Safety and immunogenicity of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein nanoparticle vaccine (GBP510) adjuvanted with AS03: A randomised, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded phase 1/2 trial.

Background: Vaccination has helped to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. Ten traditional and novel vaccines have been listed by the World Health Organization for emergency use. Additional alternative approaches may better address ongoing vaccination globally, where there remains an inequity in vaccine distribution. GBP510 is a recombinant protein vaccine, which consists of self-assembling, two-component nanoparticles, displaying the receptor-binding domain (RBD) in a highly immunogenic array. Methods: This randomised, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded phase 1/2 study was conducted to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of GBP510 (2-doses at a 28-day interval) adjuvanted with or without AS03 in adults aged 19-85 years at 14 hospital sites in Korea. This study was consisted of two stages (stage I, healthy adults aged 19-55 years; stage II, 240 healthy adults aged 19-85 years). Healthy participants who did not previously receive any vaccine within 4 weeks (2 weeks for flu vaccine) prior to the study, no history of COVID-19 vaccination/medication, and were naïve to SARS-CoV-2 infection at screening were eligible for the study enrollment. Participants were block-randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive 2 doses of 10 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (group 1), 10 µg unadjuvanted GBP510 (group 2) or placebo intramuscularly in stage I, while they were block-randomized in a 2:2:1:1 ratio to receive 10 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (group 1), 25 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (group 3), 25 µg unadjuvanted GBP510 (group 4) or placebo in stage II. The primary safety outcomes were solicited and unsolicited adverse events, while primary immunogenicity outcomes included anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies; neutralizing antibody responses; and T-cell immune responses. Safety assessment included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study intervention (safety set). Immunogenicity assessment included all participants who completed the vaccination schedule and had valid immunogenicity assessment results without any major protocol deviations (per-protocol set). This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04750343). Findings: Of 328 participants who were enrolled between February 1 and May 28, 2021, 327 participants received at least 1 dose of vaccine. Each received either 10 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (Group 1, n = 101), 10 µg unadjuvanted GBP510 (Group 2, n = 10), 25 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (Group 3, n = 104), 25 µg unadjuvanted GBP510 (Group 4, n = 51), or placebo (n = 61). Higher reactogenicity was observed in the GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 groups compared to the non-adjuvanted and placebo groups. The most frequently reported solicited local adverse event (AE) was injection site pain after any vaccination: (88·1% in group 1; 50·0% in group 2; 92·3% in group 3; 66·7% in group 4). Fatigue and myalgia were two most frequently reported systemic AEs and more frequently reported in GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 recipients (79·2% and 78·2% in group 1; 75·0% and 79·8% in group 3, respectively) than in the unadjuvanted vaccine recipients (40·0% and of 40·0% in group 2; 60·8% and 47·1% in group 4) after any vaccination. Reactogenicity was higher post-dose 2 compared to post-dose 1, particularly for systemic AEs. The geometric mean concentrations of anti-SARS-CoV-2-RBD IgG antibody reached 2163·6/2599·2 BAU/mL in GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 recipients (10 µg/25 µg) by 14 days after the second dose. Two-dose vaccination of 10 µg or 25 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 induced high titres of neutralizing antibody via pseudovirus (1369·0/1431·5 IU/mL) and wild-type virus (949·8/861·0 IU/mL) assay. Interpretation: GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 was well tolerated and highly immunogenic. These results support further development of the vaccine candidate, which is currently being evaluated in Phase 3. Funding: This work was supported, in whole or in part, by funding from CEPI and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Investment ID OPP1148601. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported this project for the generation of IND-enabling data and CEPI supported this clinical study.

Risk Factors for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Critically Ill Patients: A Nationwide, Multicenter, Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is often accompanied by secondary infections, such as invasive aspergillosis. In this study, risk factors for developing COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) and their clinical outcomes were evaluated. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included critically ill COVID-19 patients from July 2020 through March 2021. Critically ill patients were defined as patients requiring high-flow respiratory support or mechanical ventilation. CAPA was defined based on the 2020 European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology consensus criteria. Factors associated with CAPA were analyzed, and their clinical outcomes were adjusted by a propensity score-matched model. RESULTS: Among 187 eligible patients, 17 (9.1%) developed CAPA, which is equal to 33.10 per 10,000 patient-days. Sixteen patients received voriconazole-based antifungal treatment. In addition, 82.4% and 53.5% of patients with CAPA and without CAPA, respectively, received early high-dose corticosteroids (P = 0.022). In multivariable analysis, initial 10-day cumulative steroid dose > 60 mg of dexamethasone or dexamethasone equivalent dose) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-13.79) and chronic pulmonary disease (adjusted OR, 4.20; 95% CI, 1.26-14.02) were independently associated with CAPA. Tendencies of higher 90-day overall mortality (54.3% vs. 35.2%, P = 0.346) and lower respiratory support-free rate were observed in patients with CAPA (76.3% vs. 54.9%, P = 0.089). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the dose of corticosteroid use might be a risk factor for CAPA development and the possibility of CAPA contributing to adverse outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

What should we prepare for the next coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak? A survey on the opinions of infectious diseases specialists in South Korea.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study aimed to collect information on the opinions of Korean infectious disease (ID) experts on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and related issues in preparation for a future outbreak. METHODS: A survey was conducted over the course of 5 days (from April 21 to 25, 2020), targeting all adult ID specialists currently in the medical field in South Korea (n = 265). An online-based survey was forwarded via text message and e-mail. Only one response was accepted from each participant. RESULTS: Of these 265 ID specialists gotten to, 132 (49.8%) responded. The highest proportion of the respondents envisaged the current COVID-19 outbreak to end after December 2020 (47.7% for the domestic Korean outbreak and 70.5% for the global pandemic); moreover, 60.7% of them stated that a second nationwide wave is likely to occur between September and December 2020 in South Korea. N95 respirators were considered to be the most important item in hospitals in preparation for a second wave. The most important policy to be implemented at the national level was securing national hospitals designated for the treatment of ID (67.4%). CONCLUSION: ID experts in South Korea believe that the COVID-19 pandemic may not be easily controlled and that a second nationwide wave is likely to occur in South Korea. Our results indicate that Korean ID specialists believe that a high level of preparation is needed in various aspects, including the procurement of personal protective equipment, to respond efficiently to a second outbreak.

Psychological distress among infectious disease physicians during the response to the COVID-19 outbreak in the Republic of Korea.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate psychological distress among infectious disease (ID) physicians during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in the Republic of Korea. METHODS: Using an online-based survey link sent via text message and email, we conducted a survey from April 21 to 25, 2020, targeting all ID physicians currently working in ID (n = 265). The questionnaire was based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales, and information was collected on factors protecting against psychological distress and difficulties in relation to COVID-19. RESULTS: Of 265 ID physicians, 115 (43.3%) responded, showing burnout (97, 90.4%), depression (20, 17.4%), anxiety (23, 20.0%), and stress (5, 4.3%). There were no differences in terms of distress between ID physicians who were directly involved in the care of patients with COVID-19 or not. Greater than 50% of physicians valued their work and felt recognized by others, whereas < 10% indicated that sufficient human and financial support and private time had been provided during the outbreak. The most challenging issues concerned a lack of attending physicians caring for COVID-19 patients or infection control practitioners, a shortage of personal protective equipment or airborne infection isolation rooms, pressure for research, and lack of guidelines for COVID-19 management. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 outbreak in the Republic of Korea, most respondents reported psychological distress. Preparing strategies to secure human resources are crucial to prepare effectively for future epidemics and pandemics.