Vascular thrombosis after single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine in healthcare workers in South Africa: open label, single arm, phase 3B study (Sisonke study).

Objective: To assess the rates of vascular thrombotic adverse events in the first 35 days after one dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) in healthcare workers in South Africa and to compare these rates with those observed in the general population. Design: Open label, single arm, phase 3B study. Setting: Sisonke study, South Africa, 17 February to 15 June 2021. Participants: The Sisonke cohort of 477 234 healthcare workers, aged ≥18 years, who received one dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. Main outcome measures: Observed rates of venous arterial thromboembolism and vaccine induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis in individuals who were vaccinated, compared with expected rates, based on age and sex specific background rates from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database (database of longitudinal routinely collected electronic health records from UK primary care practices using Vision general practice patient management software). Results: Most of the study participants were women (74.9%) and median age was 42 years (interquartile range 33-51). Twenty nine (30.6 per 100 000 person years, 95% confidence interval 20.5 to 44.0) vascular thrombotic events occurred at a median of 14 days (7-29) after vaccination. Of these 29 participants, 93.1% were women, median age 46 (37-55) years, and 51.7% had comorbidities. The observed to expected ratios for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with thrombocytopenia and pulmonary embolism with thrombocytopenia were 10.6 (95% confidence interval 0.3 to 58.8) and 1.2 (0.1 to 6.5), respectively. Because of the small number of adverse events and wide confidence intervals, no conclusions were drawn between these estimates and the expected incidence rates in the population. Conclusions: Vaccine induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis after one dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was found in only a few patients in this South African population of healthcare workers. These findings are reassuring if considered in terms of the beneficial effects of vaccination against covid-19 disease. These data support the continued use of this vaccine, but surveillance is recommended to identify other incidences of venous and arterial thromboembolism and to improve confidence in the data estimates. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04838795.

Trends in Cases, Hospitalization and Mortality Related to the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 Sub-Variants in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: This study compared admission incidence risk across waves, and the risk of mortality in the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 wave, to the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 and Delta waves. METHODS: Data from South Africa's national hospital surveillance system, SARS-CoV-2 case linelist and Electronic Vaccine Data System were linked and analysed. Wave periods were defined when the country passed a weekly incidence of 30 cases/100,000 people. In-hospital case fatality ratios (CFR) in the Delta, Omicron BA.1/BA.2 and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 wave periods were compared by post-imputation random effect multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: The CFR was 25.9% (N = 37,538/144,778), 10.9% (N = 6,123/56,384) and 8.2% (N = 1,212/14,879) in the Delta, Omicron BA.1/BA.2, and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 waves respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, health sector and province, compared to the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 wave, patients had higher risk of mortality in the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 wave (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-1.4) and Delta (aOR 3.0; 95% CI 2.8-3.2) wave. Being partially vaccinated (aOR 0.9, CI 0.9-0.9), fully vaccinated (aOR 0.6, CI 0.6-0.7) and boosted (aOR 0.4, CI 0.4-0.5); and prior laboratory-confirmed infection (aOR 0.4, CI 0.3-0.4) were associated with reduced risks of mortality. CONCLUSION: Overall, admission incidence risk and in-hospital mortality, which had increased progressively in South Africa's first three waves, decreased in the fourth Omicron BA.1/BA.2 wave and declined even further in the fifth Omicron BA.4/BA.5 wave. Mortality risk was lower in those with natural infection and vaccination, declining further as the number of vaccine doses increased.

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.

Persistent Symptoms among Frontline Health Workers Post-Acute COVID-19 Infection.

Growing evidence shows that a significant number of patients with COVID-19 experience persistent symptoms, also known as long COVID-19. We sought to identify persistent symptoms of COVID-19 in frontline workers at Right to Care South Africa, who are past the acute phase of illness, using a cross-sectional survey. We analysed data from 207 eligible COVID-19 positive frontline workers who participated in a two-month post-COVID-19 online self-administered survey. The survey response rate was 30%; of the 62 respondents with a median age of 33.5 years (IQR= 30-44 years), 47 (76%) were females. The majority (n = 55; 88.7%) self-isolated and 7 (11.3%) were admitted to hospital at the time of diagnosis. The most common comorbid condition reported was hypertension, particularly among workers aged 45-55 years. The most reported persistent symptoms were characterised by fatigue, anxiety, difficulty sleeping, chest pain, muscle pain, and brain fog. Long COVID-19 is a serious phenomenon, of which much is still unknown, including its causes, how common it is especially in non-hospitalised healthcare workers, and how to treat it. Given the rise in COVID-19 cases, the prevalence of long COVID-19 is likely to be substantial; thus, the need for rehabilitation programs targeted at each persistent COVID-19 symptom is critical.

Performance of the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG serological assay in South African 2 patients.

In late December 2019, pneumonia cases of unknown origin were reported in Wuhan, China. This virus was named SARS-CoV2 and the clinical syndrome was named coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). South Africa, despite strict and early lockdown has the highest infection rate in Africa. A key component of South Africa's response to SARSCoV2 was the rapid scale-up of diagnostic testing. The Abbott SARS-CoV2 assay detects IgG antibodies against the Nucleocapsid (N) protein of the SARS-CoV2 virus. This study undertook to validate and evaluate performance criteria of the Abbott assay and to establish whether this assay would show clinical utility in our population. Positive patients (n = 391) and negative controls (n = 139) were included. The Architect-i and Alinity-i systems were analyzers that were used to perform the SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay. In-house ELISA was incorporated into the study as a confirmatory serology test. A total of number of 530 participants was tested, 87% were symptomatic with infection and 13% were asymptomatic. When compared to RT-qPCR, the sensitivity of Architect and Alinity SARS-CoV2 assays was 69.5% and 64.8%, respectively. Specificity for Architect and Alinity assays was 95% and 90.3%, respectively. The Abbott assay was also compared to in house ELISA assay, with sensitivity for the Architect and Alinity assays of 94.7% and 92.5%, respectively. Specificity for Abbott Alinity assays was 91.7% higher than Abbott Architect 88.1%. Based on the current findings testing of IgG after 14 days is recommended in South Africa and supports other studies performed around the world.

Effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine in health-care workers in South Africa (the Sisonke study): results from a single-arm, open-label, phase 3B, implementation study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a single dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Johnson & Johnson) in health-care workers in South Africa during two waves of the South African COVID-19 epidemic. METHODS: In the single-arm, open-label, phase 3B implementation Sisonke study, health-care workers aged 18 years and older were invited for vaccination at one of 122 vaccination sites nationally. Participants received a single dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. Vaccinated participants were linked with their person-level data from one of two national medical insurance schemes (scheme A and scheme B) and matched for COVID-19 risk with an unvaccinated member of the general population. The primary outcome was vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19, defined as COVID-19-related admission to hospital, hospitalisation requiring critical or intensive care, or death, in health-care workers compared with the general population, ascertained 28 days or more after vaccination or matching, up to data cutoff. This study is registered with the South African National Clinical Trial Registry, DOH-27-022021-6844, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04838795, and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR202102855526180, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 17 and May 17, 2021, 477 102 health-care workers were enrolled and vaccinated, of whom 357 401 (74·9%) were female and 119 701 (25·1%) were male, with a median age of 42·0 years (33·0-51·0). 215 813 vaccinated individuals were matched with 215 813 unvaccinated individuals. As of data cutoff (July 17, 2021), vaccine effectiveness derived from the total matched cohort was 83% (95% CI 75-89) to prevent COVID-19-related deaths, 75% (69-82) to prevent COVID-19-related hospital admissions requiring critical or intensive care, and 67% (62-71) to prevent COVID-19-related hospitalisations. The vaccine effectiveness for all three outcomes were consistent across scheme A and scheme B. The vaccine effectiveness was maintained in older health-care workers and those with comorbidities including HIV infection. During the course of the study, the beta (B.1.351) and then the delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variants of concerns were dominant, and vaccine effectiveness remained consistent (for scheme A plus B vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related hospital admission during beta wave was 62% [95% CI 42-76] and during delta wave was 67% [62-71], and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related death during beta wave was 86% [57-100] and during delta wave was 82% [74-89]). INTERPRETATION: The single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine shows effectiveness against severe COVID-19 disease and COVID-19-related death after vaccination, and against both beta and delta variants, providing real-world evidence for its use globally. FUNDING: National Treasury of South Africa, the National Department of Health, Solidarity Response Fund NPC, The Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, The Elma Vaccines and Immunization Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Mitigation strategies to safely conduct HIV treatment research in the context of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The International AIDS Society convened a multidisciplinary committee of experts in December 2020 to provide guidance and key considerations for the safe and ethical management of clinical trials involving people living with HIV (PLWH) during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This consultation did not discuss guidance for the design of prevention studies for people at risk of HIV acquisition, nor for the programmatic delivery of antiretroviral therapy (ART). DISCUSSION: There is strong ambition to continue with HIV research from both PLWH and the research community despite the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. How to do this safely and justly remains a critical debate. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to be highly dynamic. It is expected that with the emergence of effective SARS-CoV-2 prevention and treatment strategies, the risk to PLWH in clinical trials will decline over time. However, with the emergence of more contagious and potentially pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 variants, the effectiveness of current prevention and treatment strategies may be compromised. Uncertainty exists about how equally SARS-CoV-2 prevention and treatment strategies will be available globally, particularly for marginalized populations, many of whom are at high risk of reduced access to ART and/or HIV disease progression. All of these factors must be taken into account when deciding on the feasibility and safety of developing and implementing HIV research. CONCLUSIONS: It can be assumed for the foreseeable future that SARS-CoV-2 will persist and continue to pose challenges to conducting clinical research in PLWH. Guidelines regarding how best to implement HIV treatment studies will evolve accordingly. The risks and benefits of performing an HIV clinical trial must be carefully evaluated in the local context on an ongoing basis. With this document, we hope to provide a broad guidance that should remain viable and relevant even as the nature of the pandemic continues to develop.

Allergic reactions to the Ad26.COV2.S Vaccine in South Africa

Background The Janssen-Ad26.COV2.S vaccine is authorised for use in several countries with over 30 million doses administered. Mild and severe allergic adverse events following immunisation(AEFI) have been reported. The aim of this report is to detail allergic reactions reported during the Sisonke phase 3B study in South Africa. Methods A single-dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was administered to 477234 South African Healthcare Workers between 17 February and 17 May 2021. Monitoring of adverse events used a combination of passive reporting and active case finding. Telephonic contact was attempted for all adverse events reported as “allergy”. Anaphylaxis adjudication was performed using the Brighton Collaboration (BCC) and NIAID case definitions. Results Only 251(0.052%) patients reported any allergic-type reaction(less than 1 in 2000), with four cases of adjudicated anaphylaxis (BCC level 1, n=3)(prevalence of 8.4 per million doses). All anaphylaxis cases had a prior history of drug or vaccine-associated anaphylaxis. Cutaneous allergic reactions were the commonest non-anaphylatic reactions and included: self-limiting, transient/localised rashes requiring no healthcare contact(n=92);or isolated urticaria and/or angioedema[n=70 median onset 48(IQR 11.5-120) hours post vaccination] that necessitated healthcare contact(81%), antihistamine(63%), and/or systemic/topical corticosteroid(16%). All immediate (including adjudicated anaphylaxis) and the majority of delayed AEFI(65/69) cases resolved completely. Conclusions Allergic AEFI are rare following a single-dose of Ad26.COV with complete resolution in all cases of anaphylaxis. Though rare, isolated, delayed onset urticaria and/or angioedema was the commonest allergic AEFI requiring treatment, with nearly half occurring in participants without known atopic disease.

Operational characteristics of 30 lateral flow immunoassays used to identify COVID-19 immune response.

Serology or antibody tests for COVID-19 are designed to detect antibodies (mainly Immunoglobulin M (IgM) and Immunoglobulin G (IgG) produced in response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) infection. In this study, 30 lateral flow immunoassays were tested using serum or plasma from patients with confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection. Negative serological controls were accessed from a well-characterised bank of sera which were stored prior to February 2020. Operational characteristics and ease of use of the assays are reported. 4/30 (13%) of kits (Zheihang Orient Gene COVID-19 IgG/IgM, Genrui Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) IgG/IgM, Biosynex COVID-19 BSS IgG/IgM, Boson Biotech 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM) were recommended for SAHPRA approval based on kit sensitivity. Of these, only the Orientgene was recommended by SAHPRA in August 2020 for use within the approved national testing algorithm while the remaining three received limited authorization for evaluation. All kits evaluated work on the same basic principle of immunochromatography with minor differences noted in the shape and colour of cartridges, the amount of specimen volume required and the test duration. Performance of the lateral flow tests were similar to sensitivities and specificities reported in other studies. The cassettes of the majority of kits evaluated (90%) detected both IgG and IgM. Only 23% of kits evaluated contained all consumables required for point-of-care testing. The study highlights the need for thorough investigation of kits prior to implementation.

Performance of the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA Assay for detection of IgA and IgG antibodies in South Africa.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been identified as the causative agent for causing the clinical syndrome of COVID -19. Accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only important for management of infected individuals but also to break the chain of transmission. South Africa is the current epicenter of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Africa. To optimize the diagnostic algorithm for SARS-CoV-2 in the South African setting, the study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays. This study reported the performance of EUROIMMUN enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for semi-quantitative detection of IgA and IgG antibodies in serum and plasma samples targeting the recombinant S1 domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein as antigen. Samples were collected from 391 individuals who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 139 SARS CoV-2 negative controls. Samples were stratified by number of days' post-PCR diagnosis and symptoms. The sensitivity of EUROIMMUN IgG was 64.1% (95% CI: 59.1-69.0%) and 74.3% (95% CI: 69.6-78.6%) for IgA and the specificity was lower for IgA [84.2% (95% CI: 77-89.2%)] than IgG [95.2% (95% CI: 90.8-98.4%)]. The EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA Assay sensitivity was higher for IgA but low for IgG and improved for both assays in symptomatic individuals and at later timepoints post PCR diagnosis.

The Role of Remdesivir in South Africa: Preventing COVID-19 Deaths Through Increasing Intensive Care Unit Capacity.

Countries such as South Africa have limited intensive care unit (ICU) capacity to handle the expected number of patients with COVID-19 requiring ICU care. Remdesivir can prevent deaths in countries such as South Africa by decreasing the number of days people spend in ICU, therefore freeing up ICU bed capacity.

SARS-CoV-2 Antigens Expressed in Plants Detect Antibody Responses in COVID-19 Patients.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has swept the world and poses a significant global threat to lives and livelihoods, with 115 million confirmed cases and at least 2.5 million deaths from Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the first year of the pandemic. Developing tools to measure seroprevalence and understand protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is a priority. We aimed to develop a serological assay using plant-derived recombinant viral proteins, which represent important tools in less-resourced settings. Methods: We established an indirect ELISA using the S1 and receptor-binding domain (RBD) portions of the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2, expressed in Nicotiana benthamiana. We measured antibody responses in sera from South African patients (n = 77) who had tested positive by PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Samples were taken a median of 6 weeks after the diagnosis, and the majority of participants had mild and moderate COVID-19 disease. In addition, we tested the reactivity of pre-pandemic plasma (n = 58) and compared the performance of our in-house ELISA with a commercial assay. We also determined whether our assay could detect SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgA in saliva. Results: We demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulins are readily detectable using recombinant plant-derived viral proteins, in patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Reactivity to S1 and RBD was detected in 51 (66%) and 48 (62%) of participants, respectively. Notably, we detected 100% of samples identified as having S1-specific antibodies by a validated, high sensitivity commercial ELISA, and optical density (OD) values were strongly and significantly correlated between the two assays. For the pre-pandemic plasma, 1/58 (1.7%) of samples were positive, indicating a high specificity for SARS-CoV-2 in our ELISA. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG correlated significantly with IgA and IgM responses. Endpoint titers of S1- and RBD-specific immunoglobulins ranged from 1:50 to 1:3,200. S1-specific IgG and IgA were found in saliva samples from convalescent volunteers. Conclusion: We demonstrate that recombinant SARS-CoV-2 proteins produced in plants enable robust detection of SARS-CoV-2 humoral responses. This assay can be used for seroepidemiological studies and to measure the strength and durability of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in infected patients in our setting.

Cost-effectiveness of Remdesivir and Dexamethasone for COVID-19 Treatment in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone and remdesivir have the potential to reduce coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID)-related mortality or recovery time, but their cost-effectiveness in countries with limited intensive care resources is unknown. METHODS: We projected intensive care unit (ICU) needs and capacity from August 2020 to January 2021 using the South African National COVID-19 Epi Model. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of (1) administration of dexamethasone to ventilated patients and remdesivir to nonventilated patients, (2) dexamethasone alone to both nonventilated and ventilated patients, (3) remdesivir to nonventilated patients only, and (4) dexamethasone to ventilated patients only, all relative to a scenario of standard care. We estimated costs from the health care system perspective in 2020 US dollars, deaths averted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of each scenario. RESULTS: Remdesivir for nonventilated patients and dexamethasone for ventilated patients was estimated to result in 408 (uncertainty range, 229-1891) deaths averted (assuming no efficacy [uncertainty range, 0%-70%] of remdesivir) compared with standard care and to save $15 million. This result was driven by the efficacy of dexamethasone and the reduction of ICU-time required for patients treated with remdesivir. The scenario of dexamethasone alone for nonventilated and ventilated patients requires an additional $159 000 and averts 689 [uncertainty range, 330-1118] deaths, resulting in $231 per death averted, relative to standard care. CONCLUSIONS: The use of remdesivir for nonventilated patients and dexamethasone for ventilated patients is likely to be cost-saving compared with standard care by reducing ICU days. Further efforts to improve recovery time with remdesivir and dexamethasone in ICUs could save lives and costs in South Africa.

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir and dexamethasone for COVID-19 treatment in South Africa.

Background South Africa recently experienced a first peak in COVID-19 cases and mortality. Dexamethasone and remdesivir both have the potential to reduce COVID-related mortality, but their cost-effectiveness in a resource-limited setting with scant intensive care resources is unknown. Methods We projected intensive care unit (ICU) needs and capacity from August 2020 to January 2021 using the South African National COVID-19 Epi Model. We assessed cost-effectiveness of 1) administration of dexamethasone to ventilated patients and remdesivir to non-ventilated patients, 2) dexamethasone alone to both non-ventilated and ventilated patients, 3) remdesivir to non-ventilated patients only, and 4) dexamethasone to ventilated patients only; all relative to a scenario of standard care. We estimated costs from the healthcare system perspective in 2020 USD, deaths averted, and the incremental cost effectiveness ratios of each scenario. Results Remdesivir for non-ventilated patients and dexamethasone for ventilated patients was estimated to result in 1,111 deaths averted (assuming a 0-30% efficacy of remdesivir) compared to standard care, and save $11.5 million. The result was driven by the efficacy of the drugs, and the reduction of ICU-time required for patients treated with remdesivir. The scenario of dexamethasone alone to ventilated and non-ventilated patients requires additional $159,000 and averts 1,146 deaths, resulting in $139 per death averted, relative to standard care. Conclusions The use of dexamethasone for ventilated and remdesivir for non-ventilated patients is likely to be cost-saving compared to standard care. Given the economic and health benefits of both drugs, efforts to ensure access to these medications is paramount.