Rob Lambkin-Williams

The controlled human infection model and specifically the human viral challenge model are not dissimilar to standard clinical trials while adding another layer of complexity and safety considerations. The models deliberately infect volunteers, with an infectious challenge agent to determine the effect of the infection and the potential benefits of the experimental interventions. The human viral challenge model studies can shorten the time to assess the efficacy of a new vaccine or treatment by combining this with the assessment of safety. The newly emerging SARS‐CoV‐2 virus is highly contagious, and an urgent race is on to develop a new vaccine against this virus in a timeframe never attempted before. The use of the human viral challenge model has been proposed to accelerate the development of the vaccine. In the early 2000s, the authors successfully developed a pathogenic human viral challenge model for another virus for which there was no effective treatment and established it to evaluate potential therapies and vaccines against respiratory syncytial virus. Experience gained in the development of that model can help with the development of a COVID‐19 HVCM and the authors describe it here.

The reuse of N95 masks has been forced on small community-based hospitals, dentists, nursing, and care homes, amongst others, due to the desperate shortage of personal protective equipment globally during the COVID-19 pandemic. The CDC issued guidance on the reuse of N95 masks due to this shortage. However, large scale ultraviolet disinfection equipment would not be practical in these circumstances, we, therefore, investigated the efficacy of a small, mobile, benchtop device with the potential to disinfect N95 masks from SARS-CoV-2 using ultraviolet irradiation. The device tested was the Lumin LM3000 System manufactured by 3B Medical. We found the Lumin LM3000 to be effective against enveloped viruses, including coronavirus, non-enveloped viruses, gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria and spores with reductions greater than 99.9 per centAbstract content goes here

Background: It has long been known that nasal inoculation with influenza A virus produces asymptomatic to febrile infections. Uncertainty persists about whether these infections are sufficiently similar to natural infections for studying human‐to‐human transmission.Methods: We compared influenza A viral aerosol shedding from volunteers nasally inoculated with A/Wisconsin/2005 (H3N2) and college community adults naturally infected with influenza A/H3N2 (2012‐2013), selected for influenza‐like illness with objectively measured fever or a positive Quidel QuickVue A&B test. Propensity scores were used to control for differences in symptom presentation observed between experimentally and naturally infected groups.Results: Eleven (28%) experimental and 71 (86%) natural cases shed into fine particle aerosols (P < .001). The geometric mean (geometric standard deviation) for viral positive fine aerosol samples from experimental and natural cases was 5.1E + 3 (4.72) and 3.9E + 4 (15.12) RNA copies/half hour, respectively. The 95th percentile shedding rate was 2.4 log₁₀ greater for naturally infected cases (1.4E + 07 vs 7.4E + 04). Certain influenza‐like illness‐related symptoms were associated with viral aerosol shedding. The almost complete lack of symptom severity distributional overlap between groups did not support propensity score–adjusted shedding comparisons.Conclusions: Due to selection bias, the natural and experimental infections had limited symptom severity distributional overlap precluding valid, propensity score–adjusted comparison. Relative to the symptomatic naturally infected cases, where high aerosol shedders were found, experimental cases did not produce high aerosol shedders. Studying the frequency of aerosol shedding at the highest observed levels in natural infections without selection on symptoms or fever would support helpful comparisons.

Uncertainty about the importance of influenza transmission by airborne droplet nuclei generates controversy for infection control. Human challenge-transmission studies have been supported as the most promising approach to fill this knowledge gap. Healthy, seronegative volunteer ‘Donors’ (n = 52) were randomly selected for intranasal challenge with influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2). ‘Recipients’ randomized to Intervention (IR, n = 40) or Control (CR, n = 35) groups were exposed to Donors for four days. IRs wore face shields and hand sanitized frequently to limit large droplet and contact transmission. One transmitted infection was confirmed by serology in a CR, yielding a secondary attack rate of 2.9% among CR, 0% in IR (p = 0.47 for group difference), and 1.3% overall, significantly less than 16% (p<0.001) expected based on a proof-of-concept study secondary attack rate and considering that there were twice as many Donors and days of exposure. The main difference between these studies was mechanical building ventilation in the follow-on study, suggesting a possible role for aerosols. Understanding the relative importance of influenza modes of transmission informs strategic use of preventive measures to reduce influenza risk in high-risk settings such as hospitals and is important for pandemic preparedness. Given the increasing evidence from epidemiological modelling, exhaled viral aerosol, and aerobiological survival studies supporting a role for airborne transmission and the potential benefit of respirators (and other precautions designed to prevent inhalation of aerosols) versus surgical masks (mainly effective for reducing exposure to large droplets) to protect healthcare workers, more studies are needed to evaluate the extent of risk posed airborne versus contact and large droplet spray transmission modes. New human challenge-transmission studies should be carefully designed to overcome limitations encountered in the current study. The low secondary attack rate reported herein also suggests that the current challenge-transmission model may no longer be a more promising approach to resolving questions about transmission modes than community-based studies employing environmental monitoring and newer, state-of-the-art deep sequencing-based molecular epidemiological methods.

The Controlled Human Infection Model and specifically the Human Viral Challenge Model are not dissimilar to standard clinical trials while adding another layer of complexity and safety considerations. The models deliberately infect volunteers, with an infectious challenge agent (CA) to determine the effect of the infection and the potential benefits of the experimental interventions. The Human Viral Challenge Model studies can shorten the time to assess the efficacy of a new vaccine or treatment by combining this with the assessment of safety. The newly emerging SARS-COV-2 virus is highly contagious and the cause pandemic disease COVID-19. An urgent race in is on to develop a new vaccine against this virus in a timeframe never attempted before. The use of the Human Viral Challenge Model has been proposed to accelerate the development of the vaccine. In the early 2000’s the authors successfully developed a pathogenic Human Viral Challenge Model for another virus for which there was no effective treatment and established it to evaluate potential therapies and vaccines against Respiratory Syncytial Virus. The authors feel that the experience gained in the development of that model can help with the development of a COVID-19 HVCM and describe it here. Word count: 197

Background: It has long been known that nasal inoculation with influenza A virus produces asymptomatic to febrile infections. Uncertainty persists about whether these infections are sufficiently similar to natural infections for studying human-to-human transmission. Methods: We compared influenza A viral aerosol shedding from volunteers nasally inoculated with A/Wisconsin/2005 (H3N2) and college community adults naturally infected with influenza A/H3N2 (2012-2013), selected for influenza-like illness with objectively measured fever or a positive Quidel QuickVue A&B test. Propensity scores were used to control for differences in symptom presentation observed between experimentally and naturally infected groups. Results: Eleven (28%) experimental and 71 (86%) natural cases shed into fine particle aerosols (p<0.001). The geometric mean (geometric standard deviation) for viral positive fine aerosol samples from experimental and natural cases was 5.1E+3 (4.72) and 3.9E+4 (15.12) RNA copies/half hour, respectively. The 95th percentile shedding rate was 2.4 log10 greater for naturally infected cases (1.4E+07 versus 7.4E+04). Certain influenza-like illness related symptoms were associated with viral aerosol shedding. The almost complete lack of symptom severity distributional overlap between groups did not support propensity score adjusted shedding comparisons. Conclusions: Due to selection bias, the natural and experimental infections had limited symptom severity distributional overlap precluding valid, propensity score adjusted comparison. Relative to the symptomatic naturally infected cases, where high aerosol shedders were found, experimental cases did not produce high aerosol shedders. Studying the frequency of aerosol shedding at the highest observed levels in natural infections without selection on symptoms or fever would support helpful comparisons.

Objectives: Symptoms of sore throat result from oropharyngeal inflammation, for which prostaglandin E₂ is a key mediator. Flurbiprofen is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory that provides sore throat relief. The preliminary objective of this study was to develop an in vitro model for assessing prostaglandin E₂ stimulation by viral and bacterial triggers. The primary objective was to investigate the effect of diluted flurbiprofen-containing lozenges on prostaglandin E₂ concentrations in stimulated cells. Methods: Prostaglandin E₂ production was stimulated in three epithelial cell lines (A549, HEp2, and clonetics bronchial/tracheal epithelial) with influenza A virus (4.5 log₁₀ tissue culture infectious dose₅₀/mL), or bacterial lipopolysaccharide (10µ g/mL) and peptidoglycan (3µ g/mL) and incubated overnight. Prostaglandin E₂ levels were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay up to 24 h after stimulation. The effect of flurbiprofen 8.75 mg lozenges (diluted to 0.44 mg/mL) on PGE₂ production in stimulated cells was assessed in parallel; prior to viral/LPS/PEP stimulation of cells, 300 μL of test product or control was added and incubated for 30 s, 2 and 5 min (and 10 min for bacterial trigger). Prostaglandin E₂ levels were measured following stimulation. Results: Viral and lipopolysaccharide/peptidoglycan infection did not consistently stimulate HEp2 cells and bronchial/tracheal epithelial cells to produce prostaglandin E₂. Influenza virus, and lipopolysaccharide/peptidoglycan stimulated high prostaglandin E₂ concentrations in A549: mean prostaglandin E₂ concentration 106.48 pg/mL with viral stimulation vs 33.82 pg/mL for uninfected cells; 83.84 pg/mL with lipopolysaccharide/peptidoglycan vs 71.96 pg/mL for uninfected cells. Flurbiprofen produced significant reductions in virus-stimulated prostaglandin E₂ vs stimulated untreated cells at 2 min (p = 0.03). Flurbiprofen produced significant reductions in lipopolysaccharide/peptidoglycan-stimulated prostaglandin E₂ concentrations from 30 s (p = 0.02), and at 2, 5 and 10 min (all p < 0.005) vs stimulated untreated cells. Conclusions: A549 cells provide a suitable model for assessment of prostaglandin E₂ stimulation by viral and bacterial triggers. Diluted flurbiprofen-containing lozenges demonstrated rapid anti-inflammatory activity in viral- and lipopolysaccharide/peptidoglycan-stimulated A549 cells.

Uncertainty about the importance of influenza transmission by airborne droplet nuclei generates controversy for infection control. Human challenge-transmission studies have been supported as the most promising approach to fill this knowledge gap. Healthy, seronegative volunteer ‘Donors’ (n=52) were randomly selected for intranasal challenge with influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2). ‘Recipients’ randomized to Intervention (IR, n=40) or Control (CR, n=35) groups were exposed to Donors for four days. IRs wore face shields and hand sanitized frequently to limit large droplet and contact transmission. One transmitted infection was confirmed by serology in a CR, yielding a secondary attack rate of 2.9% among CR, 0% in IR (p=0.47 for group difference), and 1.3% overall, significantly less than 16% (p<0.001) expected based on a proof-of-concept study secondary attack rate and considering that there were twice as many Donors and days of exposure. The main difference between these studies was mechanical building ventilation in the follow-on study, suggesting a possible role for aerosols. Author summary: Understanding the relative importance of influenza modes of transmission informs strategic use of preventive measures to reduce influenza risk in high-risk settings such as hospitals and is important for pandemic preparedness. Given the increasing evidence from epidemiological modelling, exhaled viral aerosol, and aerobiological survival studies supporting a role for airborne transmission and the potential benefit of respirators (and other precautions designed to prevent inhalation of aerosols) versus surgical masks (mainly effective for reducing exposure to large droplets) to protect healthcare workers, more studies are needed to evaluate the extent of risk posed airborne versus contact and large droplet spray transmission modes. New human challenge-transmission studies should be carefully designed to overcome limitations encountered in the current study. The low secondary attack rate reported herein also suggests that the current challenge-transmission model may no longer be a more promising approach to resolving questions about transmission modes than community-based studies employing environmental monitoring and newer, state-of-the-art deep sequencing-based molecular epidemiological methods.

Secondary bacterial infections are an important cause of morbidity and mortality associated with influenza infections. As bacterial disease can be caused by a disturbance of the host microbiome, we examined the impact of influenza on the upper respiratory tract microbiome in a human challenge study. The dynamics and ecology of the throat microbiome were examined following an experimental influenza challenge of 52 previously-healthy adult volunteers with influenza A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2) by intranasal inoculation; 35 healthy control subjects were not subjected to the viral challenge. Serial oropharyngeal samples were taken over a 30-day period, and the V1-V3 region of the bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA sequences were amplified and sequenced to determine the composition of the microbiome. The carriage of pathogens was also detected. Of the 52 challenged individuals, 43 developed proven influenza infections, 33 of whom became symptomatic. None of the controls developed influenza, although 22% reported symptoms. The diversity of bacterial communities remained remarkably stable following the acquisition of influenza, with no significant differences over time between individuals with influenza and those in the control group. Influenza infection was not associated with perturbation of the microbiome at the level of phylum or genus. There was no change in colonization rates with Streptococcus pneumoniae or Neisseria meningitidis. The throat microbiota is resilient to influenza infection, indicating the robustness of the upper-airway microbiome.

This manuscript aims to provide an overview of the unique considerations and best practice principles associated with the manufacture of human viral challenge agents. Considerations are discussed on the entire process from strain and viral source selection through manufacturing, safety and efficacy testing. The human viral challenge (HVC) model is an important tool to help accelerate the drug development process but producing viruses suitable for use in the model presents a unique set of challenges. There are many case by case decisions and risk assessments to consider and no clear international standard to produce viruses for this purpose. The authors present challenge virus manufacturing considerations from the current literature, regulatory guidance and their own direct experience in producing challenge viruses. The use of these viral stocks in clinical studies, as published in peer-reviewed journals, is also briefly described.