Comparison of two diagnostic intervention packages for community-based active case finding for tuberculosis: an open-label randomized controlled trial.

Two in every five patients with active tuberculosis (TB) remain undiagnosed or unreported. Therefore community-based, active case-finding strategies require urgent implementation. However, whether point-of-care (POC), portable battery-operated, molecular diagnostic tools deployed at a community level, compared with conventionally used POC smear microscopy, can shorten time-to-treatment initiation, thus potentially curtailing transmission, remains unclear. To clarify this issue, we performed an open-label, randomized controlled trial in periurban informal settlements of Cape Town, South Africa, where we TB symptom screened 5,274 individuals using a community-based scalable mobile clinic. Some 584 individuals with HIV infection or symptoms of TB underwent targeted diagnostic screening and were randomized (1:1) to same-day smear microscopy (n = 296) or on-site DNA-based molecular diagnosis (n = 288; GeneXpert). The primary aim was to compare time to TB treatment initiation between the arms. Secondary aims included feasibility and detection of probably infectious people. Of participants who underwent targeted screening, 9.9% (58 of 584) had culture-confirmed TB. Time-to-treatment initiation occurred significantly earlier in the Xpert versus the smear-microscopy arm (8 versus 41 d, P = 0.002). However, overall, Xpert detected only 52% of individuals with culture-positive TB. Notably, Xpert detected almost all of the probably infectious patients compared with smear microscopy (94.1% versus 23.5%, P = <0.001). Xpert was associated with a shorter median time to treatment of probably infectious patients (7 versus 24 d, P = 0.02) and a greater proportion of infectious patients were on treatment at 60 d compared with the probably noninfectious patients (76.5% versus 38.2%, P < 0.01). Overall, a greater proportion of POC Xpert-positive participants were on treatment at 60 d compared with all culture-positive participants (100% versus 46.5%, P < 0.01). These findings challenge the traditional paradigm of a passive case-finding, public health strategy and argues for the implementation of portable DNA-based diagnosis with linkage to care as a community-oriented, transmission-interruption strategy. The study was registered with the South African National Clinical Trials Registry (application ID 4367; DOH-27-0317-5367) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03168945).

Efficacy of Primary Series AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern: Final Analysis of a Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Phase 1b/2 Study in South African Adults (COV005)

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (VE) has been observed to vary against antigenically distinct SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC). Here we report the final analysis of VE and safety from COV005: a phase 1b/2, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of primary series AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccination in South African adults aged 18–65 years. South Africa's first, second, and third waves of SARS-CoV-2 infections were respectively driven by the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus (wild type, WT), and SARS-CoV-2 Beta and Delta VoCs. VE against asymptomatic and symptomatic infection was 90.6% for WT, 6.7% for Beta and 77.1% for Delta. No cases of severe COVID-19 were documented ahead of unblinding. Safety was consistent with the interim analysis, with no new safety concerns identified. Notably, South Africa's Delta wave occurred ≥ 9 months after primary series vaccination, suggesting that primary series AZD1222 vaccination offers a good durability of protection, potentially due to an anamnestic response. Clinical trial identifier: CT.gov NCT04444674

Variation in missed doses and reasons for discontinuation of anti-tuberculosis drugs during hospital treatment for drug-resistant tuberculosis in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Updated World Health Organization (WHO) treatment guidelines prioritize all-oral drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) regimens. Several poorly tolerated drugs, such as amikacin and para-aminosalicylic acid (PAS), remain treatment options for DR-TB in WHO-recommended longer regimens as Group C drugs. Incomplete treatment with anti-TB drugs increases the risk of treatment failure, relapse, and death. We determined whether missed doses of individual anti-TB drugs, and reasons for their discontinuation, varied in closely monitored hospital settings prior to the 2020 WHO DR-TB treatment guideline updates. METHODS: We collected retrospective data on adult patients with microbiologically confirmed DR-TB between 2008 and 2015 who were selected for a study of acquired drug resistance in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Medical records through mid-2017 were reviewed. Patients received directly observed treatment during hospitalization at specialized DR-TB hospitals. Incomplete treatment with individual anti-TB drugs, defined as the failure to take medication as prescribed, regardless of reason, was determined by comparing percent missed doses, stratified by HIV status and DR-TB regimen. We applied a generalized mixed effects model. RESULTS: Among 242 patients, 131 (54%) were male, 97 (40%) were living with HIV, 175 (72%) received second-line treatment prior to first hospitalization, and 191 (79%) died during the study period. At initial hospitalization, 134 (55%) patients had Mycobacterium tuberculosis with resistance to rifampicin and isoniazid (multidrug-resistant TB [MDR-TB]) without resistance to ofloxacin or amikacin, and 102 (42%) had resistance to ofloxacin and/or amikacin. Most patients (129 [53%]) had multiple hospitalizations and DST changes occurred in 146 (60%) by the end of their last hospital discharge. Incomplete treatment was significantly higher for amikacin (18%), capreomycin (18%), PAS (17%) and kanamycin (16%) than other DR-TB drugs (P<0.001), including ethionamide (8%), moxifloxacin (7%), terizidone (7%), ethambutol (7%), and pyrazinamide (6%). Among the most frequently prescribed drugs, second-line injectables had the highest rates of discontinuation for adverse events (range 0.56-1.02 events per year follow-up), while amikacin, PAS and ethionamide had the highest rates of discontinuation for patient refusal (range 0.51-0.68 events per year follow-up). Missed doses did not differ according to HIV status or anti-TB drug combinations. CONCLUSION: We found that incomplete treatment for second-line injectables and PAS during hospitalization was higher than for other anti-TB drugs. To maximize treatment success, interventions to improve person-centered care and mitigate adverse events may be necessary in cases when PAS or amikacin (2020 WHO recommended Group C drugs) are needed.

Durability of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine and hybrid humoral immunity against variants including omicron BA.1 and BA.4 6 months after vaccination (COV005): a post-hoc analysis of a randomised, phase 1b-2a trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine rollout is lagging in Africa, where there has been a high rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to evaluate the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination with the ChAdOx-nCoV19 (AZD1222) vaccine on antibody responses through to 180 days. METHODS: We did an unmasked post-hoc immunogenicity analysis after the first and second doses of AZD1222 in a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 1b-2a study done in seven locations in South Africa. AZD1222 recipients who were HIV-uninfected, were stratified into baseline seropositive or seronegative groups using the serum anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) immunoglobulin G (IgG) electroluminescence immunoassay to establish SARS-CoV-2 infection before the first dose of AZD1222. Binding IgG to spike (anti-S) and receptor binding domain (anti-RBD) were measured before the first dose (day 0), second dose (day 28), day 42, and day 180. Neutralising antibody (NAb) against SARS-CoV-2 variants D614G, beta, delta, gamma, and A.VOI.V2, and omicron BA1 and BA.4 variants, were measured by pseudovirus assay (day 28, day 42, and day 180). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04444674, and the Pan African Clinicals Trials Registry, PACTR202006922165132. FINDINGS: Of 185 individuals who were randomly assigned to AZD1222, we included 91 individuals who were baseline seropositive and 58 who were baseline seronegative, in the final analysis. In the seropositive group, there was little change of anti-S IgG (and anti-RBD IgG) or neutralising antibody (NAb) titres at day 42 compared with at day 28. Anti-S (and anti-RBD) IgG geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) were higher throughout in the seropositive compared with the seronegative group, including at day 180 (GMCs 517·8 [95% CI 411·3-651·9] vs 82·1 [55·2-122·3] BAU/mL). Also D614G NAb geometric mean titres (GMTs) were higher in the seropositive group than the seronegative group, as was the percentage with titres of at least 185 (80% putative risk reduction threshold [PRRT] against wild-type-alpha COVID-19), including at day 180 (92·0% [74·0-99·0] vs 18·2% [2·3-51·8). Similar findings were observed for beta, A.VOI.V2, and gamma. For delta, BA.1, and BA.4, NAb GMTs and the proportion with titres above the PRRT were substantially higher in the seropositive compared with seronegative group at day 28 and day 42, but no longer differed between the groups by day 180. INTERPRETATION: A single dose of AZD1222 in the general African population, where COVID-19 vaccine coverage is low and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity is 90%, could enhance the magnitude and quality of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the South African Medical Research Council, the UK Research and Innovation, the UK National Institute for Health Research, and the South African Medical Research Council. TRANSLATION: For the Zulu translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Longitudinal IgA and IgG Response, and ACE2 Binding Blockade, to Full-Length SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Variants in a Population of Black PLWH Vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19.

Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been pivotal in overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic yet understanding the subsequent outcomes and immunological effects remain crucial, especially for at-risk groups e.g., people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PLWH). In this study we report the longitudinal IgA and IgG antibody titers, as well as antibody-mediated angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) binding blockade, against the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) proteins after 1 and 2 doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a population of Black PLWH. Here, we report that PLWH (N = 103) did not produce an anti-S IgA response after infection or vaccination, however, anti-S IgG was detected in response to vaccination and infection, with the highest level detected for infected vaccinated participants. The anti-IgG and ACE2 blockade assays revealed that both vaccination and infection resulted in IgG production, however, only vaccination resulted in a moderate increase in ACE2 binding blockade to the ancestral S protein. Vaccination with a previous infection results in the greatest anti-S IgG and ACE2 blockade for the ancestral S protein. In conclusion, PLWH produce an anti-S IgG response to the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and/or infection, and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination with a previous infection produced more neutralizing antibodies than vaccination alone.

Immunogenicity and safety of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein nanoparticle vaccine in people living with and without HIV-1 infection: a randomised, controlled, phase 2A/2B trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on COVID-19 vaccines in people living with HIV-1, who could be at increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of a Matrix-M adjuvanted recombinant spike protein nanoparticle COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373; Novavax) in HIV-negative people and people living with HIV-1. METHODS: In this randomised, observer-blinded, multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 2A/B trial in South Africa, participants aged 18-84 years, with and without underlying HIV-1, were enrolled from 16 sites and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two intramuscular injections of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo, 21 days apart. People living with HIV-1 were on stable antiretroviral therapy and had an HIV-1 viral load of less than 1000 copies per mL. Vaccine dosage was 5 µg SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein with 50 µg Matrix-M adjuvant, whereas 0·9% saline was used as placebo injection (volume 0·5 mL each). All study staff and participants remained masked to study group assignment. We previously reported an interim analysis on the efficacy and safety of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (coprimary endpoints). In this Article, we present an expanded safety analysis for the full cohort of participants and report on the secondary objective of vaccine immunogenicity in the full cohort of people living with HIV-1 and in HIV-negative individuals overall and stratified by baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04533399, and the Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR202009726132275. FINDINGS: Participants were enrolled between Aug 17 and Nov 25, 2020. The safety analysis set included 4164 HIV-negative participants (2089 in the intervention group and 2075 in the placebo group) and 244 people living with HIV-1 (122 in the intervention group and 122 in the placebo group). 1422 (34·1%) of 4164 HIV-negative people and 83 (34·0%) of 244 people living with HIV-1 were categorised as baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive (ie, anti-spike IgG reactive at enrolment or had a reactive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test by 14 days after the second study vaccination). In the NVX-CoV2373 group, solicited local and systemic adverse events were more common in HIV-negative participants (427 [30·6%] local and 401 [28·7%] systemic) than in people living with HIV-1 (20 [25·3%] local and 20 [25·3%] systemic) among those who were baseline SARS-CoV-2-seronegative (naive). Of the serious adverse events that occurred among HIV-negative people (of whom, two [0·1%] were baseline SARS-CoV-2-negative and four [0·6%] were baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive) and people living with HIV-1 (for whom there were no serious adverse events) in the NVX-CoV2373 group, none were assessed as related to the vaccine. Among participants who were baseline SARS-CoV-2-negative in the NVX-CoV2373 group, the anti-spike IgG geometric mean titres (GMTs) and seroconversion rates (SCRs) were lower in people living with HIV-1 (n=62) than in HIV-negative people (n=1234) following the first vaccination (GMT: 508·6 vs 1195·3 ELISA units [EU]/mL; SCR: 51·6% vs 81·3%); and similarly so 14 days after the second vaccination for GMTs (14 420·5 vs 31 631·8 EU/mL), whereas the SCR was similar at this point (100·0% vs 99·3%). In the NVX-CoV2373 group, anti-spike IgG GMTs 14 days after the second vaccination were substantially higher in those who were baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive than in those who were baseline SARS-CoV-2-seronegative for HIV-negative participants (100 666·1 vs 31 631·8 EU/mL) and for people living with HIV-1 (98 399·5 vs 14 420·5 EU/mL). This was also the case for angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor-binding antibody and neutralising antibody titres. INTERPRETATION: The safety of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine in people living with HIV-1 was similar to that in HIV-negative participants. However, people living with HIV-1 not previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2 had attenuated humoral immune responses to NVX-CoV2373 compared with their HIV-negative vaccine counterparts, but not so if they were baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive. FUNDING: Novavax and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; investigational vaccine manufacturing support was provided by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

The intersecting pandemics of tuberculosis and COVID-19: population-level and patient-level impact, clinical presentation, and corrective interventions.

The global tuberculosis burden remains substantial, with more than 10 million people newly ill per year. Nevertheless, tuberculosis incidence has slowly declined over the past decade, and mortality has decreased by almost a third in tandem. This positive trend was abruptly reversed by the COVID-19 pandemic, which in many parts of the world has resulted in a substantial reduction in tuberculosis testing and case notifications, with an associated increase in mortality, taking global tuberculosis control back by roughly 10 years. Here, we consider points of intersection between the tuberculosis and COVID-19 pandemics, identifying wide-ranging approaches that could be taken to reverse the devastating effects of COVID-19 on tuberculosis control. We review the impact of COVID-19 at the population level on tuberculosis case detection, morbidity and mortality, and the patient-level impact, including susceptibility to disease, clinical presentation, diagnosis, management, and prognosis. We propose strategies to reverse or mitigate the deleterious effects of COVID-19 and restore tuberculosis services. Finally, we highlight research priorities and major challenges and controversies that need to be addressed to restore and advance the global response to tuberculosis.

Screening for Tuberculosis in Migrants: A Survey by the Global Tuberculosis Network.

Tuberculosis (TB) does not respect borders, and migration confounds global TB control and elimination. Systematic screening of immigrants from TB high burden settings and-to a lesser degree TB infection (TBI)-is recommended in most countries with a low incidence of TB. The aim of the study was to evaluate the views of a diverse group of international health professionals on TB management among migrants. Participants expressed their level of agreement using a six-point Likert scale with different statements in an online survey available in English, French, Mandarin, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian. The survey consisted of eight sections, covering TB and TBI screening and treatment in migrants. A total of 1055 respondents from 80 countries and territories participated between November 2019 and April 2020. The largest professional groups were pulmonologists (16.8%), other clinicians (30.4%), and nurses (11.8%). Participants generally supported infection control and TB surveillance established practices (administrative interventions, personal protection, etc.), while they disagreed on how to diagnose and manage both TB and TBI, particularly on which TBI regimens to use and when patients should be hospitalised. The results of this first knowledge, attitude and practice study on TB screening and treatment in migrants will inform public health policy and educational resources.

Impact of a personalised, digital, HIV self-testing app-based program on linkages and new infections in the township populations of South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation data for digital unsupervised HIV self-testing (HIVST) are sparse. We evaluated the impact of an app-based, personalised, oral HIVST program offered by healthcare workers in Western Cape, South Africa. METHODS: In a quasirandomised study (n=3095), we recruited consenting adults with undiagnosed HIV infection from township clinics. To the HIVST arm participants (n=1535), we offered a choice of an offsite (home, office or kiosk based), unsupervised digital HIVST program (n=962), or an onsite, clinic-based, supervised digital HIVST program (n=573) with 24/7 linkages services.With propensity score analyses, we compared outcomes (ie, linkages, new HIV infections and test referrals) with conventional HIV testing (ConvHT) arm participants (n=1560), recruited randomly from geographically separated clinics. RESULTS: In both arms, participants were young (HIVST vs ConvHT) (mean age: 28.2 years vs 29.2 years), female (65.0% vs 76.0%) and had monthly income <3000 rand (80.8% vs 75%).Participants chose unsupervised HIVST (62.7%) versus supervised HIVST and reported multiple sex partners (10.88% vs 8.7%), exposure to sex workers (1.4% vs 0.2%) and fewer comorbidities (0.9% vs 1.9%). Almost all HIVST participants were linked (unsupervised HIVST (99.7%), supervised HIVST (99.8%) vs ConvHT (98.5%)) (adj RR 1.012; 95% CI 1.005 to 1.018) with new HIV infections: overall HIVST (9%); supervised HIVST (10.9%) and unsupervised HIVST (7.6%) versus ConvHT (6.79%) (adj RR 1.305; 95% CI 1.023 to 1.665); test referrals: 16.7% HIVST versus 3.1% ConvHT (adj RR 5.435; 95% CI 4.024 to 7.340). CONCLUSIONS: Our flexible, personalised, app-based HIVST program, offered by healthcare workers, successfully linked almost all HIV self-testers, detected new infections and increased referrals to self-test. Data are relevant for digital HIVST initiatives worldwide.

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in people living with and without HIV in South Africa: an interim analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1B/2A trial.

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV are at an increased risk of fatal outcome when admitted to hospital for severe COVID-19 compared with HIV-negative individuals. We aimed to assess safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in people with HIV and HIV-negative individuals in South Africa. METHODS: In this ongoing, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1B/2A trial (COV005), people with HIV and HIV-negative participants aged 18-65 years were enrolled at seven South African locations and were randomly allocated (1:1) with full allocation concealment to receive a prime-boost regimen of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, with two doses given 28 days apart. Eligibility criteria for people with HIV included being on antiretroviral therapy for at least 3 months, with a plasma HIV viral load of less than 1000 copies per mL. In this interim analysis, safety and reactogenicity was assessed in all individuals who received at least one dose of ChAdOx1 nCov 19 between enrolment and Jan 15, 2021. Primary immunogenicity analyses included participants who received two doses of trial intervention and were SARS-CoV-2 seronegative at baseline. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04444674, and the Pan African Clinicals Trials Registry, PACTR202006922165132. FINDINGS: Between June 24 and Nov 12, 2020, 104 people with HIV and 70 HIV-negative individuals were enrolled. 102 people with HIV (52 vaccine; 50 placebo) and 56 HIV-negative participants (28 vaccine; 28 placebo) received the priming dose, 100 people with HIV (51 vaccine; 49 placebo) and 46 HIV-negative participants (24 vaccine; 22 placebo) received two doses (priming and booster). In participants seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline, there were 164 adverse events in those with HIV (86 vaccine; 78 placebo) and 237 in HIV-negative participants (95 vaccine; 142 placebo). Of seven serious adverse events, one severe fever in a HIV-negative participant was definitely related to trial intervention and one severely elevated alanine aminotranferase in a participant with HIV was unlikely related; five others were deemed unrelated. One person with HIV died (unlikely related). People with HIV and HIV-negative participants showed vaccine-induced serum IgG responses against wild-type Wuhan-1 Asp614Gly (also known as D614G). For participants seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 antigens at baseline, full-length spike geometric mean concentration (GMC) at day 28 was 163·7 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL (95% CI 89·9-298·1) for people with HIV (n=36) and 112·3 BAU/mL (61·7-204·4) for HIV-negative participants (n=23), with a rising day 42 GMC booster response in both groups. Baseline SARS-CoV-2 seropositive people with HIV demonstrated higher antibody responses after each vaccine dose than did people with HIV who were seronegative at baseline. High-level binding antibody cross-reactivity for the full-length spike and receptor-binding domain of the beta variant (B.1.351) was seen regardless of HIV status. In people with HIV who developed high titre responses, predominantly those who were receptor-binding domain seropositive at enrolment, neutralising activity against beta was retained. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was well tolerated, showing favourable safety and immunogenicity in people with HIV, including heightened immunogenicity in SARS-CoV-2 baseline-seropositive participants. People with HIV showed cross-reactive binding antibodies to the beta variant and Asp614Gly wild-type, and high responders retained neutralisation against beta. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, South African Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and the South African Medical Research Council.

Efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants threatens progress toward control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In a phase 1-2 trial involving healthy adults, the NVX-CoV2373 nanoparticle vaccine had an acceptable safety profile and was associated with strong neutralizing-antibody and antigen-specific polyfunctional CD4+ T-cell responses. Evaluation of vaccine efficacy was needed in a setting of ongoing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. METHODS: In this phase 2a-b trial in South Africa, we randomly assigned human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative adults between the ages of 18 and 84 years or medically stable HIV-positive participants between the ages of 18 and 64 years in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of either the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (5 µg of recombinant spike protein with 50 µg of Matrix-M1 adjuvant) or placebo. The primary end points were safety and vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic Covid-19 at 7 days or more after the second dose among participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Of 6324 participants who underwent screening, 4387 received at least one injection of vaccine or placebo. Approximately 30% of the participants were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. Among 2684 baseline seronegative participants (94% HIV-negative and 6% HIV-positive), predominantly mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 15 participants in the vaccine group and in 29 in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy, 49.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.1 to 72.8). Vaccine efficacy among HIV-negative participants was 60.1% (95% CI, 19.9 to 80.1). Of 41 sequenced isolates, 38 (92.7%) were the B.1.351 variant. Post hoc vaccine efficacy against B.1.351 was 51.0% (95% CI, -0.6 to 76.2) among the HIV-negative participants. Preliminary local and systemic reactogenicity events were more common in the vaccine group; serious adverse events were rare in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was efficacious in preventing Covid-19, with higher vaccine efficacy observed among HIV-negative participants. Most infections were caused by the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by Novavax and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04533399.).

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the safety and efficacy of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations is essential, as is investigation of the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including the B.1.351 (501Y.V2) variant first identified in South Africa. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in people not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Participants 18 to less than 65 years of age were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of vaccine containing 5×1010 viral particles or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) 21 to 35 days apart. Serum samples obtained from 25 participants after the second dose were tested by pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays against the original D614G virus and the B.1.351 variant. The primary end points were safety and efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus 2019 illness (Covid-19) more than 14 days after the second dose. RESULTS: Between June 24 and November 9, 2020, we enrolled 2026 HIV-negative adults (median age, 30 years); 1010 and 1011 participants received at least one dose of placebo or vaccine, respectively. Both the pseudovirus and the live-virus neutralization assays showed greater resistance to the B.1.351 variant in serum samples obtained from vaccine recipients than in samples from placebo recipients. In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], -49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (95.1% of 41 with sequencing data) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, -76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04444674; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR202006922165132).

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

The utility of high-flow nasal oxygen for severe COVID-19 pneumonia in a resource-constrained setting: A multi-centre prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The utility of heated and humidified high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) for severe COVID-19-related hypoxaemic respiratory failure (HRF), particularly in settings with limited access to intensive care unit (ICU) resources, remains unclear, and predictors of outcome have been poorly studied. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with COVID-19-related HRF treated with HFNO at two tertiary hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were successfully weaned from HFNO, whilst failure comprised intubation or death on HFNO. FINDINGS: The median (IQR) arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2/FiO2) was 68 (54-92) in 293 enroled patients. Of these, 137/293 (47%) of patients [PaO2/FiO2 76 (63-93)] were successfully weaned from HFNO. The median duration of HFNO was 6 (3-9) in those successfully treated versus 2 (1-5) days in those who failed (p<0.001). A higher ratio of oxygen saturation/FiO2 to respiratory rate within 6 h (ROX-6 score) after HFNO commencement was associated with HFNO success (ROX-6; AHR 0.43, 0.31-0.60), as was use of steroids (AHR 0.35, 95%CI 0.19-0.64). A ROX-6 score of ≥3.7 was 80% predictive of successful weaning whilst ROX-6 ≤ 2.2 was 74% predictive of failure. In total, 139 patents (52%) survived to hospital discharge, whilst mortality amongst HFNO failures with outcomes was 129/140 (92%). INTERPRETATION: In a resource-constrained setting, HFNO for severe COVID-19 HRF is feasible and more almost half of those who receive it can be successfully weaned without the need for mechanical ventilation.