Immunogenicity and safety of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein nanoparticle vaccine in people living with and without HIV-1 infection: a randomised, controlled, phase 2A/2B trial.

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.

Safety and immunogenicity of candidate vaccine M72/AS01E in adolescents in a TB endemic setting.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination that prevents tuberculosis (TB) disease, particularly in adolescents, would have the greatest impact on the global TB epidemic. Safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity of the vaccine candidate M72/AS01E was evaluated in healthy, HIV-negative adolescents in a TB endemic region, regardless of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) infection status. METHODS: In a phase II, double-blind randomized, controlled study (NCT00950612), two doses of M72/AS01E or placebo were administered intramuscularly, one month apart. Participants were followed-up post-vaccination, for 6 months. M72-specific immunogenicity was evaluated by intracellular cytokine staining analysis of T cells and NK cells by flow cytometry. RESULTS: No serious adverse events were recorded. M72/AS01E induced robust T cell and antibody responses, including antigen-dependent NK cell IFN-γ production. CD4 and CD8 T cell responses were sustained at 6 months post vaccination. Irrespective of M.tb infection status, vaccination induced a high frequency of M72-specific CD4 T cells expressing multiple combinations of Th1 cytokines, and low level IL-17. We observed rapid boosting of immune responses in M.tb-infected participants, suggesting natural infection acts as a prime to vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The clinically acceptable safety and immunogenicity profile of M72/AS01E in adolescents living in an area with high TB burden support the move to efficacy trials.

Maintaining data integrity in a rural clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials conducted in rural resource-poor settings face special challenges in ensuring quality of data collection and handling. The variable nature of these challenges, ways to overcome them, and the resulting data quality are rarely reported in the literature. PURPOSE: To provide a detailed example of establishing local data handling capacity for a clinical trial conducted in a rural area, highlight challenges and solutions in establishing such capacity, and to report the data quality obtained by the trial. METHODS: We provide a descriptive case study of a data system for biological samples and questionnaire data, and the problems encountered during its implementation. To determine the quality of data we analyzed test-retest studies using Kappa statistics of inter- and intra-observer agreement on categorical data. We calculated Technical Errors of Measurement of anthropometric measurements, audit trail analysis was done to assess error correction rates, and residual error rates were calculated by database-to-source document comparison. RESULTS: Initial difficulties included the unavailability of experienced research nurses, programmers and data managers in this rural area and the difficulty of designing new software tools and a complex database while making them error-free. National and international collaboration and external monitoring helped ensure good data handling and implementation of good clinical practice. Data collection, fieldwork supervision and query handling depended on streamlined transport over large distances. The involvement of a community advisory board was helpful in addressing cultural issues and establishing community acceptability of data collection methods. Data accessibility for safety monitoring required special attention. Kappa values and Technical Errors of Measurement showed acceptable values. Residual error rates in key variables were low. LIMITATIONS: The article describes the experience of a single-site trial and does not address challenges particular to multi-site trials. CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining and maintaining data integrity in rural clinical trials is feasible, can result in acceptable data quality and can be used to develop capacity in developing country sites. It does, however, involve special challenges and requirements.