Search

The continual emergence of novel influenza A strains from non-human hosts requires constant vigilance and the need for ongoing research to identify strains that may pose a human public health risk. Since 1999, canine H3 influenza A viruses (CIVs) have caused many thousands or millions of respiratory infections in dogs in the United States. While no human infections with CIVs have been reported to date, these viruses could pose a zoonotic risk. In these studies, the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance (CEIRS) network collaboratively demonstrated that CIVs replicated in some primary human cells and transmitted effectively in mammalian models. While people born after 1970 had little or no pre-existing humoral immunity against CIVs, the viruses were sensitive to existing antivirals and we identified a panel of H3 cross-reactive human monoclonal antibodies (hmAbs) that could have prophylactic and/or therapeutic value. Our data predict these CIVs posed a low risk to humans. Importantly, we showed that the CEIRS network could work together to provide basic research information important for characterizing emerging influenza viruses, although there were valuable lessons learned.

Annual immunization against influenza virus is a large international public health effort. Accumulating evidence suggests that antibody mediated cross-reactive immunity against influenza hemagglutinin (HA) strongly correlates with long-lasting cross-protection against influenza virus strains that differ from the primary infection or vaccination strain. However, the optimal strategies for achieving highly cross-reactive antibodies to the influenza virus HA have not yet to be defined. In the current study, using Luminex-based mPlex-Flu assay, developed by our laboratory, to quantitatively measure influenza specific IgG antibody mediated cross-reactivity, we found that prime-boost-boost vaccination of ferrets with rHA proteins admixed with adjuvant elicited higher magnitude and broader cross-reactive antibody responses than that induced by actual influenza viral infection, and this cross-reactive response likely correlated with increased anti-stalk reactive antibodies. We observed a similar phenomenon in mice receiving three sequential vaccinations with rHA proteins from either A/California/07/2009 (H1N1) or A/Hong Kong/1/1968 (H3N2) viruses admixed with Addavax, an MF59-like adjuvant. Using this same mouse vaccination model, we determined that Addavax plays a more significant role in the initial priming event than in subsequent boosts. We also characterized the generation of cross-reactive antibody secreting cells (ASCs) and memory B cells (MBCs) when comparing vaccination to viral infection. We have also found that adjuvant plays a critical role in the generation of long-lived ASCs and MBCs cross-reactive to influenza viruses as a result of vaccination with rHA of influenza virus, and the observed increase in stalk-reactive antibodies likely contributes to this IgG mediated broad cross-reactivity.

Human CD4 T cell recall responses to influenza virus are strongly biased towards Type 1 cytokines, producing IFNγ, IL-2 and TNFα. We have now examined the effector phenotypes of CD4 T cells in more detail, particularly focusing on differences between recent versus long-term, multiply-boosted responses. Peptides spanning the proteome of temporally distinct influenza viruses were distributed into pools enriched for cross-reactivity to different influenza strains, and used to stimulate antigen-specific CD4 T cells representing recent or long-term memory. In the general population, peptides unique to the long-circulating influenza A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1) induced Th1-like responses biased toward the expression of IFNγ(+)TNFα(+) CD4 T cells. In contrast, peptide pools enriched for non-cross-reactive peptides of the pandemic influenza A/California/04/09 (H1N1) induced more IFNγ(-)IL-2(+)TNFα(+) T cells, similar to the IFNγ(-)IL-2(+) non-polarized, primed precursor T cells (Thpp) that are a predominant response to protein vaccination. These results were confirmed in a second study that compared samples taken before the 2009 pandemic to samples taken one month after PCR-confirmed A/California/04/09 infection. There were striking increases in influenza-specific TNFα(+), IFNγ(+), and IL-2(+) cells in the post-infection samples. Importantly, peptides enriched for non-cross-reactive A/California/04/09 specificities induced a higher proportion of Thpp-like IFNγ(-)IL-2(+)TNFα(+) CD4 T cells than peptide pools cross-reactive with previous influenza strains, which induced more Th1 (IFNγ(+)TNFα(+)) responses. These IFNγ(-)IL-2(+)TNFα(+) CD4 T cells may be an important target population for vaccination regimens, as these cells are induced upon infection, may have high proliferative potential, and may play a role in providing future effector cells during subsequent infections.

We estimated the effectiveness of four monovalent pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccines (three unadjuvanted inactivated, one live attenuated) available in the U.S. during the pandemic. Patients with acute respiratory illness presenting to inpatient and outpatient facilities affiliated with four collaborating institutions were prospectively recruited, consented, and tested for influenza. Analyses were restricted to October 2009 through April 2010, when pandemic vaccine was available. Patients testing positive for pandemic influenza by real-time RT-PCR were cases; those testing negative were controls. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated in logistic regression models adjusted for study community, patient age, timing of illness, insurance status, enrollment site, and presence of high-risk medical conditions. Pandemic virus was detected in 1,011 (15%) of 6,757 enrolled patients. Fifteen (1%) of 1,011 influenza positive cases and 1,042 (18%) of 5,746 test-negative controls had record-verified pandemic vaccination >14 days prior to illness onset. Adjusted effectiveness (95% confidence interval) for pandemic vaccines combined was 56% (23%, 75%). Adjusted effectiveness for inactivated vaccines alone (79% of total) was 62% (25%, 81%) overall and 32% (-92%, 76%), 89% (15%, 99%), and -6% (-231%, 66%) in those aged 0.5 to 9, 10 to 49, and 50+ years, respectively. Effectiveness for the live attenuated vaccine in those aged 2 to 49 years was only demonstrated if vaccination >7 rather than >14 days prior to illness onset was considered (61%∶ 12%, 82%). Inactivated non-adjuvanted pandemic vaccines offered significant protection against confirmed pandemic influenza-associated medical care visits in young adults.

Long distance migrations by ungulate species often surpass the boundaries of preservation areas where conflicts with various publics lead to management actions that can threaten populations. We chose the partially migratory bison (Bison bison) population in Yellowstone National Park as an example of integrating science into management policies to better conserve migratory ungulates. Approximately 60% of these bison have been exposed to bovine brucellosis and thousands of migrants exiting the park boundary have been culled during the past two decades to reduce the risk of disease transmission to cattle. Data were assimilated using models representing competing hypotheses of bison migration during 1990-2009 in a hierarchal bayesian framework. Migration differed at the scale of herds, but a single unifying logistic model was useful for predicting migrations by both herds. Migration beyond the northern park boundary was affected by herd size, accumulated snow water equivalent, and aboveground dried biomass. Migration beyond the western park boundary was less influenced by these predictors and process model performance suggested an important control on recent migrations was excluded. Simulations of migrations over the next decade suggest that allowing increased numbers of bison beyond park boundaries during severe climate conditions may be the only means of avoiding episodic, large-scale reductions to the Yellowstone bison population in the foreseeable future. This research is an example of how long distance migration dynamics can be incorporated into improved management policies.

BACKGROUND: A pandemic H5N1 influenza outbreak would be facilitated by an absence of immunity to the avian-derived virus in the human population. Although this condition is likely in regard to hemagglutinin-mediated immunity, the neuraminidase (NA) of H5N1 viruses (avN1) and of endemic human H1N1 viruses (huN1) are classified in the same serotype. We hypothesized that an immune response to huN1 could mediate cross-protection against H5N1 influenza virus infection. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mice were immunized against the NA of a contemporary human H1N1 strain by DNA vaccination. They were challenged with recombinant A/Puerto Rico/8/34 (PR8) viruses bearing huN1 (PR8-huN1) or avN1 (PR8-avN1) or with H5N1 virus A/Vietnam/1203/04. Additional naïve mice were injected with sera from vaccinated mice prior to H5N1 challenge. Also, serum specimens from humans were analyzed for reactivity with avN1. Immunization elicited a serum IgG response to huN1 and robust protection against the homologous challenge virus. Immunized mice were partially protected from lethal challenge with H5N1 virus or recombinant PR8-avN1. Sera transferred from immunized mice to naïve animals conferred similar protection against H5N1 mortality. Analysis of human sera showed that antibodies able to inhibit the sialidase activity of avN1 exist in some individuals. CONCLUSIONS: These data reveal that humoral immunity elicited by huN1 can partially protect against H5N1 infection in a mammalian host. Our results suggest that a portion of the human population could have some degree of resistance to H5N1 influenza, with the possibility that this could be induced or enhanced through immunization with seasonal influenza vaccines.

Abstract Bats in North America are currently experiencing dramatic population declines due to the disease white‐nose syndrome. The long‐term viability of vulnerable species requires recognition of critical habitats, including those also occupied by humans. Our study aimed to quantify the importance of buildings to little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) in Yellowstone National Park, a high‐elevation landscape with relatively few human structures and abundant alternative roosting habitat. We measured roost preferences and thermoregulation in adult male and female bats roosting in buildings, trees, and rocks using temperature‐sensitive radio‐transmitters. We also studied microclimates within each roost type for comparison to roost preferences. We found reproductive females roosting in building attics on 84% of all possible days, while males roosted exclusively in rock crevices or in trees. This dichotomous roosting pattern reflected differences in roost microclimates. All roost types buffered bats from daily minimum ambient temperatures; however, buildings were more insulated from low ambient temperatures during the middle of the maternity season. Male bats roosting in rocks and trees predominantly thermoconformed to roost temperatures, while females roosting in buildings sustained higher body temperatures than males throughout the day. Pregnant and lactating females also used torpor frequently, with skin temperatures reaching

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health.

ABSTRACT Prime-boost vaccinations of humans with different H5 strains have generated broadly protective antibody levels. However, the effect of an individual’s H5 exposure history on antibody responses to subsequent H5 vaccination is poorly understood. To investigate this, we analyzed the IgG responses to H5 influenza A/Indonesia/5/2005 (Ind05) virus vaccination in three cohorts: (i) a doubly primed group that had received two H5 virus vaccinations, namely, against influenza A/Vietnam/203/2004 (Vie04) virus 5 years prior and A/Hong Kong/156/1997 (HK97) 11 years prior to the Ind05 vaccination; (ii) a singly primed group that had received a vaccination against Vie04 virus 5 years prior to the Ind05 vaccination; and (iii) an H5-naive group that received two doses of the Ind05 vaccine 28 days apart. Hemagglutinin (HA)-reactive IgG levels were estimated by a multiplex assay against an HA panel that included 21 H5 strains and 9 other strains representing the H1, H3, H7, and H9 subtypes. Relative HA antibody landscapes were generated to quantitatively analyze the magnitude and breadth of antibody binding after vaccination. We found that short-interval priming and boosting with the Ind05 vaccine in the naive group generated a low anti-H5 response. Both primed groups generated robust antibody responses reactive to a broad range of H5 strains after receiving a booster injection of Ind05 vaccine; IgG antibody levels persisted longer in subjects who had been doubly primed years ago. Notably, the IgG responses were strongest against the first priming H5 strain, which reflects influenza virus immune imprinting. Finally, the broad anti-H5 IgG response was stronger against strains having a small antigenic distance from the initial priming strain. IMPORTANCE The antigenic shift and draft of hemagglutinin (HA) in influenza viruses is accepted as one of the major reasons for immune evasion. The analysis of B cell immune responses to influenza infection and vaccination is complicated by the impact of exposure history and antibody cross-reactions between antigenically similar influenza strains. To assist in such analyses, the influenza “antibody landscape” method has been used to analyze and visualize the relationship of antibody-mediated immunity to antigenic distances between influenza strains. In this study, we describe a “relative antibody landscape” method that calculates the antigenic distance between the vaccine influenza strain and other H5 strains and uses this relative antigenic distance to plot the anti-H5 IgG levels postvaccination. This new method quantitatively estimates and visualizes the correlation between the humoral response to a particular influenza strain and the antigenic distance from other strains. Our findings demonstrate the effect of a subject’s H5 exposure history on H5 vaccine responses quantified by the relative antibody landscape method.

Influenza A Viruses (IAV) in domestic swine (IAV-S) are associated with sporadic zoonotic transmission at the human–animal interface. Previous pandemic IAVs originated from animals, which emphasizes the importance of characterizing human immunity against the increasingly diverse IAV-S. We analyzed serum samples from healthy human donors (n = 153) using hemagglutination-inhibition (HAI) assay to assess existing serologic protection against a panel of contemporary IAV-S isolated from swine in the United States (n = 11). Age-specific seroprotection rates (SPR), which are the proportion of individuals with HAI ≥ 1:40, corresponded with lower or moderate pandemic risk classifications for the multiple IAV-S examined (one H1-δ1, one H1-δ2, three H3-IVA, one H3-IVB, one H3-IVF). Individuals born between 2004 and 2013 had SPRs of 0% for the five classified H3 subtype IAV-S, indicating youth may be particularly predisposed to infection with these viruses. Expansion of existing immunologic gaps over time could increase likelihood of future IAV-S spillover to humans and facilitate subsequent sustained human-to-human transmission resulting in disease outbreaks with pandemic potential.

The role of wild elk in the spread and persistence of bovine brucellosis in the Great Yellowstone area is unclear. Here, Kamath et al. analyse the genomic sequences of 245 Brucella abortusisolates from elk, bison and cattle, supporting the idea that elk is an important reservoir and source of livestock infections.

Background: Protection afforded by inactivated influenza vaccines can theoretically be improved by inducing T-cell responses to conserved internal influenza A antigens. We assessed whether, in an influenza controlled human infection challenge, susceptible individuals receiving a vaccine boosting T-cell responses would exhibit lower viral load and decreased symptoms compared with placebo recipients., Methods: In this single centre, randomised, double-blind phase 2 study, healthy adult (aged 18-55 years) volunteers with microneutralisation titres of less than 20 to the influenza A(H3N2) challenge strain were enrolled at an SGS quarantine facility in Antwerp, Belgium. Participants were randomly assigned double-blind using a permuted-block list with a 3:2 allocation ratio to receive 0·5 mL intramuscular injections of modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) expressing H3N2 nucleoprotein (NP) and matrix protein 1 (M1) at 1·5 × 10 8 plaque forming units (4·3 × 10 8 50% tissue culture infectious dose [TCID 50 ]; MVA-NP+M1 group) or saline placebo (placebo group). At least 6 weeks later, participants were challenged intranasally with 0·5 mL of a 1 × 10 6 TCID 50 /mL dose of influenza A/Belgium/4217/2015 (H3N2). Nasal swabs were collected twice daily from day 2 until day 11 for viral PCR, and symptoms of influenza were recorded from day 2 until day 11. The primary outcome was to determine the efficacy of MVA-NP+M1 vaccine to reduce the degree of nasopharyngeal viral shedding as measured by the cumulative viral area under the curve using a log-transformed quantitative PCR. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03883113., Findings: Between May 2 and Oct 24, 2019, 145 volunteers were enrolled and randomly assigned to the MVA-NP+M1 group (n=87) or the placebo group (n=58). Of these, 118 volunteers entered the challenge period (71 in the MVA-NP+M1 group and 47 in the placebo group) and 117 participants completed the study (71 in the MVA-NP+M1 group and 46 in the placebo group). 78 (54%) of the 145 volunteers were female and 67 (46%) were male. The primary outcome, overall viral load as determined by quantitative PCR, did not show a statistically significant difference between the MVA-NP+M1 (mean 649·7 [95% CI 552·7-746·7) and placebo groups (mean 726·1 [604·0-848·2]; p=0·17). All reported treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 11 in the vaccination phase and 51 in the challenge phase) were grade 1 and 2, except for two grade 3 TEAEs in the placebo group in the challenge phase. A grade 4 second trimester fetal death, considered possibly related to the MVA-NP+M1 vaccination, and an acute psychosis reported in a placebo participant during the challenge phase were reported., Interpretation: The use of an MVA vaccine to expand CD4 + or CD8 + T cells to conserved influenza A antigens in peripheral blood did not affect nasopharyngeal viral load in an influenza H3N2 challenge model in seronegative, healthy adults., Funding: Department of Health and Human Services; Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response; Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority; and Barinthus Biotherapeutics., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TGE, GT, KR, CE, and EE-V were employed by Barinthus Biotherapeutics at the time of the study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Vaccitech Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: COVID-19 vaccines with alternative strain compositions are needed to provide broad protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. This study aimed to describe the clinical efficacy and safety of a bivalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine as a two-injection primary series during a period of circulation of the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant., Methods: We conducted a phase 3, parallel, randomised, modified double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults aged 18 years or older at 54 clinical research centres in eight countries (Colombia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Uganda, and Ukraine). Participants were recruited from the community and randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive response technology system to receive two intramuscular 0·5 mL injections, 21 days apart, of the bivalent vaccine (5 μg of ancestral [D614] and 5 μg of beta [B.1.351] variant spike protein, with AS03 adjuvant) or placebo (0·9% normal saline). All participants, outcome assessors, and laboratory staff performing assays were masked to group assignments; those involved in the preparation and administration of the vaccines were unmasked. Participants were stratified by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years) and baseline SARS-CoV-2 rapid serodiagnostic test positivity. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as laboratory-confirmed (via nucleic acid amplification test or PCR test) COVID-19 with COVID-19-like illness symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical efficacy of the bivalent vaccine for prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 at least 14 days after the second injection (dose 2). Safety was assessed in all participants receiving at least one injection of the study vaccine or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04904549) and is closed to recruitment., Findings: Between Oct 19, 2021, and Feb 15, 2022, 13 002 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive the first dose of the study vaccine (n=6512) or placebo (n=6490). 12 924 participants (6472 in the vaccine group and 6452 in the placebo group) received at least one study injection, of whom 7542 (58·4%) were male and 9693 (75·0%) were SARS-CoV-2 non-naive. Of these 12 924 participants, 11 543 (89·3%) received both study injections (5788 in the vaccine group and 5755 in the placebo group). The efficacy-evaluable population after dose 2 comprised 11 416 participants (5736 in the vaccine group and 5680 in the placebo group). The median duration of follow-up was 85 days (IQR 50-95) after dose 1 and 58 days (29-70) after dose 2. 121 symptomatic COVID-19 cases were reported at least 14 days after dose 2 (32 in the vaccine group and 89 in the placebo group), with an overall vaccine efficacy of 64·7% (95% CI 46·6 to 77·2). Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was 75·1% (95% CI 56·3 to 86·6) in SARS-CoV-2 non-naive participants and 30·9% (-39·3 to 66·7) in SARS-CoV-2-naive participants. Viral genome sequencing identified the infecting strain in 68 (56·2%) of 121 cases (omicron [BA.1 and BA.2] in 63; delta in four; and both omicron and delta in one). Immediate unsolicited adverse events were reported by four (<0·1%) participants in the vaccine group and seven (0·1%) participants in the placebo group. Immediate unsolicited adverse reactions within 30 min after any injection were reported by four (<0·1%) participants in the vaccine group and six (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. In the reactogenicity subset with available data, solicited reactions (solicited injection-site reactions and solicited systemic reactions) within 7 days after any injection occurred in 1398 (57·8%) of 2420 vaccine recipients and 983 (40·9%) of 2403 placebo recipients. Grade 3 solicited reactions were reported by 196 (8·1%; 95% CI 7·0 to 9·3) of 2420 vaccine recipients and 118 (4·9%; 4·1 to 5·9) of 2403 placebo recipients within 7 days after any injection, with comparable frequencies after dose 1 and dose 2 in the vaccine group. At least one serious adverse event occurred in 30 (0·5%) participants in the vaccine group and 26 (0·4%) in the placebo group. The proportion of adverse events of special interest and deaths was less than 0·1% in both study groups. No adverse event of special interest, serious adverse event, or death was deemed to be treatment related. There were no reported cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell's Palsy, or Guillain-Barré syndrome, or other immune-mediated diseases., Interpretation: The bivalent variant vaccine conferred heterologous protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the epidemiological context of the circulating contemporary omicron variant. These findings suggest that vaccines developed with an antigen from a non-predominant strain could confer cross-protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants, although further investigation is warranted., Funding: Sanofi, US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GHD, MIB, BF, M-HG, MC, JA, CAD, RMC, SG, SSr, and SSa are Sanofi employees. MIB, BF, M-HG, JA, CAD, RMC, and SSr hold stock or stock options in Sanofi. SG, RMC, and SSr hold patents pending on a COVID-19 vaccine. The Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health (CVD) receives grants from Pfizer to conduct clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines. KMN receives no salary support for this grant. KMN receives grants from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to participate in overall organisation of COVID-19 vaccine trials and for participation in vaccine trials. RMC has received institutional funding from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) for the present study; has received support for attending meetings or travel, from Sanofi; and holds patents planned, issued, or pending from Sanofi. M-HG has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Sanofi. NR has received institutional funding from the NIH; and institutional grants or contracts from Merck, Sanofi, Quidel, Pfizer, and Lilly. SRW has received institutional funding from Sanofi and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and NIH; and institutional grants or contracts from Janssen Vaccines/Johnson & Johnson, Moderna Tx, Vir Biotechnology, and Worcester HIV Vaccine; has participated on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Janssen Vaccines/Johnson & Johnson; and his spouse holds stocks and stock options in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. NG has received institutional funding from Sanofi, GSK, and the NIAID and NIH; and is in receipt of grants or contracts from the NIH, NIAID, and the Division of AIDS (DAIDS). MA and TT are employees of NIAID, which funded aspects of the current study. LS, MAC, and MK are employees of GSK and own shares in the GSK group of companies. MJ and JJK have received institutional support from Sanofi and NIAID and NIH with respect to this study. MLR has received institutional support or contracts for the present manuscript from Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Ingenuity Pathway Analysis, and the US Medical Research and Development Command. SSa was a Sanofi employee at the time of study conduct; and holds patents planned, issued, or pending on COVID-19 vaccines. LC has received grant funding from the NIAID/NIH. AC, KPA, ASB, TB, DD, MK-J, HK, RM, NLM, HR, SMVM, FS, JT, and TAW, declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The literature on first generation COVID-19 vaccines show they were less effective against new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern including Omicron (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants). New vaccines developed against variant strains may provide cross-protection against emerging variants when used as boosters and facilitate vaccination across a range of countries, healthcare settings and populations. However, there are no data on such vaccines when used as a primary series., Methods: A global Phase 3, multi-stage efficacy study (NCT04904549) among adults (≥18 years) was conducted in 53 research centres in eight countries (United States, Honduras, Japan, Colombia, Kenya, India, Ghana, Nepal). Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive two intramuscular injections of a monovalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03-adjuvant (10 μg of the spike (S) protein from the ancestral D614 strain) or placebo on Day 1 (D01) and Day 22 (D22). The primary efficacy endpoint was prevention of virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with symptoms of COVID-19-like illness (CLI) ≥14 days after the second injection (post-dose 2 [PD2]) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve on D01 + D22. Safety and reactogenicity were also evaluated., Findings: Between May 26 and November 7, 2021, 10,114 participants received ≥1 study injection, and 9441 participants received both injections. 2108 (20.8%) participants were SARS-CoV-2 naïve at D01 and D22. The primary endpoint was analysed in a subset of the full analysis set (the modified full analysis set PD2 [mFAS-PD2], excluding participants who did not complete the vaccination schedule or received vaccination despite meeting one of the contraindication criteria, had onset of symptomatic COVID-19 between the first injection and before 14 days after the second injection, or participants who discontinued before 14 days after the second injection [n = 9377; vaccine, n = 4702; placebo, n = 4675]). Data were available for 2051 SARS-CoV-2 naïve and 7159 non-naïve participants. At the cut-off date (January 28, 2022), symptomatic COVID-19 was reported in 169 naïve participants (vaccine, n = 81; placebo, n = 88) ≥14 days PD2, with a vaccine efficacy (VE) of 15.3% (95% CI, -15.8; 38.2). VE regardless of D01/D22 serostatus was 32.9% (95% CI, 15.3; 47.0) and VE in non-naïve participants was 52.7% (95% CI, 31.2; 67.9). Viral genome sequencing was performed up to the data cut-off point and identified the infecting strain in 99/169 adjudicated cases in the PD2 naïve population (Delta [25], Omicron [72], other variants [3], one participant had infection with both Delta and Omicron variants and has been included in the totals for both Delta and Omicron). The vaccine was well-tolerated with an acceptable safety profile., Interpretation: In the context of changing circulating viral variants, it is challenging to induce protection in naïve individuals with a two-dose priming schedule based on the parental D614 strain. However, while the primary endpoint of this trial was not met, the results show that a monovalent D614 vaccine can still be of value in individuals previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2., Funding: This study was funded in whole or in part by Sanofi and by federal funds from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, part of the office of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under contract number HHSO100201600005I, and in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Defense Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense under contract number W15QKN-16-9-1002. The views presented here are those of the authors and do not purport to represent those of the Department of the Army, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the U.S. government., Competing Interests: GHD, JA, MIB, MC, M-HG, JA, CAD, RMC, MC and SSa are Sanofi employees. JA, MIB, M-HG, JA, CAD, RMC, MC, CAD, SSr and SSa hold stock or stock options in Sanofi. SSr and SSa are the named inventors on a patent associated with the vaccine reported in this manuscript. RMC has received institutional funding from BARDA for the present study; has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Sanofi; and holds patents planned, issued or pending from Sanofi. NR has received institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health; and institutional grants or contracts from Merck, Sanofi, Quidel, Pfizer and Lilly. SRW has received institutional funding from Sanofi and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/National Institutes of Health; and institutional grants or contracts from Janssen Vaccines/Johnson & Johnson, Moderna Tx, Pfizer, Vir Biotechnology and Worcester HIV Vaccine; has participated on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Janssen Vaccines/Johnson & Johnson; and his spouse holds stock/stock options in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. NG has received institutional grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIH/NIAID). LS, MAC and MK are employees of the GSK group of companies and own shares in the GSK group of companies. MJ and JJK have received institutional support from Sanofi and the NIAID/NIH with respect to this study. MLR has received institutional support/contracts for the present manuscript from WRAIR IPA and the US Medical Research and Development Command. MA, and MKJ are employees of the NIAID, which funded aspects of the current study; The NIAID provides grant funding to the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) Leadership and Operations Center (UM1 AI 68614HVTN), the Statistics and Data Management Center (UM1 AI 68635), the HVTN Laboratory Center (UM1 AI 68618), the HIV Prevention Trials Network Leadership and Operations Center (UM1 AI 68619), the AIDS Clinical Trials Group Leadership and Operations Center (UM1 AI 68636), and the Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium leadership group 5 (UM1 AI 148684-03). One of the sites in Kenya in this study received funding from NIAID. LC has received grant funding from the NIAD/NIH. The Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health (CVD) receives grants from Pfizer to conduct clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines: KMN receives no salary support for this grant. KMN receives grants from NIH to participate in overall organization of COVID vaccine trials and for participation in vaccine trials. ASB has received honorarium for the conduct of this trial as Principal Investigator from Sanofi Healthcare India Private Limited. TT, SK, BF, AC, KPA, TB, RM, NLM, HR, FS, JT, SG, KS, AU and RS have no interests to declare., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Predators may create healthier prey populations by selectively removing diseased individuals. Predators typically prefer some ages of prey over others, which may, or may not, align with those prey ages that are most likely to be diseased. The interaction of age-specific infection and predation has not been previously explored and likely has sizable effects on disease dynamics. We hypothesize that predator cleansing effects will be greater when the disease and predation occur in the same prey age groups. We examine the predator cleansing effect using a model where both vulnerability to predators and pathogen prevalence vary with age. We tailor this model to chronic wasting disease (CWD) in mule deer and elk populations in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, with empirical data from Yellowstone grey wolves and cougars. Model results suggest that under moderate, yet realistic, predation pressure from cougars and wolves independently, predators may decrease CWD outbreak size substantially and delay the accumulation of symptomatic deer and elk. The magnitude of this effect is driven by the ability of predators to selectively remove late-stage CWD infections that are likely the most responsible for transmission, but this may not be the age class they typically select. Thus, predators that select for infected young adults over uninfected juveniles have a stronger cleansing effect, and these effects are strengthened when transmission rates increase with increasing prey morbidity. There are also trade-offs from a management perspective-that is, increasing predator kill rates can result in opposing forces on prey abundance and CWD prevalence. Our modelling exploration shows that predators have the potential to reduce prevalence in prey populations when prey age and disease severity are considered, yet the strength of this effect is influenced by predators' selection for demography or body condition. Current CWD management focuses on increasing cervid hunting as the primary management tool, and our results suggest predators may also be a useful tool under certain conditions, but not necessarily without additional impacts on host abundance and demography. Protected areas with predator populations will play a large role in informing the debate over predator impacts on disease., (© 2022 British Ecological Society.)

Background: We evaluated our SARS-CoV-2 prefusion spike recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) with different adjuvants, unadjuvanted, and in a one-injection and two-injection dosing schedule in a previous phase 1-2 study. Based on interim results from that study, we selected a two-injection schedule and the AS03 adjuvant for further clinical development. However, lower than expected antibody responses, particularly in older adults, and higher than expected reactogenicity after the second vaccination were observed. In the current study, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of an optimised formulation of CoV2 preS dTM adjuvanted with AS03 to inform progression to phase 3 clinical trial., Methods: This phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, dose-ranging study was done in adults (≥18 years old), including those with pre-existing medical conditions, those who were immunocompromised (except those with recent organ transplant or chemotherapy) and those with a potentially increased risk for severe COVID-19, at 20 clinical research centres in the USA and Honduras. Women who were pregnant or lactating or, for those of childbearing potential, not using an effective method of contraception or abstinence, and those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine, were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive response technology system, with stratification by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years), rapid serodiagnostic test result (positive or negative), and high-risk medical conditions (yes or no), to receive two injections (day 1 and day 22) of 5 7mu;g (low dose), 10 7mu;g (medium dose), or 15 7mu;g (high dose) CoV2 preS dTM antigen with fixed AS03 content. All participants and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment; unmasked study staff involved in vaccine preparation were not involved in safety outcome assessments. All laboratory staff performing the assays were masked to treatment. The primary safety objective was to describe the safety profile in all participants, for each candidate vaccine formulation. Safety endpoints were evaluated for all randomised participants who received at least one dose of the study vaccine (safety analysis set), and are presented here for the interim study period (up to day 43). The primary immunogenicity objective was to describe the neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant 14 days after the second vaccination (day 36) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naive who received both injections, provided samples at day 1 and day 36, did not have protocol deviations, and did not receive an authorised COVID-19 vaccine before day 36. Neutralising antibodies were measured using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay and are presented here up to 14 days after the second dose. As a secondary immunogenicity objective, we assessed neutralising antibodies in non-naive participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04762680) and is closed to new participants for the cohort reported here., Findings: Of 722 participants enrolled and randomly assigned between Feb 24, 2021, and March 8, 2021, 721 received at least one injection (low dose=240, medium dose=239, and high dose=242). The proportion of participants reporting at least one solicited adverse reaction (injection site or systemic) in the first 7 days after any vaccination was similar between treatment groups (217 [91%] of 238 in the low-dose group, 213 [90%] of 237 in the medium-dose group, and 218 [91%] of 239 in the high-dose group); these adverse reactions were transient, were mostly mild to moderate in intensity, and occurred at a higher frequency and intensity after the second vaccination. Four participants reported immediate unsolicited adverse events; two (one each in the low-dose group and medium-dose group) were considered by the investigators to be vaccine related and two (one each in the low-dose and high-dose groups) were considered unrelated. Five participants reported seven vaccine-related medically attended adverse events (two in the low-dose group, one in the medium-dose group, and four in the high-dose group). No vaccine-related serious adverse events and no adverse events of special interest were reported. Among participants naive to SARS-CoV-2 at day 36, 158 (98%) of 162 in the low-dose group, 166 (99%) of 168 in the medium-dose group, and 163 (98%) of 166 in the high-dose group had at least a two-fold increase in neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant from baseline. Neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMTs) at day 36 for participants who were naive were 2189 (95% CI 1744-2746) for the low-dose group, 2269 (1792-2873) for the medium-dose group, and 2895 (2294-3654) for the high-dose group. GMT ratios (day 36: day 1) were 107 (95% CI 85-135) in the low-dose group, 110 (87-140) in the medium-dose group, and 141 (111-179) in the high-dose group. Neutralising antibody titres in non-naive adults 21 days after one injection tended to be higher than titres after two injections in adults who were naive, with GMTs 21 days after one injection for participants who were non-naive being 3143 (95% CI 836-11 815) in the low-dose group, 2338 (593-9226) in the medium-dose group, and 7069 (1361-36 725) in the high-dose group., Interpretation: Two injections of CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 showed acceptable safety and reactogenicity, and robust immunogenicity in adults who were SARS-CoV-2 naive and non-naive. These results supported progression to phase 3 evaluation of the 10 7mu;g antigen dose for primary vaccination and a 5 7mu;g antigen dose for booster vaccination., Funding: Sanofi Pasteur and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SSr, MIB, A-LC, AC, RMC, BF, HJ, YM, ER, NR, DvB, GdB, RC, M-HG, DL, RM, SM, CM, CAD, and SSa are Sanofi Pasteur employees. SSr, MIB, HJ, CM, and SSa own stock or stock options; A-LC, NR, and M-HG hold shares or restricted shares; and RMC reports owning shareholder and vesting options in Sanofi Pasteur. SSr, RMC, GdB, CAD, and SSa are inventors on a pending patent application filed by Sanofi Pasteur and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for the development of the CoV-2 dTM vaccine. LS, MK, MAC, and FT-D-S are employed by, and hold restricted shares in, the GSK group of companies. AJ was contracted by Sanofi Pasteur. DD received funding from Sanofi Pasteur for his institution, George Washington University, to serve as a clinical site for the vaccine trial. NG reports receiving funding and study materials from Sanofi and funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) through the COVID-19 Prevention Network (CoVPN), which provides research grants to her institution, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. MCK received NIAID funding support for the current study, paid to the clinical trials site for the CoVPN and HIV vaccine trials network; Sanofi Pasteur contracted the site to do this clinical trial. DMRM received a research grant from Sanofi Pasteur for this study. OO received a Gilead Sciences grant paid to Yale, and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences. OO also reports that Gilead, Integrity CE, and Medscape paid for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, or educational events and that Gilead and ViiV Healthcare paid for their participation on a data safety monitoring or advisory board. VNR received funding from Sanofi for the CoVPN and Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Units for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, and payments from Pfizer to her institution for the conduct of COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. RS received clinical trial investigator site contracts with AES Synexus. NGR received a grant from Sanofi Pasteur to do this study and received grants from Sanofi, Merck, Pfizer, Quidel, and Lilly in the past 36 months. NGR received a payment from the Infectious Disease Association of California and participated on advisory or safety monitoring boards for Micron, ICON, and The Emmes Company; NGR also reports having a leadership or fiduciary role (paid or unpaid) for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Vaccine Treatment and Evaluation Unit and Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group. LDS received a research grant from Sanofi Pasteur and SRW and JW were contracted by Sanofi Pasteur. AB, BJE, NLM, SSM, MKJ, SR, JS, TT, and JT declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was highly effective against severe-critical coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), hospitalization, and death in the primary phase 3 efficacy analysis., Methods: We conducted the final analysis in the double-blind phase of our multinational, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, in which adults were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive single-dose Ad26.COV2.S (5×10 10 viral particles) or placebo. The primary end points were vaccine efficacy against moderate to severe-critical Covid-19 with onset at least 14 days after administration and at least 28 days after administration in the per-protocol population. Safety and key secondary and exploratory end points were also assessed., Results: Median follow-up in this analysis was 4 months; 8940 participants had at least 6 months of follow-up. In the per-protocol population (39,185 participants), vaccine efficacy against moderate to severe-critical Covid-19 at least 14 days after administration was 56.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51.3 to 60.8; 484 cases in the vaccine group vs. 1067 in the placebo group); at least 28 days after administration, vaccine efficacy was 52.9% (95% CI, 47.1 to 58.1; 433 cases in the vaccine group vs. 883 in the placebo group). Efficacy in the United States, primarily against the reference strain (B.1.D614G) and the B.1.1.7 (alpha) variant, was 69.7% (95% CI, 60.7 to 76.9); efficacy was reduced elsewhere against the P.1 (gamma), C.37 (lambda), and B.1.621 (mu) variants. Efficacy was 74.6% (95% CI, 64.7 to 82.1) against severe-critical Covid-19 (with only 4 severe-critical cases caused by the B.1.617.2 [delta] variant), 75.6% (95% CI, 54.3 to 88.0) against Covid-19 leading to medical intervention (including hospitalization), and 82.8% (95% CI, 40.5 to 96.8) against Covid-19-related death, with protection lasting 6 months or longer. Efficacy against any severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was 41.7% (95% CI, 36.3 to 46.7). Ad26.COV2.S was associated with mainly mild-to-moderate adverse events, and no new safety concerns were identified., Conclusions: A single dose of Ad26.COV2.S provided 52.9% protection against moderate to severe-critical Covid-19. Protection varied according to variant; higher protection was observed against severe Covid-19, medical intervention, and death than against other end points and lasted for 6 months or longer. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development and others; ENSEMBLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04505722.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Mycoplasma bovis is a primary cause of respiratory and reproductive diseases in North American bison (Bison bison), with significant morbidity and mortality. The epidemiology of M. bovis in bison is poorly understood, hindering efforts to develop effective control measures. Our study considered whether healthy bison might be carriers of M. bovis, potentially serving as unrecognized sources of exposure. We used culture and PCR to identify mycoplasmas in the nasal cavity or tonsil of 499 healthy bison from 13 herds and two abattoirs in the US and Canada. Mycobacterium bovis was detected in 15 bison (3.0%) representing two herds in the US and one in Canada, while M. bovirhinis, M. bovoculi, M. arginini, or M. dispar was identified from an additional 155 bison (31.1%). Mycoplasma bovirhinis was identified most frequently, in 142 bison (28.5%) representing at least 10 herds. Of the 381 bison for which serum was available, only 6/13 positive for M. bovis (46.2%) tested positively with an M. bovis ELISA, as did 19/368 negative for M. bovis (5.2%). Our data reveal that M. bovis can be carried in the upper respiratory tract of healthy bison with no prior history or clinical signs of mycoplasmosis and that a large proportion of carriers may not produce detectable antibodies. Whether carriage of other mycoplasmas can trigger cross-reactive antibodies that may confound M. bovis serology requires further study., (© Wildlife Disease Association 2021.)

Background: The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine is a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 vector encoding full-length severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein in a prefusion-stabilized conformation., Methods: In an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adult participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S (5×10 10 viral particles) or placebo. The primary end points were vaccine efficacy against moderate to severe-critical coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) with an onset at least 14 days and at least 28 days after administration among participants in the per-protocol population who had tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Safety was also assessed., Results: The per-protocol population included 19,630 SARS-CoV-2-negative participants who received Ad26.COV2.S and 19,691 who received placebo. Ad26.COV2.S protected against moderate to severe-critical Covid-19 with onset at least 14 days after administration (116 cases in the vaccine group vs. 348 in the placebo group; efficacy, 66.9%; adjusted 95% confidence interval [CI], 59.0 to 73.4) and at least 28 days after administration (66 vs. 193 cases; efficacy, 66.1%; adjusted 95% CI, 55.0 to 74.8). Vaccine efficacy was higher against severe-critical Covid-19 (76.7% [adjusted 95% CI, 54.6 to 89.1] for onset at ≥14 days and 85.4% [adjusted 95% CI, 54.2 to 96.9] for onset at ≥28 days). Despite 86 of 91 cases (94.5%) in South Africa with sequenced virus having the 20H/501Y.V2 variant, vaccine efficacy was 52.0% and 64.0% against moderate to severe-critical Covid-19 with onset at least 14 days and at least 28 days after administration, respectively, and efficacy against severe-critical Covid-19 was 73.1% and 81.7%, respectively. Reactogenicity was higher with Ad26.COV2.S than with placebo but was generally mild to moderate and transient. The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the two groups. Three deaths occurred in the vaccine group (none were Covid-19-related), and 16 in the placebo group (5 were Covid-19-related)., Conclusions: A single dose of Ad26.COV2.S protected against symptomatic Covid-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and was effective against severe-critical disease, including hospitalization and death. Safety appeared to be similar to that in other phase 3 trials of Covid-19 vaccines. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development and others; ENSEMBLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04505722.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Mycoplasma bovis causes mastitis, otitis, pneumonia and arthritis in cattle and is a major contributor to bovine respiratory disease complex. Around the year 2000, it emerged as a significant threat to the health of North American bison. Whether healthy bison are carriers of M. bovis and when they were first exposed is not known. To investigate these questions we used a commercially available ELISA that detects antibodies to M. bovis to test 3295 sera collected from 1984 through 2019 from bison in the United States and Canada., Results: We identified moderately to strongly seropositive bison from as long ago as the late 1980s. Average seroprevalence over the past 36 years is similar in the United States and Canada, but country-specific differences are evident when data are sorted by the era of collection. Seroprevalence in the United States during the pre-disease era (1999 and prior) was significantly higher than in Canada, but was significantly lower than in Canada during the years 2000-2019. Considering individual countries, seroprevalence in the United States since the year 2000 dropped significantly as compared to the years 1985-1999. In Canada the trend is reversed, with seroprevalence increasing significantly since the year 2000. ELISA scores for sera collected from free-ranging bison do not differ significantly from scores for sera from more intensively managed animals, regardless of the era in which they were collected. However, seroprevalence among intensively raised Canadian bison has nearly doubled since the year 2000 and average ELISA scores rose significantly., Conclusions: Our data provide the first evidence that North American bison were exposed to M. bovis many years prior to the emergence of M. bovis-related disease. Patterns of exposure inferred from these results differ in the United States and Canada, depending on the era under consideration. Our data further suggest that M. bovis may colonize healthy bison at a level sufficient to trigger antibody responses but without causing overt disease. These findings provide novel insights as to the history of M. bovis in bison and will be of value in formulating strategies to minimize the impact of mycoplasmosis on bison health and production.

Current influenza vaccines have modest efficacy. This is especially true for current live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIV), which have been inferior to the inactivated versions in recent years. Therefore, a new generation of live vaccines may be needed. We previously showed that a mutation at PB1 residue 319 confers enhanced temperature sensitivity and attenuation in an LAIV constructed in the genetic background of the mouse-adapted Influenza A Virus (IAV) strain A/PR/8/34 (PR8). Here, we describe the origin/discovery of this unique mutation and demonstrate that, when combined with the PB2 N265S mutation of LAIV, it conveys an even greater level of temperature sensitivity and attenuation on PR8 than the complete set of attenuating mutations from LAIV. Furthermore, we show that the combined PB1 L319Q and PB2 N265S mutations confer temperature sensitivity on IAV polymerase activity in two different genetic backgrounds, PR8 and A/Cal/04/09. Collectively, these findings show that the PB2 LAIV mutation synergizes with a mutation in PB1 and may have potential utility for improving LAIVs.

Introduction: Acute norovirus gastroenteritis causes significant morbidity and in uncommon cases fatality in older adults. We investigated the safety and immunogenicity of bivalent virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine candidate formulations with and without monophosphoryl lipid A (adjuvant MPL) in this population., Methods: In this phase II, double-blind, controlled trial 294 healthy adults, ≥ 60 years of age, were randomized (1:1:1:1) to four groups to receive one or two intramuscular immunizations 28 days apart, with 26 18-49 year-old controls who received one MPL-free dose. One-dose groups received placebo on Day 1. Vaccine formulations contained 15 μg GI.1 and 50 μg GII.4c VLP antigens and 500 μg Al(OH) 3 , with or without 15 μg MPL. We measured histo-blood group antigen blocking (HBGA) antibodies and ELISA Ig at Days 1, 8, 29, 57, 211 and 393, and avidity indices and cell-mediated immunity (CMI). Solicited local and systemic adverse events (AE) were assessed for 7 days and unsolicited AEs for 28 days after each injection., Results: After one dose HBGA antibodies to both VLP antigens increased with similar kinetics and magnitude in all groups; geometric mean titres (GMTs) persisted above baseline through Day 393. GMTs were similar across age strata (18-49, 60-74, 75-84 and ≥ 85 years of age) and unaffected by a second vaccination or MPL. Total Ig showed similar responses. No clinically relevant differences or changes in avidity or CMI were observed between formulations. Both formulations were well tolerated with no vaccine-related SAEs, the most frequent AEs being mild injection site pain and fatigue., Conclusions: Adults over 60 years of age displayed no safety concerns and had similar immune responses to the norovirus VLP vaccine candidate as younger adults, unaffected by increasing age, a second dose or inclusion of MPL. This data supports the further development of the MPL-free vaccine candidate for older adults., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Treanor has no conflicts to declare, while other authors were full-time employees of the study sponsor at the time of the study. The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy or decision unless so designated by other documentation., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)