Safety and efficacy of BCG re-vaccination in relation to COVID-19 morbidity in healthcare workers: A double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

Background: BCG vaccination prevents severe childhood tuberculosis (TB) and was introduced in South Africa in the 1950s. It is hypothesised that BCG trains the innate immune system by inducing epigenetic and functional reprogramming, thus providing non-specific protection from respiratory tract infections. We evaluated BCG for reduction of morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19 in healthcare workers in South Africa. Methods: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial recruited healthcare workers at three facilities in the Western Cape, South Africa, unless unwell, pregnant, breastfeeding, immunocompromised, hypersensitivity to BCG, or undergoing experimental COVID-19 treatment. Participants received BCG or saline intradermally (1:1) and were contacted once every 4 weeks for 1 year. COVID-19 testing was guided by symptoms. Hospitalisation, COVID-19, and respiratory tract infections were assessed with Cox proportional hazard modelling and time-to-event analyses, and event severity with post hoc Markovian analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04379336. Findings: Between May 4 and Oct 23, 2020, we enrolled 1000 healthcare workers with a median age of 39 years (IQR 30-49), 70·4% were female, 16·5% nurses, 14·4% medical doctors, 48·5% had latent TB, and 15·3% had evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Hospitalisation due to COVID-19 occurred in 15 participants (1·5%); ten (66·7%) in the BCG group and five (33·3%) in the placebo group, hazard ratio (HR) 2·0 (95% CI 0·69-5·9, p = 0·20), indicating no statistically significant protection. Similarly, BCG had no statistically significant effect on COVID-19 (p = 0·63, HR = 1·08, 95% CI 0·82-1·42). Two participants (0·2%) died from COVID-19 and two (0·2%) from other reasons, all in the placebo group. Interpretation: BCG did not protect healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2 infection or related severe COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Funding: Funding provided by EDCTP, grant number RIA2020EF-2968. Additional funding provided by private donors including: Mediclinic, Calavera Capital (Pty) Ltd, Thys Du Toit, Louis Stassen, The Ryan Foundation, and Dream World Investments 401 (Pty) Ltd. The computations were enabled by resources in project SNIC 2020-5-524 provided by the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) at UPPMAX, partially funded by the Swedish Research Council through grant agreement No. 2018-05,973.

Safety evaluation of the single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine among healthcare workers in the Sisonke study in South Africa: A phase 3b implementation trial.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evaluation of the safety profile of vaccines after licensure is crucial to accurately characterise safety beyond clinical trials, support continued use, and thereby improve public confidence. The Sisonke study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs) in South Africa. Here, we present the safety data. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this open-label phase 3b implementation study among all eligible HCWs in South Africa registered in the national Electronic Vaccination Data System (EVDS), we monitored adverse events (AEs) at vaccination sites through self-reporting triggered by text messages after vaccination, healthcare provider reports, and active case finding. The frequency and incidence rate of non-serious and serious AEs were evaluated from the day of first vaccination (17 February 2021) until 28 days after the final vaccination in the study (15 June 2021). COVID-19 breakthrough infections, hospitalisations, and deaths were ascertained via linkage of the electronic vaccination register with existing national databases. Among 477,234 participants, 10,279 AEs were reported, of which 138 (1.3%) were serious AEs (SAEs) or AEs of special interest. Women reported more AEs than men (2.3% versus 1.6%). AE reports decreased with increasing age (3.2% for age 18-30 years, 2.1% for age 31-45 years, 1.8% for age 46-55 years, and 1.5% for age > 55 years). Participants with previous COVID-19 infection reported slightly more AEs (2.6% versus 2.1%). The most common reactogenicity events were headache (n = 4,923) and body aches (n = 4,483), followed by injection site pain (n = 2,767) and fever (n = 2,731), and most occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. Two cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome and 4 cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome were reported post-vaccination. Most SAEs and AEs of special interest (n = 138) occurred at lower than the expected population rates. Vascular (n = 37; 39.1/100,000 person-years) and nervous system disorders (n = 31; 31.7/100,000 person-years), immune system disorders (n = 24; 24.3/100,000 person-years), and infections and infestations (n = 19; 20.1/100,000 person-years) were the most common reported SAE categories. A limitation of the study was the single-arm design, with limited routinely collected morbidity comparator data in the study setting. CONCLUSIONS: We observed similar patterns of AEs as in phase 3 trials. AEs were mostly expected reactogenicity signs and symptoms. Furthermore, most SAEs occurred below expected rates. The single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, supporting the continued use of this vaccine in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04838795; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR202102855526180.

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.

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.