SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in the Nasopharynx at Time of First Infection Among Unvaccinated Individuals: A Secondary Cross-Protocol Analysis of 4 Randomized Trials

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.

Impact of LS Mutation on Pharmacokinetics of Preventive HIV Broadly Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies: A Cross-Protocol Analysis of 16 Clinical Trials in People without HIV

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.

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in participants with weakened immune systems from four randomized-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Although the 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, 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 (NTIS) individuals starting at 14 days after completion of the primary series through the blinded phase for each of the four trials. An analysis of participants living with well-controlled HIV was conducted using the same methods.

RESULTS

3,852/30,351 (12.7%) Moderna participants, 3,088/29,868 (10.3%) Novavax participants, 3,549/32,380 (11.0%) AstraZeneca participants, and 5,047/43,788 (11.5%) Janssen participants were identified as having a TIS. Most TIS conditions (73.9%) were due to metabolism and nutritional disorders. Vaccination (versus 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 vs NTIS for either symptomatic or severe COVID-19 for each trial, nor was VE significantly different in the symptomatic endpoint for participants with HIV.

CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with mildly immunocompromising conditions, there is no evidence of differences in VE against symptomatic or severe COVID-19 compared to those with non-tempered immune systems in the four COVID-19 vaccine randomized controlled efficacy trials.

Four statistical frameworks for assessing an immune correlate of protection (surrogate endpoint) from a randomized, controlled, vaccine efficacy trial

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.

A HIV-1 Gp41 Peptide-Liposome Vaccine Elicits Neutralizing Epitope-Targeted Antibody Responses in Healthy Individuals

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.

Quantifying how single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine efficacy depends on Spike sequence features

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.

Prevention efficacy of the broadly neutralizing antibody VRC01 depends on HIV-1 envelope sequence features

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.

Study design approaches for future active-controlled HIV prevention trials

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.

Predicting neutralization susceptibility to combination HIV-1 monoclonal broadly neutralizing antibody regimens

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.

High monoclonal neutralization titers reduced breakthrough HIV-1 viral loads in the Antibody Mediated Prevention trials

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.

A semiparametric Cox-Aalen transformation model with censored data

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.

Stochastic interventional approach to assessing immune correlates of protection: Application to the COVE messenger RNA-1273 vaccine trial

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.

Adults on pre-exposure prophylaxis (tenofovir-emtricitabine) have faster clearance of anti-HIV monoclonal antibody VRC01

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.

Baseline malaria infection status and RTS,S/AS01E malaria vaccine efficacy

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 ).

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

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.

A controlled effects approach to assessing immune correlates of protection

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.

Violence Exposure Among Women in the Sex Industry and Their Children in El Alto, Bolivia: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study

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.

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccination

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.

Stochastic Interventional Vaccine Efficacy and Principal Surrogate Analyses of Antibody Markers as Correlates of Protection against Symptomatic COVID-19 in the COVE mRNA-1273 Trial

The COVE trial randomized participants to receive two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine or placebo on Days 1 and 29 (D1, D29). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG binding antibodies (bAbs), anti-receptor binding domain IgG bAbs, 50% inhibitory dilution neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers, and 80% inhibitory dilution nAb titers were measured at D29 and D57. We assessed these markers as correlates of protection (CoPs) against COVID-19 using stochastic interventional vaccine efficacy (SVE) analysis and principal surrogate (PS) analysis, frameworks not used in our previous COVE immune correlates analyses. By SVE analysis, hypothetical shifts of the D57 Spike IgG distribution from a geometric mean concentration (GMC) of 2737 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL (estimated vaccine efficacy (VE): 92.9% (95% CI: 91.7%, 93.9%)) to 274 BAU/mL or to 27,368 BAU/mL resulted in an overall estimated VE of 84.2% (79.0%, 88.1%) and 97.6% (97.4%, 97.7%), respectively. By binary marker PS analysis of Low and High subgroups (cut-point: 2094 BAU/mL), the ignorance interval (IGI) and estimated uncertainty interval (EUI) for VE were [85%, 90%] and (78%, 93%) for Low compared to [95%, 96%] and (92%, 97%) for High. By continuous marker PS analysis, the IGI and 95% EUI for VE at the 2.5th percentile (519.4 BAU/mL) vs. at the 97.5th percentile (9262.9 BAU/mL) of D57 Spike IgG concentration were [92.6%, 93.4%] and (89.2%, 95.7%) vs. [94.3%, 94.6%] and (89.7%, 97.0%). Results were similar for other D29 and D57 markers. Thus, the SVE and PS analyses additionally support all four markers at both time points as CoPs.

Application of the SLAPNAP statistical learning tool to broadly neutralizing antibody HIV prevention research

Combination monoclonal broadly neutralizing antibody (bnAb) regimens are in clinical development for HIV prevention, necessitating additional knowledge of bnAb neutralization potency/breadth against circulating viruses. Williamson et al. (2021) described a software tool, Super LeArner Prediction of NAb Panels (SLAPNAP), with application to any HIV bnAb regimen with sufficient neutralization data against a set of viruses in the Los Alamos National Laboratory's Compile, Neutralize, and Tally Nab Panels repository. SLAPNAP produces a proteomic antibody resistance (PAR) score for Env sequences based on predicted neutralization resistance and estimates variable importance of Env amino acid features. We apply SLAPNAP to compare HIV bnAb regimens undergoing clinical testing, finding improved power for downstream sieve analyses and increased precision for comparing neutralization potency/breadth of bnAb regimens due to the inclusion of PAR scores of Env sequences with much larger sample sizes available than for neutralization outcomes. SLAPNAP substantially improves bnAb regimen characterization, ranking, and down-selection.

Modifiers of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy: Results from four COVID-19 prevention network efficacy trials

Questions remain regarding the effect of baseline host and exposure factors on vaccine efficacy (VE) across pathogens and vaccine platforms. We report placebo-controlled data from four Phase 3 COVID-19 trials during the early period of the pandemic. This was a cross-protocol analysis of four randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy trials (Moderna/mRNA1273, AstraZeneca/AZD1222, Janssen/Ad26.COV2.S, and Novavax/NVX-CoV2373) using a harmonized design. Trials were conducted in the United States and international sites in adults ≥ 18 years of age. VE was assessed for symptomatic and severe COVID-19. We analyzed 114,480 participants from both placebo and vaccine arms, enrolled July 2020 to February 2021, with follow up through July 2021. VE against symptomatic COVID-19 showed little heterogeneity across baseline socio-demographic, clinical or exposure characteristics, in either univariate or multivariate analysis, regardless of vaccine platform. Similarly, VE against severe COVID-19 in the single trial (Janssen) with sufficient endpoints for analysis showed little evidence of heterogeneity. COVID-19 VE is not influenced by baseline host or exposure characteristics across efficacy trials of different vaccine platforms and countries when well matched to circulating virus strains. This supports use of these vaccines, regardless of platform type, as effective tools in the near term for reducing symptomatic and severe COVID-19, particularly for older individuals and those with common co-morbidities during major variant shifts. Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT04470427, NCT04516746, NCT04505722, and NCT04611802.

Clinical and Demographic Factors Associated With COVID-19, Severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adults: A Secondary Cross-Protocol Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Current data identifying COVID-19 risk factors lack standardized outcomes and insufficiently control for confounders.

Objective

To identify risk factors associated with COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This secondary cross-protocol analysis included 4 multicenter, international, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with harmonized protocols established by the COVID-19 Prevention Network. Individual-level data from participants randomized to receive placebo within each trial were combined and analyzed. Enrollment began July 2020 and the last data cutoff was in July 2021. Participants included adults in stable health, at risk for SARS-CoV-2, and assigned to the placebo group within each vaccine trial. Data were analyzed from April 2022 to February 2023.

Exposures

Comorbid conditions, demographic factors, and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk at the time of enrollment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Coprimary outcomes were COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. Multivariate Cox proportional regression models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs for baseline covariates, accounting for trial, region, and calendar time. Secondary outcomes included severe COVID-19 among people with COVID-19, subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Results

A total of 57 692 participants (median [range] age, 51 [18-95] years; 11 720 participants [20.3%] aged ≥65 years; 31 058 participants [53.8%] assigned male at birth) were included. The analysis population included 3270 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (5.7%), 7849 Black or African American participants (13.6%), 17 678 Hispanic or Latino participants (30.6%), and 40 745 White participants (70.6%). Annualized incidence was 13.9% (95% CI, 13.3%-14.4%) for COVID-19 and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%) for severe COVID-19. Factors associated with increased rates of COVID-19 included workplace exposure (high vs low: aHR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.58]; medium vs low: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.65]; P < .001) and living condition risk (very high vs low risk: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.66]; medium vs low risk: aHR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.32]; P < .001). Factors associated with decreased rates of COVID-19 included previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.09-0.19]; P < .001), age 65 years or older (aHR vs age <65 years, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.50-0.64]; P < .001) and Black or African American race (aHR vs White race, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.91]; P = .002). Factors associated with increased rates of severe COVID-19 included race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 2.61 [95% CI, 1.85-3.69]; multiracial vs White: aHR, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.50-3.20]; P < .001), diabetes (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-2.08]; P = .005) and at least 2 comorbidities (aHR vs none, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.76]; P = .008). In analyses restricted to participants who contracted COVID-19, increased severe COVID-19 rates were associated with age 65 years or older (aHR vs <65 years, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.32-2.31]; P < .001), race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.38-2.83]; Black or African American vs White: aHR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.03-2.14]; multiracial: aHR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.21-2.69]; overall P = .001), body mass index (aHR per 1-unit increase, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.04]; P = .001), and diabetes (aHR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.37-2.49]; P < .001). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with decreased severe COVID-19 rates (aHR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.01-0.14]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this secondary cross-protocol analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials, exposure and demographic factors had the strongest associations with outcomes; results could inform mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 and viruses with comparable epidemiological characteristics.

Pharmacokinetic serum concentrations of VRC01 correlate with prevention of HIV-1 acquisition

BACKGROUND

The phase 2b proof-of-concept Antibody Mediated Prevention (AMP) trials showed that VRC01, an anti-HIV-1 broadly neutralising antibody (bnAb), prevented acquisition of HIV-1 sensitive to VRC01. To inform future study design and dosing regimen selection of candidate bnAbs, we investigated the association of VRC01 serum concentration with HIV-1 acquisition using AMP trial data.

METHODS

The case-control sample included 107 VRC01 recipients who acquired HIV-1 and 82 VRC01 recipients who remained without HIV-1 during the study. We measured VRC01 serum concentrations with a qualified pharmacokinetic (PK) Binding Antibody Multiplex Assay. We employed nonlinear mixed effects PK modelling to estimate daily-grid VRC01 concentrations. Cox regression models were used to assess the association of VRC01 concentration at exposure and baseline body weight, with the hazard of HIV-1 acquisition and prevention efficacy as a function of VRC01 concentration. We also compared fixed dosing vs. body weight-based dosing via simulations.

FINDINGS

Estimated VRC01 concentrations in VRC01 recipients without HIV-1 were higher than those in VRC01 recipients who acquired HIV-1. Body weight was inversely associated with HIV-1 acquisition among both placebo and VRC01 recipients but did not modify the prevention efficacy of VRC01. VRC01 concentration was inversely correlated with HIV-1 acquisition, and positively correlated with prevention efficacy of VRC01. Simulation studies suggest that fixed dosing may be comparable to weight-based dosing in overall predicted prevention efficacy.

INTERPRETATION

These findings suggest that bnAb serum concentration may be a useful marker for dosing regimen selection, and operationally efficient fixed dosing regimens could be considered for future trials of HIV-1 bnAbs.

FUNDING

Was provided by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (UM1 AI068614, to the HIV Vaccine Trials Network [HVTN]; UM1 AI068635, to the HVTN Statistical Data and Management Center [SDMC], Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center [FHCC]; 2R37 054165 to the FHCC; UM1 AI068618, to HVTN Laboratory Center, FHCC; UM1 AI068619, to the HPTN Leadership and Operations Center; UM1 AI068613, to the HIV Prevention Trials Network [HPTN] Laboratory Center; UM1 AI068617, to the HPTN SDMC; and P30 AI027757, to the Center for AIDS Research, Duke University (AI P30 AI064518) and University of Washington (P30 AI027757) Centers for AIDS Research; R37AI054165 from NIAID to the FHCC; and OPP1032144 CA-VIMC Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.