Search

Context: Postnatal transmission of human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV) via breastfeeding reverses gains achieved by perinatal antiretroviral interventions.Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of 2 infant feeding strategies for the prevention of postnatal mother-to-child HIV transmission.Design, Setting, and Patients: A 2 x 2 factorial randomized clinical trial with peripartum (single-dose nevirapine vs placebo) and postpartum infant feeding (formula vs breastfeeding with infant zidovudine prophylaxis) interventions. In Botswana between March 27, 2001, and October 29, 2003, 1200 HIV-positive pregnant women were randomized from 4 district hospitals. Infants were evaluated at birth, monthly until age 7 months, at age 9 months, then every third month through age 18 months.Intervention: All of the mothers received zidovudine 300 mg orally twice daily from 34 weeks' gestation and during labor. Mothers and infants were randomized to receive single-dose nevirapine or placebo. Infants were randomized to 6 months of breastfeeding plus prophylactic infant zidovudine (breastfed plus zidovudine), or formula feeding plus 1 month of infant zidovudine (formula fed).Main Outcome Measures: Primary efficacy (HIV infection by age 7 months and HIV-free survival by age 18 months) and safety (occurrence of infant adverse events by 7 months of age) end points were evaluated in 1179 infants.Results: The 7-month HIV infection rates were 5.6% (32 infants in the formula-fed group) vs 9.0% (51 infants in the breastfed plus zidovudine group) (P = .04; 95% confidence interval for difference, -6.4% to -0.4%). Cumulative mortality or HIV infection rates at 18 months were 80 infants (13.9%, formula fed) vs 86 infants (15.1% breastfed plus zidovudine) (P = .60; 95% confidence interval for difference, -5.3% to 2.9%). Cumulative infant mortality at 7 months was significantly higher for the formula-fed group than for the breastfed plus zidovudine group (9.3% vs 4.9%; P = .003), but this difference diminished beyond month 7 such that the time-to-mortality distributions through age 18 months were not significantly different (P = .21).Conclusions: Breastfeeding with zidovudine prophylaxis was not as effective as formula feeding in preventing postnatal HIV transmission, but was associated with a lower mortality rate at 7 months. Both strategies had comparable HIV-free survival at 18 months. These results demonstrate the risk of formula feeding to infants in sub-Saharan Africa, and the need for studies of alternative strategies.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00197587. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first trial of the efficacy of a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 vaccine was conducted in North America and The Netherlands between 1998 and 2003. This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a recombinant glycoprotein 120 vaccine included 5403 initially HIV-negative volunteers who were monitored for 3 years. The 368 subjects who acquired HIV-1 infection were monitored for 2 years by use of the following postinfection end points: plasma HIV-1 RNA level (viral load), CD4+ lymphocyte count, initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART), and HIV-1-related clinical outcomes. This article reports the study results that pertain to the effect of vaccination on the postinfection end points. The time until initiation of ART and the time until virologic failure or initiation of ART were similar in the vaccine arm and the placebo arm. The pre-ART viral load and CD4+ lymphocyte count trajectories were also comparable between the groups. Evidently, the vaccine did not affect HIV-1 disease progression. Copyright © 2005 Infectious Diseases Society of America [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neutralizing antibody titer has been a surrogate endpoint for guiding COVID-19 vaccine approval and use, although the pandemic's evolution and the introduction of variant-adapted vaccine boosters raise questions as to this surrogate's contemporary performance. For 985 recipients of an mRNA second bivalent or monovalent booster containing various Spike inserts [Prototype (Ancestral), Beta, Delta, and/or Omicron BA.1 or BA.4/5] in the COVAIL trial (NCT05289037), titers against 5 strains were assessed as correlates of risk of symptomatic COVID-19 ("COVID-19") and as correlates of relative (Pfizer-BioNTech Omicron vs. Prototype) booster protection against COVID-19 over 6 months of follow-up during the BA.2-BA.5 Omicron-dominant period. Consistently across the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine platforms and across all variant Spike inserts assessed, both peak and exposure-proximal ("predicted-at-exposure") titers correlated with lower Omicron COVID-19 risk in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, albeit significantly less so in naïve individuals [e.g., exposure-proximal hazard ratio per 10-fold increase in BA.1 titer 0.74 (95% CI 0.59, 0.94) for naïve vs. 0.41 (95% CI 0.23, 0.64) for non-naïve; interaction p = 0.013]. Neutralizing antibody titer was a strong inverse correlate of Omicron COVID-19 in non-naïve individuals and a weaker correlate in naïve individuals, posing questions about how prior infection alters the neutralization correlate., Competing Interests: Competing interests: N.G.R. is a paid safety consultant for ICON, CyanVac, Imunon, and EMMES, and has served on selected advisory boards for Sanofi, Seqirus, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. Emory receives funds for N.G.R. to conduct research from Sanofi, Lilly, Merck, Quidel, Immorna, Vaccine Company, and Pfizer-BioNTech. S.K. reports research support to his institution from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Bavarian Nordic, Meissa, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institutes of Health. E.B.W. has served as an investigator for clinical trials or studies sponsored by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Seqirus, Najit, and Clinetic; on advisory boards for Pfizer-BioNTech and Vaxcyte; as a consultant to IliAD Biotechnologies; and as a DSMB member for Shionogi. T.M.B. has served on an Advisory Board for Sanofi. D.N.F. has served on an Advisory Board for Gilead Sciences and for AXCELLA, and as site PI for clinical trials sponsored by Gilead Sciences, Regeneron, MetroBiotech LLC, and the NIH (DMID COVAIL). The remaining authors declare no competing interests., (© 2025. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

The Antibody Mediated Prevention (AMP) trials showed that passively infused VRC01, a broadly neutralizing antibody (bNAb) targeting the CD4 binding site (CD4bs) on the HIV-1 envelope protein (Env), protected against neutralization-sensitive viruses. We identified six individuals from the VRC01 treatment arm with multi-lineage breakthrough HIV-1 infections from HVTN703, where one variant was sensitive to VRC01 (IC 50 < 25 ug/mL) but another was resistant. By comparing Env sequences of resistant and sensitive clones from each participant, we identified sites predicted to affect VRC01 neutralization and assessed the effect of their reversion in the VRC01-resistant clone on neutralization sensitivity. In four pairs, a single mutation restored partial or full sensitivity to VRC01, whereas in the fifth participant, transfer of the entire [Formula: see text]23-V5 loop was required. No VRC01 resistance mutations could be identified in the sixth participant, with the discordant clones differing by >100 amino acids. Mutations responsible for the differential neutralization phenotypes occurred at distinct sites across Env, including residues in loop D, the CD4-binding loop, and between the [Formula: see text]23 and V5 loops. Analysis of deep sequencing env data showed that VRC01 resistance was likely the property of the acquired virus, rather than occurring through post-acquisition evolution. Although VRC01-resistant parental clones generally retained sensitivity to other CD4-binding site bNAbs, they were less potently neutralized than the VRC01-sensitive clones. In conclusion, VRC01 resistance mutations occurred through multiple mutational pathways, but sensitivity to second-generation CD4bs bNAbs was retained even in VRC01-resistant transmitted viruses, confirming the potential of these bNAbs for HIV-1 prevention studies.IMPORTANCEThe Antibody Mediated Prevention (AMP) trials provided proof of principle that VRC01, a CD4-binding site (CD4bs) HIV-1 broadly neutralizing antibody (bNAb), prevented the acquisition of antibody-sensitive viruses. However, understanding common mutations that confer resistance to different bNAbs provides important insights into the genetic barrier to resistance. Here we studied six AMP trial participants with breakthrough infections mediated by multiple viral lineages with discordant VRC01 sensitivity. We identified different mutations across the CD4-binding site that conferred resistance to VRC01 and showed that these mutations were a property of the acquired virus, rather than a result of post-acquisition evolution. We found that although VRC01 resistance was associated with reduced neutralization potency of second-generation CD4-binding site bNAbs, overall neutralization sensitivity was generally retained, which is promising for future use of such bNAbs in clinical trials.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines reduce severe disease and mortality and may lessen transmission, measured by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load (VL). Evaluating vaccine associations in VL at COVID-19 diagnosis in 4 phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled vaccine trials, July 2020 to July 2021, VL reductions were 2.78 log10 copies/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-4.18; n = 60 placebo, 11 vaccine) and 2.12 log10 copies/mL (95% CI, 1.44-2.80; n = 594 placebo, 36 vaccine) for NVX-CoV2373 and mRNA-1273, respectively. Associations were not significant for AZD1222 (0.59 log10 copies/mL; 95% CI, -.19 to 1.36; n = 90 placebo, 78 vaccine) or Ad26.COV2.S (0.23 log10 copies/mL; 95% CI, -.01 to .47; n = 916 placebo, 424 vaccine). Thus, vaccines potentially decreased transmission when ancestral SARS-CoV-2 predominated. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04470427, NCT04505722, NCT04516746, NCT04611802., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. A. F. had/has research grants from Pfizer, Merck, Janssen, CyanVac, VaxCo, Moderna, and BioFire Diagnostics; fees for advisory boards from GSK, ADMA Biologics, and Sanofi Pasteur; and fees for data safety monitoring board from Novavax. M. E. S. had/has grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) during the conduct of the study (5UM1AI069470); grants from NIH/NIAID and Gates Foundation outside the submitted work; and grants to her institution from Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Sanofi, and Gilead outside of the submitted work. S. R. W. has received institutional funding from the NIH/NIAID; institutional grants or contracts from Sanofi Pasteur, 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 BioNTech; and his spouse holds stock/stock options in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. C. M. E. has received research grants from Merck and AstraZeneca; and has participated in Sanofi, Janssen, and Gilead advisory board meetings. N. R. is a paid safety consultant for ICON, CyanVac, and EMMES; served on selected advisory boards for Sanofi, Seqirus, Pfizer, and Moderna; and receives funds to their institution to conduct research from Sanofi, Lilly, Merck, Quidel, Immorna, Vaccine Company, and Pfizer. C. L. G. has received institutional funding from the NIH for the conduct of the Moderna and Novavax studies; and grants to her institution from Gilead and ViiV outside of the submitted work. K. L. K. has received institutional funding from the NIH for the conduct of the Moderna and Novavax studies (UM1 AI 148689); and from Novavax outside of the submitted work. J. A. G. is employed by and holds stock in AstraZeneca. E. A. H. received fees from Oxford University for time spent adjudicating end points for the AstraZeneca/Oxford SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials conducted in the UK, South Africa, and Brazil. M. D. T. has received institutional funding from the NIH for the conduct of the Moderna and Novavax studies (UM1 AI 148689). 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.)

Despite significant progress in vaccine research, the level of protection provided by vaccination can vary significantly across individuals. As a result, understanding immunologic variation across individuals in response to vaccination is important for developing next-generation efficacious vaccines. Accurate outcome prediction and identification of predictive biomarkers would represent a significant step towards this goal. Moreover, in early phase vaccine clinical trials, small datasets are prevalent, raising the need and challenge of building a robust and explainable prediction model that can reveal heterogeneity in small datasets. We propose a new model named Generative Mixture of Logistic Regression (GeM-LR), which combines characteristics of both a generative and a discriminative model. In addition, we propose a set of model selection strategies to enhance the robustness and interpretability of the model. GeM-LR extends a linear classifier to a non-linear classifier without losing interpretability and empowers the notion of predictive clustering for characterizing data heterogeneity in connection with the outcome variable. We demonstrate the strengths and utility of GeM-LR by applying it to data from several studies. GeM-LR achieves better prediction results than other popular methods while providing interpretations at different levels., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: G.D.T. was a recipient of a research subcontract through Duke University from GSK for work unrelated to this study., (Copyright: © 2024 Lin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: HIV type 1 (HIV-1) remains a global health concern, with the greatest burden in sub-Saharan Africa. Despite 40 years of research, no vaccine candidate has shown durable and protective efficacy against HIV-1 acquisition. Although pre-exposure prophylaxis in groups with high vulnerability can be very effective, barriers to its use, such as perceived low acquisition risk, fear of stigma, and concerns about side-effects, remain. Thus, a population-based approach, such as an HIV-1 vaccine, is needed. The current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a heterologous HIV-1 vaccine regimen, consisting of a tetravalent mosaic adenovirus 26-based vaccine (Ad26.Mos4.HIV) and aluminium phosphate-adjuvanted clade C glycoprotein (gp) 140, in young women at risk of acquiring HIV-1 in southern Africa., Methods: This randomised, double-blind, phase 2b study enrolled sexually active women without HIV-1 or HIV-2 aged 18-35 years at 23 clinical research sites in Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular injections of vaccine or saline placebo in stratified permuted blocks via an interactive web response system. Study participants, study site personnel (except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation and dispensing), and investigators were masked to treatment group allocation. The vaccine regimen consisted of Ad26.Mos4.HIV administered at months 0 and 3 followed by Ad26.Mos4.HIV administered concurrently with aluminium phosphate-adjuvanted clade C gp140 at months 6 and 12. The primary efficacy outcome was vaccine efficacy in preventing laboratory-confirmed HIV-1 acquisition diagnosed between visits at month 7 and month 24 after the first vaccination (VE[7-24]) in the per-protocol population, which included participants who had not acquired HIV-1 4 weeks after the third vaccination, received all planned vaccinations at the first three vaccination visits within the protocol-specified windows, and had no major protocol deviations that could affect vaccine efficacy. Primary safety outcomes were assessed in randomly assigned participants who received one study injection or more based on the actual injection received. The primary safety endpoints were the incidences of unsolicited adverse events (AEs), solicited local and systemic AEs, serious AEs, AEs of special interest, and AEs leading to discontinuation of vaccination. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03060629, and is complete., Findings: Between Nov 3, 2017, and June 30, 2019, 2654 women were randomly assigned, of whom 2636 women (median age of 23 years [IQR 20-25]) were enrolled and received at least one study injection (1313 assigned vaccine, 1323 placebo; 1317 received vaccine, 1319 placebo). Analysis of the primary efficacy outcome in the per-protocol cohort included 1080 women in the vaccine group and 1108 women in the placebo group; the incidence of HIV-1 acquisition per 100 person-years over months 7-24 after the first vaccination was 3·38 (95% CI 2·54-4·41) in the vaccine group and 3·94 (3·04-5·03) in the placebo group, with an estimated VE(7-24) of 14·10% (95% CI -22·00 to 39·51; p=0·40). There were no serious unsolicited AEs, AEs of special interest, or deaths related to the study vaccine. In the vaccine group, 663 (50·3%) of 1317 participants had grade 1 or 2 solicited local AEs and ten (0·8%) of 1317 participants had grade 3 or 4 solicited local AEs. In the placebo group, 305 (23·1%) of 1319 participants had grade 1 or 2 solicited local AEs and three (0·2%) of 1319 participants had grade 3 or 4 solicited local AEs. 863 (65·5%) of 1317 participants in the vaccine group had grade 1 or 2 solicited systemic AEs and 34 (2·6%) of 1317 participants had grade 3 or 4 solicited systemic AEs. 763 (57·8%) of 1319 participants in the placebo group had grade 1 or 2 solicited systemic AEs and 20 (1·5%) of 1319 participants had grade 3 or 4 solicited systemic AEs. Overall, three (0·2%) of 1317 participants in the vaccine group and three (0·2%) of 1319 participants in the placebo group discontinued vaccination due to an unsolicited AE, and three (0·2%) of 1317 participants in the vaccine group and one (0·1%) of 1319 participants in the placebo group discontinued vaccination due to a solicited AE., Interpretation: The heterologous Ad26.Mos4.HIV and clade C gp140 vaccine regimen was safe and well tolerated but did not show efficacy in preventing HIV-1 acquisition in a population of young women in southern Africa at risk of HIV-1., Funding: Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through the HIV Vaccine Trials Network, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Janssen Vaccines & Prevention, US Army Medical Materiel Development Activity, and Ragon Institute., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GEG's institution (the South African Medical Research Council) has received funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. KM was a protocol co-chair for the Imbokodo trial. LL is a consultant for Janssen Infectious Diseases. SN, DJS, JvD, WW, JVH, HS, MGP, and FT were employees of Janssen Pharmaceuticals at the time of this study and are stockholders of Johnson & Johnson. AL's institution has received funding from the NIH; outside the submitted work, AL has received consulting fees from Harvard University, and his institution has received funding from Janssen Pharmaceuticals. PM is an employee and stockholder of CureVac. MJM's institution (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center) has received funding, including for laboratory equipment purchases, from the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) Laboratory Center (grant number 5UM1AI068618) and Seattle-Lausanne Clinical Trials Unit; outside the submitted work, her institution has received funding, including for laboratory equipment purchases, from the Scripps Consortium for HIV/AIDS Vaccine Development Subaward, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Human Immunology Project Consortium 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Comprehensive Cellular Vaccine Immune Monitoring Consortium, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Collaboration for AIDS Vaccine Discovery; her institution has received funding, including for laboratory equipment purchases, supporting SARS-CoV-2 vaccine laboratory studies from the COVID-19 Prevention Network (NIAID), Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium (NIAID), Sanofi Pasteur, Moderna, and Regeneron; her institution has received funding, including for laboratory equipment purchases, supporting HIV and other vaccine trials and laboratory studies from International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Vir Biotechnology; and she has participated in scientific advisory boards for the Ragon Institute and Keystone Symposia, and on a board of scientific counsellors for the NIH Vaccine Research Center. GDT's institution (Duke University) has received NIH funding through the HVTN (grant numbers 5UM1AI068614 and 5UM1AI068618); GDT has served as a consultant for and received funding to her institution through Janssen Pharmaceuticals; is a reviewer for the Gilead Research Scholar Program; and has served on the board of scientific counsellors for the NIH Vaccine Research Center. DHB is a co-inventor on HIV vaccine patents that have been licensed to Janssen Pharmaceuticals. SB has received grant funding from Gilead Sciences, Merck, GSK, and ViiV. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The HVTN 705 Imbokodo trial of 2636 people without HIV and assigned female sex at birth, conducted in southern Africa, evaluated a heterologous HIV-1 vaccine regimen: mosaic adenovirus 26-based vaccine (Ad26.Mos4.HIV) at Months 0, 3, 6, 12 and alum-adjuvanted clade C gp140 at Months 6, 12. Per-protocol vaccine efficacy (VE) against HIV-1 diagnosis from seven to 24 months was 14.1% (95% CI: -22.0% to 39.5%). Immune correlates analysis was performed for markers selected based on prior evidence in efficacy trials and/or nonhuman primate models., Methods: Humoral and cellular immune response markers at Month 7 were evaluated as immune correlates of risk and of protection in a breakthrough case-control cohort (n = 52 cases, 246 non-cases). Primary markers were IgG binding to vaccine-strain gp140, IgG3 binding to diverse Env antigens (IgG3 Env breadth), IgG3 binding to diverse V1V2 antigens (IgG3 V1V2 breadth), antibody-dependent phagocytosis against the vaccine-strain gp140, Env-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses, and multi-epitope functions., Findings: No immune markers were statistically significant correlates of risk. IgG3 V1V2 breadth trended toward an inverse association: hazard ratio 0.70 (95% CI: 0.36 to 1.35; p = 0.29) per 10-fold increase and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.21 to 1.24; p = 0.14) in a Cox model with all primary markers. The VE estimate was 11.8% (95% CI: -17.9% to 34.0%) at all IgG3 V1V2 breadth values below 667 weighted geometric mean net MFI; just above this value, the VE estimate sharply increased to 62.6% (95% CI: -17.9% to 89.6%), and further increased to 80.9% (95% CI: -17.9% to 99.5%) at 1471 MFI, the 95th percentile of the marker distribution. Mediation analysis yielded a VE of 35.7% (95% CI: 15.0% to 51.3%) attributable to the vaccine's impact on this marker., Interpretation: The trend in association of greater IgG3 V1V2 antibody breadth with lower likelihood of HIV acquisition is consistent with the identification of antibodies against V1V2 as immune correlates in three other HIV vaccine efficacy trials and suggests that a greater emphasis should be placed on studying this region in the HIV-1 envelope as a vaccine immunogen., Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TvdK has a patent application with Johnson & Johnson and has stocks in Johnson & Johnson. BK received internal support for the present manuscript from her employer (Los Alamos National Laboratory). In the past 36 months, she received support for attending meetings and/or travel from NIH NIAID and from the Gates foundation. Her institution (LANL) had a patent on this work, although she did not receive any personal funds through this patent and was not involved with the licensing of the design to Johnson & Johnson. DHB has a patent on the mosaic HIV vaccine, but no royalties. FT was an employee of Janssen/Johnson & Johnson at the time the work was conducted and owns stock in Johnson & Johnson. LL received support from Janssen Infectious Diseases BV, Beerse, Belgium for travel expenses to attend HIV conferences and has stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. JvD, MGP, WW, TvdK and JHen are employees of Janssen/Johnson & Johnson and hold stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. WW has a patent planned, issued, or pending with Johnson & Johnson. SCDR had contracts in the past 36 months to perform immunogenicity testing for Janssen, Sanofi, and Moderna. HS and DJS were employees of Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV and had stock and/or stock options in Johnson & Johnson at the time the work was conducted. SN was an employee of Janssen Infectious Diseases BV and had stock and/or stock options in Johnson & Johnson at the time the work was conducted. LP was an employee of Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV at the time the work was conducted. GDT has received consulting fees for a scientific consulting session. All other authors have no potential competing interests to disclose. Funding for the Imbokodo Study and Correlates Group is the same as listed in “Acknowledgments” for the current work., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

For COVAIL recipients of a COVID-19 Sanofi booster vaccine, neutralizing antibody titers were assessed as a correlate of risk (CoR) of COVID-19. Peak and exposure-proximal titers were inverse CoRs with covariate-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) 0.30 (0.11, 0.78) and 0.25 (0.07, 0.85) per 10-fold increase in weighted average titer., (© 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.)

In the phase 3 Coronavirus Efficacy (COVE) trial (NCT04470427), post-dose two Ancestral Spike-specific binding (bAb) and neutralizing (nAb) antibodies were shown to be correlates of risk (CoR) and of protection against Ancestral-lineage COVID-19 in SARS-CoV-2 naive participants. In the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron era, Omicron subvariants with varying degrees of immune escape now dominate, seropositivity rates are high, and booster doses are administered, raising questions on whether and how these developments affect the bAb and nAb correlates. To address these questions, we assess post-boost BA.1 Spike-specific bAbs and nAbs as CoRs and as correlates of booster efficacy in COVE. For naive individuals, bAbs and nAbs inversely correlate with Omicron COVID-19: hazard ratios (HR) per 10-fold marker increase (95% confidence interval) are 0.16 (0.03, 0.79) and 0.31 (0.10, 0.96), respectively. In non-naive individuals the analogous results are similar: 0.15 (0.04, 0.63) and 0.28 (0.07, 1.08). For naive individuals, three vs two-dose booster efficacy correlates with predicted nAb titer at exposure, with estimates -8% (-126%, 48%), 50% (25%, 67%), and 74% (49%, 87%), at 56, 251, and 891 Arbitrary Units/ml. These results support the continued use of antibody as a surrogate endpoint., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Combination monoclonal broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) are currently being developed for preventing HIV-1 acquisition. Recent work has focused on predicting in vitro neutralization potency of both individual bnAbs and combination regimens against HIV-1 pseudoviruses using Env sequence features. To predict in vitro combination regimen neutralization potency against a given HIV-1 pseudovirus, previous approaches have applied mathematical models to combine individual-bnAb neutralization and have predicted this combined neutralization value; we call this the combine-then-predict (CP) approach. However, prediction performance for some individual bnAbs has exceeded that for the combination, leading to another possibility: combining the individual-bnAb predicted values and using these to predict combination regimen neutralization; we call this the predict-then-combine (PC) approach. We explore both approaches in both simulated data and data from the Los Alamos National Laboratory's Compile, Neutralize, and Tally NAb Panels repository. The CP approach is superior to the PC approach when the neutralization outcome of interest is binary (e.g., neutralization susceptibility, defined as inhibitory 80% concentration < 1 μg/mL). For continuous outcomes, the CP approach performs nearly as well as the PC approach when the individual-bnAb prediction algorithms have strong performance, and is superior to the PC approach when the individual-bnAb prediction algorithms have poor performance. This knowledge may be used when building prediction models for novel antibody combinations in the absence of in vitro neutralization data for the antibody combination; this, in turn, will aid in the evaluation and down-selection of these antibody combinations into prevention efficacy trials., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Williamson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: The first licensed malaria vaccine, RTS,S/AS01 E , confers moderate protection against symptomatic disease. Because many malaria infections are asymptomatic, we conducted a large-scale longitudinal parasite genotyping study of samples from a clinical trial exploring how vaccine dosing regimen affects vaccine efficacy., Methods: Between Sept 28, 2017, and Sept 25, 2018, 1500 children aged 5-17 months were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive four different RTS,S/AS01 E regimens or a rabies control vaccine in a phase 2b open-label clinical trial in Ghana and Kenya. Participants in the four RTS,S groups received two full doses at month 0 and month 1 and either full doses at month 2 and month 20 (group R012-20); full doses at month 2, month 14, month 26, and month 38 (group R012-14); fractional doses at month 2, month 14, month 26, and month 38 (group Fx012-14; early fourth dose); or fractional doses at month 7, month 20, and month 32 (group Fx017-20; delayed third dose). We evaluated the time to the first new genotypically detected infection and the total number of new infections during two follow-up periods (12 months and 20 months) in more than 36 000 dried blood spot specimens from 1500 participants. To study vaccine effects on time to the first new infection, we defined vaccine efficacy as one minus the hazard ratio (HR; RTS,S vs control) of the first new infection. We performed a post-hoc analysis of vaccine efficacy based on malaria infection status at first vaccination and force of infection by month 2. This trial (MAL-095) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03281291., Findings: We observed significant and similar vaccine efficacy (25-43%; 95% CI union 9-53) against first new infection for all four RTS,S/AS01 E regimens across both follow-up periods (12 months and 20 months). Each RTS,S/AS01 E regimen significantly reduced the mean number of new infections in the 20-month follow-up period by 1·1-1·6 infections (95% CI union 0·6-2·1). Vaccine efficacy against first new infection was significantly higher in participants who were infected with malaria (68%; 95% CI 50-80) than in those who were uninfected (37%; 23-48) at the first vaccination (p=0·0053)., Interpretation: All tested dosing regimens blocked some infections to a similar degree. Improved vaccine efficacy in participants infected during vaccination could suggest new strategies for highly efficacious malaria vaccine development and implementation., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, PATH, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the US Department of Health and Human Services. LDM received grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research through the KfW Development Bank through her institution. CKL received a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research through the KfW Development Bank and a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. DFW acted as a principal investigator on the MAL-095 study funded by a PATH grant paid to Harvard University, which also supported DEN, AME, BLM, SFS, and AK. DFW is also Chair of the Malaria Policy Advisory Group that advises the WHO on all malaria policy. PBG discloses a PATH subaward from Harvard for statistical analysis contributing to salary support for PBG, MJ, and LL. AME, LL, AK, BS, NSH, DB, SaA, TA, ScA, DA, DKB, PBYB, SE, NF, JG, SKK, KO, AMS, NW, and CFO declare no conflict of interest. ML, FR, OO-A are employees of GSK. ML, FR, and OO-A own shares in GSK., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Identifying correlations between immune responses elicited via HIV and non-HIV vaccines could aid the search for correlates of HIV protection and increase statistical power in HIV vaccine-efficacy trial designs. An exploratory objective of the HVTN 097 phase 1b trial was to assess whether immune responses [focusing on those supported as correlates of risk (CoR) of HIV acquisition] induced via the RV144 pox-prime HIV vaccine regimen correlated with those induced via tetanus toxoid (TT) and/or hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccines. We measured TT-specific and HBV-specific IgG-binding antibody responses and TT-specific and HBV-specific CD4+ T-cell responses at multiple time points in HVTN 097 participants, and we assessed their correlations at peak time points with HIV vaccine (ALVAC-HIV and AIDSVAX B/E)-induced responses. Four correlations were significant [false discovery rate-adjusted p -value (FDR) ≤ 0.2]. Three of these four were with IgG-binding antibody responses to TT measured one month after TT receipt, with the strongest and most significant correlation [rho = 0.368 (95% CI: 0.096, 0.588; p = 0.008; FDR = 0.137)] being with IgG-binding antibody responses to MN gp120 gDneg (B protein boost) measured two weeks after the second ALVAC-HIV and AIDSVAX B/E boost. The fourth significant correlation [(rho = 0.361; 95% CI: 0.049, 0.609; p = 0.021; FDR = 0.137)] was between CD4+ T-cell responses to a hepatitis B surface antigen peptide pool, measured 2 weeks after the third HBV vaccination, and IgG-binding antibody responses to gp70BCaseAV1V2 (B V1V2 immune correlate), measured two weeks after the second ALVAC-HIV and AIDSVAX B/E boost. These moderate correlations imply that either vaccine, TT or HBV, could potentially provide a moderately useful immunogenicity predictor for the ALVAC-HIV and AIDSVAX B/E HIV vaccine regimen.

Background: Although the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are highly efficacious at preventing severe disease in the general population, current data are lacking regarding vaccine efficacy (VE) for individuals with mild immunocompromising conditions., Methods: A post hoc, cross-protocol analysis of participant-level data from the blinded phase of four randomized, placebo-controlled, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine phase 3 trials (Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax) was performed. We defined a "tempered immune system" (TIS) variable via a consensus panel based on medical history and medications to determine VE against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 cases in TIS participants versus non-TIS individuals starting at 14 days after completion of the primary series through the blinded phase for each of the 4 trials. An analysis of participants living with well-controlled human immunodeficiency virus was conducted using the same methods., Results: A total of 3852/30 351 (12.7%) Moderna participants, 3088/29 868 (10.3%) Novavax participants, 3549/32 380 (11.0%) AstraZeneca participants, and 5047/43 788 (11.5%) Janssen participants were identified as having a TIS. Most TIS conditions (73.9%) were due to metabolism and nutritional disorders. Vaccination (vs placebo) significantly reduced the likelihood of symptomatic and severe COVID-19 for all participants for each trial. VE was not significantly different for TIS participants versus non-TIS for either symptomatic or severe COVID-19 for each trial, nor was VE significantly different in the symptomatic endpoint for participants with human immunodeficiency virus., Conclusions: For individuals with mildly immunocompromising conditions, there is no evidence of differences in VE against symptomatic or severe COVID-19 compared with those with non-TIS in the 4 COVID-19 vaccine randomized controlled efficacy trials., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. O. A. received salary support from research funding paid to UCLA by Moderna, Inc. A. T. reports that this project has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. 75N91019D00024. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. C. L. G.’s institution received funding from the NIH for salary support for her role as site Principal Investigator for the Moderna Phase 3 trial and site Principle and Co-Chair for the Novavax Phase 3 trial. N. R. received research grants from Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi, Quidel, Immorna, Vaccine Company, and Lilly through her institution, consulting fees from Krog, honoraria as speaker for Virology education, and travel support from Sanofi and Moderna. N. R. serves on safety committees for ICON and EMMES and is a member of the Moderna, Sanofi, Seqirus, and Pfizer selected Advisory boards. I. H. is an employee of AstraZeneca and holds/may hold stock in AstraZeneca. A. R. F. reports grant support from Janssen, Pfizer, Moderna, CyanVac, VaxCo, and BioFire Diagnostics; advisory board fees from Arrowhead and GSK; travel reimbursement from GSK and Sanofi and fees for DSMB from Novavax. B. L. is an employee of Moderna, Inc. and may own stock/stock options in the company. J. S. declares support for the submitted work from the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson and partial support (in the form of funding to his institution) from BARDA for the submitted work, declares support from the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson and BARDA funding for part of this work, has patents on invention of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, and has Johnson & Johnson stock and stock options. P. A. G. reports a patent for a COVID-19 monoclonal antibody from Aridis Pharmaceuticals. V. C. reports payments made to Emory University from Gilead Sciences. K. N. receives grants from NIH to participate in overall organization of COVID vaccine trials and for participation in vaccine trials and has a grant for Vaxco for a phase 1 testing of a broadly reactive COVID-19 vaccine. L. D. is an employee of Novavax, Inc. 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: An effective vaccine is required to end the HIV pandemic. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of a DNA (DNA-HIV-PT123) vaccine with low- or high-dose bivalent (TV1.C and 1086.C glycoprotein 120) subtype C envelope protein combinations, adjuvanted with MF59 or AS01B., Methods: HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN)108 was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 1/2a trial conducted in the United States and South Africa. HIV-negative adults were randomly assigned to 1 of 7 intervention arms or placebo to assess DNA prime with DNA/protein/adjuvant boosts, DNA/protein/adjuvant co-administration, and low-dose protein/adjuvant regimens. HVTN111 trial participants who received an identical regimen were also included. Outcomes included safety and immunogenicity 2 weeks and 6 months after final vaccination., Results: From June 2016 to July 2018, 400 participants were enrolled (N = 334 HVTN108, N = 66 HVTN111); 370 received vaccine and 30 received placebo. There were 48 grade 3 and 3 grade 4 reactogenicity events among 39/400 (9.8%) participants, and 32 mild/moderate-related adverse events in 23/400 (5.8%) participants. All intervention groups demonstrated high IgG response rates (>89%) and high magnitudes to HIV-1 Env gp120 and gp140 proteins; response rates for AS01B-adjuvanted groups approached 100%. V1V2 IgG magnitude, Fc-mediated functions, IgG3 Env response rates, and CD4+ T-cell response magnitudes and rates were higher in the AS01B-adjuvanted groups. The AS01B-adjuvanted low-dose protein elicited greater IgG responses than the higher protein dose., Conclusions: The vaccine regimens were generally well tolerated. Co-administration of DNA with AS01B-adjuvanted bivalent Env gp120 elicited the strongest humoral responses; AS01B-adjuvanted regimens elicited stronger CD4+ T-cell responses, justifying further evaluation.ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02915016, registered 26 September 2016., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the UK Medical Research Council for the submitted work. SB is a member of the NICE Decision Support Unit and NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit; has served as a paid consultant, providing methodological advice, to NICE, Roche, IQVIA, and RTI Health Solutions; received payments for educational events from Roche; and has received research funding from European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and Johnson & Johnson. MOu works for and has shares in AstraZeneca. JSR is a deputy editor at JAMA, was formerly an associate editor at The BMJ, and is co-founder (unpaid) of medRxiv; has received research support through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation programme (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from Arnold Ventures; was an expert witness at the request of Relator’s attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in September 2022. NJB has received consulting fees from Nobias Therapeutics. AA and YR are associate editors at BMC Trials. OC is an associate editor for Value in Health and has received consulting fees from MSD and Janssen. RC is a founding member of the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group, which might be perceived as a possible conflict of interest. RH has shares in Johnson & Johnson. JHP has been a consultant for AdaptivePhage, Arrevus, Atheln, BavariaNordic, Cellularity, Eicos, Evofem, Eyecheck, Gilead, GSK, Mustang, OPKO, Otsuka, Resolve, Romark, SpineBioPPharma, and UTIlity,Vir. GSC is a statistics editor for The BMJ, and director of the UK EQUATOR Centre. CJW has undertaken consultancy for AB Science, for which his institution has received a fee. DD is an associate editor of Value in Health.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the UK Medical Research Council for the submitted work. SB is a member of the NICE Decision Support Unit and NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit; has served as a paid consultant, providing methodological advice, to NICE, Roche, IQVIA, and RTI Health Solutions; received payments for educational events from Roche; and has received research funding from European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and Johnson & Johnson. MOu works for and has shares in AstraZeneca. JSR is a deputy editor at JAMA, was formerly an associate editor at The BMJ, and is co-founder (unpaid) of medRxiv; has received research support through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation programme (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from Arnold Ventures; was an expert witness at the request of Relator’s attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in September 2022. NJB has received consulting fees from Nobias Therapeutics. AA and YR are associate editors at BMC Trials. OC is an associate editor for Value in Health and has received consulting fees from MSD and Janssen. RC is a founding member of the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group, which might be perceived as a possible conflict of interest. RH has shares in Johnson & Johnson. JHP has been a consultant for AdaptivePhage, Arrevus, Atheln, BavariaNordic, Cellularity, Eicos, Evofem, Eyecheck, Gilead, GSK, Mustang, OPKO, Otsuka, Resolve, Romark, SpineBioPPharma, and UTIlity,Vir. GSC is a statistics editor for The BMJ, and director of the UK EQUATOR Centre. CJW has undertaken consultancy for AB Science, for which his institution has received a fee. DD is an associate editor of Value in Health.

Introduction: The HVTN 105 vaccine clinical trial tested four combinations of two immunogens - the DNA vaccine DNA-HIV-PT123, and the protein vaccine AIDSVAX B/E. All combinations induced substantial antibody and CD4+ T cell responses in many participants. We have now re-examined the intracellular cytokine staining flow cytometry data using the high-resolution SWIFT clustering algorithm, which is very effective for enumerating rare populations such as antigen-responsive T cells, and also determined correlations between the antibody and T cell responses., Methods: Flow cytometry samples across all the analysis batches were registered using the swiftReg registration tool, which reduces batch variation without compromising biological variation. Registered data were clustered using the SWIFT algorithm, and cluster template competition was used to identify clusters of antigen-responsive T cells and to separate these from constitutive cytokine producing cell clusters., Results: Registration strongly reduced batch variation among batches analyzed across several months. This in-depth clustering analysis identified a greater proportion of responders than the original analysis. A subset of antigen-responsive clusters producing IL-21 was identified. The cytokine patterns in each vaccine group were related to the type of vaccine - protein antigens tended to induce more cells producing IL-2 but not IFN-γ, whereas DNA vaccines tended to induce more IL-2+ IFN-γ+ CD4 T cells. Several significant correlations were identified between specific antibody responses and antigen-responsive T cell clusters. The best correlations were not necessarily observed with the strongest antibody or T cell responses., Conclusion: In the complex HVTN105 dataset, alternative analysis methods increased sensitivity of the detection of antigen-specific T cells; increased the number of identified vaccine responders; identified a small IL-21-producing T cell population; and demonstrated significant correlations between specific T cell populations and serum antibody responses. Multiple analysis strategies may be valuable for extracting the most information from large, complex studies., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer RP declared a past co-authorship with the author NR to the handling editor. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Mosmann, Rebhahn, De Rosa, Keefer, McElrath, Rouphael, Pantaleo, Gilbert, Corey, Kobie and Thakar.)

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 viral load (VL) in the nasopharynx is difficult to quantify and standardize across settings, but it may inform transmission potential and disease severity., Objective: To characterize VL at COVID-19 diagnosis among previously uninfected and unvaccinated individuals by evaluating the association of demographic and clinical characteristics, viral variant, and trial with VL, as well as the ability of VL to predict severe disease., Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary cross-protocol analysis used individual-level data from placebo recipients from 4 harmonized, phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials sponsored by Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax. Participants were SARS-CoV-2 negative at baseline and acquired COVID-19 during the blinded phase of the trials. The setting included the US, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Mexico; start dates were July 27, 2020, to December 27, 2020; data cutoff dates were March 26, 2021, to July 30, 2021. Statistical analysis was performed from November 2022 to June 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: Linear regression was used to assess the association of demographic and clinical characteristics, viral variant, and trial with polymerase chain reaction-measured log10 VL in nasal and/or nasopharyngeal swabs taken at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis., Results: Among 1667 participants studied (886 [53.1%] male; 995 [59.7%] enrolled in the US; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [14.7] years; 204 [12.2%] aged 65 years or older; 196 [11.8%] American Indian or Alaska Native, 150 [9%] Black or African American, 1112 [66.7%] White; 762 [45.7%] Hispanic or Latino), median (IQR) log10 VL at diagnosis was 6.18 (4.66-7.12) log10 copies/mL. Participant characteristics and viral variant explained only 5.9% of the variability in VL. The independent factor with the highest observed differences was trial: Janssen participants had 0.54 log10 copies/mL lower mean VL vs Moderna participants (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.87 log10 copies/mL lower). In the Janssen study, which captured the largest number of COVID-19 events and variants and used the most intensive post-COVID surveillance, neither VL at diagnosis nor averaged over days 1 to 28 post diagnosis was associated with COVID-19 severity., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of placebo recipients from 4 randomized phase 3 trials, high variability was observed in SARS-CoV-2 VL at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and only a fraction was explained by individual participant characteristics or viral variant. These results suggest challenges for future studies of interventions seeking to influence VL and elevates the importance of standardized methods for specimen collection and viral load quantitation.

Monoclonal antibodies are commonly engineered with an introduction of Met428Leu and Asn434Ser, known as the LS mutation, in the fragment crystallizable region to improve pharmacokinetic profiles. The LS mutation delays antibody clearance by enhancing binding affinity to the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor found on endothelial cells. To characterize the LS mutation for monoclonal antibodies targeting HIV, we compared pharmacokinetic parameters between parental versus LS variants for five pairs of anti-HIV immunoglobin G1 monoclonal antibodies (VRC01/LS/VRC07-523LS, 3BNC117/LS, PGDM1400/LS PGT121/LS, 10-1074/LS), analyzing data from 16 clinical trials of 583 participants without HIV. We described serum concentrations of these monoclonal antibodies following intravenous or subcutaneous administration by an open two-compartment disposition, with first-order elimination from the central compartment using non-linear mixed effects pharmacokinetic models. We compared estimated pharmacokinetic parameters using the targeted maximum likelihood estimation method, accounting for participant differences. We observed lower clearance rate, central volume, and peripheral volume of distribution for all LS variants compared to parental monoclonal antibodies. LS monoclonal antibodies showed several improvements in pharmacokinetic parameters, including increases in the elimination half-life by 2.7- to 4.1-fold, the dose-normalized area-under-the-curve by 4.1- to 9.5-fold, and the predicted concentration at 4 weeks post-administration by 3.4- to 7.6-fold. Results suggest a favorable pharmacokinetic profile of LS variants regardless of HIV epitope specificity. Insights support lower dosages and/or less frequent dosing of LS variants to achieve similar levels of antibody exposure in future clinical applications.

A central goal of vaccine research is to characterize and validate immune correlates of protection (CoPs). In addition to helping elucidate immunological mechanisms, a CoP can serve as a valid surrogate endpoint for an infectious disease clinical outcome and thus qualifies as a primary endpoint for vaccine authorization or approval without requiring resource-intensive randomized, controlled phase 3 trials. Yet, it is challenging to persuasively validate a CoP, because a prognostic immune marker can fail as a reliable basis for predicting/inferring the level of vaccine efficacy against a clinical outcome, and because the statistical analysis of phase 3 trials only has limited capacity to disentangle association from cause. Moreover, the multitude of statistical methods garnered for CoP evaluation in phase 3 trials renders the comparison, interpretation, and synthesis of CoP results challenging. Toward promoting broader harmonization and standardization of CoP evaluation, this article summarizes four complementary statistical frameworks for evaluating CoPs in a phase 3 trial, focusing on the frameworks' distinct scientific objectives as measured and communicated by distinct causal vaccine efficacy parameters. Advantages and disadvantages of the frameworks are considered, dependent on phase 3 trial context, and perspectives are offered on how the frameworks can be applied and their results synthesized., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: HIV-1 vaccine development is a global health priority. Broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) which target the HIV-1 gp41 membrane-proximal external region (MPER) have some of the highest neutralization breadth. An MPER peptide-liposome vaccine has been found to expand bnAb precursors in monkeys., Methods: The HVTN133 phase 1 clinical trial (NCT03934541) studied the MPER-peptide liposome immunogen in 24 HIV-1 seronegative individuals. Participants were recruited between 15 July 2019 and 18 October 2019 and were randomized in a dose-escalation design to either 500 mcg or 2000 mcg of the MPER-peptide liposome or placebo. Four intramuscular injections were planned at months 0, 2, 6, and 12., Results: The trial was stopped prematurely due to an anaphylaxis reaction in one participant ultimately attributed to vaccine-associated polyethylene glycol. The immunogen induced robust immune responses, including MPER+ serum and blood CD4+ T-cell responses in 95% and 100% of vaccinees, respectively, and 35% (7/20) of vaccine recipients had blood IgG memory B cells with MPER-bnAb binding phenotype. Affinity purification of plasma MPER+ IgG demonstrated tier 2 HIV-1 neutralizing activity in two of five participants after 3 immunizations., Conclusions: MPER-peptide liposomes induced gp41 serum neutralizing epitope-targeted antibodies and memory B-cell responses in humans despite the early termination of the study. These results suggest that the MPER region is a promising target for a candidate HIV vaccine., Competing Interests: SRW has received institutional funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/National Institutes of Health; and institutional grants or contracts from Sanofi Pasteur, 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 BioNTech; and his spouse holds stock/stock options in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. BFH, CBF and SMA have patents on the MPER peptide liposome.

In the ENSEMBLE randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (NCT04505722), estimated single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine efficacy (VE) was 56% against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 Spike sequences were determined from 484 vaccine and 1,067 placebo recipients who acquired COVID-19. In this set of prespecified analyses, we show that in Latin America, VE was significantly lower against Lambda vs. Reference and against Lambda vs. non-Lambda [family-wise error rate (FWER) p < 0.05]. VE differed by residue match vs. mismatch to the vaccine-insert at 16 amino acid positions (4 FWER p < 0.05; 12 q-value ≤ 0.20); significantly decreased with physicochemical-weighted Hamming distance to the vaccine-strain sequence for Spike, receptor-binding domain, N-terminal domain, and S1 (FWER p < 0.001); differed (FWER ≤ 0.05) by distance to the vaccine strain measured by 9 antibody-epitope escape scores and 4 NTD neutralization-impacting features; and decreased (p = 0.011) with neutralization resistance level to vaccinee sera. VE against severe-critical COVID-19 was stable across most sequence features but lower against the most distant viruses., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In the Antibody Mediated Prevention (AMP) trials (HVTN 704/HPTN 085 and HVTN 703/HPTN 081), prevention efficacy (PE) of the monoclonal broadly neutralizing antibody (bnAb) VRC01 (vs. placebo) against HIV-1 acquisition diagnosis varied according to the HIV-1 Envelope (Env) neutralization sensitivity to VRC01, as measured by 80% inhibitory concentration (IC80). Here, we performed a genotypic sieve analysis, a complementary approach to gaining insight into correlates of protection that assesses how PE varies with HIV-1 sequence features. We analyzed HIV-1 Env amino acid (AA) sequences from the earliest available HIV-1 RNA-positive plasma samples from AMP participants diagnosed with HIV-1 and identified Env sequence features that associated with PE. The strongest Env AA sequence correlate in both trials was VRC01 epitope distance that quantifies the divergence of the VRC01 epitope in an acquired HIV-1 isolate from the VRC01 epitope of reference HIV-1 strains that were most sensitive to VRC01-mediated neutralization. In HVTN 704/HPTN 085, the Env sequence-based predicted probability that VRC01 IC80 against the acquired isolate exceeded 1 µg/mL also significantly associated with PE. In HVTN 703/HPTN 081, a physicochemical-weighted Hamming distance across 50 VRC01 binding-associated Env AA positions of the acquired isolate from the most VRC01-sensitive HIV-1 strain significantly associated with PE. These results suggest that incorporating mutation scoring by BLOSUM62 and weighting by the strength of interactions at AA positions in the epitope:VRC01 interface can optimize performance of an Env sequence-based biomarker of VRC01 prevention efficacy. Future work could determine whether these results extend to other bnAbs and bnAb combinations., Competing Interests: Competing interests statement:The authors declare no competing interest.

Objectives: Vigorous discussions are ongoing about future efficacy trial designs of candidate human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention interventions. The study design challenges of HIV prevention interventions are considerable given rapid evolution of the prevention landscape and evidence of multiple modalities of highly effective products; future trials will likely be 'active-controlled', i.e., not include a placebo arm. Thus, novel design approaches are needed to accurately assess new interventions against these highly effective active controls., Methods: To discuss active control design challenges and identify solutions, an initial virtual workshop series was hosted and supported by the International AIDS Enterprise (October 2020-March 2021). Subsequent symposia discussions continue to advance these efforts. As the non-inferiority design is an important conceptual reference design for guiding active control trials, we adopt several of its principles in our proposed design approaches., Results: We discuss six potential study design approaches for formally evaluating absolute prevention efficacy given data from an active-controlled HIV prevention trial including using data from: 1) a registrational cohort, 2) recency assays, 3) an external trial placebo arm, 4) a biomarker of HIV incidence/exposure, 5) an anti-retroviral drug concentration as a mediator of prevention efficacy, and 6) immune biomarkers as a mediator of prevention efficacy., Conclusions: Our understanding of these proposed novel approaches to future trial designs remains incomplete and there are many future statistical research needs. Yet, each of these approaches, within the context of an active-controlled trial, have the potential to yield reliable evidence of efficacy for future biomedical interventions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors state no conflict of interest., (© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

The conditional survival function of a time-to-event outcome subject to censoring and truncation is a common target of estimation in survival analysis. This parameter may be of scientific interest and also often appears as a nuisance in nonparametric and semiparametric problems. In addition to classical parametric and semiparametric methods (e.g., based on the Cox proportional hazards model), flexible machine learning approaches have been developed to estimate the conditional survival function. However, many of these methods are either implicitly or explicitly targeted toward risk stratification rather than overall survival function estimation. Others apply only to discrete-time settings or require inverse probability of censoring weights, which can be as difficult to estimate as the outcome survival function itself. Here, we employ a decomposition of the conditional survival function in terms of observable regression models in which censoring and truncation play no role. This allows application of an array of flexible regression and classification methods rather than only approaches that explicitly handle the complexities inherent to survival data. We outline estimation procedures based on this decomposition, empirically assess their performance, and demonstrate their use on data from an HIV vaccine trial. Supplementary materials for this article are available online., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

In the absence of data from a randomized trial, researchers may aim to use observational data to draw causal inference about the effect of a treatment on a time-to-event outcome. In this context, interest often focuses on the treatment-specific survival curves, that is, the survival curves were the population under study to be assigned to receive the treatment or not. Under certain conditions, including that all confounders of the treatment-outcome relationship are observed, the treatment-specific survival curve can be identified with a covariate-adjusted survival curve. In this article, we propose a novel cross-fitted doubly-robust estimator that incorporates data-adaptive (e.g. machine learning) estimators of the conditional survival functions. We establish conditions on the nuisance estimators under which our estimator is consistent and asymptotically linear, both pointwise and uniformly in time. We also propose a novel ensemble learner for combining multiple candidate estimators of the conditional survival estimators. Notably, our methods and results accommodate events occurring in discrete or continuous time, or an arbitrary mix of the two. We investigate the practical performance of our methods using numerical studies and an application to the effect of a surgical treatment to prevent metastases of parotid carcinoma on mortality., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

The Antibody Mediated Prevention (AMP) trials (NCT02716675 and NCT02568215) demonstrated that passive administration of the broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibody VRC01 could prevent some HIV-1 acquisition events. Here, we use mathematical modeling in a post hoc analysis to demonstrate that VRC01 influenced viral loads in AMP participants who acquired HIV. Instantaneous inhibitory potential (IIP), which integrates VRC01 serum concentration and VRC01 sensitivity of acquired viruses in terms of both IC50 and IC80, follows a dose-response relationship with first positive viral load (p = 0.03), which is particularly strong above a threshold of IIP = 1.6 (r = -0.6, p = 2e-4). Mathematical modeling reveals that VRC01 activity predicted from in vitro IC80s and serum VRC01 concentrations overestimates in vivo neutralization by 600-fold (95% CI: 300-1200). The trained model projects that even if future therapeutic HIV trials of combination monoclonal antibodies do not always prevent acquisition, reductions in viremia and reservoir size could be expected., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Combination monoclonal broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) are currently being developed for preventing HIV-1 infection. Recent work has focused on predicting in vitro neutralization potency of both individual bnAbs and combination regimens against HIV-1 pseudoviruses using Env sequence features. To predict in vitro combination regimen neutralization potency against a given HIV-1 pseudovirus, previous approaches have applied mathematical models to combine individual-bnAb neutralization and have predicted this combined neutralization value; we call this the combine-then-predict (CP) approach. However, prediction performance for some individual bnAbs has exceeded that for the combination, leading to another possibility: combining the individual-bnAb predicted values and using these to predict combination regimen neutralization; we call this the predict-then-combine (PC) approach. We explore both approaches in both simulated data and data from the Los Alamos National Laboratory's Compile, Neutralize, and Tally NAb Panels repository. The CP approach is superior to the PC approach when the neutralization outcome of interest is binary (e.g., neutralization susceptibility, defined as inhibitory concentration < 1 μg/mL. For continuous outcomes, the CP approach performs at least as well as the PC approach, and is superior to the PC approach when the individual-bnAb prediction algorithms have poor performance. This knowledge may be used when building prediction models for novel antibody combinations in the absence of in vitro neutralization data for the antibody combination; this, in turn, will aid in the evaluation and down-selection of these antibody combinations into prevention efficacy trials.

We propose a broad class of so-called Cox-Aalen transformation models that incorporate both multiplicative and additive covariate effects on the baseline hazard function within a transformation. The proposed models provide a highly flexible and versatile class of semiparametric models that include the transformation models and the Cox-Aalen model as special cases. Specifically, it extends the transformation models by allowing potentially time-dependent covariates to work additively on the baseline hazard and extends the Cox-Aalen model through a predetermined transformation function. We propose an estimating equation approach and devise an expectation-solving (ES) algorithm that involves fast and robust calculations. The resulting estimator is shown to be consistent and asymptotically normal via modern empirical process techniques. The ES algorithm yields a computationally simple method for estimating the variance of both parametric and nonparametric estimators. Finally, we demonstrate the performance of our procedures through extensive simulation studies and applications in two randomized, placebo-controlled human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention efficacy trials. The data example shows the utility of the proposed Cox-Aalen transformation models in enhancing statistical power for discovering covariate effects., (© 2023 The Authors. Biometrics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Biometric Society.)

Background: Stochastic interventional vaccine efficacy (SVE) analysis is a new approach to correlate of protection (CoP) analysis of a phase III trial that estimates how vaccine efficacy (VE) would change under hypothetical shifts of an immune marker., Methods: We applied nonparametric SVE methodology to the COVE trial of messenger RNA-1273 vs placebo to evaluate post-dose 2 pseudovirus neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer against the D614G strain as a CoP against COVID-19. Secondly, we evaluated the ability of these results to predict VE against variants based on shifts of geometric mean titers to variants vs D614G. Prediction accuracy was evaluated by 13 validation studies, including 12 test-negative designs., Results: SVE analysis of COVE supported post-dose 2 D614G titer as a CoP: estimated VE ranged from 66.9% (95% confidence interval: 36.2, 82.8%) to 99.3% (99.1, 99.4%) at 10-fold decreased or increased titer shifts, respectively. The SVE estimates only weakly predicted variant-specific VE estimates (concordance correlation coefficient 0.062 for post 2-dose VE)., Conclusion: SVE analysis of COVE supports nAb titer as a CoP for messenger RNA vaccines. Predicting variant-specific VE proved difficult due to many limitations. Greater anti-Omicron titers may be needed for high-level protection against Omicron vs anti-D614G titers needed for high-level protection against pre-Omicron COVID-19., Competing Interests: Declarations of competing interest WD, HZ, and BL are employed by Moderna, Inc. and have stock and/or stock options in Moderna, Inc. DCM's laboratory receives funding from Moderna, Inc. to perform neutralizing antibody assays on serum samples from their clinical studies of COVID-19 vaccines., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are being developed for HIV-1 prevention. Hence, these mAbs and licensed oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) (tenofovir-emtricitabine) can be concomitantly administered in clinical trials. In 48 US participants (men and transgender persons who have sex with men) who received the HIV-1 mAb VRC01 and remained HIV-free in an antibody-mediated-prevention trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT02716675), we conduct a post-hoc analysis and find that VRC01 clearance is 0.08 L/day faster (p = 0.005), and dose-normalized area-under-the-curve of VRC01 serum concentration over-time is 0.29 day/mL lower (p < 0.001) in PrEP users (n = 24) vs. non-PrEP users (n = 24). Consequently, PrEP users are predicted to have 14% lower VRC01 neutralization-mediated prevention efficacy against circulating HIV-1 strains. VRC01 clearance is positively associated (r = 0.33, p = 0.03) with levels of serum intestinal Fatty Acid Binding protein (I-FABP), a marker of epithelial intestinal permeability, which is elevated upon starting PrEP (p = 0.04) and after months of self-reported use (p = 0.001). These findings have implications for the evaluation of future HIV-1 mAbs and postulate a potential mechanism for mAb clearance in the context of PrEP., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The only licensed malaria vaccine, RTS,S/AS01 E , confers moderate protection against symptomatic disease. Because many malaria infections are asymptomatic, we conducted a large-scale longitudinal parasite genotyping study of samples from a clinical trial exploring how vaccine dosing regimen affects vaccine efficacy (VE)., Methods: 1,500 children aged 5-17 months were randomized to receive four different RTS,S/AS01 E regimens or a rabies control vaccine in a phase 2b clinical trial in Ghana and Kenya. We evaluated the time to the first new genotypically detected infection and the total number of new infections during two follow-up periods in over 36K participant specimens. We performed a post hoc analysis of VE based on malaria infection status at first vaccination and force of infection., Results: We observed significant and comparable VE (25-43%, 95% CI union 9-53%) against first new infection for all four RTS,S/AS01 E regimens across both follow-up periods (12 and 20 months). Each RTS,S/AS01 E regimen significantly reduced the number of new infections in the 20-month follow-up period (control mean 4.1 vs. RTS,S/AS01 E mean 2.6-3.0). VE against first new infection was significantly higher in participants who were malaria-infected (68%; 95% CI, 50 to 80%) versus uninfected (37%; 95% CI, 23 to 48%) at the first vaccination (P=0.0053) and in participants experiencing greater force of infection between dose 1 and 3 (P=0.059)., Conclusions: All tested dosing regimens blocked some infections to a similar degree. Improved VE in participants infected during vaccination could suggest new strategies for highly efficacious malaria vaccine development and implementation. ( ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03276962 ).

An immune correlate of risk (CoR) is an immunologic biomarker in vaccine recipients associated with an infectious disease clinical endpoint. An immune correlate of protection (CoP) is a CoR that can be used to reliably predict vaccine efficacy (VE) against the clinical endpoint and hence is accepted as a surrogate endpoint that can be used for accelerated approval or guide use of vaccines. In randomized, placebo-controlled trials, CoR analysis is limited by not assessing a causal vaccine effect. To address this limitation, we construct the controlled risk curve of a biomarker, which provides the causal risk of an endpoint if all participants are assigned vaccine and the biomarker is set to different levels. Furthermore, we propose a causal CoP analysis based on controlled effects, where for the important special case that the biomarker is constant in the placebo arm, we study the controlled vaccine efficacy curve that contrasts the controlled risk curve with placebo arm risk. We provide identification conditions and formulae that account for right censoring of the clinical endpoint and two-phase sampling of the biomarker, and consider G-computation estimation and inference under a semiparametric model such as the Cox model. We add modular approaches to sensitivity analysis that quantify robustness of CoP evidence to unmeasured confounding. We provide an application to two phase 3 trials of a dengue vaccine indicating that controlled risk of dengue strongly varies with 50$\%$ neutralizing antibody titer. Our work introduces controlled effects causal mediation analysis to immune CoP evaluation., (© The Author 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials., Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials., Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators., Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence., Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded., Competing Interests: Sylwia Bujkiewicz is a member of the NICE Decision Support Unit (DSU) and NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit (TSU), has served as a paid consultant, providing methodological advice, to NICE, Roche, IQVIA and RTI Health Solutions, received payments for educational events from NICE and Roche and has received research funding from European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries & Associations (EEPIA) and Johnson & Johnson. Mario Ouwens works for and has shares in AstraZeneca. Joseph Ross is an Associate Editor at BMJ and co-founder (unpaid) of medRxiv; research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST), from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to establish the Good Pharma Scorecard at Bioethics International; expert witness at the request of Relator's attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc. Nancy Butcher has received consulting fees from Nobias Therapeutics, Inc. Alain Amstutz and Yousef Rezaei are Associate Editors at BMC Trials. Robin Christensen is a founding member of the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group which might be perceived as a possible conflict of interest. Ray Harris has shares in Johnson and Johnson. John Powers has been a consultant for Adaptive Phage, Arrevus, Atheln, Bavaria Nordic, Cellularity, Eicos, Evofem, Eyecheck, Gilead, GSK, Mustang, OPKO, Otsuka, Resolve, Romark, SpineBioPPharma, UTIlity, Vir. Achilles Thoma received royalties from Springer Publishing for his book “Evidence Based Surgery: A Guide to Understanding and Interpreting the Surgical Literature”, 2019., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests YiH, CY, TCSM, RMM, HMES, BG, GEG, PBG, JGK, LC, and DF declare no conflicts of interest. AMR declares unrelated grants or contracts from NIAID, I4kids, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine, Beckwith Clinical Innovation Award, CTSI COVID-19 Pilot Award; unrelated consulting fees from Pfizer; unrelated support for attending meetings/travel from IDweek (2023); and an unrelated unpaid leadership role as the medical director of Human Milk Science Institute and Biobank. MBL declares unrelated grants or contracts from NIH VTEU paid to their institution. CaAR declares unrelated grants or contracts paid to their institution from Novavax and Moderna. ChAR declares unrelated grants or contracts paid to their institution from BioFire, Inc, GSK, Merck, Micron, MedImmune, Novavax, PaxVax, Regeneron, Pfizer, Sanofi-Pasteur, Janssen, Moderna, NIH, and CDC; unrelated royalties or licenses from Meissa Vaccines, Inc; and unrelated patent interests for “RSV Live-Attenuated Vaccine Candidates with Deleted G-Protein Mucin Domains” and “Chimeric RSV, Immunogenic, Compositions, and Methods of Use”. LRB declares unrelated grants or contracts paid to their institution from NIH/Harvard Medical School and Wellcome Trust/Gates Foundation; unrelated participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for NIAID and FDA; and unrelated involvement in HIV and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine clinical trials conducted in collaboration with the NIH, HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN), Covid Vaccine Prevention Network (CoVPN), International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), Crucell/Janssen, Moderna, Military HIV Research Program (MHRP), the Gates Foundation, and Harvard Medical School. CLG declares unrelated grants or contracts paid to their institution from NIH. HEJ declares unrelated grants or contracts paid to their institution from NIH; and unrelated participation in multiple NIH-convened DSMBs. YuH declares unrelated grants or contracts paid to their institution from WHO and unrelated participation (with payment) on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for WHV. BL is an employee of Moderna, Inc. IH is an employee of AstraZeneca and declares unrelated stock options held in AstraZeneca. FS is an employee of Janssen and declares unrelated stock received as compensation for past employment with GlaxoSmithKline. LMD is an employee of Novavax, Inc. KMN declares unrelated grants or contracts from Pfizer (no salary support) and NIH. PAG declares unrelated grants or contracts from NIH and patent interests for “Human monoclonal antibodies to SARS-COV-2 and use thereof”. SRW declares unrelated grants or contracts from Sanofi Pasteur, Moderna, Vir Biotechnology, Worcester HIV Vaccine, Pfizer, and Janssen Vaccines/Johnson & Johnson paid to their institution; unrelated support for attending meetings and/or travel from Sasnofi Pasteur; unrelated participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Janssen Vaccines/Johnson & Johnson; and that their spouse is an employee that holds stock/stock options at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. KLK declares unrelated grants or contracts from NIAID. The CoVPN was funded by the NIH., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

We conducted a comparative cross-sectional study to compare the prevalence of exposure to workplace violence and intimate partner violence (IPV) in 125 female sex workers (FSWs) and 125 age-matched control women working in other professions (non-FSWs) and their children in El Alto, Bolivia. Violence exposure was assessed using the Demographic Health Survey Domestic Violence Module. To determine associations between work type and violence exposure, we conducted multivariate logistic regression. One-third of working mothers experienced sexual IPV, regardless of their profession. FSWs experienced higher rates of severe physical IPV and workplace violence. Children of FSWs were approximately three times more likely to be exposed to violence in the workplace. In Bolivia, strategies to reduce exposure to violence within the home and in FSW workplaces are paramount to minimizing negative impacts on women and their children. These findings have implications for policies to improve education, living wages, and social interventions to prevent and mitigate violence against women and children., (© Copyright 2023 Springer Publishing Company, LLC.)