Safety and immunogenicity of AS03B adjuvanted split virion versus non-adjuvanted whole virion H1N1 influenza vaccine in UK children aged 6 months-12 years: open label, randomised, parallel group, multicentre study

Objectives To compare the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of an adjuvanted split virion H1N1 vaccine and a non-adjuvanted whole virion vaccine used in the pandemic immunisation programme in the United Kingdom

A mouse model reproducing the pathophysiology of neonatal group B streptococcal infection

Group B streptococcal (GBS) meningitis remains a devastating disease. The absence of an animal model reproducing the natural infectious process has limited our understanding of the disease and, consequently, delayed the development of effective treatments. We describe here a mouse model in which bacteria are transmitted to the offspring from vaginally colonised pregnant females, the natural route of infection. We show that GBS strain BM110, belonging to the CC17 clonal complex, is more virulent in this vertical transmission model than the isogenic mutant BM110∆cylE, which is deprived of hemolysin/cytolysin. Pups exposed to the more virulent strain exhibit higher mortality rates and lung inflammation than those exposed to the attenuated strain. Moreover, pups that survive to BM110 infection present neurological developmental disability, revealed by impaired learning performance and memory in adulthood. The use of this new mouse model, that reproduces key steps of GBS infection in newborns, will promote a better understanding of the physiopathology of GBS-induced meningitis.The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Encarnaca̧ ̃o Ribeiro for excellent technical assistance, Joana Tavares for assisting with IVIS Lumina LT, Susana Roque for the luminex instrument experiments, the Molecular Microbiology group at i3S for microscope use, and the Portuguese architect and artist Gil Ferreira da Silva for the artworks included in the last figure. This work was supported by funds from Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) and Compete under project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016607 (PTDC/IMI-MIC/1049/2014) and from the project NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000012, supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). T.S. and A.M. were supported by Investigador FCT (IF/00875/2012 and IF/00753/2014), POPH and Fundo Social Europeu. E.B.A. and C.C.P. hold postdoctoral fellowships from FCT (PTDC/IMI-MIC/1049/2014 and SFRH/BPD/91962/2012). Ar.F. and P.T.C. were supported by Laboratoire d’Excellence (LABEX) Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases (grant ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 2; referees: 2 approved]

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments

Paediatric acute hepatitis of unknown aetiology : a national investigation and adenoviraemia case-control study in the UK

Funding Information: This work was undertaken as part of a national enhanced incident by UK public health agencies. We thank the parents and guardians of the children who gave up their valuable time to speak to the public health investigation teams; without their support we could not have been able to undertake a thorough investigation. We are grateful to the many paediatricians and liver specialists who reported cases to us and responded to follow-up with further information. We also thank Ezra Linley and Simon Tonge of the UK Health Security Agency Seroepidemiology Unit for rapidly providing serum samples for testing. We would like to thank the Incident Management Teams of the UK nations, members of the incident cells, epidemiology, laboratory, and local Health Protection Teams who supported the investigations, in particular: Katy Sinka, Mike Gent, Suzanna Howes, Eileen Gallagher, Selene Corsini, Eleanor Clarke, Rajani Raghu, Kelsey Mowat, Iain Hayden, Matt Hibbert, Skye Firminger, Catriona Angel, Donna Haskins, Kay Ratcliffe, Hannah Emmett, Alex Elliot, Helen Hughes, Sarah Deeny, Sarah Garner, Sarah Gerver, Flora Stevens, Paula Blomquist, Gabriel Gurmail Kauffman, Kristine Cooper, Hannah Taylor, Giovanni Leonardi, Michelle Dickinson and Michelle Watson from England; Kimberly Marsh, Michael Lockhart, David Yirrell, Sandra Currie, Kate Templeton, Samantha Shepherd, Roisin Ure, Jim McMenamin, Rachel Tayler, Louisa Pollock, Antonia Ho, Chris Cunningham and Hayley Peacock from Scotland; and Katie Binley and Meg Wallace from Northern Ireland.Peer reviewe

Funding Source and Research Report Quality in Nutrition Practice-Related Research

BACKGROUND: The source of funding is one of many possible causes of bias in scientific research. One method of detecting potential for bias is to evaluate the quality of research reports. Research exploring the relationship between funding source and nutrition-related research report quality is limited and in other disciplines the findings are mixed. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether types of funding sources of nutrition research are associated with differences in research report quality. DESIGN: A retrospective study of research reporting quality, research design and funding source was conducted on 2539 peer reviewed research articles from the American Dietetic Association's Evidence Analysis Library® database. RESULTS: Quality rating frequency distributions indicate 43.3% of research reports were rated as positive, 50.1% neutral, and 6.6% as negative. Multinomial logistic regression results showed that while both funding source and type of research design are significant predictors of quality ratings (χ2 = 118.99, p≤0.001), the model's usefulness in predicting overall research report quality is little better than chance. Compared to research reports with government funding, those not acknowledging any funding sources, followed by studies with University/hospital funding were more likely to receive neutral vs positive quality ratings, OR = 1.85, P <0.001 and OR = 1.54, P<0.001, respectively and those that did not report funding were more likely to receive negative quality ratings (OR = 4.97, P<0.001). After controlling for research design, industry funded research reports were no more likely to receive a neutral or negative quality rating than those funded by government sources. CONCLUSION: Research report quality cannot be accurately predicted from the funding source after controlling for research design. Continued vigilance to evaluate the quality of all research regardless of the funding source and to further understand other factors that affect quality ratings are warranted

Group B Streptococcus vaccine development: present status and future considerations, with emphasis on perspectives for low and middle income countries.

Globally, group B Streptococcus (GBS) remains the leading cause of sepsis and meningitis in young infants, with its greatest burden in the first 90 days of life. Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) for women at risk of transmitting GBS to their newborns has been effective in reducing, but not eliminating, the young infant GBS disease burden in many high income countries. However, identification of women at risk and administration of IAP is very difficult in many low and middle income country (LMIC) settings, and is not possible for home deliveries. Immunization of pregnant women with a GBS vaccine represents an alternate pathway to protecting newborns from GBS disease, through the transplacental antibody transfer to the fetus in utero. This approach to prevent GBS disease in young infants is currently under development, and is approaching late stage clinical evaluation. This manuscript includes a review of the natural history of the disease, global disease burden estimates, diagnosis and existing control options in different settings, the biological rationale for a vaccine including previous supportive studies, analysis of current candidates in development, possible correlates of protection and current status of immunogenicity assays. Future potential vaccine development pathways to licensure and use in LMICs, trial design and implementation options are discussed, with the objective to provide a basis for reflection, rather than recommendations

Secondary attack rates in primary and secondary school bubbles following a confirmed case: Active, prospective national surveillance, November to December 2020, England.

BACKGROUND: Following the full re-opening of schools in England and emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant, we investigated the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in students and staff who were contacts of a confirmed case in a school bubble (school groupings with limited interactions), along with their household members. METHODS: Primary and secondary school bubbles were recruited into sKIDsBUBBLE after being sent home to self-isolate following a confirmed case of COVID-19 in the bubble. Bubble participants and their household members were sent home-testing kits comprising nasal swabs for RT-PCR testing and whole genome sequencing, and oral fluid swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. RESULTS: During November-December 2020, 14 bubbles were recruited from 7 schools, including 269 bubble contacts (248 students, 21 staff) and 823 household contacts (524 adults, 299 children). The secondary attack rate was 10.0% (6/60) in primary and 3.9% (4/102) in secondary school students, compared to 6.3% (1/16) and 0% (0/1) among staff, respectively. The incidence rate for household contacts of primary school students was 6.6% (12/183) and 3.7% (1/27) for household contacts of primary school staff. In secondary schools, this was 3.5% (11/317) and 0% (0/1), respectively. Household contacts were more likely to test positive if their bubble contact tested positive although there were new infections among household contacts of uninfected bubble contacts. INTERPRETATION: Compared to other institutional settings, the overall risk of secondary infection in school bubbles and their household contacts was low. Our findings are important for developing evidence-based infection prevention guidelines for educational settings

Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review

Reporting bias represents a major problem in the assessment of health care interventions. Several prominent cases have been described in the literature, for example, in the reporting of trials of antidepressants, Class I anti-arrhythmic drugs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors. The aim of this narrative review is to gain an overview of reporting bias in the medical literature, focussing on publication bias and selective outcome reporting. We explore whether these types of bias have been shown in areas beyond the well-known cases noted above, in order to gain an impression of how widespread the problem is. For this purpose, we screened relevant articles on reporting bias that had previously been obtained by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in the context of its health technology assessment reports and other research work, together with the reference lists of these articles

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments