Comparison of UK paediatric SARS-CoV-2 admissions across the first and second pandemic waves

Background: We hypothesised that theclinical characteristics of hospitalised children and young people(CYP) with SARS-CoV-2 in the UK second wave (W2) would differ from the firstwave (W1) due to the alpha variant (B.1.1.7), school reopening and relaxation of shielding. Methods: Prospective multicentre observational cohort study of patients <19 years hospitalised in the UK with SARS-CoV-2 between 17/01/20 and 31/01/21. Clinical characteristics were compared between W1 and W2 (W1 = 17/01/20-31/07/20,W2 =01/08/20-31/01/21). Results: 2044 CYP < 19 years from 187 hospitals. 427/2044 (20.6%) with asymptomatic/incidental SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from main analysis. 16.0% (248/1548) of symptomatic CYP were admitted to critical care and 0.8% (12/1504) died. 5.6% (91/1617) of symptomatic CYP had Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). After excluding CYP with MIS-C, patients in W2 had lower Paediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS, composite vital sign score), lower antibiotic use and less respiratory and cardiovascular support than W1. The proportion of CYP admitted to critical care was unchanged. 58.0% (938/1617) of symptomatic CYP had no reported comorbidity. Patients without co-morbidities were younger (42.4%, 398/938, <1 year), had lower PEWS, shorter length of stay and less respiratory support. Conclusions: We found no evidence of increased disease severity in W2 vs W1. A large proportion of hospitalised CYP had no comorbidity. Impact: No evidence of increased severity of COVID-19 admissions amongst children and young people (CYP) in the second vs first wave in the UK, despite changes in variant, relaxation of shielding and return to face-to-face schooling.CYP with no comorbidities made up a significant proportion of those admitted. However, they had shorter length of stays and lower treatment requirements than CYP with comorbidities once those with MIS-C were excluded.At least 20% of CYP admitted in this cohort had asymptomatic/incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection.This paper was presented to SAGE to inform CYP vaccination policy in the UK

Corrigendum to “Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: Three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial” [J Infect 84(6) (2022) 795–813, 5511]

The authors regret that there has been an error published within Fig. 5 of this article. The authors inadvertently pasted the anti-spike plots for the “≥70 years” group instead of the pseudo-neutralising antibody plots (pages 808–809) to Fig. 5A and B. These plots replicate the “≥70 years” group in Fig. 4A and B on pages 806–807. The authors have confirmed that the error does not affect the interpretation of the results and the rest of the paper, and the plots for the “<70 years” group in Fig. 5 are correct. The revised Fig. 5 contains the correct plots for pseudo-neutralising antibody data has now been updated in the original publication. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused

Effect of priming interval on reactogenicity, peak immunological response, and waning after homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccine schedules: exploratory analyses of Com-COV, a randomised control trial

BackgroundPriming COVID-19 vaccine schedules have been deployed at variable intervals globally, which might influence immune persistence and the relative importance of third-dose booster programmes. Here, we report exploratory analyses from the Com-COV trial, assessing the effect of 4-week versus 12-week priming intervals on reactogenicity and the persistence of immune response up to 6 months after homologous and heterologous priming schedules using the vaccines BNT162b2 (tozinameran, Pfizer/BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca).MethodsCom-COV was a participant-masked, randomised immunogenicity trial. For these exploratory analyses, we used the trial's general cohort, in which adults aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned to four homologous and four heterologous vaccine schedules using BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with 4-week or 12-week priming intervals (eight groups in total). Immunogenicity analyses were done on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, comprising participants with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline or for the trial duration, to assess the effect of priming interval on humoral and cellular immune response 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, in addition to the effects on reactogenicity and safety. The Com-COV trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 69254139 (EudraCT 2020–005085–33).FindingsBetween Feb 11 and 26, 2021, 730 participants were randomly assigned in the general cohort, with 77–89 per group in the ITT analysis. At 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, the geometric mean concentration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG was significantly higher in the 12-week interval groups than in the 4-week groups for homologous schedules. In heterologous schedule groups, we observed a significant difference between intervals only for the BNT162b2–ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group at 28 days. Pseudotyped virus neutralisation titres were significantly higher in all 12-week interval groups versus 4-week groups, 28 days post-second dose, with geometric mean ratios of 1·4 (95% CI 1·1–1·8) for homologous BNT162b2, 1·5 (1·2–1·9) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19–BNT162b2, 1·6 (1·3–2·1) for BNT162b2–ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 2·4 (1·7–3·2) for homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. At 6 months post-second dose, anti-spike IgG geometric mean concentrations fell to 0·17–0·24 of the 28-day post-second dose value across all eight study groups, with only homologous BNT162b2 showing a slightly slower decay for the 12-week versus 4-week interval in the adjusted analysis. The rank order of schedules by humoral response was unaffected by interval, with homologous BNT162b2 remaining the most immunogenic by antibody response. T-cell responses were reduced in all 12-week priming intervals compared with their 4-week counterparts. 12-week schedules for homologous BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19–BNT162b2 were up to 80% less reactogenic than 4-week schedules.InterpretationThese data support flexibility in priming interval in all studied COVID-19 vaccine schedules. Longer priming intervals might result in lower reactogenicity in schedules with BNT162b2 as a second dose and higher humoral immunogenicity in homologous schedules, but overall lower T-cell responses across all schedules. Future vaccines using these novel platforms might benefit from schedules with long intervals

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

Vaccination against COVID-19: risks and benefits in children

Countries in Europe and around the world have taken varying approaches to their policies on COVID-19 vaccination for children. The low risk of severe illness from COVID-19 means that even small risks from vaccination warrant careful consideration. Vaccination appears to result in a decreased risk of severe illness including the paediatric multi-system inflammatory syndrome known to be associated with COVID-19. These risks have already decreased significantly with the emergence of the Omicron variant and its subvariants, and due to widespread population immunity through previous infection. There is a relatively high risk of myocarditis following second doses of mRNA vaccines in adolescent males, although the general course of this condition appears mild.Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccination only provides a transient reduction in transmission. Currently, insufficient evidence exists to determine the impact of vaccination on post-acute COVID syndromes in children, which are uncommon

The disease burden of respiratory syncytial virus in Infants

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To describe the current global burden of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants and its implications for morbidity, health resources and economic costs. RECENT FINDINGS: New prophylactic therapies are on the horizon for RSV in the form of long-acting monoclonal antibodies suitable for healthy infants and maternal immunizations. SUMMARY: Despite being responsible for significant global infant morbidity and mortality, until recently there have been no effective therapeutics available for healthy infants to protect them from RSV. Several new drugs are likely to be available within the next few years which could help relieve a huge burden on healthcare systems over the coming winters.</p

The utility of point of care testing of procalcitonin in paediatric acute assessment

Objective: febrile illnesses are a common cause of presentation in acute pediatrics, with biomarkers fre-quently used to help differentiate mild infections from serious bacterial infections (SBI). We aimed to see if a point of care test for procalcitonin could help to reduce antibiotic use and avoid unnecessary admission. Patients and Methods: a point of care procalcitonin ma-chine which produces results within 20 minutes was in-troduced to two pediatric assessment units across both sites of a secondary-care hospital trust, alongside guid-ance for when tested would be appropriate. We performed a prospective, observational, pilot service eval-uation, of all children tested during the study period of November 2018 to March 2019. We collected data at the time of testing, including the indication for testing and plan prior to testing, then retrospectively collected outcome data for children tested including diagnosis, treatment and whether the child was admitted to hospital. Results: 68 tests were performed over 5 months. There are differing denominators due to missing data. Children were predominantly male (40/68, 58.8%) and pre-school age (median age 2.9y, Q1-Q3 1.3-6.7). Severity of illness was low, with 7/54 (11.5%) triggering sepsis tools. The primary indication for testing was febrile illness with no source of infection and some concerning features (31/59, 52.5%). Following testing, 35/67 (52.5%) of patients were admitted and 31/67 (47.1%) had IV antibiotics. A low procalcitonin (&lt;0.5 ng/L) was observed in 46/67 (69.1%) of patients, however 21/46 (45.7%) of these children were admitted and 16/46 (34.8%) were given IV antibi-otics. Procalcitonin performed poorly at detecting SBIs in this cohort (result &gt;0.5 ng/L for 1/5 SBIs). Conclusion: there was no clear impact of point of care procalcitonin on admission or antibiotic prescribing in this small pilot study. Clinicians often tested for rea-sons outside the recommended scenarios and often treated “low risk” patients, as determined by low pro-calcitonin, with antibiotics. These effects may be due to low familiarity with procalcitonin as a biomarker.</p

Diagnosis and treatment of biofilm infections in children

Purpose of review: biofilm-associated infections cause difficulties in the management of childhood chronic infections and other diseases, due to the invasive nature of interventions which are often necessary for definitive management. Despite their importance, there are challenges in diagnosing biofilm infections and gaps in clinicians' understanding regarding the significance of biofilms.Recent findings: many chronic infections associated with biofilms remain difficult or impossible to eradicate with conventional therapy. Surgical intervention, implant removal or long-term intermittent or suppressive antimicrobial therapy may be required. There are still significant challenges in detecting biofilms which presents a barrier in clinical practice and research. Novel therapies to disrupt biofilms are currently under investigation, which may help reduce the impact of antimicrobial resistance.Summary: biofilm-associated infection should be considered wherever there is clinical concern for an infection affecting prosthetic material, where there is a predisposing condition such as suppurative lung disease; or in the setting of chronic or relapsing infections which may be culture negative. New diagnostic methods for detecting biofilms are a research priority for both clinical diagnosis and the ability to conduct high quality clinical trials of novel antibiofilm interventions.</p