Annual Tuberculosis Preventive Therapy for Persons With HIV Infection : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis preventive therapy for persons with HIV infection is effective, but its durability is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment completion rates of weekly isoniazid-rifapentine for 3 months versus daily isoniazid for 6 months as well as the effectiveness of the 3-month rifapentine-isoniazid regimen given annually for 2 years versus once. DESIGN: Randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02980016). SETTING: South Africa, Ethiopia, and Mozambique. PARTICIPANTS: Persons with HIV infection who were receiving antiretroviral therapy, were aged 2 years or older, and did not have active tuberculosis. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive weekly rifapentine-isoniazid for 3 months, given either annually for 2 years or once, or daily isoniazid for 6 months. Participants were screened for tuberculosis symptoms at months 0 to 3 and 12 of each study year and at months 12 and 24 using chest radiography and sputum culture. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment completion was assessed using pill counts. Tuberculosis incidence was measured over 24 months. RESULTS: Between November 2016 and November 2017, 4027 participants were enrolled; 4014 were included in the analyses (median age, 41 years; 69.5% women; all using antiretroviral therapy). Treatment completion in the first year for the combined rifapentine-isoniazid groups (n = 3610) was 90.4% versus 50.5% for the isoniazid group (n = 404) (risk ratio, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.61 to 1.95]). Tuberculosis incidence among participants receiving the rifapentine-isoniazid regimen twice (n = 1808) or once (n = 1802) was similar (hazard ratio, 0.96 [CI, 0.61 to 1.50]). LIMITATION: If rifapentine-isoniazid is effective in curing subclinical tuberculosis, then the intensive tuberculosis screening at month 12 may have reduced its effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Treatment completion was higher with rifapentine-isoniazid for 3 months compared with isoniazid for 6 months. In settings with high tuberculosis transmission, a second round of preventive therapy did not provide additional benefit to persons receiving antiretroviral therapy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The U.S. Agency for International Development through the CHALLENGE TB grant to the KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation.

Evaluation of a mosaic HIV-1 vaccine in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2a clinical trial (APPROACH) and in rhesus monkeys (NHP 13-19).

BACKGROUND: More than 1·8 million new cases of HIV-1 infection were diagnosed worldwide in 2016. No licensed prophylactic HIV-1 vaccine exists. A major limitation to date has been the lack of direct comparability between clinical trials and preclinical studies. We aimed to evaluate mosaic adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26)-based HIV-1 vaccine candidates in parallel studies in humans and rhesus monkeys to define the optimal vaccine regimen to advance into clinical efficacy trials. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1/2a trial (APPROACH). Participants were recruited from 12 clinics in east Africa, South Africa, Thailand, and the USA. We included healthy, HIV-1-uninfected participants (aged 18-50 years) who were considered at low risk for HIV-1 infection. We randomly assigned participants to one of eight study groups, stratified by region. Participants and investigators were blinded to the treatment allocation throughout the study. We primed participants at weeks 0 and 12 with Ad26.Mos.HIV (5 × 1010 viral particles per 0·5 mL) expressing mosaic HIV-1 envelope (Env)/Gag/Pol antigens and gave boosters at weeks 24 and 48 with Ad26.Mos.HIV or modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA; 108 plaque-forming units per 0·5 mL) vectors with or without high-dose (250 µg) or low-dose (50 µg) aluminium adjuvanted clade C Env gp140 protein. Those in the control group received 0·9% saline. All study interventions were administered intramuscularly. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability of the vaccine regimens and Env-specific binding antibody responses at week 28. Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed at week 52. All participants who received at least one vaccine dose or placebo were included in the safety analysis; immunogenicity was analysed using the per-protocol population. We also did a parallel study in rhesus monkeys (NHP 13-19) to assess the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of these vaccine regimens against a series of six repetitive, heterologous, intrarectal challenges with a rhesus peripheral blood mononuclear cell-derived challenge stock of simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV-SF162P3). The APPROACH trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02315703. FINDINGS: Between Feb 24, 2015, and Oct 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 393 participants to receive at least one dose of study vaccine or placebo in the APPROACH trial. All vaccine regimens demonstrated favourable safety and tolerability. The most commonly reported solicited local adverse event was mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site (varying from 69% to 88% between the different active groups vs 49% in the placebo group). Five (1%) of 393 participants reported at least one grade 3 adverse event considered related to the vaccines: abdominal pain and diarrhoea (in the same participant), increased aspartate aminotransferase, postural dizziness, back pain, and malaise. The mosaic Ad26/Ad26 plus high-dose gp140 boost vaccine was the most immunogenic in humans; it elicited Env-specific binding antibody responses (100%) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis responses (80%) at week 52, and T-cell responses at week 50 (83%). We also randomly assigned 72 rhesus monkeys to receive one of five different vaccine regimens or placebo in the NHP 13-19 study. Ad26/Ad26 plus gp140 boost induced similar magnitude, durability, and phenotype of immune responses in rhesus monkeys as compared with humans and afforded 67% protection against acquisition of SHIV-SF162P3 infection (two-sided Fisher's exact test p=0·007). Env-specific ELISA and enzyme-linked immunospot assay responses were the principal immune correlates of protection against SHIV challenge in monkeys. INTERPRETATION: The mosaic Ad26/Ad26 plus gp140 HIV-1 vaccine induced comparable and robust immune responses in humans and rhesus monkeys, and it provided significant protection against repetitive heterologous SHIV challenges in rhesus monkeys. This vaccine concept is currently being evaluated in a phase 2b clinical efficacy study in sub-Saharan Africa (NCT03060629). FUNDING: Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV, National Institutes of Health, Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, Henry M Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, US Department of Defense, and International AIDS Vaccine Initiative.

Infusion Reactions After Receiving the Broadly Neutralizing Antibody VRC01 or Placebo to Reduce HIV-1 Acquisition: Results From the Phase 2b Antibody-Mediated Prevention Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The antibody-mediated prevention (AMP) studies (HVTN 703/HPTN 081 and HVTN 704/HPTN 085) are harmonized phase 2b trials to assess HIV prevention efficacy and safety of intravenous infusion of anti-gp120 broadly neutralizing antibody VRC01. Antibodies for other indications can elicit infusion-related reactions (IRRs), often requiring premedication and limiting their application. We report on AMP study IRRs. METHODS: From 2016 to 2018, 2699 HIV-uninfected, at-risk men and transgender adults in the Americas and Switzerland (704/085) and 1924 at-risk heterosexual women in sub-Saharan Africa (703/081) were randomized 1:1:1 to VRC01 10 mg/kg, 30 mg/kg, or placebo. Participants received infusions every 8 weeks (n = 10/participant) over 72 weeks, with 104 weeks of follow-up. Safety assessments were conducted before and after infusion and at noninfusion visits. A total of 40,674 infusions were administered. RESULTS: Forty-seven participants (1.7%) experienced 49 IRRs in 704/085; 93 (4.8%) experienced 111 IRRs in 703/081 (P < 0.001). IRRs occurred more frequently in VRC01 than placebo recipients in 703/081 (P < 0.001). IRRs were associated with atopic history (P = 0.046) and with younger age (P = 0.023) in 703/081. Four clinical phenotypes of IRRs were observed: urticaria, dyspnea, dyspnea with rash, and "other." Urticaria was most prevalent, occurring in 25 (0.9%) participants in 704/085 and 41 (2.1%) participants in 703/081. Most IRRs occurred with the initial infusion and incidence diminished through the last infusion. All reactions were managed successfully without sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: IRRs in the AMP studies were uncommon, typically mild or moderate, successfully managed at the research clinic, and resolved without sequelae. Analysis is ongoing to explore potential IRR mechanisms.

"Why Don't You Go Into Suburbs? Why Are You Targeting Us?": Trust and Mistrust in HIV Vaccine Trials in South Africa.

Trust is a key element of high-quality stakeholder relations, which are themselves essential for the success of HIV vaccine trials. Where trust is absent, community stakeholders might not volunteer to become involved in key trial activities, and potential participants might not volunteer for enrollment. We explored site staff and Community Advisory Board (CAB) members' experiences of trust/mistrust among community members and potential participants. We analyzed 10 focus group discussions with site staff and CAB members at two active South African HIV vaccine trial sites. We report on key characteristics perceived to contribute to the trustworthiness of communicators, as well as factors associated with mistrust. Attributes associated with trustworthy communicators included shared racial identity, competence, and independence (not being "captured"). Key foci for mistrust included explanations about site selection, stored samples, vaccination, and Vaccine Induced Sero-Positivity (VISP). Our findings suggest that community members' trust is not necessarily global, in which trials are trusted or not; rather, it appears fairly nuanced and is impacted by various perceived attributes of communicators and the information they provide. We make recommendations for clinical trial site stakeholders invested in building trust and for future research into trust at these sites.