How can lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic enhance antimicrobial resistance surveillance and stewardship?

COVID-19 demanded urgent and immediate global attention, during which other public health crises such as antimicrobial resistance (AMR) increased silently, undermining patient safety and the life-saving ability of several antimicrobials. In 2019, WHO declared AMR a top ten global public health threat facing humanity, with misuse and overuse of antimicrobials as the main drivers in the development of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. AMR is steadily on the rise, especially in low-income and middle-income countries across south Asia, South America, and Africa. Extraordinary circumstances often demand an extraordinary response as did the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring the fragility of health systems across the world and forcing governments and global agencies to think creatively. The key strategies that helped to contain the increasing SARS-CoV-2 infections included a focus on centralised governance with localised implementation, evidence-based risk communication and community engagement, use of technological methods for tracking and accountability, extensive expansion of access to diagnostics, and a global adult vaccination programme. The extensive and indiscriminate use of antimicrobials to treat patients, particularly in the early phase of the pandemic, have adversely affected AMR stewardship practices. However, there were important lessons learnt during the pandemic, which can be leveraged to strengthen surveillance and stewardship, and revitalise efforts to address the AMR crisis.

Development of a Choice-framework for Covid vaccines in India using a multi-criteria decision analysis approach.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines were crucial in controlling the Covid-19 pandemic. As more vaccines receive regulatory approval, stakeholders will be faced with several options and must make an appropriate choice for themselves. We proposed a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to guide decision-makers in comparing vaccines for the Indian context. METHODS: We adhered to the ISPOR guidance for the MCDA process. Seven vaccine options were compared under ten criteria. Through three virtual workshops, we obtained opinions and weights from citizens, private-sector hospitals, and public health organisations. Available evidence was rescaled and incorporated into the performance matrix. The final score for each vaccine was calculated for the different groups. We performed different sensitivity analyses to assess the consistency of the rank list. RESULTS: The cost, efficacy and operational score of the vaccines had the highest weights among the stakeholders. From the six scenario groups, Janssen had the highest score in four. This was driven by the advantage of having a single dose of vaccination. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis for the overall group, Covaxin, Janssen, and Sputnik were the first three options. The participants expressed that availability, WHO approvals and safety, among others, would be crucial when considering vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: The MCDA process has not been capitalised on in healthcare decision-making in India and LMICs. Considering the available data and stakeholder preference at the time of the study, Covaxin, Janssen, and Sputnik were preferred options. The choice framework with the dynamic performance matrix is a valuable tool that could be adapted to different population groups and extended based on increasing vaccine options and emerging evidence. *ISPOR - The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.

Vaccines and therapeutics for immunocompromised patients with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted immunocompromised patients. This diverse group is at increased risk for impaired vaccine responses, progression to severe disease, prolonged hospitalizations and deaths. At particular risk are people with deficiencies in lymphocyte number or function such as transplant recipients and those with hematologic malignancies. Such patients' immune responses to vaccination and infection are frequently impaired leaving them more vulnerable to prolonged high viral loads and severe complications of COVID-19. Those in turn, have implications for disease progression and persistence, development of immune escape variants and transmission of infection. Data to guide vaccination and treatment approaches in immunocompromised people are generally lacking and extrapolated from other populations. The large clinical trials leading to authorisation and approval of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapeutics included very few immunocompromised participants. While experience is accumulating, studies focused on the special circumstances of immunocompromised patients are needed to inform prevention and treatment approaches.

Immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous booster vaccination of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (COVISHIELD™) and BBV152 (COVAXIN®): a non-inferiority phase 4, participant and observer-blinded, randomised study.

Background: Primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has been shown to wane with time and provide lower protection from disease with new viral variants, prompting the WHO to recommend the administration of booster doses. We determined the safety and immunogenicity of homologous or heterologous boosters with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (COVISHIELD™) or BBV152 (COVAXIN®), the two vaccines used widely for primary immunization in India, in participants who had already received two primary doses of these vaccines. Methods: Participants primed with two doses each of COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® 12-36 weeks previously, were randomised to receive either COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® booster in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was day 28 post-booster anti-spike IgG seropositivity and secondary outcomes were anti-spike IgG levels and assessment of safety and reactogenicity. The results of 90 days intention-to-treat analysis are presented. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (CTRI/2021/08/035648). Findings: In the COVISHIELD™ primed group with 200 participants, the seropositivity 28 days post booster in the heterologous COVAXIN® arm was 99% and non-inferior to the homologous COVISHIELD™ arm, which was also 99% (difference 0%; 95% CI: -2.8% to 2.7%). The geometric mean concentration (GMC) of anti-spike antibodies following heterologous COVAXIN® boost on day 28 was 36,190.78 AU/mL (95% CI: 30,526.64-42,905.88) while the GMC following homologous COVISHIELD™ boost was 97,445.09 AU/mL (82,626.97-114,920.7). In the COVAXIN® primed group with 204 participants, the seropositivity 28 days post booster in the heterologous COVISHIELD™ arm was 100% and non inferior to the homologous COVAXIN® arm which was 96% (difference 4%, 95% CI: 0.2%-7.8%). The GMC following heterologous COVISHIELD™ boost was 241,681.6 AU/mL (95% CI: 201,380.2-290,048.3) compared to homologous COVAXIN® boost, which was 48,473.94 AU/mL (95% CI: 38,529.56-60,984.95). The day 28 geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the anti-spike IgG between the heterologous and homologous boosted arms was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.34-0.52) in the COVISHIELD™ primed group and 5.11 (95% CI: 3.83-6.81) in the COVAXIN® primed group. There were no related serious adverse events reported in any group. Interpretation: Homologous and heterologous boosting with COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® in COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® primed individuals are immunogenic and safe. A heterologous boost with COVISHIELD™ after COVAXIN® prime offers the best immune response among the four combinations evaluated. Funding: Azim Premji Foundation and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat.

Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic^1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches¹, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach² that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities³ in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.

Risk of COVID-19 re-infection and its predictors (CORES): protocol for a community-based longitudinal cohort study in Vellore, India.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 re-infection has not been widely evaluated in low-income and middle-income countries. Understanding immune responses elicited by SARS-CoV-2 natural infection and factors that lead to re-infection in a community setting is important for public health policy. We aim to investigate the risk of primary infection and re-infection among those without and with evidence of prior infection as defined by the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A baseline seroprevalence survey will test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthy adults in Vellore, India. Based on an expected seropositivity rate of 50% in the general population, with annual attack rates of 12%, 6%, 4.8% and 4% among those unvaccinated and seronegative, vaccinated and seronegative, unvaccinated and seropositive, and vaccinated and seropositive, respectively, we will recruit 1200 adults who will be followed up for a total of 24 months. Weekly self-collected saliva samples will be tested by reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections, for a period of 1 year. For any person testing RT-PCR positive, blood samples will be collected within 2 days of RT-PCR positivity and on days 30 and 90 to assess the kinetics and longevity of the antibody responses, B cell memory and T cell memory post-infection. The data will be analysed to estimate seroprevalence at baseline and over time, the risk factors for infection, rates of primary infection and re-infection, and provide a comparison of the rates across groups based on infection and vaccination status. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB No: 13585) of Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore. The results of the study will be made available through journal publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Central Trial Registry of India: CTRI/2020/11/029438.

Factors associated with the opposition to COVID-19 vaccination certificates: A multi-country observational study from Asia.

BACKGROUND: There are ongoing calls to harmonise and increase the use of COVID-19 vaccination certificates (CVCs) in Asia. Identifying groups in Asian societies who oppose CVCs and understanding their reasons can help formulate an effective CVCs policy in the region. However, no formal studies have explored this issue in Asia. METHOD: The COVID-19 Vaccination Policy Research and Decision-Support Initiative in Asia (CORESIA) was established to address policy questions related to CVCs. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted from June to October 2021 in nine Asian countries. Multivariable logistical regression analyses were performed to identify potential opposers of CVCs. RESULTS: Six groups were identified as potential opposers of CVCs: (i) unvaccinated (Odd Ratio (OR): 2.01, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.65-2.46); vaccine hesitant and those without access to COVID-19 vaccines; (ii) those not wanting existing NPIs to continue (OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.51-3.53); (iii) those with low level of trust in governments (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-2.52); (iv) those without travel plans (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.31-1.90); (v) those expecting no financial gains from CVCs (OR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.98-2.78); and (vi) those disagreeing to use CVCs for employment, education, events, hospitality, and domestic travel. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing recurring public health bottlenecks such as vaccine hesitancy and equitable access, adherence to policies, public trust, and changing the narrative from 'societal-benefit' to 'personal-benefit' may be necessary and may help increase wider adoption of CVCs in Asia.

Reassessing Reported Deaths and Estimated Infection Attack Rate during the First 6 Months of the COVID-19 Epidemic, Delhi, India.

India reported >10 million coronavirus disease (COVID-19) cases and 149,000 deaths in 2020. To reassess reported deaths and estimate incidence rates during the first 6 months of the epidemic, we used a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission model fit to data from 3 serosurveys in Delhi and time-series documentation of reported deaths. We estimated 48.7% (95% credible interval 22.1%-76.8%) cumulative infection in the population through the end of September 2020. Using an age-adjusted overall infection fatality ratio based on age-specific estimates from mostly high-income countries, we estimated that just 15.0% (95% credible interval 9.3%-34.0%) of COVID-19 deaths had been reported, indicating either substantial underreporting or lower age-specific infection-fatality ratios in India than in high-income countries. Despite the estimated high attack rate, additional epidemic waves occurred in late 2020 and April-May 2021. Future dynamics will depend on the duration of natural and vaccine-induced immunity and their effectiveness against new variants.

Ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies: A joint HRA/WHO workshop.

This report of a joint World Health Organization (WHO) and United Kingdom (UK) Health Research Authority (HRA) workshop discusses the ethics review of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies, undertaken in the midst of the pandemic. It reviews the early efforts of international and national institutions to define the ethical standards required for COVID-19 human challenge studies and create the frameworks to ensure rigorous and timely review of these studies. This report evaluates the utility of the WHO's international guidance document Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies (WHO Key Criteria) as a practical resource for the ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies. It also assesses the UK HRA's approach to these complex ethics reviews, including the formation of a Specialist Ad-Hoc Research Ethics Committee (REC) for COVID-19 Human Challenge Studies to review all current and future COVID-19 human challenge studies. In addition, the report outlines the reflections of REC members and researchers regarding the ethics review process of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies. Finally, it considers the potential ongoing scientific justification for COVID-19 human challenge studies, particularly in relation to next-generation vaccines and optimisation of vaccination schedules. Overall, there was broad agreement that the WHO Key Criteria represented an international consensus document that played a powerful role in setting norms and delineating the necessary conditions for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies. Workshop members suggested that the WHO Key Criteria could be practically implemented to support researchers and ethics reviewers, including in the training of ethics committee members. In future, a wider audience may be engaged by the original document and potential additional materials, informed by the experiences of those involved in the first COVID-19 human challenge studies outlined in this document.

Innovative vaccine approaches-a Keystone Symposia report.

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines was the result of decades of research to establish flexible vaccine platforms and understand pathogens with pandemic potential, as well as several novel changes to the vaccine discovery and development processes that partnered industry and governments. And while vaccines offer the potential to drastically improve global health, low-and-middle-income countries around the world often experience reduced access to vaccines and reduced vaccine efficacy. Addressing these issues will require novel vaccine approaches and platforms, deeper insight how vaccines mediate protection, and innovative trial designs and models. On June 28-30, 2021, experts in vaccine research, development, manufacturing, and deployment met virtually for the Keystone eSymposium "Innovative Vaccine Approaches" to discuss advances in vaccine research and development.

Achieving global equity for COVID-19 vaccines: Stronger international partnerships and greater advocacy and solidarity are needed.

Peter Figueroa and co-authors advocate for equity in the worldwide provision of COVID-19 vaccines.

Global public health security and justice for vaccines and therapeutics in the COVID-19 pandemic.

A Lancet Commission for COVID-19 task force is shaping recommendations to achieve vaccine and therapeutics access, justice, and equity. This includes ensuring safety and effectiveness harmonized through robust systems of global pharmacovigilance and surveillance. Global production requires expanding support for development, manufacture, testing, and distribution of vaccines and therapeutics to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Global intellectual property rules must not stand in the way of research, production, technology transfer, or equitable access to essential health tools, and in context of pandemics to achieve increased manufacturing without discouraging innovation. Global governance around product quality requires channelling widely distributed vaccines through WHO prequalification (PQ)/emergency use listing (EUL) mechanisms and greater use of national regulatory authorities. A World Health Assembly (WHA) resolution would facilitate improvements and consistency in quality control and assurances. Global health systems require implementing steps to strengthen national systems for controlling COVID-19 and for influenza vaccinations for adults including pregnant and lactating women. A collaborative research network should strive to establish open access databases for bioinformatic analyses, together with programs directed at human capacity utilization and strengthening. Combating anti-science recognizes the urgency for countermeasures to address a global-wide disinformation movement dominating the internet and infiltrating parliaments and local governments.