Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies: Preparation, design, and enrollment of cases and control

Case-control studies are commonly used to evaluate effectiveness of licensed vaccines after deployment in public health programs. Such studies can provide policy-relevant data on vaccine performance under \u27real world\u27 conditions, contributing to the evidence base to support and sustain introduction of new vaccines. However, case-control studies do not measure the impact of vaccine introduction on disease at a population level, and are subject to bias and confounding, which may lead to inaccurate results that can misinform policy decisions. In 2012, a group of experts met to review recent experience with case-control studies evaluating the effectiveness of several vaccines; here we summarize the recommendations of that group regarding best practices for planning, design and enrollment of cases and controls. Rigorous planning and preparation should focus on understanding the study context including healthcare-seeking and vaccination practices. Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies are best carried out soon after vaccine introduction because high coverage creates strong potential for confounding. Endpoints specific to the vaccine target are preferable to non-specific clinical syndromes since the proportion of non-specific outcomes preventable through vaccination may vary over time and place, leading to potentially confusing results. Controls should be representative of the source population from which cases arise, and are generally recruited from the community or health facilities where cases are enrolled. Matching of controls to cases for potential confounding factors is commonly used, although should be reserved for a limited number of key variables believed to be linked to both vaccination and disease. Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies can provide information useful to guide policy decisions and vaccine development, however rigorous preparation and design is essential

A national harmonised data collection network for neurodevelopmental disorders: A transdiagnostic assessment protocol for neurodevelopment, mental health, functioning and well-being

BACKGROUND: Children with neurodevelopmental disorders share common phenotypes, support needs and comorbidities. Such overlap suggests the value of transdiagnostic assessment pathways that contribute to knowledge about research and clinical needs of these children and their families. Despite this, large transdiagnostic data collection networks for neurodevelopmental disorders are not well developed. This paper describes the development of a nationally supported transdiagnostic clinical and research assessment protocol across Australia. The vision is to establish a harmonised network for data collection and collaboration that promotes transdiagnostic clinical practice and research. METHODS: Clinicians, researchers and community groups across Australia were consulted using surveys and national summits to identify assessment instruments and unmet needs. A national research committee was formed and, using a consensus approach, selected assessment instruments according to pre-determined criteria to form a harmonised transdiagnostic assessment protocol. RESULTS: Identified assessment instruments were clustered into domains of transdiagnostic assessment needs, which included child functioning/quality of life, child mental health, caregiver mental health, and family background information. From this, the research committee identified a core set of nine measures and an extended set of 14 measures that capture these domains with potential for further modifications as recommended by clinicians, researchers and community members. CONCLUSION: The protocol proposed here was established through a strong partnership between clinicians, researchers and the community. It will enable (i) consensus driven transdiagnostic clinical assessments for children with neurodevelopmental disorders, and (ii) research studies that will inform large transdiagnostic datasets across neurodevelopmental disorders and that can be used to inform research and policy beyond narrow diagnostic groups. The long-term vision is to use this framework to facilitate collaboration across clinics to enable large-scale data collection and research. Ultimately, the transdiagnostic assessment data can be used to inform practice and improve the lives of children with neurodevelopmental disorders and their families

Case-control vaccine effectiveness studies: Data collection, analysis and reporting results.

The case-control methodology is frequently used to evaluate vaccine effectiveness post-licensure. The results of such studies provide important insight into the level of protection afforded by vaccines in a 'real world' context, and are commonly used to guide vaccine policy decisions. However, the potential for bias and confounding are important limitations to this method, and the results of a poorly conducted or incorrectly interpreted case-control study can mislead policies. In 2012, a group of experts met to review recent experience with case-control studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness; we summarize the recommendations of that group regarding best practices for data collection, analysis, and presentation of the results of case-control vaccine effectiveness studies. Vaccination status is the primary exposure of interest, but can be challenging to assess accurately and with minimal bias. Investigators should understand factors associated with vaccination as well as the availability of documented vaccination status in the study context; case-control studies may not be a valid method for evaluating vaccine effectiveness in settings where many children lack a documented immunization history. To avoid bias, it is essential to use the same methods and effort gathering vaccination data from cases and controls. Variables that may confound the association between illness and vaccination are also important to capture as completely as possible, and where relevant, adjust for in the analysis according to the analytic plan. In presenting results from case-control vaccine effectiveness studies, investigators should describe enrollment among eligible cases and controls as well as the proportion with no documented vaccine history. Emphasis should be placed on confidence intervals, rather than point estimates, of vaccine effectiveness. Case-control studies are a useful approach for evaluating vaccine effectiveness; however careful attention must be paid to the collection, analysis and presentation of the data in order to best inform evidence-based vaccine policies

Building a tuberculosis-free world: The Lancet Commission on tuberculosis

___Key messages___ The Commission recommends five priority investments to achieve a tuberculosis-free world within a generation. These investments are designed to fulfil the mandate of the UN High Level Meeting on tuberculosis. In addition, they answer

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

Adrenergic Signaling at the Interface of Allergic Asthma and Viral Infections

Upper respiratory viral infections are a major etiologic instigator of allergic asthma, and they drive severe exacerbations of allergic inflammation in the lower airways of asthma sufferers. Rhinovirus (RV), in particular, is the main viral instigator of these pathologies. Asthma exacerbations due to RV infections are the most frequent reasons for hospitalization and account for the majority of morbidity and mortality in asthma patients. In both critical care and disease control, long- and short-acting β2-agonists are the first line of therapeutic intervention, which are used to restore airway function by promoting smooth muscle cell relaxation in bronchioles. While prophylactic use of β2-agonists reduces the frequency and pathology of exacerbations, their role in modulating the inflammatory response is only now being appreciated. Adrenergic signaling is a component of the sympathetic nervous system, and the natural ligands, epinephrine and norepinephrine (NE), regulate a multitude of autonomic functions including regulation of both the innate and adaptive immune response. NE is the primary neurotransmitter released by post-ganglionic sympathetic neurons that innervate most all peripheral tissues including lung and secondary lymphoid organs. Thus, the adrenergic signaling pathways are in direct contact with both the central and peripheral immune compartments. We present a perspective on how the adrenergic signaling pathway controls immune function and how β2-agonists may influence inflammation in the context of virus-induced asthma exacerbations

“Getting ready for the adult world”: how adults with spinal muscular atrophy perceive and experience healthcare, transition and well-being

Abstract Background Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) has profound implications across a lifetime for people with the condition and their families. Those affected need long-term multidisciplinary medical and supportive care to maintain functional mobility, independence and quality of life. Little is known about how adults with SMA experience healthcare, or the components of care perceived as important in promoting well-being. The purpose of this study was to use qualitative research methodology to explore the lived experiences of healthcare and wellbeing of adults with SMA. Purposive sampling was used to recruit adolescents and adults with SMA, their parents and partners. Face-to-face or telephone-based semi-structured interviews were recorded and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results Across a total of 25 interviews (19 people with SMA, 5 parents, 1 partner) many participants described disengagement from health services and major gaps in care throughout adulthood. Disengagement was attributed to the perceived low value of care, as well as pragmatic, financial and social barriers to navigating the complex healthcare system and accessing disability services. Adults with SMA valued healthcare services that set collaborative goals, and resources with a positive impact on their quality of life. Mental health care was highlighted as a major unmet need, particularly during times of fear and frustration in response to loss of function, social isolation, stigma, and questions of self-worth. Alongside this, participants reported resilience and pride in their coping approaches, particularly when supported by informal networks of family, friends and peers with SMA. Conclusions These findings provide insight into the lived experiences, values and perspectives of adults with SMA and their carers, revealing major, ongoing unmet healthcare needs, despite many realising meaningful and productive lives. Findings indicate the necessity of accessible, patient- and family-centered multidisciplinary care clinics that address currently unmet physical and mental health needs. Understanding the lived experiences of people with SMA, particularly during times of transition, is critical to advancing health policy, practice and research. Future studies are needed to quantify the prevalence, burden and impact of mental health needs whilst also exploring potential supportive and therapeutic strategies