Clinical Risk Factors Associated with Late-Onset Invasive Group B Streptococcal Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Group B streptococcal (GBS) infection remains one of the most significant causes of late-onset sepsis and meningitis (LOGBS) among young infants. However, transmission routes and risk factors for LOGBS are not yet fully understood. METHODS: We conducted systematic reviews on clinical risk factors previously reported in the literature (prematurity, low birth weight [<2500 g], antenatal colonization, multiple-gestation pregnancy, maternal age <20 years, male infant sex, intrapartum fever, prolonged rupture of membranes) and meta-analyses to determine pooled estimates of risk. RESULTS: We included 27 articles, reporting 5315 cases. Prematurity (odds ratio 5.66; 95% confidence interval [4.43-7.22]), low birth weight (6.73; [4.68-9.67]), maternal colonization (2.67; [2.07-3.45]), and multiple-gestation pregnancies (8.01; [5.19-12.38]) were associated with an increased risk of LOGBS. CONCLUSIONS: Prematurity/low birth weight and maternal colonization are major risk factors for LOGBS. Future GBS vaccine studies should try to establish the optimal time for vaccination during pregnancy to protect preterm infants

'Unable to have a proper conversation over the phone about my concerns': a multimethods evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on routine childhood vaccination services in London, UK

Objectives Investigating the completion rate of 12-month vaccinations and parental perspectives on vaccine services during COVID-19. Study-design Service evaluation including parental questionnaire. Methods Uptake of 12-month vaccinations in three London general practices during three periods: pre-COVID (1/3/2018–28/2/2019, n = 826), during COVID (1/3/2019–28/2/2020, n = 775) and post-COVID first wave (1/8/2020–31/1/2021, n = 419). Questionnaire of parents whose children were registered at the practices (1/4/2019–1/22/2021, n = 1350). Results Comparing pre-COVID and both COVID cohorts, the completion rates of 12-month vaccines were lower. Haemophilus influenzae type B/meningococcal group C (Hib/MenC) vaccination uptake was 5.6% lower (89.0% vs 83.4%, P=<0.001), meningococcal group B (MenB) booster uptake was 4.4% lower (87.3% vs 82.9%, P = 0.006), pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) booster uptake was 6% lower (88.0% vs 82.0%, P < 0.001) and measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine uptake was 5.2% lower (89.1% vs 83.9%, P = 0.003). Black/Black-British ethnicity children had increased odds of missing their 12-month vaccinations compared to White ethnicity children (adjusted odds ratio 0.43 [95% confidence interval 0.24–0.79, P = 0.005; 0.36 [0.20–0.65], P < 0.001; 0.48 [0.27–0.87], P = 0.01; 0.40 [0.22–0.73], P = 0.002; for Hib/MenC, MenB booster, PCV booster and MMR. Comparing pre-COVID and COVID periods, vaccinations coded as not booked increased for MMR (10%), MenB (7%) and PCV booster (8%). Parents reported changes to vaccination services during COVID-19, including difficulties booking and attending appointments and lack of vaccination reminders. Conclusion A sustained decrease in 12-month childhood vaccination uptake disproportionally affected Black/Black British ethnicity infants during the first wave of the pandemic. Vaccination reminders and availability of healthcare professionals to discuss parental vaccine queries are vital to maintaining uptake

Antibody kinetics between birth and three months of life in healthy infants with natural exposure to Group B streptococcus: A UK cohort study

Introduction Capsular polysaccharide (CPS) serotype-specific Immunoglobulin G (IgG) in cord blood has been proposed as a correlate of protection against invasive Group B Streptococcus (iGBS) disease. Although protective levels are required in infants throughout the window of vulnerability up to 3 months of age, little is known regarding the kinetics of GBS-specific IgG over this period. Methods We enrolled 33 healthy infants born to mothers colonized with GBS. We collected cord blood and infant blood samples either at one (21–35 days), two (49–63 days), or three months of age (77–91 days). We measured GBS serotype-specific CPS IgG concentrations and calculated the decay rate using a mixed-effects model. We further explored whether the antibody kinetics were affected by common maternal and infant factors and estimated the correlation between IgG concentration at birth and one, two, and three months of age. Results The half-life estimate of IgG concentration for homologous and non-homologous GBS serotypes in paired samples with detectable IgG levels at both time points was 27.4 (95 % CI: 23.5–32.9) days. The decay rate did not vary by maternal age (p = 0.7), ethnicity (p = 0.1), gravida (p = 0.1), gestation (p = 0.7), and infant sex (p = 0.1). Predicted IgG titres above the assay lower limit of quantification on day 30 strongly correlated with titres at birth (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.71 [95 % CI: 0.60–0.80]). Conclusion Our results provide a basis for future investigations into the use of antibody kinetics in defining a serocorrelate of protection against late-onset iGBS disease

Defining and reporting adverse events of special interest in comparative maternal vaccine studies: a systematic review

Introduction The GAIA (Global Alignment on Immunisation Safety Assessment in Pregnancy) consortium was established in 2014 with the aim of creating a standardised, globally coordinated approach to monitoring the safety of vaccines administered in pregnancy. The consortium developed twenty-six standardised definitions for classifying obstetric and infant adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the current state of adverse event reporting in maternal vaccine trials following the publication of the case definitions by GAIA, and the extent to which these case definitions have been adopted in maternal vaccine safety research. Methods A comprehensive search of published literature was undertaken to identify maternal vaccine research studies. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched using a combination of MeSH terms and keyword searches to identify observational or interventional studies that examined vaccine safety in pregnant women with a comparator group. A two-reviewer screening process was undertaken, and a narrative synthesis of the results presented. Results 14,737 titles were identified from database searches, 435 titles were selected as potentially relevant, 256 were excluded, the remaining 116 papers were included. Influenza vaccine was the most studied (25.0%), followed by TDaP (20.7%) and SARS-CoV-2 (12.9%). Ninety-one studies (78.4%) were conducted in high-income settings. Forty-eight (41.4%) utilised electronic health-records. The majority focused on reporting adverse events of special interest (AESI) in pregnancy (65.0%) alone or in addition to reactogenicity (27.6%). The most frequently reported AESI were preterm birth, small for gestational age and hypertensive disorders. Fewer than 10 studies reported use of GAIA definitions. Gestational age assessment was poorly described; of 39 studies reporting stillbirths 30.8% provided no description of the gestational age threshold. Conclusions Low-income settings remain under-represented in comparative maternal vaccine safety research. There has been poor uptake of GAIA case definitions. A lack of harmonisation and standardisation persists limiting comparability of the generated safety data

Optimising the timing of whooping cough immunisation in mums (OpTIMUM) through investigating pertussis vaccination in pregnancy: an open-label, equivalence, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pertussis vaccination in pregnancy is recommended in many countries to provide protection to young infants. The best timing for this vaccination is uncertain. In the UK, vaccination is recommended between 16 weeks and 32 weeks of gestation. In this trial we aimed to investigate the equivalence of three time periods for pertussis vaccination in pregnancy. METHODS: In this open-label, equivalence, randomised controlled trial to investigate equivalence of different time windows for pertussis vaccination in pregnancy, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1 ratio) to receive a pertussis-containing vaccine (Boostrix-inactivated poliovirus vaccine) in one of three gestational age groups, comprising group 1 (≤23 weeks + 6 days), group 2 (24-27 weeks + 6 days), and group 3 (28-31 weeks + 6 days) using a computer-generated randomisation list. The primary outcome was concentration of pertussis-specific antibodies in the infant born at term at birth. Maternal blood sampling was done before and 2 weeks after vaccination and at delivery, together with a cord sample, and an infant sample was collected at least 4 weeks after primary vaccination. Reactogenicity was assessed for 7 days after vaccination. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03908164). FINDINGS: Between May 7, 2019, and Feb 13, 2020, of 1010 women assessed for eligibility, 364 women were recruited and 351 received the intervention (120 in group 1, 119 in group 2, and 112 in group 3). Equivalence of time periods was demonstrated for anti-pertussis toxin and anti-pertactin IgG concentrations. The cord blood geometric mean concentrations of anti-filamentous haemagglutinin IgG were higher with increasing gestational age at vaccination, such that for infants in group 1 (≤23 weeks + 6 days), equivalence to group 3 (28-31 weeks + 6 days) was not shown. Reported rates of fever were similar between study groups. INTERPRETATION: Pertussis vaccination at three different time intervals in pregnancy resulted in equivalent concentrations of IgG antibodies in infants against two of the three pertussis antigens assessed. Overall, these findings support recommendations to vaccinate any time between 16 weeks and 32 weeks of gestation. FUNDING: The Thrasher Research Fund and the National Immunisation Schedule Evaluation Consortium through the National Institute for Health and Care Research policy research programme

Clinical characteristics and complications of rotavirus gastroenteritis in children in east London: A retrospective case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus is the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis in children and is associated with neurological complications such as seizures and encephalopathy. The aim of this study was to investigate the presentation and complications of rotavirus compared to non-rotavirus gastroenteritis in UK children. METHODS: This was a retrospective, case-control, hospital-based study conducted at three sites in east London, UK. Cases were children aged 1 month to 16 years diagnosed with acute gastroenteritis between 1 June 2011 and 31 December 2013, in whom stool virology investigations confirmed presence of rotavirus by PCR. They were matched by age, gender and month of presentation to controls with rotavirus-negative gastroenteritis. RESULTS: Data were collected from 116 children (50 cases and 66 controls). Children with rotavirus gastroenteritis tended to present more frequently with metabolic acidosis (pH 7.30 vs 7.37, P = 0.011) and fever (74% versus 46%; P = 0.005) and were more likely to require hospitalisation compared to children with non-rotavirus gastroenteritis (93% versus 73%; P = 0.019). Neurological complications were the most common extra-intestinal manifestations, but did not differ significantly between children with rotavirus-positive gastroenteritis (RPG) and rotavirus-negative gastroenteritis (RNG) (24% versus 15%, respectively; P = 0.24). Encephalopathy occurred only in children with rotavirus infection (n = 3, 6%). CONCLUSION: Rotavirus causes longer and more severe disease compared to other viral pathogens. Seizures and milder neurological signs were surprisingly common and associated with multiple pathogens, but encephalopathy occurred only in children with rotavirus gastroenteritis. Rotavirus vaccination may reduce seizures and presentation to hospital, but vaccines against other pathogens causing gastroenteritis are required.AJP receives funding from the Wellcome Trust (grant 108065/Z/15/Z)

Invasive Group B Streptococcus Disease With Recurrence and in Multiples: Towards a Better Understanding of GBS Late-Onset Sepsis.

Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is a common intestinal colonizer during the neonatal period, but also may cause late-onset sepsis or meningitis in up to 0.5% of otherwise healthy colonized infants after day 3 of life. Transmission routes and risk factors of this late-onset form of invasive GBS disease (iGBS) are not fully understood. Cases of iGBS with recurrence (n=25) and those occurring in parallel in twins/triplets (n=32) from the UK and Ireland (national surveillance study 2014/15) and from Germany and Switzerland (retrospective case collection) were analyzed to unravel shared (in affected multiples) or fixed (in recurrent disease) risk factors for GBS disease. The risk of iGBS among infants from multiple births was high (17%), if one infant had already developed GBS disease. The interval of onset of iGBS between siblings was 4.5 days and in recurrent cases 12.5 days. Disturbances of the individual microbiome, including persistence of infectious foci are suggested e.g. by high usage of perinatal antibiotics in mothers of affected multiples, and by the association of an increased risk of recurrence with a short term of antibiotics [aOR 4.2 (1.3-14.2), P=0.02]. Identical GBS serotypes in both recurrent infections and concurrently infected multiples might indicate a failed microbiome integration of GBS strains that are generally regarded as commensals in healthy infants. The dynamics of recurrent GBS infections or concurrent infections in multiples suggest individual patterns of exposure and fluctuations in host immunity, causing failure of natural niche occupation

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca