Artemisinin derivatives versus quinine in treating severe malaria in children: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The efficacy of intravenous quinine, which is the mainstay for treating severe malaria in children, is decreasing in South East Asia and Africa. Artemisinin derivatives are a potential alternative to quinine. However, their efficacy compared to quinine in treating severe malaria in children is not clearly understood. The objective of this review was to assess the efficacy of parenteral artemisinin derivatives versus parenteral quinine in treating severe malaria in children.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All randomized controlled studies comparing parenteral artemisinin derivatives with parenteral quinine in treating severe malaria in children were included in the review. Data bases searched were: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 2008), and LILACS (1982 to February 2008). Dichotomous variables were compared using risk ratios (RR) and the continuous data using weighted mean difference (WMD).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twelve trials were included (1,524 subjects). There was no difference in mortality between artemisinin derivatives and quinine (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12). The artemisinin derivatives resolved coma faster than quinine (WMD = -4.61, 95% CI: -7.21 to -2.00, fixed effect model), but when trials with adequate concealment only were considered this differences disappeared. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in parasite clearance time, fever clearance time, incidence of neurological sequelae and 28^thday cure rate. One trial reported significantly more local reactions at the injection site with intramuscular quinine compared to artemether. None of the trials was adequately powered to demonstrate equivalence.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There was no evidence that treatment of children with severe malaria with parenteral artemisinin derivatives was associated with lower mortality or long-term morbidity compared to parenteral quinine. Future studies require adequately powered equivalence trial design to decide whether both drugs are equally effective.</p

Predicted Impact of Mass Drug Administration on the Development of Protective Immunity against Schistosoma haematobium

Previous studies suggest that protective immunity against Schistosoma haematobium is primarily stimulated by antigens from dying worms. Praziquantel treatment kills adult worms, boosting antigen exposure and protective antibody levels. Current schistosomiasis control efforts use repeated mass drug administration (MDA) of praziquantel to reduce morbidity, and may also reduce transmission. The long-term impact of MDA upon protective immunity, and subsequent effects on infection dynamics, are not known. A stochastic individual-based model describing levels of S. haematobium worm burden, egg output and protective parasite-specific antibody, which has previously been fitted to cross-sectional and short-term post-treatment egg count and antibody patterns, was used to predict dynamics of measured egg output and antibody during and after a 5-year MDA campaign. Different treatment schedules based on current World Health Organisation recommendations as well as different assumptions about reductions in transmission were investigated. We found that antibody levels were initially boosted by MDA, but declined below pre-intervention levels during or after MDA if protective immunity was short-lived. Following cessation of MDA, our models predicted that measured egg counts could sometimes overshoot pre-intervention levels, even if MDA had had no effect on transmission. With no reduction in transmission, this overshoot occurred if protective immunity was short-lived. This implies that disease burden may temporarily increase following discontinuation of treatment, even in the absence of any reduction in the overall transmission rate. If MDA was additionally assumed to reduce transmission, a larger overshoot was seen across a wide range of parameter combinations, including those with longer-lived protective immunity. MDA may reduce population levels of immunity to urogenital schistosomiasis in the long-term (3-10 years), particularly if transmission is reduced. If MDA is stopped while S. haematobium is still being transmitted, large rebounds (up to a doubling) in egg counts could occur

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Inflammatory and myeloid-associated gene expression before and one day after infant vaccination with MVA85A correlates with induction of a T cell response.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a global health problem, with vaccination likely to be a necessary part of a successful control strategy. Results of the first Phase 2b efficacy trial of a candidate vaccine, MVA85A, evaluated in BCG-vaccinated infants were published last year. Although no improvement in efficacy above BCG alone was seen, cryopreserved samples from this trial provide an opportunity to study the immune response to vaccination in this population. METHODS: We investigated blood samples taken before vaccination (baseline) and one and 28 days post-vaccination with MVA85A or placebo (Candin). The IFN-γ ELISpot assay was performed at baseline and on day 28 to quantify the adaptive response to Ag85A peptides. Gene expression analysis was performed at all three timepoints to identify early gene signatures predictive of the magnitude of the subsequent adaptive T cell response using the significance analysis of microarrays (SAM) statistical package and gene set enrichment analysis. RESULTS: One day post-MVA85A, there is an induction of inflammatory pathways compared to placebo samples. Modules associated with myeloid cells and inflammation pre- and one day post-MVA85A correlate with a higher IFN-γ ELISpot response post-vaccination. By contrast, previous work done in UK adults shows early inflammation in this population is not associated with a strong T cell response but that induction of regulatory pathways inversely correlates with the magnitude of the T cell response. This may be indicative of important mechanistic differences in how T cell responses develop in these two populations following vaccination with MVA85A. CONCLUSION: The results suggest the capacity of MVA85A to induce a strong innate response is key to the initiation of an adaptive immune response in South African infants but induction of regulatory pathways may be more important in UK adults. Understanding differences in immune response to vaccination between populations is likely to be an important aspect of developing successful vaccines and vaccination strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00953927