Serotype 3 Experimental Human Pneumococcal Challenge (EHPC) study protocol: dose ranging and reproducibility in a healthy volunteer population (challenge 3)

Introduction: Since the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, pneumococcal disease rates have declined for many vaccine-type serotypes. However, serotype 3 (SPN3) continues to cause significant disease and is identified in colonisation epidemiological studies as one of the top circulating serotypes in adults in the UK. Consequently, new vaccines that provide greater protection against SPN3 colonisation/carriage are urgently needed. The Experimental Human Pneumococcal Challenge (EHPC) model is a unique method of determining pneumococcal colonisation rates, understanding acquired immunity, and testing vaccines in a cost-effective manner. To enhance the development of effective pneumococcal vaccines against SPN3, we aim to develop a new relevant and safe SPN3 EHPC model with high attack rates which could be used to test vaccines using small sample size. Methods and analysis: This is a human challenge study to establish a new SPN3 EHPC model, consisting of two parts. In the dose-ranging/safety study, cohorts of 10 healthy participants will be challenged with escalating doses of SPN3. If first challenge does not lead into colonisation, participants will receive a second challenge 2 weeks after. Experimental nasopharyngeal (NP) colonisation will be determined using nasal wash sampling. Using the dose that results in ≥50% of participants being colonised, with a high safety profile, we will complete the cohort with another 33 participants to check for reproducibility of the colonisation rate. The primary outcome of this study is to determine the optimal SPN3 dose and inoculation regime to establish the highest rates of NP colonisation in healthy adults. Secondary outcomes include determining density and duration of experimental SPN3 NP colonisation and characterising mucosal and systemic immune responses to SPN3 challenge. Ethics and dissemination: This study is approved by the NHS Research and Ethics Committee (reference 22/NW/0051). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and reports will be made available to participants

Assessing the use of minimally invasive self-sampling at home for long-term monitoring of the microbiota within UK families

Monitoring the presence of commensal and pathogenic respiratory microorganisms is of critical global importance. However, community-based surveillance is difficult because nasopharyngeal swabs are uncomfortable and painful for a wide age range of participants. We designed a methodology for minimally invasive self-sampling at home and assessed its use for longitudinal monitoring of the oral, nasal and hand microbiota of adults and children within families. Healthy families with two adults and up to three children, living in and near Liverpool, United Kingdom, self-collected saliva, nasal lining fluid using synthetic absorptive matrices and hand swabs at home every two weeks for six months. Questionnaires were used to collect demographic and epidemiological data and assess feasibility and acceptability. Participants were invited to take part in an exit interview. Thirty-three families completed the study. Sampling using our approach was acceptable to 25/33 (76%) families, as sampling was fast (76%), easy (76%) and painless (60%). Saliva and hand sampling was acceptable to all participants of any age, whereas nasal sampling was accepted mostly by adults and children older than 5 years. Multi-niche self-sampling at home can be used by adults and children for longitudinal surveillance of respiratory microorganisms, providing key data for design of future studies

Participant perceptions and experiences of a novel community-based respiratory longitudinal sampling method in Liverpool, UK: A mixed methods feasibility study

Longitudinal, community-based sampling is important for understanding prevalence and transmission of respiratory pathogens. Using a minimally invasive sampling method, the FAMILY Micro study monitored the oral, nasal and hand microbiota of families for 6 months. Here, we explore participant experiences and opinions. A mixed methods approach was utilised. A quantitative questionnaire was completed after every sampling timepoint to report levels of discomfort and pain, as well as time taken to collect samples. Participants were also invited to discuss their experiences in a qualitative structured exit interview. We received questionnaires from 36 families. Most adults and children >5y experienced no pain (94% and 70%) and little discomfort (73% and 47% no discomfort) regardless of sample type, whereas children ≤5y experienced variable levels of pain and discomfort (48% no pain but 14% hurts even more, whole lot or worst; 38% no discomfort but 33% moderate, severe, or extreme discomfort). The time taken for saliva and hand sampling decreased over the study. We conducted interviews with 24 families. Families found the sampling method straightforward, and adults and children >5y preferred nasal sampling using a synthetic absorptive matrix over nasopharyngeal swabs. It remained challenging for families to fit sampling into their busy schedules. Adequate fridge/freezer space and regular sample pick-ups were found to be important factors for feasibility. Messaging apps proved extremely effective for engaging with participants. Our findings provide key information to inform the design of future studies, specifically that self-sampling at home using minimally invasive procedures is feasible in a family context

Human Infection Challenge with Serotype 3 Pneumococcus

Rationale: Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype 3 (SPN3) is a cause of invasive pneumococcal disease and associated with low carriage rates. Following the introduction of pediatric 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) programmes, SPN3 declines are less than other vaccine serotypes and incidence has increased in some populations coincident with a shift in predominant circulating SPN3 clade, from I to II. A human challenge model provides an effective means for assessing the impact of PCV13 on SPN3 in the upper airway. Objectives: To establish SPN3’s ability to colonise the nasopharynx using different inoculum clades and doses and the safety of an SPN3 challenge model. Methods: In a human challenge study involving three well characterised and antibiotic sensitive SPN3 isolates (PFESP306 [clade Ia], PFESP231 [no clade] and PFESP505 [clade II]), inoculum doses (10,000, 20,000, 80,000, 160,000 CFU/100μL) were escalated until maximal colonisation rates were achieved, with concurrent acceptable safety. Outcome measures: Presence and density of experimental SPN3 nasopharyngeal colonisation in nasal wash samples, assessed using microbiological culture and molecular methods, on days 2, 7 and 14 post-inoculation. Results: 96 healthy participants (median age 21, interquartile range 19-25) were inoculated (n=6-10 per dose group, 10 groups). Colonisation rates ranged from 30.0-70.0% varying with dose and isolate. 30.0% (29/96) reported mild symptoms (82.8% sore throat, [24/29]), one developed otitis media requiring antibiotics. No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions: An SPN3 human challenge model is feasible and safe with comparable carriage rates to an established SPN6B human challenge model. SPN3 carriage may cause mild upper respiratory symptoms

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

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

Participant perceptions and experiences of a novel community-based respiratory longitudinal sampling method in Liverpool, UK : A mixed methods feasibility study

Longitudinal, community-based sampling is important for understanding prevalence and transmission of respiratory pathogens. Using a minimally invasive sampling method, the FAMILY Micro study monitored the oral, nasal and hand microbiota of families for 6 months. Here, we explore participant experiences and opinions. A mixed methods approach was utilised. A quantitative questionnaire was completed after every sampling timepoint to report levels of discomfort and pain, as well as time taken to collect samples. Participants were also invited to discuss their experiences in a qualitative structured exit interview. We received questionnaires from 36 families. Most adults and children >5y experienced no pain (94% and 70%) and little discomfort (73% and 47% no discomfort) regardless of sample type, whereas children ≤5y experienced variable levels of pain and discomfort (48% no pain but 14% hurts even more, whole lot or worst; 38% no discomfort but 33% moderate, severe, or extreme discomfort). The time taken for saliva and hand sampling decreased over the study. We conducted interviews with 24 families. Families found the sampling method straightforward, and adults and children >5y preferred nasal sampling using a synthetic absorptive matrix over nasopharyngeal swabs. It remained challenging for families to fit sampling into their busy schedules. Adequate fridge/freezer space and regular sample pick-ups were found to be important factors for feasibility. Messaging apps proved extremely effective for engaging with participants. Our findings provide key information to inform the design of future studies, specifically that self-sampling at home using minimally invasive procedures is feasible in a family context

Discomfort scores in different participant age groups.

Discomfort scores in different participant age groups.</p

Dataset for Figs 2–4.

Longitudinal, community-based sampling is important for understanding prevalence and transmission of respiratory pathogens. Using a minimally invasive sampling method, the FAMILY Micro study monitored the oral, nasal and hand microbiota of families for 6 months. Here, we explore participant experiences and opinions. A mixed methods approach was utilised. A quantitative questionnaire was completed after every sampling timepoint to report levels of discomfort and pain, as well as time taken to collect samples. Participants were also invited to discuss their experiences in a qualitative structured exit interview. We received questionnaires from 36 families. Most adults and children >5y experienced no pain (94% and 70%) and little discomfort (73% and 47% no discomfort) regardless of sample type, whereas children ≤5y experienced variable levels of pain and discomfort (48% no pain but 14% hurts even more, whole lot or worst; 38% no discomfort but 33% moderate, severe, or extreme discomfort). The time taken for saliva and hand sampling decreased over the study. We conducted interviews with 24 families. Families found the sampling method straightforward, and adults and children >5y preferred nasal sampling using a synthetic absorptive matrix over nasopharyngeal swabs. It remained challenging for families to fit sampling into their busy schedules. Adequate fridge/freezer space and regular sample pick-ups were found to be important factors for feasibility. Messaging apps proved extremely effective for engaging with participants. Our findings provide key information to inform the design of future studies, specifically that self-sampling at home using minimally invasive procedures is feasible in a family context.</div

Fig 3 -

Pain scores in a) adults and b) children of different ages.</p