Search

Background We evaluated our SARS-CoV-2 prefusion spike recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) with different adjuvants, unadjuvanted, and in a one-injection and two-injection dosing schedule in a previous phase 1–2 study. Based on interim results from that study, we selected a two-injection schedule and the AS03 adjuvant for further clinical development. However, lower than expected antibody responses, particularly in older adults, and higher than expected reactogenicity after the second vaccination were observed. In the current study, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of an optimised formulation of CoV2 preS dTM adjuvanted with AS03 to inform progression to phase 3 clinical trial. Methods This phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, dose-ranging study was done in adults (≥18 years old), including those with pre-existing medical conditions, those who were immunocompromised (except those with recent organ transplant or chemotherapy) and those with a potentially increased risk for severe COVID-19, at 20 clinical research centres in the USA and Honduras. Women who were pregnant or lactating or, for those of childbearing potential, not using an effective method of contraception or abstinence, and those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine, were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive response technology system, with stratification by age (18–59 years and ≥60 years), rapid serodiagnostic test result (positive or negative), and high-risk medical conditions (yes or no), to receive two injections (day 1 and day 22) of 5 7mu;g (low dose), 10 7mu;g (medium dose), or 15 7mu;g (high dose) CoV2 preS dTM antigen with fixed AS03 content. All participants and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment; unmasked study staff involved in vaccine preparation were not involved in safety outcome assessments. All laboratory staff performing the assays were masked to treatment. The primary safety objective was to describe the safety profile in all participants, for each candidate vaccine formulation. Safety endpoints were evaluated for all randomised participants who received at least one dose of the study vaccine (safety analysis set), and are presented here for the interim study period (up to day 43). The primary immunogenicity objective was to describe the neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant 14 days after the second vaccination (day 36) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naive who received both injections, provided samples at day 1 and day 36, did not have protocol deviations, and did not receive an authorised COVID-19 vaccine before day 36. Neutralising antibodies were measured using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay and are presented here up to 14 days after the second dose. As a secondary immunogenicity objective, we assessed neutralising antibodies in non-naive participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04762680) and is closed to new participants for the cohort reported here. Findings Of 722 participants enrolled and randomly assigned between Feb 24, 2021, and March 8, 2021, 721 received at least one injection (low dose=240, medium dose=239, and high dose=242). The proportion of participants reporting at least one solicited adverse reaction (injection site or systemic) in the first 7 days after any vaccination was similar between treatment groups (217 [91%] of 238 in the low-dose group, 213 [90%] of 237 in the medium-dose group, and 218 [91%] of 239 in the high-dose group); these adverse reactions were transient, were mostly mild to moderate in intensity, and occurred at a higher frequency and intensity after the second vaccination. Four participants reported immediate unsolicited adverse events; two (one each in the low-dose group and medium-dose group) were considered by the investigators to be vaccine related and two (one each in the low-dose and high-dose groups) were considered unrelated. Five participants reported seven vaccine-related medically attended adverse events (two in the low-dose group, one in the medium-dose group, and four in the high-dose group). No vaccine-related serious adverse events and no adverse events of special interest were reported. Among participants naive to SARS-CoV-2 at day 36, 158 (98%) of 162 in the low-dose group, 166 (99%) of 168 in the medium-dose group, and 163 (98%) of 166 in the high-dose group had at least a two-fold increase in neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant from baseline. Neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMTs) at day 36 for participants who were naive were 2189 (95% CI 1744–2746) for the low-dose group, 2269 (1792–2873) for the medium-dose group, and 2895 (2294–3654) for the high-dose group. GMT ratios (day 36: day 1) were 107 (95% CI 85–135) in the low-dose group, 110 (87–140) in the medium-dose group, and 141 (111–179) in the high-dose group. Neutralising antibody titres in non-naive adults 21 days after one injection tended to be higher than titres after two injections in adults who were naive, with GMTs 21 days after one injection for participants who were non-naive being 3143 (95% CI 836–11 815) in the low-dose group, 2338 (593–9226) in the medium-dose group, and 7069 (1361–36 725) in the high-dose group. Interpretation Two injections of CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 showed acceptable safety and reactogenicity, and robust immunogenicity in adults who were SARS-CoV-2 naive and non-naive. These results supported progression to phase 3 evaluation of the 10 7mu;g antigen dose for primary vaccination and a 5 7mu;g antigen dose for booster vaccination. Funding Sanofi Pasteur and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

The presence of Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) in Iran was first identified in studies of livestock sera and ticks in the 1970s, but the first human infection was not diagnosed until 1999. Since that time, the number of cases of CCHF in Iran has markedly increased. Through January 2012, articles in the published literature have reported a total of 870 confirmed cases, with 126 deaths, for a case fatality rate (CFR) of 17.6%. The disease has been seen in 26 of the country’s 31 provinces, with the greatest number of cases in Sistan and Baluchestan, Isfahan, Fars, Tehran, Khorasan, and Khuzestan provinces. The increase in CCHF in Iran has paralleled that in neighboring Turkey, though the number of cases in Turkey has been much larger, with an overall CFR of around 5%. In this article, we review the features of CCHF in Iran, including its history, epidemiology, animal and tick reservoirs, current surveillance and control programs, diagnostic methods, clinical features and experience with ribavirin therapy, and consider possible explanations for the difference in the CFR of CCHF between Iran and Turkey. The emergence of CCHF in Iran calls for countermeasures at many levels to protect the population, but also provides opportunities for studying the epidemiology, diagnosis and management of the disease.

This review was undertaken to determine the role of surgery in the treatment of brucella endocarditis. All English and French articles reporting brucella endocarditis (1966 to 2011) in PubMed, Google, and Scopus were reviewed. In all, 308 cases were identified, and linear and logistic regression was performed. Surgery improved outcomes by decreasing mortality from 32.7% in the medical treatment only group to 6.7% in the combined surgical and medical treatment group ( p

Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a tick-borne disease caused by CCHF virus (CCHFV), a nairovirus in the family Bunyaviridae. CCHF occurs sporadically in a number of countries in Asia, the Middle East, southeastern Europe and Africa. Patients may develop subclinical to severe hemorrhagic disease, with fatal outcomes in a substantial percentage of cases. Transmission usually occurs through contact with viremic livestock or patients or bites by infected ticks. The number of reported cases has increased in recent years, possibly due to global climatic change and human perturbations of biocenoses that may have led to the migration of tick vectors. There is currently no FDA-approved vaccine or specific antiviral therapy for CCHF. The classification of CCHFV as a WHO Risk Group IV pathogen and the lack of suitable animal models has caused progress in developing new prophylactic and therapeutic measures to be slow. Ribavirin is active against CCHFV in vitro, but its efficacy for human therapy has not been definitively demonstrated by clinical studies. CCHF-immunoglobulin is also in use, but without clear evidence of efficacy. In this article, we review the development of prophylaxis and therapy for CCHF and discuss future prospects for vaccine and drug development.