RESUMO
Background: There are limited data on the immunogenicity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in African populations. Here we report the immunogenicity and safety of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine from a phase 1/2 single-blind, randomised, controlled trial among adults in Kenya conducted as part of the early studies assessing vaccine performance in different geographical settings to inform Emergency Use Authorisation. Methods: We recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) 400 healthy adults aged ≥18 years in Kenya to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or control rabies vaccine, each as a two-dose schedule with a 3-month interval. The co-primary outcomes were safety, and immunogenicity assessed using total IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein 28 days after the second vaccination. Results: Between 28 th October 2020 and 19 th August 2021, 400 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=200) or rabies vaccine (n=200). Local and systemic adverse events were self-limiting and mild or moderate in nature. Three serious adverse events were reported but these were deemed unrelated to vaccination. The geometric mean anti-spike IgG titres 28 days after second dose vaccination were higher in the ChAdOx1 group (2773 ELISA units [EU], 95% CI 2447, 3142) than in the rabies vaccine group (61 EU, 95% CI 45, 81) and persisted over the 12 months follow-up. We did not identify any symptomatic infections or hospital admissions with respiratory illness and so vaccine efficacy against clinically apparent infection could not be measured. Vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 38.4% (95% CI -26.8%, 70.1%; p=0.188). Conclusions: The safety, immunogenicity and efficacy against asymptomatic infection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 among Kenyan adults was similar to that observed elsewhere in the world, but efficacy against symptomatic infection or severe disease could not be measured in this cohort. Pan-African Clinical Trials Registration: PACTR202005681895696 (11/05/2020).
RESUMO
Human infection studies (HIS) involve deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with disease-causing pathogens under controlled conditions. These studies are "controlled" by way of using specific types of pathogens, including dose, and the availability of emergency medical facilities to research volunteers. Most HIS involve diseases whose treatment is known and are done to accelerate the development of novel therapeutics such as vaccines, to address emerging and existing infectious diseases. Traditionally, HIS have been conducted primarily in high-income countries (HICs) but are now increasingly being conducted in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). In LMICs settings, HIS are likely to raise concerns among various stakeholders including participating populations and regulatory bodies, that are unfamiliar with this type of research. Deliberately infecting a healthy individual with a disease-causing pathogen seems to go against the normal practice of medicine of "do no harm". Such types of studies can give rise to increased rumors and jeopardize research participation in study activities, including non-HIS research. Community engagement can be one approach to address particular issues that HIS studies raise through meaningfully engaging with communities, where views and voices inform the conduct of HIS studies. In addition, engagement can inform the ethical conduct and acceptability of HIS studies in LMICs settings and provide opportunities for sharing information, listening to, and responding to concerns and views from potential participants, and the larger community in which the study would be conducted. Despite community engagement being an important aspect to consider, very few published and gray literature cover the types of approaches that have been used, and lessons learnt in engagement for HIS. This article outlinesthe community engagement approaches that were used to engage stakeholders and communities for malaria HIS-controlled human malaria infection (CHMI), undertaken in Kilifi, Kenya. It outlines the engagement activities across the research cycle, from activities conducted during protocol development, to planning, and implementation of the study. We discuss the challenges experienced, lessons learnt, and provide some recommendations for engagement around HIS.
