Search

Background: The impact of neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI) treatment on clinical outcomes of public health importance during the 2009-2010 pandemic has not been firmly established.Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching 11 databases (2009 through April 2012) for relevant studies. We used standard methods conforming to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random effects models.Results: Regarding mortality we observed a nonsignificant reduction associated with NAI treatment (at any time) versus none (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, .51-1.01]). However we observed significant reductions for early treatment (≤48 hours after symptom onset) versus late (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, .27-.53]) and for early treatment versus none (OR, 0.35 [95% CI, .18-.71]). NAI treatment (at any time) versus none was associated with an elevated risk of severe outcome (OR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.22-2.54]), but early versus late treatment reduced the likelihood (OR, 0.41 [95% CI, .30-.56]).Conclusions: During the 2009-2010 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, early initiation of NAI treatment reduced the likelihood of severe outcomes compared with late or no treatment.Prospero Registration: CRD42011001273. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although generally mild, the 2009-2010 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic caused two major surges in hospital admissions in the UK. The characteristics of patients admitted during successive waves are described.Methods: Data were systematically obtained on 1520 patients admitted to 75 UK hospitals between May 2009 and January 2010. Multivariable analyses identified factors predictive of severe outcome.Results: Patients aged 5-54 years were over-represented compared with winter seasonal admissions for acute respiratory infection, as were non-white ethnic groups (first wave only). In the second wave patients were less likely to be school age than in the first wave, but their condition was more likely to be severe on presentation to hospital and they were more likely to have delayed admission. Overall, 45% had comorbid conditions, 16.5% required high dependency (level 2) or critical (level 3) care and 5.3% died. As in 1918-1919, the likelihood of severe outcome by age followed a W-shaped distribution. Pre-admission antiviral drug use decreased from 13.3% to 10% between the first and second waves (p=0.048), while antibiotic prescribing increased from 13.6% to 21.6% (p<0.001). Independent predictors of severe outcome were age 55-64 years, chronic lung disease (non-asthma, non-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), neurological disease, recorded obesity, delayed admission (≥5 days after illness onset), pneumonia, C-reactive protein ≥100 mg/litre, and the need for supplemental oxygen or intravenous fluid replacement on admission.Conclusions: There were demographic, ethnic and clinical differences between patients admitted with pandemic H1N1 infection and those hospitalised during seasonal influenza activity. Despite national policies favouring use of antiviral drugs, few patients received these before admission and many were given antibiotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Kingdom implemented a containment strategy for pandemic (H1N1) 2009 through administering antiviral agents (AVs) to patients and their close contacts. This observational household cohort study describes the effect of AVs on household transmission. We followed 285 confirmed primary cases in 259 households with 761 contacts. At 2 weeks, the confirmed secondary attack rate (SAR) was 8.1% (62/761) and significantly higher in persons <16 years of age than in those >50 years of age (18.9% vs. 1.2%, p<0.001). Early (<48 hours) treatment of primary case-patients reduced SAR (4.5% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.003). The SAR in child contacts was 33.3% (10/30) when the primary contact was a woman and 2.9% (1/34) when the primary contact was a man (p = 0.010). Of 53 confirmed secondary case-patients, 45 had not received AV prophylaxis. The effectiveness of AV prophylaxis in preventing infection was 92%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who are not transported to hospital after an emergency (999) call to the East Midlands Ambulance Service, the reason for non-transportation, and the priority assigned when the ambulance is dispatched.Methods: The first 500 consecutive non-transported patients from 1 March 2000 were identified from the ambulance service command and control data. Epidemiological and clinical data were then obtained from the patient report form completed by the attending ambulance crew and compared with the initial priority dispatch (AMPDS) code that determined the urgency of the ambulance response.Results: Data were obtained for 498 patients. Twenty six per cent of these calls were assigned an AMPDS delta code (the most urgent category) at the time the call was received. Falls accounted for 34% of all non-transported calls. This group of patients were predominantly elderly people (over 70 years old) and the majority (89%) were identified as less urgent (coded AMPDS alpha or bravo) at telephone triage. The mean time that an ambulance was committed to each non-transported call was 34 minutes.Conclusions: This study shows that falls in elderly people account for a significant proportion of non-transported 999 calls and are often assigned a low priority when the call is first received. There could be major gains if some of these patients could be triaged to an alternative response, both in terms of increasing the ability of the ambulance service to respond faster to clinically more urgent calls and improving the cost effectiveness of the health service. The AMPDS priority dispatch system has been shown to be sensitive but this study suggests that its specificity may be poor, resulting in rapid responses to relatively minor problems. More research is required to determine whether AMPDS prioritisation can reliably and safely identify 999 calls where an alternative to an emergency ambulance would be a more appropriate response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective antigen-sparing vaccines are needed to confront pandemic influenza. Whole-virion and oil-in-water adjuvanted vaccines are the most effective formulations against H5N1 avian influenza. We assessed the safety and immunogenicity in adults in the UK of pandemic H1N1 whole-virion vaccine and oil-in-water adjuvanted vaccine purchased by the UK government in 2009.Methods: In our randomised, observer-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial, healthy adults aged 18-44 years, 45-64 years, and 65 years and older (from Oct 19, to Nov 12, 2009) received two doses of vaccine given 21 days apart: either 7·5 μg of haemagglutinin formulated as whole-virion vaccine, or 3·75 μg of haemagglutinin formulated as split-virion vaccine with AS03(A) oil-in-water adjuvant. Assignment was by a computer-generated code, with random permuted blocks of two, four, and six. All participants and investigators were unaware of vaccine assignments. The trial was done at three hospitals in the UK. We measured antibody titres with a haemagglutination-inhibition assay at baseline; 7, 14, and 21 days after each vaccination; and at 6 months after the first dose. Primary outcome was vaccine immunogenicity of the full analysis set by the EU Committee of Human Medicinal Products licensing criteria. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN92328241.Findings: At day 0, baseline antibody (titre ≥1/8) was detected in 44 (13%) of 347 participants. Sera from 95% to 98% of participants were assessed for immunogenicity on days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42, and at 6 months. On day 21 after one dose of adjuvanted AS03(A) or whole-virion vaccine, 63 (94%, 95 CI 85·4-98·4) of 67 and 50 (71%, 59·4-81·6) of 70 participants aged 18-44 years, 51 (77%, 65·3-86·7) of 66 and 26 (39%, 27·1-51·5) of 67 aged 45-64 years, and 19 (51%, 34·4-68·1) of 37 and 11 (32%, 17·4-50·5) of 34 aged 65 years or older had titres of 1:40 or greater. On day 42 (21 days after the second dose), 64 (100%, 94·4-100) of 64 and 49 (73%, 60·9-83·2) of 67 participants aged 18-44 years, 59 (91%, 81·0-96·5) of 65 and 29 (43·9%, 31·7-56·7) of 66 aged 45-64 years, and 28 (76%, 58·8-88·2) of 37 and 12 (36%, 20·4-54·9) of 33 aged 65 years or older had titres of 1/40 or greater. At 6 months, 62 (98%, 91·5-100) of 63 and 54 (78%, 66·7-87·3) of 69 participants aged 18-44 years, 54 (82%, 70·4-90·2) of 66 and 37 (55%, 42·6-67·4) of 67 aged 45-64 years, and 21 (57%, 39·5-72·9) of 37 and 10 (29%, 15·1-47·5) of 34 aged 65 years or older had titres of 1/40 or greater. There were no vaccine-related serious adverse events. Whole-virion vaccine was associated with fewer local and systemic reactions than adjuvanted vaccine.Interpretation: AS03(A)-adjuvanted vaccine was more immunogenic against pandemic influenza A H1N1 virus than whole-virion vaccine and offers greater antigen-sparing capacity. A two-dose strategy should be considered for older people.Funding: Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation., Methods: This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (<50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0-10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation., Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]>0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference -2·1% [-2·9% to -1·5%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: -2·5% [-3·3% to -1·6%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)>0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)>0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·4% [-2·3% to -0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: -0·5% [-1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up., Interpretation: In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat., Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England from Oct 1, 2017, to March 31, 2022. On June 15, 2023, JSN-V-T completed one 3-h paid consultancy assignment for Merck Sharp & Dohme on a subject unrelated to COVID-19, and has given two paid lectures for Gilead who have manufactured COVID-19 treatments in 2022–23, and one paid lecture for AstraZeneca in 2022, who manufacture COVID-19 vaccines. JSN-V-T has consulted occasionally for Moderna (May 1, 2023 onwards) who manufacture COVID-19 vaccines. DML has received personal fees from Gilead for an educational video and from Merck for a roundtable discussion, speaker fees from Biotest, Takeda, and Astra Zeneca, and support to attend a conference from Octapharma. DML holds research grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Bristol Myers Squibb, has received consultancy fees from GlaxoSmithKline paid to his institution, all outside the current work, and reports giving lectures for Biotest, Takeda, and AstraZeneca. JFS has participated in a Data and Safety Monitoring Committee for the sotrovimab paediatric programme for GlaxoSmithKline (fee paid to the institution). JB reports being the Principle Investigator on The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency commissioned study with GlaxoSmithKline to look at the evolution of variants in sotrovimab treated patients, and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, hVIVO, Moderna, and Symbios (donated to UCL). SK has been a speaker for Pfizer and ViiV Healthcare. KH reports a grant to Cardiff University (via University of Oxford), and was on the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment General Committee and Health Technology Assessment Funding Strategy Group until November, 2022, and is currently Deputy Chair of the Research Professors panel. BRS reports consulting fees were paid to his former employer (Berry Consultants) for tiral design and implementation. NPBT reports being on a single advisory board in July, 2021, with Merck & Co. OvH reports consulting fees from MindGap. AU reports honoria from Merck & Co, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Astra Zeneca in relation to this disease area and manuscript. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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

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

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

Objective: The uptake and safety of pneumococcal vaccination in people with immune mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) is poorly understood. We investigated the UK wide pneumococcal vaccine uptake in adults with IMIDs and explored the association between vaccination and IMID flare., Methods: Adults with IMIDs diagnosed on or before 01/09/2018, prescribed steroid-sparing drugs within the last 12 months and contributing data to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold were included. Vaccine uptake was assessed using a cross-sectional study design. Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis investigated the association between pneumococcal vaccination and IMID flare. The SCCS observation period was up-to six-month before and after pneumococcal vaccination. This was partitioned into a 14-day pre-vaccination induction, 90-days post-vaccination exposed, and the remaining unexposed periods., Results: We included 32 277 patients, 14 151 with RA, 13 631 with IBD, 3,804 with axial spondyloarthritis and 691 with SLE. Overall, 57% were vaccinated against pneumococcus. Vaccine uptake was lower in those younger than 45 years (32%), with IBD (42%), and without additional indication(s) for vaccination (46%). In the vaccine-safety study, data for 1,067, 935, and 451vaccinated patients with primary-care consultations for joint pain, AIRD flare and IBD flare respectively were included. Vaccination against pneumococcal pneumonia was not associated with primary-care consultations for joint pain, AIRD flare and IBD flare in the exposed period with incidence rate ratios (95% Confidence Interval) 0.95 (0.83-1.09), 1.05 (0.92-1.19), and 0.83 (0.65-1.06) respectively., Conclusion: Uptake of pneumococcal vaccination in UK patients with IMIDs was suboptimal. Vaccination against pneumococcal disease was not associated with IMID flare., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Methotrexate is the first-line treatment for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and reduces vaccine-induced immunity. We evaluated if a 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment immediately after COVID-19 booster vaccination improved antibody response against the S1 receptor binding domain (S1-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation compared with uninterrupted treatment in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases., Method: We did a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, superiority trial in secondary-care rheumatology and dermatology clinics in 26 hospitals in the UK. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases taking methotrexate (≤25 mg per week) for at least 3 months, who had received two primary vaccine doses from the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralised validated computer program, to temporarily suspend methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks immediately after COVID-19 booster vaccination or continue treatment as usual. The primary outcome was S1-RBD antibody titres 4 weeks after COVID-19 booster vaccination and was assessed masked to group assignment. All randomly assigned patients were included in primary and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN11442263; following a pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was stopped early., Finding: Between Sept 30, 2021, and March 7, 2022, we screened 685 individuals, of whom 383 were randomly assigned: to either suspend methotrexate (n=191; mean age 58·8 years [SD 12·5], 118 [62%] women and 73 [38%] men) or to continue methotrexate (n=192; mean age 59·3 years [11·9], 117 [61%] women and 75 [39%] men). At 4 weeks, the geometric mean S1-RBD antibody titre was 25 413 U/mL (95% CI 22 227-29 056) in the suspend methotrexate group and 12 326 U/mL (10 538-14 418) in the continue methotrexate group with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 2·08 (95% CI 1·59-2·70; p<0·0001). No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred., Interpretation: 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases enhanced antibody responses after COVID-19 booster vaccination that were sustained at 12 weeks and 26 weeks. There was a temporary increase in inflammatory disease flares, mostly self-managed. The choice to suspend methotrexate should be individualised based on disease status and vulnerability to severe outcomes from COVID-19., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The institutions of the authors received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)–MRC–Efficacy Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (award number NIHR 134607) towards conducting this research. LCC is funded by a NIHR Clinician Scientist award. HW worked for the NIHR between 2015 and 2021. He played no part in the funding decision for this study. LCC has received grants or research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; worked as a paid consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and has been paid as a speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB in the past 36 months. JB reports research grants from Pfizer and travel or conference fees from Fresenius Kabi, UCB, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. AA reports personal payments from UpToDate (royalty), Springer (royalty), Cadilla Pharmaceuticals (lecture fees), NGM Bio (consulting), Limbic (consulting), and Inflazome (consulting), unrelated to the work. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England until March 31, 2022. Subsequent to that date, he has received one-off lecture fees from AstraZeneca and Sanofi Pasteur and performed consulting for Janssen, all unrelated to the presented work. He began general paid consulting for Moderna in May 2023. DMA has received honoraria for consultancy work with Novavax, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. AMK is a shareholder of Raphael Labs. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Influenza causes significant morbidity and mortality, but influenza vaccine uptake remains below most countries' targets. Vaccine policy recommendations vary, as do procedures for reviewing and appraising the evidence., Areas Covered: During a series of roundtable discussions, we reviewed procedures and methodologies used by health ministries in four European countries to inform vaccine recommendations. We review the type of evidence currently recommended by each health ministry and the range of approaches toward considering randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE) studies when setting influenza vaccine recommendations., Expert Opinion: Influenza vaccine recommendations should be based on data from both RCTs and RWE studies of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety. Such data should be considered alongside health-economic, cost-effectiveness, and budgetary factors. Although RCT data are more robust and less prone to bias, well-designed RWE studies permit timely evaluation of vaccine benefits, effectiveness comparisons over multiple seasons in large populations, and detection of rare adverse events, under real-world conditions. Given the variability of vaccine effectiveness due to influenza virus mutations and increasing diversification of influenza vaccines, we argue that consideration of both RWE and RCT evidence is the best approach to more nuanced and timely updates of influenza vaccine recommendations.

Choosing optimal outcome measures maximizes statistical power, accelerates discovery and improves reliability in early-phase trials. We devised and evaluated a modification to a pragmatic measure of oxygenation function, the [Formula: see text] ratio. Because of the ceiling effect in oxyhaemoglobin saturation, [Formula: see text] ratio ceases to reflect pulmonary oxygenation function at high [Formula: see text] values. We found that the correlation of [Formula: see text] with the reference standard ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] ratio) improves substantially when excluding [Formula: see text] and refer to this measure as [Formula: see text]. Using observational data from 39,765 hospitalised COVID-19 patients, we demonstrate that [Formula: see text] is predictive of mortality, and compare the sample sizes required for trials using four different outcome measures. We show that a significant difference in outcome could be detected with the smallest sample size using [Formula: see text]. We demonstrate that [Formula: see text] is an effective intermediate outcome measure in COVID-19. It is a non-invasive measurement, representative of disease severity and provides greater statistical power., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: This was the first study to investigate the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous or fractional second dose COVID-19 vaccine regimens in adolescents., Methods: A phase II, single-blind, multi-centre, randomised-controlled trial recruited across seven UK sites from September to November 2021, with follow-up visits to August 2022. Healthy 12-to-16 years olds were randomised (1:1:1) to either 30 µg BNT162b2 (BNT-30), 10 µg BNT162b2 (BNT-10), or NVX-CoV2373 (NVX), 8 weeks after a first 30 µg dose of BNT162b2. The primary outcome was solicited systemic reactions in the week following vaccination. Secondary outcomes included immunogenicity and safety. 'Breakthrough infection' analyses were exploratory., Findings: 148 participants were recruited (median age 14 years old, 62% female, 26% anti-nucleocapsid IgG seropositive pre-second dose); 132 participants received a second dose. Reactions were mostly mild-to-moderate, with lower rates in BNT-10 recipients. No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred. Compared to BNT-30, at 28 days post-second dose anti-spike antibody responses were similar for NVX (adjusted geometric mean ratio [aGMR]) 1.09 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84, 1.42] and lower for BNT-10 (aGMR 0.78 [95% CI: 0.61, 0.99]). For Omicron BA.1 and BA.2, the neutralising antibody titres for BNT-30 at day 28 were similar for BNT-10 (aGMR 1.0 [95% CI: 0.65, 1.54] and 1.02 [95% CI: 0.71, 1.48], respectively), but higher for NVX (aGMR 1.7 [95% CI: 1.07, 2.69] and 1.43 [95% CI: 0.96, 2.12], respectively). Compared to BNT-30, cellular immune responses were greatest for NVX (aGMR 1.73 [95% CI: 0.94, 3.18]), and lowest for BNT-10 (aGMR 0.65 [95% CI: 0.37, 1.15]) at 14 days post-second dose. Cellular responses were similar across the study arms by day 236 post-second dose. Amongst SARS-CoV-2 infection naïve participants, NVX participants had an 89% reduction in risk of self-reported 'breakthrough infection' compared to BNT-30 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.11 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.86]) up until day 132 after second dose. BNT-10 recipients were more likely to have a 'breakthrough infection' compared to BNT-30 (aHR 2.14 [95% CI: 1.02, 4.51]) up to day 132 and day 236 post-second dose. Antibody responses at 132 and 236 days after second dose were similar for all vaccine schedules., Interpretation: Heterologous and fractional dose COVID-19 vaccine schedules in adolescents are safe, well-tolerated and immunogenic. The enhanced performance of the heterologous schedule using NVX-CoV2373 against the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant suggests this mRNA prime and protein-subunit boost schedule may provide a greater breadth of protection than the licensed homologous schedule., Funding: National Institute for Health Research and Vaccine Task Force., Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry: 12348322., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MDS acted until September 2022 on behalf of the University of Oxford as an Investigator on research studies funded or supported by the vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Novavax, MCM vaccines and Pfizer. He received no direct personal benefit for this work. From September 2022 he has been an employee at Moderna Biotech and holds stock options in this company. 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. KC acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator and/or providing consultative advice 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. AMM acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on research studies funded + /- sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Valneva SE and Novavax. She receives no personal financial benefit for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St George’s University of London as an Investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Novavax and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. He is a member of the JCVI. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) from October 2017-March 2022 as Deputy Chief Medical Officer, England, receiving no benefits, other than salary, for this work. Since leaving DHSC he has received a lecture fee from AstraZeneca and will undertake paid consulting for Moderna BioTech from 3rd May 2023. The views expressed in this paper are those of its authors and not necessarily those of DHSC or JCVI., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Objectives: To derive and validate risk prediction algorithms (QCOVID4) to estimate the risk of covid-19 related death and hospital admission in people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result during the period when the omicron variant of the virus was predominant in England, and to evaluate performance compared with a high risk cohort from NHS Digital., Design: Cohort study., Setting: QResearch database linked to English national data on covid-19 vaccinations, SARS-CoV-2 test results, hospital admissions, and cancer and mortality data, 11 December 2021 to 31 March 2022, with follow-up to 30 June 2022., Participants: 1.3 million adults in the derivation cohort and 0.15 million adults in the validation cohort, aged 18-100 years, with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was covid-19 related death and secondary outcome was hospital admission for covid-19. Risk equations with predictor variables were derived from models fitted in the derivation cohort. Performance was evaluated in a separate validation cohort., Results: Of 1 297 922 people with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the derivation cohort, 18 756 (1.5%) had a covid-19 related hospital admission and 3878 (0.3%) had a covid-19 related death during follow-up. The final QCOVID4 models included age, deprivation score and a range of health and sociodemographic factors, number of covid-19 vaccinations, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The risk of death related to covid-19 was lower among those who had received a covid-19 vaccine, with evidence of a dose-response relation (42% risk reduction associated with one vaccine dose and 92% reduction with four or more doses in men). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a reduction in the risk of covid-19 related death (49% reduction in men). The QCOVID4 algorithm for covid-19 explained 76.0% (95% confidence interval 73.9% to 78.2%) of the variation in time to covid-19 related death in men with a D statistic of 3.65 (3.43 to 3.86) and Harrell's C statistic of 0.970 (0.962 to 0.979). Results were similar for women. QCOVID4 was well calibrated. QCOVID4 was substantially more efficient than the NHS Digital algorithm for correctly identifying patients at high risk of covid-19 related death. Of the 461 covid-19 related deaths in the validation cohort, 333 (72.2%) were in the QCOVID4 high risk group and 95 (20.6%) in the NHS Digital high risk group., Conclusion: The QCOVID4 risk algorithm, modelled from data during the period when the omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was predominant in England, now includes vaccination dose and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and predicted covid-19 related death among people with a positive test result. QCOVID4 more accurately identified individuals at the highest levels of absolute risk for targeted interventions than the approach adopted by NHS Digital. QCOVID4 performed well and could be used for targeting treatments for covid-19 disease., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, Cancer Research UK, and Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund for the submitted work; JH-C reports grants from NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund, Cancer Research UK, through the Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre, Oxford Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund, and other research councils, during the conduct of the study; JH-C is an unpaid director of QResearch, a not-for-profit organisation which is a partnership between the University of Oxford and EMIS Health who supplied the QResearch database used for this work; JH-C is a founder and shareholder of ClinRisk and was its medical director until 31 May 2019. ClinRisk produces open and closed source software to implement clinical risk algorithms (outside this work) into clinical computer systems; JH-C was chair of the NERVTAG (New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group) risk stratification subgroup and a member of SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) covid-19 groups and the NHS group advising on prioritisation of use of monoclonal antibodies in covid-19 infection; CACC reports receiving personal fees from ClinRisk, outside this work and was a member of the NERVTAG risk stratification subgroup; KK is supported by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands (ARC-EM) and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre; KK is chair of the ethnic subgroup of UK SAGE and a member of SAGE; AS has received research grants from NIHR, Medical Research Council, Health Data Research UK, Central Statistics Office, National Childcare Scheme, and GSK for covid-19 work, and has provided advice for AstraZeneca’s Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Taskforce and the UK and Scottish Government covid-19 advisory groups (roles unremunerated); no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)