Search

BackgroundThere are no licensed vaccines against Plasmodium vivax, the most common cause of malaria outside of Africa.MethodsWe conducted two Phase I/IIa clinical trials to assess the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of two vaccines targeting region II of P. vivax Duffy-binding protein (PvDBPII). Recombinant viral vaccines (using ChAd63 and MVA vectors) were administered at 0, 2 months or in a delayed dosing regimen (0, 17, 19 months), whilst a protein/adjuvant formulation (PvDBPII/Matrix-M™) was administered monthly (0, 1, 2 months) or in a delayed dosing regimen (0, 1, 14 months). Delayed regimens were due to trial halts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Volunteers underwent heterologous controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) with blood-stage P. vivax parasites at 2-4 weeks following their last vaccination, alongside unvaccinated controls. Efficacy was assessed by comparison of parasite multiplication rate (PMR) in blood post-CHMI, modelled from parasitemia measured by quantitative polymerase-chain-reaction (qPCR).ResultsThirty-two volunteers were enrolled and vaccinated (n=16 for each vaccine). No safety concerns were identified. PvDBPII/Matrix-M™, given in the delayed dosing regimen, elicited the highest antibody responses and reduced the mean PMR following CHMI by 51% (range 36-66%; n=6) compared to unvaccinated controls (n=13). No other vaccine or regimen impacted parasite growth. In vivo growth inhibition of blood-stage P. vivax correlated with functional antibody readouts of vaccine immunogenicity.ConclusionsVaccination of malaria-naïve adults with a delayed booster regimen of PvDBPII/ Matrix-M™ significantly reduces the growth of blood-stage P. vivax.Funded by the European Commission and Wellcome Trust; VAC069, VAC071 and VAC079 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers NCT03797989, NCT04009096 and NCT04201431.

Background The safety and immunogenicity profile of COVID-19 vaccines when administered concomitantly with seasonal influenza vaccines have not yet been reported. We therefore aimed to report the results of a substudy within a phase 3 UK trial, by evaluating the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 when co-administered with licensed seasonal influenza vaccines. Methods We did a planned exploratory substudy as part of the randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) by co-administrating the influenza vaccine at four study hospitals in the UK. Approximately, the first 400 participants meeting the main study entry criteria—with no contraindications to influenza vaccination—were invited to join the substudy. Participants of the main study were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two intramuscular injections of either NVX-CoV2373 (5 μg) or placebo (normal saline) 21 days apart; participants enrolled into the substudy were co-vaccinated with a single (0·5 mL) intramuscular, age-appropriate (quadrivalent influenza cell-based vaccine [Flucelvax Quadrivalent; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those aged 18–64 years and adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine [Fluad; Seqirus UK, Maidenhead] for those ≥65 years), licensed, influenza vaccine on the opposite deltoid to that of the first study vaccine dose or placebo. The influenza vaccine was administered in an open-label manner and at the same time as the first study injection. Reactogenicity was evaluated via an electronic diary for 7 days after vaccination in addition to monitoring for unsolicited adverse events, medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events. Immunogenicity was assessed with influenza haemagglutination inhibition and SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein IgG assays. Vaccine efficacy against PCR-confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 was assessed in participants who were seronegative at baseline, received both doses of study vaccine or placebo, had no major protocol deviations affecting the primary endpoint, and had no confirmed cases of symptomatic COVID-19 from the first dose until 6 days after the second dose (per-protocol efficacy population). Immunogenicity was assessed in participants who received scheduled two doses of study vaccine, had a baseline sample and at least one post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol violations before unmasking (per-protocol immunogenicity population). Reactogenicity was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo and had data collected for reactogenicity events. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo. Comparisons were made between participants of the substudy and the main study (who were not co-vaccinated for influenza). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04583995. Findings Between Sept 28, 2020, and Nov 28, 2020, a total of 15 187 participants were randomised into the main phase 3 trial, of whom 15 139 received treatment (7569 received dose one of NVX-CoV2373 and 7570 received dose one of placebo). 431 participants were co-vaccinated with a seasonal influenza vaccine in the substudy (217 received NVX-CoV2373 plus the influenza vaccine and 214 received placebo plus the influenza vaccine). In general, the substudy participants were younger, more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than those in the main study. Reactogenicity events were more common in the co-administration group than in the NVX-CoV2373 alone group: tenderness (113 [64·9%] of 174 vs 592 [53·3%] of 1111) or pain (69 [39·7%] vs 325 [29·3%]) at injection site, fatigue (48 [27·7%] vs 215 [19·4%]), and muscle pain (49 [28·3%] vs 237 [21·4%]). Incidences of unsolicited adverse events, treatment-related medically attended adverse events, and serious adverse events were low and balanced between the co-administration group and the NVX-CoV2373 alone group. No episodes of anaphylaxis or deaths were reported within the substudy. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response although a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. NVX-CoV2373 vaccine efficacy in the substudy (ie, participants aged 18 to

There are no licensed vaccines againstWe conducted two Phase I/IIa clinical trials to assess the safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of two vaccines targeting region II ofThirty-two volunteers were enrolled and vaccinated (n=16 for each vaccine). No safety concerns were identified. PvDBPII/Matrix-M™, given in the delayed dosing regimen, elicited the highest antibody responses and reduced the mean PMR following CHMI by 51% (range 36-66%; n=6) compared to unvaccinated controls (n=13). No other vaccine or regimen impacted parasite growth.Vaccination of malaria-naïve adults with a delayed booster regimen of PvDBPII/ Matrix-M™ significantly reduces the growth of blood-stage

Background: \ud Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT).\ud \ud Methods: \ud COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130.\ud \ud Findings: \ud Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44–61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73–78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41–59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75–82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5–2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8–42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7–1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4–5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0–1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4–14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7–1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1–7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30–69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30–69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273.\ud \ud Interpretation: \ud All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination.\ud \ud Funding: \ud UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research.

Background The role of antibodies in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with X-linked agammaglobulinaemia (XLA) has yet to be characterised and clinical courses observed in this cohort of patients have been heterogeneous. Whilst some exhibit spontaneous recovery, others have experienced a more protracted disease length. Previous reports have described successful use of convalescent plasma, however there is a paucity of information around the use of the REGN-COV2 antibody cocktail in these patients. Case report A patient with XLA was admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and remained persistently symptomatic with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) swab positivity despite treatment with Remdesivir and dexamethasone. Attempts at modulating the immune response with anakinra were unsuccessful. Consent for compassionate use of REGN-COV2 was obtained with administration taking place on day 87 of his illness. This was followed by a period of convalescence and SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab negativity. As a consequence of prolonged immunosuppression, the patient developed pneumocystis pneumonia. Conclusion This case highlights the role of antibodies in clearing SARS-CoV-2 in a hypogammaglobulinaemic host and demonstrates the consequences of prolonged immunosuppression and delayed treatment. We propose that this may be of particular significance given the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to develop advantageous mutations in a chronically infected host.

Introduction: With increasing age the prevalence of frailty, sarcopenia, undernutrition and dysphagia increases. These are all independent markers of outcome. This study explores the prevalence of these four and explores relationships between them. Methods: A convenience sample of 122 patients admitted to acute medical and frailty wards were recruited. Each was assessed using appropriate screening tools, Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) for frailty, SARC-F for sarcopenia, Nutritional Risk Tool (NRT) for nutritional status and 4QT for dysphagia. Results: The mean age of the participants was 80.53 years (65&ndash, 99 years), and 50.37% (68) were female. Overall, 111 of the 122 (91.0%) reported the presence of at least one of the quartet. The median CFS was 5 (1&ndash, 9), with 84 patients (68.9%) having a score of &ge, 5 (moderate or severely frail), The median SARC-F was 5 (0&ndash, 10), with 64 patients (52.5%) having a score of &ge, 5, The median NRT was 0 (0&ndash, 8) and 33 patients (27.0%) scored &ge, 1. A total of 77 patients (63.1%) reported no difficulty with swallowing/dysphagia (4QT &ge, 1) and 29 (23.7%) had only one factor. Sixteen patients (13.1%) had all four. There was a significant correlation between nutritional status and dysphagia, but not with frailty or sarcopenia. There were significant correlations between frailty and both sarcopenia and dysphagia. Conclusions: In our sample of acute medical and frailty ward patients, there was a much higher prevalence than expected (91%) of either: frailty, sarcopenia, undernutrition or dysphagia. The prevalence of all four was present in 13% of patients. We suggest that frailty, sarcopenia, nutritional risk and dysphagia comprise an &ldquo, Older Adult Quartet&rdquo, Further study is required to investigate the effect of the &ldquo, on morbidity and mortality.