Impact of Preexisting Anti-Adenovirus 26 Humoral Immunity on Immunogenicity of the Ad26.COV2.S Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine.

This secondary analysis of the phase 3 ENSEMBLE trial (NCT04505722) assessed the impact of preexisting humoral immunity to adenovirus 26 (Ad26) on the immunogenicity of Ad26.COV2.S-elicited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibody levels in 380 participants in Brazil, South Africa, and the United States. Among those vaccinated in Brazil and South Africa, 31% and 66%, respectively, had prevaccination serum-neutralizing activity against Ad26, with little preexisting immunity detected in the United States. Vaccine recipients in each country had similar postvaccination spike (S) protein-binding antibody levels, indicating that baseline immunity to Ad26 has no clear impact on vaccine-induced immune responses.

Safety and Efficacy of Single-Dose Ad26.COV2.S Vaccine against Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine is a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 vector encoding full-length severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein in a prefusion-stabilized conformation. METHODS: In an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adult participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S (5×1010 viral particles) or placebo. The primary end points were vaccine efficacy against moderate to severe-critical coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) with an onset at least 14 days and at least 28 days after administration among participants in the per-protocol population who had tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: The per-protocol population included 19,630 SARS-CoV-2-negative participants who received Ad26.COV2.S and 19,691 who received placebo. Ad26.COV2.S protected against moderate to severe-critical Covid-19 with onset at least 14 days after administration (116 cases in the vaccine group vs. 348 in the placebo group; efficacy, 66.9%; adjusted 95% confidence interval [CI], 59.0 to 73.4) and at least 28 days after administration (66 vs. 193 cases; efficacy, 66.1%; adjusted 95% CI, 55.0 to 74.8). Vaccine efficacy was higher against severe-critical Covid-19 (76.7% [adjusted 95% CI, 54.6 to 89.1] for onset at ≥14 days and 85.4% [adjusted 95% CI, 54.2 to 96.9] for onset at ≥28 days). Despite 86 of 91 cases (94.5%) in South Africa with sequenced virus having the 20H/501Y.V2 variant, vaccine efficacy was 52.0% and 64.0% against moderate to severe-critical Covid-19 with onset at least 14 days and at least 28 days after administration, respectively, and efficacy against severe-critical Covid-19 was 73.1% and 81.7%, respectively. Reactogenicity was higher with Ad26.COV2.S than with placebo but was generally mild to moderate and transient. The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the two groups. Three deaths occurred in the vaccine group (none were Covid-19-related), and 16 in the placebo group (5 were Covid-19-related). CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of Ad26.COV2.S protected against symptomatic Covid-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and was effective against severe-critical disease, including hospitalization and death. Safety appeared to be similar to that in other phase 3 trials of Covid-19 vaccines. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development and others; ENSEMBLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04505722.).

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 1 Study of Ad26.ZIKV.001, an Ad26-Vectored Anti-Zika Virus Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Zika virus (ZIKV) may cause severe congenital disease after maternal-fetal transmission. No vaccine is currently available. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and immunogenicity of Ad26.ZIKV.001, a prophylactic ZIKV vaccine candidate. DESIGN: Phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03356561). SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: 100 healthy adult volunteers. INTERVENTION: Ad26.ZIKV.001, an adenovirus serotype 26 vector encoding ZIKV M-Env, administered in 1- or 2-dose regimens of 5 × 1010 or 1 × 1011 viral particles (vp), or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Local and systemic adverse events; neutralization titers by microneutralization assay (MN50) and T-cell responses by interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot and intracellular cytokine staining; and protectivity of vaccine-induced antibodies in a subset of participants through transfer in an exploratory mouse ZIKV challenge model. RESULTS: All regimens were well tolerated, with no safety concerns identified. In both 2-dose regimens, ZIKV neutralizing titers peaked 14 days after the second vaccination, with geometric mean MN50 titers (GMTs) of 1065.6 (95% CI, 494.9 to 2294.5) for 5 × 1010 vp and 956.6 (595.8 to 1535.8) for 1 × 1011 vp. Titers persisted for at least 1 year at a GMT of 68.7 (CI, 26.4-178.9) for 5 × 1010 vp and 87.0 (CI, 29.3 to 258.6) for 1 × 1011 vp. A 1-dose regimen of 1 × 1011 vp Ad26.ZIKV.001 induced seroconversion in all participants 56 days after the first vaccination (GMT, 103.4 [CI, 52.7 to 202.9]), with titers persisting for at least 1 year (GMT, 90.2 [CI, 38.4 to 212.2]). Env-specific cellular responses were induced. Protection against ZIKV challenge was observed after antibody transfer from participants into mice, and MN50 titers correlated with protection in this model. LIMITATION: The study was conducted in a nonendemic area, so it did not assess safety and immunogenicity in a flavivirus-exposed population. CONCLUSION: The safety and immunogenicity profile makes Ad26.ZIKV.001 a promising candidate for further development if the need reemerges. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Janssen Vaccines and Infectious Diseases.

Interim Results of a Phase 1-2a Trial of Ad26.COV2.S Covid-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Efficacious vaccines are urgently needed to contain the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A candidate vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S, is a recombinant, replication-incompetent adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector encoding a full-length and stabilized SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. METHODS: In this multicenter, placebo-controlled, phase 1-2a trial, we randomly assigned healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 55 years (cohort 1) and those 65 years of age or older (cohort 3) to receive the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine at a dose of 5×1010 viral particles (low dose) or 1×1011 viral particles (high dose) per milliliter or placebo in a single-dose or two-dose schedule. Longer-term data comparing a single-dose regimen with a two-dose regimen are being collected in cohort 2; those results are not reported here. The primary end points were the safety and reactogenicity of each dose schedule. RESULTS: After the administration of the first vaccine dose in 805 participants in cohorts 1 and 3 and after the second dose in cohort 1, the most frequent solicited adverse events were fatigue, headache, myalgia, and injection-site pain. The most frequent systemic adverse event was fever. Systemic adverse events were less common in cohort 3 than in cohort 1 and in those who received the low vaccine dose than in those who received the high dose. Reactogenicity was lower after the second dose. Neutralizing-antibody titers against wild-type virus were detected in 90% or more of all participants on day 29 after the first vaccine dose (geometric mean titer [GMT], 212 to 354), regardless of vaccine dose or age group, and reached 96% by day 57 with a further increase in titers (GMT, 288 to 488) in cohort 1a. Titers remained stable until at least day 71. A second dose provided an increase in the titer by a factor of 2.6 to 2.9 (GMT, 827 to 1266). Spike-binding antibody responses were similar to neutralizing-antibody responses. On day 15, CD4+ T-cell responses were detected in 76 to 83% of the participants in cohort 1 and in 60 to 67% of those in cohort 3, with a clear skewing toward type 1 helper T cells. CD8+ T-cell responses were robust overall but lower in cohort 3. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and immunogenicity profiles of Ad26.COV2.S support further development of this vaccine candidate. (Funded by Johnson & Johnson and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services; COV1001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04436276.).

Safety and Immunogenicity of Novel Adenovirus Type 26- and Modified Vaccinia Ankara-Vectored Ebola Vaccines: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Developing effective vaccines against Ebola virus is a global priority. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an adenovirus type 26 vector vaccine encoding Ebola glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and a modified vaccinia Ankara vector vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, Marburg virus, and Tai Forest virus nucleoprotein (MVA-BN-Filo). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blind, phase 1 trial performed in Oxford, United Kingdom, enrolling healthy 18- to 50-year-olds from December 2014; 8-month follow-up was completed October 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized into 4 groups, within which they were simultaneously randomized 5:1 to receive study vaccines or placebo. Those receiving active vaccines were primed with Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 10(10) viral particles) or MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 10(8) median tissue culture infective dose) and boosted with the alternative vaccine 28 or 56 days later. A fifth, open-label group received Ad26.ZEBOV boosted by MVA-BN-Filo 14 days later. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were safety and tolerability. All adverse events were recorded until 21 days after each immunization; serious adverse events were recorded throughout the trial. Secondary outcomes were humoral and cellular immune responses to immunization, as assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and enzyme-linked immunospot performed at baseline and from 7 days after each immunization until 8 months after priming immunizations. RESULTS: Among 87 study participants (median age, 38.5 years; 66.7% female), 72 were randomized into 4 groups of 18, and 15 were included in the open-label group. Four participants did not receive a booster dose; 67 of 75 study vaccine recipients were followed up at 8 months. No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred. No participant became febrile after MVA-BN-Filo, compared with 3 of 60 participants (5%; 95% CI, 1%-14%) receiving Ad26.ZEBOV in the randomized groups. In the open-label group, 4 of 15 Ad26.ZEBOV recipients (27%; 95% CI, 8%-55%) experienced fever. In the randomized groups, 28 of 29 Ad26.ZEBOV recipients (97%; 95% CI, 82%- 99.9%) and 7 of 30 MVA-BN-Filo recipients (23%; 95% CI, 10%-42%) had detectable Ebola glycoprotein-specific IgG 28 days after primary immunization. All vaccine recipients had specific IgG detectable 21 days postboost and at 8-month follow-up. Within randomized groups, at 7 days postboost, at least 86% of vaccine recipients showed Ebola-specific T-cell responses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this phase 1 study of healthy volunteers, immunization with Ad26.ZEBOV or MVA-BN-Filo did not result in any vaccine-related serious adverse events. An immune response was observed after primary immunization with Ad26.ZEBOV; boosting by MVA-BN-Filo resulted in sustained elevation of specific immunity. These vaccines are being further assessed in phase 2 and 3 studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02313077.

Cardiovascular risk factors: Belgian target achievement.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the level of target achievement for key modifiable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors (dyslipidaemia, arterial hypertension, hyperglycaemia, smoking, and physical inactivity) in Belgium. METHODS AND RESULTS: This non-systematic review of Belgian data from four recent studies assessed the control of CVD risk factors in clinical settings: the European Study on Cardiovascular Risk Prevention and Management in Usual Daily Practice (EURIKA), the Optimal Type 2 Diabetes Management Including Benchmarking and Standard Treatment Study (OPTIMISE), the European Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention by Intervention to Reduce Events Survey (EUROASPIRE III), and data from a general practice-based morbidity registration network (INTEGO). For each study, target achievement levels were evaluated using the guidelines that were applicable at the time of the study. The overall results show that the main CVD risk factors are poorly controlled in patients with established CVD and in patients at high CVD risk. Therapeutic targets may be incompletely reached because of the suboptimal implementation of European guidelines for CVD prevention in routine clinical practice (insufficient lifestyle and dietary adaptations; poor applications of drug therapy to control blood pressure, dyslipidaemia and hyperglycaemia) or the insufficient efficacy of the currently available treatments options in some patients. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides clear and updated evidence for non-target achievement for all major risk factors, with four different study designs and inclusion criteria, and highlights the need for more comprehensive and intensive application of European guidelines recommendations for CVD prevention in Belgium.

Incident somatic comorbidity after psychosis: results from a retrospective cohort study based on Flemish general practice data.

BACKGROUND: Psychotic conditions and especially schizophrenia, have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Many studies are performed in specialized settings with a strong focus on schizophrenia. Somatic comorbidity after psychosis is studied, using a general practice comorbidity registration network. METHODS: Hazard ratios are presented resulting from frailty models to assess the risk of subsequent somatic disease after a diagnosis of psychosis compared to people without psychosis matched on practice, age and gender. Diseases studied are cancer, physical trauma, diabetes mellitus, gastrointestinal disorders, joint disorders, irritable bowel syndrome, general infections, metabolic disorders other than diabetes, hearing and vision problems, anemia, cardiovascular disease, alcohol abuse, lung disorders, mouth and teeth problems, sexually transmitted diseases. RESULTS: Significant higher risks after a diagnosis of psychosis were found for the emergence of diabetes, physical trauma, gastrointestinal disorders, alcohol abuse, chronic lung disease and teeth and mouth problems. With regard to diabetes, by including the type of antipsychotic medication it is clear that the significant overall effect was largely due to the use of atypical antipsychotic medication. No significant higher risk was seen for cancer, joint conditions, irritable bowel syndrome, general infections, other metabolic conditions, hearing/vision problems, anaemia, cardiovascular disease or diabetes, in case no atypical antipsychotic medication was used. CONCLUSION: Significantly higher morbidity rates for some somatic conditions in patients with psychosis are apparent. People with a diagnosis of psychosis benefit from regular assessments for the emergence of somatic disorders and risk factors, including diabetes in case of atypical antipsychotic medication.

Epidemiology of chronic non-cancer pain in Europe: narrative review of prevalence, pain treatments and pain impact.

BACKGROUND: Estimates on the epidemiology of chronic non-cancer pain vary widely throughout Europe. It is unclear whether this variation reflects true population differences or methodological factors. Such epidemiological information supports European decision makers in allocating healthcare resources. OBJECTIVE: Pan-Europe epidemiological data about chronic non-cancer pain was obtained using systematic review principles in searching and summarising results. METHODS: Multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CRD Databases, and GIN) were systematically searched for primary studies containing epidemiological data on chronic non-cancer pain in Europe excluding studies that solely concerned migraines, headaches and pain associated with specific disease conditions. The studies were prioritised according to quality, recency and validity. MAIN OUTCOMES: Eighteen research questions concerning aspects of chronic pain included: prevalence; incidence; pain treatments, control and compliance; treatment satisfaction; and quality of life and economic impacts. RESULTS: The search yielded 16 619 references and 45 were relevant to Europe. Studies for each question were selected that provided the most recent, representative and valid data. There was a clear lack of studies concerning chronic non-cancer pain in Europe as a whole. The 1-month prevalence of moderate-to-severe non-cancer chronic pain was 19%. Chronic pain significantly impacted on patient-perceived health status, affected everyday activities including economic pursuits and personal relationships, and was significantly associated with depressive symptoms. The majority relied on drugs for pain control and NSAIDs were the most frequent drug choice. Despite pain medications, a large proportion had inadequate pain control. CONCLUSION: To the authors' knowledge this is the most comprehensive literature review on epidemiological data in this field. It is clear that chronic pain has a dramatic impact on European society. Since chronic non-cancer pain is treated differently from cancer-related pain, the lack of data in this area clearly underlines the need for decision makers in healthcare to gather further epidemiological data.

The use of human tissue in epidemiological research; ethical and legal considerations in two biobanks in Belgium.

This paper discusses the legal implications of setting up two new biobanks in Belgium. The first is hospital-based and will archive tissue from patients with haematologic cancer, whereas the second is linked to a general practice based morbidity registry and will involve storage of blood samples. To date, Belgium has no specific legislation that regulates storage of human tissue and related databases. Several issues concerning the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal medical data are discussed from the existing privacy legislation. We will address the principle of consent (broad versus specific) and the type of data recorded (anonymous, encoded and identifiable) for both biobanks.

Trends in total cholesterol screening and in prescribing lipid-lowering drugs in general practice in the period 1994-2003.

BACKGROUND: General Practitioners (GPs) play a central role in controlling an important risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, i.e. cholesterol levels in serum. In the past few decades different studies have been published on the effect of treating hyperlipidemia with statins. Guidelines for treatment have been adopted. We investigated the consequences on the practice of GPs screening cholesterol levels and on the timing of starting statin prescription. METHODS: For this descriptive study, data from the Intego database were used, composed with data from the electronic medical records (EMR) of 47 general practices in Flanders. GPs had not received special instructions for testing specific patients. For each patient the mean cholesterol level per year was calculated. A patient belonged to the group with lipid-lowering drugs if there was at least one prescription of the drug in a year in his EMR. Mixed model linear regression models were used to quantify the effect of covariates on total cholesterol values. RESULTS: In the period 1994-2003 total cholesterol was tested in 47,254 out of 139,148 different patients. Twelve percent of those tested took lipid-lowering medication. The proportion of patients with at least one cholesterol test a year, increased over a period of ten years in all age groups, but primarily for those over the age of 65. The mean cholesterol level decreased in the treated as well as in the non-treated group. Of the patients with a cardiovascular antecedent who were on lipid-lowering drugs in 2003, 56% had a cholesterol level

Occurrence of both bladder and prostate cancer in five cancer registries in Belgium, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the occurrence of both bladder and prostate tumours in five well defined cancer registries. METHODS: Anonymous data were provided from each cancer registry on all male bladder and prostate cancers (invasive and non-invasive). Poisson regression was used to model the rate of developing the second primary tumour and generated incidence rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: For bladder cancer and prostate cancer as first diagnosis, there was an excess risk to develop the second neoplasm. The RR decreased with increasing age of the patients. No effect of the initial treatment of the first neoplasm was found. CONCLUSION: This analysis found an excess risk to develop prostate cancer in bladder cancer patients younger than 70 years and the first year of follow-up after the diagnosis of bladder cancer. This may be due to detection bias, although a common aetiology may also be present.