Serum and Salivary IgG and IgA Response After COVID-19 Messenger RNA Vaccination.

Importance: There is still considerable controversy in the literature regarding the capacity of intramuscular messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination to induce a mucosal immune response. Objective: To compare serum and salivary IgG and IgA levels among mRNA-vaccinated individuals with or without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, SARS-CoV-2-naive participants and those with previous infection were consecutively included in the CoviCompare P and CoviCompare M mRNA vaccination trials and followed up to day 180 after vaccination with either the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine or the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine at the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign (from February 19 to June 8, 2021) in France. Data were analyzed from October 25, 2022, to July 13, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: An ultrasensitive digital enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used for the comparison of SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific serum and salivary IgG and IgA levels. Spike-specific secretory IgA level was also quantified at selected times. Results: A total of 427 individuals were included in 3 groups: participants with SARS-CoV-2 prior to vaccination who received 1 single dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) (n = 120) and SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals who received 2 doses of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) (n = 172) or 2 doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) (n = 135). The median age was 68 (IQR, 39-75) years, and 228 (53.4%) were men. SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific IgG saliva levels increased after 1 or 2 vaccine injections in individuals with previous infection and SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals. After vaccination, SARS-CoV-2-specific saliva IgA levels, normalized with respect to total IgA levels, were significantly higher in participants with previous infection, as compared with the most responsive mRNA-1273 (Moderna) recipients (median normalized levels, 155 × 10-5 vs 37 × 10-5 at day 29; 107 × 10-5 vs 54 × 10-5 at day 57; and 104 × 10-5 vs 70 × 10-5 at day 180 [P < .001]). In contrast, compared with day 1, spike-specific IgA levels in the BNT162b2-vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naive group increased only at day 57 (36 × 10-5 vs 49 × 10-5 [P = .01]). Bona fide multimeric secretory IgA levels were significantly higher in individuals with previous infection compared with SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals after 2 antigenic stimulations (median optical density, 0.36 [IQR, 0.16-0.63] vs 0.16 [IQR, 0.10-0.22]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that mRNA vaccination was associated with mucosal immunity in individuals without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, but at much lower levels than in previously infected individuals. Further studies are needed to determine the association between specific saliva IgA levels and prevention of infection or transmission.

Negotiating public-health intellectual property licensing agreements to increase access to health technologies: an insider's story.

Public health voluntary licensing of intellectual property has successfully been applied to increase access to medicines in certain disease areas, producing health benefits and economic savings, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. There is however limited understanding of the intricacies of the approach, the modalities by which it works in practice, its levers and the trade-offs made. Such knowledge may be critical in deciding what role licensing should have in pandemic preparedness and equitable access to health technologies more broadly. This paper examines the case for licensing, the considerations for balancing public health needs, the challenges of negotiations, and the processes for validating proposed agreements. No access mechanism is perfect, but evidence suggests that public-health licensing has an important role to play, although it remains underused. Understanding some of the realities, strengths, limitations and complexities of applying the model may help calibrate expectations and develop incentives to expand its applications.

Research priorities to increase vaccination coverage in Europe (EU joint action on vaccination).

BACKGROUND: Deciding how best to invest in healthcare is never an easy task and prioritization is therefore an area of great interest for policymakers. Too low public vaccine confidence, which results in insufficient vaccine uptake, remains an area of concern for EU policy-makers. Within the European Joint action on vaccination, a work-package dedicated to research aims to define tools and methods for priority-setting in the field of vaccination research. We therefore propose a prioritization framework to identify research priorities towards generating and synthesizing evidence to support policies and strategies aiming at increasing vaccine coverage. MATERIALS/METHODS: We used a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method inspired by the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative developed by Rudan et al. This quantitative methodology follows a series of steps involving different groups of experts and relevant stakeholders. The first step consists in identifying key research questions through a broad consultation. In parallel, a first group of experts is tasked to select criteria for prioritization of research questions, taking into consideration the ultimate goal of the exercise. Another group of experts is then requested to assess a weight to each of the criteria, using pair-wise comparisons. The final step consists in gathering experts who will assess each research question against the weighted criteria. This evaluation leads to assigning a score to each individual research question, which can then be ranked in order of priority. RESULTS: We focused our work on four pre-selected pilot vaccines (pertussis, measles containing combination vaccines, influenza and HPV). The consultation generated 124 questions, which were secondarily sorted and re-worded to obtain 27 questions to be ranked. Criteria for setting priorities were the following: accessibility, answerability, deliverability, disease prevalence/incidence, effectiveness, equity, generalization, and territory. During a final face-to-face meeting international experts ranked the 27 questions and agreed on a consensual list of six top-priorities. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a transparent, evidence-based rigorous framework to defined key research questions to generate evidence towards the design of policies and strategies to increase vaccine coverage. Results were disseminated broadly and submitted to the EC for potential funding in the context of The Horizon Europe Program. The same process will be conducted in 2021 to identify vaccination research priorities regarding all vaccines used in the EU as well as COVID-19 vaccines.

Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 - Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results.

BACKGROUND: World Health Organization expert groups recommended mortality trials of four repurposed antiviral drugs - remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry. RESULTS: At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration. CONCLUSIONS: These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.).

Humoral and cellular immune response induced by rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine among frontline workers during the 2013-2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak in Guinea.

BACKGROUND: As part of a Phase III trial with the Ebola vaccine rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP in Guinea, we invited frontline workers (FLWs) to participate in a sub-study to provide additional information on the immunogenicity of the vaccine. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, non-randomized, single-arm immunogenicity evaluation of one dose of rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP among healthy FLWs in Guinea. FLWs who refused vaccination were offered to participate as a control group. We followed participants for 84 days with a subset followed-up for 180 days. The primary endpoint was immune response, as measured by ELISA for ZEBOV-glycoprotein-specific antibodies (ELISA-GP) at 28 days. We also conducted neutralization, whole virion ELISA and enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISPOT) assay for cellular response. RESULTS: A total of 1172 participants received one dose of vaccine and were followed-up for 84 days, among them 114 participants were followed-up for 180 days. Additionally, 99 participants were included in the control group and followed up for 180 days. Overall, 86.4% (95% CI 84.1-88.4) of vaccinated participants seroresponded at 28 days post-vaccination (ELISA- GP) with 65% of these seroresponding at 14 days post-vaccination. Among those who seroresponded at 28 days, 90.7% (95% CI 82.0-95.4) were still seropositive at 180 days. The proportion of seropositivity in the unvaccinated group was 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-3.8) at 28 days and 5.4% (95% CI 2.1-13.1) at 180 days post-vaccination. We found weak correlation between ELISA-GP and neutralization at baseline but significant pairwise correlation at 28 days post-vaccination. Among samples analysed for cellular response, only 1 (2.2%) exhibited responses towards the Zaire Ebola glycoprotein (Ebola GP ≥ 10) at baseline, 10 (13.5%) at day 28 post-vaccination and 27 (48.2%) at Day 180. CONCLUSIONS: We found one dose of rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP to be highly immunogenic at 28- and 180-days post vaccination among frontline workers in Guinea. We also found a cellular response that increased with time.

Postexposure Prophylaxis With rVSV-ZEBOV Following Exposure to a Patient With Ebola Virus Disease Relapse in the United Kingdom: An Operational, Safety, and Immunogenicity Report.

BACKGROUND: In October 2015, 65 people came into direct contact with a healthcare worker presenting with a late reactivation of Ebola virus disease (EVD) in the United Kingdom. Vaccination was offered to 45 individuals with an initial assessment of high exposure risk. METHODS: Approval for rapid expanded access to the recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus-Zaire Ebola virus (rVSV-ZEBOV) vaccine as an unlicensed emergency medicine was obtained from the relevant authorities. An observational follow-up study was carried out for 1 year following vaccination. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 45 individuals elected to receive vaccination between 10 and 11 October 2015 following written informed consent. By day 14, 39% had seroconverted, increasing to 87% by day 28 and 100% by 3 months, although these responses were not always sustained. Neutralizing antibody responses were detectable in 36% by day 14 and 73% at 12 months. Common side effects included fatigue, myalgia, headache, arthralgia, and fever. These were positively associated with glycoprotein-specific T-cell but not immunoglobulin (Ig) M or IgG antibody responses. No severe vaccine-related adverse events were reported. No one exposed to the virus became infected. CONCLUSIONS: This paper reports the use of the rVSV-ZEBOV vaccine given as an emergency intervention to individuals exposed to a patient presenting with a late reactivation of EVD. The vaccine was relatively well tolerated, but a high percentage developed a fever ≥37.5°C, necessitating urgent screening for Ebola virus, and a small number developed persistent arthralgia.

What if communities held the solutions for universal health coverage?

This commentary highlights the value of community-engaged social innovations to advance health care delivery in low- and middle-income countries and to accelerate universal health coverage. It emphasizes the importance of research to guide the innovators on what works, what does not work to make their innovations sustainable and to replicate and scale them up as relevant. It also helps to demonstrate impact and to enhance uptake within the health systems.

Recent advances in the development of monoclonal antibodies for rabies post exposure prophylaxis: A review of the current status of the clinical development pipeline.

Despite successful control in many parts of the world, rabies virus continues to result in tens of thousands of deaths each year. Death from rabies can be prevented by timely and appropriate post exposure prophylaxis including wound cleaning and administration of vaccine and rabies immunoglobulin. Currently, rabies immunoglobulin is derived from the blood plasma of horses or humans and has several limitations relating to supply, cost and quality. Monoclonal antibodies produced through recombinant DNA technologies could potentially overcome these limitations. The first anti-rabies monoclonal antibody has recently gained regulatory approval in India and there are several other candidates being evaluated in clinical trials. Given the advances in the field, rabies monoclonal antibodies have been recently considered by the World Health Organization's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization and included in updated WHO immunization policy recommendations for rabies published in April 2018. This article reviews the current landscape of the clinical trial development of anti-rabies monoclonal antibodies and the historical clinical trial pathways followed for blood-derived rabies immunoglobulin before discussing challenges in the clinical evaluation, regulatory approval, uptake and monitoring of these products.