Safety and immunogenicity of a ChAd155-vectored rabies vaccine compared with inactivated, purified chick embryo cell rabies vaccine in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Rabies is a zoonotic viral encephalitis that is endemic in many countries and confers a high mortality. Licensed vaccines require several doses to ensure efficacy. To investigate a logistically favorable approach, we assessed the safety and immunogenicity of ChAd155-RG, a novel investigational rabies vaccine using a replication-defective chimpanzee adenovirus vector. METHODS: We conducted a first-in-human, phase 1, randomized, double-blind, dose-escalation trial comparing ChAd155-RG with a licensed inactivated vaccine (RabAvert) in healthy adults. Participants received either RabAvert at standard dosing or ChAd155-RG at a low dose for one immunization or a high dose for one or two immunizations. To assess safety, we evaluated reactogenicity, unsolicited adverse events, and thrombotic events. To measure immunogenicity, we measured rabies viral neutralizing antibody (VNA) titers and anti-ChAd155 neutralizing antibodies. RESULTS: Mild to moderate systemic reactogenicity and transient lymphopenia and neutropenia were more common among recipients of ChAd155-RG compared with those who received RabAvert. No thrombotic events or serious adverse events were reported. Only the groups receiving RabAvert or two doses of high-dose ChAd155-RG achieved 100 % seroconversion, and seroprotection was most durable in the RabAvert group. Most participants had preexisting anti-vector antibodies, which were boosted by ChAd155-RG. Baseline and post-vaccination anti-vector antibody titers were negatively associated with post-vaccination rabies VNA titers. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 1 clinical trial, a novel rabies vaccine using a simian adenovirus vector was safe and tolerable, but generated lower, less durable rabies VNA titers than a standard inactivated rabies virus vaccine, which may be due to preexisting, anti-vector immunity.

Neutralizing Antibody Immune Correlates for a Recombinant Protein Vaccine in the COVAIL Trial.

For COVAIL recipients of a COVID-19 Sanofi booster vaccine, neutralizing antibody titers were assessed as a correlate of risk (CoR) of COVID-19. Peak and exposure-proximal titers were inverse CoRs with covariate-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) 0.30 (0.11, 0.78) and 0.25 (0.07, 0.85) per 10-fold increase in weighted average titer.

SWIFT clustering analysis of intracellular cytokine staining flow cytometry data of the HVTN 105 vaccine trial reveals high frequencies of HIV-specific CD4+ T cell responses and associations with humoral responses.

Introduction: The HVTN 105 vaccine clinical trial tested four combinations of two immunogens - the DNA vaccine DNA-HIV-PT123, and the protein vaccine AIDSVAX B/E. All combinations induced substantial antibody and CD4+ T cell responses in many participants. We have now re-examined the intracellular cytokine staining flow cytometry data using the high-resolution SWIFT clustering algorithm, which is very effective for enumerating rare populations such as antigen-responsive T cells, and also determined correlations between the antibody and T cell responses. Methods: Flow cytometry samples across all the analysis batches were registered using the swiftReg registration tool, which reduces batch variation without compromising biological variation. Registered data were clustered using the SWIFT algorithm, and cluster template competition was used to identify clusters of antigen-responsive T cells and to separate these from constitutive cytokine producing cell clusters. Results: Registration strongly reduced batch variation among batches analyzed across several months. This in-depth clustering analysis identified a greater proportion of responders than the original analysis. A subset of antigen-responsive clusters producing IL-21 was identified. The cytokine patterns in each vaccine group were related to the type of vaccine - protein antigens tended to induce more cells producing IL-2 but not IFN-γ, whereas DNA vaccines tended to induce more IL-2+ IFN-γ+ CD4 T cells. Several significant correlations were identified between specific antibody responses and antigen-responsive T cell clusters. The best correlations were not necessarily observed with the strongest antibody or T cell responses. Conclusion: In the complex HVTN105 dataset, alternative analysis methods increased sensitivity of the detection of antigen-specific T cells; increased the number of identified vaccine responders; identified a small IL-21-producing T cell population; and demonstrated significant correlations between specific T cell populations and serum antibody responses. Multiple analysis strategies may be valuable for extracting the most information from large, complex studies.

Immunogenicity and safety of varying dosages of a fifth-wave influenza A/H7N9 inactivated vaccine given with and without AS03 adjuvant in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Human infections with the avian influenza A(H7N9) virus were first reported in China in 2013 and continued to occur in annual waves. In the 2016/2017 fifth wave, Yangtze River Delta (YRD) lineage viruses, which differed antigenically from those of earlier waves, predominated. METHODS: In this phase 2 double-blinded trial we randomized 720 adults ≥ 19 years of age to receive two injections of a YRD lineage inactivated A/Hong Kong/125/2017 fifth-wave H7N9 vaccine, given 21 days apart, at doses of 3.75, 7.5, and 15 µg of hemagglutinin (HA) with AS03A adjuvant and at doses of 15 and 45 µg of HA without adjuvant. RESULTS: Two doses of adjuvanted vaccine were required to induce HA inhibition (HI) antibody titers ≥ 40 in most participants. After two doses of the 15 µg H7N9 formulation, given with or without AS03 adjuvant, the proportion achieving a HI titer ≥ 40 against the vaccine strain at 21 days after the second vaccination was 65 % (95 % CI, 57 %-73 %) and 0 % (95 % CI, 0 %-4%), respectively. Among those who received two doses of the 15 µg adjuvanted formulation the proportion with HI titer ≥ 40 at 21 days after the second vaccination was 76 % (95 % CI, 66 %-84 %) in those 19-64 years of age and 49 % (95 % CI, 37 %-62 %) in those ≥ 65 years of age. Responses to the adjuvanted vaccine formulations did not vary by HA content. Antibody responses declined over time and responses against drifted H7N9 strains were diminished. Overall, the vaccines were well tolerated but, as expected, adjuvanted vaccines were associated with more frequent solicited systemic and local adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: AS03 adjuvant improved the immune responses to an inactivated fifth-wave H7N9 influenza vaccine, particularly in younger adults, but invoked lower responses to drifted H7N9 strains. These findings may inform future influenza pandemic preparedness strategies.

Phase 1 Open-Label Dose Escalation Trial for the Development of a Human Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Challenge Model for Assessment of Tuberculosis Immunity In Vivo.

BACKGROUND: A controlled human infection model for assessing tuberculosis (TB) immunity can accelerate new vaccine development. METHODS: In this phase 1 dose escalation trial, 92 healthy adults received a single intradermal injection of 2 × 106 to 16 × 106 colony-forming units of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG). The primary endpoints were safety and BCG shedding as measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction, colony-forming unit plating, and MGIT BACTEC culture. RESULTS: Doses up to 8 × 106 were safe, and there was evidence for increased BCG shedding with dose escalation. The MGIT time-to-positivity assay was the most consistent and precise measure of shedding. Power analyses indicated that 10% differences in MGIT time to positivity (area under the curve) could be detected in small cohorts (n = 30). Potential biomarkers of mycobacterial immunity were identified that correlated with shedding. Transcriptomic analysis uncovered dose- and time-dependent effects of BCG challenge and identified a putative transcriptional TB protective signature. Furthermore, we identified immunologic and transcriptomal differences that could represent an immune component underlying the observed higher rate of TB disease incidence in males. CONCLUSIONS: The safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity profiles indicate that this BCG human challenge model is feasible for assessing in vivo TB immunity and could facilitate the vaccine development process. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01868464 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Immunogenicity of a 2-Dose Regimen of Moderna mRNA Beta/Omicron BA.1 Bivalent Variant Vaccine Boost in a Randomized Clinical Trial.

We compared the serologic responses of 1 dose versus 2 doses of a variant vaccine (Moderna mRNA-1273 Beta/Omicron BA.1 bivalent vaccine) in adults. A 2-dose boosting regimen with a variant vaccine did not increase the magnitude or the durability of the serological responses compared to a single variant vaccine boost.

Comparison of bivalent and monovalent SARS-CoV-2 variant vaccines: the phase 2 randomized open-label COVAIL trial.

Vaccine protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection wanes over time, requiring updated boosters. In a phase 2, open-label, randomized clinical trial with sequentially enrolled stages at 22 US sites, we assessed safety and immunogenicity of a second boost with monovalent or bivalent variant vaccines from mRNA and protein-based platforms targeting wild-type, Beta, Delta and Omicron BA.1 spike antigens. The primary outcome was pseudovirus neutralization titers at 50% inhibitory dilution (ID50 titers) with 95% confidence intervals against different SARS-CoV-2 strains. The secondary outcome assessed safety by solicited local and systemic adverse events (AEs), unsolicited AEs, serious AEs and AEs of special interest. Boosting with prototype/wild-type vaccines produced numerically lower ID50 titers than any variant-containing vaccine against all variants. Conversely, boosting with a variant vaccine excluding prototype was not associated with decreased neutralization against D614G. Omicron BA.1 or Beta monovalent vaccines were nearly equivalent to Omicron BA.1 + prototype or Beta + prototype bivalent vaccines for neutralization of Beta, Omicron BA.1 and Omicron BA.4/5, although they were lower for contemporaneous Omicron subvariants. Safety was similar across arms and stages and comparable to previous reports. Our study shows that updated vaccines targeting Beta or Omicron BA.1 provide broadly crossprotective neutralizing antibody responses against diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants without sacrificing immunity to the ancestral strain. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05289037 .

Immunogenicity of a Two Dose Regimen of Moderna mRNA Beta/Omicron BA.1 Bivalent Variant Vaccine Boost in a Randomized Clinical Trial.

In this brief report, we compare the magnitude and durability of the serologic response of one versus two doses (separated by 56 days) of a variant vaccine (Moderna mRNA-1273 Beta/Omicron BA.1 bivalent vaccine) in adults.

Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 SARS-CoV-2 Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results from the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial.

In a randomized clinical trial, we compare early neutralizing antibody responses after boosting with bivalent SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines based on either BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 Omicron spike protein combined with wildtype spike. Responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants exhibited the greatest reduction in titers against currently circulating Omicron subvariants for both bivalent vaccines.

Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results From the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial.

In a randomized clinical trial, we compare early neutralizing antibody responses after boosting with bivalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines based on either BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 Omicron spike protein combined with wild-type spike. Responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants exhibited the greatest reduction in titers against currently circulating Omicron subvariants for both bivalent vaccines.

Corrigendum: The Vacc-SeqQC project: Benchmarking RNA-Seq for clinical vaccine studies.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1093242.].

Safety and Immunogenicity of Influenza A/H5N8 Virus Vaccine in Healthy Adults: Durability and Cross-reactivity of Antibody Responses.

BACKGROUND: Influenza A/H5N8 viruses infect poultry and wild birds in many countries. In 2021, the first human A/H5N8 cases were reported. METHODS: We conducted a phase I, cohort-randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of inactivated influenza A/H5N8 vaccine (clade 2.3.4.4c) administered with or without adjuvant. Cohort 1 subjects received either two doses of AS03-adjuvanted vaccine containing 3.75 µg or 15 µg hemagglutinin (HA); two doses of 15 µg HA unadjuvanted vaccine; or one dose of AS03-adjuvanted vaccine (3.75 µg or 15 µg HA), followed by one dose of non-adjuvanted vaccine (same HA content). Cohort 2 subjects received two doses of MF59-adjuvanted vaccine containing 3.75 µg or 15 µg HA, or 15 µg HA of non-adjuvanted vaccine. Subjects were followed for 13 months for safety and immunogenicity. RESULTS: We enrolled 386 adult subjects in good health. Solicited adverse events were generally mild and more common among subjects who received adjuvanted vaccines. Antibody responses (hemagglutination inhibition or microneutralization assays) were highest in the two-dose AS03 group, followed by the one-dose AS03 group, the MF59 groups, and the non-adjuvanted groups. Antibody levels returned to baseline 12 months after the second vaccination in all groups except the 15 µg AS03-adjuvanted group. Cross-reactive antibodies to clade 2.3.4.4b strains isolated from recent human cases were demonstrated in a subset of both 15 µg adjuvanted groups. CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of influenza A/H5N8 vaccine were well-tolerated. Immunogenicity improved with receipt of two doses of adjuvanted vaccine and higher antigen content. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus placebo to treat lower respiratory tract infections associated with low procalcitonin: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Lower respiratory tract infections are frequently treated with antibiotics, despite a viral cause in many cases. It remains unknown whether low procalcitonin concentrations can identify patients with lower respiratory tract infection who are unlikely to benefit from antibiotics. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of azithromycin versus placebo to treat lower respiratory tract infections in patients with low procalcitonin. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at five health centres in the USA. Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically suspected non-pneumonia lower respiratory tract infection and symptom duration from 24 h to 28 days were eligible for enrolment. Participants with a procalcitonin concentration of 0·25 ng/mL or less were randomly assigned (1:1), in blocks of four with stratification by site, to receive over-encapsulated oral azithromycin 250 mg or matching placebo (two capsules on day 1 followed by one capsule daily for 4 days). Participants, non-study clinical providers, investigators, and study coordinators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was efficacy of azithromycin versus placebo in terms of clinical improvement at day 5 in the intention-to-treat population. The non-inferiority margin was -12·5%. Solicited adverse events (abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, allergic reaction, or yeast infections) were recorded as a secondary outcome. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03341273. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2017, and March 9, 2020, 691 patients were assessed for eligibility and 499 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive azithromycin (n=249) or placebo (n=250). Clinical improvement at day 5 was observed in 148 (63%, 95% CI 54 to 71) of 238 participants with full data in the placebo group and 155 (69%, 61 to 77) of 227 participants with full data in the azithromycin group in the intention-to-treat analysis (between-group difference -6%, 95% CI -15 to 2). The 95% CI for the difference did not meet the non-inferiority margin. Solicited adverse events and the severity of solicited adverse events were not significantly different between groups at day 5, except for increased abdominal pain associated with azithromycin (47 [23%, 95% CI 18 to 29] of 204 participants) compared with placebo (35 [16%, 12 to 21] of 221; between-group difference -7% [95% CI -15 to 0]; p=0·066). INTERPRETATION: Placebo was not non-inferior to azithromycin in terms of clinical improvement at day 5 in adults with lower respiratory tract infection and a low procalcitonin concentration. After accounting for both the rates of clinical improvement and solicited adverse events at day 5, it is unclear whether antibiotics are indicated for patients with lower respiratory tract infection and a low procalcitonin concentration. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, bioMérieux.

Temporal Improvements in COVID-19 Outcomes for Hospitalized Adults: A Post Hoc Observational Study of Remdesivir Group Participants in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 standard of care (SOC) evolved rapidly during 2020 and 2021, but its cumulative effect over time is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether recovery and mortality improved as SOC evolved, using data from ACTT (Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial). DESIGN: ACTT is a series of phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated COVID-19 therapeutics from February 2020 through May 2021. ACTT-1 compared remdesivir plus SOC to placebo plus SOC, and in ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, remdesivir plus SOC was the control group. This post hoc analysis compared recovery and mortality between these comparable sequential cohorts of patients who received remdesivir plus SOC, adjusting for baseline characteristics with propensity score weighting. The analysis was repeated for participants in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4 who received remdesivir plus dexamethasone plus SOC. Trends in SOC that could explain outcome improvements were analyzed. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04280705 [ACTT-1], NCT04401579 [ACTT-2], NCT04492475 [ACTT-3], and NCT04640168 [ACTT-4]). SETTING: 94 hospitals in 10 countries (86% U.S. participants). PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: SOC. MEASUREMENTS: 28-day mortality and recovery. RESULTS: Although outcomes were better in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were close to 1 (HR for recovery, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.17]; HR for mortality, 0.90 [CI, 0.56 to 1.40]). Comparable patients were less likely to be intubated in ACTT-2 than in ACTT-1 (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.53 to 0.97]), and hydroxychloroquine use decreased. Outcomes improved from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3 (HR for recovery, 1.43 [CI, 1.24 to 1.64]; HR for mortality, 0.45 [CI, 0.21 to 0.97]). Potential explanatory factors (SOC trends, case surges, and variant trends) were similar between ACTT-2 and ACTT-3, except for increased dexamethasone use (11% to 77%). Outcomes were similar in ACTT-3 and ACTT-4. Antibiotic use decreased gradually across all stages. LIMITATION: Unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSION: Changes in patient composition explained improved outcomes from ACTT-1 to ACTT-2 but not from ACTT-2 to ACTT-3, suggesting improved SOC. These results support excluding nonconcurrent controls from analysis of platform trials in rapidly changing therapeutic areas. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

SARS-CoV-2 Variant Vaccine Boosters Trial: Preliminary Analyses.

Background: Protection from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines wanes over time and is compounded by emerging variants including Omicron subvariants. This study evaluated safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variant vaccines. Methods: This phase 2 open-label, randomized trial enrolled healthy adults previously vaccinated with a SARS-CoV-2 primary series and a single boost. Eligible participants were randomized to one of six Moderna COVID19 mRNA vaccine arms (50µg dose): Prototype (mRNA-1273), Omicron BA.1+Beta (1 or 2 doses), Omicron BA.1+Delta, Omicron BA.1 monovalent, and Omicron BA.1+Prototype. Neutralization antibody titers (ID 50 ) were assessed for D614G, Delta, Beta and Omicron BA.1 variants and Omicron BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 subvariants 15 days after vaccination. Results: From March 30 to May 6, 2022, 597 participants were randomized and vaccinated. Median age was 53 years, and 20% had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. All vaccines were safe and well-tolerated. Day 15 geometric mean titers (GMT) against D614G were similar across arms and ages, and higher with prior infection. For uninfected participants, Day 15 Omicron BA.1 GMTs were similar across Omicron-containing vaccine arms (3724-4561) and higher than Prototype (1,997 [95%CI:1,482-2,692]). The Omicron BA.1 monovalent and Omicron BA.1+Prototype vaccines induced a geometric mean ratio (GMR) to Prototype for Omicron BA.1 of 2.03 (97.5%CI:1.37-3.00) and 1.56 (97.5%CI:1.06-2.31), respectively. A subset of samples from uninfected participants in four arms were also tested in a different laboratory at Day 15 for neutralizing antibody titers to D614G and Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2.12.2 and BA.4/BA.5. Omicron BA.4/BA.5 GMTs were approximately one third BA.1 GMTs (Prototype 517 [95%CI:324-826] vs. 1503 [95%CI:949-2381]; Omicron BA.1+Beta 628 [95%CI:367-1,074] vs. 2125 [95%CI:1139-3965]; Omicron BA.1+Delta 765 [95%CI:443-1,322] vs. 2242 [95%CI:1218-4128] and Omicron BA.1+Prototype 635 [95%CI:447-903] vs. 1972 [95%CI:1337-2907). Conclusions: Higher Omicron BA.1 titers were observed with Omicron-containing vaccines compared to Prototype vaccine and titers against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 were lower than against BA.1 for all candidate vaccines. Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT05289037.

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

EVITA Dengue: a cluster-randomized controlled trial to EValuate the efficacy of Wolbachia-InfecTed Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in reducing the incidence of Arboviral infection in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Arboviruses transmitted by Aedes aegypti including dengue, Zika, and chikungunya are a major global health problem, with over 2.5 billion at risk for dengue alone. There are no licensed antivirals for these infections, and safe and effective vaccines are not yet widely available. Thus, prevention of arbovirus transmission by vector modification is a novel approach being pursued by multiple researchers. However, the field needs high-quality evidence derived from randomized, controlled trials upon which to base the implementation and maintenance of vector control programs. Here, we report the EVITA Dengue trial design (DMID 17-0111), which assesses the efficacy in decreasing arbovirus transmission of an innovative approach developed by the World Mosquito Program for vector modification of Aedes mosquitoes by Wolbachia pipientis. METHODS: DMID 17-0111 is a cluster-randomized trial in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, with clusters defined by primary school catchment areas. Clusters (n = 58) will be randomized 1:1 to intervention (release of Wolbachia-infected Aedes aegypti mosquitoes) vs. control (no release). Standard vector control activities (i.e., insecticides and education campaigns for reduction of mosquito breeding sites) will continue as per current practice in the municipality. Participants (n = 3480, 60 per cluster) are children aged 6-11 years enrolled in the cluster-defining school and living within the cluster boundaries who will undergo annual serologic surveillance for arboviral infection. The primary objective is to compare sero-incidence of arboviral infection between arms. DISCUSSION: DMID 17-0111 aims to determine the efficacy of Wolbachia-infected mosquito releases in reducing human infections by arboviruses transmitted by Aedes aegypti and will complement the mounting evidence for this method from large-scale field releases and ongoing trials. The trial also represents a critical step towards robustness and rigor for how vector control methods are assessed, including the simultaneous measurement and correlation of entomologic and epidemiologic outcomes. Data from this trial will inform further the development of novel vector control methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04514107 . Registered on 17 August 2020 Primary sponsor: National Institute of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Is the BCG Vaccine an Answer to Future Pandemic Preparedness?

While the development of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines was rapid, time to development and implementation challenges remain that may impact the response to future pandemics. Trained immunity via bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination (an antigen agnostic strategy) offers a potential intervention against future novel pathogens via an existing, safe, and widely distributed vaccine to protect vulnerable populations and preserve health system capacity while targeted vaccines are developed and implemented.

Safety and immunogenicity of an AS03-adjuvanted SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) in healthy adults: interim findings from a phase 2, randomised, dose-finding, multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated our SARS-CoV-2 prefusion spike recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) with different adjuvants, unadjuvanted, and in a one-injection and two-injection dosing schedule in a previous phase 1-2 study. Based on interim results from that study, we selected a two-injection schedule and the AS03 adjuvant for further clinical development. However, lower than expected antibody responses, particularly in older adults, and higher than expected reactogenicity after the second vaccination were observed. In the current study, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of an optimised formulation of CoV2 preS dTM adjuvanted with AS03 to inform progression to phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: This phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, dose-ranging study was done in adults (≥18 years old), including those with pre-existing medical conditions, those who were immunocompromised (except those with recent organ transplant or chemotherapy) and those with a potentially increased risk for severe COVID-19, at 20 clinical research centres in the USA and Honduras. Women who were pregnant or lactating or, for those of childbearing potential, not using an effective method of contraception or abstinence, and those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine, were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive response technology system, with stratification by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years), rapid serodiagnostic test result (positive or negative), and high-risk medical conditions (yes or no), to receive two injections (day 1 and day 22) of 5 7mu;g (low dose), 10 7mu;g (medium dose), or 15 7mu;g (high dose) CoV2 preS dTM antigen with fixed AS03 content. All participants and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment; unmasked study staff involved in vaccine preparation were not involved in safety outcome assessments. All laboratory staff performing the assays were masked to treatment. The primary safety objective was to describe the safety profile in all participants, for each candidate vaccine formulation. Safety endpoints were evaluated for all randomised participants who received at least one dose of the study vaccine (safety analysis set), and are presented here for the interim study period (up to day 43). The primary immunogenicity objective was to describe the neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant 14 days after the second vaccination (day 36) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naive who received both injections, provided samples at day 1 and day 36, did not have protocol deviations, and did not receive an authorised COVID-19 vaccine before day 36. Neutralising antibodies were measured using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay and are presented here up to 14 days after the second dose. As a secondary immunogenicity objective, we assessed neutralising antibodies in non-naive participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04762680) and is closed to new participants for the cohort reported here. FINDINGS: Of 722 participants enrolled and randomly assigned between Feb 24, 2021, and March 8, 2021, 721 received at least one injection (low dose=240, medium dose=239, and high dose=242). The proportion of participants reporting at least one solicited adverse reaction (injection site or systemic) in the first 7 days after any vaccination was similar between treatment groups (217 [91%] of 238 in the low-dose group, 213 [90%] of 237 in the medium-dose group, and 218 [91%] of 239 in the high-dose group); these adverse reactions were transient, were mostly mild to moderate in intensity, and occurred at a higher frequency and intensity after the second vaccination. Four participants reported immediate unsolicited adverse events; two (one each in the low-dose group and medium-dose group) were considered by the investigators to be vaccine related and two (one each in the low-dose and high-dose groups) were considered unrelated. Five participants reported seven vaccine-related medically attended adverse events (two in the low-dose group, one in the medium-dose group, and four in the high-dose group). No vaccine-related serious adverse events and no adverse events of special interest were reported. Among participants naive to SARS-CoV-2 at day 36, 158 (98%) of 162 in the low-dose group, 166 (99%) of 168 in the medium-dose group, and 163 (98%) of 166 in the high-dose group had at least a two-fold increase in neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant from baseline. Neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMTs) at day 36 for participants who were naive were 2189 (95% CI 1744-2746) for the low-dose group, 2269 (1792-2873) for the medium-dose group, and 2895 (2294-3654) for the high-dose group. GMT ratios (day 36: day 1) were 107 (95% CI 85-135) in the low-dose group, 110 (87-140) in the medium-dose group, and 141 (111-179) in the high-dose group. Neutralising antibody titres in non-naive adults 21 days after one injection tended to be higher than titres after two injections in adults who were naive, with GMTs 21 days after one injection for participants who were non-naive being 3143 (95% CI 836-11 815) in the low-dose group, 2338 (593-9226) in the medium-dose group, and 7069 (1361-36 725) in the high-dose group. INTERPRETATION: Two injections of CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 showed acceptable safety and reactogenicity, and robust immunogenicity in adults who were SARS-CoV-2 naive and non-naive. These results supported progression to phase 3 evaluation of the 10 7mu;g antigen dose for primary vaccination and a 5 7mu;g antigen dose for booster vaccination. FUNDING: Sanofi Pasteur and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

The Vacc-SeqQC project: Benchmarking RNA-Seq for clinical vaccine studies.

Introduction: Over the last decade, the field of systems vaccinology has emerged, in which high throughput transcriptomics and other omics assays are used to probe changes of the innate and adaptive immune system in response to vaccination. The goal of this study was to benchmark key technical and analytical parameters of RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) in the context of a multi-site, double-blind randomized vaccine clinical trial. Methods: We collected longitudinal peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) samples from 10 subjects before and after vaccination with a live attenuated Francisella tularensis vaccine and performed RNA-Seq at two different sites using aliquots from the same sample to generate two replicate datasets (5 time points for 50 samples each). We evaluated the impact of (i) filtering lowly-expressed genes, (ii) using external RNA controls, (iii) fold change and false discovery rate (FDR) filtering, (iv) read length, and (v) sequencing depth on differential expressed genes (DEGs) concordance between replicate datasets. Using synthetic mRNA spike-ins, we developed a method for empirically establishing minimal read-count thresholds for maintaining fold change accuracy on a per-experiment basis. We defined a reference PBMC transcriptome by pooling sequence data and established the impact of sequencing depth and gene filtering on transcriptome representation. Lastly, we modeled statistical power to detect DEGs for a range of sample sizes, effect sizes, and sequencing depths. Results and Discussion: Our results showed that (i) filtering lowly-expressed genes is recommended to improve fold-change accuracy and inter-site agreement, if possible guided by mRNA spike-ins (ii) read length did not have a major impact on DEG detection, (iii) applying fold-change cutoffs for DEG detection reduced inter-set agreement and should be used with caution, if at all, (iv) reduction in sequencing depth had a minimal impact on statistical power but reduced the identifiable fraction of the PBMC transcriptome, (v) after sample size, effect size (i.e. the magnitude of fold change) was the most important driver of statistical power to detect DEG. The results from this study provide RNA sequencing benchmarks and guidelines for planning future similar vaccine studies.