Explore the vast range of titles available.

Respiratory mucosal immunity induced by vaccination is vital for protection from coronavirus infection in animal models. In humans, the capacity of peripheral vaccination to generate sustained immunity in the lung mucosa, and how this is influenced by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, is unknown. Here we show using bronchoalveolar lavage samples that donors with history of both infection and vaccination have more airway mucosal SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and memory B cells than those only vaccinated. Infection also induces populations of airway spike-specific memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells that are not expanded by vaccination alone. Airway mucosal T cells induced by infection have a distinct hierarchy of antigen specificity compared to the periphery. Spike-specific T cells persist in the lung mucosa for 7 months after the last immunising event. Thus, peripheral vaccination alone does not appear to induce durable lung mucosal immunity against SARS-CoV-2, supporting an argument for the need for vaccines targeting the airways. Evidence from animal models suggest a vital role for mucosal vaccination in inducing protection from coronavirus infection. Here the authors examine the B and T cell responses at the lower airways, and contrast humoral and cellular immunity of people after infection and vaccination.

Dynamic chest radiography (DCR) is a real-time sequential high-resolution digital X-ray imaging system of the thorax in motion over the respiratory cycle, utilising pulsed image exposure and a larger field of view than fluoroscopy coupled with a low radiation dose, where post-acquisition image processing by computer algorithm automatically characterises the motion of thoracic structures. We conducted a systematic review of the literature and found 29 relevant publications describing its use in humans including the assessment of diaphragm and chest wall motion, measurement of pulmonary ventilation and perfusion, and the assessment of airway narrowing. Work is ongoing in several other areas including assessment of diaphragmatic paralysis. We assess the findings, methodology and limitations of DCR, and we discuss the current and future roles of this promising medical imaging technology.Critical relevance statement Dynamic chest radiography provides a wealth of clinical information, but further research is required to identify its clinical niche.Key pointsDynamic chest radiography (DCR) captures high-resolution moving images of the thorax.The ionising radiation dose of DCR is low.DCR can image the diaphragm, chest wall, ventilation and perfusion.Most papers on DCR are small, with heterogeneity in study design or outcome.Large, multicentre studies with similar outcomes and healthy controls are desirable.

Pneumococcal colonisation is regarded as a pre-requisite for developing pneumococcal disease. In children previous studies have reported pneumococcal colonisation to be a symptomatic event and described a relationship between symptom severity/frequency and colonisation density. The evidence for this in adults is lacking in the literature. This study uses the experimental human pneumococcal challenge (EHPC) model to explore whether pneumococcal colonisation is a symptomatic event in healthy adults. Healthy participants aged 18-50 were recruited and inoculated intra-nasally with either Streptococcus pneumoniae (serotypes 6B, 23F) or saline as a control. Respiratory viral swabs were obtained prior to inoculation. Nasal and non-nasal symptoms were then assessed using a modified Likert score between 1 (no symptoms) to 7 (cannot function). The rate of symptoms reported between the two groups was compared and a correlation analysis performed. Data from 54 participants were analysed. 46 were inoculated with S. pneumoniae (29 with serotype 6B, 17 with serotype 23F) and 8 received saline (control). In total, 14 became experimentally colonised (30.4%), all of which were inoculated with serotype 6B. There was no statistically significant difference in nasal (p = 0.45) or non-nasal symptoms (p = 0.28) between the inoculation group and the control group. In those who were colonised there was no direct correlation between colonisation density and symptom severity. In the 22% (12/52) who were co-colonised, with pneumococcus and respiratory viruses, there was no statistical difference in either nasal or non-nasal symptoms (virus positive p = 0.74 and virus negative p = 1.0). Pneumococcal colonisation using the EHPC model is asymptomatic in healthy adults, regardless of pneumococcal density or viral co-colonisation.

Experimental Human Pneumococcal Challenge (EHPC) involves the controlled exposure of adults to a specific antibiotic-sensitive Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype, to induce nasopharyngeal colonisation for the purpose of vaccine research. The aims are to review comprehensively the safety profile of EHPC, explore the association between pneumococcal colonisation and frequency of safety review and describe the medical intervention required to undertake such studies. A single-centre review of all EHPC studies performed 2011-2021. All recorded serious adverse events (SAE) in eligible studies are reported. An unblinded meta-analysis of collated anonymised individual patient data from eligible EHPC studies was undertaken to assess the association between experimental pneumococcal colonisation and the frequency of safety events following inoculation. In 1416 individuals (median age 21, IQR 20-25), 1663 experimental pneumococcal inoculations were performed. No pneumococcal-related SAE have occurred. 214 safety review events were identified with 182 (12.85%) participants presenting with symptoms potentially in keeping with pneumococcal infection, predominantly in pneumococcal colonised individuals (colonised = 96/658, non-colonised = 86/1005, OR 1.81 (95% CI 1.28-2.56, P = <0.001). The majority were mild (pneumococcal group = 72.7% [120/165 reported symptoms], non-pneumococcal = 86.7% [124/143 reported symptoms]). 1.6% (23/1416) required antibiotics for safety. No SAEs were identified directly relating to pneumococcal inoculation. Safety review for symptoms was infrequent but occurred more in experimentally colonised participants. Most symptoms were mild and resolved with conservative management. A small minority required antibiotics, notably those serotype 3 inoculated. Outpatient human pneumococcal challenge can be conducted safely with appropriate levels of safety monitoring procedures in place.

IntroductionSince the introduction of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, pneumococcal disease rates have declined for many vaccine-type serotypes. However, serotype 3 (SPN3) continues to cause significant disease and is identified in colonisation epidemiological studies as one of the top circulating serotypes in adults in the UK. Consequently, new vaccines that provide greater protection against SPN3 colonisation/carriage are urgently needed. The Experimental Human Pneumococcal Challenge (EHPC) model is a unique method of determining pneumococcal colonisation rates, understanding acquired immunity, and testing vaccines in a cost-effective manner. To enhance the development of effective pneumococcal vaccines against SPN3, we aim to develop a new relevant and safe SPN3 EHPC model with high attack rates which could be used to test vaccines using small sample size.Methods and analysisThis is a human challenge study to establish a new SPN3 EHPC model, consisting of two parts. In the dose-ranging/safety study, cohorts of 10 healthy participants will be challenged with escalating doses of SPN3. If first challenge does not lead into colonisation, participants will receive a second challenge 2 weeks after. Experimental nasopharyngeal (NP) colonisation will be determined using nasal wash sampling. Using the dose that results in ≥50% of participants being colonised, with a high safety profile, we will complete the cohort with another 33 participants to check for reproducibility of the colonisation rate. The primary outcome of this study is to determine the optimal SPN3 dose and inoculation regime to establish the highest rates of NP colonisation in healthy adults. Secondary outcomes include determining density and duration of experimental SPN3 NP colonisation and characterising mucosal and systemic immune responses to SPN3 challenge.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the NHS Research and Ethics Committee (reference 22/NW/0051). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and reports will be made available to participants.

IntroductionDespite widely available vaccinations, Streptococcus pneumoniae (SPN) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, causing community-acquired pneumonia, meningitis, otitis media, sinusitis and bacteraemia. Here, we summarise an ethically approved protocol for a double-blind, randomised controlled trial investigating the effect of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) on pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonisation acquisition, density and duration using experimental human pneumococcal challenge (EHPC).Methods and analysisHealthy adult participants aged 18–50 years will be randomised to receive PCV13, PPV23 or placebo and then undergo one or two EHPCs involving intranasal administration of SPN at 1-month post-vaccination with serotype 3 (SPN3) and 6 months with serotype 6B (SPN6B). Participants randomised to PCV13 and placebo will also be randomised to one of two clinically relevant SPN3 strains from distinct lineages within clonal complex 180, clades Ia and II, creating five study groups. Following inoculation, participants will be seen on days 2, 7, 14 and 23. During the follow-up period, we will monitor safety, colonisation status, density and duration, immune responses and antigenuria. The primary outcome of the study is comparing the rate of SPN3 acquisition between the vaccinated (PCV13 or PPV23) and unvaccinated (placebo) groups as defined by classical culture. Density and duration of colonisation, comparison of acquisition rates using molecular methods and evaluation of the above measurements for individual SPN3 clades and SPN6B form the secondary objectives. Furthermore, we will explore the immune responses associated with these vaccines, their effect on colonisation and the relationship between colonisation and urinary pneumococcal antigen detection.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the NHS Research and Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/NW/0097) and by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (Reference: CTA 25753/0001/001–0001). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN15728847, NCT04974294.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4–12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials—one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)—and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4–74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3–85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59–0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3–91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0–69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18–55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01–2·68]). The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D’Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Secreted Wnt proteins control a wide range of essential developmental processes, including axon guidance and establishment of anteroposterior neuronal polarity. We identified a transmembrane RING finger protein, PLR-1, that governs the response to Wnts by reducing the cell surface levels of Wnt receptors Frizzled, CAM-1 and LIN-18 in Caenorhabditis elegans. Frizzled, CAM-1 and LIN-18 are normally enriched at the plasma membrane where they are capable of detecting and responding to extracellular Wnts. However, when PLR-1 is expressed Frizzled, CAM-1 and LIN-18 are no longer detected at the cell surface and instead colocalize with PLR-1 in endosomes and Golgi. PLR-1 is related to a broad family of transmembrane proteins that contain a lumenal protease associated domain and a cytosolic RING finger. The RING finger is a hallmark of one type of E3 ubiquitin ligase and monoubiquitination is commonly used to regulate protein trafficking. Protease associated domains are largely thought to mediate interactions between proteins. To identify the domains responsible for PLR-1 regulation of Frizzled from the cell surface we utilized a series of fluorescently tagged fusion proteins and protein truncations containing various domains from PLR-1 and Frizzled. Our data suggests that PLR-1 and Frizzled interact and form a complex via their respective extracellular/lumenal domains, and that ubiqiuitination of Frizzled by PLR-1 targets the Frizzled/PLR-1 complex to the endosome.

Although classically asthma is characterised by variable airflow obstruction and inflammation, leading to symptoms of breathlessness, wheeze, chest tightness and cough, it can present with a broad spectrum of symptoms that have a wide differential diagnosis. Clinical examination is frequently entirely normal and clinical history alone is not sufficient to diagnose asthma. There is over-reliance on short-acting beta-agonists and a widespread underuse of inhaled corticosteroids. In mild to moderate disease, fluctuating symptoms can lead to an over-reliance on short-acting reliever treatment at the expense of preventative inhaled steroids. This risks the concealment of deteriorating symptoms and the potential build-up of critical airways inflammation. Routine clinical review is recommended at least on an annual basis. Asking the three questions in the Royal College of Physicians questionnaire remains the best way to assess symptom control. All patients should have a personalised asthma action plan which should include details of maintenance therapy and advice on what to do in case of an exacerbation. Referral to secondary care should be considered in the following situations: diagnostic uncertainty; high-risk patients; frequent corticosteroid use; and where addition of other specialist treatments may be needed.