Factors influencing scar formation following Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination

The prevalence of scar formation following Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination varies globally. The beneficial effects of BCG are stronger amongst children who develop a BCG scar. Within an international randomised trial (‘BCG vaccination to reduce the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare workers';BRACE Trial), this nested prospective cohort study assessed the prevalence of and factors influencing scar formation, as well as participant perception of BCG scarring 12 months following vaccination in healthcare workers. Amongst 3071 BCG-recipients, 2341 (76%) developed a BCG scar. Scar prevalence was lowest in Spain and highest in UK. Absence of post-injection wheal (OR 0.4, 95%CI 0.2–0.9), BCG revaccination (OR 1.7, 95%CI 1.3–2.0), female sex (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.7–2.4), older age (OR 0.4, 95%CI 0.4–0.5) and study country (Brazil OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.3–2.0) influenced BCG scar prevalence. Of the 2341 participants with a BCG scar, 1806 (77%) did not mind having the scar. Participants more likely to not mind were those in Brazil, males and those with a prior BCG vaccination history. The majority (2242/2341, 96%) did not regret having the vaccine due to scar development. Both vaccination-related (amenable to optimisation) and individual-related factors affected BCG scar prevalence 12 months following BCG vaccination of adults, with implications for maximising the effectiveness of BCG vaccination.

Factors influencing scar formation following Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination.

The prevalence of scar formation following Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination varies globally. The beneficial off-target effects of BCG are proposed to be stronger amongst children who develop a BCG scar. Within an international randomised trial ('BCG vaccination to reduce the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare workers'; BRACE Trial), this nested prospective cohort study assessed the prevalence of and factors influencing scar formation, as well as participant perception of BCG scarring 12 months following vaccination . Amongst 3071 BCG-recipients, 2341 (76%) developed a BCG scar. Scar prevalence was lowest in Spain and highest in UK. Absence of post-injection wheal (OR 0.4, 95%CI 0.2-0.9), BCG revaccination (OR 1.7, 95%CI 1.3-2.0), female sex (OR 2.0, 95%CI 1.7-2.4), older age (OR 0.4, 95%CI 0.4-0.5) and study country (Brazil OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.3-2.0) influenced BCG scar prevalence. Of the 2341 participants with a BCG scar, 1806 (77%) did not mind having the scar. Participants more likely to not mind were those in Brazil, males and those with a prior BCG vaccination history. The majority (96%) did not regret having the vaccine. Both vaccination-related (amenable to optimisation) and individual-related factors affected BCG scar prevalence 12 months following BCG vaccination of adults, with implications for maximising the effectiveness of BCG vaccination.

Randomized Trial of BCG Vaccine to Protect against Covid-19 in Health Care Workers.

BACKGROUND: The bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine has immunomodulatory "off-target" effects that have been hypothesized to protect against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned health care workers to receive the BCG-Denmark vaccine or saline placebo and followed them for 12 months. Symptomatic Covid-19 and severe Covid-19, the primary outcomes, were assessed at 6 months; the primary analyses involved the modified intention-to-treat population, which was restricted to participants with a negative test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 3988 participants underwent randomization; recruitment ceased before the planned sample size was reached owing to the availability of Covid-19 vaccines. The modified intention-to-treat population included 84.9% of the participants who underwent randomization: 1703 in the BCG group and 1683 in the placebo group. The estimated risk of symptomatic Covid-19 by 6 months was 14.7% in the BCG group and 12.3% in the placebo group (risk difference, 2.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7 to 5.5; P = 0.13). The risk of severe Covid-19 by 6 months was 7.6% in the BCG group and 6.5% in the placebo group (risk difference, 1.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.2 to 3.5; P = 0.34); the majority of participants who met the trial definition of severe Covid-19 were not hospitalized but were unable to work for at least 3 consecutive days. In supplementary and sensitivity analyses that used less conservative censoring rules, the risk differences were similar but the confidence intervals were narrower. There were five hospitalizations due to Covid-19 in each group (including one death in the placebo group). The hazard ratio for any Covid-19 episode in the BCG group as compared with the placebo group was 1.23 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.59). No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination with BCG-Denmark did not result in a lower risk of Covid-19 among health care workers than placebo. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; BRACE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04327206.).

Implementation of a centralized pharmacovigilance system in academic pan-European clinical trials: Experience from EU-Response and conect4children consortia.

Setting-up a high quality, compliant and efficient pharmacovigilance (PV) system in multi-country clinical trials can be more challenging for academic sponsors than for companies. To ensure the safety of all participants in academic studies and that the PV system fulfils all regulations, we set up a centralized PV system that allows sponsors to delegate work on PV. This initiative was put in practice by our Inserm-ANRS MIE PV department in two distinct multinational European consortia with 19 participating countries: conect4children (c4c) for paediatrics research and EU-Response for Covid-19 platform trials. The centralized PV system consists of some key procedures to harmonize the complex safety processes, creation of a local safety officer (LSO) network and centralization of all safety activities. The key procedures described the safety management plan for each trial and how tasks were shared and delegated between all stakeholders. Processing of serious adverse events (SAEs) in a unique database guaranteed the full control of the safety data and continuous evaluation of the risk-benefit ratio. The LSO network participated in efficient regulatory compliance across multiple countries. In total, there were 1312 SAEs in EU-Response and 83 SAEs in c4c in the four trials. We present here the lessons learnt from our experience in four clinical trials. We managed heterogeneous European local requirements and implemented efficient communication with all trial teams. Our approach builds capacity for PV that can be used by multiple academic sponsors.

Experiences of the Data Monitoring Committee for the RECOVERY trial, a large-scale adaptive platform randomised trial of treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19.

AIM: To inform the oversight of future clinical trials during a pandemic, we summarise the experiences of the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) for the Randomised Evaluation of COVID therapy trial (RECOVERY), a large-scale randomised adaptive platform clinical trial of treatments for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: During the first 24 months of the trial (March 2020 to February 2022), the DMC oversaw accumulating data for 14 treatments in adults (plus 10 in children) involving > 45,000 randomised patients. Five trial aspects key for the DMC in performing its role were: a large committee of members, including some with extensive DMC experience and others who had broad clinical expertise; clear strategic planning, communication, and responsiveness by the trial principal investigators; data collection and analysis systems able to cope with phases of very rapid recruitment and link to electronic health records; an ability to work constructively with regulators (and other DMCs) to address emerging concerns without the need to release unblinded mortality results; and the use of videoconferencing systems that enabled national and international members to meet at short notice and from home during the pandemic when physical meetings were impossible. Challenges included that the first four treatments introduced were effectively 'competing' for patients (increasing pressure to make rapid decisions on each one); balancing the global health imperative to report on findings with the need to maintain confidentiality until the results were sufficiently certain to appropriately inform treatment decisions; and reliably assessing safety, especially for newer agents introduced after the initial wave and in the small numbers of pregnant women and children included. We present a series of case vignettes to illustrate some of the issues and the DMC decision-making related to hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, casirivimab + imdevimab, and tocilizumab. CONCLUSIONS: RECOVERY's streamlined adaptive platform design, linked to hospital-level and population-level health data, enabled the rapid and reliable assessment of multiple treatments for hospitalised patients with COVID-19. The later introduction of factorial assessments increased the trial's efficiency, without compromising the DMC's ability to assess safety and efficacy. Requests for the release of unblinded primary outcome data to regulators at points when data were not mature required significant efforts in communication with the regulators by the DMC to avoid inappropriate early trial termination.

Pathogenesis of Respiratory Viral and Fungal Coinfections.

Individuals suffering from severe viral respiratory tract infections have recently emerged as "at risk" groups for developing invasive fungal infections. Influenza virus is one of the most common causes of acute lower respiratory tract infections worldwide. Fungal infections complicating influenza pneumonia are associated with increased disease severity and mortality, with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis being the most common manifestation. Strikingly, similar observations have been made during the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The copathogenesis of respiratory viral and fungal coinfections is complex and involves a dynamic interplay between the host immune defenses and the virulence of the microbes involved that often results in failure to return to homeostasis. In this review, we discuss the main mechanisms underlying susceptibility to invasive fungal disease following respiratory viral infections. A comprehensive understanding of these interactions will aid the development of therapeutic modalities against newly identified targets to prevent and treat these emerging coinfections.