Search

Background Reoccurring Ebola outbreaks in West and Central Africa have led to serious illness and death in thousands of adults and children. The objective of this study was to assess safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of the heterologous 2-dose Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccination regimen in adolescents and children in Africa. Methods and findings In this multicentre, randomised, observer-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II study, 131 adolescents (12 to 17 years old) and 132 children (4 to 11 years old) were enrolled from Eastern and Western Africa and randomised 5:1 to receive study vaccines or placebo. Vaccine groups received intramuscular injections of Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles) and MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units) 28 or 56 days apart; placebo recipients received saline. Primary outcomes were safety and tolerability. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were recorded until 7 days after each vaccination and serious AEs (SAEs) throughout the study. Secondary and exploratory outcomes were humoral immune responses (binding and neutralising Ebola virus [EBOV] glycoprotein [GP]-specific antibodies), up to 1 year after the first dose. Enrolment began on February 26, 2016, and the date of last participant last visit was November 28, 2018. Of the 263 participants enrolled, 217 (109 adolescents, 108 children) received the 2-dose regimen, and 43 (20 adolescents, 23 children) received 2 placebo doses. Median age was 14.0 (range 11 to 17) and 7.0 (range 4 to 11) years for adolescents and children, respectively. Fifty-four percent of the adolescents and 51% of the children were male. All participants were Africans, and, although there was a slight male preponderance overall, the groups were well balanced. No vaccine-related SAEs were reported; solicited AEs were mostly mild/moderate. Twenty-one days post-MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, binding antibody responses against EBOV GP were observed in 100% of vaccinees (106 adolescents, 104 children). Geometric mean concentrations tended to be higher after the 56-day interval (adolescents 13,532 ELISA units [EU]/mL, children 17,388 EU/mL) than the 28-day interval (adolescents 6,993 EU/mL, children 8,007 EU/mL). Humoral responses persisted at least up to Day 365. A limitation of the study is that the follow-up period was limited to 365 days for the majority of the participants, and so it was not possible to determine whether immune responses persisted beyond this time period. Additionally, formal statistical comparisons were not preplanned but were only performed post hoc. Conclusions The heterologous 2-dose vaccination was well tolerated in African adolescents and children with no vaccine-related SAEs. All vaccinees displayed anti-EBOV GP antibodies after the 2-dose regimen, with higher responses in the 56-day interval groups. The frequency of pyrexia after vaccine or placebo was higher in children than in adolescents. These data supported the prophylactic indication against EBOV disease in a paediatric population, as licenced in the EU. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02564523., Zacchaeus Anywaine and co-workers study safety and immunogenicity of an Ebola vaccine among children and adolescents across four African countries., Author summary Why was the study done? There have been larger and more extensive Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreaks in Africa in the past decade with no licenced treatments available. As such, there is an unmet medical need for prophylactic Ebola vaccines. This study was performed to evaluate whether a 2-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccination was safe and immunogenic in healthy African children. What did the researchers do and find? In this randomised, placebo-controlled, Phase II clinical trial, the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccination regimen was administered to African participants in 2 age cohorts (12 to 17 and 4 to 11 years). No vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported, and robust immune responses were induced in both adolescents and children after receiving the active 2-dose regimen. What do these findings mean? These data support the use of the Ad26.ZEBOV, MVA-BN-Filo vaccination regimen in African adolescents and children at risk of Ebola infection. Although vaccination according to a 28-day regimen may lead to protection against EVD in a shorter time frame, vaccination according to a 56-day regimen results in higher EBOV GP binding and neutralising antibody responses. The observation that Ad26 preexisting immunity in the majority of participants does not affect the EBOV GP-specific antibody responses postvaccination augurs well for the use of this vaccine regimen even in regions with a high prevalence of preexisting Ad26 seropositivity.

Background India began COVID-19 vaccination in January 2021, initially targeting healthcare and frontline workers. The vaccination strategy was expanded in a phased manner and currently covers all individuals aged 18 years and above. India experienced a severe second wave of COVID-19 during March–June 2021. We conducted a fourth nationwide serosurvey to estimate prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the general population aged ≥6 years and healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods and findings We did a cross-sectional study between 14 June and 6 July 2021 in the same 70 districts across 20 states and 1 union territory where 3 previous rounds of serosurveys were conducted. From each district, 10 clusters (villages in rural areas and wards in urban areas) were selected by the probability proportional to population size method. From each district, a minimum of 400 individuals aged ≥6 years from the general population (40 individuals from each cluster) and 100 HCWs from the district public health facilities were included. The serum samples were tested for the presence of IgG antibodies against S1-RBD and nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 using chemiluminescence immunoassay. We estimated the weighted and test-adjusted seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, along with 95% CIs, based on the presence of antibodies to S1-RBD and/or nucleocapsid protein. Of the 28,975 individuals who participated in the survey, 2,892 (10%) were aged 6–9 years, 5,798 (20%) were aged 10–17 years, and 20,285 (70%) were aged ≥18 years; 15,160 (52.3%) participants were female, and 21,794 (75.2%) resided in rural areas. The weighted and test-adjusted prevalence of IgG antibodies against S1-RBD and/or nucleocapsid protein among the general population aged ≥6 years was 67.6% (95% CI 66.4% to 68.7%). Seroprevalence increased with age (p < 0.001) and was not different in rural and urban areas (p = 0.822). Compared to unvaccinated adults (62.3%, 95% CI 60.9% to 63.7%), seroprevalence was significantly higher among individuals who had received 1 vaccine dose (81.0%, 95% CI 79.6% to 82.3%, p < 0.001) and 2 vaccine doses (89.8%, 95% CI 88.4% to 91.1%, p < 0.001). The seroprevalence of IgG antibodies among 7,252 HCWs was 85.2% (95% CI 83.5% to 86.7%). Important limitations of the study include the survey design, which was aimed to estimate seroprevalence at the national level and not at a sub-national level, and the non-participation of 19% of eligible individuals in the survey. Conclusions Nearly two-thirds of individuals aged ≥6 years from the general population and 85% of HCWs had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by June–July 2021 in India. As one-third of the population is still seronegative, it is necessary to accelerate the coverage of COVID-19 vaccination among adults and continue adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions., Manoj Murhekar and co-workers report on the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in India., Author summary Why was this study done? Earlier nationwide COVID-19 serosurveys conducted in India indicated an increase in seroprevalence from 0.73% (95% CI 0.34% to 1.13%) in May–June 2020 to 6.6% (95% CI 5.8% to 7.4%) in September–October 2020 and 24.1% (95% CI 23.0% to 25.3%) in December 2020–January 2021. India began COVID-19 vaccination in January 2021, initially targeting healthcare and frontline workers. The vaccination strategy was expanded in a phased manner and currently covers all individuals aged 18 years and above. India witnessed a severe second wave of COVID-19 in March–June 2021. What did the researchers do and find? The fourth nationwide serosurvey indicated that about two-thirds of India’s population aged ≥6 years had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by June–July 2021. Seroprevalence increased with age, but was not different in urban slum, urban non-slum, and rural areas. Seroprevalence was significantly higher among individuals who had received 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine compared to unvaccinated individuals. About 85% of healthcare workers working in district-level health facilities had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. What do these findings mean? The substantial seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the Indian population should provide some measure of protection against future waves of COVID-19 in the country. About one-third of the population in India did not have detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by June–July 2021. It is therefore necessary to accelerate the coverage of COVID-19 vaccination among adults.

Background NVX-CoV2373 is a recombinant severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (rSARS-CoV-2) nanoparticle vaccine composed of trimeric full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoproteins and Matrix-M1 adjuvant. Methods and findings The phase 2 component of our randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1 to 2 trial was designed to identify which dosing regimen of NVX-CoV2373 should move forward into late-phase studies and was based on immunogenicity and safety data through Day 35 (14 days after the second dose). The trial was conducted at 9 sites in Australia and 8 sites in the United States. Participants in 2 age groups (aged 18 to 59 and 60 to 84 years) were randomly assigned to receive either 1 or 2 intramuscular doses of 5-μg or 25-μg NVX-CoV2373 or placebo, 21 days apart. Primary endpoints were immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-spike protein response, 7-day solicited reactogenicity, and unsolicited adverse events. A key secondary endpoint was wild-type virus neutralizing antibody response. After enrollment, 1,288 participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 vaccine groups or placebo, with 1,283 participants administered at least 1 study treatment. Of these, 45% were older participants 60 to 84 years. Reactogenicity was predominantly mild to moderate in severity and of short duration (median, In a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled trial, Neil Formica and coauthors investigate the immunogenicity and safety of different dose regimens of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine in younger and older adults in USA and Australia., Author summary Why was this study done? This study was designed to identify which dosing regimen of NVX-CoV2373 (1 or 2 doses of either 5 μg or 25 μg) was immunogenic and associated with a safety and tolerability profile that was acceptable to move forward into late-phase efficacy studies. What did the researchers do and find? Participants (n = 1,288) in 2 age groups (aged 18 to 59 and 60 to 84 years) were randomly assigned to receive either 1 or 2 intramuscular doses of 5-μg or 25-μg NVX-CoV2373 or placebo. Reactogenicity was predominantly mild to moderate in severity and of short duration (median

Background Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. Methods and findings The study was an open-label, single-center randomized clinical trial performed in an academic medical center in Santiago, Chile, from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up until August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted of immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing prespecified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days, or death. The key secondary outcomes included time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR clearance rate. Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years; 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We failed to find benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% versus 33.3%, odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.32–2.84, p > 0.999) in the early versus deferred CP group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54–17.17 p = 0.246), mechanical ventilation 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54–17.17, p = 0.246), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% versus 30.0% (OR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.19–2.10, p = 0.554) in the early versus deferred CP group, respectively. The viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% versus 8%, p = 0.204) and day 7 (38% versus 19%, p = 0.374) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 hours after plasma transfusion. The main limitation of this study is the lack of statistical power to detect a smaller but clinically relevant therapeutic effect of CP, as well as not having confirmed neutralizing antibodies in donor before plasma infusion. Conclusions In the present study, we failed to find evidence of benefit in mortality, length of hospitalization, or mechanical ventilation requirement by immediate addition of CP therapy in the early stages of COVID-19 compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration. Trial registration NCT04375098., In this randomized trial, María Elvira Balcells and colleagues demonstrate that there is no benefit in immediate versus delayed convalescent plasma administration for COVID-19 patients., Author summary Why was this study done? The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has become a matter of worldwide concern, and except for corticosteroids, no other validated treatment against SARS-CoV-2 has been found so far. Plasma from convalescent patients containing antibodies against the virus is being widely used as a treatment alternative against this virus, but few randomized clinical trials have been carried out to show any clinical benefit for patients with COVID-19. What did the researchers do and find? We conducted a randomized clinical trial. Fifty-eight hospitalized patients in the early stages of COVID-19 (≤7 days of symptoms) and with a high risk of progression into respiratory failure were recruited. Patients were randomized into 2 groups: The early plasma group received convalescent plasma at enrollment, and the deferred plasma group received convalescent plasma only in case of respiratory aggravation or if the patient still required hospitalization for symptomatic COVID-19 >7 days after enrollment. The proportion achieving the combined primary outcome of mechanical ventilation, prolonged hospitalization, or in-hospital death was 32.1% with immediate plasma versus 33.3% in the arm deferring plasma until aggravation, a non-significant difference. What do these findings mean? Our study failed to show that early convalescent plasma administration improves the outcome compared to convalescent plasma use only in case of clinical deterioration. The small sample size of the study precludes any definitive conclusions, but the results are in agreement with observations from other trials on convalescent plasma for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody neutralization response and its evasion by emerging viral variants and variant of concern (VOC) are unknown, but critical to understand reinfection risk and breakthrough infection following vaccination. Antibody immunoreactivity against SARS-CoV-2 antigens and Spike variants, inhibition of Spike-driven virus–cell fusion, and infectious SARS-CoV-2 neutralization were characterized in 807 serial samples from 233 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)–confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) individuals with detailed demographics and followed up to 7 months. A broad and sustained polyantigenic immunoreactivity against SARS-CoV-2 Spike, Membrane, and Nucleocapsid proteins, along with high viral neutralization, was associated with COVID-19 severity. A subgroup of “high responders” maintained high neutralizing responses over time, representing ideal convalescent plasma donors. Antibodies generated against SARS-CoV-2 during the first COVID-19 wave had reduced immunoreactivity and neutralization potency to emerging Spike variants and VOC. Accurate monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses would be essential for selection of optimal responders and vaccine monitoring and design.

Background MB66 film is a multipurpose prevention technology (MPT) product with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against HIV-1 (VRC01-N) and HSV-1 and 2 (HSV8-N). The mAbs were produced by transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana (N). We conducted a Phase I clinical trial to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and ex vivo efficacy of single and repeated doses of MB66 when used intravaginally. Methods and findings The clinical trial enrolled healthy reproductive-aged, sexually abstinent women. In Segment A, 9 women received a single MB66 film which was inserted into the vaginal posterior fornix by a clinician. In Segment B, 29 women were randomly assigned to MB66 (Active) or Placebo film groups and were instructed to insert 1 film vaginally for 7 consecutive days. Visits and clinical sampling occurred predose and at various time points after single and repeated film doses. The primary endpoint was number of adverse events (AEs) Grade 2 or higher related to product use. Secondary endpoints included film dissolution rate, Nugent score (a Gram stain scoring system to diagnose bacterial vaginosis), vaginal pH, post-use survey results, cytokine concentrations in cervicovaginal lavage (CVL) specimens (assessed by Luminex assay), mAb concentrations in vaginal fluid collected from 4 sites (assessed by ELISA), and HIV and HSV neutralization activity of CVL samples ex vivo (assessed by TZM-bl and plaque reduction assay, respectively). The product was generally safe and well tolerated, with no serious AEs recorded in either segment. The AEs in this study were primarily genitourinary in nature with the most commonly reported AE being asymptomatic microscopic hematuria. There were no differences in vaginal pH or Nugent scores or significant increases in levels of proinflammatory cytokines for up to 7 days after film insertion in either segment or between Active and Placebo groups. Acceptability and willingness to use the product were judged to be high by post-use surveys. Concentrations of VRC01-N and HSV8-N in vaginal secretions were assessed over time to generate pharmacokinetic curves. Antibody levels peaked 1 hour postdosing with Active film (median: 35 μg/mL) and remained significantly elevated at 24 hours post first and seventh film (median: 1.8 μg/mL). Correcting for sample dilution (1:20), VRC01-N concentrations ranged from 36 to 700 μg/mL at the 24-hour time point, greater than 100-fold the IC50 for VRC01 (0.32 μg/mL); HSV8-N concentrations ranged from 80 to 601 μg/mL, well above the IC50 of 0.1 μg/m. CVL samples collected 24 hours after MB66 insertion significantly neutralized both HIV-1 and HSV-2 ex vivo. Study limitations include the small size of the study cohort, and the fact that no samples were collected between 24 hours and 7 days for pharmacokinetic evaluation. Conclusions Single and repeated intravaginal applications of MB66 film were safe, well tolerated, and acceptable. Concentrations and ex vivo bioactivity of both mAbs in vaginal secretions were significantly elevated and thus could provide protection for at least 24 hours postdose. However, further research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of MB66 film in women at risk for HIV and HSV infection. Additional antibodies could be added to this platform to provide protection against other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and contraception. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02579083., Joseph Politch and co-workers report on a first-in-human evaluation of a vaginal film deploying monoclonal antibodies to target viral infections., Author summary Why was this study done? Human immunodeficiency virus-type 1 (HIV-1) and herpes simplex virus-type 2 (HSV-2) are 2 relatively common sexually transmitted pathogens associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Antiviral drugs have been introduced to suppress viral concentrations and ameliorate some of the worst effects of these viruses, but the infections are incurable. Therefore, considerable effort is being directed toward prevention strategies. Many women have a preference for multipurpose prevention technology (MPT) products, effective short-term pericoital methods and natural products (i.e., antibodies). What did the researchers do and find? We conducted a Phase I clinical trial to assess the safety, acceptability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and ex vivo efficacy of single and repeated doses of MB66, a vaginal film product containing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against HIV-1 (VRC01-N) and HSV-1 and 2 (HSV8-N). No serious adverse events (AEs) associated with product use were observed. Antibody levels peaked in vaginal secretions 1 hour postdosing with Active film and remained significantly elevated through 24 hours. Vaginal samples collected 24 hours after MB66 insertion significantly neutralized both HIV-1 and HSV-2 ex vivo. What do these findings mean? Single and repeated intravaginal applications of MB66 film were safe, well tolerated, and acceptable. Concentrations and ex vivo bioactivity of both mAbs in vaginal secretions were consistent with protection for at least 24 hours after film use. Phase II/III clinical trials are needed to further evaluate safety and efficacy of MB66 film in women at risk for HIV and HSV infection.

Background Biopharmaceutical products (BPs) are widely used to treat autoimmune diseases, but immunogenicity limits their efficacy for an important proportion of patients. Our knowledge of patient-related factors influencing the occurrence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) is still limited. Methods and findings The European consortium ABIRISK (Anti-Biopharmaceutical Immunization: prediction and analysis of clinical relevance to minimize the RISK) conducted a clinical and genomic multicohort prospective study of 560 patients with multiple sclerosis (MS, n = 147), rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n = 229), Crohn’s disease (n = 148), or ulcerative colitis (n = 36) treated with 8 different biopharmaceuticals (etanercept, n = 84; infliximab, n = 101; adalimumab, n = 153; interferon [IFN]-beta-1a intramuscularly [IM], n = 38; IFN-beta-1a subcutaneously [SC], n = 68; IFN-beta-1b SC, n = 41; rituximab, n = 31; tocilizumab, n = 44) and followed during the first 12 months of therapy for time to ADA development. From the bioclinical data collected, we explored the relationships between patient-related factors and the occurrence of ADAs. Both baseline and time-dependent factors such as concomitant medications were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression models. Mean age and disease duration were 35.1 and 0.85 years, respectively, for MS; 54.2 and 3.17 years for RA; and 36.9 and 3.69 years for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). In a multivariate Cox regression model including each of the clinical and genetic factors mentioned hereafter, among the clinical factors, immunosuppressants (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.408 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.253–0.657], p < 0.001) and antibiotics (aHR = 0.121 [0.0437–0.333], p < 0.0001) were independently negatively associated with time to ADA development, whereas infections during the study (aHR = 2.757 [1.616–4.704], p < 0.001) and tobacco smoking (aHR = 2.150 [1.319–3.503], p < 0.01) were positively associated. 351,824 Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) and 38 imputed Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) alleles were analyzed through a genome-wide association study. We found that the HLA-DQA1*05 allele significantly increased the rate of immunogenicity (aHR = 3.9 [1.923–5.976], p < 0.0001 for the homozygotes). Among the 6 genetic variants selected at a 20% false discovery rate (FDR) threshold, the minor allele of rs10508884, which is situated in an intron of the CXCL12 gene, increased the rate of immunogenicity (aHR = 3.804 [2.139–6.764], p < 1 × 10−5 for patients homozygous for the minor allele) and was chosen for validation through a CXCL12 protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) on patient serum at baseline before therapy start. CXCL12 protein levels were higher for patients homozygous for the minor allele carrying higher ADA risk (mean: 2,693 pg/ml) than for the other genotypes (mean: 2,317 pg/ml; p = 0.014), and patients with CXCL12 levels above the median in serum were more prone to develop ADAs (aHR = 2.329 [1.106–4.90], p = 0.026). A limitation of the study is the lack of replication; therefore, other studies are required to confirm our findings. Conclusion In our study, we found that immunosuppressants and antibiotics were associated with decreased risk of ADA development, whereas tobacco smoking and infections during the study were associated with increased risk. We found that the HLA-DQA1*05 allele was associated with an increased rate of immunogenicity. Moreover, our results suggest a relationship between CXCL12 production and ADA development independent of the disease, which is consistent with its known function in affinity maturation of antibodies and plasma cell survival. Our findings may help physicians in the management of patients receiving biotherapies., In a multicohort prospective study of patients from 12 countries, Signe Hässler and colleagues investigate clinical and genetic factors associated with development of anti-biopharmaceutical drug antibodies in patients with autoimmune diseases., Author summary Why was this study done? Biopharmaceutical products such as monoclonal antibodies are widely used to treat autoimmune diseases. Biopharmaceutical products may induce the development of antidrug antibodies, which often lead to therapy failure. Patient-related factors that influence the development of antidrug antibodies need to be characterized. What did the researchers do and find? We set up a European multicohort prospective study on 4 autoimmune diseases (multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis) treated with 8 different biopharmaceutical products. We collected demographic and clinical data and tested antidrug antibodies in longitudinal serum samples from 560 patients. For 457 patients who gave consent, we also collected genetic data. We identified antibiotics and immunosuppressants as negatively associated risk factors and heavy smoking, infections during the study, the HLA-DQA1*05 allele and a minor variant in the CXCL12 chemokine gene associated with increased protein expression as risk factors of antidrug antibody development. What do these findings mean? Our findings suggest that the combination of immunosuppressant and biopharmaceutical therapy could be associated with decreased risk of antidrug antibody occurrence, which has implications for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel diseases, for which immunosuppressants are often, but not always, given together with biopharmaceuticals. Patients heterozygotes or homozygotes for the HLA-DQA1*05 allele may have an increased risk of antidrug antibody occurrence associated with biopharmaceutical therapy. The small study size warrants a validation through independent studies, in particular for the genetic findings.

Background Loss of smell and taste are commonly reported symptoms associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in people with acute loss of smell and/or taste is unknown. The study aimed to determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a community-based population with acute loss of smell and/or taste and to compare the frequency of COVID-19 associated symptoms in participants with and without SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. It also evaluated whether smell or taste loss are indicative of COVID-19 infection. Methods and findings Text messages, sent via primary care centers in London, United Kingdom, invited people with loss of smell and/or taste in the preceding month, to participate. Recruitment took place between 23 April 2020 and 14 May 2020. A total of 590 participants enrolled via a web-based platform and responded to questions about loss of smell and taste and other COVID-19–related symptoms. Mean age was 39.4 years (SD ± 12.0) and 69.1% (n = 392) of participants were female. A total of 567 (96.1%) had a telemedicine consultation during which their COVID-19–related symptoms were verified and a lateral flow immunoassay test that detected SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies was undertaken under medical supervision. A total of 77.6% of 567 participants with acute smell and/or taste loss had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; of these, 39.8% (n = 175) had neither cough nor fever. New loss of smell was more prevalent in participants with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, compared with those without antibodies (93.4% versus 78.7%, p < 0.001), whereas taste loss was equally prevalent (90.2% versus 89.0%, p = 0.738). Seropositivity for SARS-CoV-2 was 3 times more likely in participants with smell loss (OR 2.86; 95% CI 1.27–6.36; p < 0.001) compared with those with taste loss. The limitations of this study are the lack of a general population control group, the self-reported nature of the smell and taste changes, and the fact our methodology does not take into account the possibility that a population subset may not seroconvert to develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies post-COVID-19. Conclusions Our findings suggest that recent loss of smell is a highly specific COVID-19 symptom and should be considered more generally in guiding case isolation, testing, and treatment of COVID-19. Trials registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04377815, In a UK-based cohort, Janine Makaronidis and colleagues investigate COVID-19 seropositivity in individuals with loss of smell and/or taste., Author summary Why was this study done? Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, was declared a pandemic in March 2020. COVID-19 can cause loss or reduced ability to smell (anosmia) or taste, without cough or fever, but few countries recommend self-isolation and testing on the basis of smell or taste changes alone. This study aimed to find out the proportion of people who have developed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a community-based population with a newly developed loss in their sense of smell and/or taste in London, UK. What did the researchers do and find? Text messages were sent out to people registered with a number of primary care centers in London inviting people with a new loss in their sense of smell and/or taste to participate. Recruited participants completed online questionnaires regarding demographics, their loss of smell and/or taste, and other COVID-19 symptoms, before they had a telemedicine consultation with a healthcare professional who confirmed the history of their symptoms and supervised a test to find out if they had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. A total of 78% of 567 people with smell and/or taste loss had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; of these, 40% had neither cough nor fever, and participants with loss of smell were 3 times more to have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, compared with those with loss of taste. What do these findings mean? Loss of smell is a highly specific symptom of COVID-19. COVID-19 can present with loss of smell and/or taste without cough or fever. Loss of smell should be take into consideration in case isolation, testing, and treatment strategies for COVID-19.

SCOPUS: re.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background International Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for elimination of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection set ambitious targets for 2030. In African populations, infant immunisation has been fundamental to reducing incident infections in children, but overall population prevalence of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection remains high. In high-prevalence populations, adult catch-up vaccination has sometimes been deployed, but an alternative Test and Treat (T&T) approach could be used as an intervention to interrupt transmission. Universal T&T has not been previously evaluated as a population intervention for HBV infection, despite high-profile data supporting its success with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Methods and findings We set out to investigate the relationship between prevalence of HBV infection and exposure in Africa, undertaking a systematic literature review in November 2019. We identified published seroepidemiology data representing the period 1995–2019 from PubMed and Web of Science, including studies of adults that reported prevalence of both hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg; prevalence of HBV infection) and antibody to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc; prevalence of HBV exposure). We identified 96 studies representing 39 African countries, with a median cohort size of 370 participants and a median participant age of 34 years. Using weighted linear regression analysis, we found a strong relationship between the prevalence of infection (HBsAg) and exposure (anti-HBc) (R2 = 0.45, p < 0.001). Region-specific differences were present, with estimated CHB prevalence in Northern Africa typically 30% to 40% lower (p = 0.007) than in Southern Africa for statistically similar exposure rates, demonstrating the need for intervention strategies to be tailored to individual settings. We applied a previously published mathematical model to investigate the effect of interventions in a high-prevalence setting. The most marked and sustained impact was projected with a T&T strategy, with a predicted reduction of 33% prevalence by 20 years (95% CI 30%–37%) and 62% at 50 years (95% CI 57%–68%), followed by routine neonatal vaccination and prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT; at 100% coverage). In contrast, the impact of catch-up vaccination in adults had a negligible and transient effect on population prevalence. The study is constrained by gaps in the published data, such that we could not model the impact of antiviral therapy based on stratification by specific clinical criteria and our model framework does not include explicit age-specific or risk-group assumptions regarding force of transmission. Conclusions The unique data set collected in this study highlights how regional epidemiology data for HBV can provide insights into patterns of transmission, and it provides an evidence base for future quantitative research into the most effective local interventions. In combination with robust neonatal immunisation programmes, ongoing PMTCT efforts, and the vaccination of high-risk groups, diagnosing and treating HBV infection is likely to be of most impact in driving advances towards elimination targets at a population level., Anna McNaughton and colleagues study the epidemiology of hepatitis B virus in African countries, and assess strategies to reduce disease burden., Author summary Why was this study done? Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a major global health problem, with an estimated 290 million infections worldwide; international targets set the challenge for this public health threat to be eliminated by 2030. Administering HBV vaccine to babies is a very successful way to prevent new infections, but previous studies have shown that this strategy will take many decades to bring about elimination targets. We set out to investigate other approaches that can be used in combination with the infant vaccination schedule, using data from a meta-analysis and modelling the impact of vaccinating older children and adults, or enhancing testing and treatment (T&T) of existing HBV infections. What did the researchers do and find? We undertook a review and meta-analysis of all the published data describing the frequency of HBV infection, as well as the frequency of exposure to HBV infection in African populations, working with data from 96 studies published between 1995 and 2019. Using these data, we demonstrated a significant relationship between exposure and infection (overall p < 0.001) and identified differences between geographic regions. Using an existing mathematical model, our findings suggest that vaccinating older age groups has negligible sustained effect on HBV rates in a population, but universal T&T of HBV is predicted to have a substantial impact. What do these findings mean? Our results show different patterns of HBV infection and transmission in different regions of Africa, illustrating that interventions may need to be tailored according to the specific setting. We have demonstrated that vaccination campaigns targeting older children and adults are unlikely to be an effective use of resources in most African populations, and that resources are better diverted to improving diagnosis and treatment of existing infections. The study is limited by gaps in existing data, such that many populations in Africa are poorly represented. Our conclusions are drawn from the output of a model and will need to be validated in clinical practice.

Background We performed a cross-sectional survey in April–May 2018 among Rohingya in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, to assess polio immunity and inform vaccination strategies. Methods and findings Rohingya children aged 1–6 years (younger group) and 7–14 years (older group) were selected using multi-stage cluster sampling in makeshift settlements and simple random sampling in Nayapara registered camp. Surveyors asked parents/caregivers if the child received any oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) in Myanmar and, for younger children, if the child received vaccine in any of the 5 campaigns delivering bivalent OPV (serotypes 1 and 3) conducted during September 2017–April 2018 in Cox’s Bazar. Dried blood spot (DBS) specimens were tested for neutralizing antibodies to poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3 in 580 younger and 297 older children. Titers ≥ 1:8 were considered protective. Among 632 children (335 aged 1–6 years, 297 aged 7–14 years) enrolled in the study in makeshift settlements, 51% were male and 89% had arrived after August 9, 2017. Among 245 children (all aged 1–6 years) enrolled in the study in Nayapara, 54% were male and 10% had arrived after August 9, 2017. Among younger children, 74% in makeshift settlements and 92% in Nayapara received >3 bivalent OPV doses in campaigns. Type 1 seroprevalence was 85% (95% CI 80%–89%) among younger children and 91% (95% CI 86%–95%) among older children in makeshift settlements, and 92% (88%–95%) among younger children in Nayapara. Type 2 seroprevalence was lower among younger children than older children in makeshift settlements (74% [95% CI 68%–79%] versus 97% [95% CI 94%–99%], p < 0.001), and was 69% (95% CI 63%–74%) among younger children in Nayapara. Type 3 seroprevalence was below 75% for both age groups and areas. The limitations of this study are unknown routine immunization history and poor retention of vaccination cards. Conclusions Younger Rohingya children had immunity gaps to all 3 polio serotypes and should be targeted by future campaigns and catch-up routine immunization. DBS collection can enhance the reliability of assessments of outbreak risk and vaccination strategy impact in emergency settings., Concepción Fernandez Estívariz et al report that Rohingya children aged 1-6 years have immunity gaps to all polio serotypes and should be targeted by future campaigns for catch up immunisation., Author summary Why was this study done? Between August 2017 and January 2018, almost 700,000 Rohingya people arrived in Cox’s Bazar District, Bangladesh, and settled in 2 refugee camps and in makeshift settlements around the camps. Crowding and inadequate access to safe water, sanitation, and healthcare facilitated outbreaks of infectious diseases that spread to the surrounding community. Ongoing outbreaks of measles and diphtheria in May 2018, despite several vaccination campaigns, suggested that some children remained unprotected for vaccine-preventable diseases. We conducted this survey to evaluate immunity against poliovirus and guide new vaccination activities. What did the researchers do and find? We conducted a cross-sectional survey among Rohingya children 1–14 years of age during April–May 2018 that included an interview about vaccines received in recent campaigns and collection of blood samples through finger prick to test for antibodies against poliovirus. Protection against poliovirus type 1 was lower among children aged below 7 years than in older children in the makeshift settlements, despite most children having received several doses of oral polio vaccine in campaigns. Protection against all poliovirus was lowest in children below 3 years of age. What do these findings mean? These findings suggested that children below 7 years of age recently arrived in the camp/settlements had immunity gaps after the vaccination campaigns that increased the risk of polio outbreaks. Based upon this information, we recommended to the agencies that conducted the campaigns that they include polio vaccines in future campaigns targeting only children below 5 years of age. Rapid scale-up of routine immunization services would be necessary to close immunity gaps among children below 2 years of age. Collection of dried blood specimens through finger prick for antibody testing is feasible in emergency settings, and provides crucial information for assessment of outbreak risk and impact of outbreak response strategies.

Background HVTN 100 evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of an HIV subtype C pox-protein vaccine regimen, investigating a 12-month booster to extend vaccine-induced immune responses. Methods and findings A phase 1–2 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial enrolled 252 participants (210 vaccine/42 placebo; median age 23 years; 43% female) between 9 February 2015 and 26 May 2015. Vaccine recipients received ALVAC-HIV (vCP2438) alone at months 0 and 1 and with bivalent subtype C gp120/MF59 at months 3, 6, and 12. Antibody (IgG, IgG3 binding, and neutralizing) and CD4+ T-cell (expressing interferon-gamma, interleukin-2, and CD40 ligand) responses were evaluated at month 6.5 for all participants and at months 12, 12.5, and 18 for a randomly selected subset. The primary analysis compared IgG binding antibody (bAb) responses and CD4+ T-cell responses to 3 vaccine-matched antigens at peak (month 6.5 versus 12.5) and durability (month 12 versus 18) timepoints; IgG responses to CaseA2_gp70_V1V2.B, a primary correlate of risk in RV144, were also compared at these same timepoints. Secondary and exploratory analyses compared IgG3 bAb responses, IgG bAb breadth scores, neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses, antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, CD4+ polyfunctionality responses, and CD4+ memory sub-population responses at the same timepoints. Vaccines were generally safe and well tolerated. During the study, there were 2 deaths (both in the vaccine group and both unrelated to study products). Ten participants became HIV-infected during the trial, 7% (3/42) of placebo recipients and 3% (7/210) of vaccine recipients. All 8 serious adverse events were unrelated to study products. Less waning of immune responses was seen after the fifth vaccination than after the fourth, with higher antibody and cellular response rates at month 18 than at month 12: IgG bAb response rates to 1086.C V1V2, 21.0% versus 9.7% (difference = 11.3%, 95% CI = 0.6%–22.0%, P = 0.039), and ZM96.C V1V2, 21.0% versus 6.5% (difference = 14.5%, 95% CI = 4.1%–24.9%, P = 0.004). IgG bAb response rates to all 4 primary V1V2 antigens were higher 2 weeks after the fifth vaccination than 2 weeks after the fourth vaccination: 87.7% versus 75.4% (difference = 12.3%, 95% CI = 1.7%–22.9%, P = 0.022) for 1086.C V1V2, 86.0% versus 63.2% (difference = 22.8%, 95% CI = 9.1%–36.5%, P = 0.001) for TV1c8.2.C V1V2, 67.7% versus 44.6% (difference = 23.1%, 95% CI = 10.4%–35.7%, P < 0.001) for ZM96.C V1V2, and 81.5% versus 60.0% (difference = 21.5%, 95% CI = 7.6%–35.5%, P = 0.002) for CaseA2_gp70_V1V2.B. IgG bAb response rates to the 3 primary vaccine-matched gp120 antigens were all above 90% at both peak timepoints, with no significant differences seen, except a higher response rate to ZM96.C gp120 at month 18 versus month 12: 64.5% versus 1.6% (difference = 62.9%, 95% CI = 49.3%–76.5%, P < 0.001). CD4+ T-cell response rates were higher at month 18 than month 12 for all 3 primary vaccine-matched antigens: 47.3% versus 29.1% (difference = 18.2%, 95% CI = 2.9%–33.4%, P = 0.021) for 1086.C, 61.8% versus 38.2% (difference = 23.6%, 95% CI = 9.5%–37.8%, P = 0.001) for TV1.C, and 63.6% versus 41.8% (difference = 21.8%, 95% CI = 5.1%–38.5%, P = 0.007) for ZM96.C, with no significant differences seen at the peak timepoints. Limitations were that higher doses of gp120 were not evaluated, this study was not designed to investigate HIV prevention efficacy, and the clinical significance of the observed immunological effects is uncertain. Conclusions In this study, a 12-month booster of subtype C pox-protein vaccines restored immune responses, and slowed response decay compared to the 6-month vaccination. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02404311. South African National Clinical Trials Registry (SANCTR number: DOH--27-0215-4796)., Fatima Laher and co-authors report on safety and immune responses in a randomized trial of a candidate HIV vaccine incorporating a "booster" vaccination., Author summary Why was this study done? The RV144 vaccine trial, which tested a pox-protein regimen designed against HIV subtypes B and E, showed modest efficacy in preventing HIV acquisition. However, efficacy and vaccine-induced immune responses declined considerably after the first year. Our clinical trial, HVTN 100, investigated whether adding a booster at month 12 to a similar vaccine regimen, tailored against subtype C HIV, would prolong immune responses, and also evaluated its safety. What did the researchers do and find? We gave intramuscular injections of ALVAC-HIV (vCP2438) alone at months 0 and 1 and with bivalent subtype C gp120/MF59 at months 3, 6, and 12 to 210 vaccine recipients. We administered placebo to 42 participants. We tested antibody (IgG, IgG3 binding, antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, and neutralizing) and cellular (T cells expressing interferon-gamma, interleukin-2, or CD40 ligand) immune responses at month 6.5 in all participants and at months 12, 12.5, and 18 in a randomly chosen subset. We evaluated safety for 18 months. Vaccines were generally safe and well tolerated. Antibody and cellular response rates were higher after the 12-month booster than after the 6-month vaccination. What do these findings mean? Adding a booster osf subtype C pox-protein vaccines at month 12 can improve the durability of vaccine-induced immune responses. The ongoing phase 2b–3 trial HVTN 702 was designed to evaluate the efficacy of this regimen with month 12 and month 18 boosters.

Background DNA plasmids promise a pragmatic alternative to viral vectors for prime-boost HIV-1 vaccines. We evaluated DNA plasmid versus canarypox virus (ALVAC) primes in 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in southern Africa with harmonized trial designs. HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) 111 tested DNA plasmid prime by needle or needleless injection device (Biojector) and DNA plasmid plus gp120 protein plus MF59 adjuvant boost. HVTN 100 tested ALVAC prime and ALVAC plus gp120 protein plus MF59 adjuvant boost (same protein/adjuvant as HVTN 111) by needle. Methods and findings The primary endpoints for this analysis were binding antibody (bAb) responses to HIV antigens (gp120 from strains ZM96, 1086, and TV1; variable 1 and 2 [V1V2] regions of gp120 from strains TV1, 1086, and B.CaseA, as 1086 V1V2 and B.CaseA were correlates of risk in the RV144 efficacy trial), neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses to pseudoviruses TV1c8.2 and MW925.26, and cellular responses to vaccine-matched antigens (envelope [Env] from strains ZM96, 1086, and TV1; and Gag from strains LAI and ZM96) at month 6.5, two weeks after the fourth vaccination. Per-protocol cohorts included vaccine recipients from HVTN 100 (n = 186, 60% male, median age 23 years) enrolled between February 9, 2015, and May 26, 2015 and from HVTN 111 (n = 56, 48% male, median age 24 years) enrolled between June 21, 2016, and July 13, 2017. IgG bAb response rates were 100% to 3 Env gp120 antigens in both trials. Response rates to V1V2 were lower and similar in both trials except to vaccine-matched 1086 V1V2, with rates significantly higher for the DNA-primed regimen than the ALVAC-primed regimen: 96.6% versus 72.7% (difference = 23.9%, 95% CI 15.6%–32.2%, p < 0.001). Among positive responders, bAb net mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) was significantly higher with the DNA-primed regimen than ALVAC-primed for 1086 V1V2 (geometric mean [GM] 2,833.3 versus 1,200.9; ratio = 2.36, 95% CI 1.42–3.92, p < 0.001) and B.CaseA V1V2 (GM 2314.0 versus 744.6, ratio = 3.11, 95% CI 1.51–6.38, p = 0.002). nAb response rates were >98% in both trials, with significantly higher 50% inhibitory dilution (ID50) among DNA-primed positive responders (n = 53) versus ALVAC-primed (n = 182) to tier 1A MW965.26 (GM 577.7 versus 265.7, ratio = 2.17, 95% CI 1.67–2.83, p < 0.001) and to TV1c8.2 (GM 187.3 versus 100.4, ratio = 1.87, 95% CI 1.48–2.35, p < 0.001). CD4+ T-cell response rates were significantly higher with DNA plasmid prime via Biojector than ALVAC prime (91.4% versus 52.8%, difference = 38.6%, 95% CI 20.5%–56.6%, p < 0.001 for ZM96.C; 88.0% versus 43.1%, difference = 44.9%, 95% CI 26.7%–63.1%, p < 0.001 for 1086.C; 55.5% versus 2.2%, difference = 53.3%, 95% CI 23.9%–82.7%, p < 0.001 for Gag LAI/ZM96). The study’s main limitations include the nonrandomized comparison of vaccines from 2 different trials, the lack of data on immune responses to other non–vaccine-matched antigens, and the uncertain clinical significance of the observed immunological effects. Conclusions In this study, we found that further investigation of DNA/protein regimens is warranted given enhanced immunogenicity to the V1V2 correlates of decreased HIV-1 acquisition risk identified in RV144, the only HIV vaccine trial to date to show any efficacy., Zoe Moodie and co-workers study immunological responses with DNA priming in trials of a candidate HIV vaccine., Author summary Why was this study done? HIV remains a major global health problem, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Developing an efficacious HIV vaccine for subtype C infections, which predominate in southern Africa, is a high priority. Comparing immune responses after DNA plasmid versus viral vector priming in 2 similar subtype C HIV vaccine regimens could help inform the choice of priming strategy to use moving forward. DNA plasmid vaccines are cost-effective, easy to manufacture, and tolerable. What did the researchers do and find? We compared antibody and cellular immune responses to two phase I/II HIV-1 vaccines that differed in their priming mechanism (canarypox virus [ALVAC] vector versus DNA) but were matched in their protein boost and adjuvant. Specifically, we measured T-cell and binding and neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses to the vaccine-matched antigens from the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) 100 and HVTN 111 trials. The vaccine regimens with DNA plasmid priming in general stimulated higher binding antibody (bAb) response magnitudes to the variable 1 and 2 (V1V2) correlates of decreased risk in RV144 and higher neutralizing responses to tier 1 viruses than the vaccine regimen with ALVAC priming. Both regimens stimulated high binding and neutralizing response rates, while DNA plasmid priming with MF59 adjuvanted protein boost induced significantly higher CD4+ T-cell response rates than ALVAC priming with MF59 adjuvanted protein boost. What do these findings mean? Our results suggest that DNA plasmid is a superior priming method for stimulating vaccine-matched humoral and cellular responses for HIV vaccine trials using this prime/boost approach. Additional investigations are warranted to optimize DNA plasmid delivery methods, such as electroporation for priming of DNA–protein combinations.

Thrombotic thrombocytopenia mimicking heparin-induced thrombocytopenia has been observed in patients with severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19AU :Pleasenotethat COVID ) or after immunisation with adenoviral vector-based vaccines against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Herein, we discuss the pathogenesis of the autoimmune response to platelet factor 4 (PF4) that underlies these disorders., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background Anti-human leukocyte antigen donor-specific antibodies (anti-HLA DSAs) are recognized as a major barrier to patients’ access to organ transplantation and the major cause of graft failure. The capacity of circulating anti-HLA DSAs to activate complement has been suggested as a potential biomarker for optimizing graft allocation and improving the rate of successful transplantations. Methods and findings To address the clinical relevance of complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs across all solid organ transplant patients, we performed a meta-analysis of their association with transplant outcome through a systematic review, from inception to January 31, 2018. The primary outcome was allograft loss, and the secondary outcome was allograft rejection. A comprehensive search strategy was conducted through several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus). A total of 5,861 eligible citations were identified. A total of 37 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Studies reported on 7,936 patients, including kidney (n = 5,991), liver (n = 1,459), heart (n = 370), and lung recipients (n = 116). Solid organ transplant recipients with circulating complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs experienced an increased risk of allograft loss (pooled HR 3.09; 95% CI 2.55–3.74, P = 0.001; I2 = 29.3%), and allograft rejection (pooled HR 3.75; 95% CI: 2.05–6.87, P = 0.001; I2 = 69.8%) compared to patients without complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs. The association between circulating complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs and allograft failure was consistent across all subgroups and sensitivity analyses. Limitations of the study are the observational and retrospective design of almost all included studies, the higher proportion of kidney recipients compared to other solid organ transplant recipients, and the inclusion of fewer studies investigating allograft rejection. Conclusions In this study, we found that circulating complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs had a significant deleterious impact on solid organ transplant survival and risk of rejection. The detection of complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs may add value at an individual patient level for noninvasive biomarker-guided risk stratification. Trial registration National Clinical Trial protocol ID: NCT03438058., In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Alexandre Loupy and colleagues study antibody biomarkers of solid organ transplantation outcomes., Author summary Why was this study done? Allograft rejection is a major threat to allografts, with consequences for the patients in terms of mortality and morbidity. Over the last decade, studies on solid organ transplant patients have reported that complement-activating anti-human leukocyte antigen donor-specific antibodies (anti-HLA DSAs) are highly associated with allograft rejection and failure, with varying magnitudes of effect. What did the researchers do and find? This study was designed to evaluate the clinical relevance of complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs at a population level and across the entire solid organ transplants spectrum (kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplant patients). The present meta-analysis, including 37 studies and 7,936 patients, provides evidence that circulating complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs are a major determinant of long-term allograft rejection and allograft failure. What do these findings mean? These results suggest that circulating complement-activating anti-HLA DSAs are potential noninvasive biomarkers to stratify the risk for allograft failure and rejection. Further research will be needed to investigate the possibility that the detection of these antibodies might have therapeutic significance and could provide opportunities for a pathogenesis-driven approach to prevention and/or treatment of rejection for solid organ transplant recipients.

Background Around 0.3% of newborns will develop autoimmunity to pancreatic beta cells in childhood and subsequently develop type 1 diabetes before adulthood. Primary prevention of type 1 diabetes will require early intervention in genetically at-risk infants. The objective of this study was to determine to what extent genetic scores (two previous genetic scores and a merged genetic score) can improve the prediction of type 1 diabetes. Methods and findings The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study followed genetically at-risk children at 3- to 6-monthly intervals from birth for the development of islet autoantibodies and type 1 diabetes. Infants were enrolled between 1 September 2004 and 28 February 2010 and monitored until 31 May 2016. The risk (positive predictive value) for developing multiple islet autoantibodies (pre-symptomatic type 1 diabetes) and type 1 diabetes was determined in 4,543 children who had no first-degree relatives with type 1 diabetes and either a heterozygous HLA DR3 and DR4-DQ8 risk genotype or a homozygous DR4-DQ8 genotype, and in 3,498 of these children in whom genetic scores were calculated from 41 single nucleotide polymorphisms. In the children with the HLA risk genotypes, risk for developing multiple islet autoantibodies was 5.8% (95% CI 5.0%–6.6%) by age 6 years, and risk for diabetes by age 10 years was 3.7% (95% CI 3.0%–4.4%). Risk for developing multiple islet autoantibodies was 11.0% (95% CI 8.7%–13.3%) in children with a merged genetic score of >14.4 (upper quartile; n = 907) compared to 4.1% (95% CI 3.3%–4.9%, P < 0.001) in children with a genetic score of ≤14.4 (n = 2,591). Risk for developing diabetes by age 10 years was 7.6% (95% CI 5.3%–9.9%) in children with a merged score of >14.4 compared with 2.7% (95% CI 1.9%–3.6%) in children with a score of ≤14.4 (P < 0.001). Of 173 children with multiple islet autoantibodies by age 6 years and 107 children with diabetes by age 10 years, 82 (sensitivity, 47.4%; 95% CI 40.1%–54.8%) and 52 (sensitivity, 48.6%, 95% CI 39.3%–60.0%), respectively, had a score >14.4. Scores were higher in European versus US children (P = 0.003). In children with a merged score of >14.4, risk for multiple islet autoantibodies was similar and consistently >10% in Europe and in the US; risk was greater in males than in females (P = 0.01). Limitations of the study include that the genetic scores were originally developed from case–control studies of clinical diabetes in individuals of mainly European decent. It is, therefore, possible that it may not be suitable to all populations. Conclusions A type 1 diabetes genetic score identified infants without family history of type 1 diabetes who had a greater than 10% risk for pre-symptomatic type 1 diabetes, and a nearly 2-fold higher risk than children identified by high-risk HLA genotypes alone. This finding extends the possibilities for enrolling children into type 1 diabetes primary prevention trials., Anette-Gabriele Ziegler and colleagues report their novel genetic risk score for identifying infants with a high risk of developing type 1 diabetes., Author summary Why was this study done? Prevention of childhood diseases such as type 1 diabetes is of medical importance. Prevention of type 1 diabetes might be best achieved by intervention prior to the development of islet autoantibodies, which define a pre-symptomatic disease stage. Early intervention requires tools such as measures of genetic risk that identify future cases. Risk for type 1 diabetes in the absence of a family history is currently identified by HLA genotyping, with maximum identified risk reaching around 5%. Genetic scores derived from multiple risk loci may improve risk stratification for pre-symptomatic type 1 diabetes. What did the researchers do and find? Two previously proposed genetic scores for type 1 diabetes risk were calculated for over 3,000 children without a family history of type 1 diabetes but with 1 of the 2 highest-risk HLA genotypes (heterozygous DR3 and DR4-DQ8 or homozygous DR4-DQ8) participating in the TEDDY cohort study, which prospectively follows children from birth for the development of islet autoantibodies and diabetes. We found that both of the genetic scores, and a merged genetic score that combined the features of both, stratified the risk for islet autoantibodies and diabetes in the children. The upper quartile of the merged genetic score was associated with a >10% risk for the pre-symptomatic stage of multiple islet autoantibodies, and almost half the children who developed pre-symptomatic or symptomatic diabetes were identified by this score. What do these findings mean? Combining genetic information from multiple risk loci can improve the prediction of diseases such as type 1 diabetes. A genetic risk score model is proposed that could be used to recruit infants into early type 1 diabetes primary prevention trials. The model provides a new paradigm for genetic screening and selection of at-risk infants that, together with family history and HLA genotyping, could identify up to 25% of future childhood cases of type 1 diabetes from less than 1% of newborns.

Background VRC01 is a human broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibody (bnMAb) against the CD4-binding site of the HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein (Env) that is currently being evaluated in a Phase IIb adult HIV-1 prevention efficacy trial. VRC01LS is a modified version of VRC01, designed for extended serum half-life by increased binding affinity to the neonatal Fc receptor. Methods and findings This Phase I dose-escalation study of VRC01LS in HIV-negative healthy adults was conducted by the Vaccine Research Center (VRC) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center (Bethesda, MD). The age range of the study volunteers was 21–50 years; 51% of study volunteers were male and 49% were female. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability of VRC01LS intravenous (IV) infusions at 5, 20, and 40 mg/kg infused once, 20 mg/kg given three times at 12-week intervals, and subcutaneous (SC) delivery at 5 mg/kg delivered once, or three times at 12-week intervals. Secondary objectives were pharmacokinetics (PK), serum neutralization activity, and development of antidrug antibodies. Enrollment began on November 16, 2015, and concluded on August 23, 2017. This report describes the safety data for the first 37 volunteers who received administrations of VRC01LS. There were no serious adverse events (SAEs) or dose-limiting toxicities. Mild malaise and myalgia were the most common adverse events (AEs). There were six AEs assessed as possibly related to VRC01LS administration, and all were mild in severity and resolved during the study. PK data were modeled based on the first dose of VRC01LS in the first 25 volunteers to complete their schedule of evaluations. The mean (±SD) serum concentration 12 weeks after one IV administration of 20 mg/kg or 40 mg/kg were 180 ± 43 μg/mL (n = 7) and 326 ± 35 μg/mL (n = 5), respectively. The mean (±SD) serum concentration 12 weeks after one IV and SC administration of 5 mg/kg were 40 ± 3 μg/mL (n = 2) and 25 ± 5 μg/mL (n = 9), respectively. Over the 5–40 mg/kg IV dose range (n = 16), the clearance was 36 ± 8 mL/d with an elimination half-life of 71 ± 18 days. VRC01LS retained its expected neutralizing activity in serum, and anti-VRC01 antibody responses were not detected. Potential limitations of this study include the small sample size typical of Phase I trials and the need to further describe the PK properties of VRC01LS administered on multiple occasions. Conclusions The human bnMAb VRC01LS was safe and well tolerated when delivered intravenously or subcutaneously. The half-life was more than 4-fold greater when compared to wild-type VRC01 historical data. The reduced clearance and extended half-life may make it possible to achieve therapeutic levels with less frequent and lower-dose administrations. This would potentially lower the costs of manufacturing and improve the practicality of using passively administered monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for the prevention of HIV-1 infection. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02599896, John Mascola and colleagues study the safety and pharmacokinetics of VRC01LS, a broadly neutralizing anti-HIV-1 antibody designed to have an extended half-life in serum, in healthy people., Author summary Why was this study done? New HIV-1 infections continue to occur despite improvements in traditional prevention strategies. Novel interventions to prevent acquisition of HIV-1 infection may help to turn the tide of the global pandemic. Human monoclonal antibodies capable of neutralizing many strains of HIV-1 have been discovered. These antibodies, referred to as broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs), can be produced as biologic medications and their ability to protect people from HIV-1 infection is being investigated. This study evaluated a new form of an HIV-1 antibody with the potential to remain in the blood for a longer period of time than traditional antibodies. If the antibodies stay in the blood longer, then people may be protected for longer periods of time and require less frequent dosing. What did the researchers do and find? We modified a promising antibody called VRC01 so that it stays in the blood for a longer period of time. The modified antibody, VRC01LS, works by taking advantage of how the body recycles its own antibodies, so that the body prevents VRC01LS from being broken down. We gave VRC01LS to healthy adults for the first time, to see how safe it was and to understand how long it stays in the body compared to unmodified VRC01. In this study, VRC01LS was found to be safe. There were no serious health consequences for participants, although some people were bothered by mild muscle aches and feeling tired. Compared to historical data for VRC01, VRC01LS stays in the blood more than four times longer than VRC01. The VRC01LS in people’s blood retained the ability to neutralize the HIV-1 virus, as it has been shown to do in the laboratory. What do these findings mean? Our findings mean that the modifications made to VRC01 to produce VRC01LS may be useful when incorporated into other, similar antibodies that are being developed in the hope of producing medications to prevent HIV-1 infection. Our findings also mean that fewer doses of these HIV-1 antibodies may be required for protection, thus reducing product cost.

Background VRC01 is an HIV-1 CD4 binding site broadly neutralizing antibody (bnAb) that is active against a broad range of HIV-1 primary isolates in vitro and protects against simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV) when delivered parenterally to nonhuman primates. It has been shown to be safe and well tolerated after short-term administration in humans; however, its clinical and functional activity after longer-term administration has not been previously assessed. Methods and findings HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) 104 was designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple doses of VRC01 administered either subcutaneously or by intravenous (IV) infusion and to assess the pharmacokinetics and in vitro immunologic activity of the different dosing regimens. Additionally, this study aimed to assess the effect that the human body has on the functional activities of VRC01 as measured by several in vitro assays. Eighty-eight healthy, HIV-uninfected, low-risk participants were enrolled in 6 United States clinical research sites affiliated with the HVTN between September 9, 2014, and July 15, 2015. The median age of enrollees was 27 years (range, 18–50); 52% were White (non-Hispanic), 25% identified as Black (non-Hispanic), 11% were Hispanic, and 11% were non-Hispanic people of diverse origins. Participants were randomized to receive the following: a 40 mg/kg IV VRC01 loading dose followed by five 20 mg/kg IV VRC01 doses every 4 weeks (treatment group 1 [T1], n = 20); eleven 5 mg/kg subcutaneous (SC) VRC01 (treatment group 3 [T3], n = 20); placebo (placebo group 3 [P3], n = 4) doses every 2 weeks; or three 40 mg/kg IV VRC01 doses every 8 weeks (treatment group 2 [T2], n = 20). Treatment groups T4 and T5 (n = 12 each) received three 10 or 30 mg/kg IV VRC01 doses every 8 weeks, respectively. Participants were followed for 32 weeks after their first VRC01 administration and received a total of 249 IV infusions and 208 SC injections, with no serious adverse events, dose-limiting toxicities, nor evidence for anti-VRC01 antibodies observed. Serum VRC01 levels were detected through 12 weeks after final administration in all participants who received all scheduled doses. Mean peak serum VRC01 levels of 1,177 μg/ml (95% CI: 1,033, 1,340) and 420 μg/ml (95% CI: 356, 494) were achieved 1 hour after the IV infusion series of 30 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg doses, respectively. Mean trough levels at week 24 in the IV infusion series of 30 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg doses, respectively, were 16 μg/ml (95% CI: 10, 27) and 6 μg/ml (95% CI: 5, 9) levels, which neutralize a majority of circulating strains in vitro (50% inhibitory concentration [IC50] > 5 μg/ml). Post-infusion/injection serum VRC01 retained expected functional activity (virus neutralization, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, phagocytosis, and virion capture). The limitations of this study include the relatively small sample size of each VRC01 administration regimen and missing data from participants who were unable to complete all study visits. Conclusions VRC01 administered as either an IV infusion (10–40 mg/kg) given monthly or bimonthly, or as an SC injection (5 mg/kg) every 2 weeks, was found to be safe and well tolerated. In addition to maintaining drug concentrations consistent with neutralization of the majority of tested HIV strains, VRC01 concentrations from participants’ sera were found to avidly capture HIV virions and to mediate antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, suggesting a range of anti-HIV immunological activities, warranting further clinical trials. Trial registration Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02165267, In a phase 1 trial, Kenneth Mayer and colleagues investigate the safety and tolerability of VRC01, a broadly neutralizing anti-HIV antibody., Author summary Why was this study done? Despite improvements in HIV treatment and prevention, there were close to 2 million new infections worldwide in 2016. There remains hope that the right preventive tool or combination of tools will eliminate new HIV infections. Immunotherapy and vaccines have been responsible for eliminating several major viral diseases, such as smallpox, and potentially very powerful HIV preventive tools are under development. Researchers have discovered that some antibodies can effectively neutralize many strains of HIV and protect nonhuman animals from getting infected; these are called broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs). This study was designed to evaluate the safety, pharmacological profile, and immune functions of one such antibody administered either subcutaneously or intravenously as a foundation for future efficacy trials of this and other HIV-1 bnAbs. What did the research do and find? VRC01, an anti-HIV antibody, is safe and well tolerated when administered multiple times either subcutaneously or intravenously. The drug levels achieved with the different dosing regimens produced antibody levels that lasted many weeks at concentrations that could inhibit HIV when tested in vitro. The antibody in serum after administration showed evidence of a number of immune functions that are known to inhibit HIV transmission and replication. What do these findings mean? The safety and tolerability of VRC01, administered multiple times either subcutaneously or intravenously, support moving forward with larger trials. The concentrations achieved when dosed at 10 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg every 8 weeks produced drug levels that are predicted to protect against the acquisition of HIV infection. These data helped inform the development of 2 large efficacy trials of VRC01 in high-risk people in the US, South America, and southern Africa that will establish whether intravenous administration is protective against HIV transmission (www.ampstudy.org, ampstudy.org.za). Importantly, this work establishes the framework for subsequent analyses of effective levels of VRC01 or other bnAbs as well as the neutralization titers necessary to prevent HIV, which future HIV vaccines must aim to induce.

Background Low circulating vitamin D levels have been associated with risk of asthma, atopic dermatitis, and elevated total immunoglobulin E (IgE). These epidemiological associations, if true, would have public health importance, since vitamin D insufficiency is common and correctable. Methods and findings We aimed to test whether genetically lowered vitamin D levels were associated with risk of asthma, atopic dermatitis, or elevated serum IgE levels, using Mendelian randomization (MR) methodology to control bias owing to confounding and reverse causation. The study employed data from the UK Biobank resource and from the SUNLIGHT, GABRIEL and EAGLE eczema consortia. Using four single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) strongly associated with 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels in 33,996 individuals, we conducted MR studies to estimate the effect of lowered 25OHD on the risk of asthma (n = 146,761), childhood onset asthma (n = 15,008), atopic dermatitis (n = 40,835), and elevated IgE level (n = 12,853) and tested MR assumptions in sensitivity analyses. None of the four 25OHD-lowering alleles were associated with asthma, atopic dermatitis, or elevated IgE levels (p ≥ 0.2). The MR odds ratio per standard deviation decrease in log-transformed 25OHD was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90–1.19, p = 0.63) for asthma, 0.95 (95% CI 0.69–1.31, p = 0.76) for childhood-onset asthma, and 1.12 (95% CI 0.92–1.37, p = 0.27) for atopic dermatitis, and the effect size on log-transformed IgE levels was −0.40 (95% CI −1.65 to 0.85, p = 0.54). These results persisted in sensitivity analyses assessing population stratification and pleiotropy and vitamin D synthesis and metabolism pathways. The main limitations of this study are that the findings do not exclude an association between the studied outcomes and 1,25-dihydoxyvitamin D, the active form of vitamin D, the study was underpowered to detect effects smaller than an OR of 1.33 for childhood asthma, and the analyses were restricted to white populations of European ancestry. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource and data from the SUNLIGHT, GABRIEL and EAGLE Eczema consortia. Conclusions In this study, we found no evidence that genetically determined reduction in 25OHD levels conferred an increased risk of asthma, atopic dermatitis, or elevated total serum IgE, suggesting that efforts to increase vitamin D are unlikely to reduce risks of atopic disease., In a Mendelian randomization analysis, J. Brent Richards and colleagues investigate possible relations between genetic elements associated with vitamin D levels and atopic susceptibility., Author summary Why was this study done? Observational epidemiological studies have reported associations of low vitamin D levels with risk of asthma, atopic dermatitis, and elevated immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels. However, these studies are susceptible to confounding and reverse causation, and thus it remains unclear whether these associations are genuine. The randomized controlled trials published to date on this topic have been inconclusive. If vitamin D insufficiency did cause atopic diseases, this would be of clinical relevance, since vitamin D insufficiency is common and safely correctable. What did the researchers do and find? We applied a Mendelian randomization study design, which greatly limits bias due to confounding and prevents bias due to reverse causation, to understand if vitamin D levels are associated with a higher risk of adult and pediatric asthma, atopic dermatitis, or elevated IgE levels. Despite high statistical power, our study showed no evidence of an unconfounded association between vitamin D and the studied outcomes. What do these findings mean? Our findings suggest that the previous epidemiological associations between vitamin D and atopic diseases could be due to confounding. Efforts to increase vitamin D levels will probably not result in decreased risk of adult and pediatric asthma, atopic dermatitis, or elevated IgE levels.

Background Healthcare and other front-line workers are at particular risk of infection with Ebola virus (EBOV). Despite the large-scale deployment of international responders, few cases of Ebola virus disease have been diagnosed in this group. Since asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic infection has been described, it is plausible that infections have occurred in healthcare workers but have escaped being diagnosed. We aimed to assess the prevalence of asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic infection, and of exposure events, among returned responders to the West African Ebola epidemic 2014–2016. Methods and findings We used snowball sampling to identify responders who had returned to the UK or Ireland, and used an online consent and questionnaire to determine their exposure to EBOV and their experience of illness. Oral fluid collection devices were sent and returned by post, and samples were tested using an EBOV IgG capture assay that detects IgG to Ebola glycoprotein. Blood was collected from returnees with reactive samples for further testing. Unexposed UK controls were also recruited. In all, 300 individuals consented, of whom 268 (89.3%) returned an oral fluid sample (OFS). The majority had worked in Sierra Leone in clinical, laboratory, research, and other roles. Fifty-three UK controls consented and provided samples using the same method. Of the returnees, 47 (17.5%) reported that they had had a possible EBOV exposure. Based on their free-text descriptions, using a published risk assessment method, we classified 43 (16%) as having had incidents with risk of Ebola transmission, including five intermediate-risk and one high-risk exposure. Of the returnees, 57 (21%) reported a febrile or diarrhoeal illness in West Africa or within 1 mo of return, of whom 40 (70%) were not tested at the time for EBOV infection. Of the 268 OFSs, 266 were unreactive. Two returnees, who did not experience an illness in West Africa or on return, had OFSs that were reactive on the EBOV IgG capture assay, with similar results on plasma. One individual had no further positive test results; the other had a positive result on a double-antigen bridging assay but not on a competitive assay or on an indirect EBOV IgG ELISA. All 53 controls had non-reactive OFSs. While the participants were not a random sample of returnees, the number participating was high. Conclusions This is the first study, to our knowledge, of the prevalence of EBOV infection in international responders. More than 99% had clear negative results. Sera from two individuals had discordant results on the different assays; both were negative on the competitive assay, suggesting that prior infection was unlikely. The finding that a significant proportion experienced “near miss” exposure events, and that most of those who experienced symptoms did not get tested for EBOV at the time, suggests a need to review and standardise protocols for the management of possible exposure to EBOV, and for the management of illness, across organisations that deploy staff to outbreaks., In a cross-sectional study, Catherine Frances Houlihan and colleagues surveyed international responders to the West African Ebola crisis, after they returned to the UK or Ireland, to analyze their experience of risk., Author summary Why was this study done? A large number of international volunteers worked in West Africa during the largest Ebola outbreak ever seen, but only a small number of international staff were diagnosed with Ebola virus disease. Since asymptomatic or unrecognised infections can occur, it is possible that some infections in international responders to the epidemic were missed. What did the researchers do and find? We carried out an online survey and antibody testing of oral fluid samples from 268 individuals who returned to the UK and Ireland after working in West Africa during the Ebola outbreak. A high number of near miss events were reported, and less than a third of individuals who experienced illness whilst in West Africa or soon after return were tested for Ebola virus while they were unwell. Of the 268 who were tested for antibodies, two had reactive test results, but these were not reactive on further testing. What do these findings mean? Although our study could not reach every individual who returned to the UK after working in West Africa during the Ebola outbreak, we demonstrated that asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic Ebola virus infection was rare in international healthcare and other workers in our study who responded to the epidemic in West Africa. The descriptions of near miss events and the finding that many of those who experienced illness were not tested at the time suggest that protocols for the management of possible exposure to Ebola virus and for the management of illness should be reviewed and standardised across organisations that deploy staff to outbreaks.

Background Based on different genetic and environmental risk factors and histology, it has been proposed that rheumatoid arthritis (RA) consists of 2 types: autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA. However, until now, this remained hypothetical. To assess this hypothesis, we studied whether the long-term outcomes differed for these 2 groups of RA patients. Methods and findings In the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic cohort, 1,285 consecutive RA patients were included between 1993 and 2016 and followed yearly. Treatment protocols in routine care improved over time, irrespective of autoantibody status, and 5 inclusion periods were used as instrumental variables: 1993–1996, delayed mild disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) initiation (reference period); 1997–2000, early mild DMARDs; 2001–2005, early methotrexate; 2006–2010, early methotrexate followed by treat-to-target adjustments; 2011–2016, similar to 2006–2010 plus additional efforts for very early referral. Three long-term outcomes were studied: sustained DMARD-free remission (SDFR) (persistent absence of clinical synovitis after DMARD cessation), mortality, and functional disability measured by yearly Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Treatment response in the short term (disease activity) was measured by Disease Activity Score–28 with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). Linear mixed models and Cox regression were used, stratified for autoantibody positivity, defined as IgG anti-CCP2 and/or IgM rheumatoid factor positivity. In total, 823 patients had autoantibody-positive RA (mean age 55 years, 67% female); 462 patients had autoantibody-negative RA (age 60 years, 64% female). Age, gender, and percentage of autoantibody-positive patients were stable throughout the inclusion periods. Disease activity significantly decreased over time within both groups. SDFR rates increased after introduction of treat-to-target (hazard ratio [HR] 2006–2010 relative to 1993–1996: 3.35 [95% CI 1.46 to 7.72; p = 0.004]; HR 2011–2016: 4.57 [95% CI 1.80 to 11.6; p = 0.001]) in autoantibody-positive RA, but not in autoantibody-negative RA. In autoantibody-positive RA, mortality decreased significantly after the introduction of treat-to-target treatment adjustments (HR 2006–2010: 0.56 [95% CI 0.34 to 0.92; p = 0.023]; HR 2011–2016: 0.33 [95% CI 0.14 to 0.77; p = 0.010]), but not in autoantibody-negative RA (HR 2006–2010: 0.79 [95% CI 0.40 to 1.56; p = 0.50]; HR 2011–2016: 0.36 [95% CI 0.10 to 1.34; p = 0.13]). Similarly, functional disability improved in autoantibody-positive RA for the periods after 2000 relative to 1993–1996 (range −0.16 [95% CI −0.29 to −0.03; p = 0.043] to −0.32 [95% CI −0.44 to −0.20; p < 0.001] units of improvement), but not in autoantibody-negative RA (range 0.10 [95% CI −0.12 to 0.31; p = 0.38] to −0.13 [95% CI −0.34 to 0.07; p = 0.20] units of improvement). Limitations to note were that treatment was not randomized—but it was protocolized and instrumental variable analysis was used to obtain comparable groups—and that a limited spread of ethnicities was included. Conclusions Although disease activity has improved in both autoantibody-positive and autoantibody-negative RA in recent decades, the response in long-term outcomes differed. We propose that it is time to subdivide RA into autoantibody-positive RA (type 1) and autoantibody-negative RA (type 2), in the hope that this leads to stratified treatment in RA., In a longitudinal cohort study, Xanthe Matthijssen and colleagues investigate differences between autoantibody-positive and -negative RA., Author summary Why was this study done? Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have different risk factors and histology (microscopic anatomy) depending on the presence or absence of autoantibodies (anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and rheumatoid factor). Because it is suspected that RA with and without autoantibodies are 2 distinct diseases with different pathophysiology, we hypothesized that these 2 types of RA will have reacted differently to improvements in treatment strategies that have taken place over the last decades. What did the researchers do and find? Since its start in 1993, the inclusion criteria of the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic cohort have not changed, and included RA patients have remained similar, apart from earlier diagnosis; therefore, RA patients from different years were comparable. Treatment protocols enhanced over time, but were similar for patients with and without autoantibodies. We studied the changes in disease activity and 3 long-term outcomes of RA patients with and without autoantibodies over time (inclusion period was a proxy for treatment strategy). We found that while disease activity improved in both patient groups, the long-term outcomes (the possibility to permanently stop medication, mortality, and functional disability) only improved in RA patients with autoantibodies. What do these findings mean? The disconnection between improvement in disease activity and subsequent improvement in long-term outcomes in RA without autoantibodies suggests that the underlying pathogenesis of RA with and without autoantibodies is different. We propose that it is time to formally subdivide RA into type 1 (with autoantibodies) and type 2 (without autoantibodies).