Search

SUMMARYIn the United Kingdom (UK) in 2022/23, influenza virus infections returned to the levels recorded before the COVID-19 pandemic, exerting a substantial burden on an already stretched National Health Service (NHS) through increased primary and emergency care visits and subsequent hospitalizations. Population groups ≤4 years and ≥65 years of age, and those with underlying health conditions, are at the greatest risk of influenza-related hospitalization. Recent advances in influenza virus vaccine technologies may help to mitigate this burden. This review aims to summarize advances in the influenza virus vaccine landscape by describing the different technologies that are currently in use in the UK and more widely. The review also describes vaccine technologies that are under development, including mRNA, and universal influenza virus vaccines which aim to provide broader or increased protection. This is an exciting and important era for influenza virus vaccinations, and advances are critical to protect against a disease that still exerts a substantial burden across all populations and disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable, despite it being over 80 years since the first influenza virus vaccines were deployed., Competing Interests: T.W.C. has received speaker fees, honoraria, travel reimbursement, and equipment and consumables at discount or free of charge for the purposes independent of research, outside of this submitted study, from BioFire diagnostics, bioMérieux, QIAGEN, SenseBio Detection, and Inflammatix. He has received consultancy fees from BioFire, Cepheid, Synairgen Research, Roche, and Janssen. He has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Cepheid, Roche, Janssen, Shionogi, Sanofi, Seqirus, and GSK. He is a member of an independent data monitoring committee for a trial sponsored by Roche. He has acted as the UK chief investigator for a study sponsored by Janssen. He owns shares in Synairgen Research. J.S.N.-V.-T. was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England (DHSC) between October 2017 and March 2022. After this assignment was completed, he reports lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Seqirus, and Gilead; also consulting fees from Roche, Seqirus, Janssen, Sanofi, and Moderna. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of its authors and not necessarily those of DHSC, its Agencies, or any of the above entities. J.S.T. has advised the Sanofi influenza vaccine program and received consultancy fees from Touchlight Genetics. H.L., T.P., and F.A. are employees of Sanofi and may hold stocks or shares and accrued pension rights in the company.

Background: People with immune-mediated inflammatory disease are at increased risk of pneumococcal pneumonia. The effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccination in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases has not been evaluated. We investigated the effectiveness of pneumococcal vaccination in preventing morbidity and mortality associated with pneumonia in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases., Methods: In this matched case-control study, we used primary-care electronic health record data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold database in the UK, with linked hospitalisation and mortality data. Adults with incident common immune-mediated inflammatory diseases diagnosed between April 1, 1997, and Dec 31, 2019, were followed up from the first diagnosis date to the occurrence of an outcome or date of last follow-up. Cases (ie, those with an outcome of interest) were age-matched and sex-matched to up to ten contemporaneous controls by use of incidence density sampling. Outcomes were hospitalisation due to pneumonia, death due to pneumonia, or primary-care consultation for lower respiratory tract infection requiring antibiotics. We defined hospital admission for pneumonia using hospital discharge diagnoses, death due to pneumonia using death certification data, and lower respiratory tract infection as present when primary-care consultation and antibiotic prescription occurred on the same date. We used multivariable, unconditional, logistical regression and constructed three models to examine the association between pneumococcal vaccination as an exposure and each of the three outcomes., Findings: The first nested case-control analysis included 12 360 patients (7326 [59·3%] women and 5034 [40·7%] men): 1884 (15·2%) who were hospitalised due to pneumonia and 10 476 (84·8%) who were not admitted to hospital due to pneumonia. The second analysis included 5321 patients (3112 [58·5%] women and 2209 [41·5%] men): 781 (14·7%) who died due to pneumonia and 4540 (85·3%) who were alive on the index date. The third analysis included 54 530 patients (33 605 [61·6%] women and 20 925 [38·4%] men): 10 549 (19·3%) with lower respiratory tract infection treated with antibiotics and 43 981 (80·7%) without infection. In the multivariable analysis, pneumococcal vaccination was negatively associated with hospitalisation due to pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·60-0·81]), death due to pneumonia (0·60 [0·48-0·76]), and lower respiratory tract infection treated with antibiotics (0·76 [0·72-0·80])., Interpretation: Pneumococcal vaccination is associated with protection against hospitalisation and death due to pneumonia in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, without apparent residual confounding. However, residual unmeasured confounding cannot be fully excluded in observational research, which includes nested case-control studies. These findings should also be corroborated with data from other countries, given that this study used UK-based data., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AA reports personal fees from UpToDate (royalty), Cadilla Pharmaceuticals (lecture fees), and Limbic (consulting), unrelated to this work. CDM is Director of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research. Keele University has received research funding for CDM from the NIHR and the Medical Research Council. JSNV-T was seconded to the UK Department of Health and Social Care from October, 2017, to March, 2022. He performed a one-off consultancy for MSD, which manufactures PPV23, in May, 2023. All other authors declare no competing interests. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of its authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care, or any other entity mentioned above., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations., Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over 6 months., Design and Setting: An economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK., Method: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK NHS and personal social services perspective and a 6-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement., Results: In the base-case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI = 0.0044 to 0.0067) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81 190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except for those aged ≥75 years, with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30 000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15 000 per QALY threshold., Conclusion: At the current cost of £513 per course, molnupiravir is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a 6-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated patients with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years., (© The Authors.)

Objective: To investigate (1) the UK-wide inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) uptake in adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), (2) the association between vaccination against influenza and IBD flare and (3) the effectiveness of IIV in preventing morbidity and mortality., Design: Data for adults with IBD diagnosed before the 1 September 2018 were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold. We calculated the proportion of people vaccinated against seasonal influenza in the 2018-2019 influenza cycle. To investigate vaccine effectiveness, we calculated the propensity score (PS) for vaccination and conducted Cox proportional hazard regression with inverse-probability treatment weighting on PS. We employed self-controlled case series analysis to investigate the association between vaccination and IBD flare., Results: Data for 13 631 people with IBD (50.4% male, mean age 52.9 years) were included. Fifty percent were vaccinated during the influenza cycle, while 32.1% were vaccinated on time, that is, before the seasonal influenza virus circulated in the community. IIV was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (aHR (95% CI): 0.73 (0.55,0.97) but not hospitalisation for pneumonia (aHR (95% CI) 0.52 (0.20-1.37), including in the influenza active period (aHR (95% CI) 0.48 (0.18-1.27)). Administration of the IIV was not associated with IBD flare., Conclusion: The uptake of influenza vaccine was low in people with IBD, and the majority were not vaccinated before influenza virus circulated in the community. Vaccination with the IIV was not associated with IBD flare. These findings add to the evidence to promote vaccination against influenza in people with IBD., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AA has received personal fees from UpToDate (royalty), Cadilla Pharmaceuticals (lecture fees), NGM Bio (consulting), Limbic (consulting) and Inflazome (consulting) unrelated to this work. CDM is the director of the NIHR School for Primary Care Research. Keele University has received research funding for CDM from NIHR, MRC, Versus Arthritis and BMS. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) from October 2017 to March 2022. Since March 2022, he has received personal fees from CSL Seqirus (lectures, writing and consulting), AstraZeneca (lecture) and Sanofi Pasteur (lectures and speaking), all of whom manufacture influenza vaccines. He consults for Moderna Therapeutics who are developing influenza vaccines. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of its authors and not necessarily those of DHSC or any other entity mentioned above. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare, (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose in June 2021. Monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines were subsequently widely used for the third and fourth-dose vaccination campaigns in high-income countries. Real-world vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infections following third doses declined during the Omicron wave. This report compares the immunogenicity and kinetics of responses to third doses of vaccines from day (D) 28 to D242 following third doses in seven study arms., Methods: The trial initially included ten experimental vaccine arms (seven full-dose, three half-dose) delivered at three groups of six sites. Participants in each site group were randomised to three or four experimental vaccines, or MenACWY control. The trial was stratified such that half of participants had previously received two primary doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and half had received two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hereafter referred to as BNT). The D242 follow-up was done in seven arms (five full-dose, two half-dose). The BNT vaccine was used as the reference as it was the most commonly deployed third-dose vaccine in clinical practice in high-income countries. The primary analysis was conducted using all randomised and baseline seronegative participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study and who had not received a further COVID-19 vaccine for any reason since third dose randomisation., Results: Among the 817 participants included in this report, the median age was 72 years (IQR: 55-78) with 50.7% being female. The decay rates of anti-spike IgG between vaccines are different among both populations who received initial doses of ChAd/ChAd and BNT/BNT. In the population that previously received ChAd/ChAd, mRNA vaccines had the highest titre at D242 following their vaccine dose although Ad26. COV2. S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) showed slower decay. For people who received BNT/BNT as their initial doses, a slower decay was also seen in the Ad26 and ChAd arms. The anti-spike IgG became significantly higher in the Ad26 arm compared to the BNT arm as early as 3 months following vaccination. Similar decay rates were seen between BNT and half-BNT; the geometric mean ratios ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 at different time points. The difference in decay rates between vaccines was similar for wild-type live virus-neutralising antibodies and that seen for anti-spike IgG. For cellular responses, the persistence was similar between study arms., Conclusions: Heterologous third doses with viral vector vaccines following two doses of mRNA achieve more durable humoral responses compared with three doses of mRNA vaccines. Lower doses of mRNA vaccines could be considered for future booster campaigns., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest KC acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi and Valneva. She receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator and/or providing consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck and Valneva vaccines and antimicrobials. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG may benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University’s revenue-sharing policy. JH has received payments for presentations for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Ciple & Teva. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PM acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and The Adam Practice as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Medicago, and Sanofi. He received no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England until 31st March 2022. He has subsequently received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi Pasteur and has performed paid consultancy for Janssen and Seqirus. MR has provided post marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GSK for which a cost recover charge is made. MDS acted until September 2022 on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax. Janssen, Medimmune and MCM vaccines. He received no personal financial payment for this work. MDS became an employee of Moderna in September 2022 and holds stock options in this company. He did not perform this study in relation to his new employment and Moderna have had no a priori access to the data., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: We hypothesised that the clinical characteristics of hospitalised children and young people (CYP) with SARS-CoV-2 in the UK second wave (W2) would differ from the first wave (W1) due to the alpha variant (B.1.1.7), school reopening and relaxation of shielding., Methods: Prospective multicentre observational cohort study of patients <19 years hospitalised in the UK with SARS-CoV-2 between 17/01/20 and 31/01/21. Clinical characteristics were compared between W1 and W2 (W1 = 17/01/20-31/07/20,W2 = 01/08/20-31/01/21)., Results: 2044 CYP < 19 years from 187 hospitals. 427/2044 (20.6%) with asymptomatic/incidental SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from main analysis. 16.0% (248/1548) of symptomatic CYP were admitted to critical care and 0.8% (12/1504) died. 5.6% (91/1617) of symptomatic CYP had Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). After excluding CYP with MIS-C, patients in W2 had lower Paediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS, composite vital sign score), lower antibiotic use and less respiratory and cardiovascular support than W1. The proportion of CYP admitted to critical care was unchanged. 58.0% (938/1617) of symptomatic CYP had no reported comorbidity. Patients without co-morbidities were younger (42.4%, 398/938, <1 year), had lower PEWS, shorter length of stay and less respiratory support., Conclusions: We found no evidence of increased disease severity in W2 vs W1. A large proportion of hospitalised CYP had no comorbidity., Impact: No evidence of increased severity of COVID-19 admissions amongst children and young people (CYP) in the second vs first wave in the UK, despite changes in variant, relaxation of shielding and return to face-to-face schooling. CYP with no comorbidities made up a significant proportion of those admitted. However, they had shorter length of stays and lower treatment requirements than CYP with comorbidities once those with MIS-C were excluded. At least 20% of CYP admitted in this cohort had asymptomatic/incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection. This paper was presented to SAGE to inform CYP vaccination policy in the UK., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, immunization programs for other respiratory infections, notably influenza continued worldwide but attracted less public or political attention than COVID-19 vaccinations. Due to non-pharmaceutical intervention measures the global influenza burden decreased substantially; but with lifting of restrictions a rebound in other respiratory virus pathogens is both plausible and likely. This article discusses lessons identified from the UK and USA, and provides recommendations for future influenza vaccination programs in light of emerging data from the southern hemisphere and the need for harmonization with COVID-19 vaccination, focusing on operational delivery and messaging to practitioners and the public.

Annual seasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for individuals at high risk of developing post-infection complications in many locations. However, reduced vaccine immunogenicity and effectiveness have been observed among repeat vaccinees in some influenza seasons. We investigated the impact of repeated influenza vaccination on relative vaccine effectiveness (VE) among individuals who were recommended for influenza vaccination in the United Kingdom with a retrospective cohort study using primary healthcare data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database in the United Kingdom. Relative VE was estimated against general practitioner-diagnosed influenza-like illnesses (GP-ILI) and medically attended acute respiratory illnesses (MAARI) among participants who have been repeatedly vaccinated compared with first-time vaccinees using proportional hazards models. Relative VE against MAARI may be reduced for individuals above 65 years old who were vaccinated in the current and previous influenza seasons for some influenza seasons. However, these findings were not conclusive as we could not exclude the possibility of residual confounding in our dataset. The use of routinely collected data from electronic health records to examine the effects of repeated vaccination needs to be complemented with sufficient efforts to include negative control outcomes to rule out residual confounding.

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest KC acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi and Valneva. She receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator and/or providing consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck and Valneva vaccines and antimicrobials. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG may benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University's revenue sharing policy. JH has received payments for presentations for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Ciple & Teva. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PM acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and The Adam Practice as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Medicago and Sanofi. He received no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England until 31st March 2022. MR has provided post marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GSK for which a cost recover charge is made. MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax. Janssen, Medimmune and MCM vaccines. He received no personal financial payment for this work., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care., Methods: We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260., Findings: Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75·2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86·6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72·4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·70-0·89], p=0·0001, for 70-79 years; 0·52 [0·46-0·58], p<0·0001, for >80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54·2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27·5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75-80% in January, 2021., Interpretation: Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered., Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research and UK Medical Research Council., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ABD reports grants from the UK Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) during the conduct of the study, and grants from the Wellcome Trust outside the submitted work. JSN-V-T reports grants from the DHSC during the conduct of the study, and is seconded to the DHSC. PJMO reports personal fees from consultancies and from the European Respiratory Society; grants from the UK Medical Research Council (MRC), the MRC Global Challenge Research Fund, the EU, the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, MRC–GSK, the Wellcome Trust, and the NIHR (Health Protection Research Unit in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London); and is an NIHR senior investigator outside the submitted work; his role as President of the British Society for Immunology was unpaid but travel and accommodation at some meetings was provided by the society. JKB reports grants from the MRC. MGS reports grants from DHSC, NIHR UK, MRC UK, HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, and University of Liverpool, during the conduct of the study; and is chair of the Infectious Diseases Science Advisory Board and minority shareholder of Integrum Scientific, Greensboro NC, and Independent external and non-remunerated member of Pfizer's External Data Monitoring Committee for their mRNA vaccine program(s) outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study investigated adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and hypothesized that risk factors for AKI would include comorbidities and non-White race., Methods: A prospective multicentre cohort study was performed using patients admitted to 254 UK hospitals with COVID-19 between 17 January 2020 and 5 December 2020., Results: Of 85 687 patients, 2198 (2.6%) received acute kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Of 41 294 patients with biochemistry data, 13 000 (31.5%) had biochemical AKI: 8562 stage 1 (65.9%), 2609 stage 2 (20.1%) and 1829 stage 3 (14.1%). The main risk factors for KRT were chronic kidney disease (CKD) [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.41: 95% confidence interval 3.06-3.81], male sex (aOR 2.43: 2.18-2.71) and Black race (aOR 2.17: 1.79-2.63). The main risk factors for biochemical AKI were admission respiratory rate >30 breaths per minute (aOR 1.68: 1.56-1.81), CKD (aOR 1.66: 1.57-1.76) and Black race (aOR 1.44: 1.28-1.61). There was a gradated rise in the risk of 28-day mortality by increasing severity of AKI: stage 1 aOR 1.58 (1.49-1.67), stage 2 aOR 2.41 (2.20-2.64), stage 3 aOR 3.50 (3.14-3.91) and KRT aOR 3.06 (2.75-3.39). AKI rates peaked in April 2020 and the subsequent fall in rates could not be explained by the use of dexamethasone or remdesivir., Conclusions: AKI is common in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and it is associated with a heightened risk of mortality. Although the rates of AKI have fallen from the early months of the pandemic, high-risk patients should have their kidney function and fluid status monitored closely., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England. AMC and DMF are investigators on studies funded by Pfizer and Unilever. They receive no personal financial payment for this work. AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and chair of the WHO European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation. He is an investigator or provides consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines produced by AstraZeneca, Janssen, Valneva, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and of other vaccines from these and other manufacturers, including GlaxoSmithKline, VPI Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and Bionet Asia. He receives no personal remuneration or benefits for any of this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator or provides consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St George's University of London as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. CAG acts on behalf of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, CureVac, Moderna, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. TL is named as an inventor on a patent application covering the ChAd vaccine and is an occasional consultant to Vaccitech, unrelated to this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG benefits from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University's revenue sharing policy. Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines could reduce burden on health-care systems. We aimed to assess the safety of concomitant administration of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine., Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial, adults in receipt of a single dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 were enrolled at 12 UK sites and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive concomitant administration of either an age-appropriate influenza vaccine or placebo alongside their second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. 3 weeks later the group who received placebo received the influenza vaccine, and vice versa. Participants were followed up for 6 weeks. The influenza vaccines were three seasonal, inactivated vaccines (trivalent, MF59C adjuvanted or a cellular or recombinant quadrivalent vaccine). Participants and investigators were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was one or more participant-reported solicited systemic reactions in the 7 days after first trial vaccination(s), with a difference of less than 25% considered non-inferior. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Local and unsolicited systemic reactions and humoral responses were also assessed. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14391248., Findings: Between April 1 and June 26, 2021, 679 participants were recruited to one of six cohorts, as follows: 129 ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 139 BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 146 ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 79 BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 128 ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine, and 58 BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine. 340 participants were assigned to concomitant administration of influenza and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by placebo at day 21, and 339 participants were randomly assigned to concomitant administration of placebo and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by influenza vaccine at day 21. Non-inferiority was indicated in four cohorts, as follows: ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (risk difference for influenza vaccine minus placebos -1·29%, 95% CI -14·7 to 12·1), BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (6·17%, -6·27 to 18·6), BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine (-12·9%, -34·2 to 8·37), and ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (2·53%, -13·3 to 18·3). In the other two cohorts, the upper limit of the 95% CI exceeded the 0·25 non-inferiority margin (ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine 10·3%, -5·44 to 26·0; BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine 6·75%, -11·8 to 25·3). Most systemic reactions to vaccination were mild or moderate. Rates of local and unsolicited systemic reactions were similar between the randomly assigned groups. One serious adverse event, hospitalisation with severe headache, was considered related to the trial intervention. Immune responses were not adversely affected., Interpretation: Concomitant vaccination with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine raises no safety concerns and preserves antibody responses to both vaccines. Concomitant vaccination with both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines over the next immunisation season should reduce the burden on health-care services for vaccine delivery, allowing for timely vaccine administration and protection from COVID-19 and influenza for those in need., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RL reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) during the conduct of the trial, and grants from Elizabeth Blackwell Institute, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Valneva outside the submitted work. CAR reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the trial. JSN-V-T reports that he is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England. AF reports grants from Pfizer during the conduct of the trial, and grants from Elizabeth Blackwell Institute, Sanofi Pasteur, VBI Vaccines, Pfizer, Janssen, GSK, MedImmune, Novavax, and Valneva outside the submitted work. AM reports grants from NIHR during the conduct of the trial, and grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Valneva outside the submitted work. MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, Novavax, Pfizer, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KCa acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Valneva. She receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust as an investigator or providing consultative advice, or both, on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG might benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University's revenue sharing policy. JH has received payments for presentations for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Ciple, and Teva. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PM acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and The Adam Practice as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Medicago, and Sanofi. He received no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England. MR has provided post marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline for which a cost recover charge is made. MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM vaccines. He received no personal financial payment for this work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To derive and validate risk prediction algorithms to estimate the risk of covid-19 related mortality and hospital admission in UK adults after one or two doses of covid-19 vaccination., Design: Prospective, population based cohort study using the QResearch database linked to data on covid-19 vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 results, hospital admissions, systemic anticancer treatment, radiotherapy, and the national death and cancer registries., Settings: Adults aged 19-100 years with one or two doses of covid-19 vaccination between 8 December 2020 and 15 June 2021., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was covid-19 related death. Secondary outcome was covid-19 related hospital admission. Outcomes were assessed from 14 days after each vaccination dose. Models were fitted in the derivation cohort to derive risk equations using a range of predictor variables. Performance was evaluated in a separate validation cohort of general practices., Results: Of 6 952 440 vaccinated patients in the derivation cohort, 5 150 310 (74.1%) had two vaccine doses. Of 2031 covid-19 deaths and 1929 covid-19 hospital admissions, 81 deaths (4.0%) and 71 admissions (3.7%) occurred 14 days or more after the second vaccine dose. The risk algorithms included age, sex, ethnic origin, deprivation, body mass index, a range of comorbidities, and SARS-CoV-2 infection rate. Incidence of covid-19 mortality increased with age and deprivation, male sex, and Indian and Pakistani ethnic origin. Cause specific hazard ratios were highest for patients with Down's syndrome (12.7-fold increase), kidney transplantation (8.1-fold), sickle cell disease (7.7-fold), care home residency (4.1-fold), chemotherapy (4.3-fold), HIV/AIDS (3.3-fold), liver cirrhosis (3.0-fold), neurological conditions (2.6-fold), recent bone marrow transplantation or a solid organ transplantation ever (2.5-fold), dementia (2.2-fold), and Parkinson's disease (2.2-fold). Other conditions with increased risk (ranging from 1.2-fold to 2.0-fold increases) included chronic kidney disease, blood cancer, epilepsy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, thromboembolism, peripheral vascular disease, and type 2 diabetes. A similar pattern of associations was seen for covid-19 related hospital admissions. No evidence indicated that associations differed after the second dose, although absolute risks were reduced. The risk algorithm explained 74.1% (95% confidence interval 71.1% to 77.0%) of the variation in time to covid-19 death in the validation cohort. Discrimination was high, with a D statistic of 3.46 (95% confidence interval 3.19 to 3.73) and C statistic of 92.5. Performance was similar after each vaccine dose. In the top 5% of patients with the highest predicted covid-19 mortality risk, sensitivity for identifying covid-19 deaths within 70 days was 78.7%., Conclusion: This population based risk algorithm performed well showing high levels of discrimination for identifying those patients at highest risk of covid-19 related death and hospital admission after vaccination., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the NIHR for the submitted work; JH-C reports grants from NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, grants from John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, grants from Cancer Research UK, through the Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre, grants from the Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund and other research councils, during the conduct of the study; JH-C is an unpaid director of QResearch, a not-for-profit organisation that is a partnership between the University of Oxford and EMIS Health, which supplied the QResearch database used for this work; JH-C is a founder and shareholder of ClinRisk and was its medical director until 31 May 2019 (ClinRisk produces open and closed source software to implement clinical risk algorithms (outside this work) into clinical computer systems); JH-C is chair of the NERVTAG risk stratification subgroup and a member of SAGE covid-19 groups and the NHS group advising on prioritisation of use of monoclonal antibodies in covid-19 infection; CACC reports receiving personal fees from ClinRisk outside this work, and is a member of the NERVTAG risk stratification subgroup; KK is supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration-East Midlands and the Leicester BRC and is a member of SAGE; RHK was supported by a UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship (MR/S017968/1); KD-O was supported by a grant from the Alan Turing Institute Health Programme (EP/T001569/1); AS is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer’s covid-19 advisory group and a member of AstraZeneca’s thrombotic thrombocytopenic advisory group (both roles are unremunerated); RAL is a member of the Welsh government covid-19 technical advisory group (unrenumerated); MGS reports grants from Department of Health and Social Care NIHR UK, grants from the UK Medical Research Council, grants from Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool, during the conduct of the study, and other funds from Integrum Scientific, Greensboro, NC, USA, outside the submitted work; MGS is a member of NERVTAG and attends SAGE covid-19; AH is a member of NERVTAG and the NHS group advising on prioritisation of use of monoclonal antibodies in covid-19 infection; JV is national clinical director for diabetes and obesity at NHS England and Improvement; FK is a member of the Northern Ireland Chief Medical Officer’s pandemic modelling group and strategic intelligence group; JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Department of Health and Social Care or the UK government., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Microbiological characterisation of co-infections and secondary infections in patients with COVID-19 is lacking, and antimicrobial use is high. We aimed to describe microbiologically confirmed co-infections and secondary infections, and antimicrobial use, in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19., Methods: The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study is an ongoing, prospective cohort study recruiting inpatients from 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales, conducted by the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium. Patients with a confirmed or clinician-defined high likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection were eligible for inclusion in the ISARIC WHO CCP-UK study. For this specific study, we excluded patients with a recorded negative SARS-CoV-2 test result and those without a recorded outcome at 28 days after admission. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, therapeutic, and outcome data were collected using a prespecified case report form. Organisms considered clinically insignificant were excluded., Findings: We analysed data from 48 902 patients admitted to hospital between Feb 6 and June 8, 2020. The median patient age was 74 years (IQR 59-84) and 20 786 (42·6%) of 48 765 patients were female. Microbiological investigations were recorded for 8649 (17·7%) of 48 902 patients, with clinically significant COVID-19-related respiratory or bloodstream culture results recorded for 1107 patients. 762 (70·6%) of 1080 infections were secondary, occurring more than 2 days after hospital admission. Staphylococcus aureus and Haemophilus influenzae were the most common pathogens causing respiratory co-infections (diagnosed ≤2 days after admission), with Enterobacteriaceae and S aureus most common in secondary respiratory infections. Bloodstream infections were most frequently caused by Escherichia coli and S aureus . Among patients with available data, 13 390 (37·0%) of 36 145 had received antimicrobials in the community for this illness episode before hospital admission and 39 258 (85·2%) of 46 061 patients with inpatient antimicrobial data received one or more antimicrobials at some point during their admission (highest for patients in critical care). We identified frequent use of broad-spectrum agents and use of carbapenems rather than carbapenem-sparing alternatives., Interpretation: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, microbiologically confirmed bacterial infections are rare, and more likely to be secondary infections. Gram-negative organisms and S aureus are the predominant pathogens. The frequency and nature of antimicrobial use are concerning, but tractable targets for stewardship interventions exist., Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, and NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London., Competing Interests: All authors declare support from the NIHR, the Medical Research Council (MRC), the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, the NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London, the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) at Imperial College London, and the NIHR Clinical Research Network, for the submitted work. ABD reports grants from the UK Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), during the conduct of the study, and grants from Wellcome Trust, outside the submitted work. PJMO reports personal fees from consultancies (GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Bavarian Nordic, Pfizer, and Cepheid) and from the European Respiratory Society, grants from MRC, MRC Global Challenge Research Fund, the EU, NIHR BRC, MRC–GlaxoSmithKline, Wellcome Trust, NIHR (HPRU in Respiratory Infection), and is an NIHR senior investigator outside the submitted work. PJMO's role as President of the British Society for Immunology was unpaid but travel and accommodation at some meetings was provided by the Society. JKB reports grants from MRC. MGS reports grants from DHSC, NIHR UK, MRC, HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, and University of Liverpool, during the conduct of the study, and is chair of the scientific advisory board and a minority share holder at Integrum Scientific, outside the submitted work., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.)

Background: COVID-19 is a multisystem disease and patients who survive might have in-hospital complications. These complications are likely to have important short-term and long-term consequences for patients, health-care utilisation, health-care system preparedness, and society amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Our aim was to characterise the extent and effect of COVID-19 complications, particularly in those who survive, using the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK., Methods: We did a prospective, multicentre cohort study in 302 UK health-care facilities. Adult patients aged 19 years or older, with confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 were included in the study. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of in-hospital complications, defined as organ-specific diagnoses occurring alone or in addition to any hallmarks of COVID-19 illness. We used multilevel logistic regression and survival models to explore associations between these outcomes and in-hospital complications, age, and pre-existing comorbidities., Findings: Between Jan 17 and Aug 4, 2020, 80 388 patients were included in the study. Of the patients admitted to hospital for management of COVID-19, 49·7% (36 367 of 73 197) had at least one complication. The mean age of our cohort was 71·1 years (SD 18·7), with 56·0% (41 025 of 73 197) being male and 81·0% (59 289 of 73 197) having at least one comorbidity. Males and those aged older than 60 years were most likely to have a complication (aged ≥60 years: 54·5% [16 579 of 30 416] in males and 48·2% [11 707 of 24 288] in females; aged <60 years: 48·8% [5179 of 10 609] in males and 36·6% [2814 of 7689] in females). Renal (24·3%, 17 752 of 73 197), complex respiratory (18·4%, 13 486 of 73 197), and systemic (16·3%, 11 895 of 73 197) complications were the most frequent. Cardiovascular (12·3%, 8973 of 73 197), neurological (4·3%, 3115 of 73 197), and gastrointestinal or liver (0·8%, 7901 of 73 197) complications were also reported., Interpretation: Complications and worse functional outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are high, even in young, previously healthy individuals. Acute complications are associated with reduced ability to self-care at discharge, with neurological complications being associated with the worst functional outcomes. COVID-19 complications are likely to cause a substantial strain on health and social care in the coming years. These data will help in the design and provision of services aimed at the post-hospitalisation care of patients with COVID-19., Funding: National Institute for Health Research and the UK Medical Research Council., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ABD reports grants from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), during the conduct of the study; and grants from Wellcome Trust, outside the submitted work. PJMO reports institutional fees from consultancies from Janssen, Oxford Immunotech, Nestle, Pfizer, and the European Respiratory Society; grants from the MRC, MRC Global Challenge Research Fund, EU, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, MRC, GlaxoSmithKline, Wellcome Trust, and NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Respiratory Infection; and is NIHR senior investigator outside the submitted work. PJMO's role as president of the British Society for Immunology was unpaid but travel and accommodation at some meetings was provided by the Society.JKB reports grants from MRC UK. MGS reports grants from DHSC, NIHR UK, MRC UK, HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, and University of Liverpool, during the conduct of the study; and is chair of the Infectious Diseases Science Advisory Board and minority shareholder of Integrum Scientific, Greensboro NC, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Studies of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 have found varying mortality outcomes associated with underlying respiratory conditions and inhaled corticosteroid use. Using data from a national, multicentre, prospective cohort, we aimed to characterise people with COVID-19 admitted to hospital with underlying respiratory disease, assess the level of care received, measure in-hospital mortality, and examine the effect of inhaled corticosteroid use., Methods: We analysed data from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study. All patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 across England, Scotland, and Wales between Jan 17 and Aug 3, 2020, were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Patients with asthma, chronic pulmonary disease, or both, were identified and stratified by age (<16 years, 16-49 years, and ≥50 years). In-hospital mortality was measured by use of multilevel Cox proportional hazards, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medications (inhaled corticosteroids, short-acting β-agonists [SABAs], and long-acting β-agonists [LABAs]). Patients with asthma who were taking an inhaled corticosteroid plus LABA plus another maintenance asthma medication were considered to have severe asthma., Findings: 75 463 patients from 258 participating health-care facilities were included in this analysis: 860 patients younger than 16 years (74 [8·6%] with asthma), 8950 patients aged 16-49 years (1867 [20·9%] with asthma), and 65 653 patients aged 50 years and older (5918 [9·0%] with asthma, 10 266 [15·6%] with chronic pulmonary disease, and 2071 [3·2%] with both asthma and chronic pulmonary disease). Patients with asthma were significantly more likely than those without asthma to receive critical care (patients aged 16-49 years: adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·20 [95% CI 1·05-1·37]; p=0·0080; patients aged ≥50 years: adjusted OR 1·17 [1·08-1·27]; p<0·0001), and patients aged 50 years and older with chronic pulmonary disease (with or without asthma) were significantly less likely than those without a respiratory condition to receive critical care (adjusted OR 0·66 [0·60-0·72] for those without asthma and 0·74 [0·62-0·87] for those with asthma; p<0·0001 for both). In patients aged 16-49 years, only those with severe asthma had a significant increase in mortality compared to those with no asthma (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·17 [95% CI 0·73-1·86] for those on no asthma therapy, 0·99 [0·61-1·58] for those on SABAs only, 0·94 [0·62-1·43] for those on inhaled corticosteroids only, 1·02 [0·67-1·54] for those on inhaled corticosteroids plus LABAs, and 1·96 [1·25-3·08] for those with severe asthma). Among patients aged 50 years and older, those with chronic pulmonary disease had a significantly increased mortality risk, regardless of inhaled corticosteroid use, compared to patients without an underlying respiratory condition (adjusted HR 1·16 [95% CI 1·12-1·22] for those not on inhaled corticosteroids, and 1·10 [1·04-1·16] for those on inhaled corticosteroids; p<0·0001). Patients aged 50 years and older with severe asthma also had an increased mortality risk compared to those not on asthma therapy (adjusted HR 1·24 [95% CI 1·04-1·49]). In patients aged 50 years and older, inhaled corticosteroid use within 2 weeks of hospital admission was associated with decreased mortality in those with asthma, compared to those without an underlying respiratory condition (adjusted HR 0·86 [95% CI 0·80-0·92])., Interpretation: Underlying respiratory conditions are common in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Regardless of the severity of symptoms at admission and comorbidities, patients with asthma were more likely, and those with chronic pulmonary disease less likely, to receive critical care than patients without an underlying respiratory condition. In patients aged 16 years and older, severe asthma was associated with increased mortality compared to non-severe asthma. In patients aged 50 years and older, inhaled corticosteroid use in those with asthma was associated with lower mortality than in patients without an underlying respiratory condition; patients with chronic pulmonary disease had significantly increased mortality compared to those with no underlying respiratory condition, regardless of inhaled corticosteroid use. Our results suggest that the use of inhaled corticosteroids, within 2 weeks of admission, improves survival for patients aged 50 years and older with asthma, but not for those with chronic pulmonary disease., Funding: National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, NIHR Health Protection Research Units in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at the University of Liverpool and in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London in partnership with Public Health England., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 cases are urgently required to inform clinical management decisions., Methods: We developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital clinical deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) among consecutively hospitalised adults with highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who were prospectively recruited to the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study across 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Candidate predictors that were specified a priori were considered for inclusion in the model on the basis of previous prognostic scores and emerging literature describing routinely measured biomarkers associated with COVID-19 prognosis. We used internal-external cross-validation to evaluate discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across eight National Health Service (NHS) regions in the development cohort. We further validated the final model in held-out data from an additional NHS region (London)., Findings: 74 944 participants (recruited between Feb 6 and Aug 26, 2020) were included, of whom 31 924 (43·2%) of 73 948 with available outcomes met the composite clinical deterioration outcome. In internal-external cross-validation in the development cohort of 66 705 participants, the selected model (comprising 11 predictors routinely measured at the point of hospital admission) showed consistent discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across all eight NHS regions. In held-out data from London (n=8239), the model showed a similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0·77 [95% CI 0·76 to 0·78]; calibration-in-the-large 0·00 [-0·05 to 0·05]); calibration slope 0·96 [0·91 to 1·01]), and greater net benefit than any other reproducible prognostic model., Interpretation: The 4C Deterioration model has strong potential for clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration and inform decision making among adults hospitalised with COVID-19., Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many countries have acquired antiviral stockpiles for pandemic influenza mitigation and a significant part of the stockpile may be focussed towards community-based treatment., Methods: We developed a spreadsheet-based, decision tree model to assess outcomes averted and cost-effectiveness of antiviral treatment for outpatient use from the perspective of the healthcare payer in the UK. We defined five pandemic scenarios-one based on the 2009 A(H1N1) pandemic and four hypothetical scenarios varying in measures of transmissibility and severity., Results: Community-based antiviral treatment was estimated to avert 14-23% of hospitalizations in an overall population of 62.28 million. Higher proportions of averted outcomes were seen in patients with high-risk conditions, when compared to non-high-risk patients. We found that antiviral treatment was cost-saving across pandemic scenarios for high-risk population groups, and cost-saving for the overall population in higher severity influenza pandemics. Antiviral effectiveness had the greatest influence on both the number of hospitalizations averted and on cost-effectiveness., Conclusions: This analysis shows that across pandemic scenarios, antiviral treatment can be cost-saving for population groups at high risk of influenza-related complications., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health [2018]. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: During pandemics of novel influenza and outbreaks of emerging infections, surge in health-care demand can exceed capacity to provide normal standards of care. In such exceptional circumstances, triage tools may aid decisions in identifying people who are most likely to benefit from higher levels of care. Rapid research during the early phase of an outbreak should allow refinement and validation of triage tools so that in the event of surge a valid tool is available. The overarching study aim is to conduct a prospective near real-time analysis of structured clinical assessments of influenza-like illness (ILI) using primary care electronic health records (EHRs) during a pandemic. This abstract summarises the preparatory work, infrastructure development, user testing and proof-of-concept study., Objectives: (1) In preparation for conducting rapid research in the early phase of a future outbreak, to develop processes that allow near real-time analysis of general practitioner (GP) assessments of people presenting with ILI, management decisions and patient outcomes. (2) As proof of concept: conduct a pilot study evaluating the performance of the triage tools 'Community Assessment Tools' and 'Pandemic Medical Early Warning Score' to predict hospital admission and death in patients presenting with ILI to GPs during inter-pandemic winter seasons., Design: Prospective near real-time analysis of structured clinical assessments and anonymised linkage to data from EHRs. User experience was evaluated by semistructured interviews with participating GPs., Setting: Thirty GPs in England, Wales and Scotland, participating in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink., Participants: All people presenting with ILI., Interventions: None., Main Outcome Measures: Study outcome is proof of concept through demonstration of data capture and near real-time analysis. Primary patient outcomes were hospital admission within 24 hours and death (all causes) within 30 days of GP assessment. Secondary patient outcomes included GP decision to prescribe antibiotics and/or influenza-specific antiviral drugs and/or refer to hospital - if admitted, the need for higher levels of care and length of hospital stay., Data Sources: Linked anonymised data from a web-based structured clinical assessment and primary care EHRs., Results: In the 24 months to April 2015, data from 704 adult and 159 child consultations by 30 GPs were captured. GPs referred 11 (1.6%) adults and six (3.8%) children to hospital. There were 13 (1.8%) deaths of adults and two (1.3%) of children. There were too few outcome events to draw any conclusions regarding the performance of the triage tools. GP interviews showed that although there were some difficulties with installation, the web-based data collection tool was quick and easy to use. Some GPs felt that a minimal monetary incentive would promote participation., Conclusions: We have developed processes that allow capture and near real-time automated analysis of GP's clinical assessments and management decisions of people presenting with ILI., Future Work: We will develop processes to include other EHR systems, attempt linkage to data on influenza surveillance and maintain processes in readiness for a future outbreak., Study Registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN87130712 and UK Clinical Research Network 12827., Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. MGS is supported by the UK NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections.

Data were extracted from the case records of UK patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed influenza A(H1N1)pdm09. White and non-White patients were characterized by age, sex, socioeconomic status, pandemic wave and indicators of pre-morbid health status. Logistic regression examined differences by ethnicity in patient characteristics, care pathway and clinical outcomes; multivariable models controlled for potential confounders. Whites (n = 630) and non-Whites (n = 510) differed by age, socioeconomic status, pandemic wave of admission, pregnancy, recorded obesity, previous and current smoking, and presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. After adjustment for a priori confounders non-Whites were less likely to have received pre-admission antibiotics [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0·43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·28-0·68, P < 0·001) but more likely to receive antiviral drugs as in-patients (aOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·08-2·18, P = 0·018). However, there were no significant differences by ethnicity in delayed admission, severity at presentation for admission, or likelihood of severe outcome.

Introduction: The Influenza Clinical Information Network (FLU-CIN) was established to gather detailed clinical and epidemiological information about patients with laboratory confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 infection in UK hospitals. This report focuses on the clinical course and outcomes of infection in pregnancy., Methods: A standardised data extraction form was used to obtain detailed clinical information from hospital case notes and electronic records, for patients with PCR-confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 infection admitted to 13 sentinel hospitals in five clinical 'hubs' and a further 62 non-sentinel hospitals, between 11th May 2009 and 31st January 2010.Outcomes were compared for pregnant and non-pregnant women aged 15-44 years, using univariate and multivariable techniques., Results: Of the 395 women aged 15-44 years, 82 (21%) were pregnant; 73 (89%) in the second or third trimester. Pregnant women were significantly less likely to exhibit severe respiratory distress at initial assessment (OR = 0.49 (95% CI: 0.30-0.82)), require supplemental oxygen on admission (OR = 0.40 (95% CI: 0.20-0.80)), or have underlying co-morbidities (p-trend <0.001). However, they were equally likely to be admitted to high dependency (Level 2) or intensive care (Level 3) and/or to die, after adjustment for potential confounders (adj. OR = 0.93 (95% CI: 0.46-1.92). Of 11 pregnant women needing Level 2/3 care, 10 required mechanical ventilation and three died., Conclusions: Since the expected prevalence of pregnancy in the source population was 6%, our data suggest that pregnancy greatly increased the likelihood of hospital admission with A(H1N1)pdm09. Pregnant women were less likely than non-pregnant women to have respiratory distress on admission, but severe outcomes were equally likely in both groups.

In the 1997-98 academic year, we conducted a longitudinal study of meningococcal carriage and acquisition among first-year students at Nottingham University, Nottingham, United Kingdom. We examined the dynamics of long-term meningococcal carriage with detailed characterization of the isolates. Pharyngeal swabs were obtained from 2,453 first-year students at the start of the academic year (October), later on during the autumn term, and again in March. Swabs were immediately cultured on selective media, and meningococci were identified and serologically characterized. Nongroupable strains were genetically grouped using a PCR-based assay. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis was used to determine the link between sequential isolates. Of the carriers initially identified in October, 44.1% (98 of 222) were still positive later on in the autumn (November or December); 57.1% of these remained persistent carriers at 6 months. Of the index carriers who lost carriage during the autumn, 16% were recolonized at 6 months. Of 344 index noncarriers followed up, 22.1% acquired carriage during the autumn term and another 13.7% acquired carriage by March. Overall, 43.9% (397 of 904) of the isolates were noncapsulated (serologically nongroupable); by PCR-based genogrouping, a quarter of these belonged to the capsular groups B and C. The ratio of capsulated to noncapsulated forms for group B and C strains was 2.9 and 0.95, respectively. Sequential isolates of persistent carriers revealed that individuals may carry the same or entirely different organisms at different times. We identified three strains that clearly switched their capsular expression on and off at different times in vivo. One student developed invasive meningococcal disease after carrying the same organism for over 7 weeks. The study revealed a high rate of turnover of meningococcal carriage among students. Noncapsulated organisms are capable of switching their capsular expression on and off (both ways) in the nasopharynx, and group C strains are more likely to be noncapsulated than group B strains. Carriage of a particular meningococcal strain does not necessarily protect against colonization or invasion by a homologous or heterologous strain.