Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Wellcome Open Res ; 7: 49, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1761258

ABSTRACT

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 .

2.
Wellcome open research ; 7, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1755533

ABSTRACT

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 .

3.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-328367

ABSTRACT

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 .

4.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-308068

ABSTRACT

Background: The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection to immunocompromised children and young people remains of concern to parents and clinicians despite little data suggesting increased morbidity or mortality. We aimed to prospectively describe the incidence and clinical spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised paediatric patients in the UK.Methods: From March 2020 – 2021 weekly questionnaires were sent to immunocompromised paediatric patients or their parents. Information, including symptom presentation and SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results, was collected from 1527 participants from 46 hospitals. Cross-sectional serology was investigated in February and March 2021.Findings: Until the end of September 2020 no cases were reported. From September 28th 2020 through March 2021 a total of 38 PCR-detected SARS-CoV-2 infections were reported. Of these, four children were admitted to hospital but none had acute severe COVID-19. Increasing age in association with immunodeficiency increased reporting of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Worsening of fever, cough, and sore throat were associated with participants reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection.Serology data included 452 unvaccinated participants. In those reporting prior positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR, there were detectable antibodies in 9 of 18 (50%). In those with no prior report of infection, antibodies were detected in 32 of 434 (7·4%).Interpretation: This study shows SARS-CoV-2 infections have occurred in immunocompromised children and young people with no increased risk of severe disease. No children died. Funding Information: British Paediatric Allergy, Immunity and Infection Group. Southampton Rheumatology Trust. NIHR Senior Investigator award to SNF.Declaration of Interests: All authors have completed ICMJE disclosure forms. HdG received grant funding from the BPAIIG for the submitted work;there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Ethics Approval Statement: The study gained ethical approval from the Yorkshire and the Humber – Leeds West NHS Research Ethics Committee (IRAS 281544).

5.
BMJ Open ; 11(3): e044899, 2021 03 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1140337

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe the frequency of symptoms compatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection in immunocompromised children and young people in the UK during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. To describe patient/parent anxiety regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in this cohort. DESIGN: A prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: 46 centres across the UK between 16 March and 4 July 2020. A weekly online questionnaire based on the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium-WHO Case Report Form was used to collect participant reported data on symptoms, test results, National Health Service attendance, hospital admission and impact on daily life. PARTICIPANTS: 1490 immunocompromised children, defined as those requiring an annual influenza vaccination due to their underlying condition or medication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of SARS-CoV-2-like symptoms and patient/parent anxiety score. RESULTS: Over 16 weeks during the first wave of the pandemic, no SARS-CoV-2 infection was diagnosed in this large immunocompromised paediatric cohort (median age 11 years, 54.4% female). 110 symptomatic participants underwent a test for SARS-CoV-2; all were negative. 922 (67.4%) participants reported at least one symptom consistent with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection over the study period. 476 (34.8%) reported three or more symptoms. The most frequently reported symptoms included joint pain, fatigue, headache, nausea and muscle pain. SARS-CoV-2 testing during this period was performed on admitted patients only. 137 participants had their medication suspended or changed during the study period due to assumed COVID-19 disease risk. 62% reported high levels of anxiety (scores of 7-10 out of 10) at the start of the study, with anxiety levels remaining high throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Although symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 infection in children were common, there were no positive tests in this large immunocompromised cohort. Symptom-based screening to facilitate early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection may not be helpful in these individuals. Patient/parent anxiety about SARS-CoV-2 infection was high. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04382508.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Adolescent , Anxiety , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , State Medicine , United Kingdom/epidemiology
6.
Lancet ; 396(10267): 1979-1993, 2021 12 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-933547

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Older adults (aged ≥70 years) are at increased risk of severe disease and death if they develop COVID-19 and are therefore a priority for immunisation should an efficacious vaccine be developed. Immunogenicity of vaccines is often worse in older adults as a result of immunosenescence. We have reported the immunogenicity of a novel chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), in young adults, and now describe the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine in a wider range of participants, including adults aged 70 years and older. METHODS: In this report of the phase 2 component of a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial (COV002), healthy adults aged 18 years and older were enrolled at two UK clinical research facilities, in an age-escalation manner, into 18-55 years, 56-69 years, and 70 years and older immunogenicity subgroups. Participants were eligible if they did not have severe or uncontrolled medical comorbidities or a high frailty score (if aged ≥65 years). First, participants were recruited to a low-dose cohort, and within each age group, participants were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2·2 × 1010 virus particles) or a control vaccine, MenACWY, using block randomisation and stratified by age and dose group and study site, using the following ratios: in the 18-55 years group, 1:1 to either two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY; in the 56-69 years group, 3:1:3:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY; and in the 70 years and older, 5:1:5:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY. Prime-booster regimens were given 28 days apart. Participants were then recruited to the standard-dose cohort (3·5-6·5 × 1010 virus particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the same randomisation procedures were followed, except the 18-55 years group was assigned in a 5:1 ratio to two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY. Participants and investigators, but not staff administering the vaccine, were masked to vaccine allocation. The specific objectives of this report were to assess the safety and humoral and cellular immunogenicity of a single-dose and two-dose schedule in adults older than 55 years. Humoral responses at baseline and after each vaccination until 1 year after the booster were assessed using an in-house standardised ELISA, a multiplex immunoassay, and a live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) microneutralisation assay (MNA80). Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The coprimary outcomes of the trial were efficacy, as measured by the number of cases of symptomatic, virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137. FINDINGS: Between May 30 and Aug 8, 2020, 560 participants were enrolled: 160 aged 18-55 years (100 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 60 assigned to MenACWY), 160 aged 56-69 years (120 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY), and 240 aged 70 years and older (200 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY). Seven participants did not receive the boost dose of their assigned two-dose regimen, one participant received the incorrect vaccine, and three were excluded from immunogenicity analyses due to incorrectly labelled samples. 280 (50%) of 552 analysable participants were female. Local and systemic reactions were more common in participants given ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those given the control vaccine, and similar in nature to those previously reported (injection-site pain, feeling feverish, muscle ache, headache), but were less common in older adults (aged ≥56 years) than younger adults. In those receiving two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, after the prime vaccination local reactions were reported in 43 (88%) of 49 participants in the 18-55 years group, 22 (73%) of 30 in the 56-69 years group, and 30 (61%) of 49 in the 70 years and older group, and systemic reactions in 42 (86%) participants in the 18-55 years group, 23 (77%) in the 56-69 years group, and 32 (65%) in the 70 years and older group. As of Oct 26, 2020, 13 serious adverse events occurred during the study period, none of which were considered to be related to either study vaccine. In participants who received two doses of vaccine, median anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses 28 days after the boost dose were similar across the three age cohorts (standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 20 713 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [IQR 13 898-33 550], n=39; 56-69 years, 16 170 AU/mL [10 233-40 353], n=26; and ≥70 years 17 561 AU/mL [9705-37 796], n=47; p=0·68). Neutralising antibody titres after a boost dose were similar across all age groups (median MNA80 at day 42 in the standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 193 [IQR 113-238], n=39; 56-69 years, 144 [119-347], n=20; and ≥70 years, 161 [73-323], n=47; p=0·40). By 14 days after the boost dose, 208 (>99%) of 209 boosted participants had neutralising antibody responses. T-cell responses peaked at day 14 after a single standard dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (18-55 years: median 1187 spot-forming cells [SFCs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [IQR 841-2428], n=24; 56-69 years: 797 SFCs [383-1817], n=29; and ≥70 years: 977 SFCs [458-1914], n=48). INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/pharmacology , Female , Humans , Immunization, Secondary/adverse effects , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/drug effects , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Single-Blind Method , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL