Comparing Reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: A number of vaccines have now been developed against COVID-19. Differences in reactogenicity and safety profiles according to the vaccine technologies employed are becoming apparent from clinical trials. METHODS: Five databases (Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine COVID-19 vaccine tracker) were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials between 1 January 2020 and 12 January 2022 according to predetermined criteria with no language limitations. RESULTS: Forty-two datasets were identified, with 20 vaccines using four different technologies (viral vector, inactivated, mRNA and protein sub-unit). Adults and adolescents over 12 years were included. Control groups used saline placebos, adjuvants, and comparator vaccines. The most consistently reported solicited adverse events were fever, fatigue, headache, pain at injection site, redness, and swelling. Both doses of mRNA vaccines, the second dose of protein subunit and the first dose of adenovirus vectored vaccines were the most reactogenic, while the inactivated vaccines were the least reactogenic. CONCLUSIONS: The different COVID-19 vaccines currently available appear to have distinct reactogenicity profiles, dependent on the vaccine technology employed. Awareness of these differences may allow targeted recommendations for specific populations. Greater standardization of methods for adverse event reporting will aid future research in this field

Optomechanical devides for mechanobiological fingerprinting

Resumen del trabajo presentado en el Frontiers of Nanomechanical Systems (FSN2021), celebraod de forma virtual del 19 al 21 de enero de 2021Twenty years have passed since the first detection of biomolecular recognition using micromechanical systems[1]. In the last two decades, micro- nanomechanical systems have been refined to achieve amazing detection limits in force and mass that have enabled different schemes for ultrasensitive measurements of biological interactions as well as new ways of biological spectrometry. More recently, these figures of merit have been improved by coupling optical cavities to mechanical systems. In this talk, I will review the use of micro- nanomechanical systems for mechanobiological fingerprinting of biological entities, particularizing in the contributions of our group [2]. An essential core of this topic is the discussion about the mechanical coupling between a biological particle and a mechanical resonator, an issue that it is has been often oversimplified. We show that the biomechanical coupling that emerges between a bioparticle and a mechanical resonator is more complex than previously expect and it can give rise to different interaction regimes, in which the resonator response is dominated by different physical parameters of the analyte [3-4]. In particular, we will show experiments done with a variety of micro- nano- optomechanical systems using different measurement schemes where the mass, the stiffness and even the vibration modes of single biological entities can be measured with high sensitivity. It is now widely appreciated the essential role of mechanics in relevant biological processes and how disease can be revealed as changes in the mechanical properties of biological matter. I am pretty sure that future developments in optomechanical devices will contribute for major understanding of diseases as well as for new avenues in diagnosis and therapy

Propositive follow-up: Long-term immune responses to the 4CMenB and MenACWY vaccines in people living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV have an increased risk of meningococcal disease. The Propositive trial evaluated co-administration of two doses of a four-component recombinant protein-based MenB vaccine (4CMenB) and a quadrivalent conjugate polysaccharide MenACWY vaccine (MenACWY-CRM197) given 1 month apart in people with HIV. The follow-up trial assessed the immunogenicity of these vaccines at 1.5 and 2.5 years after primary vaccination. METHODS: Participants who completed the parent Propositive trial were invited to the follow-up study. Immunogenicity analysis was performed at 18 and 30 months after primary vaccination. Primary outcome measures were serum bactericidal antibody (SBA) geometric mean titres (GMTs) against three MenB reference strains and the proportion of participants maintaining a protective SBA titre of ≥4 at 18 and 30 months. Secondary outcome measures were SBA GMTs against MenA, C, W, and Y serogroups and the proportion of participants maintaining a protective SBA titre of ≥8 at 18 and 30 months. The trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT042394300). RESULTS: A total of 40 participants aged 22-47 years were enrolled. Geometric mean titres waned by 18 and 30 months but remained higher than pre-vaccination for all MenB strains and MenA, C, W, and Y. In total, 75%-85% of participants retained protective SBA titres by 30 months against individual MenB strains, whereas 68.8% of patients retained protective antibody titres against all three MenB strains. Antibodies against MenC waned more rapidly than did those against MenA, W, and Y. The proportion of participants with protective titres against MenC at 30 months was also lower (46.9%) than that with protective titres against MenA (87.5%), W (78.1%), and Y (87.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Immune responses against MenB in our cohort of people living with HIV at 2.5 years of follow-up were reassuring, with 68.8% of participants retaining protection against all three reference strains. However, responses against MenC were lower than those against MenA, W, and Y serogroups

Comparing reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccine boosters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Different COVID-19 vaccines are being utilized as boosters. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines given as booster doses, according to vaccine type, dose, timing, participant characteristics and primary immunization regimen received. METHODS: Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials between 1 January 2020 and 1 January 2023 according to predetermined criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies describing 19 vaccines of four different types (viral vector, inactivated, mRNA and protein sub-unit) were identified. BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) was selected as the control as it was most often compared with other vaccines. Fever, fatigue, headache, injection-site pain, redness and swelling were the most frequently reported solicited events. mRNA vaccines were the most reactogenic, followed by viral vector vaccines and protein sub-unit vaccines, while inactivated vaccines were the least reactogenic. Full-dose vaccines were more reactogenic than half-dose vaccines. Heterologous BNT162b2 boosters were more reactogenic than boosters with the same vaccine used for primary immunization. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine booster schedules have distinct reactogenicity profiles, dependent on dose and vaccine type, which may allow targeted recommendations and provide choice for specific populations. Greater standardization of adverse event reporting will aid future studies

Health care and societal costs of the management of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Spain: a descriptive analysis

Background: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental condition in childhood (5.3% to 7.1% worldwide prevalence), with substantial overall financial burden to children/adolescents, their families, and society. The aims of this study were to describe the clinical characteristics of children and adolescents with ADHD in Spain, estimate the associated direct/indirect costs of the disorder, and assess whether the characteristics and financial costs differed between children/adolescents adequately responding to currently available pharmacotherapies compared with children/adolescents for whom pharmacotherapies failed. Methods: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional, descriptive analysis conducted in 15 health units representative of the overall Spanish population. Data on demographic characteristics, socio-occupational status, social relationships, clinical variables of the disease, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments received were collected in 321 children and adolescents with ADHD. Direct and indirect costs were estimated over one year from both a health care system and a societal perspective. Results: The estimated average cost of ADHD per year per child/adolescent was €5733 in 2012 prices; direct costs accounted for 60.2% of the total costs (€3450). Support from a psychologist/educational psychologist represented 45.2% of direct costs and 27.2% of total costs. Pharmacotherapy accounted for 25.8% of direct costs and 15.5% of total costs. Among indirect costs (€2283), 65.2% was due to caregiver expenses. The total annual costs were significantly higher for children/adolescents who responded poorly to pharmacological treatment (€7654 versus €5517; P = 0.024), the difference being mainly due to significantly higher direct costs, particularly with larger expenses for non-pharmacological treatment (P = 0.012). Conclusions: ADHD has a significant personal, familial, and financial impact on the Spanish health system and society. Successful pharmacological intervention was associated with lower overall expenses in the management of the disorde

Health care and societal costs of the management of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in Spain: a descriptive analysis.

Background: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental condition in childhood (5.3% to 7.1% worldwide prevalence), with substantial overall financial burden to children/adolescents, their families, and society. The aims of this study were to describe the clinical characteristics of children and adolescents with ADHD in Spain, estimate the associated direct/indirect costs of the disorder, and assess whether the characteristics and financial costs differed between children/adolescents adequately responding to currently available pharmacotherapies compared with children/adolescents for whom pharmacotherapies failed. Methods: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional, descriptive analysis conducted in 15 health units representative of the overall Spanish population. Data on demographic characteristics, socio-occupational status, social relationships, clinical variables of the disease, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments received were collected in 321 children and adolescents with ADHD. Direct and indirect costs were estimated over one year from both a health care system and a societal perspective. Results: The estimated average cost of ADHD per year per child/adolescent was ¿5733 in 2012 prices; direct costs accounted for 60.2% of the total costs (¿3450). Support from a psychologist/educational psychologist represented 45.2% of direct costs and 27.2% of total costs. Pharmacotherapy accounted for 25.8% of direct costs and 15.5% of total costs. Among indirect costs (¿2283), 65.2% was due to caregiver expenses. The total annual costs were significantly higher for children/adolescents who responded poorly to pharmacological treatment (¿7654 versus ¿5517; P = 0.024), the difference being mainly due to significantly higher direct costs, particularly with larger expenses for non-pharmacological treatment (P = 0.012). Conclusions: ADHD has a significant personal, familial, and financial impact on the Spanish health system and society. Successful pharmacological intervention was associated with lower overall expenses in the management of the disorder

The predictive role of symptoms in COVID-19 diagnostic models : A longitudinal insight

Acknowledgements 2019nCoV-302 Study Group Members: The NVX-CoV2373-2019nCoV-302 clinical trial was a collective group effort across multiple institutions and locations. Below is a list of sites and staff that significantly contributed to the implementation and conduct of the NVX-CoV2373-2019nCoV-302 clinical trial.Peer reviewe

Safety and Efficacy of the NVX-CoV2373 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine at Completion of the Placebo-Controlled Phase of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Acknowledgements The study and article were funded by Novavax. We would like to thank all the study participants for their commitment to this study. We also acknowledge the investigators and their study teams for their hard work and dedication. In addition, we would like to thank the National Institute for Health Research, representatives from the Department of Health and Social Care laboratories and NHS Digital and the members of the UK Vaccine Task Force. Editorial support was provided by Kelly Cameron of Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company Funding This work was funded by Novavax, and the sponsor had primary responsibility for study design, study vaccines, protocol development, study monitoring, data management, and statistical analyses. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript before submission. LF reports a position as a prior full-time employee, now contractor to Novavax re-imbursed hourly for work performed on this study and in analyses and drafting this report. IC reports providing medical writing support for this work as an employee of NovavaxPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Safety and immunogenicity of heterologous versus homologous prime-boost schedules with an adenoviral vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Com-COV): a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer–BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. METHODS: Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. INTERPRETATION: Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research