Treatment of COVID-19 With Conestat Alfa, a Regulator of the Complement, Contact Activation and Kallikrein-Kinin System.

A dysregulated immune response with hyperinflammation is observed in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and potential benefits of human recombinant C1 esterase inhibitor (conestat alfa), a complement, contact activation and kallikrein-kinin system regulator, in severe COVID-19. Patients with evidence of progressive disease after 24 h including an oxygen saturation <93% at rest in ambient air were included at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland in April 2020. Conestat alfa was administered by intravenous injections of 8400 IU followed by 3 additional doses of 4200 IU in 12-h intervals. Five patients (age range, 53-85 years; one woman) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (11-39% lung involvement on computed tomography scan of the chest) were treated a median of 1 day (range 1-7 days) after admission. Treatment was well-tolerated. Immediate defervescence occurred, and inflammatory markers and oxygen supplementation decreased or stabilized in 4 patients (e.g., median C-reactive protein 203 (range 31-235) mg/L before vs. 32 (12-72) mg/L on day 5). Only one patient required mechanical ventilation. All patients recovered. C1INH concentrations were elevated before conestat alfa treatment. Levels of complement activation products declined after treatment. Viral loads in nasopharyngeal swabs declined in 4 patients. In this uncontrolled case series, targeting multiple inflammatory cascades by conestat alfa was safe and associated with clinical improvements in the majority of severe COVID-19 patients. Controlled clinical trials are needed to assess its safety and efficacy in preventing disease progression.

Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence.

We have reviewed evidence of adverse events after exposure to aluminium-containing vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP), alone or in combination, compared with identical vaccines, either without aluminium or containing aluminium in different concentrations. The study is a systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched the Cochrane Vaccines Field Register, the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Biological Abstracts, Science Citation Index, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System website for relevant studies. Reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned for further studies. We included randomised and semi-randomised trials and comparative cohort studies if the report gave sufficient information for us to extract aluminium concentration, vaccine composition, and safety outcomes. Two reviewers extracted data in a standard way from all included studies and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. We identified 35 reports of studies and included three randomised trials, four semi-randomised trials, and one cohort study. We did a meta-analysis of data from five studies around two main comparisons (vaccines containing aluminium hydroxide vs no adjuvant in children aged up to 18 months and vaccines containing different types of aluminium vs no adjuvants in children aged 10-16 years). In young children, vaccines with aluminium hydroxide caused significantly more erythema and induration than plain vaccines (odds ratio 1.87 [95% CI 1.57-2.24]) and significantly fewer reactions of all types (0.21 [0.15-0.28]). The frequencies of local reactions of all types, collapse or convulsions, and persistent crying or screaming did not differ between the two cohorts of the trials. In older children, there was no association between exposure to aluminium-containing vaccines and onset of (local) induration, swelling, or a raised temperature, but there was an association with local pain lasting up to 14 days (2.05 [1.25-3.38]). We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events. Despite a lack of good-quality evidence we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.

Systematic review of the effects of pertussis vaccines in children.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of whole-cell and acellular pertussis vaccines administered to children singly or within diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccines. DATA SOURCES: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts and Science Citation Index to December 2001. Specialised websites and bibliographies of retrieved articles and reviews were assessed. Vaccine manufacturers and investigators were contacted for additional data. REVIEW METHODS: We included randomised and cohort studies comparing efficacy and/or safety of pertussis vaccines with placebo, DT, no intervention or each other. RESULTS: We included 52 studies (49 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 3 cohort studies). All tested whole-cell and acellular vaccines were significantly more effective than placebo against pertussis. Absolute efficacy of whole-cell DTP varied from 37 to 92%. One- and two-component acellular vaccines had lower absolute efficacy (67-70%), than vaccines with >/=3 components (80-84%). Whole-cell vaccines were associated with significantly higher incidences of swelling and induration (odds ratio (OR) 11.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.83-15.44), fever (OR for fever >39 degrees C 3.36, 95% CI 2.06-5.49) and crying for >2h (OR 4.72, 95% CI 2.94-7.59) than placebo or DT. Differences in incidence of hypotonic hyporesponsive episodes (HHE) and convulsions were not statistically significant. Acellular pertussis vaccines did not cause a higher incidence of local signs, fever, convulsions, HHE or prolonged crying than placebo or DT. CONCLUSION: All tested pertussis vaccines were efficacious. Whole-cell vaccines show variable efficacy, making interpretation of direct comparisons unreliable. Acellular vaccines with >/=3 antigenic components showed higher efficacy than one- and two-component vaccines. The adverse event profile of acellular vaccines was similar to that of placebo and considerably better than that of whole-cell vaccines.

1st International Symposium on the Evaluation of Safety of Human Vaccines. 22-23 May 2002, Istituto Superiore di Sanitá, Rome, Italy.

The first international meeting to focus exclusively on vaccine safety, brought together vaccine surveillance specialists, trialists, pharmaceutical companies, regulators, researchers and academics to examine and discuss methodological problems in the assessment of the safety of human vaccines. The 1st International Symposium on the Evaluation of Safety of Human Vaccines took place in Rome, Italy on 22 - 23 May 2002. The Istituto Superiore di Sanitá (ISS), Rome, Italy, sponsored the symposium. The symposium was opened by D Greco (Head of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, ISS and a well-known vaccine trialist) who spoke of the need for the gathering and sharing of information regarding adverse effects of vaccines, as single studies "are not enough" and "have their limitations". Vaccines have come along way since their first use, however, as there is public concern over real or perceived adverse events, collaboration is of great importance as uncertainty about the effectiveness and safety may affect coverage of immunisation programmes.