Community seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents in England, 2019-2021.

OBJECTIVE: To understand community seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents. This is vital to understanding the susceptibility of this cohort to COVID-19 and to inform public health policy for disease control such as immunisation. DESIGN: We conducted a community-based cross-sectional seroprevalence study in participants aged 0-18 years old recruiting from seven regions in England between October 2019 and June 2021 and collecting extensive demographic and symptom data. Serum samples were tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins using Roche assays processed at UK Health Security Agency laboratories. Prevalence estimates were calculated for six time periods and were standardised by age group, ethnicity and National Health Service region. RESULTS: Post-first wave (June-August 2020), the (anti-spike IgG) adjusted seroprevalence was 5.2%, varying from 0.9% (participants 10-14 years old) to 9.5% (participants 5-9 years old). By April-June 2021, this had increased to 19.9%, varying from 13.9% (participants 0-4 years old) to 32.7% (participants 15-18 years old). Minority ethnic groups had higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity than white participants (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.0), after adjusting for sex, age, region, time period, deprivation and urban/rural geography. In children <10 years, there were no symptoms or symptom clusters that reliably predicted seropositivity. Overall, 48% of seropositive participants with complete questionnaire data recalled no symptoms between February 2020 and their study visit. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of participants aged 15-18 years old had evidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 prior to the introduction of widespread vaccination. These data demonstrate that ethnic background is independently associated with risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04061382.

Persistence of immune response in heterologous COVID vaccination schedules in the Com-COV2 study - A single-blind, randomised trial incorporating mRNA, viral-vector and protein-adjuvant vaccines.

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.

Anaphylaxis: Revision of the Brighton collaboration case definition.

The Brighton Collaboration (BC) has formulated a number of case definitions which have primarily been applied to adverse events of special interest in the context of vaccine safety surveillance. This is a revision of the 2007 BC case definition for anaphylaxis. Recently, the BC definition has been widely used for evaluating reports of suspected anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination. This has led to debate about the performance of the BC definition in comparison with those from the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO). BC convened an expert working group to revise the case definition based on their usual process of literature review and expert consensus. This manuscript presents the outcome of this process and proposes a revised case definition for anaphylaxis. Major and minor criteria have been re-evaluated with an emphasis on the reporting of observable clinical signs, rather than subjective symptoms, and a clearer approach to the ascertainment of levels of certainty is provided. The BC case definition has also been aligned with other contemporary and international case definitions for anaphylaxis.

Effect of priming interval on reactogenicity, peak immunological response, and waning after homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccine schedules: exploratory analyses of Com-COV, a randomised control trial.

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.

Emergency cholecystectomy: A comparative study of patient outcomes during COVID-19 pandemic with pre-COVID-19 period

Background Emergency cholecystectomy is recommended for all acute admissions with symptomatic gall stones. The Royal College of Surgeons and AUGIS on 25th March 2020 recommended that all laparoscopic procedures should be avoided during the COVID-19 pandemic with the view to minimise the risk of virus transmission from aerosol-generating procedures. This retrospective study compares the outcomes of patients undergoing emergency cholecystectomy during the COVID-19 period with the pre-COVID-19 period. Methods All patients who underwent emergency cholecystectomy (EC) from March 2019 to March 2021 were included. ‘Pre-COVID-19’ period was defined as 25th March 2019 to 24th March 2020, whereas the ‘COVID-19’ period was from 25th March 2020 to 24th March 2021. Mortality was considered as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include the 30-day postoperative complications based on the Calvien-Dindo classification (CDC) and the length of stay (LOS). Mortality and postoperative complications were assessed using the Chi-squared test, whilst LOS was studied using the Mann-Whitney U test. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results A total of 143patients underwent EC during the 24-month study period (75patients pre-COVID-19 and 68patients during COVID-19). The 30-day mortality was nil. 9patients;12% in pre-COVID-19 period and 11patients;16% in COVID-19 period underwent conversion to open cholecystectomy (p = 0.47). 18patients;24% from pre-COVID-19 and 19patients;27.9% from COVID-19 periods developed postoperative complications (p = 0.59). Grade-2-CDC complications were seen in 12patients;17.6% during COVID-19 period and 5patients;6.7% in pre-COVID-19 period (p = 0.0043). However, grade-3,4 CDC complications requiring intervention (p = 0.39), and ICU-admission (p = 0.62) were comparable in both periods. 1patient developed COVID-19 infection but made a full recovery. Mean LOS was 6-days in both periods, with no statistical difference (p = 0.28). Conclusions This study demonstrated no significant difference in patient outcomes who underwent emergency cholecystectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. Emergency cholecystectomy should be offered to all surgically fit patients with symptomatic gall stones.

Staging Laparoscopy in Oesophago-gastric cancers;A highly selective approach and its impact on patient outcome during COVID 19

Background Staging laparoscopy is performed in all Oesophago-gastric cancer patients suitable for radical treatment with tumour staged ≥T2 prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In response to COVID 19 pandemic, on 25th March 2020, the joint statement issued by the Royal College of Surgeons and AUGIS advised all laparoscopic procedures should be avoided due to the risk of virus transmission associated with aerosol-generating procedures. In accordance with the guidance, a more selective approach on who underwent a staging laparoscopy was followed. This audit explores its impact on patient outcome comparing data from pre COVID period with the COVID period. Methods Retrospective and prospective data was collected for 24months on all OG cancer patients from 25th March2019 to 24th March2021. ‘Pre COVID’ period was defined as 25th March 2019 to 24th March 2020 and ‘COVID’ period was defined as 25th March 2020 to 24th March 2021. All patients with Oesophago-gastric cancer with MDT cancer staged ≥T2, suitable for neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included. Patients with tumour staged <T2 and or diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma involving upper or middle third of oesophagus were excluded. Fishers Exact model using SPSS V24 was used to identify any statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. Results Pre-COVID Period: 80patients underwent staging laparoscopy. Of these, 9patients(11.6%) with tumour staged as ≥T3 were declined curative surgery due to advanced disease(n = 2), metastatic disease(n = 3) or both(n = 4). In total, 40patients underwent curative surgery and there were 0 open/close laparotomies. COVID Period: Of the 79patients suitable for staging laparoscopy, only 7patients(8.7%) underwent laparoscopy. Of these, 3patients(3.8%) with tumour staged as ≥T3 were declined curative surgery due to advanced disease(n = 2) and metastatic disease(n = 1). In total, 33patients underwent curative surgery and only 1patient had an open/close laparotomy due to a liver metastases. No statistically significant difference was found p = 0.0913 Conclusions Staging laparoscopy is a useful tool for accurate staging of Oesophago-gastric cancers. It helps avoid unnecessary open and close laparotomy due to advanced disease and also allows us to assess patient fitness to major surgery. During the pandemic, the number of staging laparoscopies performed declined significantly but with no statistically significant difference to patient outcome. Thus we conclude,  the COVID 19 pandemic has enabled us to have a selective approach to performing staging laparoscopy in Oesophago-gastric patients with advanced disease staged ≥T3 only.

Facilitating Safe Discharge Through Predicting Disease Progression in Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Prospective Cohort Study to Develop and Validate a Clinical Prediction Model in Resource-Limited Settings.

BACKGROUND: In locations where few people have received coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, health systems remain vulnerable to surges in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. Tools to identify patients suitable for community-based management are urgently needed. METHODS: We prospectively recruited adults presenting to 2 hospitals in India with moderate symptoms of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 to develop and validate a clinical prediction model to rule out progression to supplemental oxygen requirement. The primary outcome was defined as any of the following: SpO2 < 94%; respiratory rate > 30 BPM; SpO2/FiO2 < 400; or death. We specified a priori that each model would contain three clinical parameters (age, sex, and SpO2) and 1 of 7 shortlisted biochemical biomarkers measurable using commercially available rapid tests (C-reactive protein [CRP], D-dimer, interleukin 6 [IL-6], neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR], procalcitonin [PCT], soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cell-1 [sTREM-1], or soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor [suPAR]), to ensure the models would be suitable for resource-limited settings. We evaluated discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of the models in a held-out temporal external validation cohort. RESULTS: In total, 426 participants were recruited, of whom 89 (21.0%) met the primary outcome; 257 participants comprised the development cohort, and 166 comprised the validation cohort. The 3 models containing NLR, suPAR, or IL-6 demonstrated promising discrimination (c-statistics: 0.72-0.74) and calibration (calibration slopes: 1.01-1.05) in the validation cohort and provided greater utility than a model containing the clinical parameters alone. CONCLUSIONS: We present 3 clinical prediction models that could help clinicians identify patients with moderate COVID-19 suitable for community-based management. The models are readily implementable and of particular relevance for locations with limited resources.

Turnaround times for molecular testing of pediatric viral cerebrospinal fluid samples in United Kingdom laboratories.

BACKGROUND: Rapid molecular testing has revolutionized the management of suspected viral meningitis and encephalitis by providing an etiological diagnosis in < 90 min with potential to improve outcomes and shorten inpatient stays. However, use of molecular assays can vary widely. AIM: To evaluate current practice for molecular testing of pediatric cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples across the United Kingdom using a structured questionnaire. METHODS: A structured telephone questionnaire survey was conducted between July and August 2020. Data was collected on the availability of viral CSF nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT), criteria used for testing and turnaround times including the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. RESULTS: Of 196/212 (92%) microbiology laboratories responded; 63/196 (32%) were excluded from final analysis as they had no on-site microbiology laboratory and outsourced their samples. Of 133 Laboratories included in the study, 47/133 (35%) had onsite facilities for viral CSF NAAT. Hospitals currently undertaking onsite NAAT (n = 47) had much faster turnaround times with 39 centers (83%) providing results in ≤ 24 h as compared to those referring samples to neighboring laboratories (5/86; 6%). CONCLUSION: Onsite/near-patient rapid NAAT (including polymerase chain reaction) is recommended wherever possible to optimize patient management in the acute setting.

COVID-19 and liver cancer: lost patients and larger tumours.

BACKGROUND: Northern England has been experiencing a persistent rise in the number of primary liver cancers, largely driven by an increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) secondary to alcohol-related liver disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Here we review the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary liver cancer services and patients in our region. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with newly diagnosed liver cancer in our region. DESIGN: We prospectively audited our service for the first year of the pandemic (March 2020-February 2021), comparing mode of presentation, disease stage, treatments and outcomes to a retrospective observational consecutive cohort immediately prepandemic (March 2019-February 2020). RESULTS: We observed a marked decrease in HCC referrals compared with previous years, falling from 190 confirmed new cases to 120 (37%). Symptomatic became the the most common mode of presentation, with fewer tumours detected by surveillance or incidentally (% surveillance/incidental/symptomatic; 34/42/24 prepandemic vs 27/33/40 in the pandemic, p=0.013). HCC tumour size was larger in the pandemic year (60±4.6 mm vs 48±2.6 mm, p=0.017), with a higher incidence of spontaneous tumour haemorrhage. The number of new cases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) fell only slightly, with symptomatic presentation typical. Patients received treatment appropriate for their cancer stage, with waiting times shorter for patients with HCC and unchanged for patients with ICC. Survival was associated with stage both before and during the pandemic. 9% acquired COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSION: The pandemic-associated reduction in referred patients in our region was attributed to the disruption of routine healthcare. For those referred, treatments and survival were appropriate for their stage at presentation. Non-referred or missing patients are expected to present with more advanced disease, with poorer outcomes. While protective measures are necessary during the pandemic, we recommend routine healthcare services continue, with patients encouraged to engage.

Review: The Nose as a Route for Therapy. Part 2 Immunotherapy.

The nose provides a route of access to the body for inhalants and fluids. Unsurprisingly it has a strong immune defense system, with involvement of innate (e.g., epithelial barrier, muco- ciliary clearance, nasal secretions with interferons, lysozyme, nitric oxide) and acquired (e.g., secreted immunoglobulins, lymphocytes) arms. The lattice network of dendritic cells surrounding the nostrils allows rapid uptake and sampling of molecules able to negotiate the epithelial barrier. Despite this many respiratory infections, including SARS-CoV2, are initiated through nasal mucosal contact, and the nasal mucosa is a significant "reservoir" for microbes including Streptococcus pneumoniae, Neisseria meningitidis and SARS -CoV-2. This review includes consideration of the augmentation of immune defense by the nasal application of interferons, then the reduction of unnecessary inflammation and infection by alteration of the nasal microbiome. The nasal mucosa and associated lymphoid tissue (nasopharynx-associated lymphoid tissue, NALT) provides an important site for vaccine delivery, with cold-adapted live influenza strains (LAIV), which replicate intranasally, resulting in an immune response without significant clinical symptoms, being the most successful thus far. Finally, the clever intranasal application of antibodies bispecific for allergens and Intercellular Adhesion Molecule 1 (ICAM-1) as a topical treatment for allergic and RV-induced rhinitis is explained.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 one year on – the worrying impact on early detection of liver cancers

PWE-43 Figure 1

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.

Vaccine Hesitancy: Drivers and How the Allergy Community Can Help.

Vaccine hesitancy-defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a "delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services"-is not a recent phenomenon. Historical records indicate that vaccine hesitancy existed by the 18th century in Europe and even resulted in violent riots. The drivers of vaccine hesitancy have evolved over the last 200 years but not, perhaps, as much as one might expect. More problematic are the means by which concerns over vaccine hesitancy are communicated by a new landscape of digital communication, generating what has been described as an "infodemic" in which an overabundance of information-both factual and misinformation-contributes to hesitancy. In this review, we discuss the background and current drivers of vaccine hesitancy and the evidence base for strategies to combat this. We highlight the important role the allergy/immunology community could have in working to mitigate vaccine hesitancy, particularly with respect to the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

COVID-19 vaccine-associated anaphylaxis: A statement of the World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Committee.

Vaccines against COVID-19 (and its emerging variants) are an essential global intervention to control the current pandemic situation. Vaccines often cause adverse events; however, the vast majority of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are a consequence of the vaccine stimulating a protective immune response, and not allergic in etiology. Anaphylaxis as an AEFI is uncommon, occurring at a rate of less than 1 per million doses for most vaccines. However, within the first days of initiating mass vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2, there were reports of anaphylaxis from the United Kingdom and United States. More recent data imply an incidence of anaphylaxis closer to 1:200,000 doses with respect to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In this position paper, we discuss the background to reactions to the current COVID-19 vaccines and relevant steps to mitigate against the risk of anaphylaxis as an AEFI. We propose a global surveillance strategy led by allergists in order to understand the potential risk and generate data to inform evidence-based guidance, and thus provide reassurance to public health bodies and members of the public.

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Adult and Pediatric Allergy & Immunology Services in the UK National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic imposed multiple restrictions on health care services. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the pandemic on Allergy & Immunology (A&I) services in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A national survey of all A&I services registered with the Royal College of Physicians and/or the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology was carried out. The survey covered staffing, facilities, personal protective equipment, appointments & patient review, investigations, treatments, and research activity. Weeks commencing February 3, 2020 (pre-coronavirus disease), April 6, 2020, and May 8, 2020, were used as reference points for the data set. RESULTS: A total of 99 services participated. There was a reduction in nursing, medical, administrative, and allied health professional staff during the pandemic; 86% and 92% of A&I services continued to accept nonurgent and urgent referrals, respectively, during the pandemic. There were changes in immunoglobulin dose and infusion regimen in 67% and 14% of adult and pediatric services, respectively; 30% discontinued immunoglobulin replacement in some patients. There was a significant (all variables, P ≤ .0001) reduction in the following: face-to-face consultations (increase in telephone consultations), initiation of venom immunotherapy, sublingual and subcutaneous injection immunotherapy, anesthetic allergy testing, and hospital procedures (food challenges, immunoglobulin and omalizumab administration); and a significant increase (P ≤ .0001) in home therapy for immunoglobulin and omalizumab. Adverse clinical outcomes were reported, but none were serious. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic had a significant impact on A&I services, leading to multiple unplanned pragmatic amendments in service delivery. There is an urgent need for prospective audits and strategic planning in the medium and long-term to achieve equitable, safe, and standardized health care.