Retrospective analysis of referrals for hypoxic challenge testing in children born preterm.

INTRODUCTION: Children with a history of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) may be at risk of hypoxaemia at altitude, such as during air travel. We have performed preflight hypoxic challenge testing (HCT) since 2006, incorporating British Thoracic Society (BTS) guidance since 2011, to determine which children may require oxygen during air travel. AIMS: We aimed to compare the outcome of HCTs in children with a history of BPD who met the 2011 BTS criteria and those who did not and, in addition to this, to interrogate the data for factors that may predict the outcome of HCT in this population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from HCTs of children with a history of BPD referred 2006-2020. Cases were excluded if the patient had a respiratory comorbidity, was still on oxygen therapy, if the test was a repeat or if the clinical record was incomplete. Descriptive and univariate analysis of the data was performed, and a binary logistic regression model was fitted. RESULTS: There were 79 HCTs, of which 24/79 (30%) did not meet BTS 2011 guidelines referral criteria. The analysis showed a greater proportion of desaturation in the group that did not meet criteria: 46% vs 27% (no statistical significance). Baseline oxygen saturations were higher in those who did not require oxygen during HCT and this variable was significant when adjusted for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the current criteria for referral for preflight testing may incorrectly identify those most at risk and highlights the need for further investigation to ensure those most at risk are being assessed prior to air travel.

Effect of second booster vaccinations and prior infection against SARS-CoV-2 in the UK SIREN healthcare worker cohort.

Background: The protection of fourth dose mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is relevant to current global policy decisions regarding ongoing booster roll-out. We aimed to estimate the effect of fourth dose vaccination, prior infection, and duration of PCR positivity in a highly-vaccinated and largely prior-COVID-19 infected cohort of UK healthcare workers. Methods: Participants underwent fortnightly PCR and regular antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 and completed symptoms questionnaires. A multi-state model was used to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection from a fourth dose compared to a waned third dose, with protection from prior infection and duration of PCR positivity jointly estimated. Findings: 1298 infections were detected among 9560 individuals under active follow-up between September 2022 and March 2023. Compared to a waned third dose, fourth dose VE was 13.1% (95% CI 0.9 to 23.8) overall; 24.0% (95% CI 8.5 to 36.8) in the first 2 months post-vaccination, reducing to 10.3% (95% CI -11.4 to 27.8) and 1.7% (95% CI -17.0 to 17.4) at 2-4 and 4-6 months, respectively. Relative to an infection >2 years ago and controlling for vaccination, 63.6% (95% CI 46.9 to 75.0) and 29.1% (95% CI 3.8 to 43.1) greater protection against infection was estimated for an infection within the past 0-6, and 6-12 months, respectively. A fourth dose was associated with greater protection against asymptomatic infection than symptomatic infection, whilst prior infection independently provided more protection against symptomatic infection, particularly if the infection had occurred within the previous 6 months. Duration of PCR positivity was significantly lower for asymptomatic compared to symptomatic infection. Interpretation: Despite rapid waning of protection, vaccine boosters remain an important tool in responding to the dynamic COVID-19 landscape; boosting population immunity in advance of periods of anticipated pressure, such as surging infection rates or emerging variants of concern. Funding: UK Health Security Agency, Medical Research Council, NIHR HPRU Oxford, Bristol, and others.

Demonstrating the learning and impact of embedding participant involvement in a pandemic research study: the experience of the SARS-CoV-2 immunity & reinfection evaluation (SIREN) study UK, 2020-2023.

BACKGROUND: Participant involvement in research studies is not a new concept, yet barriers to implementation remain and application varies. This is particularly true for pandemic response research studies, where timeframes are condensed, pressure is high and the value and inclusion of participant involvement can be overlooked. The SIREN Participant Involvement Panel (PIP) provides a case study for participant involvement in pandemic research, working in partnership with people who the research is for and about. METHODS: SIREN and the British Society for Immunology (BSI) recruited and ran two phases of the PIP, involving 15 members in total over a 16-month period. Phase 1 ran between January and August 2022 and Phase 2 between October 2022 and March 2023. Activity figures including recruitment interest and PIP meeting attendance were recorded. To evaluate how the PIP has influenced SIREN, feedback was collected from (a) researchers presenting at the PIP and (b) PIP members themselves. Evaluation at the end of Phase 1 informed our approach to Phase 2. Thematic grouping was planned to identify key lessons learned. RESULTS: Applications increased from n = 30 to n = 485 between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the PIP, a more than 15-fold increase. The SIREN PIP positively impacted the design, implementation and evaluation phases of the study and sub-studies. Feedback from PIP members themselves was positive, with members highlighting that they found the role rewarding and felt valued. Learnings from the PIP have been condensed into five key themes for applying to future pandemic response research studies: the importance of dedicated resources; recruiting the right panel; understanding motivations for participant involvement; providing flexible options for involvement and enabling the early involvement of participants. CONCLUSIONS: The SIREN PIP has demonstrated the value of actively involving people who research is for and about. The PIP has provided an active feedback mechanism for research and demonstrated a positive influence on both SIREN study researchers and PIP members themselves. This paper makes the case for participant involvement in future pandemic research studies. Future work should include improved training for researchers and we would support the development of a national PIP forum as part of future pandemic research preparedness.

The SARS-Cov2 Immunity & Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study was set-up at speed during the early stages of the pandemic to help answer key questions about COVID-19 and inform the national pandemic response. It has provided valuable insight into COVID-19 infections, reinfections, and how well the vaccines work. SIREN helped to find these answers by regularly testing over 44,000 healthcare staff working at 135 NHS organisations. To support participant retention, SIREN established a Participant Involvement Panel (PIP) involving 15 SIREN participants to date. PIP members provide guidance and feedback to SIREN researchers on key research priorities, changes to the study and strategies for maximising participant engagement. This paper provides insight into how the PIP was set-up, run and the resources required from the perspective of the PIP and SIREN researchers. Lessons learned from establishing the PIP are summarised to help inform future pandemic response research studies. The paper adds to the evidence base, and makes the case for, the valuable role participant involvement can play in pandemic response research studies.

Research funding for newborn health and stillbirths, 2011-20: a systematic analysis of levels and trends.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, an estimated 4·4 million newborn deaths and stillbirths occurred in 2020, and 98% of these deaths occurred in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to analyse new research grants for newborns and stillbirth awarded by major funders in 2019-20, and all research funding allocated to LMIC-based institutions in 2011-20. METHODS: For this systematic analysis, we searched Dimensions, the world's largest research funding database, for grants relevant to neonatal and stillbirth research. Included grants were categorised by in-depth content analysis, with descriptive quantitative analyses by funder and recipient countries, research pipeline, topic, and year. FINDINGS: Globally, in 2019-20, major funders awarded a mean annual total of US$577·1 million per year for newborn and stillbirth research (mean total of 550 grants per year). $166·3 million (28·8%) of $577·1 million was directed to small and vulnerable newborn research, but only $8·4 million (1·5%) was directed to stillbirth research. The majority of funding, $537·0 million (93·0%), was allocated to organisations based in high-income countries. Between 2011 and 2020, LMIC-based recipients were named on 1985 grants from all funders worth $486·7 million, of which $73·1 million (15·0%) was allocated to small and vulnerable newborn research and $12·0 million (2·5%) was allocated to stillbirth research. Most LMIC funding supported preclinical or observational studies ($236·8 million [48·7%] of $486·7 million), with implementation research receiving only $13·9 million (2·9%). INTERPRETATION: Although investment in research related to neonatal health and stillbirths has increased between 2011 and 2020, there are marked disparities in distribution geographically, between major causes of mortality, and among research pipeline types. Stillbirth research received minimal funding in both high-income countries and LMICs, despite a similar number of deaths compared with neonates. Direct investment in LMIC-led research, especially for implementation research, could accelerate the slow global progress on stillbirth prevention and newborn survival. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATIONS: For the French, German and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Early Warning Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variants, United Kingdom, November 2021-September 2022.

Since June 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study has conducted routine PCR testing in UK healthcare workers and sequenced PCR-positive samples. SIREN detected increases in infections and reinfections and delected Omicron subvariant waves emergence contemporaneous with national surveillance. SIREN's sentinel surveillance methods can be used for variant surveillance.

The effect of levodopa dose and body weight on dyskinesia in a prevalent population of people with Parkinson's disease.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the effect of active dose and dose per kilogram (kg) of body weight of levodopa on the occurrence of dyskinesia within a prevalent population of people with PD. METHODS: Of 106 prevalent cases, 75 (70.8%; 38 males, 37 females) agreed to assessment by a member of the research team. Demographic information, weight and height were recorded. Patients were assessed using a range of rating scales including the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. Patients were asked specifically: 'Do you have, or have you ever had, dyskinesia?'. RESULTS: Nine patients (12.0%) reported dyskinesia. Patient reported dyskinesia was significantly associated with greater years since diagnosis (r=0.309, p=0.007), higher levodopa equivalent dose (r=0.406, p<0.001) and levodopa equivalent dose per kg body weight (r=0.375, p<0.001). Using logistic regression, active levodopa dose, unadjusted for body weight, was an independent predictor of dyskinesia. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusting levodopa dose for body weight did not increase its degree of correlation with patient reported dyskinesia.