Efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the safety and efficacy of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations is essential, as is investigation of the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including the B.1.351 (501Y.V2) variant first identified in South Africa. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in people not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Participants 18 to less than 65 years of age were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of vaccine containing 5×1010 viral particles or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) 21 to 35 days apart. Serum samples obtained from 25 participants after the second dose were tested by pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays against the original D614G virus and the B.1.351 variant. The primary end points were safety and efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus 2019 illness (Covid-19) more than 14 days after the second dose. RESULTS: Between June 24 and November 9, 2020, we enrolled 2026 HIV-negative adults (median age, 30 years); 1010 and 1011 participants received at least one dose of placebo or vaccine, respectively. Both the pseudovirus and the live-virus neutralization assays showed greater resistance to the B.1.351 variant in serum samples obtained from vaccine recipients than in samples from placebo recipients. In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], -49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (95.1% of 41 with sequencing data) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, -76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04444674; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR202006922165132).

Efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants threatens progress toward control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In a phase 1-2 trial involving healthy adults, the NVX-CoV2373 nanoparticle vaccine had an acceptable safety profile and was associated with strong neutralizing-antibody and antigen-specific polyfunctional CD4+ T-cell responses. Evaluation of vaccine efficacy was needed in a setting of ongoing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. METHODS: In this phase 2a-b trial in South Africa, we randomly assigned human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative adults between the ages of 18 and 84 years or medically stable HIV-positive participants between the ages of 18 and 64 years in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of either the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (5 µg of recombinant spike protein with 50 µg of Matrix-M1 adjuvant) or placebo. The primary end points were safety and vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic Covid-19 at 7 days or more after the second dose among participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Of 6324 participants who underwent screening, 4387 received at least one injection of vaccine or placebo. Approximately 30% of the participants were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. Among 2684 baseline seronegative participants (94% HIV-negative and 6% HIV-positive), predominantly mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 15 participants in the vaccine group and in 29 in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy, 49.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.1 to 72.8). Vaccine efficacy among HIV-negative participants was 60.1% (95% CI, 19.9 to 80.1). Of 41 sequenced isolates, 38 (92.7%) were the B.1.351 variant. Post hoc vaccine efficacy against B.1.351 was 51.0% (95% CI, -0.6 to 76.2) among the HIV-negative participants. Preliminary local and systemic reactogenicity events were more common in the vaccine group; serious adverse events were rare in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was efficacious in preventing Covid-19, with higher vaccine efficacy observed among HIV-negative participants. Most infections were caused by the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by Novavax and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04533399.).

Immunogenicity and safety of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein nanoparticle vaccine in people living with and without HIV-1 infection: a randomised, controlled, phase 2A/2B trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on COVID-19 vaccines in people living with HIV-1, who could be at increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of a Matrix-M adjuvanted recombinant spike protein nanoparticle COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373; Novavax) in HIV-negative people and people living with HIV-1. METHODS: In this randomised, observer-blinded, multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 2A/B trial in South Africa, participants aged 18-84 years, with and without underlying HIV-1, were enrolled from 16 sites and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two intramuscular injections of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo, 21 days apart. People living with HIV-1 were on stable antiretroviral therapy and had an HIV-1 viral load of less than 1000 copies per mL. Vaccine dosage was 5 µg SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein with 50 µg Matrix-M adjuvant, whereas 0·9% saline was used as placebo injection (volume 0·5 mL each). All study staff and participants remained masked to study group assignment. We previously reported an interim analysis on the efficacy and safety of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (coprimary endpoints). In this Article, we present an expanded safety analysis for the full cohort of participants and report on the secondary objective of vaccine immunogenicity in the full cohort of people living with HIV-1 and in HIV-negative individuals overall and stratified by baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04533399, and the Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR202009726132275. FINDINGS: Participants were enrolled between Aug 17 and Nov 25, 2020. The safety analysis set included 4164 HIV-negative participants (2089 in the intervention group and 2075 in the placebo group) and 244 people living with HIV-1 (122 in the intervention group and 122 in the placebo group). 1422 (34·1%) of 4164 HIV-negative people and 83 (34·0%) of 244 people living with HIV-1 were categorised as baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive (ie, anti-spike IgG reactive at enrolment or had a reactive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test by 14 days after the second study vaccination). In the NVX-CoV2373 group, solicited local and systemic adverse events were more common in HIV-negative participants (427 [30·6%] local and 401 [28·7%] systemic) than in people living with HIV-1 (20 [25·3%] local and 20 [25·3%] systemic) among those who were baseline SARS-CoV-2-seronegative (naive). Of the serious adverse events that occurred among HIV-negative people (of whom, two [0·1%] were baseline SARS-CoV-2-negative and four [0·6%] were baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive) and people living with HIV-1 (for whom there were no serious adverse events) in the NVX-CoV2373 group, none were assessed as related to the vaccine. Among participants who were baseline SARS-CoV-2-negative in the NVX-CoV2373 group, the anti-spike IgG geometric mean titres (GMTs) and seroconversion rates (SCRs) were lower in people living with HIV-1 (n=62) than in HIV-negative people (n=1234) following the first vaccination (GMT: 508·6 vs 1195·3 ELISA units [EU]/mL; SCR: 51·6% vs 81·3%); and similarly so 14 days after the second vaccination for GMTs (14 420·5 vs 31 631·8 EU/mL), whereas the SCR was similar at this point (100·0% vs 99·3%). In the NVX-CoV2373 group, anti-spike IgG GMTs 14 days after the second vaccination were substantially higher in those who were baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive than in those who were baseline SARS-CoV-2-seronegative for HIV-negative participants (100 666·1 vs 31 631·8 EU/mL) and for people living with HIV-1 (98 399·5 vs 14 420·5 EU/mL). This was also the case for angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor-binding antibody and neutralising antibody titres. INTERPRETATION: The safety of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine in people living with HIV-1 was similar to that in HIV-negative participants. However, people living with HIV-1 not previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2 had attenuated humoral immune responses to NVX-CoV2373 compared with their HIV-negative vaccine counterparts, but not so if they were baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive. FUNDING: Novavax and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; investigational vaccine manufacturing support was provided by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Etravirine combined with antiretrovirals other than darunavir/ritonavir for HIV-1-infected, treatment-experienced adults: Week 48 results of a phase IV trial.

OBJECTIVE: VIOLIN (TMC125IFD3002; NCT01422330) evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of etravirine with antiretrovirals other than darunavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients. METHODS: In a 48-week, phase IV, single-arm, multicenter study, patients on prior antiretroviral therapy (⩾8 weeks) who needed to change regimen for virologic failure (viral load ⩾ 500 copies/mL) or simplification/adverse events (viral load < 50 copies/mL) received etravirine 200 mg bid with ⩾1 other active antiretroviral, excluding darunavir/ritonavir or only nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. RESULTS: Of 211 treated patients, 73% (n = 155) had baseline viral load ⩾ 50 copies/mL and 27% (n = 56) had baseline viral load < 50 copies/mL. Protease inhibitors were the most common background antiretrovirals (83%). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse event (17%). Serious adverse events (no rash) occurred in 5% of patients; none were etravirine related. Overall, median etravirine AUC12h was 5390 ng h/mL and C0h was 353 ng/mL (N = 199). Week 48 virologic response rates (viral load < 50 copies/mL; Food and Drug Administration Snapshot algorithm) were 48% (74/155) (baseline viral load ⩾ 50 copies/mL) and 75% (42/56) (baseline viral load < 50 copies/mL). Virologic failure rates were 42% and 13%, respectively. The most frequently emerging etravirine resistance-associated mutations in virologic failures were Y181C, E138A, and M230L. Virologic response rates for patients with baseline viral load ⩾ 50 copies/mL were 38% (30/79) (non-adherent) versus 64% (44/69) (adherent subset). CONCLUSION: Etravirine 200 mg bid in combination with antiretrovirals other than darunavir/ritonavir was well tolerated in the studied treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected population. The overall etravirine safety and tolerability profile and pharmacokinetics (specifically in those patients who were adherent) were similar to those previously observed for etravirine in HIV-1-infected adults. The relatively high level of non-adherence, also observed in the pharmacokinetic assessments, negatively impacted virologic response, especially in patients with ⩾50 copies/mL at baseline.

Immunogenicity and safety of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in HIV-infected individuals naive to pneumococcal vaccination.

OBJECTIVE: Immunocompromised individuals are at an increased risk of pneumococcal disease. Vaccination is recommended as an important strategy to reduce risk of pneumococcal disease in HIV-infected individuals. This study evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of three 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) doses followed by one dose of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) at 1-month intervals in pneumococcal vaccine-naive, HIV-infected individuals. DESIGN: This was a phase 3, open-label, single-arm study. METHODS: Pneumococcal vaccine-naive, HIV-infected individuals at least 6 years of age with CD4 T-cell count at least 200  cells/µl and viral load less than 50 000  copies/ml received three doses of PCV13 followed by one dose of PPSV23 at 1-month intervals. Serotype-specific antipneumococcal immune responses were assessed by IgG geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) assay geometric mean titres (GMTs) after each dose. Local reactions at the PCV13 injection site, systemic and other adverse events were collected. RESULTS: Three hundred and one individuals were enrolled and vaccinated; 279 completed the study. Statistically significant increases in IgG GMCs and OPA GMTs were observed for all serotypes after dose 1 of PCV13 compared with prevaccine levels. GMCs and GMTs were comparable or only modestly increased for all serotypes after PCV13 doses 2 and 3 and after PPSV23. The majority of local reactions and systemic events were mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSION: A three-dose regimen of PCV13 was well tolerated in pneumococcal vaccine-naive, HIV-infected individuals. Significant immune responses to all serotypes were observed following the first dose of PCV13, with only modest increases in antibody titres following subsequent PCV13 or PPSV23 administration.

Week 48 results of a Phase IV trial of etravirine with antiretrovirals other than darunavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected treatment-experienced adults.

INTRODUCTION: In DUET, etravirine (ETR) 200 mg bid had durable efficacy and a favourable safety profile versus placebo, both arms with an optimised background regimen (BR) including darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r). TMC125IFD3002 (VIOLIN; NCT01422330) investigated ETR plus ARVs other than DRV/r. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 48 week, Phase IV, open-label, single-arm, multicentre study. HIV-1-infected treatment-experienced adult patients on=8 weeks ARV therapy prior to screening, switching either for virologic failure (VF) (viral load [VL] =500 c/mL) or regimen simplification/AEs (RS/AE) (VL<50 c/mL), received active ETR 200 mg bid with an investigator-selected BR of =1 active ARVs, but excluding DRV/r or NRTIs only. The primary objective was to evaluate safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics (PK). RESULTS: Of 211 treated patients, 55% were female, 61% black/African American. 155 patients (73%) had baseline (BL) VL=50 c/mL versus 56 (27%) with BL VL<50 c/mL. Between these two latter subgroups, median BL VL was 4.42 versus 1.28 log10 c/mL and CD4+ count 238 versus 410.5 cells/mm(3). Overall, 96% previously used <2 NNRTIs and 99% used=5 PIs; median number of BL NNRTI RAMs was 2, PI RAMs 5 and NRTI RAMs 1. Overall, most common BR ARVs were PIs (83%), mostly lopinavir/r (62%) and mostly used alone (20%) or with 1 or 2 NRTIs (61%). Raltegravir was used in 9% of patients. Most frequent AEs (any cause/grade) were diarrhoea (17%) and URTI (8%). Incidence of grade 3-4 AEs was 13%, serious AEs 5% (no rashes; none ETR related), AEs leading to discontinuation 4%, AEs possibly related to ETR 23% and AEs of interest: rash (any type) 4%, hepatic 6% and neuropsychiatric 3%. At week 48, VF and RS/AE virologic responses (% patients with VL<50 c/mL; FDA Snapshot) were: 48% (74/155) and 75% (42/56), respectively. VF rates were 42% and 13%; 10% and 13% had no VL data in the week 48 window. The percentage of patients adherent to treatment (assessed based on PK sampling plus ETR pill count) was 47% (69/148) and 57% (30/53), in VF and RS/AE, respectively. Median CD4+ count (NC=F) increases were 0.0 and 24.0 cells/mm(3). In 29/49 of VFs with genotypic data at failure, ETR RAMs emerging in =5 patients were Y181C, E138A and M230L. The geometric mean ETR AUC12h was 4877 ng.h/mL and C0h 293 ng/mL (N=199). CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS of this study were consistent with those for ETR in other similar populations and support the use of ETR 200 mg bid with a non-DRV/r based BR.

A double-blind, dose-response study of the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil in children and adolescents with hypertension.

The current study investigated the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil in children with hypertension, defined as systolic blood pressure measured at or above the 95th percentile (90th percentile for patients with diabetes, glomerular kidney disease, or family history of hypertension) for age, gender, and height while off any antihypertensive medication. The active treatment phase was conducted in 2 periods, with 2 cohorts in each period (cohort A, 62% white; cohort B, 100% Black). In period 1, patients stratified by weight received low-dose (2.5 or 5 mg) or high-dose (20 or 40 mg) olmesartan medoxomil daily for 3 weeks. In period 2, patients maintained their olmesartan medoxomil dose or initiated placebo washout for an additional 2 weeks. Period 1 efficacy results showed a dose-dependent, statistically significant reduction in seated trough systolic and diastolic blood pressure for both cohorts, with mean blood pressure reductions numerically smaller in cohort B than in cohort A. The olmesartan medoxomil dose response remained statistically significant when adjusted for body weight. In period 2, blood pressure control decreased in those patients switching to placebo, whereas patients continuing to receive olmesartan medoxomil therapy maintained consistent blood pressure reduction. Adverse events were generally mild and unrelated to study medication. Olmesartan medoxomil was safe and efficacious in children with hypertension, resulting in significant blood pressure reductions.