Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
Lancet HIV ; 9(5): e309-e322, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1805401

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , HIV Seropositivity , HIV-1 , Nanoparticles , Viral Vaccines , Adjuvants, Immunologic , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , SARS-CoV-2 , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus
2.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-316095

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a public health emergency of international concern 1 . People living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with HIV-negative individuals 2-5 , and are a high-risk group for COVID-19 prevention 4 . The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has demonstrated safety and efficacy against COVID-19 in clinical trials 6-8 . To date, there are no reports on the safety and immunogenicity of this, or any COVID-19 vaccine, in PLWH, and reports on the immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines in Africa are limited 9 . Here, we show comparable safety and immunogenicity of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 between PLWH and HIV-negative individuals in South Africa. Furthermore, in PLWH previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2, antibody responses increased substantially from baseline following a priming dose, with modest increases after a booster dose. Full-length spike and receptor-binding domain IgG geometric mean concentrations after a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in PLWH previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2 were 6.49–6.84-fold higher than after two doses in those who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve at enrollment. Neutralizing antibody responses were consistent with the antibody-binding responses. This is the first report of a COVID-19 vaccine specific to PLWH, and specific to Africa, and demonstrates favorable safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in PLWH.

3.
Lancet HIV ; 8(9): e568-e580, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1366764

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , HIV Infections/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Cross Reactions , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Male , Mutation , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Safety , Vaccination
4.
N Engl J Med ; 384(20): 1899-1909, 2021 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1216484

ABSTRACT

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.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , HIV Seronegativity , HIV Seropositivity , Humans , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , South Africa , Young Adult
5.
Lancet ; 397(10277): 881-891, 2021 03 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174543

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization Schedule , Immunization, Secondary , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antibody Formation , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Humans , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Young Adult
6.
N Engl J Med ; 384(20): 1885-1898, 2021 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1135713

ABSTRACT

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).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , SARS-CoV-2 , Adenoviridae , Adolescent , Adult , Antibodies, Neutralizing/physiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Middle Aged , South Africa , T-Lymphocytes/physiology , Treatment Failure , Vaccine Potency , Young Adult
7.
SSRN; 2021.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-6412
8.
Lancet ; 397(10269): 99-111, 2021 01 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1057535

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Brazil , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Single-Blind Method , South Africa , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom , Young Adult
9.
Global Health ; 16(1): 46, 2020 05 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-272540

ABSTRACT

Medical staff caring for COVID-19 patients face mental stress, physical exhaustion, separation from families, stigma, and the pain of losing patients and colleagues. Many of them have acquired SARS-CoV-2 and some have died. In Africa, where the pandemic is escalating, there are major gaps in response capacity, especially in human resources and protective equipment. We examine these challenges and propose interventions to protect healthcare workers on the continent, drawing on articles identified on Medline (Pubmed) in a search on 24 March 2020. Global jostling means that supplies of personal protective equipment are limited in Africa. Even low-cost interventions such as facemasks for patients with a cough and water supplies for handwashing may be challenging, as is 'physical distancing' in overcrowded primary health care clinics. Without adequate protection, COVID-19 mortality may be high among healthcare workers and their family in Africa given limited critical care beds and difficulties in transporting ill healthcare workers from rural to urban care centres. Much can be done to protect healthcare workers, however. The continent has learnt invaluable lessons from Ebola and HIV control. HIV counselors and community healthcare workers are key resources, and could promote social distancing and related interventions, dispel myths, support healthcare workers, perform symptom screening and trace contacts. Staff motivation and retention may be enhanced through carefully managed risk 'allowances' or compensation. International support with personnel and protective equipment, especially from China, could turn the pandemic's trajectory in Africa around. Telemedicine holds promise as it rationalises human resources and reduces patient contact and thus infection risks. Importantly, healthcare workers, using their authoritative voice, can promote effective COVID-19 policies and prioritization of their safety. Prioritizing healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 testing, hospital beds and targeted research, as well as ensuring that public figures and the population acknowledge the commitment of healthcare workers may help to maintain morale. Clearly there are multiple ways that international support and national commitment could help safeguard healthcare workers in Africa, essential for limiting the pandemic's potentially devastating heath, socio-economic and security impacts on the continent.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Infection Control , Mental Health , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 20(7): 851-863, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-31312

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A monovalent, parenteral, subunit rotavirus vaccine was well tolerated and immunogenic in adults in the USA and in toddlers and infants in South Africa, but elicited poor responses against heterotypic rotavirus strains. We aimed to evaluate safety and immunogenicity of a trivalent vaccine formulation (P2-VP8-P[4],[6],[8]). METHODS: A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation, phase 1/2 study was done at three South African research sites. Healthy adults (aged 18-45 years), toddlers (aged 2-3 years), and infants (aged 6-8 weeks, ≥37 weeks' gestation, and without previous receipt of rotavirus vaccination), all without HIV infection, were eligible for enrolment. In the dose-escalation phase, adults and toddlers were randomly assigned in blocks (block size of five) to receive 30 µg or 90 µg of vaccine, or placebo, and infants were randomly assigned in blocks (block size of four) to receive 15 µg, 30 µg, or 90 µg of vaccine, or placebo. In the expanded phase, infants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive 15 µg, 30 µg, or 90 µg of vaccine, or placebo, in block sizes of four. Participants, parents of participants, and clinical, data, and laboratory staff were masked to treatment assignment. Adults received an intramuscular injection of vaccine or placebo in the deltoid muscle on the day of randomisation (day 0), day 28, and day 56; toddlers received a single injection of vaccine or placebo in the anterolateral thigh on day 0. Infants in both phases received an injection of vaccine or placebo in the anterolateral thigh on days 0, 28, and 56, at approximately 6, 10, and 14 weeks of age. Primary safety endpoints were local and systemic reactions (grade 2 or worse) within 7 days and adverse events and serious adverse events within 28 days after each injection in all participants who received at least one injection. Primary immunogenicity endpoints were analysed in infants in either phase who received all planned injections, had blood samples analysed at the relevant timepoints, and presented no major protocol violations considered to have an effect on the immunogenicity results of the study, and included serum anti-P2-VP8 IgA, IgG, and neutralising antibody geometric mean titres and responses measured 4 weeks after the final injection in vaccine compared with placebo groups. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02646891. FINDINGS: Between Feb 15, 2016, and Dec 22, 2017, 30 adults (12 each in the 30 µg and 90 µg groups and six in the placebo group), 30 toddlers (12 each in the 30 µg and 90 µg groups and six in the placebo group), and 557 infants (139 in the 15 µg group, 140 in the 30 µg group, 139 in the 90 µg group, and 139 in the placebo group) were randomly assigned, received at least one dose, and were assessed for safety. There were no significant differences in local or systemic adverse events, or unsolicited adverse events, between vaccine and placebo groups. There were no serious adverse events within 28 days of injection in adults, whereas one serious adverse event occurred in a toddler (febrile convulsion in the 30 µg group) and 23 serious adverse events (four in placebo, ten in 15 µg, four in 30 µg, and five in 90 µg groups) occurred among 20 infants, most commonly respiratory tract infections. One death occurred in an infant within 28 days of injection due to pneumococcal meningitis. In 528 infants (130 in placebo, 132 in 15 µg, 132 in 30 µg, and 134 in 90 µg groups), adjusted anti-P2-VP8 IgG seroresponses (≥4-fold increase from baseline) to P[4], P[6], and P[8] antigens were significantly higher in the 15 µg, 30 µg, and 90 µg groups (99-100%) than in the placebo group (10-29%; p<0·0001). Although significantly higher than in placebo recipients (9-10%), anti-P2-VP8 IgA seroresponses (≥4-fold increase from baseline) to each individual antigen were modest (20-34%) across the 15 µg, 30 µg, and 90 µg groups. Adjusted neutralising antibody seroresponses in infants (≥2·7-fold increase from baseline) to DS-1 (P[4]), 1076 (P[6]), and Wa (P[8]) were higher in vaccine recipients than in placebo recipients: p<0·0001 for all comparisons. INTERPRETATION: The trivalent P2-VP8 vaccine was well tolerated, with promising anti-P2-VP8 IgG and neutralising antibody responses across the three vaccine P types. Our findings support advancing the vaccine to efficacy testing. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


Subject(s)
Dose-Response Relationship, Immunologic , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Rotavirus Vaccines/adverse effects , Rotavirus Vaccines/immunology , Rotavirus/immunology , Vaccines, Subunit , Adult , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibody Formation , Child, Preschool , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Immunization , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Rotavirus Vaccines/genetics , South Africa , United States , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL