Search

BackgroundSepsis severity scores are used in clinical practice and trials to define risk groups. There are limited data to derive hospital-based sepsis severity scores for neonates and young infants in high-burden low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings where trials are urgently required. We aimed to create linked sepsis severity and recovery scores applicable to hospitalized neonates and young infants in LMIC which could be used to inform antibiotic trials.Methods & FindingsA prospective observational cohort study was conducted across 19 hospitals in 11 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe. Infants aged 3204 infants were enrolled between 2018-2020. Median age was 5 days (IQR 2-15), 90.4% (n=2,895) were A related NeoSep Recovery Score based on evolving post-baseline clinical signs and supportive care discriminated well between infants who died or survived the following day or subsequent few days. The area under the ROC curve for score on day 2 and death in the following 5 days was 0.82 (95%CI 0.78-0.85) and 0.85 (95%CI 0.78-0.93) in the derivation and validation data, respectively.ConclusionThe baseline NeoSep Severity Score predicted 28-day mortality and could identify infants with high risk of mortality for inclusion in hospital-based sepsis trials. The NeoSep Recovery Score predicts day-by-day inpatient mortality and could, with further validation, help to identify poor response to antibiotics.Author SummaryWhy was this study done?➣Evidence to guide hospital-based antibiotic treatment of sepsis in neonates and young infants is scarce, and clinical trials are particularly urgent in low- and middle-income (LMIC) settings where antimicrobial resistance threatens to undermine existing guidelines➣There is limited data to inform the design of antibiotic trials in LMIC settings, particularly to define risk stratification and inclusion and escalation criteria in hospitalised neonates and young infantsWhat did the researchers do and find?➣To our knowledge this is the first global, prospective, hospital-based observational study of clinically diagnosed neonatal sepsis across 4 continents including LMIC settings, with extensive daily data collection on clinical status, antibiotic use and outcomes.➣There was a high mortality among infants with sepsis in LMIC hospital settings. 4 non-modifiable and 6 modifiable factors predicted mortality and were included in a NeoSep Severity score which defines patterns of mortality risk at baseline➣A NeoSep Recovery Score including the same modifiable factors (with the addition of cyanosis) predicted mortality on the following day during the course of treatment.What do these findings mean?➣The NeoSep Severity Score and NeoSep Recovery score are now informing inclusion and escalation criteria in the NeoSep1 antibiotic trial (ISRCTN48721236) which aims to identify novel first- and second-line empiric antibiotic regimens for neonatal sepsis➣The NeoSep Severity Score could be used to predict mortality at baseline in future studies of targeting resources in routine care. With further validation, the NeoSep Recovery Score could potentially be used to identify poor response to empiric antibiotic treatment

BackgroundNeonatal sepsis is a leading cause of child mortality, and increasing antimicrobial resistance threatens progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Evidence to guide antibiotic treatment for sepsis in neonates and young infants from randomized controlled trials or observational studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is scarce. We aimed to describe patterns of antibiotic use, pathogens and outcomes in LMIC hospital settings globally to inform future clinical trials on the management of neonatal sepsis.Methods & FindingsHospitalised infants aged 206 different empiric antibiotic combinations were used, which were structured into 5 groups that were developed from the World Health Organisation (WHO) AWaRe classification. 25.9% (n=814) of infants started a WHO first line regimen (Group 1 -Access, penicillin-based regimen) and 13.8% (n=432) started WHO second-line cephalosporins (cefotaxime/ceftriaxone) (Group 2- ‘Low’ Watch). The largest group (34.0%, n=1068) started a regimen providing partial extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)/pseudomonal coverage (piperacillin-tazobactam, ceftazidime, or fluoroquinolone-based) (Group 3 – ‘Medium’ Watch), 18.0% (n=566) started a carbapenem (Group 4 – ‘High’ Watch), and 1.8% (n=57) started a Reserve antibiotic (Group 5, largely colistin-based). Predictors of starting non-WHO recommended regimens included lower birth weight, longer in-hospital stay, central vascular catheter use, previous culture positive sepsis or antibiotic exposure, previous surgery and greater sepsis severity. 728/2880 (25.3%) of initial regimens in Group 1-4 were escalated, mainly to carbapenems, and usually for clinical indications (n=480; 65.9%).564 infants (17.6%) isolated a pathogen from their baseline blood culture, of which 62.9% (n=355) had a Gram-negative organism, predominantlyKlebsiella pneumoniae(n=132) andAcinetobacterspp. (n=72). These leading Gram-negatives were both mostly resistant to WHO-recommended regimens, and also resistant to carbapenems in 32.6% and 71.4% of cases respectively. MRSA accounted for 61.1% ofStaphylococcus aureus(n=54) isolates.Overall, 350/3204 infants died (11.3%; 95%CI 10.2-12.5%), with 17.7% case fatality rate among infants with a pathogen in baseline culture (95%CI 14.7-20.1%, n=99/564). Gram-negative infections accounted for 75/99 (75.8%) of pathogen-positive deaths, especiallyKlebsiella pneumoniae(n=28; 28.3%), andAcinetobacterspp. (n=24; 24.2%).ConclusionA very wide range of antibiotic regimens are now used to treat neonatal sepsis globally. There is common use of higher-level Watch antibiotics, frequent early switching and very infrequent de-escalation of therapy. Future hospital based neonatal sepsis trials will ideally need to account for the multiple regimens used as standard of care globally and include both empiric first line regimens and subsequent switching in the trial design.Author SummaryWhy was this study done?➢Increasing trends in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) disproportionately affect neonates and young infants with sepsis in LMIC settings and undermine the effectiveness of WHO-recommended antibiotics.➢Despite this, longitudinal data on antibiotic management strategies and outcomes of affected hospitalised neonates and young infants in LMIC settings are extremely limited, impeding the design of robust antibiotic trials.What did the researchers do and find?➢To our knowledge this is the first global, prospective, hospital-based observational study of clinically diagnosed neonatal sepsis across 4 continents including LMIC settings, with daily data on clinical status, antibiotic use and outcomes.➢There was a high mortality among infants with culture positive sepsis (almost 1 in 5), and a significant burden of antibiotic resistance.➢This study highlights wide variations in standard of care for sepsis in neonates and young infants with more than 200 different antibiotic combinations, significant divergence from WHO-recommended regimens, and frequent switching of antibiotics.What do these findings mean?➢These data demonstrate that patterns of routine antibiotic use are now markedly divergent from global guidance➢There is an urgent need for randomised controlled trials to address optimal empiric first and second line antibiotic treatment strategies in LMIC hospital settings with a significant AMR burden.➢Data from this study can inform the design of multicentre hospital-based neonatal antibiotic trials in LMIC settings.➢The wide range of multiple antibiotic regimens routinely used as Standard of Care (SOC) suggests the need for novel trial designs.

Neonatal sepsis is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity in low- and middle-income countries. To deliver high-quality data studies and inform future trials, it is crucial to understand the challenges encountered when managing global multi-centre research studies and to identify solutions that can feasibly be implemented in these settings. This paper provides an overview of the complexities faced by diverse research teams in different countries and regions, together with actions implemented to achieve pragmatic study management of a large multi-centre observational study of neonatal sepsis. We discuss specific considerations for enrolling sites with different approval processes and varied research experience, structures, and training. Implementing a flexible recruitment strategy and providing ongoing training were necessary to overcome these challenges. We emphasize the attention that must be given to designing the database and monitoring plans. Extensive data collection tools, complex databases, tight timelines, and stringent monitoring arrangements can be problematic and might put the study at risk. Finally, we discuss the complexities added when collecting and shipping isolates and the importance of having a robust central management team and interdisciplinary collaborators able to adapt easily and make swift decisions to deliver the study on time and to target. With pragmatic approaches, appropriate training, and good communication, these challenges can be overcome to deliver high-quality data from a complex study in challenging settings through a collaborative research network.

Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a major threat to human health around the world. Previous publications have estimated the effect of AMR on incidence, deaths, hospital length of stay, and health-care costs for specific pathogen–drug combinations in select locations. To our knowledge, this study presents the most comprehensive estimates of AMR burden to date. Methods We estimated deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) attributable to and associated with bacterial AMR for 23 pathogens and 88 pathogen–drug combinations in 204 countries and territories in 2019. We obtained data from systematic literature reviews, hospital systems, surveillance systems, and other sources, covering 471 million individual records or isolates and 7585 study-location-years. We used predictive statistical modelling to produce estimates of AMR burden for all locations, including for locations with no data. Our approach can be divided into five broad components: number of deaths where infection played a role, proportion of infectious deaths attributable to a given infectious syndrome, proportion of infectious syndrome deaths attributable to a given pathogen, the percentage of a given pathogen resistant to an antibiotic of interest, and the excess risk of death or duration of an infection associated with this resistance. Using these components, we estimated disease burden based on two counterfactuals: deaths attributable to AMR (based on an alternative scenario in which all drug-resistant infections were replaced by drug-susceptible infections), and deaths associated with AMR (based on an alternative scenario in which all drug-resistant infections were replaced by no infection). We generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for final estimates as the 25th and 975th ordered values across 1000 posterior draws, and models were cross-validated for out-of-sample predictive validity. We present final estimates aggregated to the global and regional level. Findings On the basis of our predictive statistical models, there were an estimated 4·95 million (3·62–6·57) deaths associated with bacterial AMR in 2019, including 1·27 million (95% UI 0·911–1·71) deaths attributable to bacterial AMR. At the regional level, we estimated the all-age death rate attributable to resistance to be highest in western sub-Saharan Africa, at 27·3 deaths per 100 000 (20·9–35·3), and lowest in Australasia, at 6·5 deaths (4·3–9·4) per 100 000. Lower respiratory infections accounted for more than 1·5 million deaths associated with resistance in 2019, making it the most burdensome infectious syndrome. The six leading pathogens for deaths associated with resistance (Escherichia coli, followed by Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) were responsible for 929 000 (660 000–1 270 000) deaths attributable to AMR and 3·57 million (2·62–4·78) deaths associated with AMR in 2019. One pathogen–drug combination, meticillin-resistant S aureus, caused more than 100 000 deaths attributable to AMR in 2019, while six more each caused 50 000–100 000 deaths: multidrug-resistant excluding extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, third-generation cephalosporin-resistant E coli, carbapenem-resistant A baumannii, fluoroquinolone-resistant E coli, carbapenem-resistant K pneumoniae, and third-generation cephalosporin-resistant K pneumoniae. Interpretation To our knowledge, this study provides the first comprehensive assessment of the global burden of AMR, as well as an evaluation of the availability of data. AMR is a leading cause of death around the world, with the highest burdens in low-resource settings. Understanding the burden of AMR and the leading pathogen–drug combinations contributing to it is crucial to making informed and location-specific policy decisions, particularly about infection prevention and control programmes, access to essential antibiotics, and research and development of new vaccines and antibiotics. There are serious data gaps in many low-income settings, emphasising the need to expand microbiology laboratory capacity and data collection systems to improve our understanding of this important human health threat. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and Department of Health and Social Care using UK aid funding managed by the Fleming Fund.

Background: The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18–55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 10 10 viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT 50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA 50, MNA 80, and MNA 90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606. Findings: Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT 50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA 80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R 2=0·67 by Marburg VN; p