The Utility of Risk Factors to Define Complicated Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia in a Setting With Low Methicillin-Resistant S. aureus Prevalence.

INTRODUCTION: Recommended duration of antibiotic treatment of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is frequently based on distinguishing uncomplicated and complicated SAB, and several risk factors at the onset of infection have been proposed to define complicated SAB. Predictive values of risk factors for complicated SAB have not been validated, and consequences of their use on antibiotic prescriptions are unknown. METHODS: In a prospective cohort, patients with SAB were categorized as complicated or uncomplicated through adjudication (reference definition). Associations and predictive values of 9 risk factors were determined, compared with the reference definition, as was accuracy of Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) criteria that include 4 risk factors, and the projected consequences of applying IDSA criteria on antibiotic use. RESULTS: Among 490 patients, 296 (60%) had complicated SAB. In multivariable analysis, persistent bacteremia (odds ratio [OR], 6.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9-12.0), community acquisition of SAB (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.9-4.7) and presence of prosthetic material (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.5-3.6) were associated with complicated SAB. Presence of any of the 4 risk factors in the IDSA definition of complicated SAB had a positive predictive value of 70.9% (95% CI, 65.5-75.9) and a negative predictive value of 57.5% (95% CI, 49.1-64.8). Compared with the reference, IDSA criteria yielded 24 (5%) false-negative and 90 (18%) false-positive classifications of complicated SAB. Median duration of antibiotic treatment of these 90 patients was 16 days (interquartile range, 14-19), all with favorable clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors have low to moderate predictive value to identify complicated SAB and their use may lead to unnecessary prolonged antibiotic use.

Evaluation of a group-based online informed consent conversation (eConsent) in participants from a low-risk vaccination clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Electronic informed consent (eConsent) usage has expanded in recent years in Europe, especially during the pandemic. Slow recruitment rate and limitations in participant outreach are the challenges often faced in clinical research. Given the benefits of eConsent and group counselling reported in the literature, group eConsent was implemented in recruitment for the SWITCH-ON study. We aim to explore the experience of participants who attended group eConsent for the SWITCH-ON study and evaluate its potential for future use. METHODS: SWITCH-ON study aims to analyse the immunogenicity of a healthy population following bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination. Four hundred thirty-four healthcare workers aged 18-65 were successfully recruited and sent a questionnaire about their experience with group eConsent. Out of 399 completed questionnaires (response rate 92%), 39 participants did not join group eConsent. The remaining 360 responses were included in the final analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were reported using descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis respectively. RESULTS: Participants found that group eConsent was an efficient method that it allowed them to hear each other's questions and concerns and created a sense of togetherness. However, limited privacy, barriers to asking questions in a group, and peer pressure can limit the use of group eConsent. One hundred sixty-five (46%) participants thought that group eConsent was suitable to recruit participants with diseases or conditions, while 87 (24%) reported limitations with this method. The remaining participants suggested that applicability of group eConsent depended on the diseases or conditions of the study population, and one-to-one conversation should always be available. Participants who had experienced both one-to-one and group eConsent shared different preferred consent formats for future studies. CONCLUSION: Group eConsent was positively evaluated by the participants of a low-risk vaccination study. Participants advised using webinars to provide general information about the study, followed by an individual session for each participant, would retain the benefits of group eConsent and minimise the limitations it posed. This proposed setting addresses privacy questions and makes group eConsent easier to implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05471440 (registered on 22nd of July, 2022).

Fourth dose bivalent COVID-19 vaccines outperform monovalent boosters in eliciting cross-reactive memory B cells to Omicron subvariants.

Bivalent COVID-19 vaccines comprising ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 (WH1) and the Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 subvariant elicit enhanced serum antibody responses to emerging Omicron subvariants. Here, we characterized the RBD-specific memory B cell (Bmem) response following a fourth dose with a BA.1 or BA.5 bivalent vaccine, in direct comparison with a WH1 monovalent fourth dose. Healthcare workers previously immunized with mRNA or adenoviral vector monovalent vaccines were sampled before and one month after a fourth dose with a monovalent or a BA.1 or BA.5 bivalent vaccine. Serum neutralizing antibodies (NAb) were quantified, as well as RBD-specific Bmem with an in-depth spectral flow cytometry panel including recombinant RBD proteins of the WH1, BA.1, BA.5, BQ.1.1, and XBB.1.5 variants. Both bivalent vaccines elicited higher NAb titers against Omicron subvariants compared to the monovalent vaccine. Following either vaccine type, recipients had slightly increased WH1 RBD-specific Bmem numbers. Both bivalent vaccines significantly increased WH1 RBD-specific Bmem binding of all Omicron subvariants tested by flow cytometry, while recognition of Omicron subvariants was not enhanced following monovalent vaccination. IgG1+ Bmem dominated the response, with substantial IgG4+ Bmem only detected in recipients of an mRNA vaccine for their primary dose. Thus, Omicron-based bivalent vaccines can significantly boost NAb and Bmem specific for ancestral WH1 and Omicron variants and improve recognition of descendent subvariants by pre-existing, WH1-specific Bmem beyond that of a monovalent vaccine. This provides new insights into the capacity of variant-based mRNA booster vaccines to improve immune memory against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and potentially protect against severe disease. ONE-SENTENCE SUMMARY: Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent COVID-19 boosters, used as a fourth dose, increase RBD-specific Bmem cross-recognition of Omicron subvariants, both those encoded by the vaccines and antigenically distinct subvariants, further than a monovalent booster.

Original COVID-19 priming regimen impacts the immunogenicity of bivalent BA.1 and BA.5 boosters.

Waning antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination combined with the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineage led to reduced vaccine effectiveness. As a countermeasure, bivalent mRNA-based booster vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein in combination with that of Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 were introduced. Since then, different BA.2-descendent lineages have become dominant, such as XBB.1.5, JN.1, or EG.5.1. Here, we report post-hoc analyses of data from the SWITCH-ON study, assessing how different COVID-19 priming regimens affect the immunogenicity of bivalent booster vaccinations and breakthrough infections (NCT05471440). BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent vaccines boosted neutralizing antibodies and T-cells up to 3 months after boost; however, cross-neutralization of XBB.1.5 was poor. Interestingly, different combinations of prime-boost regimens induced divergent responses: participants primed with Ad26.COV2.S developed lower binding antibody levels after bivalent boost while neutralization and T-cell responses were similar to mRNA-based primed participants. In contrast, the breadth of neutralization was higher in mRNA-primed and bivalent BA.5 boosted participants. Combined, our data further support the current use of monovalent vaccines based on circulating strains when vaccinating risk groups, as recently recommended by the WHO. We emphasize the importance of the continuous assessment of immune responses targeting circulating variants to guide future COVID-19 vaccination policies.