Search

Understanding persistence of humoral immune responses elicited by vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is critical for informing the duration of protection and appropriate booster timing. We developed a mechanistic model to characterize the time course of humoral immune responses in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-seronegative adults after primary vaccination with the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S. The persistence of antibody responses was quantified through mechanistic modeling-based simulations. Two biomarkers of humoral immune responses were examined: SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies determined by wild-type virus neutralization assay (wtVNA) and spike protein-binding antibodies determined by indirect spike protein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (S-ELISA). The persistence of antibody responses was defined as the period of time during which wtVNA and S-ELISA titers remained above the lower limit of quantification. A total of 442 wtVNA and 1,185 S-ELISA titers from 82 and 220 participants, respectively, were analyzed following administration of a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S (5 × 10

Despite the availability of effective vaccines against COVID-19, booster vaccinations are needed to maintain vaccine-induced protection against variant strains and breakthrough infections. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen) as primary vaccination plus a booster dose.ENSEMBLE2 is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial including crossover vaccination after emergency authorisation of COVID-19 vaccines. Adults aged at least 18 years without previous COVID-19 vaccination at public and private medical practices and hospitals in Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK, and the USA were randomly assigned 1:1 via a computer algorithm to receive intramuscularly administered Ad26.COV2.S as a primary dose plus a booster dose at 2 months or two placebo injections 2 months apart. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against the first occurrence of molecularly confirmed moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after booster vaccination, which was assessed in participants who received two doses of vaccine or placebo, were negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR at baseline and on serology at baseline and day 71, had no major protocol deviations, and were at risk of COVID-19 (ie, had no PCR-positive result or discontinued the study before day 71). Safety was assessed in all participants; reactogenicity, in terms of solicited local and systemic adverse events, was assessed as a secondary endpoint in a safety subset (approximately 6000 randomly selected participants). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04614948, and is ongoing.Enrolment began on Nov 16, 2020, and the primary analysis data cutoff was June 25, 2021. From 34 571 participants screened, the double-blind phase enrolled 31 300 participants, 14 492 of whom received two doses (7484 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 7008 in the placebo group) and 11 639 of whom were eligible for inclusion in the assessment of the primary endpoint (6024 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 5615 in the placebo group). The median (IQR) follow-up post-booster vaccination was 36·0 (15·0-62·0) days. Vaccine efficacy was 75·2% (adjusted 95% CI 54·6-87·3) against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 (14 cases in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 52 cases in the placebo group). Most cases were due to the variants alpha (B.1.1.7) and mu (B.1.621); endpoints for the primary analysis accrued from Nov 16, 2020, to June 25, 2021, before the global dominance of delta (B.1.617.2) or omicron (B.1.1.529). The booster vaccine exhibited an acceptable safety profile. The overall frequencies of solicited local and systemic adverse events (evaluated in the safety subset, n=6067) were higher among vaccine recipients than placebo recipients after the primary and booster doses. The frequency of solicited adverse events in the Ad26.COV2.S group were similar following the primary and booster vaccinations (local adverse events, 1676 [55·6%] of 3015 vs 896 [57·5%] of 1559, respectively; systemic adverse events, 1764 [58·5%] of 3015 vs 821 [52·7%] of 1559, respectively). Solicited adverse events were transient and mostly grade 1-2 in severity.A homologous Ad26.COV2.S booster administered 2 months after primary single-dose vaccination in adults had an acceptable safety profile and was efficacious against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. Studies assessing efficacy against newer variants and with longer follow-up are needed.Janssen ResearchDevelopment.

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.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 (5×10The 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).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.).

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.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 (5×10Median 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.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.).

Ad26.COV2.S is a well-tolerated and effective vaccine against COVID-19. We evaluated durability of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies elicited by single-dose Ad26.COV2.S and the impact of boosting.In randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2a and phase 2 trials, participants received single-dose Ad26.COV2.S (5 × 10Data were analyzed from phase 1/2a participants enrolled from 22 July-18 December 2020 (Cohort 1a, 18-55 years [y], N = 25; Cohort 2a, 18-55y, N = 17; Cohort 3, ≥65y, N = 22), and phase 2 participants from 14 to 22 September 2020 (18-55y and ≥ 65y, N = 73). Single-dose Ad26.COV2.S elicited stable neutralizing antibodies for at least 8-9 months and stable binding antibodies for at least 6 months, irrespective of age. A 5 × 10Single-dose Ad26.COV2.S elicited durable antibody responses for at least 8 months and elicited immune memory. Booster-elicited binding and neutralizing antibody responses were rapid and robust, even with a quarter vaccine dose, and stronger with a longer interval since primary vaccination.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04436276, NCT04535453.

Background Tuberculosis preventive therapy for persons with HIV infection is effective, but its durability is uncertain. Objective To compare treatment completion rates of weekly isoniazid-rifapentine for 3 months versus daily isoniazid for 6 months as well as the effectiveness of the 3-month rifapentine-isoniazid regimen given annually for 2 years versus once. Design Randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02980016). Setting South Africa, Ethiopia, and Mozambique. Participants Persons with HIV infection who were receiving antiretroviral therapy, were aged 2 years or older, and did not have active tuberculosis. Intervention Participants were randomly assigned to receive weekly rifapentine-isoniazid for 3 months, given either annually for 2 years or once, or daily isoniazid for 6 months. Participants were screened for tuberculosis symptoms at months 0 to 3 and 12 of each study year and at months 12 and 24 using chest radiography and sputum culture. Measurements Treatment completion was assessed using pill counts. Tuberculosis incidence was measured over 24 months. Results Between November 2016 and November 2017, 4027 participants were enrolled; 4014 were included in the analyses (median age, 41 years; 69.5% women; all using antiretroviral therapy). Treatment completion in the first year for the combined rifapentine-isoniazid groups (n = 3610) was 90.4% versus 50.5% for the isoniazid group (n = 404) (risk ratio, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.61 to 1.95]). Tuberculosis incidence among participants receiving the rifapentine-isoniazid regimen twice (n = 1808) or once (n = 1802) was similar (hazard ratio, 0.96 [CI, 0.61 to 1.50]). Limitation If rifapentine-isoniazid is effective in curing subclinical tuberculosis, then the intensive tuberculosis screening at month 12 may have reduced its effectiveness. Conclusion Treatment completion was higher with rifapentine-isoniazid for 3 months compared with isoniazid for 6 months. In settings with high tuberculosis transmission, a second round of preventive therapy did not provide additional benefit to persons receiving antiretroviral therapy. Primary funding source The U.S. Agency for International Development through the CHALLENGE TB grant to the KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation.

Mathematical models are increasingly being used to compare strategies for tuberculosis (TB) control and inform policy decisions. Models often do not consider financial and other constraints on implementation and may overestimate the impact that can be achieved. We developed a pragmatic approach for incorporating resource constraints into mathematical models of TB. Using a TB transmission model calibrated for South Africa, we estimated the epidemiologic impact and resource requirements (financial, human resource (HR), and diagnostic) of 9 case-finding interventions. We compared the model-estimated resources with scenarios of future resource availability and estimated the impact of interventions under these constraints. Without constraints, symptom screening in public health clinics and among persons receiving care for human immunodeficiency virus infection was predicted to lead to larger reductions in TB incidence (9.5% (2.5th–97.5th percentile range (PR), 8.6–12.2) and 14.5% (2.5th–97.5th PR, 12.2–16.3), respectively) than improved adherence to diagnostic guidelines (2.7%; 2.5th–97.5th PR, 1.6–4.1). However, symptom screening required large increases in resources, exceeding future HR capacity. Even under our most optimistic HR scenario, the reduction in TB incidence from clinic symptom screening was 0.2%–0.9%—less than that of improved adherence to diagnostic guidelines. Ignoring resource constraints may result in incorrect conclusions about an intervention’s impact and may lead to suboptimal policy decisions. Models used for decision-making should consider resource constraints.

Summary Background Tuberculosis is the leading single-pathogen cause of death worldwide, and China has the third largest number of cases worldwide. New tools, such as new vaccines, are needed to meet WHO tuberculosis goals. Tuberculosis vaccine development strategies mostly target infants or adolescents, but given China's ageing epidemic, vaccinating older people might be important. We modelled the potential impact of new tuberculosis vaccines in China targeting adolescents (15–19 years) or older adults (60–64 years) with varying vaccine characteristics to inform strategic vaccine development. Methods A Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission model was calibrated to age-stratified demographic and epidemiological data from China. Varying scenarios of vaccine implementation (age targeting [adolescents or older adults] and coverage [30% or 70%]) and characteristics (efficacy [40%, 60%, or 80%], duration of protection [10 years or 20 years], and host infection status required for efficacy [pre-infection, post-infection in latency, post-infection in latency or recovered, or pre-infection and post-infection]) were assessed. Primary outcomes were tuberculosis incidence and mortality rate reduction in 2050 in each vaccine scenario compared with the baseline (no new vaccine) scenario and cumulative number needed to vaccinate (NNV) per case or death averted, 2025–50. Findings By 2050, results suggest that 74·5% (uncertainty interval [UI] 70·2–78·6) of incident tuberculosis cases in China would occur in people aged 65 years or older, and 75·1% (66·8–80·7) of all cases would be due to reactivation, rather than new infection. All vaccine profiles delivered to older adults had higher population-level impact (reduction of incidence and mortality rates) and lower NNV per case and per death averted than if delivered to adolescents. For an intermediate vaccine scenario of 60% efficacy, 10-year protection, and 70% coverage, the reduction of tuberculosis incidence rates with older adult vaccination was 1·9 times (UI 1·5–2·6) to 157·5 times (119·3–225·6) greater than with adolescent vaccination, and the NNV was 0·011 times (0·008–0·014) to 0·796 times (0·632–0·970) lower. Furthermore, with older adult vaccination, post-infection vaccines provided substantially greater mortality and incidence rate reductions than pre-infection vaccines. Interpretation Adolescent-targeted tuberculosis vaccines, the focus of many development plans, would have only a small impact in ageing, reactivation-driven epidemics such as those in China. Instead, an efficacious post-infection vaccine delivered to older adults will be crucial to maximise population-level impact in this setting and would provide an important contribution towards achieving WHO goals. Older adults should be included in tuberculosis vaccine clinical development and implementation planning. Funding Aeras and UK MRC.

IntroductionAccurate tuberculosis (TB) incidence and optimal surveillance strategies are pertinent to TB vaccine trial design. Infants are a targeted population for new TB vaccines, but data from India, with the highest global burden of TB cases, is limited.MethodsIn a population-based prospective trial conducted between November 2006 and July 2008, BCG-vaccinated neonates in South India were enrolled and cluster-randomised to active or passive surveillance. We assessed the influence of surveillance strategy on TB incidence, case-finding rates and all-cause mortality. Predefined criteria were used to diagnose TB. All deaths were evaluated using a verbal autopsy.Results4382 children contributed to 8164 person-years (py) of follow-up (loss to follow-up 6.9%); 749 children were admitted for TB evaluation (active surveillance: 641; passive surveillance: 108). The TB incidence was 159.2/100 000 py and the overall case-finding rate was 3.19 per 100 py (95% CI 0.82 to 18.1). Whereas, the case-finding rate for definite TB was similar using active or passive case finding, the case-finding rate for probable TB was 1.92/100 py (95% CI 0.83 to 3.78) with active surveillance, significantly higher than 0.3/100 py (95% CI 0.01 to 1.39, p=0.02) with passive surveillance. Compared to passive surveillance, children with active surveillance had decreased risk of dying (OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.98) which was mostly attributable to reduction of death from pneumonia/respiratory infections (OR 0.34, 95%CI 0.14 to 0.80).ConclusionWe provide reliable estimates of TB incidence in South Indian children

Summary Background Prophylactic treatment of individuals with latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection is an essential component of tuberculosis control in some settings. In China, the prevalence of latent tuberculosis infection, and preventive interventions against this disease, have not been systematically studied. We aimed to assess the prevalence of latent tuberculosis and its associated risk factors in rural populations in China. Methods Between July 1, and Sept 30, 2013, we undertook a baseline survey of a population-based, multicentre, prospective cohort study of registered residents (≥5 years old) at four study sites in rural China. Eligible participants were identified by door-to-door survey with a household sampling design. We screened participants for active tuberculosis and history of tuberculosis then used a tuberculin skin test and an interferon-γ release assay (QuantiFERON [QFT]) to test for latent infection. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to assess variables associated with positivity of QFT and tuberculin skin tests. Findings 21 022 (90%) of 23 483 eligible participants completed a baseline survey. Age-standardised and sex-standardised rates of skin-test positivity (≥10 mm) ranged from 15% to 42%, and QFT positivity rates ranged from 13% to 20%. Rates of positivity for the tuberculin skin test and the QFT test were low in study participants younger than 20 years and gradually increased with age (p for trend Interpretation On the basis of findings showing that the performance of the tuberculin skin test might be affected by various factors including BCG vaccination and age, our results suggest that the prevalence of latent tuberculosis in China might be overestimated by skin tests compared with interferon-γ release assays. Funding The National Science and Technology Major Project of China, the Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University of China.

Tuberculosis remains a global health problem with an enormous burden of disease, estimated at 10.4 million new cases in 2015. To stop the tuberculosis epidemic, it is critical that we interrupt tuberculosis transmission. Further, the interventions required to interrupt tuberculosis transmission must be targeted to high-risk groups and settings. A simple cascade for tuberculosis transmission has been proposed in which (1) a source case of tuberculosis (2) generates infectious particles (3) that survive in the air and (4) are inhaled by a susceptible individual (5) who may become infected and (6) then has the potential to develop tuberculosis. Interventions that target these events will interrupt tuberculosis transmission and accelerate the decline in tuberculosis incidence and mortality. The purpose of this article is to provide a high-level overview of what is known about tuberculosis transmission, using the tuberculosis transmission cascade as a framework, and to set the scene for the articles in this series, which address specific aspects of tuberculosis transmission.