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

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

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

Convergent parallel design, adapted from [24].

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

Home sampling practicality questionnaire.

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 4 -

Timings of sample collection by age group and study week for a) Saliva, b) Hand swabs and c) Nasal sampling. Mean ± SD.</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