Twice-Yearly Lenacapavir or Daily F/TAF for HIV Prevention in Cisgender Women.

BACKGROUND: There are gaps in uptake of, adherence to, and persistence in the use of preexposure prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention among cisgender women. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial involving adolescent girls and young women in South Africa and Uganda. Participants were assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous lenacapavir every 26 weeks, daily oral emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF), or daily oral emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF; active control); all participants also received the alternate subcutaneous or oral placebo. We assessed the efficacy of lenacapavir and F/TAF by comparing the incidence of HIV infection with the estimated background incidence in the screened population and evaluated relative efficacy as compared with F/TDF. RESULTS: Among 5338 participants who were initially HIV-negative, 55 incident HIV infections were observed: 0 infections among 2134 participants in the lenacapavir group (0 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00 to 0.19), 39 infections among 2136 participants in the F/TAF group (2.02 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.44 to 2.76), and 16 infections among 1068 participants in the F/TDF group (1.69 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.74). Background HIV incidence in the screened population (8094 participants) was 2.41 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.82 to 3.19). HIV incidence with lenacapavir was significantly lower than background HIV incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.04; P<0.001) and than HIV incidence with F/TDF (incidence rate ratio, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.10; P<0.001). HIV incidence with F/TAF did not differ significantly from background HIV incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.28; P = 0.21), and no evidence of a meaningful difference in HIV incidence was observed between F/TAF and F/TDF (incidence rate ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.14). Adherence to F/TAF and F/TDF was low. No safety concerns were found. Injection-site reactions were more common in the lenacapavir group (68.8%) than in the placebo injection group (F/TAF and F/TDF combined) (34.9%); 4 participants in the lenacapavir group (0.2%) discontinued the trial regimen owing to injection-site reactions. CONCLUSIONS: No participants receiving twice-yearly lenacapavir acquired HIV infection. HIV incidence with lenacapavir was significantly lower than background HIV incidence and HIV incidence with F/TDF. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PURPOSE 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04994509.).

Vaccine Efficacy of ALVAC-HIV and Bivalent Subtype C gp120-MF59 in Adults.

BACKGROUND: A safe, effective vaccine is essential to eradicating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. A canarypox-protein HIV vaccine regimen (ALVAC-HIV plus AIDSVAX B/E) showed modest efficacy in reducing infection in Thailand. An analogous regimen using HIV-1 subtype C virus showed potent humoral and cellular responses in a phase 1-2a trial in South Africa. Efficacy data and additional safety data were needed for this regimen in a larger population in South Africa. METHODS: In this phase 2b-3 trial, we randomly assigned 5404 adults without HIV-1 infection to receive the vaccine (2704 participants) or placebo (2700 participants). The vaccine regimen consisted of injections of ALVAC-HIV at months 0 and 1, followed by four booster injections of ALVAC-HIV plus bivalent subtype C gp120-MF59 adjuvant at months 3, 6, 12, and 18. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of HIV-1 infection from randomization to 24 months. RESULTS: In January 2020, prespecified criteria for nonefficacy were met at an interim analysis; further vaccinations were subsequently halted. The median age of the trial participants was 24 years; 70% of the participants were women. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. During the 24-month follow-up, HIV-1 infection was diagnosed in 138 participants in the vaccine group and in 133 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.30; P = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The ALVAC-gp120 regimen did not prevent HIV-1 infection among participants in South Africa despite previous evidence of immunogenicity. (HVTN 702 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02968849.).

Factors associated with reactogenicity to an investigational HIV vaccine regimen in HIV vaccine trials network 702.

BACKGROUND: Reactogenicity informs vaccine safety, and may influence vaccine uptake. We evaluated factors associated with reactogenicity in HVTN 702, a typical HIV vaccine efficacy trial with multiple doses and products. METHODS: HVTN 702, a phase 2b/3 double-blind placebo-controlled trial, randomized 5404 African participants aged 18-35 years without HIV to placebo, or ALVAC-HIV (vCP2438) at months 0, 1 and ALVAC-HIV (vCP2438) + Bivalent Subtype C gp120/MF59 at months 3, 6, 12 and 18. Using multivariate logistic regression, we evaluated associations between reactogenicity with clinical, sociodemographic and laboratory variables. RESULTS: More vaccine than placebo-recipients reported local symptoms (all p < 0.001), arthralgia (p = 0.008), chills (p = 0.012) and myalgia (p < 0.001). Reactogenicity was associated with female sex at birth (ORv = 2.50, ORp = 1.81, both p < 0.001) and geographic region. Amongst vaccine-recipients, each year of age was associated with 3 % increase in reactogenicity (OR = 1.03, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Vaccine receipt, female sex at birth, older age, and region may affect reactogenicity.

Safety and immunogenicity after a 30-month boost of a subtype C ALVAC-HIV (vCP2438) vaccine prime plus bivalent subtype C gp120/MF59 vaccine boost (HVTN 100): A phase 1-2 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

Induction of broad, durable immune responses is a challenge in HIV vaccine development. HVTN 100 Part A administered subtype C-containing ALVAC-HIV at months 0 and 1, and ALVAC-HIV with bivalent subtype C gp120/MF59 at months 3, 6 and 12. As IgG binding antibody and T-cell responses were similar or greater at month 12.5 vs. month 6.5, but waned by month 18, we investigated vaccine-elicited immune responses after a month 30 boost in this study, HVTN 100 Part B. From 13 September 2017 to 7 August 2018, a subgroup of vaccinees was randomized to receive intramuscular injections of ALVAC+gp120/MF59 (n = 32) or gp120/MF59 alone (n = 31) and a subgroup of placebo recipients was administered placebo (n = 7) at month 30. Primary outcomes were safety, IgG binding antibodies (bAbs) to vaccine-specific and V1V2 Env proteins and vaccine-specific CD4+ T cells at month 30.5. Secondary outcomes included neutralizing and antibody dependent cellular cytotoxicity functions and durability at months 30 and 36. Both vaccine groups had an acceptable safety profile. There were no statistically significant differences in the occurrence or level of IgG bAbs between the vaccine boost groups for any vaccine-specific or V1V2 antigens. IgG responses were higher to vaccine-matched gp120 than to V1V2. The booster vaccination restored the magnitude-breadth IgG bAb response to V1V2 antigens at month 30.5. However, it rapidly waned by month 36. CD4+ T-cell response rates to the 3 vaccine-matched Env antigens for the combined vaccine groups ranged from 37% at month 30, boosted to as high as 91% at month 30.5, and waned by month 36 to as low as 44%, with no significant differences between the vaccine boost groups. Because these responses waned after 6 months, additional strategies may be needed to maintain the durability of prime-boost vaccine regimens and to generate these or other immune responses that confer protection. Trial registration: South African National Clinical Trials Register (SANCTR number: DOH-27-0215-4796) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02404311).