We describe the clinical features of a cohort of patients with liver abscesses and investigate relationships between clinical, radiological and microbiological findings and mortality. Retrospective review of pyogenic (PLA) or amoebic liver abscesses (ALA) diagnosed and treated at a major infectious diseases department in London over 9 years. One hundred forty-one patient records were identified; 132 (93.6%) had PLA and 9 (6.4%) ALA. No organism was identified in 38.6% (51/132); a single bacterial species was isolated in 47.0% (62/132) of PLA, ≥ 2 in 14.4% (19/132). There was weak evidence of variation in abscess size by type of microorganism, with streptococcal PLA typically larger (p = 0.03 for Streptococcus milleri group, p = 0.05 for non-milleri streptococci). Patients with ALA were younger (median 41, IQR 37–51 years) than those with PLA (median 68, IQR 50.5–78 years) (p = 0.003) and all were male (9/9, 100%, (p = 0.03)), with a history of recent travel in the majority (6/9, 66.7% (p = 0.003)). C-reactive protein was higher in ALA than in PLA (p = 0.06). In the entire cohort, loculation (HR = 2.51 (95% CI 1.00–6.32), p = 0.04) and baseline ALP (HR = 4.78 (95% CI 1.19–19.2) per log10 increase, p = 0.03) were associated with mortality. 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) analysis was used in a subset of culture-negative cases and increased the diagnostic yield by 13%. Clinical or radiological features cannot be used to distinguish between PLA and ALA, or help identify the bacterial cause of PLA. However, ALA is more common in young, male patients with a history of travel. 16S rRNA analysis of abscess fluid has a role in improving microbiological diagnosis in culture-negative cases.

This study describes the clinical features of a cohort of imported cases of strongyloidiasis and the performance of standard diagnostic techniques for this condition. A total of 413 cases were identified, of whom 86 had microscopically proven infection. In proven cases, 23% had normal eosinophil counts, 19% had negative Strongyloides-specific serology, and 9.3% had normal blood counts and were seronegative. Serological testing was less sensitive for returning travelers (46.2%) than for migrants (89.7%). Immunosuppression, including human T-cell lymphotropic virus 1, was significantly associated with proven infection after controlling for age, presence of symptoms, duration of infection, and eosinophilia (OR 5.60, 95% CI 1.54–20.4). Patients with proven infection had lower serology values than those diagnosed with strongyloidiasis on the basis of positive serology and eosinophilia alone (P = 0.016). Symptomatic patients were significantly younger, had a shorter presumed duration of infection, and lower serology values. These data suggest a correlation between immunologic control of strongyloidiasis and the amplitude of the humoral response.

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.

Background and Clinical Significance: Furuncular myiasis is a tropical parasitic skin infestation caused by dipterous fly larvae, most commonly affecting travellers to endemic regions. While returning travellers typically present with one or few lesions, extensive parasitism is rare. Increased global mobility and expanding ecological range of myiasis-causing species underscores the need for clinicians in endemic and non-endemic regions to recognise, diagnose, and manage this condition promptly. Awareness of exposure risks—including soil contact, infested clothing, and poor living conditions—is essential to reducing morbidity and preventing complications like secondary bacterial infection. Case Presentation: A healthy male in his forties returned to the UK after a month-long visit to rural Ethiopia, during which he slept on dirt floors and hung his washing on a line. He developed pruritic papular lesions that progressed to erythematous furuncles with central puncta and purulent discharge, accompanied by sensations of movement. The patient self-extracted 12 larvae in Ethiopia and subsequently sought local medical attention, receiving Albendazole, after which emerging larvae were non-motile. On UK presentation, he had 27 lesions at varying stages, 3 with signs of secondary infection. Laboratory investigations revealed elevated inflammatory markers, and wound swabs grew scanty Streptococcus pyogenes. Management included wound occlusion and systemic antibiotics. No further larvae were retrieved, precluding definitive speciation. All lesions improved over subsequent reviews. Conclusions: This case illustrates an unusually extensive presentation of presumed Cordylobia spp. myiasis in a returning traveller, highlighting potential complications following larvicidal therapy. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for myiasis in patients with compatible cutaneous lesions and relevant history. Increasing travel and shifting vector distributions make familiarity with tropical dermatoses and provision of effective safety measures essential in clinical practice.