Search

BackgroundThe Valneva COVID-19 vaccine (VLA2001; Valneva Austria, Vienna, Austria) is an inactivated whole-virus, adjuvanted SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of primary vaccination with VLA2001 versus the ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca) adenoviral-vectored vaccine.MethodsIn this immunobridging phase 3 trial (COV-COMPARE), participants aged 18 years and older who were medically stable (as determined by an investigator) were enrolled at 26 sites in the UK. In the double-blind, randomised, controlled arm of the trial, participants aged 30 years and older were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive two doses of VLA2001 (0·5 mL; with 33 antigen units [AU] per dose) or ChAdOx1-S (0·5 mL; with 2·5 × 108 infectious units per dose) on days 1 and 29. In another arm, participants aged 18–29 years received two doses of VLA2001 (same dose) open label on days 1 and 29. The primary immunogenicity outcome was the immune response of a two-dose schedule of VLA2001 on day 43, in adults aged 30 years and older, versus two doses of ChAdOx1-S via superiority of geometric mean titres (GMTs) of neutralising antibodies (GMT ratio of >1 at a two-sided significance level of 5%) and non-inferiority of the seroconversion rate (non-inferiority margin of –10% for the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference between groups). The primary safety outcome was the frequency and severity of any adverse events in all participants up to day 43. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of vaccine. GMTs were assessed in a subset of participants aged 30 years and older who were seronegative at baseline, had at least one evaluable antibody titre measurement after vaccination, and had no confirmed COVID-19 during the study (immunogenicity population); and seroconversion was assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised the immunogenicity population but excluding any participants with major protocol violations. For each timepoint, only participants with available data were included in the analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04864561, and is ongoing.FindingsBetween April 28 and June 3, 2021, 4181 individuals were screened and 4017 enrolled, of whom 2975 (74%) were aged 30 years or older and randomly assigned to receive VLA2001 (n=1978) or ChAdOx1-S (n=997), and 1042 (26%) were aged 18–29 years (all received open-label VLA2001). 4012 participants received at least one dose of vaccine (1040 in the open-label VLA2001 group, 1977 in the randomised VLA2001 group, and 995 in the ChAdOx1-S group). The immunogenicity population comprised 492 participants in the randomised VLA2001 group and 498 in the ChAdOx1-S group; three participants in the VLA2001 group were excluded from the per-protocol population. VLA2001 induced higher neutralising GMTs than did ChAdOx1-S (803·5 [95% CI 748·5–862·6] vs 576·6 [543·6–611·7]; GMT ratio 1·39 [95% CI 1·25–1·56]; pInterpretationVLA2001 has a favourable tolerability profile and met superiority criteria for neutralising antibodies and non-inferiority criterion for seroconversion rates compared with ChAdOx1-S. The data presented here formed the basis of successful marketing approval for use of VLA2001 in primary vaccination in the EU, the UK, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates.

Background: the antiviral drug molnupiravir was licensed for treating at-risk patients with COVID-19 on the basis of data from unvaccinated adults. We aimed to evaluate the safety and virological efficacy of molnupiravir in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with COVID-19.Methods: this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial (AGILE CST-2) was done at five National Institute for Health and Care Research sites in the UK. Eligible participants were adult (aged ≥18 years) outpatients with PCR-confirmed, mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection who were within 5 days of symptom onset. Using permuted blocks (block size 2 or 4) and stratifying by site, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either molnupiravir (orally; 800 mg twice daily for 5 days) plus standard of care or matching placebo plus standard of care. The primary outcome was the time from randomisation to SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity on nasopharyngeal swabs and was analysed by use of a Bayesian Cox proportional hazards model for estimating the probability of a superior virological response (hazard ratio [HR]>1) for molnupiravir versus placebo. Our primary model used a two-point prior based on equal prior probabilities (50%) that the HR was 1·0 or 1·5. We defined a priori that if the probability of a HR of more than 1 was more than 80% molnupiravir would be recommended for further testing. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in the safety population, comprising participants who had received at least one dose of allocated treatment. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04746183, and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27106947, and is ongoing.Findings: between Nov 18, 2020, and March 16, 2022, 1723 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 180 were randomly assigned to receive either molnupiravir (n=90) or placebo (n=90) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 103 (57%) of 180 participants were female and 77 (43%) were male and 90 (50%) participants had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 infections with the delta (B.1.617.2; 72 [40%] of 180), alpha (B.1.1.7; 37 [21%]), omicron (B.1.1.529; 38 [21%]), and EU1 (B.1.177; 28 [16%]) variants were represented. All 180 participants received at least one dose of treatment and four participants discontinued the study (one in the molnupiravir group and three in the placebo group). Participants in the molnupiravir group had a faster median time from randomisation to negative PCR (8 days [95% CI 8-9]) than participants in the placebo group (11 days [10-11]; HR 1·30, 95% credible interval 0·92-1·71; log-rank p=0·074). The probability of molnupiravir being superior to placebo (HR>1) was 75·4%, which was less than our threshold of 80%. 73 (81%) of 90 participants in the molnupiravir group and 68 (76%) of 90 participants in the placebo group had at least one adverse event by day 29. One participant in the molnupiravir group and three participants in the placebo group had an adverse event of a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher severity. No participants died (due to any cause) during the trial.Interpretation: we found molnupiravir to be well tolerated and, although our predefined threshold was not reached, we observed some evidence that molnupiravir has antiviral activity in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with a broad range of SARS-CoV-2 variants, although this evidence is not conclusive.Funding: Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust.

Objectives\udThis study aimed to assess whether the presence of bacteria or viruses in the upper airway of children presenting with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) predicts the benefit of antibiotics.\udMethods\udChildren between 6 months and 12 years presenting to UK general practices with an acute LRTI were randomized to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg/d for 7 days or placebo. Children not randomized (ineligible or clinician/parental choice) could participate in a parallel observational study. The primary outcome was the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse. Throat swabs were taken and analyzed for the presence of bacteria and viruses by multiplex PCR.\udResults\udSwab results were available for most participants in the trial (306 of 432; 71%) and in the observational (182 of 326; 59%) studies. Bacterial pathogens potentially sensitive to amoxicillin (Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella catarrhalis, Streptococcus pneumoniae) were detected among 51% of the trial placebo group and 49% of the trial antibiotic group. The median difference in the duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse between antibiotic and placebo was similar when potentially antibiotic-susceptible bacteria were present (median: –1 day; 99% CI, –12.3 to 10.3) or not present (median: –1 day; 99% CI, –4.5 to 2.5). Furthermore, bacterial genome copy number did not predict benefit. There were similar findings for all secondary outcomes and when including the data from the observational study.\udDiscussion\udThere was no clear evidence that antibiotics improved clinical outcomes conditional on the presence or concentration of bacteria or viruses in the upper airway. Before deploying microbiologic point-of-care tests for children with uncomplicated LRTI in primary care, rigorous validating trials are needed.

SUMMARYBackgroundWe evaluated the use of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor, for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital because of COVID-19.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus baricitinib 4 mg once daily by mouth for 10 days or until discharge if sooner (baricitinib group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A meta-analysis was conducted that included the results from the RECOVERY trial and all previous randomised controlled trials of baricitinib or other JAK inhibitor in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936).FindingsBetween 2 February 2021 and 29 December 2021, 8156 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus baricitinib versus usual care alone. At randomisation, 95% of patients were receiving corticosteroids and 23% receiving tocilizumab (with planned use within the next 24 hours recorded for a further 9%). Overall, 513 (12%) of 4148 patients allocated to baricitinib versus 546 (14%) of 4008 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (age-adjusted rate ratio 0·87; 95% CI 0·77-0·98; p=0·026). This 13% proportional reduction in mortality was somewhat smaller than that seen in a meta-analysis of 8 previous trials of a JAK inhibitor (involving 3732 patients and 425 deaths) in which allocation to a JAK inhibitor was associated with a 43% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0.57; 95% CI 0.45-0.72). Including the results from RECOVERY into an updated meta-analysis of all 9 completed trials (involving 11,888 randomised patients and 1484 deaths) allocation to baricitinib or other JAK inhibitor was associated with a 20% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.71-0.89; pInterpretationIn patients hospitalised for COVID-19, baricitinib significantly reduced the risk of death but the size of benefit was somewhat smaller than that suggested by previous trials. The total randomised evidence to date suggests that JAK inhibitors (chiefly baricitinib) reduce mortality in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 by about one-fifth.FundingUK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research (Grant ref: MC_PC_19056).

Summary: Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) encapsulated self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) is a novel technology formulated as a low dose vaccine against COVID-19. Methods: A phase I first-in-human dose-ranging trial of a saRNA COVID-19 vaccine candidate LNP-nCoVsaRNA, was conducted at Imperial Clinical Research Facility, and participating centres in London, UK. Participants received two intramuscular (IM) injections of LNP-nCoVsaRNA at six different dose levels, 0·1-10·0mg, given four weeks apart. An open-label dose escalation was followed by a dose evaluation. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for one week from enrolment, with follow-up at regular intervals (1-8 weeks). The binding and neutralisation capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody raised in participant sera was measured by means of an anti-Spike (S) IgG ELISA, immunoblot, SARS-CoV-2 pseudoneutralisation and wild type neutralisation assays. Findings: 192 healthy individuals with no history or serological evidence of COVID-19, aged 18-45 years were enrolled. The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious adverse events related to vaccination. Seroconversion at week six whether measured by ELISA or immunoblot was related to dose (both p

Supported by a grant (MC_PC_19056) to the University of Oxford from the Medical Research Council of United Kingdom Research and Innovation and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR); and by core funding provided by NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Department for International Development, Health Data Research UK, the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, the NIHR Health Protection Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, and NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Support Funding. Dr. Lim is supported by core funding provided by NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Dr. Felton by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, and Dr. Jaki by a grant (MC_UU_0002/14) from the UK Medical Research Council and by an NIHR Senior Research Fellowship (NIHR-SRF-2015-08-001). BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. METHODS: In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment. RESULTS: A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P

Supported by a grant (MC_PC_19056) to the University of Oxford from UK Research and Innovation and the NIHR and by core funding provided by NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Department for International Development, Health Data Research UK, the Medical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, the NIHR Health Protection Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, and NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Support Funding. BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. Publisher PDF

Background Sepsis and severe focal infections represent a substantial disease burden in children admitted to hospital. We aimed to understand the burden of disease and outcomes in children with life-threatening bacterial infections in Europe. Methods The European Union Childhood Life-threatening Infectious Disease Study (EUCLIDS) was a prospective, multicentre, cohort study done in six countries in Europe. Patients aged 1 month to 18 years with sepsis (or suspected sepsis) or severe focal infections, admitted to 98 participating hospitals in the UK, Austria, Germany, Lithuania, Spain, and the Netherlands were prospectively recruited between July 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2015. To assess disease burden and outcomes, we collected demographic and clinical data using a secured web-based platform and obtained microbiological data using locally available clinical diagnostic procedures. Findings 2844 patients were recruited and included in the analysis. 1512 (53·2%) of 2841 patients were male and median age was 39·1 months (IQR 12·4–93·9). 1229 (43·2%) patients had sepsis and 1615 (56·8%) had severe focal infections. Patients diagnosed with sepsis had a median age of 27·6 months (IQR 9·0–80·2), whereas those diagnosed with severe focal infections had a median age of 46·5 months (15·8–100·4; pInterpretation Mortality in children admitted to hospital for sepsis or severe focal infections is low in Europe. The disease burden is mainly in children younger than 5 years and is largely due to vaccine-preventable meningococcal and pneumococcal infections. Despite the availability and application of clinical procedures for microbiological diagnosis, the causative organism remained unidentified in approximately 50% of patients.