33 research outputs found
A Phase 1 Trial of MSP2-C1, a Blood-Stage Malaria Vaccine Containing 2 Isoforms of MSP2 Formulated with Montanide® ISA 720
Background: In a previous Phase 1/2b malaria vaccine trial testing the 3D7 isoform of the malaria vaccine candidate Merozoite surface protein 2 (MSP2), parasite densities in children were reduced by 62%. However, breakthrough parasitemias were disproportionately of the alternate dimorphic form of MSP2, the FC27 genotype. We therefore undertook a dose-escalating, double-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase 1 trial in healthy, malaria-naïve adults of MSP2-C1, a vaccine containing recombinant forms of the two families of msp2 alleles, 3D7 and FC27 (EcMSP2-3D7 and EcMSP2-FC27), formulated in equal amounts with Montanide® ISA 720 as a water-in-oil emulsion. Methodology/Principal Findings: The trial was designed to include three dose cohorts (10, 40, and 80 μg), each with twelve subjects receiving the vaccine and three control subjects receiving Montanide® ISA 720 adjuvant emulsion alone, in a schedule of three doses at 12-week intervals. Due to unexpected local reactogenicity and concern regarding vaccine stability, the trial was terminated after the second immunisation of the cohort receiving the 40 μg dose; no subjects received the 80 μg dose. Immunization induced significant IgG responses to both isoforms of MSP2 in the 10 μg and 40 μg dose cohorts, with antibody levels by ELISA higher in the 40 μg cohort. Vaccine-induced antibodies recognised native protein by Western blots of parasite protein extracts and by immunofluorescence microscopy. Although the induced anti-MSP2 antibodies did not directly inhibit parasite growth in vitro, IgG from the majority of individuals tested caused significant antibody-dependent cellular inhibition (ADCI) of parasite growth. Conclusions/Significance: As the majority of subjects vaccinated with MSP2-C1 developed an antibody responses to both forms of MSP2, and that these antibodies mediated ADCI provide further support for MSP2 as a malaria vaccine candidate. However, in view of the reactogenicity of this formulation, further clinical development of MSP2-C1 will require formulation of MSP2 in an alternative adjuvant. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12607000552482
Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls
Background The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders
Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial
Background
Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.
Methods
In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012.
Findings
Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug.
Interpretation
Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.
Funding
Sponsored by the University of Dundee and supported through an Investigator Initiated Research award from Insmed, Bridgewater, NJ; STOP-COVID19 trial