Efficacy of ultra-short, response-guided sofosbuvir and daclatasvir therapy for Hepatitis C: a single arm mechanistic pilot study (preprint)

ABSTRACT Background WHO has called for research into predictive factors for selecting persons who could be successfully treated with shorter durations of direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for Hepatitis C. We evaluated early virological response as a means of shortening treatment and explored host, viral and pharmacokinetic contributors to treatment outcome. Methods Duration of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir (SOF/DCV) was determined according to day 2 (D2) virologic response for HCV genotype (gt) 1- or 6-infected adults in Vietnam with mild liver disease. Participants received 4 or 8 weeks treatment according to whether D2 HCV RNA was above or below 500 IU/ml (standard duration is 12 weeks). Primary endpoint was sustained virological response (SVR12). Those failing therapy were retreated with 12 weeks SOF/DCV. Host IFNL4 genotype and viral sequencing was performed at baseline, with repeat viral sequencing if virological rebound was observed. Levels of SOF, its inactive metabolite GS-331007 and DCV were measured on day 0 and 28. Results Of 52 adults enrolled, 34 received 4 weeks SOF/DCV, 17 got 8 weeks and one withdrew. SVR12 was achieved in 21/34 (62%) treated for 4 weeks, and 17/17 (100%) treated for 8 weeks. Overall 38/51 (75%) were cured with first-line treatment (mean duration 37 days). Despite a high prevalence of putative NS5A-inhibitor resistance associated substitutions (RAS), all first-line treatment failures cured after retreatment (13/13). We found no evidence treatment failure was associated with host IFNL4 genotype, viral subtype, baseline RAS or DCV levels. SOF metabolite levels were higher in those failing 4-week therapy. Conclusions Shortened SOF/DCV therapy, with retreatment if needed, reduces DAA use while maintaining high cure rates. D2 virologic response alone does not adequately predict SVR12 with 4 weeks treatment. Funding Funded by the Medical Research Council (grant MR/P025064/1) and The Global Challenges Research Fund (Wellcome Trust Grant 206/296/Z/17/Z).) Clinical trial number ISRCTN17100273

Kinetics of neutralising antibodies against Omicron variant in Vietnamese healthcare workers after primary immunisation with ChAdOx1-S and booster with BNT162b2 (preprint)

We studied the development and persistence of neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 ancestral strain, and Delta and Omicron (BA.1 and BA.2) variants in Vietnamese healthcare workers (HCWs) up to 15 weeks after booster vaccination. We included 47 HCWs with different pre-existing immune statuses (group 1 (G1): n=21, and group 2 (G2): n=26 without and with prior breakthrough Delta variant infection, respectively). The study participants had completed primary immunisation with ChAdOx1-S and booster vaccination with BNT162b2. Neutralising antibodies were measured using a surrogate virus neutralisation assay. Of the 21 study participants in G1, neutralising antibodies against ancestral strain, Delta variant, BA.1 and BA.2 were (almost) abolished at month 8 after the second dose, but all had detectable neutralising antibodies to the study viruses at week two post booster dose. Of the 26 study participants in G2, neutralising antibody levels to BA.1 and BA.2 were significantly higher than those to the corresponding viruses measured at week 2 post breakthrough infection and before the booster dose. At week 15 post booster vaccination, neutralising antibodies to BA.1 and BA.2 dropped significantly, with more profound changes observed in those without breakthrough Delta variant infection. Booster vaccination enhanced neutralising activities against ancestral strain and Delta variant, as compared to those induced by primary vaccination. These responses were maintained at high levels for at least 15 weeks. Our findings emphasise the importance of the first booster dose in producing cross-neutralising antibodies against Omicron variant. A second booster dose might be needed to maintain long-term protection against Omicron variant.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam (preprint)

Background: Data on breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant infections are limited.Methods: We studied breakthrough infections among healthcare workers of a major infectious diseases hospital in Vietnam. We collected demographics, vaccination history and results of PCR diagnosis alongside clinical data. We measured SARS-CoV-2 (neutralizing) antibodies at diagnosis, and at week 1, 2 and 3 after diagnosis. We sequenced the viruses using ARTIC protocol.Findings: Between 11th–25th June 2021 (week 7–8 after dose 2), 69 healthcare workers were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. 62 participated in the clinical study. 49 were (pre)symptomatic with one requiring oxygen supplementation. All recovered uneventfully. 23 complete-genome sequences were obtained. They all belonged to the Delta variant, and were phylogenetically distinct from the contemporary Delta variant sequences obtained from community transmission cases, suggestive of ongoing transmission between the workers. Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020. Time from diagnosis to PCR negative was 8–33 days (median: 21). Neutralizing antibody levels after vaccination and at diagnosis of the cases were lower than those in the matched uninfected controls. There was no correlation between vaccine-induced neutralizing antibody levels and viral loads or the development of symptoms.Interpretation: Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people. Physical distancing measures remain critical to reduce SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant transmission.Funding: Wellcome (106680/B/14/Z and 204904/Z/16/Z).Declaration of Interest: None to declare.Ethical Approval: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of HTD and the Oxford Tropical Research Ethics Committee, University of Oxford, UK.