Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
J Infect ; 2022 Apr 08.
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: Among 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 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: 7461-10085) following ChAd/ChAd/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 concentration at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were 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.

2.
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).

3.
Mediastinum ; 5: 29, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1675452

ABSTRACT

Objective: In this article we discuss the current evidence for these concerns and highlight where further work is required to understand the risk from these procedures and how it can be mitigated for. Background: The COVID-19 (coronavirus-19 or SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has impacted on many aspects of patient care both for those with the virus and those with other illnesses. Of particular concern has been the risk to staff and patients from the spread of the virus in health care settings. This has led to changes in guidelines and practice in community and hospital settings that has implications on patient diagnostic pathways in lung cancer, with a specific emphasis on aerosol generating procedures (AGPs). Methods: A literature search was carried out and 44 abstracts were initially found. Given the novel status of COVID-19, we included severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in our search. Five papers were selected for further analysis. An additional paper was highlighted during our research and therefore included in our review. Conclusions: The papers selected assessed the risk of transmission during AGPs. The six articles selected assessed the risk of aerosol transmission during various AGPs (bronchoscopy, pleural procedures and pulmonary function tests) and each found that the risk of viral transmission via aerosol was low. As mentioned above, at the time the paper was written, there was a paucity of evidence regarding AGPs in the era of COVID-19. There is emerging evidence that our understanding of these procedures may be outdated and the risk of transmission maybe lower than previously anticipated. However, we need further reliable evidence to change practice going forward.

4.
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
5.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 10(7): e23831, 2021 Jul 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1308224

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: More than 7% of the world's population is living with a chronic respiratory condition. In the United Kingdom, lung disease affects approximately 1 in 5 people, resulting in over 700,000 hospital admissions each year. People with respiratory conditions have several symptoms and can require multiple health care visits and investigations before a diagnosis is made. The tests available can be difficult to perform, especially if a person is symptomatic, leading to poor quality results. A new, easy-to-perform, point-of-care test that can be performed in any health care setting and that can differentiate between various respiratory conditions would have a significant, beneficial impact on the ability to diagnose respiratory diseases. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to use a new handheld device (Inflammacheck) in different respiratory conditions to measure the exhaled breath condensate hydrogen peroxide (EBC H2O2) and compare these results with those of healthy controls and with each other. This study also aims to determine whether the device can measure other parameters, including breath humidity, breath temperature, breath flow dynamics, and end tidal carbon dioxide. METHODS: We will perform a single-visit, cross-sectional observational study of EBC H2O2 levels, as measured by Inflammacheck, in people with respiratory disease and volunteers with no known lung disease. Participants with a confirmed diagnosis of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, bronchiectasis, pneumonia, breathing pattern disorder, and interstitial lung disease as well as volunteers with no history of lung disease will be asked to breathe into the Inflammacheck device to record their breath sample. RESULTS: The results from this study will be available in 2022, in anticipation of COVID-19-related delays. CONCLUSIONS: This study will investigate the EBC H2O2, as well as other exhaled breath parameters, for use as a future diagnostic tool.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL