Nirsevimab for Prevention of Hospitalizations Due to RSV in Infants.

BACKGROUND: The safety of the monoclonal antibody nirsevimab and the effect of nirsevimab on hospitalizations for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-associated lower respiratory tract infection when administered in healthy infants are unclear. METHODS: In a pragmatic trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, infants who were 12 months of age or younger, had been born at a gestational age of at least 29 weeks, and were entering their first RSV season in France, Germany, or the United Kingdom to receive either a single intramuscular injection of nirsevimab or standard care (no intervention) before or during the RSV season. The primary end point was hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection, defined as hospital admission and an RSV-positive test result. A key secondary end point was very severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection, defined as hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection with an oxygen saturation of less than 90% and the need for supplemental oxygen. RESULTS: A total of 8058 infants were randomly assigned to receive nirsevimab (4037 infants) or standard care (4021 infants). Eleven infants (0.3%) in the nirsevimab group and 60 (1.5%) in the standard-care group were hospitalized for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection, which corresponded to a nirsevimab efficacy of 83.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.8 to 92.0; P<0.001). Very severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection occurred in 5 infants (0.1%) in the nirsevimab group and in 19 (0.5%) in the standard-care group, which represented a nirsevimab efficacy of 75.7% (95% CI, 32.8 to 92.9; P = 0.004). The efficacy of nirsevimab against hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection was 89.6% (adjusted 95% CI, 58.8 to 98.7; multiplicity-adjusted P<0.001) in France, 74.2% (adjusted 95% CI, 27.9 to 92.5; multiplicity-adjusted P = 0.006) in Germany, and 83.4% (adjusted 95% CI, 34.3 to 97.6; multiplicity-adjusted P = 0.003) in the United Kingdom. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 86 infants (2.1%) in the nirsevimab group. CONCLUSIONS: Nirsevimab protected infants against hospitalization for RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection and against very severe RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection in conditions that approximated real-world settings. (Funded by Sanofi and AstraZeneca; HARMONIE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05437510).

Safety and Immunogenicity of a ChAd155-Vectored Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine in Infants 6-7 Months of age: A Phase 1/2 Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common cause of lower respiratory tract infections in infants. This phase 1/2, observer-blind, randomized, controlled study assessed the safety and immunogenicity of an investigational chimpanzee-derived adenoviral vector RSV vaccine (ChAd155-RSV, expressing RSV F, N, and M2-1) in infants. METHODS: Healthy 6- to 7-month-olds were 1:1:1-randomized to receive 1 low ChAd155-RSV dose (1.5 × 1010 viral particles) followed by placebo (RSV_1D); 2 high ChAd155-RSV doses (5 × 1010 viral particles) (RSV_2D); or active comparator vaccines/placebo (comparator) on days 1 and 31. Follow-up lasted approximately 2 years. RESULTS: Two hundred one infants were vaccinated (RSV_1D: 65; RSV_2D: 71; comparator: 65); 159 were RSV-seronaive at baseline. Most solicited and unsolicited adverse events after ChAd155-RSV occurred at similar or lower rates than after active comparators. In infants who developed RSV infection, there was no evidence of vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD). RSV-A neutralizing titers and RSV F-binding antibody concentrations were higher post-ChAd155-RSV than postcomparator at days 31, 61, and end of RSV season 1 (mean follow-up, 7 months). High-dose ChAd155-RSV induced stronger responses than low-dose, with further increases post-dose 2. CONCLUSIONS: ChAd155-RSV administered to 6- to 7-month-olds had a reactogenicity/safety profile like other childhood vaccines, showed no evidence of VAERD, and induced a humoral immune response. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03636906.

Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. METHODS: In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment. RESULTS: A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.).

Oral Valganciclovir Initiated Beyond 1 Month of Age as Treatment of Sensorineural Hearing Loss Caused by Congenital Cytomegalovirus Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine if valganciclovir initiated after 1 month of age improves congenital cytomegalovirus-associated sensorineural hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of 6 weeks of oral valganciclovir at US (n = 12) and UK (n = 9) sites. Patients of ages 1 month through 3 years with baseline sensorineural hearing loss were enrolled. The primary outcome was change in total ear hearing between baseline and study month 6. Secondary outcome measures included change in best ear hearing and reduction in cytomegalovirus viral load in blood, saliva, and urine. RESULTS: Of 54 participants enrolled, 35 were documented to have congenital cytomegalovirus infection and were randomized (active group: 17; placebo group: 18). Mean age at enrollment was 17.8 ± 15.8 months (valganciclovir) vs 19.5 ± 13.1 months (placebo). Twenty (76.9%) of the 26 ears from subjects in the active treatment group did not have worsening of hearing, compared with 27 (96.4%) of 28 ears from subjects in the placebo group (P = .09). All other comparisons of total ear or best ear hearing outcomes were also not statistically significant. Saliva and urine viral loads decreased significantly in the valganciclovir group but did not correlate with change in hearing outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial, initiation of antiviral therapy beyond the first month of age did not improve hearing outcomes in children with congenital cytomegalovirus-associated sensorineural hearing loss. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01649869.

Vaccination against COVID-19 - risks and benefits in children.

Countries in Europe and around the world have taken varying approaches to their policies on COVID-19 vaccination for children. The low risk of severe illness from COVID-19 means that even small risks from vaccination warrant careful consideration. Vaccination appears to result in a decreased risk of severe illness including the paediatric multi-system inflammatory syndrome known to be associated with COVID-19. These risks have already decreased significantly with the emergence of the Omicron variant and its subvariants, and due to widespread population immunity through previous infection. There is a relatively high risk of myocarditis following second doses of mRNA vaccines in adolescent males, although the general course of this condition appears mild.   Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccination only provides a transient reduction in transmission. Currently, insufficient evidence exists to determine the impact of vaccination on post-acute COVID syndromes in children, which are uncommon. What is Known: • Vaccines against COVID-19 have significantly reduced morbidity and mortality around the world. • Whilst countries have universally recommended vaccines for adults and continue to recommend them for vulnerable populations, there has been more variability in recommendations for children. What is New: • In the setting of near universal existing immunity from infection, the majority of the initial benefit in protecting against severe illness has been eroded. • The risks of myocarditis following mRNA vaccination for children is low, but an important consideration given the modest benefits.

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in children aged 6-17 years: a preliminary report of COV006, a phase 2 single-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination of children and young people against SARS-CoV-2 is recommended in some countries. Scarce data have been published on immune responses induced by COVID-19 vaccines in people younger than 18 years compared with the same data that are available in adults. METHODS: COV006 is a phase 2, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) in children and adolescents at four trial sites in the UK. Healthy participants aged 6-17 years, who did not have a history of chronic respiratory conditions, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, or previously received capsular group B meningococcal vaccine (the control), were randomly assigned to four groups (4:1:4:1) to receive two intramuscular doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or control, 28 days or 84 days apart. Participants, clinical investigators, and the laboratory team were masked to treatment allocation. Study groups were stratified by age, and participants aged 12-17 years were enrolled before those aged 6-11 years. Due to the restrictions in the use of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in people younger than 30 years that were introduced during the study, only participants aged 12-17 years who were randomly assigned to the 28-day interval group had received their vaccinations at the intended interval (day 28). The remaining participants received their second dose at day 112. The primary outcome was assessment of safety and tolerability in the safety population, which included all participants who received at least one dose of the study drug. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity, which was assessed in participants who were seronegative to the nucleocapsid protein at baseline and received both prime and boost vaccine. This study is registered with ISRCTN (15638344). FINDINGS: Between Feb 15 and April 2, 2021, 262 participants (150 [57%] participants aged 12-17 years and 112 [43%] aged 6-11 years; due to the change in the UK vaccination policy, the study terminated recruitment of the younger age group before the planned number of participants had been enrolled) were randomly assigned to receive vaccination with two doses of either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=211 [n=105 at day 28 and n=106 at day 84]) or control (n=51 [n=26 at day 28 and n=25 at day 84]). One participant in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 day 28 group in the younger age bracket withdrew their consent before receiving a first dose. Of the participants who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 169 (80%) of 210 participants reported at least one solicited local or systemic adverse event up to 7 days following the first dose, and 146 (76%) of 193 participants following the second dose. No serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 administration were recorded by the data cutoff date on Oct 28, 2021. Of the participants who received at least one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, there were 128 unsolicited adverse events up to 28 days after vaccination reported by 83 (40%) of 210 participants. One participant aged 6-11 years receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 reported a grade 4 fever of 40·2°C on day 1 following first vaccination, which resolved within 24 h. Pain and tenderness were the most common local solicited adverse events for all the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and capsular group B meningococcal groups following both doses. Of the 242 participants with available serostatus data, 14 (6%) were seropositive at baseline. Serostatus data were not available for 20 (8%) of 262 participants. Among seronegative participants who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and pseudoneutralising antibody titres at day 28 after the second dose were higher in participants aged 12-17 years with a longer interval between doses (geometric means of 73 371 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [95% CI 58 685-91 733] and 299 half-maximal inhibitory concentration [IC50; 95% CI 230-390]) compared with those aged 12-17 years who received their vaccines 28 days apart (43 280 AU/mL [95% CI 35 852-52 246] and 150 IC50 [95% CI 116-194]). Humoral responses were higher in those aged 6-11 years than in those aged 12-17 years receiving their second dose at the same 112-day interval (geometric mean ratios 1·48 [95% CI 1·07-2·07] for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and 2·96 [1·89-4·62] for pseudoneutralising antibody titres). Cellular responses peaked after a first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 across all age and interval groups and remained above baseline after a second vaccination. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is well tolerated and immunogenic in children aged 6-17 years, inducing concentrations of antibody that are similar to those associated with high efficacy in phase 3 studies in adults. No safety concerns were raised in this trial. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and the UK Department of Health and Social Care through the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Immunogenicity, safety, and reactogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 primary vaccination incorporating mRNA, viral-vector, and protein-adjuvant vaccines in the UK (Com-COV2): a single-blind, randomised, phase 2, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Given the importance of flexible use of different COVID-19 vaccines within the same schedule to facilitate rapid deployment, we studied mixed priming schedules incorporating an adenoviral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [ChAd], AstraZeneca), two mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [BNT], Pfizer-BioNTech, and mRNA-1273 [m1273], Moderna) and a nanoparticle vaccine containing SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and Matrix-M adjuvant (NVX-CoV2373 [NVX], Novavax). METHODS: Com-COV2 is a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial in which adults aged 50 years and older, previously immunised with a single dose of ChAd or BNT in the community, were randomly assigned (in random blocks of three and six) within these cohorts in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a second dose intramuscularly (8-12 weeks after the first dose) with the homologous vaccine, m1273, or NVX. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations measured by ELISA in heterologous versus homologous schedules at 28 days after the second dose, with a non-inferiority criterion of the GMR above 0·63 for the one-sided 98·75% CI. The primary analysis was on the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done for all participants who received a dose of study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 27841311. FINDINGS: Between April 19 and May 14, 2021, 1072 participants were enrolled at a median of 9·4 weeks after receipt of a single dose of ChAd (n=540, 47% female) or BNT (n=532, 40% female). In ChAd-primed participants, geometric mean concentration (GMC) 28 days after a boost of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in recipients of ChAd/m1273 (20 114 ELISA laboratory units [ELU]/mL [95% CI 18 160 to 22 279]) and ChAd/NVX (5597 ELU/mL [4756 to 6586]) was non-inferior to that of ChAd/ChAd recipients (1971 ELU/mL [1718 to 2262]) with a GMR of 10·2 (one-sided 98·75% CI 8·4 to ∞) for ChAd/m1273 and 2·8 (2·2 to ∞) for ChAd/NVX, compared with ChAd/ChAd. In BNT-primed participants, non-inferiority was shown for BNT/m1273 (GMC 22 978 ELU/mL [95% CI 20 597 to 25 636]) but not for BNT/NVX (8874 ELU/mL [7391 to 10 654]), compared with BNT/BNT (16 929 ELU/mL [15 025 to 19 075]) with a GMR of 1·3 (one-sided 98·75% CI 1·1 to ∞) for BNT/m1273 and 0·5 (0·4 to ∞) for BNT/NVX, compared with BNT/BNT; however, NVX still induced an 18-fold rise in GMC 28 days after vaccination. There were 15 serious adverse events, none considered related to immunisation. INTERPRETATION: Heterologous second dosing with m1273, but not NVX, increased transient systemic reactogenicity compared with homologous schedules. Multiple vaccines are appropriate to complete primary immunisation following priming with BNT or ChAd, facilitating rapid vaccine deployment globally and supporting recognition of such schedules for vaccine certification. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and National Institute for Health Research. NVX vaccine was supplied for use in the trial by Novavax.

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.).

The disease burden of respiratory syncytial virus in Infants.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To describe the current global burden of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants and its implications for morbidity, health resources and economic costs. RECENT FINDINGS: New prophylactic therapies are on the horizon for RSV in the form of long-acting monoclonal antibodies suitable for healthy infants and maternal immunizations. SUMMARY: Despite being responsible for significant global infant morbidity and mortality, until recently there have been no effective therapeutics available for healthy infants to protect them from RSV. Several new drugs are likely to be available within the next few years which could help relieve a huge burden on healthcare systems over the coming winters.

Persistence of the immune response after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (AZD1222): 1 year of follow-up of two randomized controlled trials.

The trajectory of immune responses following the primary dose series determines the decline in vaccine effectiveness over time. Here we report on maintenance of immune responses during the year following a two-dose schedule of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/AZD1222, in the absence of infection, and also explore the decay of antibody after infection. Total spike-specific IgG antibody titres were lower with two low doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines (two low doses) (P = 0.0006) than with 2 standard doses (the approved dose) or low dose followed by standard dose vaccines regimens. Longer intervals between first and second doses resulted in higher antibody titres (P < 0.0001); however, there was no evidence that the trajectory of antibody decay differed by interval or by vaccine dose, and the decay of IgG antibody titres followed a similar trajectory after a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Trends in post-infection samples were similar with an initial rapid decay in responses but good persistence of measurable responses thereafter. Extrapolation of antibody data, following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19, demonstrates a slow rate of antibody decay with modelling, suggesting that antibody titres are well maintained for at least 2 years. These data suggest a persistent immune response after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 which will likely have a positive impact against serious disease and hospitalization.

Parental concern for clinically vulnerable child during first 18 months of the COVID pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic have been associated with increased parental concern. The aim of this study is to explore if this increased level of concern is associated with certain individual/household characteristics or if parents adapted to the ever-changing realities of the COVID-19 pandemic over time. METHODS: This prospective study explored COVID-19 concern trajectories and associated family characteristics of 765 UK parents caring for an immunosuppressed child during the first 18 months of the pandemic using growth mixture modelling. Qualitative analysis was performed to examine in more detail the source of concern. RESULTS: Four different trajectories of parental COVID-19 concern were identified. Ongoing very high concern was associated with caring for children with nephrotic or respiratory disease; having a child on an organ transplant waiting list; residency in the North of England; or parental vocational inactivity. Explicit concerns voiced by the parents generally followed national trends, but vulnerable status specific concerns were also reported. CONCLUSION: Diagnosis and prescribed medication of the immunosuppressed child, geographical location, household composition, and employment status of parent were associated with the different concern trajectories. This information can be helpful in targeting psychological family care where it is most needed. IMPACT: Many British parents caring for a clinically vulnerable child during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic showed high levels of concern with little sign of psychological adaptation. Consistent with findings from non-vulnerable populations, parents mentioned the impact of shielding and repeated isolation on their child's education, social life, and mental health. Unique to the clinically vulnerable population, parents were worried about child's health status, impact of delayed healthcare, and were confused by the contradictory information received from government, doctors, and media. Psychological family care can be targeted to those parents at greater risk for high levels of concern.

Comparison of UK paediatric SARS-CoV-2 admissions across the first and second pandemic waves.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesised that the clinical characteristics of hospitalised children and young people (CYP) with SARS-CoV-2 in the UK second wave (W2) would differ from the first wave (W1) due to the alpha variant (B.1.1.7), school reopening and relaxation of shielding. METHODS: Prospective multicentre observational cohort study of patients <19 years hospitalised in the UK with SARS-CoV-2 between 17/01/20 and 31/01/21. Clinical characteristics were compared between W1 and W2 (W1 = 17/01/20-31/07/20,W2 = 01/08/20-31/01/21). RESULTS: 2044 CYP < 19 years from 187 hospitals. 427/2044 (20.6%) with asymptomatic/incidental SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from main analysis. 16.0% (248/1548) of symptomatic CYP were admitted to critical care and 0.8% (12/1504) died. 5.6% (91/1617) of symptomatic CYP had Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). After excluding CYP with MIS-C, patients in W2 had lower Paediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS, composite vital sign score), lower antibiotic use and less respiratory and cardiovascular support than W1. The proportion of CYP admitted to critical care was unchanged. 58.0% (938/1617) of symptomatic CYP had no reported comorbidity. Patients without co-morbidities were younger (42.4%, 398/938, <1 year), had lower PEWS, shorter length of stay and less respiratory support. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of increased disease severity in W2 vs W1. A large proportion of hospitalised CYP had no comorbidity. IMPACT: No evidence of increased severity of COVID-19 admissions amongst children and young people (CYP) in the second vs first wave in the UK, despite changes in variant, relaxation of shielding and return to face-to-face schooling. CYP with no comorbidities made up a significant proportion of those admitted. However, they had shorter length of stays and lower treatment requirements than CYP with comorbidities once those with MIS-C were excluded. At least 20% of CYP admitted in this cohort had asymptomatic/incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection. This paper was presented to SAGE to inform CYP vaccination policy in the UK.

Phase 1/2a Safety and Immunogenicity of an Adenovirus 26 Vector Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccine Encoding Prefusion F in Adults 18-50 Years and RSV-Seropositive Children 12-24 Months.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) remains a leading cause of pediatric morbidity, with no approved vaccine. We assessed the safety and immunogenicity of the Ad26.RSV.preF vaccine candidate in adults and children. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 1/2a, placebo-controlled study, 12 adults (18-50 years) and 36 RSV-seropositive children (12-24 months) were randomized 2:1 to Ad26.RSV.preF (1 × 1011 viral particles [vp] for adults, 5 × 1010 vp for children) or placebo, at day 1 and 29, with 6-month immunogenicity and 1-year safety follow-up. Respiratory syncytial virus infection was an exploratory outcome in children. RESULTS: In adults, solicited adverse events (AEs) were generally mild to moderate, with no serious AEs. In children, no vaccination-related serious AEs were reported; fever was reported in 14 (58.3%) Ad26.RSV.preF recipients. Baseline pediatric geometric mean titers for RSV A2 neutralization increased from 121 (95% confidence interval [CI], 76-191) to 1608 (95% CI, 730-3544) at day 29, and 2235 (95% CI, 1586-3150) at day 57, remaining elevated over 7 months. Respiratory syncytial virus infection was confirmed in fewer children receiving Ad26.RSV.preF (1, 4.2%) than placebo (5, 41.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Ad26.RSV.preF demonstrated immunogenicity in healthy adults and toddlers, with no safety concerns raised. Evaluations in RSV-seronegative children are underway.

Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Among Children in Summer Schools Applying Stringent Control Measures in Barcelona, Spain.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the role of children in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is critical to guide decision-making for schools in the pandemic. We aimed to describe the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children and adult staff in summer schools. METHODS: During July 2020, we prospectively recruited children and adult staff attending summer schools in Barcelona who had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified through (1) a surveillance program in 22 summer schools of 1905 participants, involving weekly saliva sampling for SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) during 2-5 weeks; and (2) cases identified through the Catalonian Health Surveillance System of children diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. All centers followed prevention protocols: bubble groups, handwashing, face masks, and conducting activities mostly outdoors. Contacts of a primary case within the same bubble were evaluated by nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Secondary attack rates and the effective reproduction number in summer schools (Re*) were calculated. RESULTS: Among the >2000 repeatedly screened participants, 30 children and 9 adults were identified as primary cases. A total of 253 close contacts of these primary cases were studied (median, 9 [interquartile range, 5-10] for each primary case), among which 12 new cases (4.7%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. The Re* was 0.3, whereas the contemporary rate in the general population from the same areas in Barcelona was 1.9. CONCLUSIONS: The transmission rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection among children attending school-like facilities under strict prevention measures was lower than that reported for the general population. This suggests that under preventive measures schools are unlikely amplifiers of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, supporting current recommendations for school opening.

Antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection in children presenting in primary care in England (ARTIC PC): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a global public health threat. Antibiotics are very commonly prescribed for children presenting with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), but there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness of antibiotics, both overall or among key clinical subgroups. In ARTIC PC, we assessed whether amoxicillin reduces the duration of moderately bad symptoms in children presenting with uncomplicated (non-pneumonic) LRTI in primary care, overall and in key clinical subgroups. METHODS: ARTIC PC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 56 general practices in England. Eligible children were those aged 6 months to 12 years presenting in primary care with acute uncomplicated LRTI judged to be infective in origin, where pneumonia was not suspected clinically, with symptoms for less than 21 days. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day or placebo oral suspension, in three divided doses orally for 7 days. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary) for up to 28 days or until symptoms resolved. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN79914298). FINDINGS: Between Nov 9, 2016, and March 17, 2020, 432 children (not including six who withdrew permission for use of their data after randomisation) were randomly assigned to the antibiotics group (n=221) or the placebo group (n=211). Complete data for symptom duration were available for 317 (73%) patients; missing data were imputed for the primary analysis. Median durations of moderately bad or worse symptoms were similar between the groups (5 days [IQR 4-11] in the antibiotics group vs 6 days [4-15] in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 1·13 [95% CI 0·90-1·42]). No differences were seen for the primary outcome between the treatment groups in the five prespecified clinical subgroups (patients with chest signs, fever, physician rating of unwell, sputum or chest rattle, and short of breath). Estimates from complete-case analysis and a per-protocol analysis were similar to the imputed data analysis. INTERPRETATION: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated chest infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective either overall or for key subgroups in whom antibiotics are commonly prescribed. Unless pneumonia is suspected, clinicians should provide safety-netting advice but not prescribe antibiotics for most children presenting with chest infections. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern 202012/01 (B.1.1.7): an exploratory analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7, emerged as the dominant cause of COVID-19 disease in the UK from November, 2020. We report a post-hoc analysis of the efficacy of the adenoviral vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), against this variant. METHODS: Volunteers (aged ≥18 years) who were enrolled in phase 2/3 vaccine efficacy studies in the UK, and who were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a meningococcal conjugate control (MenACWY) vaccine, provided upper airway swabs on a weekly basis and also if they developed symptoms of COVID-19 disease (a cough, a fever of 37·8°C or higher, shortness of breath, anosmia, or ageusia). Swabs were tested by nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2 and positive samples were sequenced through the COVID-19 Genomics UK consortium. Neutralising antibody responses were measured using a live-virus microneutralisation assay against the B.1.1.7 lineage and a canonical non-B.1.1.7 lineage (Victoria). The efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a NAAT positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to vaccine received. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vs MenACWY groups) derived from a robust Poisson regression model. This study is continuing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137. FINDINGS: Participants in efficacy cohorts were recruited between May 31 and Nov 13, 2020, and received booster doses between Aug 3 and Dec 30, 2020. Of 8534 participants in the primary efficacy cohort, 6636 (78%) were aged 18-55 years and 5065 (59%) were female. Between Oct 1, 2020, and Jan 14, 2021, 520 participants developed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 1466 NAAT positive nose and throat swabs were collected from these participants during the trial. Of these, 401 swabs from 311 participants were successfully sequenced. Laboratory virus neutralisation activity by vaccine-induced antibodies was lower against the B.1.1.7 variant than against the Victoria lineage (geometric mean ratio 8·9, 95% CI 7·2-11·0). Clinical vaccine efficacy against symptomatic NAAT positive infection was 70·4% (95% CI 43·6-84·5) for B.1.1.7 and 81·5% (67·9-89·4) for non-B.1.1.7 lineages. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed reduced neutralisation activity against the B.1.1.7 variant compared with a non-B.1.1.7 variant in vitro, but the vaccine showed efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Safety and immunogenicity of heterologous versus homologous prime-boost schedules with an adenoviral vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Com-COV): a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. METHODS: Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. INTERPRETATION: Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.