A long-term observational study of paediatric snakebite in Kilifi County, south-east Kenya

Introduction Estimates suggest that one-third of snakebite cases in sub-Saharan Africa affect children. Despite children being at a greater risk of disability and death, there are limited published data. This study has determined the: population-incidence and mortality rate of hospital-attended paediatric snakebite; clinical syndromes of snakebite envenoming; and predictors of severe local tissue damage. Methods All children presenting to Kilifi County Hospital, Kenya with snakebite were identified through the Kilifi Health and Demographic Surveillance System (KHDSS). Cases were prospectively registered, admitted for at least 24-hours, and managed on a paediatric high dependency unit (HDU). Households within the KHDSS study area have been included in 4-monthly surveillance and verbal autopsy, enabling calculation of population-incidence and mortality. Predictors of severe local tissue damage were identified using a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results Between 2003 and 2021, there were 19,606 admissions to the paediatric HDU, of which 584 were due to snakebite. Amongst young children (≤5-years age) the population-incidence of hospital-attended snakebite was 11.3/100,000 person-years; for children aged 6–12 years this was 29.1/100,000 person-years. Incidence remained consistent over the study period despite the population size increasing (98,967 person-years in 2006; and 153,453 person-years in 2021). Most cases had local envenoming alone, but there were five snakebite associated deaths. Low haemoglobin; raised white blood cell count; low serum sodium; high systolic blood pressure; and an upper limb bite-site were independently associated with the development of severe local tissue damage. Conclusion There is a substantial burden of disease due to paediatric snakebite, and the annual number of cases has increased in-line with population growth. The mortality rate was low, which may reflect the species causing snakebite in this region. The identification of independent predictors of severe local tissue damage can help to inform future research to better understand the pathophysiology of this important complication

A long-term observational study of paediatric snakebite in Kilifi County, south-east Kenya

INTRODUCTION: Estimates suggest that one-third of snakebite cases in sub-Saharan Africa affect children. Despite children being at a greater risk of disability and death, there are limited published data. This study has determined the: population-incidence and mortality rate of hospital-attended paediatric snakebite; clinical syndromes of snakebite envenoming; and predictors of severe local tissue damage. METHODS: All children presenting to Kilifi County Hospital, Kenya with snakebite were identified through the Kilifi Health and Demographic Surveillance System (KHDSS). Cases were prospectively registered, admitted for at least 24-hours, and managed on a paediatric high dependency unit (HDU). Households within the KHDSS study area have been included in 4-monthly surveillance and verbal autopsy, enabling calculation of population-incidence and mortality. Predictors of severe local tissue damage were identified using a multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2021, there were 19,606 admissions to the paediatric HDU, of which 584 were due to snakebite. Amongst young children (≤5-years age) the population-incidence of hospital-attended snakebite was 11.3/100,000 person-years; for children aged 6-12 years this was 29.1/100,000 person-years. Incidence remained consistent over the study period despite the population size increasing (98,967 person-years in 2006; and 153,453 person-years in 2021). Most cases had local envenoming alone, but there were five snakebite associated deaths. Low haemoglobin; raised white blood cell count; low serum sodium; high systolic blood pressure; and an upper limb bite-site were independently associated with the development of severe local tissue damage. CONCLUSION: There is a substantial burden of disease due to paediatric snakebite, and the annual number of cases has increased in-line with population growth. The mortality rate was low, which may reflect the species causing snakebite in this region. The identification of independent predictors of severe local tissue damage can help to inform future research to better understand the pathophysiology of this important complication

Immunogenicity and safety of fractional doses of 17D-213 yellow fever vaccine in HIV-infected people in Kenya (YEFE): a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority substudy of a phase 4 trial

Background Evidence indicates that fractional doses of yellow fever vaccine are safe and sufficiently immunogenic for use during yellow fever outbreaks. However, there are no data on the generalisability of this observation to populations living with HIV. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity of fractional and standard doses of yellow fever vaccine in HIV-positive adults. Methods We conducted a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority substudy in Kilifi, coastal Kenya to compare the immunogenicity and safety of a fractional dose (one-fifth of the standard dose) versus the standard dose of 17D-213 yellow fever vaccine among HIV-positive volunteers. HIV-positive participants aged 18–59 years, with baseline CD4+ T-cell count of at least 200 cells per mL, and who were not pregnant, had no previous history of yellow fever vaccination or infection, and had no contraindication for yellow fever vaccination were recruited from the community. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 in blocks (variable block sizes) to either a fractional dose or a standard dose of the 17D-213 yellow fever vaccine. Vaccines were administered subcutaneously by an unblinded nurse and pharmacist; all other study personnel were blinded to the vaccine allocation. The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of participants who seroconverted by the plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT50) 28 days after vaccination for the fractional dose versus the standard dose in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were assessment of adverse events and immunogenicity during the 1-year follow-up period. Participants were considered to have seroconverted if the post-vaccination antibody titre was at least 4 times greater than the pre-vaccination titre. We set a non-inferiority margin of not less than a 17% decrease in seroconversion in the fractional dose compared with the standard dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02991495. Findings Between Jan 29, 2019, and May 17, 2019, 303 participants were screened, and 250 participants were included and vaccinated; 126 participants were assigned to the fractional dose and 124 to the standard dose. 28 days after vaccination, 112 (96%, 95% CI 90–99) of 117 participants in the fractional dose group and 115 (98%, 94–100) of 117 in the standard dose group seroconverted by PRNT50. The difference in seroconversion between the fractional dose and the standard dose was –3% (95% CI –7 to 2). Fractional dosing therefore met the non-inferiority criterion, and non-inferiority was maintained for 1 year. The most common adverse events were headache (n=31 [12%]), fatigue (n=23 [9%]), myalgia (n=23 [9%]), and cough (n=14 [6%]). Reported adverse events were either mild (182 [97%] of 187 adverse events) or moderate (5 [3%]) and were self-limiting. Interpretation Fractional doses of the 17D-213 yellow fever vaccine were sufficiently immunogenic and safe demonstrating non-inferiority to the standard vaccine dose in HIV-infected individuals with CD4+ T cell counts of at least 200 cells per mL. These results provide confidence that fractional dose recommendations are applicable to populations with high HIV prevalence. Funding Wellcome Trust, Médecins Sans Frontières Foundation, and the UK Department for International Development

Safety and efficacy of malaria vaccine candidate R21/Matrix-M in African children: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial

Background Recently, we found that a new malaria vaccine, R21/Matrix-M, had over 75% efficacy against clinical malaria with seasonal administration in a phase 2b trial in Burkina Faso. Here, we report on safety and efficacy of the vaccine in a phase 3 trial enrolling over 4800 children across four countries followed for up to 18 months at seasonal sites and 12 months at standard sites. Methods We did a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine across five sites in four African countries with differing malaria transmission intensities and seasonality. Children (aged 5–36 months) were enrolled and randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 5 μg R21 plus 50 μg Matrix-M or a control vaccine (licensed rabies vaccine [Abhayrab]). Participants, their families, investigators, laboratory teams, and the local study team were masked to treatment. Vaccines were administered as three doses, 4 weeks apart, with a booster administered 12 months after the third dose. Half of the children were recruited at two sites with seasonal malaria transmission and the remainder at standard sites with perennial malaria transmission using age-based immunisation. The primary objective was protective efficacy of R21/Matrix-M from 14 days after third vaccination to 12 months after completion of the primary series at seasonal and standard sites separately as co-primary endpoints. Vaccine efficacy against multiple malaria episodes and severe malaria, as well as safety and immunogenicity, were also assessed. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04704830, and is ongoing. Findings From April 26, 2021, to Jan 12, 2022, 5477 children consented to be screened, of whom 1705 were randomly assigned to control vaccine and 3434 to R21/Matrix-M; 4878 participants received the first dose of vaccine. 3103 participants in the R21/Matrix-M group and 1541 participants in the control group were included in the modified per-protocol analysis (2412 [51·9%] male and 2232 [48·1%] female). R21/Matrix-M vaccine was well tolerated, with injection site pain (301 [18·6%] of 1615 participants) and fever (754 [46·7%] of 1615 participants) as the most frequent adverse events. Number of adverse events of special interest and serious adverse events did not significantly differ between the vaccine groups. There were no treatment-related deaths. 12-month vaccine efficacy was 75% (95% CI 71–79; p<0·0001) at the seasonal sites and 68% (61–74; p<0·0001) at the standard sites for time to first clinical malaria episode. Similarly, vaccine efficacy against multiple clinical malaria episodes was 75% (71–78; p<0·0001) at the seasonal sites and 67% (59–73; p<0·0001) at standard sites. A modest reduction in vaccine efficacy was observed over the first 12 months of follow-up, of similar size at seasonal and standard sites. A rate reduction of 868 (95% CI 762–974) cases per 1000 children-years at seasonal sites and 296 (231–362) at standard sites occurred over 12 months. Vaccine-induced antibodies against the conserved central Asn-Ala-Asn-Pro (NANP) repeat sequence of circumsporozoite protein correlated with vaccine efficacy. Higher NANP-specific antibody titres were observed in the 5–17 month age group compared with 18–36 month age group, and the younger age group had the highest 12-month vaccine efficacy on time to first clinical malaria episode at seasonal (79% [95% CI 73–84]; p<0·001) and standard (75% [65–83]; p<0·001) sites. Interpretation R21/Matrix-M was well tolerated and offered high efficacy against clinical malaria in African children. This low-cost, high-efficacy vaccine is already licensed by several African countries, and recently received a WHO policy recommendation and prequalification, offering large-scale supply to help reduce the great burden of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa. Funding The Serum Institute of India, the Wellcome Trust, the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and Open Philanthropy

The public health impact and cost-effectiveness of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine: a mathematical modelling study

Background The R21/Matrix-M vaccine has demonstrated high efficacy against Plasmodium falciparum clinical malaria in children in sub-Saharan Africa. Using trial data, we aimed to estimate the public health impact and cost-effectiveness of vaccine introduction across sub-Saharan Africa. Methods We fitted a semi-mechanistic model of the relationship between anti-circumsporozoite protein antibody titres and vaccine efficacy to data from 3 years of follow-up in the phase 2b trial of R21/Matrix-M in Nanoro, Burkina Faso. We validated the model by comparing predicted vaccine efficacy to that observed over 12–18 months in the phase 3 trial. Integrating this framework within a mathematical transmission model, we estimated the cases, malaria deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted and cost-effectiveness over a 15-year time horizon across a range of transmission settings in sub-Saharan Africa. Cost-effectiveness was estimated incorporating the cost of vaccine introduction (dose, consumables, and delivery) relative to existing interventions at baseline. We report estimates at a median of 20% parasite prevalence in children aged 2–10 years (PfPR2–10) and ranges from 3% to 65% PfPR2–10. Findings Anti-circumsporozoite protein antibody titres were found to satisfy the criteria for a surrogate of protection for vaccine efficacy against clinical malaria. Age-based implementation of a four-dose regimen of R21/Matrix-M vaccine was estimated to avert 181 825 (range 38 815–333 491) clinical cases per 100 000 fully vaccinated children in perennial settings and 202 017 (29 868–405 702) clinical cases per 100 000 fully vaccinated children in seasonal settings. Similar estimates were obtained for seasonal or hybrid implementation. Under an assumed vaccine dose price of USD 3, the incremental cost per clinical case averted was USD 7 (range 4–48) in perennial settings and USD 6 (3–63) in seasonal settings and the incremental cost per DALY averted was USD 34 (29–139) in perennial settings and USD 30 (22–172) in seasonal settings, with lower cost-effectiveness ratios in settings with higher PfPR2–10. Interpretation Introduction of the R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine could have a substantial public health benefit across sub-Saharan Africa. Funding The Wellcome Trust, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the UK Medical Research Council, the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership 2 and 3, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and the Serum Institute of India, Open Philanthropy

A global core outcome measurement set for snakebite clinical trials.

Snakebite clinical trials have often used heterogeneous outcome measures and there is an urgent need for standardisation. A globally representative group of key stakeholders came together to reach consensus on a globally relevant set of core outcome measurements. Outcome domains and outcome measurement instruments were identified through searching the literature and a systematic review of snakebite clinical trials. Outcome domains were shortlisted by use of a questionnaire and consensus was reached among stakeholders and the patient group through facilitated discussions and voting. Five universal core outcome measures should be included in all future snakebite clinical trials-mortality, WHO disability assessment scale, patient-specific functional scale, acute allergic reaction by Brown criteria, and serum sickness by formal criteria. Additional syndrome-specific core outcome measures should be used depending on the biting species. This core outcome measurement set provides global standardisation, supports the priorities of patients and clinicians, enables meta-analysis, and is appropriate for use in low-income and middle-income settings

Définition d’un jeu universel de critères de décision de base pour les essais cliniques sur les morsures de serpent: traduction par Jean-Philippe Chippaux de l’article de Abouyannis M, et al. A global core outcome measurement set for snakebite clinical trials

A global core outcome measurement set for snakebite clinical trials Background. Snakebite clinical trials have often used heterogeneous outcome measures and there is an urgent need for standardisation. Method. A globally representative group of key stakeholders came together to reach consensus on a globally relevant set of core outcome measurements. Outcome domains and outcome measurement instruments were identified through searching the literature and a systematic review of snakebite clinical trials. Outcome domains were shortlisted by use of a questionnaire and consensus was reached among stakeholders and the patient group through facilitated discussions and voting. Results. Five universal core outcome measures should be included in all future snakebite clinical trials: mortality, WHO disability assessment scale, patient-specific functional scale, acute allergic reaction by Brown criteria, and serum sickness by formal criteria. Additional syndrome-specific core outcome measures should be used depending on the biting species. Conclusion. This core outcome measurement set provides global standardisation, supports the priorities of patients and clinicians, enables meta-analysis, and is appropriate for use in low-income and middle-income settings. Définition d’un jeu universel de critères de décision de base pour les essais cliniques sur les morsures de serpent Contexte. Les essais cliniques sur les morsures de serpent ont souvent utilisé des critères de décision hétérogènes qui demandent à être standardisés. Méthode. Un groupe d’acteurs clés mondialement représentatifs s’est réuni pour parvenir à un consensus sur un jeu universel de critères de décision de base. Les domaines d’intérêt et les instruments d’évaluation des critères de décision ont été identifiés à partir d’une recherche documentaire et d’un examen systématique des essais cliniques concernant les envenimations par morsure de serpent. Les domaines d’intérêt ont été présélectionnés à l’aide d’un questionnaire et un consensus a été obtenu entre le groupe d’acteurs et un groupe représentatif de patients à la suite de discussions orientées et d’un vote. Résultats. Cinq critères de décision de base universels devraient être inclus dans tous les futurs essais cliniques sur les morsures de serpent : la mortalité, l’échelle d’évaluation du handicap de l’OMS, l’échelle fonctionnelle propre à chaque patient, la réaction allergique immédiate selon les critères de Brown et la maladie sérique en fonction de critères formels. D’autres critères de décision spécifiques aux différents syndromes observés lors des envenimations par morsure de serpent doivent être utilisés en fonction de l’espèce responsable de la morsure. Conclusion. Ce jeu universel de critères de décision de base permet une standardisation mondiale, répond aux priorités des patients et des cliniciens, favorise des méta-analyses et est compatible avec une utilisation dans les pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials