews were conducted across 3 iterative rounds to allow for modifications. RESULTS: Concept elicitation findings demonstrated that the core sign/symptom and impact concepts assessed in the PAD-C (cough, hard to breathe, out of breath, wheezing, chest tightness, and nighttime awakenings/symptoms) and PAD-O (cough, difficulty breathing, short of breath, wheezing, and nighttime awakenings/signs) correspond to those most frequently reported by participants; concept saturation was achieved. All PAD-C and PAD-O instructions and core items were well understood and considered relevant by most participants. Feedback from participants, the Pediatric Asthma Working Group, advisory panel, and FDA supported modifications to the measures, including addition of 1 new item to both measures and removal of 1 caregiver item. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide strong support for the content validity of both measures. The cross-sectional measurement properties of both measures and their user experience and feasibility in electronic format will be assessed in a future quantitative pilot study with qualitative exit interviews, intended to support the reliability, construct validity, final content, and, ultimately, FDA qualification of the measures.

Pediatric asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in children. However, there are problems of underdiagnosis, poor disease management, and undertreatment for many pediatric asthma patients, pressuring healthcare systems worldwide. Evaluating asthma symptoms is an important part of the development of treatments for pediatric asthma. However, there are few clinical outcome assessments (COAs) developed in line with regulatory guidance to directly assess symptom severity and evaluate the benefit of new treatments in children with asthma. In this study, we continued the development of the Pediatric Asthma Diary­Child (PAD-C) and the Pediatric Asthma Diary­Observer (PAD-O), according to regulatory guidance, to assess asthma signs and symptoms in children 4 through 11 years old and address this unmet need. The study aimed to explore the experience of pediatric asthma and assess how well-understood and relevant the measures are. Three rounds of qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 children 8 through 11 years old and 30 caregivers of children 4 through 11 years old with asthma. Results show that both measures are well-understood and assess the relevant and important aspects of pediatric asthma reported by children and caregivers. Findings provide evidence supporting the PAD-C and PAD-O as measures of symptom severity and their future use in pediatric asthma treatment trials. Further research is underway to evaluate their measurement properties and assess the user experience and feasibility of electronic completion, to ultimately support the PAD-C and PAD-O in an ongoing COA qualification process by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

Directions of change in intrinsic case severity across successive SARS-CoV-2 variant waves have been inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how the intrinsic severity of successively dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants changed over the course of the pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHS GGC) Health Board. All sequenced non-nosocomial adult COVID-19 cases in NHS GGC with relevant SARS-CoV-2 lineages (B.1.177/Alpha, Alpha/Delta, AY.4.2 Delta/non-AY.4.2 Delta, non-AY.4.2 Delta/Omicron, and BA.1 Omicron/BA.2 Omicron) during analysis periods were included. Outcome measures were hospital admission, ICU admission, or death within 28 days of positive COVID-19 test. We report the cumulative odds ratio; the ratio of the odds that an individual experiences a severity event of a given level vs all lower severity levels for the resident and the replacement variant after adjustment. RESULTS: After adjustment for covariates, the cumulative odds ratio was 1.51 (95% CI: 1.08-2.11) for Alpha versus B.1.177, 2.09 (95% CI: 1.42-3.08) for Delta versus Alpha, 0.99 (95% CI: 0.76-1.27) for AY.4.2 Delta versus non-AY.4.2 Delta, 0.49 (95% CI: 0.22-1.06) for Omicron versus non-AY.4.2 Delta, and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.68-1.09) for BA.2 Omicron versus BA.1 Omicron. CONCLUSIONS: The direction of change in intrinsic severity between successively emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants was inconsistent, reminding us that the intrinsic severity of future SARS-CoV-2 variants remains uncertain.

A Charter to Fundamentally Change the Role of Oral Corticosteroids in the Management of Asthma.

Asthma affects 339 million people worldwide, with an estimated 5-10% experiencing severe asthma. In emergency settings, oral corticosteroids (OCS) can be lifesaving, but acute and long-term treatment can produce clinically important adverse outcomes and increase the risk of mortality. Therefore, global guidelines recommend limiting the use of OCS. Despite the risks, research indicates that 40-60% of people with severe asthma are receiving or have received long-term OCS treatment. Although often perceived as a low-cost option, long-term OCS use can result in significant health impairments and costs owing to adverse outcomes and increased utilization of healthcare resources. Alternative treatment methods, such as biologics, may produce cost-saving benefits with a better safety profile. A comprehensive and concerted effort is necessary to tackle the continued reliance on OCS. Accordingly, a threshold for OCS use should be established to help identify patients at risk of OCS-related adverse outcomes. Receiving a total dose of more than 500 mg per year should trigger a review and specialist referral. Changes to national and local policies, following examples from other chronic diseases, will be crucial to achieving this goal. Globally, multiple barriers to change still exist, but specific steps have been identified to help clinicians reduce reliance on OCS. Implementing these changes will result in positive health outcomes for patients and social and economic benefits for societies.

Persistence of immune responses after heterologous and homologous third COVID-19 vaccine dose schedules in the UK: eight-month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial.

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.

The SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant was associated with increased clinical severity of COVID-19 in Scotland: A genomics-based retrospective cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant was associated with increased transmission relative to other variants present at the time of its emergence and several studies have shown an association between Alpha variant infection and increased hospitalisation and 28-day mortality. However, none have addressed the impact on maximum severity of illness in the general population classified by the level of respiratory support required, or death. We aimed to do this. METHODS: In this retrospective multi-centre clinical cohort sub-study of the COG-UK consortium, 1475 samples from Scottish hospitalised and community cases collected between 1st November 2020 and 30th January 2021 were sequenced. We matched sequence data to clinical outcomes as the Alpha variant became dominant in Scotland and modelled the association between Alpha variant infection and severe disease using a 4-point scale of maximum severity by 28 days: 1. no respiratory support, 2. supplemental oxygen, 3. ventilation and 4. death. RESULTS: Our cumulative generalised linear mixed model analyses found evidence (cumulative odds ratio: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.93) of a positive association between increased clinical severity and lineage (Alpha variant versus pre-Alpha variants). CONCLUSIONS: The Alpha variant was associated with more severe clinical disease in the Scottish population than co-circulating lineages.

Application of an algorithm to analyze patterns of intermittent oral corticosteroid use in asthma.

An algorithm to describe patterns of intermittent oral corticosteroid use in the UK (n = 476,167) found that one-third of patients receiving intermittent oral corticosteroids for asthma only had short gaps (<90 days) between oral corticosteroid prescriptions sometime during follow-up. The increasing frequency pattern was more likely in patients with greater asthma severity and with more short-acting ß2-agonist use at baseline. Our approach may provide a clinically relevant representation of intermittent oral corticosteroid use in asthma.

Short- and Long-Term Impact of Prior Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations on Healthcare Resource Utilization and Related Costs: An Observational Study (SHERLOCK).

The observational retrospective cohort Study on HEalthcare Resource utiLization (HCRU) related to exacerbatiOns in patients with COPD (SHERLOCK; D5980R00014) evaluated exacerbation-related HCRU and costs using the U.K. National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board data. Patients (≥40 years) with COPD were stratified by exacerbations one year before the index date: Group A (none), B (1 moderate), C (1 severe) and D (≥2 moderate and/or severe). All-cause and COPD-related HCRU and costs were assessed over 36 months. Adjusted rate ratios (RRs) or relative costs versus Group A were estimated using generalized linear models with appropriate distributions and link functions. The study included 22 462 patients (Group A, n = 7788; B, n = 5151; C, n = 250 and D, n = 9273). At 12 months, RRs (95% CI) versus Group A for all-cause and COPD-related HCRU, respectively, were highest in Groups C (1.28 [1.18, 1.39] and 1.18 [1.09, 1.29]) and D (1.26 [1.23, 1.28] and 1.29 [1.26, 1.31]). General practitioner and outpatient visits, and general ward stays/days accounted for the greatest COPD-related HCRU. All-cause and COPD-related relative costs (95% CI) versus Group A at 12 months, respectively, were 1.03 (0.94, 1.12) and 1.06 (0.99, 1.13) in Group B; 1.47 (1.07, 2.01) and 1.54 (1.20, 1.97) in Group C; 1.47 (1.36, 1.58) and 1.63 (1.54, 1.73) in Group D. Increased HCRU and costs in patients with exacerbation histories persisted at 36 months, demonstrating the sustained impact of exacerbations. The study suggests the importance of management and prevention of exacerbations through intervention optimization and budgeting by payers for exacerbation-related costs.

Observational UK cohort study to describe intermittent oral corticosteroid prescribing patterns and their association with adverse outcomes in asthma.

INTRODUCTION: Oral corticosteroids (OCS) for asthma are associated with increased risks of developing adverse outcomes (adverse outcomes); no previous study has focused exclusively on intermittent OCS use. METHODS: This historical (2008-2019) UK cohort study using primary care medical records from two anonymised, real-life databases (OPCRD and CPRD) included patients aged≥4 years with asthma receiving only intermittent OCS. Patients were indexed on their first recorded intermittent OCS prescription for asthma and categorised by OCS prescribing patterns: one-off (single), less frequent (≥90 day gap) and frequent (<90 day gap). Non-OCS patients matched 1:1 on gender, age and index date served as controls. The association of OCS prescribing patterns with OCS-related AO risk was studied, stratified by age, Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2020 treatment step, and pre index inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) prescriptions using a multivariable Cox-proportional hazard model. FINDINGS: Of 476 167 eligible patients, 41.7%, 26.8% and 31.6% had one-off, less frequent and frequent intermittent OCS prescribing patterns, respectively. Risk of any AO increased with increasingly frequent patterns of intermittent OCS versus non-OCS (HR; 95% CI: one-off 1.19 (1.18 to 1.20), less frequent 1.35 (1.34 to 1.36), frequent 1.42 (1.42 to 1.43)), and was consistent across age, GINA treatment step and ICS and SABA subgroups. The highest risks of individual OCS-related adverse outcomes with increasingly frequent OCS were for pneumonia and sleep apnoea. CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of patients with asthma receiving intermittent OCS experienced a frequent prescribing pattern. Increasingly frequent OCS prescribing patterns were associated with higher risk of OCS-related adverse outcomes. Mitigation strategies are needed to minimise intermittent OCS prescription in primary care.

Cost-Effectiveness of Triple Therapy with Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate versus Dual Therapies in Moderate-to-Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: United Kingdom Analysis Using the ETHOS Study.

Background: In the 52-week ETHOS study (NCT02465567), fixed-dose triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (BGF) reduced moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations versus fixed-dose long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA dual therapies. Here, ETHOS data were used to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of BGF versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA dual therapies in the United Kingdom. Methods: Costs, exacerbations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and LYs were extrapolated using a Markov model that considered disease severity progression, risk of moderate and severe exacerbations, adverse events, and treatment discontinuation in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD receiving BGF 320/14.4/10 µg, the LAMA/LABA glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 14.4/10 µg (GFF), or the ICS/LABA budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 320/10 µg (BFF). Utilities for COPD severity states were estimated using EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level data from ETHOS. Exacerbation disutilities were sourced from published literature. Healthcare resource utilization was based on ETHOS data, published literature, key external experts' input, and informed assumptions. Unit costs came from the UK National Health Service Schedule of Reference Costs, Unit Costs of Health and Social Care from the Personal Social Services Research Unit, and published literature. A lifetime horizon was considered, with costs, QALYs, and LYs discounted at 3.5% per annum. Results: The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR; per QALY gained) was £9901 for BGF versus GFF and £2164 for BGF versus BFF. The probability of treatments being cost-effective at the conventional UK-adopted willingness-to-pay threshold of ICUR <£20,000 was 85.1% for BGF, 14.3% for GFF, and 0.6% for BFF. Conclusion: Based on ETHOS data, BGF was demonstrated to be cost-effective versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA dual therapies at the conventional UK-adopted willingness-to-pay threshold (ICUR <£20,000). The main cost-effectiveness driver for BGF versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA therapies was reduction in rate of exacerbations, which reduced costs and preserved quality of life.

A Renewed Charter: Key Principles to Improve Patient Care in Severe Asthma.

Asthma is a heterogenous respiratory disease, usually associated with chronic airway inflammation and hyper-responsiveness, which affects an estimated 339 million people worldwide. Severe asthma affects approximately 5-10% of patients with asthma, approximately 17-34 million people globally, more than half of whom have uncontrolled disease. Severe asthma carries a substantial burden of disease, including unpredictable symptoms and potentially life-threatening flare-ups. Furthermore, severe asthma has a substantial burden on health care systems and economies worldwide. In 2018, a group of experts from the clinical community, patient support groups, and professional organisations joined together to develop the Severe Asthma Patient Charter, which set out six principles to define what patients should expect for the management of their severe asthma and what should constitute a basic standard of care. Since the publication of that original Charter in 2018, several important changes have occurred, including an improved understanding of asthma and effective asthma management; several new therapies have become available; and finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on respiratory conditions, the workforces that treat them, and the fundamental importance of health care system resilience. With those developments in mind, we, representatives of the academic, clinical, and patient advocacy group communities, have updated the Charter to Improve Patient Care in Severe Asthma with a focus on six principles: (1) I deserve a timely, comprehensive assessment of my asthma and its severity; (2) I deserve a timely, straightforward referral to an appropriate specialist for my asthma when it is not well controlled; (3) I deserve to understand what makes my asthma worse; (4) I deserve access to treatment and care that reduces the impact of asthma on my daily life; (5) I deserve not to be reliant on systemic corticosteroids; (6) I deserve to be involved in decisions about my treatment and care.

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron is an immune escape variant with an altered cell entry pathway.

Vaccines based on the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 are a cornerstone of the public health response to COVID-19. The emergence of hypermutated, increasingly transmissible variants of concern (VOCs) threaten this strategy. Omicron (B.1.1.529), the fifth VOC to be described, harbours multiple amino acid mutations in spike, half of which lie within the receptor-binding domain. Here we demonstrate substantial evasion of neutralization by Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants in vitro using sera from individuals vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. These data were mirrored by a substantial reduction in real-world vaccine effectiveness that was partially restored by booster vaccination. The Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 did not induce cell syncytia in vitro and favoured a TMPRSS2-independent endosomal entry pathway, these phenotypes mapping to distinct regions of the spike protein. Impaired cell fusion was determined by the receptor-binding domain, while endosomal entry mapped to the S2 domain. Such marked changes in antigenicity and replicative biology may underlie the rapid global spread and altered pathogenicity of the Omicron variant.

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19. METHODS: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6-77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3-214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030-27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996-43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41-1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996-30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826-64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90-2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37-14·32) and 15·90 (12·92-19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24-16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90-9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group). INTERPRETATION: Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.

Use of the oral beta blocker bisoprolol to reduce the rate of exacerbation in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a randomised controlled trial (BICS).

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Beta blockers are well-established drugs widely used to treat cardiovascular conditions. Observational studies consistently report that beta blocker use in people with COPD is associated with a reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. The bisoprolol in COPD study (BICS) investigates whether adding bisoprolol to routine COPD treatment has clinical and cost-effective benefits. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure to investigate whether any beneficial effect of bisoprolol is restricted to those with unrecognised heart disease. METHODS: BICS is a pragmatic randomised parallel group double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in UK primary and secondary care sites. The major inclusion criteria are an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator FEV1 < 80% predicted, FEV1/FVC < 0.7), a self-reported history of ≥ 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in a 12-month period since March 2019, age ≥ 40 years and a smoking history ≥ 10 pack years. A computerised randomisation system will allocate 1574 participants with equal probability to intervention or control groups, stratified by centre and recruitment in primary/secondary care. The intervention is bisoprolol (1.25 mg tablets) or identical placebo. The dose of bisoprolol/placebo is titrated up to a maximum of 4 tablets a day (5 mg bisoprolol) over 4-7 weeks depending on tolerance to up-dosing of bisoprolol/placebo-these titration assessments are completed by telephone or video call. Participants complete the remainder of the 52-week treatment period on the final titrated dose (1, 2, 3, 4 tablets) and during that time are followed up at 26 and 52 weeks by telephone or video call. The primary outcome is the total number of participant reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and/or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure by echocardiography and measurement of blood biomarkers. DISCUSSION: The demonstration that bisoprolol reduces the incidence of exacerbations would be relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN10497306 . Registered on 16 August 2018.

Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: Three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters. METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study. RESULTS: Amongst the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd), schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10,085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT)). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 µg) or BNT (30 µg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 µg) versus BNT (30 µg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses. CONCLUSIONS: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentrations at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were similar to or even higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses.

Environmental Sustainability in Respiratory Care: An Overview of the healthCARe-Based envirONmental Cost of Treatment (CARBON) Programme.

INTRODUCTION: Faced with the challenges of climate change, countries are seeking to decarbonise their economies. A greater understanding of what comprises the carbon footprint of care in healthcare systems will identify potential strategies for reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In respiratory care, the focus has been on preventer inhalers, thereby omitting contributions from other aspects such as healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) and reliever inhaler use. The healthCARe-Based envirONmental cost of treatment (CARBON) programme aims to provide a broader understanding of the carbon footprint associated with respiratory care. METHODS: CARBON will quantify the carbon footprint of medications and HCRU among approximately 2.5 million patients with respiratory diseases from seven ongoing studies spanning more than 40 countries. Across studies, to obtain the carbon footprint of all inhaled, oral, and injectable medications, SimaPro life cycle assessment software modelling resource and energy consumption data, in addition to Ecoinvent® data sets and certified published studies, will be used. The carbon footprint of HCRU in the United Kingdom will be estimated by applying the methodology and data obtained from the Sustainable Healthcare Coalition Care Pathway Guidance. PLANNED OUTCOMES: In asthma, CARBON studies will quantify GHG emissions associated with well-controlled versus not well-controlled asthma, the contribution of short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever inhalers (and their potential overuse) to the carbon footprint of care, and how implementation of treatment guidelines can drive improved outcomes and footprint reduction. In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), CARBON studies will assess the impact of exacerbation history on GHG emissions associated with HCRU and SABA use in subsequent years and estimate the carbon footprint associated with all aspects of COPD care. CONCLUSION: CARBON aims to show that the principle of evidence-led care focused on improvement of clinical outcomes has the potential to benefit patients and the environment.