VACCELERATE Site Network: Real-time definition of clinical study capacity in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The inconsistent European vaccine trial landscape rendered the continent of limited interest for vaccine developers. The VACCELERATE consortium created a network of capable clinical trial sites throughout Europe. VACCELERATE identifies and provides access to state-of-the-art vaccine trial sites to accelerate clinical development of vaccines. METHODS: Login details for the VACCELERATE Site Network (vaccelerate.eu/site-network/) questionnaire can be obtained after sending an email to. Interested sites provide basic information, such as contact details, affiliation with infectious disease networks, main area of expertise, previous vaccine trial experience, site infrastructure and preferred vaccine trial settings. In addition, sites can recommend other clinical researchers for registration in the network. If directly requested by a sponsor or sponsor representative, the VACCELERATE Site Network pre-selects vaccine trial sites and shares basic study characteristics provided by the sponsor. Interested sites provide feedback with short surveys and feasibility questionnaires developed by VACCELERATE and are connected with the sponsor to initiate the site selection process. RESULTS: As of April 2023, 481 sites from 39 European countries have registered in the VACCELERATE Site Network. Of these, 137 (28.5 %) sites have previous experience conducting phase I trials, 259 (53.8 %) with phase II, 340 (70.7 %) with phase III, and 205 (42.6 %) with phase IV trials, respectively. Infectious diseases were reported as main area of expertise by 274 sites (57.0 %), followed by any kind of immunosuppression by 141 (29.3 %) sites. Numbers are super additive as sites may report clinical trial experience in several indications. Two hundred and thirty-one (47.0 %) sites have the expertise and capacity to enrol paediatric populations and 391 (79.6 %) adult populations. Since its launch in October 2020, the VACCELERATE Site Network has been used 21 times for academic and industry trials, mostly interventional studies, focusing on different pathogens such as fungi, monkeypox virus, Orthomyxoviridae/influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, or Streptococcus pneumoniae/pneumococcus. CONCLUSIONS: The VACCELERATE Site Network enables a constantly updated Europe-wide mapping of experienced clinical sites interested in executing vaccine trials. The network is already in use as a rapid-turnaround single contact point for the identification of vaccine trials sites in Europe.

Enhancing Public Health Communication Regarding Vaccine Trials: Design and Development of the Pan-European VACCELERATE Toolkit.

BACKGROUND: The pan-European VACCELERATE network aims to implement the first transnational harmonized and sustainable vaccine trial Volunteer Registry, being a single entry point for potential volunteers of large-scale vaccine trials across Europe. This work exhibits a set of harmonized vaccine trial-related educational and promotional tools for the general public, designed and disseminated by the pan-European VACCELERATE network. OBJECTIVE: This study primarily aimed to design and develop a standard toolkit to increase positive attitudes and access to trustworthy information for better access and increased recruitment to vaccine trials for the public. More specifically, the produced tools are focused on inclusiveness and equity, and are targeting different population groups, including underserved ones, as potential volunteers for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry (older individuals, migrants, children, and adolescents). The promotional and educational material is aligned with the main objectives of the Volunteer Registry to increase public literacy and awareness regarding vaccine-related clinical research or trials and trial participation, including informed consent and legal issues, side effects, and frequently asked questions regarding vaccine trial design. METHODS: Tools were developed per the aims and principles of the VACCELERATE project, focusing on trial inclusiveness and equity, and are adjusted to local country-wise requirements to improve public health communication. The produced tools are selected based on the cognitive theory, inclusiveness, and equity of differently aged and underrepresented groups, and standardized material from several official trustworthy sources (eg, COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access; the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; the European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and the World Health Organization). A team of multidisciplinary specialists (infectious diseases, vaccine research, medicine, and education) edited and reviewed the subtitles and scripts of the educational videos, extended brochures, interactive cards, and puzzles. Graphic designers selected the color palette, audio settings, and dubbing for the video story-tales and implemented QR codes. RESULTS: This study presents the first set of harmonized promotional and educational materials and tools (ie, educational cards, educational and promotional videos, extended brochures, flyers, posters, and puzzles) for vaccine clinical research (eg, COVID-19 vaccines). These tools inform the public about possible benefits and disadvantages of trial participation and build confidence among participants about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and the health care system. This material has been translated into several languages and is intended to be freely and easily accessible to facilitate dissemination among VACCELERATE network participant countries and the European and global scientific, industrial, and public community. CONCLUSIONS: The produced material could help fill knowledge gaps of health care personnel, providing the appropriate future patient education for vaccine trials, and tackling vaccine hesitancy and parents' concerns for potential participation of children in vaccine trials.

Recommendations for antibacterial therapy in adults with COVID-19 - an evidence based guideline.

SCOPE: The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy constituted a multidisciplinary expert committee to provide evidence-based recommendation for the use of antibacterial therapy in hospitalized adults with a respiratory infection and suspected or proven 2019 Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). METHODS: We performed a literature search to answer four key questions. The committee graded the evidence and developed recommendations by using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE GUIDELINE AND RECOMMENDATIONS: We assessed evidence on the risk of bacterial infections in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the associated bacterial pathogens, how to diagnose bacterial infections and how to treat bacterial infections. Bacterial co-infection upon admission was reported in 3.5% of COVID-19 patients, while bacterial secondary infections during hospitalization occurred up to 15%. No or very low quality evidence was found to answer the other key clinical questions. Although the evidence base on bacterial infections in COVID-19 is currently limited, available evidence supports restrictive antibiotic use from an antibiotic stewardship perspective, especially upon admission. To support restrictive antibiotic use, maximum efforts should be undertaken to obtain sputum and blood culture samples as well as pneumococcal urinary antigen testing. We suggest to stop antibiotics in patients who started antibiotic treatment upon admission when representative cultures as well as urinary antigen tests show no signs of involvement of bacterial pathogens after 48 hours. For patients with secondary bacterial respiratory infection we recommend to follow other guideline recommendations on antibacterial treatment for patients with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia. An antibiotic treatment duration of five days in patients with COVID-19 and suspected bacterial respiratory infection is recommended upon improvement of signs, symptoms and inflammatory markers. Larger, prospective studies about the epidemiology of bacterial infections in COVID-19 are urgently needed to confirm our conclusions and ultimately prevent unnecessary antibiotic use during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal

OBJECTIVE: To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. DESIGN: Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. DATA EXTRACTION: At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). RESULTS: 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. CONCLUSION: Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.