Search

Background The recombinant protein-based vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, demonstrated 89.7% efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United Kingdom. The protocol was amended to include a blinded crossover. Data to the end of the placebo-controlled phase are reported. Methods Adults aged 18–84 years received 2 doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) and were monitored for virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 (onset from 7 days after second vaccination). Participants who developed immunoglobulin G (IgG) against nucleocapsid protein but did not show symptomatic COVID-19 were considered asymptomatic. Secondary outcomes included anti-spike (S) IgG responses, wild-type virus neutralization, and T-cell responses. Results Of 15 185 participants, 13 989 remained in the per-protocol efficacy population (6989 NVX-CoV2373, 7000 placebo). At a maximum of 7.5 months (median, 4.5) postvaccination, there were 24 cases of COVID-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 134 cases among placebo recipients, a vaccine efficacy of 82.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.3%–88.8%). Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI, 17.9%–100.0%) against severe disease and 76.3% (95% CI, 57.4%–86.8%) against asymptomatic disease. High anti-S and neutralization responses to vaccination were evident, together with S-protein–specific induction of interferon-γ secretion in peripheral blood T cells. Incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest were similar between groups. Conclusions A 2-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred a high level of ongoing protection against asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 through >6 months postvaccination. A gradual decrease of protection suggests that a booster may be indicated. Clinical Trials Registration EudraCT, 2020-004123-16.

BackgroundThe recombinant protein-based vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, demonstrated 89.7% efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United Kingdom. The protocol was amended to include a blinded crossover. Data to the end of the placebo-controlled phase are reported.MethodsAdults aged 18–84 years received 2 doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) and were monitored for virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 (onset from 7 days after second vaccination). Participants who developed immunoglobulin G (IgG) against nucleocapsid protein but did not show symptomatic COVID-19 were considered asymptomatic. Secondary outcomes included anti-spike (S) IgG responses, wild-type virus neutralization, and T-cell responses.ResultsOf 15 185 participants, 13 989 remained in the per-protocol efficacy population (6989 NVX-CoV2373, 7000 placebo). At a maximum of 7.5 months (median, 4.5) postvaccination, there were 24 cases of COVID-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 134 cases among placebo recipients, a vaccine efficacy of 82.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.3%–88.8%). Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI, 17.9%–100.0%) against severe disease and 76.3% (95% CI, 57.4%–86.8%) against asymptomatic disease. High anti-S and neutralization responses to vaccination were evident, together with S-protein–specific induction of interferon-γ secretion in peripheral blood T cells. Incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest were similar between groups.ConclusionsA 2-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred a high level of ongoing protection against asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 through >6 months postvaccination. A gradual decrease of protection suggests that a booster may be indicated.

Background Priming COVID-19 vaccine schedules have been deployed at variable intervals globally, which might influence immune persistence and the relative importance of third-dose booster programmes. Here, we report exploratory analyses from the Com-COV trial, assessing the effect of 4-week versus 12-week priming intervals on reactogenicity and the persistence of immune response up to 6 months after homologous and heterologous priming schedules using the vaccines BNT162b2 (tozinameran, Pfizer/BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca). Methods Com-COV was a participant-masked, randomised immunogenicity trial. For these exploratory analyses, we used the trial's general cohort, in which adults aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned to four homologous and four heterologous vaccine schedules using BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with 4-week or 12-week priming intervals (eight groups in total). Immunogenicity analyses were done on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, comprising participants with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline or for the trial duration, to assess the effect of priming interval on humoral and cellular immune response 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, in addition to the effects on reactogenicity and safety. The Com-COV trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 69254139 (EudraCT 2020–005085–33). Findings Between Feb 11 and 26, 2021, 730 participants were randomly assigned in the general cohort, with 77–89 per group in the ITT analysis. At 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, the geometric mean concentration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG was significantly higher in the 12-week interval groups than in the 4-week groups for homologous schedules. In heterologous schedule groups, we observed a significant difference between intervals only for the BNT162b2–ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group at 28 days. Pseudotyped virus neutralisation titres were significantly higher in all 12-week interval groups versus 4-week groups, 28 days post-second dose, with geometric mean ratios of 1·4 (95% CI 1·1–1·8) for homologous BNT162b2, 1·5 (1·2–1·9) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19–BNT162b2, 1·6 (1·3–2·1) for BNT162b2–ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 2·4 (1·7–3·2) for homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. At 6 months post-second dose, anti-spike IgG geometric mean concentrations fell to 0·17–0·24 of the 28-day post-second dose value across all eight study groups, with only homologous BNT162b2 showing a slightly slower decay for the 12-week versus 4-week interval in the adjusted analysis. The rank order of schedules by humoral response was unaffected by interval, with homologous BNT162b2 remaining the most immunogenic by antibody response. T-cell responses were reduced in all 12-week priming intervals compared with their 4-week counterparts. 12-week schedules for homologous BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19–BNT162b2 were up to 80% less reactogenic than 4-week schedules. Interpretation These data support flexibility in priming interval in all studied COVID-19 vaccine schedules. Longer priming intervals might result in lower reactogenicity in schedules with BNT162b2 as a second dose and higher humoral immunogenicity in homologous schedules, but overall lower T-cell responses across all schedules. Future vaccines using these novel platforms might benefit from schedules with long intervals. Funding UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

ObjectiveTo understand community seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents. This is vital to understanding the susceptibility of this cohort to COVID-19 and to inform public health policy for disease control such as immunisation.DesignWe conducted a community-based cross-sectional seroprevalence study in participants aged 0–18 years old recruiting from seven regions in England between October 2019 and June 2021 and collecting extensive demographic and symptom data. Serum samples were tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins using Roche assays processed at UK Health Security Agency laboratories. Prevalence estimates were calculated for six time periods and were standardised by age group, ethnicity and National Health Service region.ResultsPost-first wave (June–August 2020), the (anti-spike IgG) adjusted seroprevalence was 5.2%, varying from 0.9% (participants 10–14 years old) to 9.5% (participants 5–9 years old). By April–June 2021, this had increased to 19.9%, varying from 13.9% (participants 0–4 years old) to 32.7% (participants 15–18 years old). Minority ethnic groups had higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity than white participants (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.0), after adjusting for sex, age, region, time period, deprivation and urban/rural geography. In children ConclusionsApproximately one-third of participants aged 15–18 years old had evidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 prior to the introduction of widespread vaccination. These data demonstrate that ethnic background is independently associated with risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children.Trial registration numberNCT04061382.

The safety of novel therapeutics and vaccines are typically assessed in early phase clinical trials involving “healthy volunteers.” Abnormalities in such individuals can be difficult to interpret and may indicate previously unrecognized medical conditions. The frequency of incidental findings (IFs) in healthy volunteers who attend for clinical trial screening is unclear. To assess this, we retrospectively analyzed data for 1838 “healthy volunteers” screened for enrolment in a UK multicenter, phase I/II severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus 2 (SARS‐COV‐2) vaccine trial. Participants were predominantly White (89.7%, 1640/1828) with a median age of 34 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 27–44). There were 27.7% of participants (510/1838) who had at least one IF detected. The likelihood of identifying evidence of a potential, new blood‐borne virus infection was low (1 in 238 participants) compared with identification of an elevated alanine transaminase (ALT; 1 in 17 participants). A large proportion of participants described social habits that could impact negatively on their health; 21% consumed alcohol in excess, 10% were current smokers, 11% described recreational drug use, and only 48% had body weight in the ideal range. Our data demonstrate that screening prior to enrollment in early phase clinical trials identifies a range of IFs, which should inform discussion during the consent process. Greater clarity is needed to ensure an appropriate balance is struck between early identification of medical problems and avoidance of exclusion of volunteers due to spurious or physiological abnormalities. Debate should inform the role of the trial physician in highlighting and advising about unhealthy social habits.

Background COVID-19 vaccine supply shortages are causing concerns about compromised immunity in some countries as the interval between the first and second dose becomes longer. Conversely, countries with no supply constraints are considering administering a third dose. We assessed the persistence of immunogenicity after a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), immunity after an extended interval (44–45 weeks) between the first and second dose, and response to a third dose as a booster given 28–38 weeks after the second dose. Methods In this substudy, volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in the phase 1/2 (COV001) controlled trial in the UK and had received either a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles were invited back for vaccination. Here we report the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a delayed second dose (44–45 weeks after first dose) or a third dose of the vaccine (28–38 weeks after second dose). Data from volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in either the phase 1/2 (COV001) or phase 2/3 (COV002), single-blinded, randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and who had previously received a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles are used for comparison purposes. COV001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and COV002 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and both are continuing but not recruiting. Findings Between March 11 and 21, 2021, 90 participants were enrolled in the third-dose boost substudy, of whom 80 (89%) were assessable for reactogenicity, 75 (83%) were assessable for evaluation of antibodies, and 15 (17%) were assessable for T-cells responses. The two-dose cohort comprised 321 participants who had reactogenicity data (with prime-boost interval of 8–12 weeks: 267 [83%] of 321; 15–25 weeks: 24 [7%]; or 44–45 weeks: 30 [9%]) and 261 who had immunogenicity data (interval of 8–12 weeks: 115 [44%] of 261; 15–25 weeks: 116 [44%]; and 44–45 weeks: 30 [11%]). 480 participants from the single-dose cohort were assessable for immunogenicity up to 44–45 weeks after vaccination. Antibody titres after a single dose measured approximately 320 days after vaccination remained higher than the titres measured at baseline (geometric mean titre of 66·00 ELISA units [EUs; 95% CI 47·83–91·08] vs 1·75 EUs [1·60–1·93]). 32 participants received a late second dose of vaccine 44–45 weeks after the first dose, of whom 30 were included in immunogenicity and reactogenicity analyses. Antibody titres were higher 28 days after vaccination in those with a longer interval between first and second dose than for those with a short interval (median total IgG titre: 923 EUs [IQR 525–1764] with an 8–12 week interval; 1860 EUs [917–4934] with a 15–25 week interval; and 3738 EUs [1824–6625] with a 44–45 week interval). Among participants who received a third dose of vaccine, antibody titres (measured in 73 [81%] participants for whom samples were available) were significantly higher 28 days after a third dose (median total IgG titre: 3746 EUs [IQR 2047–6420]) than 28 days after a second dose (median 1792 EUs [IQR 899–4634]; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·0043). T-cell responses were also boosted after a third dose (median response increased from 200 spot forming units [SFUs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs; IQR 127–389] immediately before the third dose to 399 SFUs per milion PBMCs [314–662] by day 28 after the third dose; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·012). Reactogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose was lower than reactogenicity after a first dose. Interpretation An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses. Funding UK Research and Innovation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, AstraZeneca, and Wellcome.

Maternal vaccination is an effective means of protecting pregnant women, their fetuses and infants from vaccine-preventable infections. Despite the availability of sufficient safety data to support the use of vaccines during pregnancy, maternal immunization remains an underutilized method of disease prevention, often due to concerns from both healthcare providers and pregnant women about vaccine safety. Such concerns have been reflected in the low uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine among pregnant women seen in many parts of the world, which is due to low vaccine confidence among pregnant women, uncertainty among healthcare professionals and poor access to COVID-19 vaccines. Here we present an update of the current recommendations for the use of vaccines during pregnancy, including the evidence supporting the use of novel vaccine platforms. We also provide an overview of the data supporting the use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy and an update of the status of vaccines that are currently under development for use in pregnant women.

Background Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer–BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. Methods Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. Findings Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. Interpretation Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. Funding UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.

SummaryBackgroundThe safety and immunogenicity profile of COVID-19 vaccines when administered concomitantly with seasonal influenza vaccines has not yet been reported.MethodsA sub-study on influenza vaccine co-administration was conducted as part of the phase 3 randomized trial of the safety and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373. The first ∼400 participants meeting main study entry criteria and with no contraindications to influenza vaccination were invited to join the sub-study. After randomization in a 1:1 ratio to receive NVX-CoV2373 (n=217) or placebo (n=214), sub-study participants received an age-appropriate, licensed, open-label influenza vaccine with dose 1 of NVX-CoV2373. Reactogenicity was evaluated via electronic diary for 7 days post-vaccination in addition to monitoring for unsolicited adverse events (AEs), medically-attended AEs (MAAEs), and serious AEs (SAEs). Influenza haemagglutination inhibition and SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG assays were performed. Vaccine efficacy against PCR-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 was assessed. Comparisons were made between sub-study and main study participants.FindingsSub-study participants were younger, more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than main study participants. Reactogenicity events more common in the co-administration group included tenderness (70.1% vs 57.6%) or pain (39.7% vs 29.3%) at injection site, fatigue (27.7% vs 19.4%), and muscle pain (28.3% vs 21.4%). Rates of unsolicited AEs, MAAEs, and SAEs were low and balanced between the two groups. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response, while a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. Vaccine efficacy in the sub-study was 87.5% (95% CI: -0.2, 98.4) while efficacy in the main study was 89.8% (95% CI: 79.7, 95.5).InterpretationThis is the first study to demonstrate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy profile of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines. The results suggest concomitant vaccination may be a viable immunisation strategy.FundingThis study was funded by Novavax, Inc.Research in ContextEvidence before this studyWe searched PubMed for research articles published from December 2019 until 1 April 2021 with no language restrictions for the terms “SARS-CoV-2”, “COVID-19”, “vaccine”, “co-administration”, and “immunogenicity”. There were no peer-reviewed publications describing the simultaneous use of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and another vaccine. Several vaccine manufacturers had recent publications on phase 3 trials results (Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology). Neither these publications nor their clinical trials’ protocols (when publicly available) described co-administration and they often had trial criteria specifically excluding those with recent or planned vaccination with any licenced vaccine near or at the time of any study injection.Added value of this studyImmune interference and safety are always a concern when two vaccines are administered at the same time. This is the first study to demonstrate the safety and immunogenicity profile and clinical vaccine efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with a seasonal influenza vaccine.Implications of all the available evidenceThis study provides much needed information to help guide national immunisation policy decision making on the critical issue of concomitant use of COVID-19 vaccines with influenza vaccines.

BackgroundCovid-19 vaccines are urgently needed, especially against emerging variants. NVX-CoV2373 is a recombinant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 rS) nanoparticle vaccine containing trimeric full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and Matrix-M adjuvant.MethodsA phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in adults 18-84 years old who received two intramuscular 5-µg doses, 21 days apart, of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) across 33 sites in the United Kingdom. The primary efficacy endpoint was virologically confirmed symptomatic Covid-19 with onset 7 days after second vaccination in serologically negative participants.ResultsA total of 15,187 participants were randomized, of whom 7569 received NVX-CoV2373 and 7570 received placebo; 27.2% were 65 years or older, 44.7% had comorbidities and 4.2% had baseline serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2. There were 10 cases of Covid-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 96 cases among placebo recipients, with symptom onset at least 7 days after second vaccination; NVX-CoV2373 was 89.7% (95% confidence interval, 80.2 to 94.6) effective in preventing Covid-19, with no hospitalizations or deaths reported. There were five cases of severe Covid-19, all in the placebo group. Post hoc analysis revealed efficacies of 96.4% (73.8 to 99.5) and 86.3% (71.3 to 93.5) against the prototype strain and B.1.1.7 variant, respectively. Vaccine efficacy was similar across subgroups, including participants with comorbidities and those ≥65 years old. Reactogenicity was generally mild and transient. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the two groups.ConclusionA two-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred 89.7% protection against a blend of prototype and variant Covid-19, demonstrated high efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant, and had a reassuring safety profile.(Funded by Novavax, Inc. EudraCT number, 2020-004123-16).

Background A new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7, emerged as the dominant cause of COVID-19 disease in the UK from November, 2020. We report a post-hoc analysis of the efficacy of the adenoviral vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), against this variant. Methods Volunteers (aged ≥18 years) who were enrolled in phase 2/3 vaccine efficacy studies in the UK, and who were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a meningococcal conjugate control (MenACWY) vaccine, provided upper airway swabs on a weekly basis and also if they developed symptoms of COVID-19 disease (a cough, a fever of 37·8°C or higher, shortness of breath, anosmia, or ageusia). Swabs were tested by nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2 and positive samples were sequenced through the COVID-19 Genomics UK consortium. Neutralising antibody responses were measured using a live-virus microneutralisation assay against the B.1.1.7 lineage and a canonical non-B.1.1.7 lineage (Victoria). The efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a NAAT positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to vaccine received. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 − relative risk (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vs MenACWY groups) derived from a robust Poisson regression model. This study is continuing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137. Findings Participants in efficacy cohorts were recruited between May 31 and Nov 13, 2020, and received booster doses between Aug 3 and Dec 30, 2020. Of 8534 participants in the primary efficacy cohort, 6636 (78%) were aged 18–55 years and 5065 (59%) were female. Between Oct 1, 2020, and Jan 14, 2021, 520 participants developed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 1466 NAAT positive nose and throat swabs were collected from these participants during the trial. Of these, 401 swabs from 311 participants were successfully sequenced. Laboratory virus neutralisation activity by vaccine-induced antibodies was lower against the B.1.1.7 variant than against the Victoria lineage (geometric mean ratio 8·9, 95% CI 7·2–11·0). Clinical vaccine efficacy against symptomatic NAAT positive infection was 70·4% (95% CI 43·6–84·5) for B.1.1.7 and 81·5% (67·9–89·4) for non-B.1.1.7 lineages. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed reduced neutralisation activity against the B.1.1.7 variant compared with a non-B.1.1.7 variant in vitro, but the vaccine showed efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2. Funding UK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Globally, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major cause of infant morbidity and mortality. Natural infection offers limited protection against reinfection. Passive immunization with RSV-specific antibody can protect infants against severe lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). This suggests that vaccine-induced antibody could benefit infants and therefore supports maternal vaccination as a potential strategy for protecting young infants. The duration of such protection will dictate the need and timing for additional infant vaccines which are under development. For high-risk groups of passive immunization with monoclonal antibodies continues to be standard approach. With novel monoclonal antibodies that have a longer half-life and lower cost the strategy may be extended to healthy infants.

Background Viral bronchiolitis is the leading cause of hospitalisation in infants less than a year old. The United Kingdom (UK) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a guideline for the management of viral bronchiolitis in June 2015. Objectives This study aimed to prospectively survey the management of viral bronchiolitis in hospital Trusts in the UK to provide a baseline of practice prior to the publication of the 2015 NICE bronchiolitis guideline against which future practice can be assessed. Study design An electronic, structured questionnaire was sent to hospital paediatricians in the UK prior to the publication of the NICE bronchiolitis guideline via the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health e-portfolio system to assess the quality of Trust’s viral bronchiolitis management guidelines. Results Paediatricians from 111 (65% of all) UK Trusts completed an electronic questionnaire. 91% of Trusts had a bronchiolitis guideline. Overall only 18% of Trusts would be fully compliant with the NICE guideline. Between 43–100% of Trusts would be compliant with different sections of the guideline. There was variation in hospital admission criteria with respect to the need for supplemental oxygen (oxygen saturations Conclusions There was wide variation in the management of infants with bronchiolitis in Trusts. Most bronchiolitic infants are not managed optimally in hospitals. Future guidelines should include advice on virus testing and isolation/cohorting.

© Copyright 2017, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2017. Viral bronchiolitis is the leading cause of hospitalization in infants in the United Kingdom (UK) with wide variation in rates of hospitalization in different geographical regions of the UK. A potential cause of these differences is variation in primary care management and referral to hospital. This study aimed to prospectively survey general practitioners (GPs) in the UK to provide a benchmark of practice against which future practice can be assessed. An electronic, structured questionnaire was sent to 1,001 geographically representative GPs in primary care centers in the UK, through the market research company MedeConnect, to assess their management of infants with viral bronchiolitis. We measured practice before the 2015 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) bronchiolitis guideline against the guideline, to obtain a benchmark of practice. We also used a multivariate analysis to assess GP factors associated with variation in management. Thirty-nine percent of GPs did not refer to any guideline to manage infants with bronchiolitis, 33% did not routinely measure oxygen saturations, 48% prescribed an "inappropriate" (evidence of no benefit) medication, and 62% did not give written guidance to parents. GP factors influencing management included the year the GP qualified, sex, region of practice, and working at a dispensing practice. Up to 75% of GPs' management did not conform to the newly published 2015 NICE bronchiolitis guideline before its publication. There was wide variation in the management of infants with viral bronchiolitis by UK GPs. Most infants with viral bronchiolitis are not managed optimally by GPs and multiple GP factors influenced this management.

Background: A 2-, 4-, and 12-month schedule of a novel 13-valent-pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13), containing serotype 1, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19A, 19F, and 23F polysaccharides individually conjugated to CRM197 was evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, controlled infant study. Methods: Two hundred eighty-six healthy infants received PCV13 or the 7-valent-pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) at 2, 4, and 12 months of age, alongside a serogroup C meningococcal (MenC) vaccine (2 and 4 months of age), DTaP-IPV-Hib (2, 3, and 4 months), and a Hib-MenC vaccine (12 months). Specific antibody responses were assessed at age 5, 12, and 13 months. Results: At 13 months of age, >97% of PCV13 recipients had pneumococcal serotype-specific serum IgG concentrations ?0.35 ?g/mL for each vaccine serotype except serotype 3 (88.2%), and at least 93% of PCV13 recipients had OPA titers ?1:8 for each serotype. At 5 months, 110/114 (96.5%) of PCV13 recipients and 100/102 (98.0%) of PCV7 recipients had serum anti-PRP (Hib) IgG concentration ?0.15 ?g/mL (difference, 1.5%; CI, ?7.1%–3.7%), while 119/120 (99.2%) and 117/118 (99.2%), respectively, had MenC serum bactericidal assay titers of ?1:8. All PCV13 recipients and 110/113 (97.3%) of PCV7 recipients had IgG concentrations against fimbrial agglutinogens of ?2.2 EU/mL; IgG concentrations for the remaining pertussis antigens were ?5 EU/mL for all participants. Local reactions and systemic events were similar in the PCV13 and PCV7 groups. Conclusions: A 2-, 4-, and 12-month course of PCV13 was immunogenic for all 13 vaccine serotypes and was well tolerated.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW Neonatal meningitis is an important cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, and although mortality has declined in developed countries over the last two decades, improvement in morbidity has been less evident. This review focuses on recent advances in the management of neonatal meningitis and its implications for improved outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS Recent surveillance studies of neonatal meningitis have provided important information regarding the pathogens causing meningitis, their antibiotic-susceptibility profiles and their outcomes. Data supporting the importance of early recognition of the signs of neonatal meningitis, the early diagnosis of the causative pathogen, early and aggressive fluid therapy and supportive care and on the effect of adjunctive therapies on outcome measures are all largely theoretical or derived from paediatric and adult sepsis studies. SUMMARY There is likely to be considerable scope for improving the outcome from neonatal meningitis but more studies are required to define key interventions and to demonstrate their effectiveness.

Immunisation is an extremely safe public health intervention that provides huge health benefits by decreasing morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases. However, because of its success the general public do not experience any of these diseases first hand and so it becomes increasingly difficult to convey the importance of continued immunisation. More recently attention has also focussed on adverse events following immunisation – real or perceived. Post-immunisation surveillance plays a key role in detecting possible adverse events but interpretation of these temporal associations may be complex and can be misleading. This can be problematic when trying to achieve optimal vaccine uptake rates as it becomes difficult for parents to differentiate between fact and fiction. Knowledge of vaccines, their mechanism of action and their potential adverse effects is crucial in providing clear advice to parents. This review will explore some of the more high profile adverse events following immunisation, such as neurological disorders and autoimmune disorders and also focus on vaccine safety in premature infants.

BACKGROUND: An association was previously established between facial nerve paralysis (Bell's palsy) and intranasal administration of an inactivated influenza virosome vaccine containing an enzymatically active Escherichia coli Heat Labile Toxin (LT) adjuvant. The individual component(s) responsible for paralysis were not identified, and the vaccine was withdrawn.\ud \ud METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Subjects participating in two contemporaneous non-randomized Phase 1 clinical trials of nasal subunit vaccines against Human Immunodeficiency Virus and tuberculosis, both of which employed an enzymatically inactive non-toxic mutant LT adjuvant (LTK63), underwent active follow-up for adverse events using diary-cards and clinical examination. Two healthy subjects experienced transient peripheral facial nerve palsies 44 and 60 days after passive nasal instillation of LTK63, possibly a result of retrograde axonal transport after neuronal ganglioside binding or an inflammatory immune response, but without exaggerated immune responses to LTK63. \ud \ud CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: While the unique anatomical predisposition of the facial nerve to compression suggests nasal delivery of neuronal-binding LT-derived adjuvants is inadvisable, their continued investigation as topical or mucosal adjuvants and antigens appears warranted on the basis of longstanding safety via oral, percutaneous, and other mucosal routes.