Andrea M. Collins

Introduction Since 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 analysis This 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 dissemination This 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.

Introduction Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a common respiratory virus, particularly affecting children, and can cause respiratory infections such as croup and bronchiolitis. The latter is a leading cause of paediatric hospitalisation within the UK. Children Methods and analysis Parents/carers of children Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted (21/WS/0142), and study findings will be published as per International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ guidelines.

Rationale: Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype 3 (SPN3) is a cause of invasive pneumococcal disease and associated with low carriage rates. Following the introduction of pediatric 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) programs, SPN3 declines are less than other vaccine serotypes and incidence has increased in some populations coincident with a shift in predominant circulating SPN3 clade, from I to II. A human challenge model provides an effective means for assessing the impact of PCV13 on SPN3 in the upper airway. Objectives: To establish SPN3's ability to colonize the nasopharynx using different inoculum clades and doses, and the safety of an SPN3 challenge model. Methods: In a human challenge study involving three well-characterized and antibiotic-sensitive SPN3 isolates (PFESP306 [clade Ia], PFESP231 [no clade], and PFESP505 [clade II]), inoculum doses (10,000, 20,000, 80,000, and 160,000 cfu/100 μl) were escalated until maximal colonization rates were achieved, with concurrent acceptable safety. Measurement and Main Results: Presence and density of experimental SPN3 nasopharyngeal colonization in nasal wash samples, assessed using microbiological culture and molecular methods, on Days 2, 7, and 14 postinoculation. A total of 96 healthy participants (median age 21, interquartile range 19–25) were inoculated (n = 6–10 per dose group, 10 groups). Colonization rates ranged from 30.0–70.0% varying with dose and isolate. 30.0% (29/96) reported mild symptoms (82.8% [24/29] developed a sore throat); one developed otitis media requiring antibiotics. No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions: An SPN3 human challenge model is feasible and safe with comparable carriage rates to an established Serotype 6B human challenge model. SPN3 carriage may cause mild upper respiratory symptoms.

Background. Although recent epidemiological data suggest that pneumococci may contribute to the risk of SARS-CoV-2 disease, cases of coinfection with Streptococcus pneumoniae in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during hospitalization have been reported infrequently. This apparent contradiction may be explained by interactions of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and pneumococci in the upper airway, resulting in the escape of SARS-CoV-2 from protective host immune responses. Methods. Here, we investigated the relationship of these 2 respiratory pathogens in 2 distinct cohorts of health care workers with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection identified by systematic screening and patients with moderate to severe disease who presented to the hospital. We assessed the effect of coinfection on host antibody, cellular, and inflammatory responses to the virus. Results. In both cohorts, pneumococcal colonization was associated with diminished antiviral immune responses, which primarily affected mucosal IgA levels among individuals with mild or asymptomatic infection and cellular memory responses in infected patients. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that S. pneumoniae impair host immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and raise the question of whether pneumococcal carriage also enables immune escape of other respiratory viruses and facilitates reinfection. Trial registration. ISRCTN89159899 (FASTER study) and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03502291 (LAIV study).

Rationale: Pneumococcal colonization is key to the pathogenesis of invasive disease but is also immunogenic in young adults, protecting against recolonization. Colonization is rarely detected in older adults, despite high rates of pneumococcal disease. Objectives: To establish experimental human pneumococcal colonization in healthy adults aged 50–84 years, to measure the immune response to pneumococcal challenge, and to assess the protective effect of prior colonization against autologous strain rechallenge. Methods: Sixty-four participants were inoculated with Streptococcus pneumoniae (serotype 6B; 80,000 cfu in each nostril). Colonization was determined by bacterial culture of nasal wash, and humoral immune responses were assessed by anticapsular and antiprotein IgG concentrations. Measurements and Main Results: Experimental colonization was established in 39% of participants (25/64) with no adverse events. Colonization occurred in 47% (9/19) of participants aged 50–59 compared with 21% (3/14) in those aged ≥70 years. Previous pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination did not protect against colonization. Colonization did not confer serotype-specific immune boosting, with a geometric mean titer (95% confidence interval) of 2.7 μg/ml (1.9–3.8) before the challenge versus 3.0 (1.9–4.7) 4 weeks after colonization (P = 0.53). Furthermore, pneumococcal challenge without colonization led to a drop in specific antibody concentrations from 2.8 μg/ml (2.0–3.9) to 2.2 μg/ml (1.6–3.0) after the challenge (P = 0.006). Antiprotein antibody concentrations increased after successful colonization. Rechallenge with the same strain after a median of 8.5 months (interquartile range, 6.7–10.1) led to recolonization in 5/16 (31%). Conclusions: In older adults, experimental pneumococcal colonization is feasible and safe but demonstrates different immunological outcomes compared with younger adults in previous studies.

Influenza virus infections affect millions of people annually, and current available vaccines provide varying rates of protection. However, the way in which the nasal microbiota, particularly established pneumococcal colonization, shape the response to influenza vaccination is not yet fully understood. In this study, we inoculated healthy adults with live Streptococcus pneumoniae and vaccinated them 3 days later with either tetravalent-inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) or live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). Vaccine-induced immune responses were assessed in nose, blood, and lung. Nasal pneumococcal colonization had no impact upon TIV-induced antibody responses to influenza, which manifested in all compartments. However, experimentally induced pneumococcal colonization dampened LAIV-mediated mucosal antibody responses, primarily IgA in the nose and IgG in the lung. Pulmonary influenza-specific cellular responses were more apparent in the LAIV group compared with either the TIV or an unvaccinated group. These results indicate that TIV and LAIV elicit differential immunity to adults and that LAIV immunogenicity is diminished by the nasal presence of S . pneumoniae . Therefore, nasopharyngeal pneumococcal colonization may affect LAIV efficacy.

Background: A new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7, emerged as the dominant cause of COVID-19infection in the United Kingdom from November 2020 with a transmission advantage over the previous variants of the virus. Here we report efficacy of the adenoviral vector vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, against this variant in comparison with non-B.1.1.7 lineages. Methods: Volunteers enrolled in phase II/III vaccine efficacy studies in the United Kingdom and randomised 1:1 to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or a MenACWY control vaccine, providedupper airway swabs every week during the trial and also if they developed possible symptomatic COVID-19 infection. Swabs were tested by nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) for SARS-CoV-2, and positive samples were sequenced through the COVID-19Genomics UK consortium (COG UK). NAAT data were used to assess the duration ofdetectable viral RNA in diagnostic specimens and the viral load. Anti-spike IgG wasmeasured by ELISA at baseline, 14 and 28 days after prime and 28 days after boostervaccination. Neutralising antibody responses were measured using a live virus neutralisation assay against the B.1.1.7 and Victoria lineages of the virus. The efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a NAAT positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cut-off on Jan 14, 2021. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 − relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04400838 and ISRCTN 15281137.5 Findings: Between 1st October 2020 and 14th January 2021, 499 participants developed Covid-19infection. 1524 NAAT positive nose/throat swabs were collected from these participants during the trial. Of these, 323 swabs from 256 participants were successfully sequenced.ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients had a significantly lower viral load as represented byminimum PCR Ct value (p<0.0001) and were NAAT positive for a shorter time (p<0.0001) than participants who received the control vaccine. Virus neutralisation activity by vaccineinduced antibodies was 9-fold lower against the B.1.1.7 variant than against a canonical non B.1.1.7 lineage. Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic NAAT positive infection was similar for B.1.1.7 and non-B1.1.7 lineages (74.6% [95%CI 41.6-88.9] and 84% [95% CI 70.7-91.4] respectively). There was no difference in anti-spike antibody titres between individuals who had received a prior ChAdOx1 vectored vaccine and those who were naïve to ChAdOx1. Interpretation: Efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against the B.1.1.7 variant of SARS-CoV-2 is similar to the efficacy of the vaccine against other lineages. Furthermore, vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 results in a reduction in the duration of shedding and viral load, which may translate into a material impact on transmission of disease. Trial Registration Number: This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04400838 and ISRCTN 15281137. Funding: The clinical trial was funded by UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR OxfordBiomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca. COG-UK is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome SangerInstitute. Computational work was supported by the Wellcome Trust Core Award Grant Number 203141/Z/16/Z with funding from the NIHR Oxford BRC. Conflict of Interest: Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. AstraZeneca reviewed the data from the study and the final manuscript before submission, but the authors retained editorial control. SCG is cofounder of Vaccitech (collaborators in the early development of this vaccine candidate) and named as an inventor on a patent covering use of ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines (PCT/GB2012/000467) and a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. TL is named as an inventor on a patentapplication covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and was consultant to Vaccitech. PMF is a consultant to Vaccitech. AJP is Chair of the UK Department of Health and Social Care’s JCVI, but does not participate in policy advice on coronavirus vaccines, and is a member of the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE). AJP and SNF are NIHR SeniorInvestigators. AVSH is a cofounder of and consultant to Vaccitech and is named as aninventor on a patent covering design and use of ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines(PCT/GB2012/000467). MDS reports grants from Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Medimmune,Novavax, and MCM Vaccine and grants and non-financial support from Pfizer outside of the submitted work. CG reports personal fees from the Duke Human Vaccine Institute outside of the submitted work. ADD reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work. SNF reports grants from Janssen and Valneva, outside the submitted work.TLV and JV are employees of AstraZeneca. All other authors declare no competing interests.The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. Ethical Approval: The study was sponsored by the University of Oxford (Oxford, UK) and approved in the UK by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reference 21584/0428/001-0001 and the South-Central Berkshire Research Ethics Committee reference 20/SC/0179.