Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 33
Filter
1.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(8): 1131-1141, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1946941

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , Aged , Antibodies, Viral , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Female , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Immunoglobulin G , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
2.
SSRN; 2022.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-338528

ABSTRACT

Introduction: COVID-19 Medicine Delivery Units (CMDU) were established in late December 2021 to deliver early antiviral therapy to patients classified as at risk with the aim of preventing hospitalisation. Methods: We performed a service evaluation at four CMDUs in England. We assessed demographics and triage outcomes of CMDU referral, uptake of antiviral therapy and the rate of subsequent hospitalisations within two weeks of CMDU referral. Results: Over a three week period 4,788 patients were referred and 3,989 were ultimately assessed by a CMDU. Overall, 832 of the patients referred (17%) were judged eligible for treatment and 628 (13%) were ultimately prescribed an antiviral agent. The overall rate of admission within 14 days was 1%. Patients who were admitted were significantly older than those who did not require hospitalisation. Of patients prescribed molnupiravir and sotrovimab 1.8% and 3.2% were admitted respectively. Conclusion: There were a high volume of referrals to CMDU service during the the initial surge of the Omicron wave in the UK. A minority of patients were judged to be eligible for therapy. In a highly vaccinated population, the overall hospitalisation rate was low.

3.
Clin Med (Lond) ; 22(3): 266-270, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1856279

ABSTRACT

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 may trigger a delayed hyper-inflammatory illness in children called paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19 (PIMS-TS). A similar syndrome is increasingly recognised in adults termed multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A) and may present acutely to medical or surgical specialties with severe symptoms, such as acute abdominal pain or cardiogenic shock. No national guidelines exist in the UK for the management of MIS-A and there is limited evidence to guide treatment plans. We undertook a national Delphi process to elicit opinions from experts in hyperinflammation about the diagnosis and management of MIS-A with the dual aim of improving recognition and producing a management guideline. Colleagues in paediatrics successfully initiated a national consensus management document that facilitated regional multidisciplinary referral and follow-up pathways for children with PIMS-TS, and we propose a similar system be developed for adult patients across the UK. This would facilitate better recognition and treatment of MIS-A across the multiple specialties to which it may present as well as enable follow-up with specialty services post-discharge.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aftercare , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Child , Humans , Patient Discharge , SARS-CoV-2 , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/diagnosis , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/therapy , United Kingdom
4.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2022 May 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846615

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. METHODS: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach 2) the Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO) trials "sustained recovery" approach, and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-intensive care unit setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age 68 vs. 59 years; p<0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; p<0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had post-discharge events captured by the TICO approach. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant post-discharge events within 90 days after randomization, in patients that would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Employing the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should employ follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.

5.
The Lancet. Infectious diseases ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1837602

ABSTRACT

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.

6.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-335391

ABSTRACT

Purpose: We aim to investigate the associations of steroid and length of steroid use with outcomes in severe COVID-19. Methods Severe cases of COVID-19, defined by hypoxia at presentation, and admitted to a multi-site healthcare institution in London were analysed between 02-Sep-2020 and 27-May-2021. The associations between duration of steroid treatment (prescription-days) and outcomes were explored using Cox proportional-hazards models adjusting for confounders. Length of steroid treatment was analysed as both a continuous variable and categorised into < 3, 3–10, and > 10 days. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) level-3 admission. Results 734 severe COVID-19 cases were included, with 137/734 (18.7%) treated with steroids for < 3 days, 497/734 (67.7%) for 3–10 days, and 100/734 (13.6%) for > 10 days. Cox modelling with continuous days showed increasing length of steroids decreased the hazard of in-hospital mortality by a factor of 0.98 [95% CI: 0.96-1.0] per additional day and in-hospital mortality or ICU admission by a factor of 0.91 [95% CI: 0.87–0.95] per additional day. Further, when taking 3–10 days steroid treatment group as the reference group, > 10 days steroid showed trends towards decreased hazards for death (HR 0.59 [95%CI: 0.30–1.14]) and was significantly protective for death/ICU outcome (HR 0.28 [95%CI: 0.11–0.68]). Conclusion The protective effect of steroid for severe COVID-19 reported in randomised clinical trials was replicated in this large real-world cohort. We found an association between longer steroid courses and lower risk of death or ICU admission that warrants further investigation.

7.
J Infect ; 84(6): 795-813, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1778315

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , Ad26COVS1 , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Viral , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Immunoglobulin G , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom , mRNA Vaccines
8.
SSRN; 2022.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-332455

ABSTRACT

Background: Many high-income countries have deployed third “booster” doses of COVID-19 vaccines to populations and some countries have started offering fourth doses. Methods: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase II trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines as third dose boosters. The current study invited participants who received BNT162b2 (BNT) as third dose in COV-BOOST to be randomised to receive a fourth dose of BNT or mRNA1273 (50 µg, half-m1273). The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. Results: Between 11 and 25 January 2022, 166 participants in the original BNT arm were randomised and received a fourth dose vaccine. The median age was 70.1 (interquartile range: 51.6-77.5) years with 51.8 % (n=86) female participants. The median interval between third and fourth dose was 208.5 (interquartile range: 203.25-214.75) days.Pain and fatigue were the most common local and systemic solicited adverse events for BNT and half-m1273. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose were related to study vaccine.The fold rises in anti-spike IgG pre- and post-fourth dose were 12.19 (95%CI: 10.37-14.32) and 15.90 (95%CI: 12.92-19.58) in BNT and half-m1273 arms respectively, with fold changes compared to the post third dose-peak of 1.59 (95%CI: 1.41-1.78) and 2.19 (95%CI: 1.90-2.52). T cell responses also boosted. Conclusions: Fourth dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well-tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity up to, and beyond peak levels achieved following third dose boosters (ISRCTN: 73765130).

9.
Ann Intern Med ; 175(2): 234-243, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1753917

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Aged , Alanine/adverse effects , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/adverse effects , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antigens, Viral/blood , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/virology , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Male , Medical Futility , Middle Aged , RNA, Viral/blood , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure
11.
JCI Insight ; 7(7)2022 04 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1702851

ABSTRACT

Duration of protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection in people living with HIV (PWH) following vaccination is unclear. In a substudy of the phase II/III the COV002 trial (NCT04400838), 54 HIV+ male participants on antiretroviral therapy (undetectable viral loads, CD4+ T cells > 350 cells/µL) received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) 4-6 weeks apart and were followed for 6 months. Responses to vaccination were determined by serology (IgG ELISA and Meso Scale Discovery [MSD]), neutralization, ACE-2 inhibition, IFN-γ ELISpot, activation-induced marker (AIM) assay and T cell proliferation. We show that, 6 months after vaccination, the majority of measurable immune responses were greater than prevaccination baseline but with evidence of a decline in both humoral and cell-mediated immunity. There was, however, no significant difference compared with a cohort of HIV-uninfected individuals vaccinated with the same regimen. Responses to the variants of concern were detectable, although they were lower than WT. Preexisting cross-reactive T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike were associated with greater postvaccine immunity and correlated with prior exposure to beta coronaviruses. These data support the ongoing policy to vaccinate PWH against SARS-CoV-2, and they underpin the need for long-term monitoring of responses after vaccination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , COVID-19/prevention & control , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
12.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-316937

ABSTRACT

Background: The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and the Oxford/AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy in Phase III trials. Here we report results from a real world setting on the two most administered vaccines in the UK.Methods: We investigated self-reported systemic and local effects within eight days of vaccination in 387,471 individuals from the COVID Symptom Study app who received one (n=209,251) or two (n=13,478) doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, or one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (n=178,220) between December 8 and February 15 2021. A subset of individuals subsequently tested for SARS-CoV-2 were studied for infection rates from PCR or lateral flow test results post-vaccination (59,639 vaccinated vs 277,599 controls).Findings: Systemic side effects were reported in 11.8% of participants after the first BNT162b2 dose, 20.3% after the second BNT162b2 dose, and 29.4% after the first ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 dose. Systemic effects were more prevalent among individuals with pre-existing COVID-19 infection (BNT162b2:34.1%;ChAdOx1 nCoV-19:51.6%) than among individuals without known prior infection (BNT162b2:10.6%;ChAdOx1 nCoV-19:28.6%) and among those aged <55 years (BNT162b2:19.9%;ChAdOx1 nCoV-19:45.3%) compared to those aged >55 years (BNT162b2:9.2%, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 26.9%). We observed significant reduction in infection risk 12-21 days after the first dose (BNT162b2:-57% [-71%, -38%], ChAdOx1 nCoV-19:-42% [-71%, -17%]). Interpretation: This phase IV-type study assessing both BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines identifies mild systemic side effects affecting 11-30% of individuals post-vaccination, lower than in published Phase III trials. Our data on infection post-vaccine were also reassuring.Funding: Zoe, NIHR, CDRF, NIH, MRCDeclaration of Interests: TDS and AMV are consultants to Zoe Global Ltd (“Zoe”). JW, AM, LP and JC are employees of Zoe Global Limited. ALG is a regional PI on the COV002 trial and the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine trial and as such her organisation has received grants from Novavax. Other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval for use of the app for research purposes in the UK was obtained from King’s College London Ethics Committee (review reference LRS-19/20-18210), and all users provided consent for non-commercial use.

13.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-310655

ABSTRACT

Background: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine is immunogenic and protects against COVID-19. However, data on vaccine immunogenicity are needed for the 40 million people living with HIV (PWH), who may have less functional immunity and more associated co-morbidities than the general population. Methods: Between the 5th and 24th November 2020, 54 adults with HIV, aged 18-55 years, were enrolled into a single arm open label vaccination study within the protocol of the larger phase 2/3 COV002 trial. A prime-boost regimen of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, with two doses (5 × 1010 vp) was given 4-6 weeks apart. All participants were on antiretroviral therapy (ART) with undetectable plasma HIV viral loads and CD4+ T cell counts >350 cells/µl at enrolment. Data were captured on adverse events. Humoral responses were measured by anti-spike IgG ELISA and antibody-mediated live virus neutralisation. Cell-mediated immune responses were measured by ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay (ELISpot) and T cell proliferation. All outcomes were compared with a HIV uninfected group from the main COV002 study.Findings: 54 participants with HIV (median age 42.5 years (IQR 37.2-49.8)) received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Median CD4+ T cell count at enrolment was 694 cells/µl (IQR 562-864). Results are reported for 56 days of follow-up. Local and systemic reactions occurring during the first 7 days after prime vaccination included pain at the injection site (49%), fatigue (47%), headache (47%), malaise (34%), chills (23%), and muscle or (36%) joint pain (9%), the frequencies of which were similar to the HIV-negative participants. There were no serious adverse events. Anti-spike IgG responses by ELISA peaked at Day 42 (median 1440 ELISA units, IQR 704-2728) and were sustained out to Day 56. There was no correlation with CD4+ T cell count or age and the magnitude of the anti-spike IgG response at Day 56 (P>0.05 for both). ELISpot and T cell proliferative responses peaked between Day 14 and 28 after prime and were sustained through to Day 56. When compared to participants without HIV there was no statistical difference in magnitude or persistence of SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific humoral or cellular responses (P>0.05 for all analyses).Interpretation: In this study of PWH, vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was well tolerated and there was no difference in humoral and cell-mediated immune responses compared to an adult cohort without HIV who received the same vaccination regime. Trial Registration: Trial Registration number is NCT04400838. 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. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.Declaration of Interest: Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222). AstraZeneca reviewed the data from the study and the final manuscript before 474 submission, but the authors retained editorial control. SCG is cofounder of Vaccitech (a collaborator in the early development of this vaccine candidate) and named as an inventor on a patent covering use of ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines (PCT/GB2012/000467) and a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. TL is named as an inventor on a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and was consultant to Vaccitech. PMF is a consultant to Vaccitech. AJP is Chair of the UK Department of Health and Social Care’s JCVI, but does not participate in policy advice on coronavirus vaccines, and is a member of the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE). AVSH is a cofounder of and consultant to Vaccitech and is named as an inventor on a patent covering design and use of ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines (PCT/GB2012/0004 7).Ethical Approval: Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the trial was done in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. This study was approved in the UK by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (reference 21584/0424/001-0001) and the South Central Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference 20/SC/0145). Vaccine use was authorised by Genetically Modified Organisms Safety Committees at each participating site.

14.
J Allergy Clin Immunol ; 149(2): 557-561.e1, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1670624

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with some types of immunodeficiency can experience chronic or relapsing infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This leads to morbidity and mortality, infection control challenges, and the risk of evolution of novel viral variants. The optimal treatment for chronic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to characterize a cohort of patients with chronic or relapsing COVID-19 disease and record treatment response. METHODS: We conducted a UK physician survey to collect data on underlying diagnosis and demographics, clinical features, and treatment response of immunodeficient patients with chronic (lasting ≥21 days) or relapsing (≥2 episodes) of COVID-19. RESULTS: We identified 31 patients (median age 49 years). Their underlying immunodeficiency was most commonly characterized by antibody deficiency with absent or profoundly reduced peripheral B-cell levels; prior anti-CD20 therapy, and X-linked agammaglobulinemia. Their clinical features of COVID-19 were similar to those of the general population, but their median duration of symptomatic disease was 64 days (maximum 300 days) and individual patients experienced up to 5 episodes of illness. Remdesivir monotherapy (including when given for prolonged courses of ≤20 days) was associated with sustained viral clearance in 7 of 23 clinical episodes (30.4%), whereas the combination of remdesivir with convalescent plasma or anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs resulted in viral clearance in 13 of 14 episodes (92.8%). Patients receiving no therapy did not clear SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 can present as a chronic or relapsing disease in patients with antibody deficiency. Remdesivir monotherapy is frequently associated with treatment failure, but the combination of remdesivir with antibody-based therapeutics holds promise.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes/therapy , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Alanine/therapeutic use , B-Lymphocytes/immunology , B-Lymphocytes/pathology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/virology , Chronic Disease , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes/immunology , Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes/pathology , Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes/virology , Lymphocyte Count , Male , Middle Aged , Recombinant Fusion Proteins/administration & dosage , Recurrence , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Treatment Failure
15.
Lancet ; 399(10319): 36-49, 2022 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1557000

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Immunization, Secondary/adverse effects , Immunization, Secondary/methods , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , /administration & dosage , /administration & dosage , Aged , /immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , /immunology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Single-Blind Method , United Kingdom , Vaccination/adverse effects , Vaccination/methods , /immunology
16.
Lancet ; 398(10318): 2258-2276, 2021 12 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1550152

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT). METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130. FINDINGS: Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5-2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8-42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4-5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0-1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4-14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1-7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30-69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273. INTERPRETATION: All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization, Secondary/methods , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/immunology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Safety , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom
17.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(2): 167-179, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1517541

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The safety and immunogenicity profile of COVID-19 vaccines when administered concomitantly with seasonal influenza vaccines have not yet been reported. We therefore aimed to report the results of a substudy within a phase 3 UK trial, by evaluating the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 when co-administered with licensed seasonal influenza vaccines. METHODS: We did a planned exploratory substudy as part of the randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) by co-administrating the influenza vaccine at four study hospitals in the UK. Approximately, the first 400 participants meeting the main study entry criteria-with no contraindications to influenza vaccination-were invited to join the substudy. Participants of the main study were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two intramuscular injections of either NVX-CoV2373 (5 µg) or placebo (normal saline) 21 days apart; participants enrolled into the substudy were co-vaccinated with a single (0·5 mL) intramuscular, age-appropriate (quadrivalent influenza cell-based vaccine [Flucelvax Quadrivalent; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those aged 18-64 years and adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine [Fluad; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those ≥65 years), licensed, influenza vaccine on the opposite deltoid to that of the first study vaccine dose or placebo. The influenza vaccine was administered in an open-label manner and at the same time as the first study injection. Reactogenicity was evaluated via an electronic diary for 7 days after vaccination in addition to monitoring for unsolicited adverse events, medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was assessed with influenza haemagglutination inhibition and SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein IgG assays. Vaccine efficacy against PCR-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 was assessed in participants who were seronegative at baseline, received both doses of study vaccine or placebo, had no major protocol deviations affecting the primary endpoint, and had no confirmed cases of symptomatic COVID-19 from the first dose until 6 days after the second dose (per-protocol efficacy population). Immunogenicity was assessed in participants who received scheduled two doses of study vaccine, had a baseline sample and at least one post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol violations before unmasking (per-protocol immunogenicity population). Reactogenicity was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo and had data collected for reactogenicity events. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo. Comparisons were made between participants of the substudy and the main study (who were not co-vaccinated for influenza). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04583995. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2020, and Nov 28, 2020, a total of 15 187 participants were randomised into the main phase 3 trial, of whom 15 139 received treatment (7569 received dose one of NVX-CoV2373 and 7570 received dose one of placebo). 431 participants were co-vaccinated with a seasonal influenza vaccine in the substudy (217 received NVX-CoV2373 plus the influenza vaccine and 214 received placebo plus the influenza vaccine). In general, the substudy participants were younger, more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than those in the main study. Reactogenicity events were more common in the co-administration group than in the NVX-CoV2373 alone group: tenderness (113 [64·9%] of 174 vs 592 [53·3%] of 1111) or pain (69 [39·7%] vs 325 [29·3%]) at injection site, fatigue (48 [27·7%] vs 215 [19·4%]), and muscle pain (49 [28·3%] vs 237 [21·4%]). Incidences of unsolicited adverse events, treatment-related medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events were low and balanced between the co-administration group and the NVX-CoV2373 alone group. No episodes of anaphylaxis or deaths were reported within the substudy. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response although a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. NVX-CoV2373 vaccine efficacy in the substudy (ie, participants aged 18 to <65 years) was 87·5% (95% CI -0·2 to 98·4) and in the main study was 89·8% (95% CI 79·7-95·5). INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this substudy is the first to show the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy profile of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines. Our results suggest concomitant vaccination might be a viable immunisation strategy. FUNDING: Novavax.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 Vaccines , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Influenza Vaccines/adverse effects , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Seasons , Young Adult
18.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(7): 939-949, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1433943

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy in phase 3 trials. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines in a UK community setting. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we examined the proportion and probability of self-reported systemic and local side-effects within 8 days of vaccination in individuals using the COVID Symptom Study app who received one or two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine or one dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. We also compared infection rates in a subset of vaccinated individuals subsequently tested for SARS-CoV-2 with PCR or lateral flow tests with infection rates in unvaccinated controls. All analyses were adjusted by age (≤55 years vs >55 years), sex, health-care worker status (binary variable), obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2vs ≥30 kg/m2), and comorbidities (binary variable, with or without comorbidities). FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, and March 10, 2021, 627 383 individuals reported being vaccinated with 655 590 doses: 282 103 received one dose of BNT162b2, of whom 28 207 received a second dose, and 345 280 received one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were reported by 13·5% (38 155 of 282 103) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 22·0% (6216 of 28 207) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 33·7% (116 473 of 345 280) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Local side-effects were reported by 71·9% (150 023 of 208 767) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 68·5% (9025 of 13 179) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 58·7% (104 282 of 177 655) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were more common (1·6 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 2·9 times after the first dose of BNT162b2) among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those without known past infection. Local effects were similarly higher in individuals previously infected than in those without known past infection (1·4 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 1·2 times after the first dose of BNT162b2). 3106 of 103 622 vaccinated individuals and 50 340 of 464 356 unvaccinated controls tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Significant reductions in infection risk were seen starting at 12 days after the first dose, reaching 60% (95% CI 49-68) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 69% (66-72) for BNT162b2 at 21-44 days and 72% (63-79) for BNT162b2 after 45-59 days. INTERPRETATION: Systemic and local side-effects after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination occur at frequencies lower than reported in phase 3 trials. Both vaccines decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12 days. FUNDING: ZOE Global, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Research and Innovation, American Gastroenterological Association.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccination/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Safety/statistics & numerical data , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom
19.
Journal of Transport Geography ; 96:103194, 2021.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1433615

ABSTRACT

In this article we examine equity in new active travel infrastructure in London, UK. We focus on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) introduced during Covid-19. These area-based schemes mainly involve ‘modal filters’ that restrict through motor traffic from residential streets within a neighbourhood. Such approaches to traffic management are traditional in the Netherlands, but are relatively novel in London and other global cities such as Barcelona. LTNs are often controversial, with one criticism being that they are implemented in affluent areas and hence benefit richer residents. London represents an excellent opportunity to investigate whether these rapidly introduced schemes have so far been equitably distributed. We focused on LTNs introduced between March and September 2020 and still present at the end of October 2020. Having generated datasets representing these new LTN locations and their boundary roads, we matched these to Output Areas (OAs, administrative areas containing around 300 residents). We then examined the extent to which LTN implementation was associated with age, ethnicity, disability, employment and car ownership (using Census 2011 data) and small-area deprivation (using the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019). We estimated that 3.7% of all Londoners live inside a new LTN, and 8.9% live within 500 m walking distance of a new modal filter. Across London as a whole, people in the most deprived quarter of OAs were 2.5 times more likely to live in a new LTN, compared to Londoners in the least deprived quarter. While overall Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) people were slightly more likely than White Londoners to live in a new LTN, this varied by ethnic group. Specifically, Black Londoners were somewhat more likely, and Asian Londoners somewhat less likely than White people to live in a new LTN. Car-free households were more likely to live in a new LTN. We also examined equity within London's districts, which lead on implementation of LTNs. In the median district, people in more deprived areas were more likely to live in an LTN than people in less deprived areas, suggesting that, on average, individual districts have prioritised their more deprived areas. However, in the median district, BAME residents were slightly less likely to live in an LTN than White residents. Across districts implementing LTNs there was wide variation, with some much more or less equitable than others. A third of districts implemented no LTNs at all. Finally, at the micro level, residents living in LTNs were demographically similar to neighbours living in OAs that touched an LTN boundary road. We conclude that LTN implementation has been broadly equitable at the city and micro levels, but the picture is more mixed at the district level, despite districts being encouraged to consider deprivation when planning LTN locations. Equity metrics should be used in policy and research to monitor and improve the distribution of active travel interventions.

20.
Clin Infect Pract ; 12: 100089, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363932

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of antibodies in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with X-linked agammaglobulinaemia (XLA) has yet to be characterised and clinical courses observed in this cohort of patients have been heterogeneous. Whilst some exhibit spontaneous recovery, others have experienced a more protracted disease length. Previous reports have described successful use of convalescent plasma, however there is a paucity of information around the use of the REGN-COV2 antibody cocktail in these patients. CASE REPORT: A patient with XLA was admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and remained persistently symptomatic with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) swab positivity despite treatment with Remdesivir and dexamethasone. Attempts at modulating the immune response with anakinra were unsuccessful. Consent for compassionate use of REGN-COV2 was obtained with administration taking place on day 87 of his illness. This was followed by a period of convalescence and SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab negativity. As a consequence of prolonged immunosuppression, the patient developed pneumocystis pneumonia. CONCLUSION: This case highlights the role of antibodies in clearing SARS-CoV-2 in a hypogammaglobulinaemic host and demonstrates the consequences of prolonged immunosuppression and delayed treatment. We propose that this may be of particular significance given the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to develop advantageous mutations in a chronically infected host.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL