RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women have been historically excluded from interventional research. While recent efforts have been made to improve their involvement, there remains a disparity in the evidence base for treatments available to pregnant women compared with the non-pregnant population. A significant barrier to the enrolment of pregnant women within research is risk perception and a poor understanding of decision-making in this population. OBJECTIVE: Assess the risk perception and influences on decision-making in pregnant women, when considering whether to enrol in a hypothetical interventional research study. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were undertaken, and thematic analysis was undertaken of participant responses. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve pregnant women were enrolled from an antenatal outpatient clinic. RESULTS: Participants were unanimously positive about enrolling in the proposed hypothetical interventional study. Risk perception was influenced by potential risks to their fetus and their previous experiences of healthcare and research. Participants found the uncertainty in quantifying risk for new research interventions challenging. They were motivated to enrol in research by altruism and found less invasive research interventions more tolerable. CONCLUSION: It is vital to understand how pregnant women balance the perceived risks and benefits of interventional research. This may help clinicians and scientists better communicate risk to pregnant women and address the ongoing under-representation of pregnant women in interventional research.
Asunto(s)
Mujeres Embarazadas , Femenino , Humanos , Embarazo , Investigación Cualitativa , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pregnant women have historically been excluded from most medical research, including human challenge studies. The proof-of-concept Lactamica 9 human challenge study investigated whether nasal inoculation of pregnant women with commensal bacteria leads to horizontal transmission to the neonate. Given the unique practical and ethical considerations of both human challenge studies and interventional research involving pregnant women and their newborns, we sought to investigate the motivations, concerns and experiences of these volunteers. METHODS: Pre- and post-participation questionnaires were given to all participants in the Lactamica 9 study. These fully anonymized qualitative and Semi-quantitative questionnaires used forced Likert scales, word association and free-text questions. RESULTS: Pre- and post-participation questionnaires were completed by 87.1% (27/31) and 62.5% (15/24) of eligible participants, respectively. Almost all pre-participation respondents agreed with altruistic motivations for participation, and most concerns were related to discomfort from study procedures, with few concerned about the theoretical risks of inoculation to themselves (5/27; 18.5%) or their baby (6/27; 22.2%). Participants most frequently associated the study intervention with the terms "bacteria," "natural," "protective" and "safe." For the post-participation questionnaire, 93.3% (14/15) found all study procedures acceptable, and qualitative feedback was almost entirely positive, with particular emphasis on the research team's flexibility, approachability and friendliness. CONCLUSIONS: The successful completion of the Lactamica 9 study demonstrates that human challenge research in healthy pregnant women can be acceptable and feasible. Participants' initial concerns of potential discomfort were outweighed by predominantly altruistic motivations and perception of the intervention as "natural."
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and deep learning (including generative AI) are increasingly being investigated in the context of research and management of human infection. OBJECTIVES: We summarise recent and potential future applications of AI and its relevance to clinical infection practice. METHODS: 1617 PubMed results were screened, with priority given to clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This narrative review focusses on studies using prospectively collected real-world data with clinical validation, and on research with translational potential, such as novel drug discovery and microbiome-based interventions. RESULTS: There is some evidence of clinical utility of AI applied to laboratory diagnostics (e.g. digital culture plate reading, malaria diagnosis, antimicrobial resistance profiling), clinical imaging analysis (e.g. pulmonary tuberculosis diagnosis), clinical decision support tools (e.g. sepsis prediction, antimicrobial prescribing) and public health outbreak management (e.g. COVID-19). Most studies to date lack any real-world validation or clinical utility metrics. Significant heterogeneity in study design and reporting limits comparability. Many practical and ethical issues exist, including algorithm transparency and risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Interest in and development of AI-based tools for infection research and management are undoubtedly gaining pace, although the real-world clinical utility to date appears much more modest.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Aprendizaje Profundo , Humanos , Inteligencia Artificial , Aprendizaje Automático , AlgoritmosRESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Antibiotic use is associated with development of antimicrobial resistance and dysregulation of the microbiome (the overall host microbial community). These changes have in turn been associated with downstream adverse health outcomes. This review analyses recent important publications in a rapidly evolving field, contextualizing the available evidence to assist clinicians weighing the potential risks of antibiotics on a patient's microbiome. RECENT FINDING: Although the majority of microbiome research is observational, we highlight recent interventional studies probing the associations between antibiotic use, microbiome disruption, and ill-health. These studies include germ-free mouse models, antibiotic challenge in healthy human volunteers, and a phase III study of the world's first approved microbiome-based medicine. SUMMARY: The growing body of relevant clinical and experimental evidence for antibiotic-mediated microbiome perturbation is concerning, although further causal evidence is required. Within the limits of this evidence, we propose the novel term 'microbiotoxicity' to describe the unintended harms of antibiotics on a patient's microbiome. We suggest a framework for prescribers to weigh microbiotoxic effects against the intended benefits of antibiotic use.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Microbiota , Animales , Ratones , Humanos , Antibacterianos/efectos adversosRESUMEN
Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat. Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for children with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections, but there is little randomised evidence to support the effectiveness of antibiotics in treating these infections, either overall or relating to key clinical subgroups in which antibiotic prescribing is common (chest signs; fever; physician rating of unwell; sputum/rattly chest; shortness of breath). Objectives: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of amoxicillin for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children both overall and in clinical subgroups. Design: Placebo-controlled trial with qualitative, observational and cost-effectiveness studies. Setting: UK general practices. Participants: Children aged 1-12 years with acute uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the duration in days of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary). Secondary outcomes were symptom severity on days 2-4 (0 = no problem to 6 = as bad as it could be); symptom duration until very little/no problem; reconsultations for new or worsening symptoms; complications; side effects; and resource use. Methods: Children were randomised to receive 50 mg/kg/day of oral amoxicillin in divided doses for 7 days, or placebo using pre-prepared packs, using computer-generated random numbers by an independent statistician. Children who were not randomised could participate in a parallel observational study. Semistructured telephone interviews explored the views of 16 parents and 14 clinicians, and the data were analysed using thematic analysis. Throat swabs were analysed using multiplex polymerase chain reaction. Results: A total of 432 children were randomised (antibiotics, n = 221; placebo, n = 211). The primary analysis imputed missing data for 115 children. The duration of moderately bad symptoms was similar in the antibiotic and placebo groups overall (median of 5 and 6 days, respectively; hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.42), with similar results for subgroups, and when including antibiotic prescription data from the 326 children in the observational study. Reconsultations for new or worsening symptoms (29.7% and 38.2%, respectively; risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.05), illness progression requiring hospital assessment or admission (2.4% vs. 2.0%) and side effects (38% vs. 34%) were similar in the two groups. Complete-case (n = 317) and per-protocol (n = 185) analyses were similar, and the presence of bacteria did not mediate antibiotic effectiveness. NHS costs per child were slightly higher (antibiotics, £29; placebo, £26), with no difference in non-NHS costs (antibiotics, £33; placebo, £33). A model predicting complications (with seven variables: baseline severity, difference in respiratory rate from normal for age, duration of prior illness, oxygen saturation, sputum/rattly chest, passing urine less often, and diarrhoea) had good discrimination (bootstrapped area under the receiver operator curve 0.83) and calibration. Parents found it difficult to interpret symptoms and signs, used the sounds of the child's cough to judge the severity of illness, and commonly consulted to receive a clinical examination and reassurance. Parents acknowledged that antibiotics should be used only when 'necessary', and clinicians noted a reduction in parents' expectations for antibiotics. Limitations: The study was underpowered to detect small benefits in key subgroups. Conclusion: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective or to reduce health or societal costs. Parents need better access to information, as well as clear communication about the self-management of their child's illness and safety-netting. Future work: The data can be incorporated in the Cochrane review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN79914298. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Children are commonly prescribed antibiotics for chest infections, but such infections are becoming resistant to antibiotics, and it is not clear if antibiotics work in treating them. A total of 432 children who saw their general practitioner with a chest infection were given either an antibiotic (amoxicillin) or a placebo (no antibiotic) for 7 days. Symptom diaries documented the infection's duration and its side effects. Children not in the placebo study were able to participate in another study that documented the same outcomes (an 'observational study'). We interviewed parents, doctors and nurses about their observations and concerns. Our patient and public involvement and engagement work with parents indicated that a 3-day symptom reduction was required to justify giving antibiotics. After seeing the doctor, parents whose children received antibiotics rated infective symptoms as moderately bad or worse for 5 days, and parents whose children received the placebo rated these for 6 days. Side effects and complications were similar in the two groups. Findings were similar when including the results of the observational study, and for children in whose chest the doctor could hear wheeze or rattles; who had fever; who were rated by the doctor as more unwell, who were short of breath, or who had had bacteria detected in the throat. The costs to the NHS per child were similar (antibiotics, £29; placebo, £26), and the wider costs to society were the same (antibiotics, £33; placebo, £33). Parents found it difficult to interpret their child's symptoms, and commonly used the sound of the cough to judge severity. Parents commonly consulted to receive an examination and reassurance, and accepted that antibiotics should be used only when 'necessary'. Clinicians noted a reduction in parents' expectations for antibiotics. Amoxicillin for chest infections in children is unlikely to be effective. General practitioners should support parents to self-manage at home and give clear communication about when and how to seek medical help if they continue to be concerned.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos , Niño , Humanos , Amoxicilina/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Vendajes , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Atención Primaria de Salud , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This was the first study to investigate the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous or fractional second dose COVID-19 vaccine regimens in adolescents. METHODS: A phase II, single-blind, multi-centre, randomised-controlled trial recruited across seven UK sites from September to November 2021, with follow-up visits to August 2022. Healthy 12-to-16 years olds were randomised (1:1:1) to either 30 µg BNT162b2 (BNT-30), 10 µg BNT162b2 (BNT-10), or NVX-CoV2373 (NVX), 8 weeks after a first 30 µg dose of BNT162b2. The primary outcome was solicited systemic reactions in the week following vaccination. Secondary outcomes included immunogenicity and safety. 'Breakthrough infection' analyses were exploratory. FINDINGS: 148 participants were recruited (median age 14 years old, 62% female, 26% anti-nucleocapsid IgG seropositive pre-second dose); 132 participants received a second dose. Reactions were mostly mild-to-moderate, with lower rates in BNT-10 recipients. No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred. Compared to BNT-30, at 28 days post-second dose anti-spike antibody responses were similar for NVX (adjusted geometric mean ratio [aGMR]) 1.09 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84, 1.42] and lower for BNT-10 (aGMR 0.78 [95% CI: 0.61, 0.99]). For Omicron BA.1 and BA.2, the neutralising antibody titres for BNT-30 at day 28 were similar for BNT-10 (aGMR 1.0 [95% CI: 0.65, 1.54] and 1.02 [95% CI: 0.71, 1.48], respectively), but higher for NVX (aGMR 1.7 [95% CI: 1.07, 2.69] and 1.43 [95% CI: 0.96, 2.12], respectively). Compared to BNT-30, cellular immune responses were greatest for NVX (aGMR 1.73 [95% CI: 0.94, 3.18]), and lowest for BNT-10 (aGMR 0.65 [95% CI: 0.37, 1.15]) at 14 days post-second dose. Cellular responses were similar across the study arms by day 236 post-second dose. Amongst SARS-CoV-2 infection naïve participants, NVX participants had an 89% reduction in risk of self-reported 'breakthrough infection' compared to BNT-30 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.11 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.86]) up until day 132 after second dose. BNT-10 recipients were more likely to have a 'breakthrough infection' compared to BNT-30 (aHR 2.14 [95% CI: 1.02, 4.51]) up to day 132 and day 236 post-second dose. Antibody responses at 132 and 236 days after second dose were similar for all vaccine schedules. INTERPRETATION: Heterologous and fractional dose COVID-19 vaccine schedules in adolescents are safe, well-tolerated and immunogenic. The enhanced performance of the heterologous schedule using NVX-CoV2373 against the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant suggests this mRNA prime and protein-subunit boost schedule may provide a greater breadth of protection than the licensed homologous schedule. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research and Vaccine Task Force. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry: 12348322.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Adolescente , Femenino , Masculino , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Vacuna BNT162 , Infección Irruptiva , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Método Simple Ciego , Vacunación , Inmunogenicidad Vacunal , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Anticuerpos NeutralizantesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Heterologous COVID vaccine priming schedules are immunogenic and effective. This report aims to understand the persistence of immune response to the viral vectored, mRNA and protein-based COVID-19 vaccine platforms used in homologous and heterologous priming combinations, which will inform the choice of vaccine platform in future vaccine development. METHODS: Com-COV2 was a single-blinded trial in which adults ≥ 50 years, previously immunised with single dose 'ChAd' (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AZD1222, Vaxzevria, Astrazeneca) or 'BNT' (BNT162b2, tozinameran, Comirnaty, Pfizer/BioNTech), were randomised 1:1:1 to receive a second dose 8-12 weeks later with either the homologous vaccine, or 'Mod' (mRNA-1273, Spikevax, Moderna) or 'NVX' (NVX-CoV2373, Nuvaxovid, Novavax). Immunological follow-up and the secondary objective of safety monitoring were performed over nine months. Analyses of antibody and cellular assays were performed on an intention-to-treat population without evidence of COVID-19 infection at baseline or for the trial duration. FINDINGS: In April/May 2021, 1072 participants were enrolled at a median of 9.4 weeks after receipt of a single dose of ChAd (N = 540, 45% female) or BNT (N = 532, 39% female) as part of the national vaccination programme. In ChAd-primed participants, ChAd/Mod had the highest anti-spike IgG from day 28 through to 6 months, although the heterologous vs homologous geometric mean ratio (GMR) dropped from 9.7 (95% CI (confidence interval): 8.2, 11.5) at D28 to 6.2 (95% CI: 5.0, 7.7) at D196. The heterologous/homologous GMR for ChAd/NVX similarly dropped from 3.0 (95% CI:2.5,3.5) to 2.4 (95% CI:1.9, 3.0). In BNT-primed participants, decay was similar between heterologous and homologous schedules with BNT/Mod inducing the highest anti-spike IgG for the duration of follow-up. The adjusted GMR (aGMR) for BNT/Mod compared with BNT/BNT increased from 1.36 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.58) at D28 to 1.52 (95% CI: 1.21, 1.90) at D196, whilst for BNT/NVX this aGMR was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.64) at day 28 and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.78) at day 196. Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules produced and maintained the largest T-cell responses until D196. Immunisation with BNT/NVX generated a qualitatively different antibody response to BNT/BNT, with the total IgG significantly lower than BNT/BNT during all follow-up time points, but similar levels of neutralising antibodies. INTERPRETATION: Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to ChAd/ChAd. BNT-primed schedules with a second dose of either mRNA vaccine also remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to BNT/NVX. The emerging data on mixed schedules using the novel vaccine platforms deployed in the COVID-19 pandemic, suggest that heterologous priming schedules might be considered as a viable option sooner in future pandemics. ISRCTN: 27841311 EudraCT:2021-001275-16.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Vacuna BNT162 , Pandemias , Método Simple Ciego , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunación , Inmunidad , Inmunoglobulina G , Anticuerpos AntiviralesRESUMEN
BACKGROUNDTo date, only limited data are available on the mechanisms of protection against colonization with Bordetella pertussis in humans.METHODSIn this study, the cellular responses to B. pertussis challenge were monitored longitudinally using high-dimensional EuroFlow-based flow cytometry, allowing quantitative detection of more than 250 different immune cell subsets in the blood of 15 healthy donors.RESULTSParticipants who were protected against colonization showed different early cellular responses compared with colonized participants. Especially prominent for colonization-protected participants were the early expansion of CD36- nonclassical monocytes on day 1 (D1), natural killer cells (D3), follicular T helper cells (D1-D3), and plasma cells (D3). Plasma cell expansion on D3 correlated negatively with the CFU load on D7 and D9 after challenge. Increased plasma cell maturation on D11-D14 was found in participants with seroconversion.CONCLUSIONThese early cellular immune responses following experimental infection can now be further characterized and potentially linked to an efficient mucosal immune response, preventing colonization. Ultimately, their presence may be used to evaluate whether new B. pertussis vaccine candidates are protective against B. pertussis colonization, e.g., by bacterial challenge after vaccination.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT03751514.FUNDINGInnovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking and the EuroFlow Consortium.
Asunto(s)
Bordetella pertussis , Tos Ferina , Humanos , Cinética , Vacuna contra la Tos Ferina , Vacunación , Tos Ferina/prevención & control , Tos Ferina/microbiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pharyngeal colonisation by the commensal bacterium Neisseria lactamica inhibits colonisation by Neisseria meningitidis and has an inverse epidemiological association with meningococcal disease. The mechanisms that underpin this relationship are unclear, but could involve the induction of cross-reactive immunity. In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether colonisation with N lactamica induces N lactamica-specific B-cell responses that are cross-reactive with N meningitidis. METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, human infection trial at University Hospital Southampton Clinical Research Facility (Southampton, UK), healthy adults aged 18-45 years were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive intranasal inoculation with either 105 colony-forming units of N lactamica in 1 mL phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) or 1 mL PBS alone. Participants and researchers conducting participant sampling and immunological assays were masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was the frequency of circulating N lactamica-specific plasma cells and memory B cells after N lactamica inoculation (day 7-28) compared with baseline values (day 0), measured using enzyme-linked immunospot assays. The secondary endpoint was to measure the frequency of N meningitidis-specific B cells. In a second study, we measured the effect of duration of N lactamica colonisation on seroconversion by terminating carriage at either 4 days or 14 days with single-dose oral ciprofloxacin. The studies are now closed to participants. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03633474 and NCT03549325. FINDINGS: Of 50 participants assessed for eligibility between Sept 5, 2018, and March 3, 2019, 31 were randomly assigned (n=20 N lactamica, n=11 PBS). Among the 17 participants who were colonised with N lactamica, the median baselines compared with peak post-colonisation N lactamica-specific plasma-cell frequencies (per 105 peripheral blood mononuclear cells) were 0·0 (IQR 0·0-0·0) versus 5·0 (1·5-10·5) for IgA-secreting plasma cells (p<0·0001), and 0·0 (0·0-0·0) versus 3·0 (1·5-9·5) for IgG-secreting plasma cells (p<0·0001). Median N lactamica-specific IgG memory-B-cell frequencies (percentage of total IgG memory B cells) increased from 0·0024% (0·0000-0·0097) at baseline to 0·0384% (0·0275-0·0649) at day 28 (p<0·0001). The frequency of N meningitidis-specific IgA-secreting and IgG-secreting plasma cells and memory B cells also increased signficantly in participants who were colonised with N lactamica. Upper respiratory tract symptoms were reported in ten (50%) of 20 participants who were inoculated with N lactamica and six (55%) of 11 participants who were inoculated with PBS (p>0·99). Three additional adverse events (two in the N lactamica group and one in the PBS group) and no serious adverse events were reported. In the second study, anti-N lactamica and anti-N meningitidis serum IgG titres increased only in participants who were colonised with N lactamica for 14 days. INTERPRETATION: Natural immunity to N meningitidis after colonisation with N lactamica might be due to cross-reactive adaptive responses. Exploitation of this microbial mechanism with a genetically modified live vector could protect against N meningitidis colonisation and disease. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre.
Asunto(s)
Neisseria lactamica , Neisseria meningitidis , Adulto , Humanos , Leucocitos Mononucleares , Inmunoglobulina A Secretora , Fosfatos , Solución Salina , Inmunoglobulina GRESUMEN
Bordetella pertussis (Bp), the causative agent of pertussis, continues to circulate despite widespread vaccination programs. An important question is whether and how (sub)clinical infections shape immune memory to Bp, particularly in populations primed with acellular pertussis vaccines (aP). Here, we examine the prevalence of mucosal antibodies against non-vaccine antigens in aP-primed children and adolescents of the BERT study (NCT03697798), using antibody binding to a Bp mutant strain lacking aP antigens (Bp_mut). Our study identifies increased levels of mucosal IgG and IgA binding to Bp_mut in older aP-primed individuals, suggesting different Bp exposure between aP-primed birth cohorts, in line with pertussis disease incidence data. To examine whether Bp exposure influences vaccination responses, we measured mucosal antibody responses to aP booster vaccination as a secondary study outcome. Although booster vaccination induces significant increases in mucosal antibodies to Bp in both cohorts, the older age group that had higher baseline antibodies to Bp_ mut shows increased persistence of antibodies after vaccination.
Asunto(s)
Bordetella pertussis , Tos Ferina , Adolescente , Niño , Humanos , Anticuerpos , Formación de Anticuerpos , Antígenos Bacterianos , Bordetella pertussis/genética , Inmunización Secundaria , Vacunación , Tos Ferina/prevención & controlRESUMEN
High quality health care research must involve patients and the public. This ensures research is important, relevant and acceptable to those it is designed to benefit. The world's first human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 undertook detailed public involvement to inform study design despite the urgency to review and establish the study. The work was integral to the UK Research Ethics Committee review and approval of the study. Discussion with individuals from ethnic minorities within the UK population supported decision-making around the study exclusion criteria. Public review of study materials for consent processes led to the addition of new information, comparisons and visual aids to help volunteers consider the practicalities and risks involved in participating. A discussion exploring the acceptability of a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 taking place in the UK, given the current context of the pandemic, identified overall support for the study. Public concern for the wellbeing of trial participants, as a consequence of isolation, was identified. We outline our approach to public involvement and its impact on study design.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , PandemiasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Priming COVID-19 vaccine schedules have been deployed at variable intervals globally, which might influence immune persistence and the relative importance of third-dose booster programmes. Here, we report exploratory analyses from the Com-COV trial, assessing the effect of 4-week versus 12-week priming intervals on reactogenicity and the persistence of immune response up to 6 months after homologous and heterologous priming schedules using the vaccines BNT162b2 (tozinameran, Pfizer/BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca). METHODS: Com-COV was a participant-masked, randomised immunogenicity trial. For these exploratory analyses, we used the trial's general cohort, in which adults aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned to four homologous and four heterologous vaccine schedules using BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with 4-week or 12-week priming intervals (eight groups in total). Immunogenicity analyses were done on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, comprising participants with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline or for the trial duration, to assess the effect of priming interval on humoral and cellular immune response 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, in addition to the effects on reactogenicity and safety. The Com-COV trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 69254139 (EudraCT 2020-005085-33). FINDINGS: Between Feb 11 and 26, 2021, 730 participants were randomly assigned in the general cohort, with 77-89 per group in the ITT analysis. At 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, the geometric mean concentration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG was significantly higher in the 12-week interval groups than in the 4-week groups for homologous schedules. In heterologous schedule groups, we observed a significant difference between intervals only for the BNT162b2-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group at 28 days. Pseudotyped virus neutralisation titres were significantly higher in all 12-week interval groups versus 4-week groups, 28 days post-second dose, with geometric mean ratios of 1·4 (95% CI 1·1-1·8) for homologous BNT162b2, 1·5 (1·2-1·9) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-BNT162b2, 1·6 (1·3-2·1) for BNT162b2-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 2·4 (1·7-3·2) for homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. At 6 months post-second dose, anti-spike IgG geometric mean concentrations fell to 0·17-0·24 of the 28-day post-second dose value across all eight study groups, with only homologous BNT162b2 showing a slightly slower decay for the 12-week versus 4-week interval in the adjusted analysis. The rank order of schedules by humoral response was unaffected by interval, with homologous BNT162b2 remaining the most immunogenic by antibody response. T-cell responses were reduced in all 12-week priming intervals compared with their 4-week counterparts. 12-week schedules for homologous BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-BNT162b2 were up to 80% less reactogenic than 4-week schedules. INTERPRETATION: These data support flexibility in priming interval in all studied COVID-19 vaccine schedules. Longer priming intervals might result in lower reactogenicity in schedules with BNT162b2 as a second dose and higher humoral immunogenicity in homologous schedules, but overall lower T-cell responses across all schedules. Future vaccines using these novel platforms might benefit from schedules with long intervals. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Inmunización Secundaria , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Inmunoglobulina GRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Infant upper respiratory microbiota are derived partly from the maternal respiratory tract, and certain microbiota are associated with altered risk of infections and respiratory disease. Neisseria lactamica is a common pharyngeal commensal in young children and is associated with reduced carriage and invasive disease by Neisseria meningitidis. Nasal inoculation with N. lactamica safely and reproducibly reduces N. meningitidis colonisation in healthy adults. We propose nasal inoculation of pregnant women with N. lactamica, to establish if neonatal pharyngeal colonisation occurs after birth, and to characterise microbiome evolution in mother-infant pairs over 1 month post partum. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 20 healthy pregnant women will receive nasal inoculation with N. lactamica (wild type strain Y92-1009) at 36-38 weeks gestation. Upper respiratory samples, as well as optional breastmilk, umbilical cord blood and infant venous blood samples, will be collected from mother-infant pairs over 1 month post partum. We will assess safety, N. lactamica colonisation (by targeted PCR) and longitudinal microevolution (by whole genome sequencing), and microbiome evolution (by 16S rRNA gene sequencing). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the London Central Research Ethics Committee (21/PR/0373). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed open-access journals as soon as possible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04784845.
Asunto(s)
Microbiota , Neisseria lactamica , Neisseria meningitidis , Adulto , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Microbiota/genética , Madres , Neisseria lactamica/genética , Faringe , Proyectos Piloto , Embarazo , ARN Ribosómico 16SRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Vacuna nCoV-2019 mRNA-1273 , Anciano , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunogenicidad Vacunal , Inmunoglobulina G , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
Since its emergence in 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused hundreds of millions of cases and continues to circulate globally. To establish a novel SARS-CoV-2 human challenge model that enables controlled investigation of pathogenesis, correlates of protection and efficacy testing of forthcoming interventions, 36 volunteers aged 18-29 years without evidence of previous infection or vaccination were inoculated with 10 TCID50 of a wild-type virus (SARS-CoV-2/human/GBR/484861/2020) intranasally in an open-label, non-randomized study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04865237 ; funder, UK Vaccine Taskforce). After inoculation, participants were housed in a high-containment quarantine unit, with 24-hour close medical monitoring and full access to higher-level clinical care. The study's primary objective was to identify an inoculum dose that induced well-tolerated infection in more than 50% of participants, with secondary objectives to assess virus and symptom kinetics during infection. All pre-specified primary and secondary objectives were met. Two participants were excluded from the per-protocol analysis owing to seroconversion between screening and inoculation, identified post hoc. Eighteen (~53%) participants became infected, with viral load (VL) rising steeply and peaking at ~5 days after inoculation. Virus was first detected in the throat but rose to significantly higher levels in the nose, peaking at ~8.87 log10 copies per milliliter (median, 95% confidence interval (8.41, 9.53)). Viable virus was recoverable from the nose up to ~10 days after inoculation, on average. There were no serious adverse events. Mild-to-moderate symptoms were reported by 16 (89%) infected participants, beginning 2-4 days after inoculation, whereas two (11%) participants remained asymptomatic (no reportable symptoms). Anosmia or dysosmia developed more slowly in 15 (83%) participants. No quantitative correlation was noted between VL and symptoms, with high VLs present even in asymptomatic infection. All infected individuals developed serum spike-specific IgG and neutralizing antibodies. Results from lateral flow tests were strongly associated with viable virus, and modeling showed that twice-weekly rapid antigen tests could diagnose infection before 70-80% of viable virus had been generated. Thus, with detailed characterization and safety analysis of this first SARS-CoV-2 human challenge study in young adults, viral kinetics over the course of primary infection with SARS-CoV-2 were established, with implications for public health recommendations and strategies to affect SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Future studies will identify the immune factors associated with protection in those participants who did not develop infection or symptoms and define the effect of prior immunity and viral variation on clinical outcome.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Humanos , Cinética , Resultado del Tratamiento , Carga Viral , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas Virales , Ad26COVS1 , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Humanos , Inmunogenicidad Vacunal , Inmunoglobulina G , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2 , Reino Unido , Vacunas de ARNmRESUMEN
Background: Human challenge studies involve the deliberate exposure of healthy volunteers to an infectious micro-organism in a highly controlled and monitored way. They are used to understand infectious diseases and have contributed to the development of vaccines. In early 2020, the UK started exploring the feasibility of establishing a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2. Given the significant public interest and the complexity of the potential risks and benefits, it is vital that public views are considered in the design and approval of any such study and that investigators and ethics boards remain accountable to the public. Methods: Mixed methods study comprising online surveys conducted with 2,441 UK adults and in-depth virtual focus groups with 57 UK adults during October 2020 to explore the public's attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 taking place in the UK. Results: There was overall agreement across the surveys and focus groups that a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 should take place in the UK. Transparency of information, trust and the necessity to provide clear information on potential risks to study human challenge study participants were important. The perceived risks of taking part included the risk of developing long-term effects from COVID, impact on personal commitments and mental health implications of isolation. There were a number of practical realities to taking part that would influence a volunteer's ability to participate (e.g. Wi-Fi, access to exercise, outside space and work, family and pet commitments). Conclusions: The results identified practical considerations for teams designing human challenge studies. Recommendations were grouped: 1) messaging to potential study participants, 2) review of the protocol and organisation of the study, and 3) more broadly, making the study more inclusive and relevant. This study highlights the value of public consultation in research, particularly in fields attracting public interest and scrutiny .
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess whether the presence of bacteria or viruses in the upper airway of children presenting with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) predicts the benefit of antibiotics. METHODS: Children between 6 months and 12 years presenting to UK general practices with an acute LRTI were randomized to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg/d for 7 days or placebo. Children not randomized (ineligible or clinician/parental choice) could participate in a parallel observational study. The primary outcome was the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse. Throat swabs were taken and analyzed for the presence of bacteria and viruses by multiplex PCR. RESULTS: Swab results were available for most participants in the trial (306 of 432; 71%) and in the observational (182 of 326; 59%) studies. Bacterial pathogens potentially sensitive to amoxicillin (Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Streptococcus pneumoniae) were detected among 51% of the trial placebo group and 49% of the trial antibiotic group. The median difference in the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse between antibiotic and placebo was similar when potentially antibiotic-susceptible bacteria were present (median: -1 day; 99% CI, -12.3 to 10.3) or not present (median: -1 day; 99% CI, -4.5 to 2.5). Furthermore, bacterial genome copy number did not predict benefit. There were similar findings for all secondary outcomes and when including the data from the observational study. DISCUSSION: There was no clear evidence that antibiotics improved clinical outcomes conditional on the presence or concentration of bacteria or viruses in the upper airway. Before deploying microbiologic point-of-care tests for children with uncomplicated LRTI in primary care, rigorous validating trials are needed.