Descriptive, Hospital-Based, 10-Year Study of Malaria Transmission in Goa, a Southwest Indian State in the Malaria Elimination Phase.

The South Asia International Center of Excellence for Malaria Research, an NIH-funded collaborative program, investigated the epidemiology of malaria in the Indian state of Goa through health facility-based data collected from the Goa Medical College and Hospital (GMC), the state's largest tertiary healthcare facility, between 2012 and 2021. Our study investigated region-specific spatial and temporal patterns of malaria transmission in Goa and the factors driving such patterns. Over the past decade, the number of malaria cases, inpatients, and deaths at the GMC decreased significantly after a peak in 2014-2015. However, the proportion of severe malaria cases increased over the study period. Also, a trend of decreasing average parasitemia and increasing average gametocyte density suggests a shift toward submicroscopic infections and an increase in transmission commitment characteristic of low-transmission regions. Although transmission occurred throughout the year, 75% of the cases occurred between June and December, overlapping with the monsoon (June-October), which featured rainfall above yearly average, minimal diurnal temperature variation, and high relative humidity. Sociodemographic factors also had a significant association with malaria cases, with cases being more frequent in the 15-50-year-old age group, men, construction workers, and people living in urban areas within the GMC catchment region. Our environmental model of malaria transmission projects almost negligible transmission at the beginning of 2025 (annual parasitic index: 0.0095, 95% CI: 0.0075-0.0114) if the current control measures continue undisrupted.

Statistical design and analysis of controlled human malaria infection trials.

BACKGROUND: Malaria is a potentially life-threatening disease caused by Plasmodium protozoa transmitted by infected Anopheles mosquitoes. Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) trials are used to assess the efficacy of interventions for malaria elimination. The operating characteristics of statistical methods for assessing the ability of interventions to protect individuals from malaria is uncertain in small CHMI studies. This paper presents simulation studies comparing the performance of a variety of statistical methods for assessing efficacy of intervention in CHMI trials. METHODS: Two types of CHMI designs were investigated: the commonly used single high-dose design (SHD) and the repeated low-dose design (RLD), motivated by simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) challenge studies. In the context of SHD, the primary efficacy endpoint is typically time to infection. Using a continuous time survival model, five statistical tests for assessing the extent to which an intervention confers partial or full protection under single dose CHMI designs were evaluated. For RLD, the primary efficacy endpoint is typically the binary infection status after a specific number of challenges. A discrete time survival model was used to study the characteristics of RLD versus SHD challenge studies. RESULTS: In a SHD study with the continuous time survival model, log-rank test and t-test are the most powerful and provide more interpretable results than Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Lachenbruch tests, while the likelihood ratio test is uniformly most powerful but requires knowledge of the underlying probability model. In the discrete time survival model setting, SHDs are more powerful for assessing the efficacy of an intervention to prevent infection than RLDs. However, additional information can be inferred from RLD challenge designs, particularly using a likelihood ratio test. CONCLUSIONS: Different statistical methods can be used to analyze controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) experiments, and the choice of method depends on the specific characteristics of the experiment, such as the sample size allocation between the control and intervention groups, and the nature of the intervention. The simulation results provide guidance for the trade off in statistical power when choosing between different statistical methods and study designs.

Estimating vaccine efficacy during open-label follow-up of COVID-19 vaccine trials based on population-level surveillance data.

While rapid development and roll out of COVID-19 vaccines is necessary in a pandemic, the process limits the ability of clinical trials to assess longer-term vaccine efficacy. We leveraged COVID-19 surveillance data in the U.S. to evaluate vaccine efficacy in U.S. Government-funded COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with a three-step estimation process. First, we used a compartmental epidemiological model informed by county-level surveillance data, a "population model", to estimate SARS-CoV-2 incidence among the unvaccinated. Second, a "cohort model" was used to adjust the population SARS-CoV-2 incidence to the vaccine trial cohort, taking into account individual participant characteristics and the difference between SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease. Third, we fit a regression model estimating the offset between the cohort-model-based COVID-19 incidence in the unvaccinated with the placebo-group COVID-19 incidence in the trial during blinded follow-up. Counterfactual placebo COVID-19 incidence was estimated during open-label follow-up by adjusting the cohort-model-based incidence rate by the estimated offset. Vaccine efficacy during open-label follow-up was estimated by contrasting the vaccine group COVID-19 incidence with the counterfactual placebo COVID-19 incidence. We documented good performance of the methodology in a simulation study. We also applied the methodology to estimate vaccine efficacy for the two-dose AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine using data from the phase 3 U.S. trial (ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT04516746). We estimated AZD1222 vaccine efficacy of 59.1% (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 40.4%-74.3%) in April, 2021 (mean 106 days post-second dose), which reduced to 35.7% (95% UI: 15.0%-51.7%) in July, 2021 (mean 198 days post-second-dose). We developed and evaluated a methodology for estimating longer-term vaccine efficacy. This methodology could be applied to estimating counterfactual placebo incidence for future placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy trials of emerging pathogens with early termination of blinded follow-up, to active-controlled or uncontrolled COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials, and to other clinical endpoints influenced by vaccination.

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in participants with weakened immune systems from four randomized-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Although the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are highly efficacious at preventing severe disease in the general population, current data are lacking regarding vaccine efficacy (VE) for individuals with mild immunocompromising conditions. METHODS: A post-hoc, cross-protocol analysis of participant-level data from the blinded phase of four randomized, placebo-controlled, COVID-19 vaccine phase 3 trials (Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax) was performed. We defined a "tempered immune system" (TIS) variable via a consensus panel based on medical history and medications to determine VE against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 cases in TIS participants versus non-TIS (NTIS) individuals starting at 14 days after completion of the primary series through the blinded phase for each of the four trials. An analysis of participants living with well-controlled HIV was conducted using the same methods. RESULTS: 3,852/30,351 (12.7%) Moderna participants, 3,088/29,868 (10.3%) Novavax participants, 3,549/32,380 (11.0%) AstraZeneca participants, and 5,047/43,788 (11.5%) Janssen participants were identified as having a TIS. Most TIS conditions (73.9%) were due to metabolism and nutritional disorders. Vaccination (versus placebo) significantly reduced the likelihood of symptomatic and severe COVID-19 for all participants for each trial. VE was not significantly different for TIS participants vs NTIS for either symptomatic or severe COVID-19 for each trial, nor was VE significantly different in the symptomatic endpoint for participants with HIV. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with mildly immunocompromising conditions, there is no evidence of differences in VE against symptomatic or severe COVID-19 compared to those with non-tempered immune systems in the four COVID-19 vaccine randomized controlled efficacy trials.

Study design approaches for future active-controlled HIV prevention trials.

Objectives: Vigorous discussions are ongoing about future efficacy trial designs of candidate human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention interventions. The study design challenges of HIV prevention interventions are considerable given rapid evolution of the prevention landscape and evidence of multiple modalities of highly effective products; future trials will likely be 'active-controlled', i.e., not include a placebo arm. Thus, novel design approaches are needed to accurately assess new interventions against these highly effective active controls. Methods: To discuss active control design challenges and identify solutions, an initial virtual workshop series was hosted and supported by the International AIDS Enterprise (October 2020-March 2021). Subsequent symposia discussions continue to advance these efforts. As the non-inferiority design is an important conceptual reference design for guiding active control trials, we adopt several of its principles in our proposed design approaches. Results: We discuss six potential study design approaches for formally evaluating absolute prevention efficacy given data from an active-controlled HIV prevention trial including using data from: 1) a registrational cohort, 2) recency assays, 3) an external trial placebo arm, 4) a biomarker of HIV incidence/exposure, 5) an anti-retroviral drug concentration as a mediator of prevention efficacy, and 6) immune biomarkers as a mediator of prevention efficacy. Conclusions: Our understanding of these proposed novel approaches to future trial designs remains incomplete and there are many future statistical research needs. Yet, each of these approaches, within the context of an active-controlled trial, have the potential to yield reliable evidence of efficacy for future biomedical interventions.

Estimating counterfactual placebo HIV incidence in HIV prevention trials without placebo arms based on markers of HIV exposure.

INTRODUCTION: Developing alternative approaches to evaluating absolute efficacy of new HIV prevention interventions is a priority, as active-controlled designs, whereby individuals without HIV are randomized to the experimental intervention or an active control known to be effective, are increasing. With this design, however, the efficacy of the experimental intervention to prevent HIV acquisition relative to placebo cannot be evaluated directly. METHODS: One proposed approach to estimate absolute prevention efficacy is to use an HIV exposure marker, such as incident rectal gonorrhea, to infer counterfactual placebo HIV incidence. We formalize a statistical framework for this approach, specify working regression and likelihood-based estimation approaches, lay out three assumptions under which valid inference can be achieved, evaluate finite-sample performance, and illustrate the approach using a recent active-controlled HIV prevention trial. RESULTS: We find that in finite samples and under correctly specified assumptions accurate and precise estimates of counterfactual placebo incidence and prevention efficacy are produced. Based on data from the DISCOVER trial in men and transgender women who have sex with men, and assuming correctly specified assumptions, the estimated prevention efficacy for tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine is 98.1% (95% confidence interval: 96.4%-99.4%) using the working model approach and 98.1% (95% confidence interval: 96.4%-99.7%) using the likelihood-based approach. CONCLUSION: Careful assessment of the underlying assumptions, study of their violation, evaluation of the approach in trials with placebo arms, and advancement of improved exposure markers are needed before the HIV exposure marker approach can be relied upon in practice.

Efficacy of Messenger RNA-1273 Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Acquisition in Young Adults From March to December 2021.

Background: The efficacy of messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273 against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is not well defined, particularly among young adults. Methods: Adults aged 18-29 years with no known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection or prior vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were recruited from 44 US sites from 24 March to 13 September 2021 and randomized 1:1 to immediate vaccination (receipt of 2 doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine at months 0 and 1) or the standard of care (receipt of COVID-19 vaccine). Randomized participants were followed up for SARS-CoV-2 infection measured by nasal swab testing and symptomatic COVID-19 measured by nasal swab testing plus symptom assessment and assessed for the primary efficacy outcome. A vaccine-declined observational group was also recruited from 16 June to 8 November 2021 and followed up for SARS-CoV-2 infection as specified for the randomized participants. Results: The study enrolled 1149 in the randomized arms and 311 in the vaccine-declined group and collected >122 000 nasal swab samples. Based on randomized participants, the efficacy of 2 doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 52.6% (95% confidence interval, -14.1% to 80.3%), with the majority of infections due to the Delta variant. Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was 71.0% (95% confidence interval, -9.5% to 92.3%). Precision was limited owing to curtailed study enrollment and off-study vaccination censoring. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the vaccine-declined group was 1.8 times higher than in the standard-of-care group. Conclusions: mRNA-1273 vaccination reduced the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection from March to September 2021, but vaccination was only one factor influencing risk. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04811664.

Stochastic Interventional Vaccine Efficacy and Principal Surrogate Analyses of Antibody Markers as Correlates of Protection against Symptomatic COVID-19 in the COVE mRNA-1273 Trial.

The COVE trial randomized participants to receive two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine or placebo on Days 1 and 29 (D1, D29). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG binding antibodies (bAbs), anti-receptor binding domain IgG bAbs, 50% inhibitory dilution neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers, and 80% inhibitory dilution nAb titers were measured at D29 and D57. We assessed these markers as correlates of protection (CoPs) against COVID-19 using stochastic interventional vaccine efficacy (SVE) analysis and principal surrogate (PS) analysis, frameworks not used in our previous COVE immune correlates analyses. By SVE analysis, hypothetical shifts of the D57 Spike IgG distribution from a geometric mean concentration (GMC) of 2737 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL (estimated vaccine efficacy (VE): 92.9% (95% CI: 91.7%, 93.9%)) to 274 BAU/mL or to 27,368 BAU/mL resulted in an overall estimated VE of 84.2% (79.0%, 88.1%) and 97.6% (97.4%, 97.7%), respectively. By binary marker PS analysis of Low and High subgroups (cut-point: 2094 BAU/mL), the ignorance interval (IGI) and estimated uncertainty interval (EUI) for VE were [85%, 90%] and (78%, 93%) for Low compared to [95%, 96%] and (92%, 97%) for High. By continuous marker PS analysis, the IGI and 95% EUI for VE at the 2.5th percentile (519.4 BAU/mL) vs. at the 97.5th percentile (9262.9 BAU/mL) of D57 Spike IgG concentration were [92.6%, 93.4%] and (89.2%, 95.7%) vs. [94.3%, 94.6%] and (89.7%, 97.0%). Results were similar for other D29 and D57 markers. Thus, the SVE and PS analyses additionally support all four markers at both time points as CoPs.

Stochastic interventional approach to assessing immune correlates of protection: Application to the COVE messenger RNA-1273 vaccine trial.

BACKGROUND: Stochastic interventional vaccine efficacy (SVE) analysis is a new approach to correlate of protection (CoP) analysis of a phase III trial that estimates how vaccine efficacy (VE) would change under hypothetical shifts of an immune marker. METHODS: We applied nonparametric SVE methodology to the COVE trial of messenger RNA-1273 vs placebo to evaluate post-dose 2 pseudovirus neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer against the D614G strain as a CoP against COVID-19. Secondly, we evaluated the ability of these results to predict VE against variants based on shifts of geometric mean titers to variants vs D614G. Prediction accuracy was evaluated by 13 validation studies, including 12 test-negative designs. RESULTS: SVE analysis of COVE supported post-dose 2 D614G titer as a CoP: estimated VE ranged from 66.9% (95% confidence interval: 36.2, 82.8%) to 99.3% (99.1, 99.4%) at 10-fold decreased or increased titer shifts, respectively. The SVE estimates only weakly predicted variant-specific VE estimates (concordance correlation coefficient 0.062 for post 2-dose VE). CONCLUSION: SVE analysis of COVE supports nAb titer as a CoP for messenger RNA vaccines. Predicting variant-specific VE proved difficult due to many limitations. Greater anti-Omicron titers may be needed for high-level protection against Omicron vs anti-D614G titers needed for high-level protection against pre-Omicron COVID-19.

Control groups for HIV prevention efficacy trials: what does the future hold?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ending the HIV epidemic will require the development of additional effective immune-mediated and nonimmune-mediated means of HIV prevention. Evaluating novel interventions requires large, controlled trials demonstrating efficacy. Recent advances in the field of HIV prevention necessitate new approaches to efficacy trial design. RECENT FINDINGS: Three classes of efficacy trial designs are possible: standard of prevention-controlled trials, active-controlled trials, and active-controlled trials augmented with external control data. Recent experience with these approaches provides lessons on considerations around and success of the designs. Additional experience and development is needed for the augmented active-controlled trial design. SUMMARY: Efficacy trials of new HIV prevention interventions are feasible but require careful consideration, given the complexity and dynamic state of the prevention field. While standard of prevention-controlled efficacy trials are reasonable approaches for HIV vaccine and monoclonal antibody efficacy trials, trials of new antiretroviral agents may require active-controlled designs.

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccination.

BACKGROUND: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. METHODS: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7-15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. FINDINGS: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05-0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01-0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. INTERPRETATION: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Perspectives on Design Approaches for HIV Prevention Efficacy Trials.

The challenge of designing future HIV prevention efficacy trials in a rapidly evolving HIV prevention landscape was explored through a series of virtual stakeholder's engagement meetings convened online between October 2020 and April 2021. A broad array of stakeholders from the HIV prevention research community reviewed current trial designs and lessons learned, explored issues specific to unique product classes, and concluded with specialist-focused examinations of statistical design concepts and the importance of community engagement in research. The aim was to reflect on current approaches and evaluate new trial design approaches for evaluating efficacy of a candidate prevention strategy in the context of an active-controlled trial, which does not include a placebo arm. In this report, we provide a summary of the discussion points that included gaps in understanding and logical next steps in the prevention research pathway. The technical challenges involved in the statistical design approaches are described in a companion article.

Clinical and Demographic Factors Associated With COVID-19, Severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adults: A Secondary Cross-Protocol Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Current data identifying COVID-19 risk factors lack standardized outcomes and insufficiently control for confounders. Objective: To identify risk factors associated with COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary cross-protocol analysis included 4 multicenter, international, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with harmonized protocols established by the COVID-19 Prevention Network. Individual-level data from participants randomized to receive placebo within each trial were combined and analyzed. Enrollment began July 2020 and the last data cutoff was in July 2021. Participants included adults in stable health, at risk for SARS-CoV-2, and assigned to the placebo group within each vaccine trial. Data were analyzed from April 2022 to February 2023. Exposures: Comorbid conditions, demographic factors, and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk at the time of enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. Multivariate Cox proportional regression models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs for baseline covariates, accounting for trial, region, and calendar time. Secondary outcomes included severe COVID-19 among people with COVID-19, subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: A total of 57 692 participants (median [range] age, 51 [18-95] years; 11 720 participants [20.3%] aged ≥65 years; 31 058 participants [53.8%] assigned male at birth) were included. The analysis population included 3270 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (5.7%), 7849 Black or African American participants (13.6%), 17 678 Hispanic or Latino participants (30.6%), and 40 745 White participants (70.6%). Annualized incidence was 13.9% (95% CI, 13.3%-14.4%) for COVID-19 and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%) for severe COVID-19. Factors associated with increased rates of COVID-19 included workplace exposure (high vs low: aHR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.58]; medium vs low: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.65]; P < .001) and living condition risk (very high vs low risk: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.66]; medium vs low risk: aHR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.32]; P < .001). Factors associated with decreased rates of COVID-19 included previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.09-0.19]; P < .001), age 65 years or older (aHR vs age <65 years, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.50-0.64]; P < .001) and Black or African American race (aHR vs White race, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.91]; P = .002). Factors associated with increased rates of severe COVID-19 included race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 2.61 [95% CI, 1.85-3.69]; multiracial vs White: aHR, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.50-3.20]; P < .001), diabetes (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-2.08]; P = .005) and at least 2 comorbidities (aHR vs none, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.76]; P = .008). In analyses restricted to participants who contracted COVID-19, increased severe COVID-19 rates were associated with age 65 years or older (aHR vs <65 years, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.32-2.31]; P < .001), race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.38-2.83]; Black or African American vs White: aHR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.03-2.14]; multiracial: aHR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.21-2.69]; overall P = .001), body mass index (aHR per 1-unit increase, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.04]; P = .001), and diabetes (aHR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.37-2.49]; P < .001). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with decreased severe COVID-19 rates (aHR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.01-0.14]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary cross-protocol analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials, exposure and demographic factors had the strongest associations with outcomes; results could inform mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 and viruses with comparable epidemiological characteristics.

Examining protective effects of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies after vaccination or monoclonal antibody administration.

While new vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are authorized based on neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer against emerging variants of concern, an analogous pathway does not exist for preventative monoclonal antibodies. In this work, nAb titers were assessed as correlates of protection against COVID-19 in the casirivimab + imdevimab monoclonal antibody (mAb) prevention trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT4452318) and in the mRNA-1273 vaccine trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT04470427). In the mAb trial, protective efficacy of 92% (95% confidence interval (CI): 84%, 98%) is associated with a nAb titer of 1000 IU50/ml, with lower efficacy at lower nAb titers. In the vaccine trial, protective efficacies of 93% [95% CI: 91%, 95%] and 97% (95% CI: 95%, 98%) are associated with nAb titers of 100 and 1000 IU50/ml, respectively. These data quantitate a nAb titer correlate of protection for mAbs benchmarked alongside vaccine induced nAb titers and support nAb titer as a surrogate endpoint for authorizing new mAbs.

Sexually transmitted infections amongst men who have sex with men (MSM) in South Africa.

There is limited data about bacterial STIs in MSM populations in sub-Saharan Africa. Our retrospective analysis used data from the HVTN 702 HIV vaccine clinical trial (October 2016 to July 2021). We evaluated multiple variables. Polymerase chain reaction testing was conducted on urine and rectal samples to detect Neisseria gonorrhoea (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) every 6 months. Syphilis serology was conducted at month 0 and thereafter every 12 months. We calculated STI prevalence and the associated 95% confidence intervals until 24 months of follow-up. The trial enrolled 183 participants who identified as male or transgender female, and of homosexual or bisexual orientation. Of these, 173 had STI testing done at month 0, median age was 23 (IQR 20-25) years, with median 20.5 (IQR 17.5-24.8) months follow-up (FU). The clinical trial also enrolled and performed month 0 STI testing on 3389 female participants, median age 23 (IQR 21-27) years, median 24.8 (IQR 18.8-24.8) months FU and 1080 non-MSM males with a median age of 27 (IQR 24-31) years, median 24.8 (IQR 23-24.8) months FU. At month 0, CT prevalence was similar in MSM and females (26.0% vs 23.0%, p = 0.492) but was more prevalent in MSM compared to non-MSM males (26.0% vs 14.3%, p = 0.001). CT was the most prevalent STI among MSM at months 0 and 6 but declined from month 0 to month 6 (26.0% vs 17.1%, p = 0.023). In contrast, NG did not decline in MSM between months 0 and 6 (8.1% vs 7.1%, p = 0.680) nor did syphilis prevalence between months 0 and 12 (5.2% vs 3.8%, p = 0.588). Bacterial STI burden is higher in MSM compared to non-MSM males, and CT is the most prevalent bacterial STI amongst MSM. Preventive STI vaccines, especially against CT, may be helpful to develop.

Comparing antibody assays as correlates of protection against COVID-19 in the COVE mRNA-1273 vaccine efficacy trial.

The best assay or marker to define mRNA-1273 vaccine-induced antibodies as a correlate of protection (CoP) is unclear. In the COVE trial, participants received two doses of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine or placebo. We previously assessed IgG binding antibodies to the spike protein (spike IgG) or receptor binding domain (RBD IgG) and pseudovirus neutralizing antibody 50 or 80% inhibitory dilution titer measured on day 29 or day 57, as correlates of risk (CoRs) and CoPs against symptomatic COVID-19 over 4 months after dose. Here, we assessed a new marker, live virus 50% microneutralization titer (LV-MN50), and compared and combined markers in multivariable analyses. LV-MN50 was an inverse CoR, with a hazard ratio of 0.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.19 to 0.83) at day 29 and 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 1.04) at day 57 per 10-fold increase. In multivariable analyses, pseudovirus neutralization titers and anti-spike binding antibodies performed best as CoRs; combining antibody markers did not improve correlates. Pseudovirus neutralization titer was the strongest independent correlate in a multivariable model. Overall, these results supported pseudovirus neutralizing and binding antibody assays as CoRs and CoPs, with the live virus assay as a weaker correlate in this sample set. Day 29 markers performed as well as day 57 markers as CoPs, which could accelerate immunogenicity and immunobridging studies.

Kinetics of the Antibody Response to Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Individuals in the Blinded Phase of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy Trial.

Background: Hybrid immunity is associated with more durable protection against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We describe the antibody responses following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Methods: The 55 vaccine arm COVID-19 cases diagnosed during the blinded phase of the Coronavirus Efficacy trial were matched with 55 placebo arm COVID-19 cases. Pseudovirus neutralizing antibody (nAb) activity to the ancestral strain and binding antibody (bAb) responses to nucleocapsid and spike antigens (ancestral and variants of concern [VOCs]) were assessed on disease day 1 (DD1) and 28 days later (DD29). Results: The primary analysis set was 46 vaccine cases and 49 placebo cases with COVID-19 at least 57 days post-first dose. For vaccine group cases, there was a 1.88-fold rise in ancestral antispike bAbs 1 month post-disease onset, although 47% had no increase. The vaccine-to-placebo geometric mean ratios for DD29 antispike and antinucleocapsid bAbs were 6.9 and 0.04, respectively. DD29 mean bAb levels were higher for vaccine vs placebo cases for all VOCs. DD1 nasal viral load positively correlated with bAb levels in the vaccine group. Conclusions: Following COVID-19, vaccinated participants had higher levels and greater breadth of antispike bAbs and higher nAb titers than unvaccinated participants. These were largely attributable to the primary immunization series.

Immune correlates analysis of a phase 3 trial of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine.

In the phase 3 trial of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine conducted in the U.S., Chile, and Peru, anti-spike binding IgG concentration (spike IgG) and pseudovirus 50% neutralizing antibody titer (nAb ID50) measured four weeks after two doses were assessed as correlates of risk and protection against PCR-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). These analyses of SARS-CoV-2 negative participants were based on case-cohort sampling of vaccine recipients (33 COVID-19 cases by 4 months post dose two, 463 non-cases). The adjusted hazard ratio of COVID-19 was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.14, 0.76) per 10-fold increase in spike IgG concentration and 0.28 (0.10, 0.77) per 10-fold increase in nAb ID50 titer. At nAb ID50 below the limit of detection (< 2.612 IU50/ml), 10, 100, and 270 IU50/ml, vaccine efficacy was -5.8% (-651%, 75.6%), 64.9% (56.4%, 86.9%), 90.0% (55.8%, 97.6%) and 94.2% (69.4%, 99.1%). These findings provide further evidence towards defining an immune marker correlate of protection to help guide regulatory/approval decisions for COVID-19 vaccines.

Retrospective, Observational Studies for Estimating Vaccine Effects on the Secondary Attack Rate of SARS-CoV-2.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are highly efficacious at preventing symptomatic infection, severe disease, and death. Most of the evidence that COVID-19 vaccines also reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is based on retrospective, observational studies. Specifically, an increasing number of studies are evaluating vaccine effectiveness against the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 using data available in existing health-care databases or contact-tracing databases. Since these types of databases were designed for clinical diagnosis or management of COVID-19, they are limited in their ability to provide accurate information on infection, infection timing, and transmission events. We highlight challenges with using existing databases to identify transmission units and confirm potential SARS-CoV-2 transmission events. We discuss the impact of common diagnostic testing strategies, including event-prompted and infrequent testing, and illustrate their potential biases in estimating vaccine effectiveness against the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2. We articulate the need for prospective observational studies of vaccine effectiveness against the SARS-CoV-2 secondary attack rate, and we provide design and reporting considerations for studies using retrospective databases.

Risk Factors Associated with HIV Acquisition in Males Participating in HIV Vaccine Efficacy Trials in South Africa.

In South Africa, HIV acquisition risk has been studied less in people assigned male at birth. We studied the associations between risk behaviors, clinical features and HIV incidence amongst males in two South African HIV preventive vaccine efficacy trials. We used Cox proportional hazards models to test for associations between demographics, sexual behaviors, clinical variables and HIV acquisition among males followed in the HVTN 503 (n = 219) and HVTN 702 (n = 1611) trials. Most males reported no male sexual partners (99.09% in HVTN 503) or identified as heterosexual (88.08% in HVTN 702). Annual HIV incidence was 1.39% in HVTN 503 (95% CI 0.76-2.32%) and 1.33% in HVTN 702 (95% CI 0.80-2.07%). Increased HIV acquisition was significantly associated with anal sex (HR 6.32, 95% CI 3.44-11.62), transactional sex (HR 3.42, 95% CI 1.80-6.50), and non-heterosexual identity (HR 16.23, 95%CI 8.13-32.41) in univariate analyses and non-heterosexual identity (HR 14.99, 95% CI 4.99-45.04; p < 0.01) in multivariate analysis. It is appropriate that prevention efforts in South Africa, although focused on the severe epidemic in young women, also encompass key male populations, including men who have sex with men, but also men who engage in anal or transactional sex.