Ten golden rules for optimal antibiotic use in hospital settings: the WARNING call to action

Antibiotics are recognized widely for their benefits when used appropriately. However, they are often used inappropriately despite the importance of responsible use within good clinical practice. Effective antibiotic treatment is an essential component of universal healthcare, and it is a global responsibility to ensure appropriate use. Currently, pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to develop new antibiotics due to scientific, regulatory, and financial barriers, further emphasizing the importance of appropriate antibiotic use. To address this issue, the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery established an international multidisciplinary task force of 295 experts from 115 countries with different backgrounds. The task force developed a position statement called WARNING (Worldwide Antimicrobial Resistance National/International Network Group) aimed at raising awareness of antimicrobial resistance and improving antibiotic prescribing practices worldwide. The statement outlined is 10 axioms, or “golden rules,” for the appropriate use of antibiotics that all healthcare workers should consistently adhere in clinical practice

Safety and immunogenicity of a variant-adapted SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03 adjuvant as a booster in adults primed with authorized vaccines: a phase 3, parallel-group studyResearch in context

Summary: Background: In a parallel-group, international, phase 3 study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04762680), we evaluated prototype (D614) and Beta (B.1.351) variant recombinant spike protein booster vaccines with AS03-adjuvant (CoV2 preS dTM-AS03). Methods: Adults, previously primed with mRNA (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273), adenovirus-vectored (Ad26.CoV2.S, ChAdOx1nCoV-19) or protein (CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 [monovalent D614; MV(D614)]) vaccines were enrolled between 29 July 2021 and 22 February 2022. Participants were stratified by age (18–55 and ≥ 56 years) and received one of the following CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 booster formulations: MV(D614) (n = 1285), MV(B.1.351) (n = 707) or bivalent D614 + B.1.351 (BiV; n = 625). Unvaccinated adults who tested negative on a SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic test (control group, n = 479) received two primary doses, 21 days apart, of MV(D614). Anti-D614G and anti-B.1.351 antibodies were evaluated using validated pseudovirus (lentivirus) neutralization (PsVN) assay 14 days post-booster (day [D]15) in 18–55-year-old BNT162b2-primed participants and compared with those pre-booster (D1) and on D36 in 18–55-year-old controls (primary immunogenicity endpoints). PsVN titers to Omicron BA.1, BA.2 and BA.4/5 subvariants were also evaluated. Safety was evaluated over a 12-month follow-up period. Planned interim analyses are presented up to 14 days post-last vaccination for immunogenicity and over a median duration of 5 months for safety. Findings: All three boosters elicited robust anti-D614G or -B.1.351 PsVN responses for mRNA, adenovirus-vectored and protein vaccine-primed groups. Among BNT162b2-primed adults (18–55 years), geometric means of the individual post-booster versus pre-booster titer ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) were: for MV (D614), 23.37 (18.58–29.38) (anti-D614G); for MV(B.1.351), 35.41 (26.71–46.95) (anti-B.1.351); and for BiV, 14.39 (11.39–18.28) (anti-D614G) and 34.18 (25.84–45.22 (anti-B.1.351). GMT ratios (98.3% CI) versus post-primary vaccination GMTs in controls, were: for MV(D614) booster, 2.16 (1.69; 2.75) [anti-D614G]; for MV(B.1.351), 1.96 (1.54; 2.50) [anti-B.1.351]; and for BiV, 2.34 (1.84; 2.96) [anti-D614G] and 1.39 (1.09; 1.77) [anti-B.1.351]. All booster formulations elicited cross-neutralizing antibodies against Omicron BA.2 (across priming vaccine subgroups), Omicron BA.1 (BNT162b2-primed participants) and Omicron BA.4/5 (BNT162b2-primed participants and MV D614-primed participants). Similar patterns in antibody responses were observed for participants aged ≥56 years. Reactogenicity tended to be transient and mild-to-moderate severity in all booster groups. No safety concerns were identified. Interpretation: CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 boosters demonstrated acceptable safety and elicited robust neutralizing antibodies against multiple variants, regardless of priming vaccine. Funding: Sanofi and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)

Ten golden rules for optimal antibiotic use in hospital settings : the WARNING call to action

Abstract: Antibiotics are recognized widely for their benefits when used appropriately. However, they are often used inappropriately despite the importance of responsible use within good clinical practice. Effective antibiotic treatment is an essential component of universal healthcare, and it is a global responsibility to ensure appropriate use. Currently, pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to develop new antibiotics due to scientific, regulatory, and financial barriers, further emphasizing the importance of appropriate antibiotic use. To address this issue, the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery established an international multidisciplinary task force of 295 experts from 115 countries with different backgrounds. The task force developed a position statement called WARNING (Worldwide Antimicrobial Resistance National/International Network Group) aimed at raising awareness of antimicrobial resistance and improving antibiotic prescribing practices worldwide. The statement outlined is 10 axioms, or "golden rules," for the appropriate use of antibiotics that all healthcare workers should consistently adhere in clinical practice

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health