Efficacy of the adjuvanted subunit protein COVID-19 vaccine, SCB-2019: a phase 2 and 3 multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A range of safe and effective vaccines against SARS CoV 2 are needed to address the COVID 19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine SCB-2019. METHODS: This ongoing phase 2 and 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done in adults aged 18 years and older who were in good health or with a stable chronic health condition, at 31 sites in five countries (Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Philippines, and South Africa). The participants were randomly assigned 1:1 using a centralised internet randomisation system to receive two 0·5 mL intramuscular doses of SCB-2019 (30 µg, adjuvanted with 1·50 mg CpG-1018 and 0·75 mg alum) or placebo (0·9% sodium chloride for injection supplied in 10 mL ampoules) 21 days apart. All study staff and participants were masked, but vaccine administrators were not. Primary endpoints were vaccine efficacy, measured by RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 of any severity with onset from 14 days after the second dose in baseline SARS-CoV-2 seronegative participants (the per-protocol population), and the safety and solicited local and systemic adverse events in the phase 2 subset. This study is registered on EudraCT (2020-004272-17) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04672395). FINDINGS: 30 174 participants were enrolled from March 24, 2021, until the cutoff date of Aug 10, 2021, of whom 30 128 received their first assigned vaccine (n=15 064) or a placebo injection (n=15 064). The per-protocol population consisted of 12 355 baseline SARS-CoV-2-naive participants (6251 vaccinees and 6104 placebo recipients). Most exclusions (13 389 [44·4%]) were because of seropositivity at baseline. There were 207 confirmed per-protocol cases of COVID-19 at 14 days after the second dose, 52 vaccinees versus 155 placebo recipients, and an overall vaccine efficacy against any severity COVID-19 of 67·2% (95·72% CI 54·3-76·8), 83·7% (97·86% CI 55·9-95·4) against moderate-to-severe COVID-19, and 100% (97·86% CI 25·3-100·0) against severe COVID-19. All COVID-19 cases were due to virus variants; vaccine efficacy against any severity COVID-19 due to the three predominant variants was 78·7% (95% CI 57·3-90·4) for delta, 91·8% (44·9-99·8) for gamma, and 58·6% (13·3-81·5) for mu. No safety issues emerged in the follow-up period for the efficacy analysis (median of 82 days [IQR 63-103]). The vaccine elicited higher rates of mainly mild-to-moderate injection site pain than the placebo after the first (35·7% [287 of 803] vs 10·3% [81 of 786]) and second (26·9% [189 of 702] vs 7·4% [52 of 699]) doses, but the rates of other solicited local and systemic adverse events were similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION: Two doses of SCB-2019 vaccine plus CpG and alum provides notable protection against the entire severity spectrum of COVID-19 caused by circulating SAR-CoV-2 viruses, including the predominating delta variant. FUNDING: Clover Biopharmaceuticals and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Solicited Cough Sound Analysis for Tuberculosis Triage Testing: The CODA TB DREAM Challenge Dataset.

Cough is a common and commonly ignored symptom of lung disease. Cough is often perceived as difficult to quantify, frequently self-limiting, and non-specific. However, cough has a central role in the clinical detection of many lung diseases including tuberculosis (TB), which remains the leading infectious disease killer worldwide. TB screening currently relies on self-reported cough which fails to meet the World Health Organization (WHO) accuracy targets for a TB triage test. Artificial intelligence (AI) models based on cough sound have been developed for several respiratory conditions, with limited work being done in TB. To support the development of an accurate, point-of-care cough-based triage tool for TB, we have compiled a large multi-country database of cough sounds from individuals being evaluated for TB. The dataset includes more than 700,000 cough sounds from 2,143 individuals with detailed demographic, clinical and microbiologic diagnostic information. We aim to empower researchers in the development of cough sound analysis models to improve TB diagnosis, where innovative approaches are critically needed to end this long-standing pandemic.

A dataset of Solicited Cough Sound for Tuberculosis Triage Testing.

Cough is a common and commonly ignored symptom of lung disease. Cough is often perceived as difficult to quantify, frequently self-limiting, and non-specific. However, cough has a central role in the clinical detection of many lung diseases including tuberculosis (TB), which remains the leading infectious disease killer worldwide. TB screening currently relies on self-reported cough which fails to meet the World Health Organization (WHO) accuracy targets for a TB triage test. Artificial intelligence (AI) models based on cough sound have been developed for several respiratory conditions, with limited work being done in TB. To support the development of an accurate, point-of-care cough-based triage tool for TB, we have compiled a large multi-country database of cough sounds from individuals being evaluated for TB. The dataset includes more than 700,000 cough sounds from 2,143 individuals with detailed demographic, clinical and microbiologic diagnostic information. We aim to empower researchers in the development of cough sound analysis models to improve TB diagnosis, where innovative approaches are critically needed to end this long-standing pandemic.

Immunogenicity of an adjuvanted SARS-CoV-2 trimeric S-protein subunit vaccine (SCB-2019) in SARS-CoV-2-naïve and exposed individuals in a phase 2/3, double-blind, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated immunogenicity of SCB-2019, a subunit vaccine candidate containing a pre-fusion trimeric form of the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S)-protein adjuvanted with CpG-1018/alum. METHODS: The phase 2/3, double-blind, randomized SPECTRA trial was conducted in five countries in participants aged ≥ 18 years, either SARS-CoV-2-naïve or previously exposed. Participants were randomly assigned to receive two doses of SCB-2019 or placebo administered intramuscularly 21 days apart. In the phase 2 part of the study, on days 1, 22, and 36, neutralizing antibodies were measured by pseudovirus and wild-type virus neutralization assays to SARS-CoV-2 prototype and variants, and ACE2-receptor-binding antibodies and SCB-2019-binding antibodies were measured by ELISA. Cell-mediated immunity was measured by intracellular cytokine staining via flow cytometry. RESULTS: 1601 individuals were enrolled between 24 March and 13 September 2021 and received at least one vaccine dose. Immunogenicity analysis was conducted in a phase 2 subset of 691 participants, including 428 SARS-CoV-2-naïve (381 vaccine and 47 placebo recipients) and 263 SARS-CoV-2-exposed (235 vaccine and 28 placebo recipients). In SARS-CoV-2-naïve participants, GMTs of neutralizing antibodies against prototype virus increased 2 weeks post-second dose (day 36) compared to baseline (224 vs 12.7 IU/mL). Seroconversion rate was 82.5 %. In SARS-CoV-2-exposed participants, one SCB-2019 dose increased GMT of neutralizing antibodies by 48.3-fold (1276.1 IU/mL on day 22) compared to baseline. Seroconversion rate was 92.4 %. Increase was marginal post-second dose. SCB-2019 also showed cross-neutralization capability against nine variants, including Omicron, in SARS-CoV-2-exposed participants at day 36. SCB-2019 stimulated Th1-biased cell-mediated immunity to the S-protein in both naïve and exposed participants. The vaccine was well tolerated, no safety concerns were raised from the study. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of SCB-2019 was immunogenic in SARS-CoV-2-exposed individuals, whereas two doses were required to induce immune response in SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals. SCB-2019 elicited a cross-neutralizing response against emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants at antibody levels associated with clinical protection, underlining its potential as a booster. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT04672395; EudraCT: 2020-004272-17.

Prevention of influenza during mismatched seasons in older adults with an MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine: a randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 efficacy study.

BACKGROUND: The absolute degree of protection from influenza vaccines in older adults has not been studied since 2001. This study aimed to show the clinical efficacy of an MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV) in adults 65 years or older compared with adults not vaccinated to prevent influenza. METHODS: We did a randomised, stratified, observer-blind, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study at 89 sites in 12 countries in 2016-17 northern hemisphere and 2017 southern hemisphere influenza seasons. We enrolled community-dwelling male and female adults aged 65 years and older who were healthy or had comorbidities that increased their risk of influenza complications. We stratified eligible participants by age (cohorts 65-74 years and ≥75 years) and risk of influenza complications (high and low) and randomly assigned them (1:1) via an interactive response technology to receive either aQIV or a non-influenza comparator vaccine. We masked participants and outcome assessors to the administered vaccine. Personnel administering the vaccines did not participate in endpoint assessment. The primary outcome was absolute vaccine efficacy assessed by RT-PCR-confirmed influenza due to any influenza strain in the overall study population (full analysis set) from day 21 to 180 or the end of the influenza season. Vaccine efficacy was calculated on the basis of a Cox proportional hazard regression model for time to first occurrence of RT-PCR-confirmed influenza due to any strain of influenza. Safety outcomes were assessed in the overall study population. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02587221. FINDINGS: Northern hemisphere enrolment occurred between Sept 30, 2016, and Feb 28, 2017, and southern hemisphere enrolment between May 26, 2017, and 30 June 30, 2017. aQIV was administered to 3381 participants, who subsequently had 122 (3·6%) RT-PCR-confirmed influenza cases, and the comparator was administered to 3380 participants, who subsequently had 151 (4·5%) influenza cases. The majority, 214 (78·4%) of 273, were caused by influenza A H3N2. Most antigenically characterised isolates were mismatched to the vaccine strain (118 [85%] of 139). Vaccine efficacy was 19·8% (multiplicity-adjusted 95% CI -5·3 to 38·9) against all influenza and 49·9% (-24·0 to 79·8) against antigenically matched strains, when the protocol definition of influenza-like illness was used. The most common local solicited adverse event was injection site pain, reported by 102 (16·3%) of 624 participants in the aQIV group and 71 (11·2%) of 632 of participants in the comparator group. Deaths were evenly distributed; none were considered related to study vaccines. The safety profile for aQIV was similar to previously reported trials. INTERPRETATION: The prespecified criterion for showing the efficacy of aQIV in older adults was not met during the influenza seasons with high amounts of vaccine strain mismatch. Vaccine efficacy was higher against influenza cases associated with higher fever, which represent more clinically significant disease. FUNDING: Seqirus UK.