SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in the Nasopharynx at Time of First Infection Among Unvaccinated Individuals: A Secondary Cross-Protocol Analysis of 4 Randomized Trials.

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 viral load (VL) in the nasopharynx is difficult to quantify and standardize across settings, but it may inform transmission potential and disease severity. Objective: To characterize VL at COVID-19 diagnosis among previously uninfected and unvaccinated individuals by evaluating the association of demographic and clinical characteristics, viral variant, and trial with VL, as well as the ability of VL to predict severe disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary cross-protocol analysis used individual-level data from placebo recipients from 4 harmonized, phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials sponsored by Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax. Participants were SARS-CoV-2 negative at baseline and acquired COVID-19 during the blinded phase of the trials. The setting included the US, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Mexico; start dates were July 27, 2020, to December 27, 2020; data cutoff dates were March 26, 2021, to July 30, 2021. Statistical analysis was performed from November 2022 to June 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Linear regression was used to assess the association of demographic and clinical characteristics, viral variant, and trial with polymerase chain reaction-measured log10 VL in nasal and/or nasopharyngeal swabs taken at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. Results: Among 1667 participants studied (886 [53.1%] male; 995 [59.7%] enrolled in the US; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [14.7] years; 204 [12.2%] aged 65 years or older; 196 [11.8%] American Indian or Alaska Native, 150 [9%] Black or African American, 1112 [66.7%] White; 762 [45.7%] Hispanic or Latino), median (IQR) log10 VL at diagnosis was 6.18 (4.66-7.12) log10 copies/mL. Participant characteristics and viral variant explained only 5.9% of the variability in VL. The independent factor with the highest observed differences was trial: Janssen participants had 0.54 log10 copies/mL lower mean VL vs Moderna participants (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.87 log10 copies/mL lower). In the Janssen study, which captured the largest number of COVID-19 events and variants and used the most intensive post-COVID surveillance, neither VL at diagnosis nor averaged over days 1 to 28 post diagnosis was associated with COVID-19 severity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of placebo recipients from 4 randomized phase 3 trials, high variability was observed in SARS-CoV-2 VL at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and only a fraction was explained by individual participant characteristics or viral variant. These results suggest challenges for future studies of interventions seeking to influence VL and elevates the importance of standardized methods for specimen collection and viral load quantitation.

Efficacy of a monovalent (D614) SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03 adjuvant in adults: a phase 3, multi-country study.

Background: The literature on first generation COVID-19 vaccines show they were less effective against new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern including Omicron (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants). New vaccines developed against variant strains may provide cross-protection against emerging variants when used as boosters and facilitate vaccination across a range of countries, healthcare settings and populations. However, there are no data on such vaccines when used as a primary series. Methods: A global Phase 3, multi-stage efficacy study (NCT04904549) among adults (≥18 years) was conducted in 53 research centres in eight countries (United States, Honduras, Japan, Colombia, Kenya, India, Ghana, Nepal). Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive two intramuscular injections of a monovalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03-adjuvant (10 µg of the spike (S) protein from the ancestral D614 strain) or placebo on Day 1 (D01) and Day 22 (D22). The primary efficacy endpoint was prevention of virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with symptoms of COVID-19-like illness (CLI) ≥14 days after the second injection (post-dose 2 [PD2]) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve on D01 + D22. Safety and reactogenicity were also evaluated. Findings: Between May 26 and November 7, 2021, 10,114 participants received ≥1 study injection, and 9441 participants received both injections. 2108 (20.8%) participants were SARS-CoV-2 naïve at D01 and D22. The primary endpoint was analysed in a subset of the full analysis set (the modified full analysis set PD2 [mFAS-PD2], excluding participants who did not complete the vaccination schedule or received vaccination despite meeting one of the contraindication criteria, had onset of symptomatic COVID-19 between the first injection and before 14 days after the second injection, or participants who discontinued before 14 days after the second injection [n = 9377; vaccine, n = 4702; placebo, n = 4675]). Data were available for 2051 SARS-CoV-2 naïve and 7159 non-naïve participants. At the cut-off date (January 28, 2022), symptomatic COVID-19 was reported in 169 naïve participants (vaccine, n = 81; placebo, n = 88) ≥14 days PD2, with a vaccine efficacy (VE) of 15.3% (95% CI, -15.8; 38.2). VE regardless of D01/D22 serostatus was 32.9% (95% CI, 15.3; 47.0) and VE in non-naïve participants was 52.7% (95% CI, 31.2; 67.9). Viral genome sequencing was performed up to the data cut-off point and identified the infecting strain in 99/169 adjudicated cases in the PD2 naïve population (Delta [25], Omicron [72], other variants [3], one participant had infection with both Delta and Omicron variants and has been included in the totals for both Delta and Omicron). The vaccine was well-tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. Interpretation: In the context of changing circulating viral variants, it is challenging to induce protection in naïve individuals with a two-dose priming schedule based on the parental D614 strain. However, while the primary endpoint of this trial was not met, the results show that a monovalent D614 vaccine can still be of value in individuals previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Funding: This study was funded in whole or in part by Sanofi and by federal funds from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, part of the office of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under contract number HHSO100201600005I, and in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Defense Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense under contract number W15QKN-16-9-1002. The views presented here are those of the authors and do not purport to represent those of the Department of the Army, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the U.S. government.

Efficacy of a bivalent (D614 + B.1.351) SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03 adjuvant in adults: a phase 3, parallel, randomised, modified double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines with alternative strain compositions are needed to provide broad protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. This study aimed to describe the clinical efficacy and safety of a bivalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine as a two-injection primary series during a period of circulation of the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, parallel, randomised, modified double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults aged 18 years or older at 54 clinical research centres in eight countries (Colombia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Uganda, and Ukraine). Participants were recruited from the community and randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive response technology system to receive two intramuscular 0·5 mL injections, 21 days apart, of the bivalent vaccine (5 µg of ancestral [D614] and 5 µg of beta [B.1.351] variant spike protein, with AS03 adjuvant) or placebo (0·9% normal saline). All participants, outcome assessors, and laboratory staff performing assays were masked to group assignments; those involved in the preparation and administration of the vaccines were unmasked. Participants were stratified by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years) and baseline SARS-CoV-2 rapid serodiagnostic test positivity. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as laboratory-confirmed (via nucleic acid amplification test or PCR test) COVID-19 with COVID-19-like illness symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical efficacy of the bivalent vaccine for prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 at least 14 days after the second injection (dose 2). Safety was assessed in all participants receiving at least one injection of the study vaccine or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04904549) and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2021, and Feb 15, 2022, 13 002 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive the first dose of the study vaccine (n=6512) or placebo (n=6490). 12 924 participants (6472 in the vaccine group and 6452 in the placebo group) received at least one study injection, of whom 7542 (58·4%) were male and 9693 (75·0%) were SARS-CoV-2 non-naive. Of these 12 924 participants, 11 543 (89·3%) received both study injections (5788 in the vaccine group and 5755 in the placebo group). The efficacy-evaluable population after dose 2 comprised 11 416 participants (5736 in the vaccine group and 5680 in the placebo group). The median duration of follow-up was 85 days (IQR 50-95) after dose 1 and 58 days (29-70) after dose 2. 121 symptomatic COVID-19 cases were reported at least 14 days after dose 2 (32 in the vaccine group and 89 in the placebo group), with an overall vaccine efficacy of 64·7% (95% CI 46·6 to 77·2). Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was 75·1% (95% CI 56·3 to 86·6) in SARS-CoV-2 non-naive participants and 30·9% (-39·3 to 66·7) in SARS-CoV-2-naive participants. Viral genome sequencing identified the infecting strain in 68 (56·2%) of 121 cases (omicron [BA.1 and BA.2] in 63; delta in four; and both omicron and delta in one). Immediate unsolicited adverse events were reported by four (<0·1%) participants in the vaccine group and seven (0·1%) participants in the placebo group. Immediate unsolicited adverse reactions within 30 min after any injection were reported by four (<0·1%) participants in the vaccine group and six (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. In the reactogenicity subset with available data, solicited reactions (solicited injection-site reactions and solicited systemic reactions) within 7 days after any injection occurred in 1398 (57·8%) of 2420 vaccine recipients and 983 (40·9%) of 2403 placebo recipients. Grade 3 solicited reactions were reported by 196 (8·1%; 95% CI 7·0 to 9·3) of 2420 vaccine recipients and 118 (4·9%; 4·1 to 5·9) of 2403 placebo recipients within 7 days after any injection, with comparable frequencies after dose 1 and dose 2 in the vaccine group. At least one serious adverse event occurred in 30 (0·5%) participants in the vaccine group and 26 (0·4%) in the placebo group. The proportion of adverse events of special interest and deaths was less than 0·1% in both study groups. No adverse event of special interest, serious adverse event, or death was deemed to be treatment related. There were no reported cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell's Palsy, or Guillain-Barré syndrome, or other immune-mediated diseases. INTERPRETATION: The bivalent variant vaccine conferred heterologous protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the epidemiological context of the circulating contemporary omicron variant. These findings suggest that vaccines developed with an antigen from a non-predominant strain could confer cross-protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants, although further investigation is warranted. FUNDING: Sanofi, US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Efficacy of a bivalent (D614 + B.1.351) SARS-CoV-2 Protein Vaccine.

Background: COVID-19 vaccines with alternative strain compositions are needed to provide broad protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Methods: We conducted a global Phase 3, multi-stage efficacy study (NCT04904549) among adults aged ≥18 years. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive two intramuscular injections 21 days apart of a bivalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03-adjuvant (5 µg of ancestral (D614) and 5 µg of B.1.351 [beta] variant spike protein) or placebo. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with COVID-19-like illness (CLI) symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 ≥14 days after the second injection (post-dose 2 [PD2]). Results: Between 19 Oct 2021 and 15 Feb 2022, 12,924 participants received ≥1 study injection. 75% of participants were SARS-CoV-2 non-naïve. 11,416 participants received both study injections (efficacy-evaluable population [vaccine, n=5,736; placebo, n=5,680]). Up to 15 March 2022, 121 symptomatic COVID-19 cases were reported (32 in the vaccine group and 89 in the placebo group) ≥14 days PD2 with a vaccine efficacy (VE) of 64.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6; 77.2%). VE was 75.1% (95% CI 56.3; 86.6%) in non-naïve and 30.9% (95% CI -39.3; 66.7%) in naïve participants. Viral genome sequencing identified the infecting strain in 68 cases (Omicron [BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants]: 63; Delta: 4; Omicron and Delta: 1). The vaccine was well-tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile. Conclusions: A bivalent vaccine conferred heterologous protection against symptomatic infection with newly emergent Omicron (BA.1 and BA.2) in non-naïve adults 18-59 years of age.

Achieving intracellular cytokine staining assay concordance on two continents to assess HIV vaccine-induced T-cell responses.

The HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) conducts clinical trials on 4 continents in pursuit of a safe and effective HIV vaccine. Cellular immune responses to vaccination that define vaccine immunogenicity and/or immune correlates of protection can be measured using multiparameter intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) assays. The HVTN cellular immunology laboratory, located in Seattle, WA, conducts ICS assays for vaccine trials according to Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP). In 2013, the HVTN established a second GCLP compliant cellular immunology laboratory in Cape Town, South Africa to assess vaccine immunogenicity for HVTN trials conducted on the African continent. To ensure ICS readouts in the 2 laboratories were directly comparable, we conducted concordance testing using PBMC from healthy controls and vaccine trial participants. Despite standardized procedures and instrumentation, shared quality control measures and quality assurance oversight, several factors impacted our ability to obtain close agreement in T-cell responses measured in the 2 laboratories. One of these was the type of fetal bovine serum (FBS) used in the assay, which impacted lymphocyte cell viability and background responses. In addition, the differences in supernatant removal technique also significantly affected our ability to detect positive responses to vaccine antigens. Standardization of these factors allowed us to achieve and maintain ICS assay concordance across the 2 laboratories over multiple years, accelerating our efforts to evaluate HIV vaccines. The insights gained in this process are valuable for assay transfer efforts by groups of investigators that need to directly compare data generated in different laboratories around the globe.

Analysis of the HIV Vaccine Trials Network 702 Phase 2b-3 HIV-1 Vaccine Trial in South Africa Assessing RV144 Antibody and T-Cell Correlates of HIV-1 Acquisition Risk.

BACKGROUND: The ALVAC/gp120 + MF59 vaccines in the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) 702 efficacy trial did not prevent human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) acquisition. Vaccine-matched immunological endpoints that were correlates of HIV-1 acquisition risk in RV144 were measured in HVTN 702 and evaluated as correlates of HIV-1 acquisition. METHODS: Among 1893 HVTN 702 female vaccinees, 60 HIV-1-seropositive cases and 60 matched seronegative noncases were sampled. HIV-specific CD4+ T-cell and binding antibody responses were measured 2 weeks after fourth and fifth immunizations. Cox proportional hazards models assessed prespecified responses as predictors of HIV-1 acquisition. RESULTS: The HVTN 702 Env-specific CD4+ T-cell response rate was significantly higher than in RV144 (63% vs 40%, P = .03) with significantly lower IgG binding antibody response rate and magnitude to 1086.C V1V2 (67% vs 100%, P < .001; Pmag < .001). Although no significant univariate associations were observed between any T-cell or binding antibody response and HIV-1 acquisition, significant interactions were observed (multiplicity-adjusted P ≤.03). Among vaccinees with high IgG A244 V1V2 binding antibody responses, vaccine-matched CD4+ T-cell endpoints associated with decreased HIV-1 acquisition (estimated hazard ratios = 0.40-0.49 per 1-SD increase in CD4+ T-cell endpoint). CONCLUSIONS: HVTN 702 and RV144 had distinct immunogenicity profiles. However, both identified significant correlations (univariate or interaction) for IgG V1V2 and polyfunctional CD4+ T cells with HIV-1 acquisition. Clinical Trials Registration . NCT02968849.

Calibration of two validated SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assays for COVID-19 vaccine evaluation.

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are key biomarkers considered to be associated with vaccine efficacy. In United States government-sponsored phase 3 efficacy trials of COVID-19 vaccines, nAbs are measured by two different validated pseudovirus-based SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays, with each trial using one of the two assays. Here we describe and compare the nAb titers obtained in the two assays. We observe that one assay consistently yielded higher nAb titers than the other when both assays were performed on the World Health Organization's anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin International Standard, COVID-19 convalescent sera, and mRNA-1273 vaccinee sera. To overcome the challenge this difference in readout poses in comparing/combining data from the two assays, we evaluate three calibration approaches and show that readouts from the two assays can be calibrated to a common scale. These results may aid decision-making based on data from these assays for the evaluation and licensure of new or adapted COVID-19 vaccines.

Calibration of Two Validated SARS-CoV-2 Pseudovirus Neutralization Assays for COVID-19 Vaccine Evaluation.

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are key biomarkers considered to be associated with vaccine efficacy. In United States Government-sponsored phase 3 efficacy trials of COVID-19 vaccines, nAbs are measured by two different validated pseudovirus-based SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays, with each trial using one of the two assays. Here we describe and compare the nAb titers obtained in the two assays. We observe that one assay consistently yielded higher nAb titers than the other when both assays were performed on the World Health Organization’s anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin International Standard, COVID-19 convalescent sera, and mRNA-1273 vaccinee sera. To overcome the challenge this difference in readout poses in comparing/combining data from the two assays, we evaluate three calibration approaches and show that readouts from the two assays can be calibrated to a common scale. These results may aid decision-making based on data from these assays for the evaluation and licensure of new or adapted COVID-19 vaccines.

Calibration of Two Validated SARS-CoV-2 Pseudovirus Neutralization Assays for COVID-19 Vaccine Evaluation.

Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are key biomarkers considered to be associated with vaccine efficacy. In United States Government-sponsored phase 3 efficacy trials of COVID-19 vaccines, nAbs are measured by two different validated pseudovirus-based SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays, with each trial using one of the two assays. Here we describe and compare the nAb titers obtained in the two assays. We observe that one assay consistently yielded higher nAb titers than the other when both assays were performed on the World Health Organization’s anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin International Standard, COVID-19 convalescent sera, and mRNA-1273 vaccinee sera. To overcome the challenge this difference in readout poses in comparing/combining data from the two assays, we evaluate three calibration approaches and show that readouts from the two assays can be calibrated to a common scale. These results may aid decision-making based on data from these assays for the evaluation and licensure of new or adapted COVID-19 vaccines.

Evaluation of Cell-Based and Surrogate SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Assays.

Determinants of protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection require the development of well-standardized, reproducible antibody assays. This need has led to the emergence of a variety of neutralization assays. Head-to-head evaluation of different SARS-CoV-2 neutralization platforms could facilitate comparisons across studies and laboratories. Five neutralization assays were compared using 40 plasma samples from convalescent individuals with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): four cell-based systems using either live recombinant SARS-CoV-2 or pseudotyped viral particles created with lentivirus (LV) or vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) packaging and one surrogate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based test that measures inhibition of the spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) binding its receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (hACE2). Vero cells, Vero E6 cells, HEK293T cells expressing hACE2, and TZM-bl cells expressing hACE2 and transmembrane serine protease 2 were tested. All cell-based assays showed 50% neutralizing dilution (ND50) geometric mean titers (GMTs) that were highly correlated (Pearson r = 0.81 to 0.89) and ranged within 3.4-fold. The live virus assay and LV pseudovirus assays with HEK293T/hACE2 cells showed very similar mean titers, 141 and 178, respectively. ND50 titers positively correlated with plasma IgG targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and RBD (r = 0.63 to 0.89), but moderately correlated with nucleoprotein IgG (r = 0.46 to 0.73). ND80 GMTs mirrored ND50 data and showed similar correlation between assays and with IgG concentrations. The VSV pseudovirus assay and LV pseudovirus assay with HEK293T/hACE2 cells in low- and high-throughput versions were calibrated against the WHO SARS-CoV-2 IgG standard. High concordance between the outcomes of cell-based assays with live and pseudotyped virions enables valid cross-study comparison using these platforms.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 neutralization assays for antibody monitoring in natural infection and vaccine trials.

Determinants of protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection require the development of well-standardized, reproducible antibody assays to be utilized in concert with clinical trials to establish correlates of risk and protection. This need has led to the appearance of a variety of neutralization assays used by different laboratories and companies. Using plasma samples from COVID-19 convalescent individuals with mild-to-moderate disease from a localized outbreak in a single region of the western US, we compared three platforms for SARS-CoV-2 neutralization: assay with live SARS-CoV-2, pseudovirus assay utilizing lentiviral (LV) and vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) packaging, and a surrogate ELISA test. Vero, Vero E6, HEK293T cells expressing human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (hACE2), and TZM-bl cells expressing hACE2 and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) were evaluated. Live-virus and LV-pseudovirus assay with HEK293T cells showed similar geometric mean titers (GMTs) ranging 141-178, but VSV-pseudovirus assay yielded significantly higher GMT (310 95%CI 211-454; p < 0.001). Fifty percent neutralizing dilution (ND50) titers from live-virus and all pseudovirus assay readouts were highly correlated (Pearson r = 0.81-0.89). ND50 titers positively correlated with plasma concentration of IgG against SARS-CoV-2 spike and receptor binding domain (RBD) ( r = 0.63-0.89), but moderately correlated with nucleoprotein IgG ( r = 0.46-0.73). There was a moderate positive correlation between age and spike (Spearman's rho=0.37, p=0.02), RBD (rho=0.39, p=0.013) and nucleoprotein IgG (rho=0.45, p=0.003). ND80 showed stronger correlation with age than ND50 (ND80 rho=0.51 (p=0.001), ND50 rho=0.28 (p=0.075)). Our data demonstrate high concordance between cell-based assays with live and pseudotyped virions.

No Evidence of Pritelivir Resistance Among Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 Isolates After 4 Weeks of Daily Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Pritelivir is a novel helicase-primase inhibitor in clinical development for treatment of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infections. In preclinical work, resistance-mediating mutations were identified in the HSV-2 genome at 3 loci in the UL5 gene and 1 locus in UL52. METHODS: To evaluate whether daily pritelivir treatment results in emergence of resistance-mediating mutations, we analyzed HSV-2 strains detected in genital swab specimens from trial participants who were randomly assigned to receive different dosages of pritelivir. We sequenced resistance regions from 87 participants' samples, the UL5 gene in 73 samples from 44 participants, and the UL52 gene in 71 samples from 43 participants. RESULTS: We found no evidence that pritelivir induced known resistance-mediating mutations or for amino acid variation at other loci. In one participant's HSV-2 isolate, we found a previously unidentified mutation close to the putative resistance-mediating region in UL5 and subsequently determined in vitro susceptibility to pritelivir. We characterized mutations from 32 cultivated HSV-2 isolates previously found to be susceptible to pritelivir in vitro and identified several novel mutations that most likely reflect preexisting variation in circulating HSV-2. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates evidence of retained susceptibility of HSV-2 to pritelivir in immunocompetent persons following daily therapy for up to 28 days.