Search

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

Description: In March 2020, the White House Coronavirus Task Force determined that clinicians in the United States needed expert treatment guidelines to optimally manage patients with COVID-19, a potentially life-threatening disease caused by a new pathogen for which no specific treatments were known to be effective., Methods: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requested that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) take the lead in expeditiously convening a panel of experts to create "living" guidelines that would be widely accessible and capable of frequent updating as important new information became available., Recommendations: The purpose of this article is to expand on the experiences of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) over the past 4 years, summarize the Panel's final recommendations for COVID-19, highlight some challenges and unanswered questions about COVID-19 management, and inform future responses to public health emergencies. The Panel was formed in March 2020, and the first iteration of the guidelines was released in April 2020. Now that the public health emergency has ended, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines have sunsetted. This role will now fall to professional societies and organizations, such as the American College of Physicians, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, and the World Health Organization, all of which have been active in this area., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosure forms are available with the article online.

Background: Reliable biomarkers of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes are critically needed. We evaluated associations of spike antibody (Ab) and plasma nucleocapsid antigen (N Ag) with clinical outcomes in nonhospitalized persons with mild-to-moderate COVID-19., Methods: Participants were nonhospitalized adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 enrolled in ACTIV-2 between January and July 2021 and randomized to placebo. We used quantitative assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike Ab and N Ag in blood and determined numbers of hospitalization/death events within 28 days and time to symptom improvement., Results: Of 209 participants, 77 (37%) had quantifiable spike Ab and 139 (67%) quantifiable N Ag. Median age was 50 years; 111 (53%) were female, 182 (87%) White, and 105 (50%) Hispanic/Latino. Higher risk of hospitalization/death was seen with unquantifiable (22/132 [16.7%]) versus quantifiable (1/77 [1.3%]) spike Ab (risk ratio [RR], 12.83 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.76-93.34]) and quantifiable (22/139 [15.8%]) vs unquantifiable (1/70 [1.4%]) N Ag (RR, 11.08 [95% CI, 1.52-80.51]). Increasing risk of hospitalizations/deaths was seen with increasing N Ag levels. Time to symptom improvement was longer with unquantifiable versus quantifiable spike Ab (median, 14 [interquartile range {IQR}, 8 to >27] vs 8 [IQR, 4-22] days; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.66 [95% CI, .45-.96]) and with quantifiable versus unquantifiable N Ag (median, 12 [7 to >27] vs 10 [5-22] days; aHR, 0.79 [95% CI, .52-1.21])., Conclusions: Absence of spike Ab and presence of plasma N Ag predicted hospitalization/death and delayed symptom improvement in COVID-19 outpatients., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04518410., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. N. J. received salary support to the institution from Sagent Pharmaceuticals. D. A. W. has received funding to his institution to support research and honoraria for advisory boards and consulting from Gilead Sciences. T. H. E. serves as a consultant for Tonix Pharmaceuticals. E. S. D. receives consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and GSK/ViiV and research support through his institution from Gilead Sciences and GSK/ViiV. J. Z. L. has received research funding from Merck. J. J. E. is an ad hoc consultant to GSK/VIR, data monitoring committee chair for Adagio Phase 3 studies. J. S. C. has consulted for Merck and Company. D. M. S. has consulted for Fluxergy, Kiadis, Linear Therapies, Matrix BioMed, Arena Pharmaceuticals, VxBiosciences, Model Medicines, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Signant Health, and Brio Clinical. K. W. C. received research funding to the institution from Merck Sharp & Dohme and is a consultant for Pardes Biosciences. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Biomarker guided therapy could improve management of COVID-19 inpatients. Although some results indicate that antibody tests are prognostic, little is known about patient management using point-of-care (POC) antibody tests., Methods: COVID-19 inpatients were recruited to evaluate 2 POC tests: LumiraDX and RightSign. Ease of use data was collected. Blood was also collected for centralized testing using established antibody assays (GenScript cPass). A nested case-control study assessed if POC tests conducted on stored specimens were predictive of time to sustained recovery, mortality, and a composite safety outcome., Results: While both POC tests exhibited moderate agreement with the GenScript assay (both agreeing with 89% of antibody determinations), they were significantly different from the GenScript assay. Treating the GenScript assay as the gold standard, the LumiraDX assay had 99.5% sensitivity and 58.1% specificity while the RightSign assay had 89.5% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity. The LumiraDX assay frequently gave indeterminant results. Both tests were significantly associated with clinical outcomes., Conclusions: Although both POC tests deviated moderately from the GenScript assay, they predicted outcomes of interest. The RightSign test was easier to use and was more likely to detect those lacking antibody compared to the LumiraDX test treating GenScript as the gold standard., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

A subset of antiretroviral therapy-treated persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), referred to as immunological nonresponders (INRs), fails to normalize CD4+ T-cell numbers. In a case-control study involving 26 INRs (CD4 < 250 cells/µL) and 25 immunological responders (IRs; CD4 ≥ 250 cells/µL), we evaluated the potential contribution of transcriptionally competent defective HIV-1 proviruses to poor CD4+ T-cell recovery. Compared to the responders, the INRs had higher levels of cell-associated HIV RNA (P = .034) and higher percentages of HLA-DR+ CD4+ T cells (P < .001). While not encoding replication-competent viruses, the RNA transcripts frequently encoded HIV-1 Gag-p17 and Nef proteins. These transcripts and/or resulting proteins may activate pathway(s) leading to the immunological nonresponse phenotype., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . J. A. K. and H. C. L. are investigators on a clinical trial of pembrolizumab being conducted under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between the NIH and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. J. A. K. is a principal investigator of a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between the NIH and Matinas BioPharma Holdings, Inc to develop encochleated medications. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2024.)

Background: Despite evidence associating inflammatory biomarkers with worse outcomes in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, trials of immunomodulatory therapies have met with mixed results, likely due in part to biological heterogeneity of participants. Latent class analysis (LCA) of clinical and protein biomarker data has identified two subtypes of non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with different clinical outcomes and treatment responses. We studied biological heterogeneity and clinical outcomes in a multi-institutional platform randomized controlled trial of adults with severe COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure (I-SPY COVID)., Methods: Clinical and plasma protein biomarker data were analyzed from 400 trial participants enrolled from September 2020 until October 2021 with severe COVID-19 requiring ≥ 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Seventeen hypothesis-directed protein biomarkers were measured at enrollment using multiplex Luminex panels or single analyte enzyme linked immunoassay methods (ELISA). Biomarkers and clinical variables were used to test for latent subtypes and longitudinal biomarker changes by subtype were explored. A validated parsimonious model using interleukin-8, bicarbonate, and protein C was used for comparison with non-COVID hyper- and hypo-inflammatory ARDS subtypes., Results: Average participant age was 60 ± 14 years; 67% were male, and 28-day mortality was 25%. At trial enrollment, 85% of participants required high flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, and 97% were receiving dexamethasone. Several biomarkers of inflammation (IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, sTNFR-1, TREM-1), epithelial injury (sRAGE), and endothelial injury (Ang-1, thrombomodulin) were associated with 28- and 60-day mortality. Two latent subtypes were identified. Subtype 2 (27% of participants) was characterized by persistent derangements in biomarkers of inflammation, endothelial and epithelial injury, and disordered coagulation and had twice the mortality rate compared with Subtype 1. Only one person was classified as hyper-inflammatory using the previously validated non-COVID ARDS model., Conclusions: We discovered evidence of two novel biological subtypes of severe COVID-19 with significantly different clinical outcomes. These subtypes differed from previously established hyper- and hypo-inflammatory non-COVID subtypes of ARDS. Biological heterogeneity may explain inconsistent findings from trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and guide treatment approaches., (© 2024. The Author(s).)