Search

Countries in Europe and around the world have taken varying approaches to their policies on COVID-19 vaccination for children. The low risk of severe illness from COVID-19 means that even small risks from vaccination warrant careful consideration. Vaccination appears to result in a decreased risk of severe illness including the paediatric multi-system inflammatory syndrome known to be associated with COVID-19. These risks have already decreased significantly with the emergence of the Omicron variant and its subvariants, and due to widespread population immunity through previous infection. There is a relatively high risk of myocarditis following second doses of mRNA vaccines in adolescent males, although the general course of this condition appears mild.   Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccination only provides a transient reduction in transmission. Currently, insufficient evidence exists to determine the impact of vaccination on post-acute COVID syndromes in children, which are uncommon. What is Known: • Vaccines against COVID-19 have significantly reduced morbidity and mortality around the world. • Whilst countries have universally recommended vaccines for adults and continue to recommend them for vulnerable populations, there has been more variability in recommendations for children. What is New: • In the setting of near universal existing immunity from infection, the majority of the initial benefit in protecting against severe illness has been eroded. • The risks of myocarditis following mRNA vaccination for children is low, but an important consideration given the modest benefits., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: Multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants have emerged over the COVID-19 pandemic. The implications for COVID-19 severity in children worldwide are unclear., Objective: To determine whether the dominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) were associated with differences in COVID-19 severity among hospitalized children., Design, Setting, and Participants: Clinical data from hospitalized children and adolescents (younger than 18 years) who were SARS-CoV-2 positive were obtained from 9 countries (Australia, Brazil, Italy, Portugal, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, UK, and the US) during 3 different time frames. Time frames 1 (T1), 2 (T2), and 3 (T3) were defined to represent periods of dominance by the ancestral virus, pre-Omicron VOCs, and Omicron, respectively. Age groups for analysis were younger than 6 months, 6 months to younger than 5 years, and 5 to younger than 18 years. Children with an incidental positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 were excluded., Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization during the stipulated time frame., Main Outcomes and Measures: The severity of disease was assessed by admission to intensive care unit (ICU), the need for ventilatory support, or oxygen therapy., Results: Among 31 785 hospitalized children and adolescents, the median age was 4 (IQR 1-12) years and 16 639 were male (52.3%). In children younger than 5 years, across successive SARS-CoV-2 waves, there was a reduction in ICU admission (T3 vs T1: risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42-0.75 [younger than 6 months]; RR, 0.61, 95% CI; 0.47-0.79 [6 months to younger than 5 years]), but not ventilatory support or oxygen therapy. In contrast, ICU admission (T3 vs T1: RR, 0.39, 95% CI, 0.32-0.48), ventilatory support (T3 vs T1: RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.27-0.51), and oxygen therapy (T3 vs T1: RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.32-0.70) decreased across SARS-CoV-2 waves in children 5 years to younger than 18 years old. The results were consistent when data were restricted to unvaccinated children., Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides valuable insights into the impact of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs on the severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized children across different age groups and countries, suggesting that while ICU admissions decreased across the pandemic in all age groups, ventilatory and oxygen support generally did not decrease over time in children aged younger than 5 years. These findings highlight the importance of considering different pediatric age groups when assessing disease severity in COVID-19.

Purpose of Review: To describe the current global burden of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants and its implications for morbidity, health resources and economic costs., Recent Findings: New prophylactic therapies are on the horizon for RSV in the form of long-acting monoclonal antibodies suitable for healthy infants and maternal immunizations., Summary: Despite being responsible for significant global infant morbidity and mortality, until recently there have been no effective therapeutics available for healthy infants to protect them from RSV. Several new drugs are likely to be available within the next few years which could help relieve a huge burden on healthcare systems over the coming winters., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

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).)

Objective: Febrile illnesses are a common cause of presentation in acute pediatrics, with biomarkers frequently used to help differentiate mild infections from serious bacterial infections (SBI). We aimed to see if a point of care test for procalcitonin could help to reduce antibiotic use and avoid unnecessary admission., Patients and Methods: A point of care procalcitonin machine which produces results within 20 minutes was introduced to two pediatric assessment units across both sites of a secondary-care hospital trust, alongside guidance for when tested would be appropriate. We performed a prospective, observational, pilot service evaluation, of all children tested during the study period of November 2018 to March 2019. We collected data at the time of testing, including the indication for testing and plan prior to testing, then retrospectively collected outcome data for children tested including diagnosis, treatment and whether the child was admitted to hospital., Results: 68 tests were performed over 5 months. There are differing denominators due to missing data. Children were predominantly male (40/68, 58.8%) and pre-school age (median age 2.9y, Q1-Q3 1.3-6.7). Severity of illness was low, with 7/54 (11.5%) triggering sepsis tools. The primary indication for testing was febrile illness with no source of infection and some concerning features (31/59, 52.5%). Following testing, 35/67 (52.5%) of patients were admitted and 31/67 (47.1%) had IV antibiotics. A low procalcitonin (<0.5 ng/L) was observed in 46/67 (69.1%) of patients, however 21/46 (45.7%) of these children were admitted and 16/46 (34.8%) were given IV antibiotics. Procalcitonin performed poorly at detecting SBIs in this cohort (result >0.5 ng/L for 1/5 SBIs)., Conclusion: There was no clear impact of point of care procalcitonin on admission or antibiotic prescribing in this small pilot study. Clinicians often tested for reasons outside the recommended scenarios and often treated "low risk" patients, as determined by low procalcitonin, with antibiotics. These effects may be due to low familiarity with procalcitonin as a biomarker., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest All authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the safety and optimal dose of a novel inactivated whole-virus adjuvanted vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: VLA2001., Methods: We conducted an open-label, dose-escalation study followed by a double-blind randomized trial using low, medium and high doses of VLA2001 (1:1:1). The primary safety outcome was the frequency and severity of solicited local and systemic reactions within 7 days after vaccination. The primary immunogenicity outcome was the geometric mean titre (GMT) of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 two weeks after the second vaccination. The study is registered as NCT04671017., Results: Between December 16, 2020, and June 3, 2021, 153 healthy adults aged 18-55 years were recruited in the UK. Overall, 81.7% of the participants reported a solicited AE, with injection site tenderness (58.2%) and headache (46.4%) being the most frequent. Only 2 participants reported a severe solicited event. Up to day 106, 131 (85.6%) participants had reported any AE. All observed incidents were transient and non-life threatening in nature. Immunogenicity measured at 2 weeks after completion of the two-dose priming schedule, showed significantly higher GMTs of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titres in the highest dose group (GMT 545.6; 95% CI: 428.1, 695.4) which were similar to a panel of convalescent sera (GMT 526.9; 95% CI: 336.5, 825.1). Seroconversion rates of neutralizing antibodies were also significantly higher in the high-dose group (>90%) compared to the other dose groups. In the high dose group, antigen-specific IFN-γ expressing T-cells reactive against the S, M and N proteins were observed in 76, 36 and 49%, respectively., Conclusions: VLA2001 was well tolerated in all tested dose groups, and no safety signal of concern was identified. The highest dose group showed statistically significantly stronger immunogenicity with similar tolerability and safety, and was selected for phase 3 clinical development., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and immunization and chair of the WHO European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on immunization. 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. CTA, KD, SEL, RH, IC, BQ, and JCJ are employees of Valneva Austria GmbH., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19., Methods: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 μg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 μg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6-77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3-214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030-27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996-43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41-1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996-30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826-64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90-2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37-14·32) and 15·90 (12·92-19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24-16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90-9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group)., Interpretation: Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose., Funding: UK Vaccine Task Force 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, and receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator or consults on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva, and receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering the use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and could 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, and Cipla & 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, and 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, and receives no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England, until March 31, 2022. MR has provided post-marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, for which a cost recovery 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, and has received no personal financial payment for this 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.)

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: The COVID-19 pandemic is the biggest worldwide health challenge in this century. Research concerning the role of children in the spread of SARS-CoV-2, and investigating the clinical effects of infection in children, has been vital. This paper describes the publication trend for pertinent scientific literature relating to COVID-19 in children during the first 6 months of the pandemic., Methods: A comprehensive search of preprint and published literature was conducted daily across four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Ovid-Embase and MedRXiv) between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2020. Titles and abstracts were screened against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria., Findings: Over the study period, a total of 45 453 papers were retrieved, of which 476 met our inclusion criteria. The cumulative number of children described in included publications totalled (at most) 41 396. The median number of children per paper was 6 (IQR 1-33). Nearly one-third of papers (30.2%) reported on a single child, and a further 28.3% reported on between 1 and 9 children. Half of all the publications originated from Asia., Interpretation: Our prospective bibliographic analysis of paediatric COVID-19 publications demonstrated a steady increase in the number of papers over time. Understanding and policy evolved with new information that was gathered over the course of the study period. However, over half of publications were individual case reports or small case series, which may have had a limited contribution to advancement of knowledge. During a pandemic, literature should be interpreted with great caution, and clinical/policy decisions should be continually reviewed in light of emerging evidence., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The current methods for diagnosis of acute and chronic infections are complex and skill-intensive. For complex clinical biofilm infections, it can take days from collecting and processing a patient's sample to achieving a result. These aspects place a significant burden on healthcare providers, delay treatment, and can lead to adverse patient outcomes. We report the development and application of a novel multi-excitation Raman spectroscopy-based methodology for the label-free and non-invasive detection of microbial pathogens that can be used with unprocessed clinical samples directly and provide rapid data to inform diagnosis by a medical professional. The method relies on the differential excitation of non-resonant and resonant molecular components in bacterial cells to enhance the molecular finger-printing capability to obtain strain-level distinction in bacterial species. Here, we use this strategy to detect and characterize the respiratory pathogens Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus as typical infectious agents associated with cystic fibrosis. Planktonic specimens were analyzed both in isolation and in artificial sputum media. The resonance Raman components, excited at different wavelengths, were characterized as carotenoids and porphyrins. By combining the more informative multi-excitation Raman spectra with multivariate analysis (support vector machine) the accuracy was found to be 99.75% for both species (across all strains), including 100% accuracy for drug-sensitive and drug-resistant S. aureus . The results demonstrate that our methodology based on multi-excitation Raman spectroscopy can underpin the development of a powerful platform for the rapid and reagentless detection of clinical pathogens to support diagnosis by a medical expert, in this case relevant to cystic fibrosis. Such a platform could provide translatable diagnostic solutions in a variety of disease areas and also be utilized for the rapid detection of anti-microbial resistance.

Background: Older adults (aged ≥70 years) are at increased risk of severe disease and death if they develop COVID-19 and are therefore a priority for immunisation should an efficacious vaccine be developed. Immunogenicity of vaccines is often worse in older adults as a result of immunosenescence. We have reported the immunogenicity of a novel chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), in young adults, and now describe the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine in a wider range of participants, including adults aged 70 years and older., Methods: In this report of the phase 2 component of a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial (COV002), healthy adults aged 18 years and older were enrolled at two UK clinical research facilities, in an age-escalation manner, into 18-55 years, 56-69 years, and 70 years and older immunogenicity subgroups. Participants were eligible if they did not have severe or uncontrolled medical comorbidities or a high frailty score (if aged ≥65 years). First, participants were recruited to a low-dose cohort, and within each age group, participants were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2·2 × 10 10 virus particles) or a control vaccine, MenACWY, using block randomisation and stratified by age and dose group and study site, using the following ratios: in the 18-55 years group, 1:1 to either two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY; in the 56-69 years group, 3:1:3:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY; and in the 70 years and older, 5:1:5:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY. Prime-booster regimens were given 28 days apart. Participants were then recruited to the standard-dose cohort (3·5-6·5 × 10 10 virus particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the same randomisation procedures were followed, except the 18-55 years group was assigned in a 5:1 ratio to two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY. Participants and investigators, but not staff administering the vaccine, were masked to vaccine allocation. The specific objectives of this report were to assess the safety and humoral and cellular immunogenicity of a single-dose and two-dose schedule in adults older than 55 years. Humoral responses at baseline and after each vaccination until 1 year after the booster were assessed using an in-house standardised ELISA, a multiplex immunoassay, and a live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) microneutralisation assay (MNA 80 ). Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The coprimary outcomes of the trial were efficacy, as measured by the number of cases of symptomatic, virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137., Findings: Between May 30 and Aug 8, 2020, 560 participants were enrolled: 160 aged 18-55 years (100 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 60 assigned to MenACWY), 160 aged 56-69 years (120 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY), and 240 aged 70 years and older (200 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY). Seven participants did not receive the boost dose of their assigned two-dose regimen, one participant received the incorrect vaccine, and three were excluded from immunogenicity analyses due to incorrectly labelled samples. 280 (50%) of 552 analysable participants were female. Local and systemic reactions were more common in participants given ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those given the control vaccine, and similar in nature to those previously reported (injection-site pain, feeling feverish, muscle ache, headache), but were less common in older adults (aged ≥56 years) than younger adults. In those receiving two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, after the prime vaccination local reactions were reported in 43 (88%) of 49 participants in the 18-55 years group, 22 (73%) of 30 in the 56-69 years group, and 30 (61%) of 49 in the 70 years and older group, and systemic reactions in 42 (86%) participants in the 18-55 years group, 23 (77%) in the 56-69 years group, and 32 (65%) in the 70 years and older group. As of Oct 26, 2020, 13 serious adverse events occurred during the study period, none of which were considered to be related to either study vaccine. In participants who received two doses of vaccine, median anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses 28 days after the boost dose were similar across the three age cohorts (standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 20 713 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [IQR 13 898-33 550], n=39; 56-69 years, 16 170 AU/mL [10 233-40 353], n=26; and ≥70 years 17 561 AU/mL [9705-37 796], n=47; p=0·68). Neutralising antibody titres after a boost dose were similar across all age groups (median MNA 80 at day 42 in the standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 193 [IQR 113-238], n=39; 56-69 years, 144 [119-347], n=20; and ≥70 years, 161 [73-323], n=47; p=0·40). By 14 days after the boost dose, 208 (>99%) of 209 boosted participants had neutralising antibody responses. T-cell responses peaked at day 14 after a single standard dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (18-55 years: median 1187 spot-forming cells [SFCs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [IQR 841-2428], n=24; 56-69 years: 797 SFCs [383-1817], n=29; and ≥70 years: 977 SFCs [458-1914], n=48)., Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities., Funding: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes 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., (Copyright © 2020 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.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Purpose of Review: SARS-CoV-2 infection in children has been less well characterized than in adults, primarily due to a significantly milder clinical phenotype meaning many cases have gone undocumented by health professionals or researchers. This review outlines the current evidence of the epidemiology of infection in children, the clinical manifestations of disease, the role of children in transmission of the virus and the recently described hyperinflammatory syndrome observed later during the first phase of the pandemic., Recent Findings: International seroprevalence studies have found younger children to have lower prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, indicating they have not been infected as much as adults. This may be due to shielding by school closures, or by a reduced susceptibility to infection, as indicated by a significantly lower attack rate in children than adults in household contact tracing studies. The most well recognized symptoms in adults of cough, fever, anosmia and ageusia are less frequent in children, who may often present with mild and nonspecific symptoms, or with gastrointestinal symptoms alone. Risk factors for severe disease in children include chronic lung, cardiac or neurological disease, and malignancy. However, the absolute risk still appears very low for these cohorts. A new hyperinflammatory syndrome has emerged with an apparent immune cause., Summary: Important questions remain unanswered regarding why children have mild disease compared with adults; how children of different ages contribute to asymptomatic community transmission of the virus; and the pathophysiology of and most appropriate investigation and treatment strategies for the novel hyperinflammatory syndrome.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Introduction: Idiopathic facial nerve palsy (FNP) is an uncommon but important presentation in children, with Lyme disease known to be a common cause. The UK county of Hampshire is a high incidence area of Lyme disease. We conducted a retrospective review of the investigation and management of paediatric FNP at a large University hospital, including serologic testing and treatment of Lyme disease., Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of children under 18 presenting between January 1st , 2010 and December 31st , 2017 with a diagnosis of FNP. Patients with clear non-Lyme aetiology at presentation were excluded. Data was collected on demographics, initial presentation, investigations including Lyme serology, and management., Results: A total of 93 children were identified, with an even proportion of male to female and median age 9.3 years (IQR 4.6-12 years). A history of rash was present in 5.4%, tick bite in 14% and recent travel to, or residence in the New Forest in 22.6%. Lyme serology was performed in 81.7% of patients, of which 29% were positive. Antibiotics were prescribed for 73.1% of patients, oral steroids for 44% and aciclovir for 17.2%., Conclusion: Lyme disease is a significant cause of FNP in this endemic area of the UK, and there was a large degree of variability in management prior to national guideline publication. Areas with endemic Lyme disease should consider introducing local guidelines supporting routine investigation and management for FNP, including empiric treatment for Lyme disease in accordance with NICE guidelines to improve care and reduce variability., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is being recognized as a priority by healthcare organizations across the world. However, many children are managed on IV antimicrobials in hospital with very little consideration of antimicrobial stewardship issues., Objectives: A nurse-led paediatric ambulatory outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) service, managing children with common infections being ambulated on short courses of IV antimicrobials, was introduced within Southampton Children's Hospital in January 2018. We evaluated the impact of this service in terms of the quality of antimicrobial prescribing and timing of ambulation in children presenting with common infections., Methods: All cases managed within the service were reviewed in two separate 2 month time periods: prior to introduction of the service (September-October 2016) and then prospectively after its introduction (September-October 2018)., Results: A total of 96% of IV antibiotic management decisions at 48 h were deemed appropriate in 2018, compared with 75% in 2016. A total of 64% of patients were ambulated on IV antibiotics at some point during their treatment course in 2018, compared with 19% in 2016. However, a significant proportion of antimicrobial decisions made at the point of presentation to hospital remained suboptimal in 2018., Conclusions: Children are commonly managed with IV antibiotics in hospital. We demonstrate marked improvements in appropriate antimicrobial use through the introduction of a nurse-led ambulatory OPAT service. In addition, such a service can promote a greater proportion of children being ambulated from hospital, freeing up valuable inpatient beds and potentially delivering cost savings that can be used to fund such services., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.)

Purpose of Review: Biofilm-associated infections cause difficulties in the management of childhood chronic infections and other diseases, due to the invasive nature of interventions which are often necessary for definitive management. Despite their importance, there are challenges in diagnosing biofilm infections and gaps in clinicians' understanding regarding the significance of biofilms., Recent Findings: Many chronic infections associated with biofilms remain difficult or impossible to eradicate with conventional therapy. Surgical intervention, implant removal or long-term intermittent or suppressive antimicrobial therapy may be required. There are still significant challenges in detecting biofilms which presents a barrier in clinical practice and research. Novel therapies to disrupt biofilms are currently under investigation, which may help reduce the impact of antimicrobial resistance., Summary: Biofilm-associated infection should be considered wherever there is clinical concern for an infection affecting prosthetic material, where there is a predisposing condition such as suppurative lung disease; or in the setting of chronic or relapsing infections which may be culture negative. New diagnostic methods for detecting biofilms are a research priority for both clinical diagnosis and the ability to conduct high quality clinical trials of novel antibiofilm interventions.

Background: Pediatric Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is one of the leading causes of community-acquired blood-stream infection in the developed world; however, our understanding of management practices by treating clinicians is limited. Methods: The authors designed a web-based clinician survey with support from the Australian and New Zealand Pediatric Infectious Diseases group, of the Australasian Society of Infectious Diseases. Clinicians were presented with three pediatric cases of varying severity. Antibiotic choice, durations of intravenous and oral therapy and research priorities for pediatric S. aureus bacteraemia trials were gauged. Results and Conclusion: Large variation in antibiotic prescribing amongst clinicians is demonstrated and increased, corresponding with escalating case complexity and persisting MRSA bacteraemia. Most clinicians chose defining optimal duration of therapy for S. aureus bacteraemia as their top clinical trial priority. These findings highlight the importance of prioritizing pediatric S. aureus bacteraemia clinical trials, to inform guidelines and best practice management.

Background: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) causes considerable morbidity and mortality in children. Despite this, its epidemiology and risk factors are poorly understood, with minimal paediatric clinical trial data available to guide clinicians in management. We conducted a pilot study to characterise SAB and validate a severity classification for use in future clinical trials., Methods: Patients with SAB were prospectively identified at Princess Margaret Hospital for Children (Perth, Western Australia) from May 2011 to December 2013. Retrospective data were collected from clinical and laboratory records. Cases were classified based on a priori defined criteria as simple (single or contiguous, peripheral site focus) or complex (multi-site, deep tissue, no focus or sepsis) and tested against risk factors and markers of severity of infection., Results: There were 49 cases of SAB (median age 7.7 years), with classification as simple (n = 30, 61%) and complex (n = 19, 39%) respectively. There were no deaths or relapses in our cohort. Only 10% of isolates were methicillin resistant S. aureus (MRSA), and none of these were healthcare-associated. Age, gender, Indigenous status, MRSA and healthcare-associated infections were not predictive of complex infection. Pre-existing malignancy was a risk factor for complex infection (p = 0.02). Complex infections were associated with a higher median maximum C reactive protein (216 mg/L vs 50 mg/L, p = < 0.001), longer median length of stay (42 vs 10 days, p = < 0.001) and longer duration of antibiotic therapy (43 vs 34 days, p = 0.03)., Discussion: This is the first attempt to categorise paediatric SAB as simple versus complex, to guide clinicians in decision making., Conclusions: There is a wide spectrum of disease severity in paediatric SAB, with maximum CRP, length of stay, and duration of therapy greater in those with complex disease. Distinct cohorts with simple and complex courses which may be a target for future clinical trials have been described.