Explore the vast range of titles available.

Cases of human monkeypox are rarely seen outside of west and central Africa. There are few data regarding viral kinetics or the duration of viral shedding and no licensed treatments. Two oral drugs, brincidofovir and tecovirimat, have been approved for treatment of smallpox and have demonstrated efficacy against monkeypox in animals. Our aim was to describe the longitudinal clinical course of monkeypox in a high-income setting, coupled with viral dynamics, and any adverse events related to novel antiviral therapies. In this retrospective observational study, we report the clinical features, longitudinal virological findings, and response to off-label antivirals in seven patients with monkeypox who were diagnosed in the UK between 2018 and 2021, identified through retrospective case-note review. This study included all patients who were managed in dedicated high consequence infectious diseases (HCID) centres in Liverpool, London, and Newcastle, coordinated via a national HCID network. We reviewed all cases since the inception of the HCID (airborne) network between Aug 15, 2018, and Sept 10, 2021, identifying seven patients. Of the seven patients, four were men and three were women. Three acquired monkeypox in the UK: one patient was a health-care worker who acquired the virus nosocomially, and one patient who acquired the virus abroad transmitted it to an adult and child within their household cluster. Notable disease features included viraemia, prolonged monkeypox virus DNA detection in upper respiratory tract swabs, reactive low mood, and one patient had a monkeypox virus PCR-positive deep tissue abscess. Five patients spent more than 3 weeks (range 22–39 days) in isolation due to prolonged PCR positivity. Three patients were treated with brincidofovir (200 mg once a week orally), all of whom developed elevated liver enzymes resulting in cessation of therapy. One patient was treated with tecovirimat (600 mg twice daily for 2 weeks orally), experienced no adverse effects, and had a shorter duration of viral shedding and illness (10 days hospitalisation) compared with the other six patients. One patient experienced a mild relapse 6 weeks after hospital discharge. Human monkeypox poses unique challenges, even to well resourced health-care systems with HCID networks. Prolonged upper respiratory tract viral DNA shedding after skin lesion resolution challenged current infection prevention and control guidance. There is an urgent need for prospective studies of antivirals for this disease. None.

The T cell memory response is a crucial component of adaptive immunity responsible for limiting or preventing viral reinfection. T cell memory after infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus or vaccination is broad, and spans multiple viral proteins and epitopes, about 20 in each individual. So far the T cell memory response is long lasting and provides a high level of cross reactivity and hence resistance to viral escape by variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, such as the omicron variant. All current vaccine regimens tested produce robust T cell memory responses, and heterologous regimens will probably enhance protective responses through increased breadth. T cell memory could have a major role in protecting against severe covid-19 disease through rapid viral clearance and early presentation of epitopes, and the presence of cross reactive T cells might enhance this protection. T cell memory is likely to provide ongoing protection against admission to hospital and death, and the development of a pan-coronovirus vaccine might future proof against new pandemic strains.

Efficacy trials of antibody-inducing protein-in-adjuvant vaccines targeting the blood-stage Plasmodium falciparum malaria parasite have so far shown disappointing results. The induction of cell-mediated responses in conjunction with antibody responses is thought to be one alternative strategy that could achieve protective efficacy in humans. Here, we prepared chimpanzee adenovirus 63 (ChAd63) and modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) replication-deficient vectors encoding the well-studied P. falciparum blood-stage malaria antigen merozoite surface protein 1 (MSP1). A phase Ia clinical trial was conducted in healthy adults of a ChAd63-MVA MSP1 heterologous prime-boost immunization regime. The vaccine was safe and generally well tolerated. Fewer systemic adverse events (AEs) were observed following ChAd63 MSP1 than MVA MSP1 administration. Exceptionally strong T-cell responses were induced, and these displayed a mixed of CD4+ and CD8+ phenotype. Substantial MSP1-specific serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody responses were also induced, which were capable of recognizing native parasite antigen, but these did not reach titers sufficient to neutralize P. falciparum parasites in vitro. This viral vectored vaccine regime is thus a leading approach for the induction of strong cellular and humoral immunogenicity against difficult disease targets in humans. Further studies are required to assess whether this strategy can achieve protective efficacy against blood-stage malaria infection.

Malaria remains a significant global health burden and a vaccine would make a substantial contribution to malaria control. Chimpanzee Adenovirus 63 Modified Vaccinia Ankara Multiple epitope thrombospondin adhesion protein (ME-TRAP) and vaccination has shown significant efficacy against malaria sporozoite challenge in malaria-naive European volunteers and against malaria infection in Kenyan adults. Infants are the target age group for malaria vaccination; however, no studies have yet assessed T-cell responses in children and infants. We enrolled 138 Gambian and Burkinabe children in four different age-groups: 2–6 years old in The Gambia; 5–17 months old in Burkina Faso; 5–12 months old, and also 10 weeks old, in The Gambia; and evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of Chimpanzee Adenovirus 63 Modified Vaccinia Ankara ME-TRAP heterologous prime-boost immunization. The vaccines were well tolerated in all age groups with no vaccine-related serious adverse events. T-cell responses to vaccination peaked 7 days after boosting with Modified Vaccinia Ankara, with T-cell responses highest in 10 week-old infants. Heterologous prime-boost immunization with Chimpanzee Adenovirus 63 and Modified Vaccinia Ankara ME-TRAP was well tolerated in infants and children, inducing strong T-cell responses. We identify an approach that induces potent T-cell responses in infants, which may be useful for preventing other infectious diseases requiring cellular immunity.

The induction of cellular immunity, in conjunction with antibodies, may be essential for vaccines to protect against blood-stage infection with the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. We have shown that prime-boost delivery of P. falciparum blood-stage antigens by chimpanzee adenovirus 63 (ChAd63) followed by the attenuated orthopoxvirus MVA is safe and immunogenic in healthy adults. Here, we report on vaccine efficacy against controlled human malaria infection delivered by mosquito bites. The blood-stage malaria vaccines were administered alone, or together (MSP1+AMA1), or with a pre-erythrocytic malaria vaccine candidate (MSP1+ME-TRAP). In this first human use of coadministered ChAd63-MVA regimes, we demonstrate immune interference whereby responses against merozoite surface protein 1 (MSP1) are dominant over apical membrane antigen 1 (AMA1) and ME-TRAP. We also show that induction of strong cellular immunity against MSP1 and AMA1 is safe, but does not impact on parasite growth rates in the blood. In a subset of vaccinated volunteers, a delay in time to diagnosis was observed and sterilizing protection was observed in one volunteer coimmunized with MSP1+AMA1—results consistent with vaccine-induced pre-erythrocytic, rather than blood-stage, immunity. These data call into question the utility of T cell-inducing blood-stage malaria vaccines and suggest that the focus should remain on high-titer antibody induction against susceptible antigen targets.

In a placebo-controlled, phase 2–3 trial, one dose of mRNA-1345 led to a lower incidence of RSV disease among adults 60 years of age or older. Solicited local and systemic adverse reactions occurred more often with the vaccine.

COVID-19 vaccine supply shortages are causing concerns about compromised immunity in some countries as the interval between the first and second dose becomes longer. Conversely, countries with no supply constraints are considering administering a third dose. We assessed the persistence of immunogenicity after a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), immunity after an extended interval (44–45 weeks) between the first and second dose, and response to a third dose as a booster given 28–38 weeks after the second dose. In this substudy, volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in the phase 1/2 (COV001) controlled trial in the UK and had received either a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles were invited back for vaccination. Here we report the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a delayed second dose (44–45 weeks after first dose) or a third dose of the vaccine (28–38 weeks after second dose). Data from volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in either the phase 1/2 (COV001) or phase 2/3 (COV002), single-blinded, randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and who had previously received a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles are used for comparison purposes. COV001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and COV002 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and both are continuing but not recruiting. Between March 11 and 21, 2021, 90 participants were enrolled in the third-dose boost substudy, of whom 80 (89%) were assessable for reactogenicity, 75 (83%) were assessable for evaluation of antibodies, and 15 (17%) were assessable for T-cells responses. The two-dose cohort comprised 321 participants who had reactogenicity data (with prime-boost interval of 8–12 weeks: 267 [83%] of 321; 15–25 weeks: 24 [7%]; or 44–45 weeks: 30 [9%]) and 261 who had immunogenicity data (interval of 8–12 weeks: 115 [44%] of 261; 15–25 weeks: 116 [44%]; and 44–45 weeks: 30 [11%]). 480 participants from the single-dose cohort were assessable for immunogenicity up to 44–45 weeks after vaccination. Antibody titres after a single dose measured approximately 320 days after vaccination remained higher than the titres measured at baseline (geometric mean titre of 66·00 ELISA units [EUs; 95% CI 47·83–91·08] vs 1·75 EUs [1·60–1·93]). 32 participants received a late second dose of vaccine 44–45 weeks after the first dose, of whom 30 were included in immunogenicity and reactogenicity analyses. Antibody titres were higher 28 days after vaccination in those with a longer interval between first and second dose than for those with a short interval (median total IgG titre: 923 EUs [IQR 525–1764] with an 8–12 week interval; 1860 EUs [917–4934] with a 15–25 week interval; and 3738 EUs [1824–6625] with a 44–45 week interval). Among participants who received a third dose of vaccine, antibody titres (measured in 73 [81%] participants for whom samples were available) were significantly higher 28 days after a third dose (median total IgG titre: 3746 EUs [IQR 2047–6420]) than 28 days after a second dose (median 1792 EUs [IQR 899–4634]; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·0043). T-cell responses were also boosted after a third dose (median response increased from 200 spot forming units [SFUs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs; IQR 127–389] immediately before the third dose to 399 SFUs per milion PBMCs [314–662] by day 28 after the third dose; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·012). Reactogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose was lower than reactogenicity after a first dose. An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses. UK Research and Innovation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, AstraZeneca, and Wellcome.

The omicron BA.1 bivalent booster is used globally. Previous open-label studies of the omicron BA.1 (Moderna mRNA-1273.214) booster showed superior neutralising antibody responses against omicron BA.1 and other variants compared with the original mRNA-1273 booster. We aimed to compare the safety and immunogenicity of omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters with the original mRNA-1273 vaccine in a large, randomised controlled trial. In this large, randomised, observer-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trial in the UK (28 hospital and vaccination clinic sites), individuals aged 16 years or older who had previously received two injections of any authorised or approved COVID-19 vaccine, with or without an mRNA vaccine booster (third dose), were randomly allocated (1:1) using interactive response technology to receive 50 μg omicron BA.1 monovalent or bivalent vaccines or 50 μg mRNA-1273 administered as boosters via deltoid intramuscular injection. The primary outcomes were safety and immunogenicity at day 29, including prespecified non-inferiority and superiority of booster immune responses, based on the neutralising antibody geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios of the monovalent and bivalent boosters compared with mRNA-1273. Safety was assessed in all participants who received first or second boosters, and primary immunogenicity outcomes were assessed in all participants who received the planned booster dose, had pre-booster and day 29 antibody data, had no major protocol deviations, and who were SARS-CoV-2-negative. The study is registered with EudraCT (2022-000063-51) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05249829) and is ongoing. Between Feb 16 and March 24, 2022, 724 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 monovalent (n=366) or mRNA-1273 (n=357), and between April 2 and June 17, 2022, 2824 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 bivalent (n=1418) or mRNA-1273 (n=1395) vaccines as second boosters. Median durations (months) between the most recent COVID-19 vaccine and study boosters were similar for omicron BA.1 monovalent (4·0 months [IQR 3·6–4·7]) and mRNA-1273 (4·1 [3·5–4·7]), and for the omicron BA.1 bivalent (5·5 [4·8–6·2]) and mRNA-1273 (5·4 [4·8–6·2]) boosters. The omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters elicited superior neutralising GMCs against the omicron BA.1 variant compared with mRNA-1273, with GMC ratios of 1·68 (99% CI 1·45−1·95) and 1·53 (1·41−1·67) at day 29 post-booster doses in participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Both boosters induced non-inferior ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (Asp614Gly) immune responses with GMCs that were similar for the bivalent (2987·2 [95% CI 2814·9–3169·9]) versus mRNA-1273 (2911·3 [2750·9–3081·0]) and lower for the monovalent (2699·7 [2431·3–2997·7] vs 3020·6 [2776·5–3286·2]) boosters, with respective GMC ratios of 1·05 (99% CI 0·96–1·15) and 0·82 (95% CI 0·74–0·91). Results were comparable regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Incidences of solicited adverse reactions with the omicron BA.1 monovalent (335 [91·3%] of 367 participants) and omicron BA.1 bivalent (1285 [90·4%] of 1421 participants) boosters were similar to those observed previously for mRNA-1273, with no new safety concerns identified and no occurrences of fatal adverse events. Omicron-containing booster vaccines generated superior immunogenicity against omicron BA.1 and comparable immunogenicity against the original strain with no new safety concerns. It remains important to continuously monitor the immune responses and real-world vaccine effectiveness as divergent SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge. Moderna.

We sought to provide the first report of the use of NEWS2 monitoring to pre-emptively identify clinical deterioration within hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Consecutive adult admissions with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 were included in this single-centre retrospective UK cohort study. We analysed all electronic clinical observations recorded within 28 days of admission until discharge or occurrence of a serious event, defined as any of the following: initiation of respiratory support, admission to intensive care, initiation of end of life care, or in-hospital death. 133/296 (44.9%) patients experienced at least one serious event. NEWS2 ≥ 5 heralded the first occurrence of a serious event with sensitivity 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–1.00), specificity 0.28 (0.21–0.35), positive predictive value (PPV) 0.53 (0.47–0.59), and negative predictive value (NPV) 0.96 (0.90–1.00). The NPV (but not PPV) of NEWS2 monitoring exceeded that of other early warning scores including the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) (0.59 [0.52–0.66], p<0.001) and quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score (0.58 [0.51–0.65], p<0.001). Our results support the use of NEWS2 monitoring as a sensitive method to identify deterioration of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, albeit at the expense of a relatively high false-trigger rate.

•Induction of HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein (Env) directed broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs) is a potential vaccine strategy.•Cell-to-cell transmission of HIV-1 at immune cell synapses is a highly efficient method of HIV-1 dissemination.•Infection at synapses is dependent upon receptor engagement and Env-mediated fusion and thus is amenable to bNAb inhibition.•Epitope-specific reduction in neutralization activity compared to cell-free inhibition has been reported.•The mechanisms governing the relative restriction in neutralization activity in cell-to-cell transmission are unknown. Cell-to-cell spread of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) between immune cells was first observed over 20 years ago. During this time, the question of whether this infection route favours viral evasion of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) targeting the virus envelope glycoprotein (Env) has been repeatedly investigated, but with conflicting results. A clearer picture has formed in the last few years as more broadly neutralizing antibodies have been isolated and we gain further insight into the mechanisms of HIV-1 transmission at virological and infectious synapses. Nevertheless consensus is still lacking, a situation which may be at least partly explained by variability in the experimental approaches used to study the activity of NAbs in the cell-to-cell context. In this review we focus on the most critical question concerning the activity of NAbs against cell-to-cell transmission: is NAb inhibition of cell-to-cell HIV-1 quantitatively or qualitatively different from cell-free infection? Overall, data consistently show that NAbs are capable of blocking HIV-1 infection at synapses, supporting the concept that cell-to-cell infection occurs through directed transfer of virions accessible to the external environment. However, more recent findings suggest that higher concentrations of certain NAbs might be needed to inhibit synaptic infection, with important potential implications for prophylactic vaccine development. We discuss several mechanistic explanations for this relative and selective loss of activity, and highlight gaps in knowledge that are still to be explored.