Safety and immunogenicity of a high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine administered concomitantly with a third dose of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in adults aged ≥65 years: a phase 2, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant seasonal influenza vaccination with a COVID-19 vaccine booster could help to minimise potential disruption to the seasonal influenza vaccination campaign and maximise protection against both diseases among individuals at risk of severe disease and hospitalisation. This study aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD) and a mRNA-1273 vaccine booster dose in older adults. METHODS: This study is an ongoing, phase 2, multicentre, open-label, descriptive trial at six clinical research sites in the USA. We describe the interim results up to 21 days after vaccination (July-August, 2021). Community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older, who were previously vaccinated with a two-dose primary schedule of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, were eligible for inclusion. The second dose of the primary mRNA-1273 vaccination series was required to have been received at least 5 months before enrolment in the study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using a permuted block method stratified by site and by age group (<75 years vs ≥75 years), to receive concomitant administration of QIV-HD and mRNA-1273 vaccine, QIV-HD alone, or mRNA-1273 vaccine alone. Randomisation lists, generated by Sanofi Pasteur biostatistics platform, were provided to study investigators for study group allocation. Unsolicited adverse events occurring immediately, solicited local and systemic reactions up to day 8, and unsolicited adverse events, serious adverse events, adverse events of special interest, and medically attended adverse events up to day 22 were reported. Haemagglutination inhibition antibody responses to influenza A/H1N1, A/H3N2, B/Yamagata, and B/Victoria strains and SARS CoV-2 binding antibody responses (SARS-CoV-2 pre-spike IgG ELISA) were assessed at day 1 and day 22. All analyses were descriptive. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04969276. FINDINGS: Between July 16 and Aug 31, 2021, 306 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned, of whom 296 received at least one vaccine dose (100 in the coadministration group, 92 in the QIV-HD, and 104 in the mRNA-1273 group). Reactogenicity profiles were similar between the coadministration and mRNA-1273 groups, with lower reactogenicity rates in the QIV-HD group (frequency of solicited injection site reactions 86·0% [95% CI 77·6-92·1], 91·3% [84·2-96·0], and 61·8% [50·9-71·9]; frequency of solicited systemic reactions 80·0%, [70·8-87·3], 83·7% [75·1-90·2], and 49·4% [38·7-60·2], respectively). Up to day 22, unsolicited adverse events were reported for 17·0% (95% CI 10·2-25·8) of participants in the coadministration group and 14·4% (8·3-22·7) of participants in the mRNA-1273 group, and tended to be reported at a slightly lower rate (10·9% [5·3-19·1]) in participants in the QIV-HD group. Seven participants each reported one medically attended adverse event (three in the coadministration group, one in the QIV-HD group, and three in the mRNA-1273 group). There were no serious adverse events, adverse events of special interest, or deaths. Haemagglutination inhibition antibody geometric mean titres increased from day 1 to day 22 to similar levels in the coadministration and QIV-HD groups, for each influenza strain (A/H1N1: 363 [95% CI 276-476] vs 366 [272-491]; A/H3N2: 286 [233-352] vs 315 [257-386]; B/Yamagata: 429 [350-525] vs 471 [378-588]; B/Victoria: 377 [325-438] vs 390 [327-465] for the coadministration and QIV-HD groups, respectively). SARS-CoV-2 binding antibody geometric mean concentrations also increased to similar levels in the coadministration and mRNA-1273 groups at day 22 (7634 [95% CI 6445-9042] and 7904 [6883-9077], respectively). INTERPRETATION: No safety concerns or immune interference were observed for concomitant administration of QIV-HD with mRNA-1273 booster in adults aged 65 years and older, supporting co-administration recommendations. FUNDING: Sanofi Pasteur.

Reproductive disorders in hairdressers and cosmetologists: a meta-analytical approach.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and to use a meta-analytical approach to assess quantitatively the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in hairdressers and cosmetologists. METHODS: A systematic literature search up to 1 February 2012 was carried out using major bibliographic databases, grey literature, contacts with research teams working on the subject, review papers and reference lists of selected articles. Observational studies reporting measures of effects in relation with body care (hairdressers, cosmetologists, etc.) and reproductive disorders were included. Study quality was assessed by three reviewers. The estimated risk ratios (RR) from all studies reporting on identical outcomes were combined using an average of logarithm transformation of estimated RR weighted by their inverted variance. Statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test. To explore the sources of heterogeneity, several sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were conducted based on study quality, country, study period, alcohol consumption, smoking habit, jobs and control populations. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were selected and reviewed in-depth. The combined risk ratios (RRcs) of five reproductive outcomes were calculated and found to be significantly increased for four outcomes: time to pregnancy, which had an RRc of 1.11 (95% CI: 1.03-1.19); premature birth, which had an RRc of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.99-1.11); small for gestational age, which had an RRc of 1.24 (95 CI%: 1.10-1.41); low birth weight, which had an RRc of 1.21 (95% CI: 1.06-1.39); and embryonic and fetal losses, which had an RRc of 1.19 (95% CI: 1.03-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: This work confirms a weak increase in risk of some reproductive disorders in female hairdressers/cosmetologists. However, the evidence level is rather weak, and a causal association between job and reproductive outcomes cannot be asserted.

Short Communication: Is Ethanol-Based Hand Sanitizer Involved in Acute Pancreatitis after Excessive Disinfection?-An Evaluation with the Use of PBPK Model.

An occupational physician reported to the French Health Products Safety Agency (Afssaps) a case of adverse effect of acute pancreatitis (AP) in a teaching nurse, after multiple demonstrations with ethanol-based hand sanitizers (EBHSs) used in a classroom with defective mechanical ventilation. It was suggested by the occupational physician that the exposure to ethanol may have produced a significant blood ethanol concentration and subsequently the AP. In order to verify if the confinement situation due to defective mechanical ventilation could increase the systemic exposure to ethanol via inhalation route, a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling was used to predict ethanol blood levels. Under the worst case scenario, the simulation by PBPK modeling showed that the maximum blood ethanol concentration which can be predicted of 5.9 mg/l is of the same order of magnitude to endogenous ethanol concentration (mean = 1.1 mg/L; median = 0.4 mg/L; range = 0-35 mg/L) in nondrinker humans (Al-Awadhi et al., 2004). The present study does not support the likelihood that EBHS leads to an increase in systemic ethanol concentration high enough to provoke an acute pancreatitis.