Search

Background: rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP is the first approved vaccine with clinical efficacy against Ebola virus disease. Although a seroprotective threshold has not been defined for those at occupational risk of exposure, the current vaccine strategy is to attain a sustained high level of antibody titres. The aim of this trial was to explore the effects of delayed boosting upon both the height and duration of antibody titres following primary immunisation., Methods: In this open-label phase 2 randomised controlled trial, we compared antibody titres at month 36 in participants who had received a homologous booster dose at month 18 following primary immunisation with those who had received no booster. From Oct 25, 2016, to Jan 29, 2020, healthy adults aged 18 years or older deemed at occupational risk of exposure to Ebola virus due to laboratory work, clinical duties, or travel to an active endemic region were recruited from four hospital clinics in the USA and one hospital clinic in Canada and received primary vaccination with 2×10 7 plaque-forming unit per mL of VSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP. 18 months later, individuals who consented and were still eligible were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a homologous booster dose or no booster. Study visits for safety and serial blood collections for antibody titres were done on enrolled participants at months 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 19, 24, 30, and 36. Through July, 2021, a web-based application was used for randomisation, including assignments with schedules for each of the five sites using mixed permuted blocks. The trial was not masked to participants or site staff. The primary endpoint was a comparison of geometric mean titres (GMTs) of anti-Ebola virus glycoprotein IgG antibody at month 36 (ie, 18 months after randomisation) for all randomly assigned participants who completed the 36 months of follow-up (primary analysis cohort). Investigators were aware of antibody titres from baseline (enrolment) through month 18 but were masked to summary data by randomisation group after month 18. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02788227)., Findings: Of the 248 participants who enrolled and received their primary immunisation, 114 proceeded to the randomisation step at month 18. The two randomisation groups were balanced: 57 participants (24 [42%] of whom were female; median age was 42 years [IQR 35-50]) were randomly assigned to the booster group and 57 (24 [42%] of whom were female; median age was 42 years [IQR 36-51]) to the no-booster group. Of those randomly assigned, 92 participants (45 in the booster group and 47 in the no-booster group) completed 36 months of follow-up. At 18 months after primary immunisation, GMTs in the no-booster group increased from a baseline of 10 ELISA units (EU)/mL (95% CI 7-14) to 1451 EU/mL (1118-1882); GMTs in the booster group increased from 9 EU/mL (6-16) to 1769 EU/mL (1348-2321). At month 19, GMTs were 31 408 EU/mL (23 181-42 554) for the booster group and 1406 EU/mL (1078-1833) for the no-booster group; at month 36, GMTs were 10 146 EU/mL (7960-12 933) for the booster group and 1240 EU/mL (984-1563) for the no-booster group. Accordingly, the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of antibody titres had increased almost 21-fold more in the booster versus no-booster group at 1 month after booster administration (GMR 20·6; 95% CI 18·2-23·0; p<0·0001) and was still over 7-fold higher at month 36 (GMR 7·8; 95% CI 5·5-10·2; p<0·0001). Consistent with previous reports of this vaccine's side-effects, transient mono-articular or oligo-articular arthritis was diagnosed in 18 (9%) of 207 primary vaccination recipients; after randomisation, arthritis was diagnosed in one (2%) of 57 participants in the no-booster group. No new cases of arthritis developed after booster administration. Four serious adverse events occurred following randomisation: one (epistaxis) in the booster group and three (gastrointestinal haemorrhage, prostate cancer, and tachyarrhythmia) in the no-booster group. None of the serious adverse events was judged attributable to the booster vaccination assignment., Interpretation: In addition to no new safety concerns and in marked contrast to earlier trials evaluating short-term boosting, delaying a rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP booster until month 18 resulted in an increase in GMT that remained several-fold above the no-booster group GMT for at least 18 months. These findings could have implications for defining the optimal timing of booster doses as pre-exposure prophylaxis in populations at ongoing risk for Ebola virus exposure., Funding: The Division of Intramural Research and the Division of Clinical Research of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the US National Institutes of Health, Canadian Immunization Research Network through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Recent studies have confirmed that lung microvascular endothelial injury plays a critical role in the pathophysiology of COVID-19. Our group and others have demonstrated the beneficial effects of H 2 S in several pathological processes and provided a rationale for considering the therapeutic implications of H 2 S in COVID-19 therapy. Here, we evaluated the effect of the slow-releasing H 2 S donor, GYY4137, on the barrier function of a lung endothelial cell monolayer in vitro, after challenging the cells with plasma samples from COVID-19 patients or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus. We also assessed how the cytokine/chemokine profile of patients' plasma, endothelial barrier permeability, and disease severity correlated with each other. Alterations in barrier permeability after treatments with patient plasma, inactivated virus, and GYY4137 were monitored and assessed by electrical impedance measurements in real time. We present evidence that GYY4137 treatment reduced endothelial barrier permeability after plasma challenge and completely reversed the endothelial barrier disruption caused by inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus. We also showed that disease severity correlated with the cytokine/chemokine profile of the plasma but not with barrier permeability changes in our assay. Overall, these data demonstrate that treatment with H 2 S-releasing compounds has the potential to ameliorate SARS-CoV-2-associated lung endothelial barrier disruption.

The Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 has caused many breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated individuals. While vaccine status did not generally impact the number of viral RNA genome copies in nasopharyngeal swabs of breakthrough patients, as measured by Ct values, it has been previously found to decrease the infectious viral load in symptomatic patients. We quantified the viral RNA, infectious virus, and anti-spike IgA in nasopharyngeal swabs collected from individuals asymptomatically infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. Vaccination decreased the infectious viral load, but not the amount of viral RNA. Furthermore, vaccinees with asymptomatic infections had significantly higher levels of anti-spike IgA in their nasal secretions compared to unvaccinated individuals with asymptomatic infections. Thus, vaccination may decrease the transmission risk of Delta, and perhaps other variants, despite not affecting the amount of viral RNA measured in nasopharyngeal swabs.

Background: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168., Findings: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012)., Interpretation: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered., Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Texas is a geographically large state with large human and livestock populations, many farms, a long coastal region, and extreme fluctuations in weather. During the last 15 years, the state of Texas has frequently suffered disasters or catastrophes causing extensive morbidity and economic loss. These disasters often have complicated consequences requiring multi-faceted responses. Recently, an interdisciplinary network of professionals from multiple academic institutions has emerged to collaborate in protecting Texas and the USA using a One Health approach. These experts are training the next generation of scientists in biopreparedness; increasing understanding of pathogens that cause repetitive harm; developing new therapeutics and vaccines against them; and developing novel surveillance approaches so that emerging pathogens will be detected early and thwarted before they can cause disastrous human and economic losses. These academic One Health partnerships strengthen our ability to protect human and animal health against future catastrophes that may impact the diverse ecoregions of Texas and the world., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Background: The Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) found that remdesivir therapy hastened recovery in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but the pathway for this improvement was not explored. We investigated how the dynamics of clinical progression changed along 4 pathways: recovery, improvement in respiratory therapy requirement, deterioration in respiratory therapy requirement, and death., Methods: We analyzed trajectories of daily ordinal severity scores reflecting oxygen requirements of 1051 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who participated in ACTT-1. We developed competing risks models that estimate the effect of remdesivir therapy on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration, and multistate models that utilize the entirety of each patient's clinical course to characterize the effect of remdesivir on progression along the 4 pathways above., Results: Based on a competing risks analysis, remdesivir reduced clinical deterioration (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .59-.91) and increased clinical improvement (HR, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.39) relative to baseline. Our multistate models indicate that remdesivir inhibits worsening to ordinal scores of greater clinical severity among patients on room air or low-flow oxygen (HR, 0.74; 95% CI: .57-.94) and among patients receiving mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen/noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (HR, 0.73; 95% CI: .53-1.00) at baseline. We also find that remdesivir reduces expected intensive care respiratory therapy utilization among patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline., Conclusions: Remdesivir speeds time to recovery by preventing worsening to clinical states that would extend the course of hospitalization and increase intensive respiratory support, thereby reducing the overall demand for hospital care., (Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2021.)

Background: The Adaptive COVID Treatment Trial-2 (ACTT-2) found that baricitinib in combination with remdesivir therapy (BCT) sped recovery in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients vs remdesivir monotherapy (RMT). We examined how BCT affected progression throughout hospitalization and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies., Methods: We characterized the clinical trajectories of 891 ACTT-2 participants requiring supplemental oxygen or higher levels of respiratory support at enrollment. We estimated the effect of BCT on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration using competing risks models. We developed multistate models to estimate the effect of BCT on clinical improvement and deterioration and on utilization of respiratory therapies., Results: BCT resulted in more linear improvement and lower incidence of clinical deterioration compared with RMT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). The benefit was pronounced among participants enrolled on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. In this group, BCT sped clinical improvement (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.51) while slowing clinical deterioration (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.02), which reduced the expected days in ordinal score (OS) 6 per 100 patients by 74 days (95% CI, -8 to 154 days) and the expected days in OS 7 per 100 patients by 161 days (95% CI, 46 to 291 days) compared with RMT. BCT did not benefit participants who were mechanically ventilated at enrollment., Conclusions: Compared with RMT, BCT reduces the clinical burden and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies for patients requiring low-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation compared with RMT and may thereby improve care for this patient population., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.)

There is an urgent need for inexpensive, rapid and specific antigen-based assays to test for vaccine efficacy and detect infection with SARS-CoV-2 and its variants. We have identified a small, synthetic protein (JS7), representing a region of maximum variability within the receptor binding domain (RBD), which binds antibodies in sera from nine patients with PCR-verified COVID-19 of varying severity. Antibodies binding to either JS7 or the SARS-CoV-2 recombinant RBD, as well as those that disrupt binding between a fragment of the ACE2 receptor and the RBD, are proportional to disease severity and clinical outcome. Binding to JS7 was inhibited by linear peptides from the RBD interface with ACE2. Variants of JS7, such as E484K or N501Y, can be quickly synthesized in pure form in large quantities by automated methods. JS7 and related synthetic antigens can provide a basis for specific diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 infections., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The American Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene recently inaugurated an award for the best clinical research article published in the society's journal in the previous year. This article summarizes both the process of selecting the winner and several themes that stood out in those articles which rose to the top for consideration. Themes of note included the importance of doing clinical research outside of referral centers, the complexity that must be considered when implementing interventions, incorporation of both ends of the age spectrum into studies, and considering cost-effectiveness and opportunity cost of interventions.