Correction to: Partnership for Research on Ebola VACcination (PREVAC): protocol of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial evaluating three vaccine strategies against Ebola in healthy volunteers in four West African countries.

Following the publication of the original article [1], we were notified of an error in the affiliation of 3 authors of the article: Celine Roy, Laura Richert and Genevieve Chene. Their affiliation was initially mentioned as: “Partnership for Research on Ebola Virus in Liberia (PREVAIL), Monrovia, Liberia” However, their correct affiliation is: Univ. Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, UMR 1219, CHU Bordeaux, CIC 1401, EUCLID/F-CRIN Clinical Trials Platform, F-33000, Bordeaux, France.tp

Long-term cellular immunity of vaccines for Zaire Ebola Virus Diseases

Recent Ebola outbreaks underscore the importance of continuous prevention and disease control efforts. Authorized vaccines include Merck’s Ervebo (rVSV-ZEBOV) and Johnson & Johnson’s two-dose combination (Ad26.ZEBOV/MVA-BN-Filo). Here, in a five-year follow-up of the PREVAC randomized trial (NCT02876328), we report the results of the immunology ancillary study of the trial. The primary endpoint is to evaluate long-term memory T-cell responses induced by three vaccine regimens: Ad26–MVA, rVSV, and rVSV–booster. Polyfunctional EBOV-specific CD4+ T-cell responses increase after Ad26 priming and are further boosted by MVA, whereas minimal responses are observed in the rVSV groups, declining after one year. In-vitro expansion for eight days show sustained EBOV-specific T-cell responses for up to 60 months post-prime vaccination with both Ad26-MVA and rVSV, with no decline. Cytokine production analysis identify shared biomarkers between the Ad26-MVA and rVSV groups. In secondary endpoint, we observed an elevation of pro-inflammatory cytokines at Day 7 in the rVSV group. Finally, we establish a correlation between EBOV-specific T-cell responses and anti-EBOV IgG responses. Our findings can guide booster vaccination recommendations and help identify populations likely to benefit from revaccination

Predictors of Outcomes in Patients With Mild Ischemic Stroke Symptoms: MaRISS

Background and Purpose: Although most strokes present with mild symptoms, these have been poorly represented in clinical trials. The objective of this study is to describe multidimensional outcomes, identify predictors of worse outcomes, and explore the effect of thrombolysis in this population. Methods: This prospective observational study included patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, a baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score 0 to 5, presenting within 4.5 hours from symptom onset. The primary outcome was a 90-day modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 1; secondary outcomes included good outcomes in the Barthel Index, Stroke Impact Scale-16, and European Quality of Life. Multivariable models were created to determine predictors of outcomes and the effect of alteplase. Results: A total of 1765 participants were included from 100 Get With The Guidelines-Stroke participating hospitals (age, 65±14; 42% women; final diagnosis of ischemic stroke, 90%; transient ischemic attack, 10%; 57% received alteplase). At 90 days, 37% were disabled and 25% not independent. Worse outcomes were noted for older individuals, women, non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics, Medicaid recipients, smokers, those with diabetes, atrial fibrillation, prior stroke, higher baseline NIHSS, visual field defects, and extremity weakness. Similar outcomes were noted for the alteplase-treated and untreated groups. Alteplase-treated patients were younger (64±13 versus 67±1.4) with higher NIHSS (2.9±1.4 versus 1.7±1.4). After adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and baseline NIHSS, we did not identify an effect of alteplase on the primary outcome but did find an association with Stroke Impact Scale-16 in the restricted sample of baseline NIHSS score 3–5. Few symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages were recorded (<1%). Conclusions: A large proportion of stroke patients presenting with low NIHSS have a disabled outcome. Baseline predictors of worse outcomes are described. An effect of alteplase on outcomes was not identified in the overall cohort, but a suggestion of efficacy was noted in the NIHSS 3–5 subgroup. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02072681

Exploration of the Ice Giant Systems: A White Paper for NASA's Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey 2023-2032

Ice giants are the only unexplored class of planet in our Solar System. Much that we currently know about these systems challenges our understanding of how planets, rings, satellites, and magnetospheres form and evolve. We assert that an ice giant Flagship mission with an atmospheric probe should be a priority for the decade 2023-2032

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundWe aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19.MethodsIn this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978.FindingsBetween Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90.InterpretationNeither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.FundingUS National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed

Partnership for Research on Ebola VACcination (PREVAC): protocol of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial evaluating three vaccine strategies against Ebola in healthy volunteers in four West African countries

International audienceAbstract Introduction The Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in 2014–2016 in West Africa was the largest on record and provided an opportunity for large clinical trials and accelerated efforts to develop an effective and safe preventative vaccine. Multiple questions regarding the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of EVD vaccines remain unanswered. To address these gaps in the evidence base, the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines (PREVAC) trial was designed. This paper describes the design, methods, and baseline results of the PREVAC trial and discusses challenges that led to different protocol amendments. Methods This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial of three vaccine strategies against the Ebola virus in healthy volunteers 1 year of age and above. The three vaccine strategies being studied are the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine, with and without a booster dose at 56 days, and the Ad26.ZEBOV,MVA-FN-Filo vaccine regimen with Ad26.ZEBOV given as the first dose and the MVA-FN-Filo vaccination given 56 days later. There have been 4 versions of the protocol with those enrolled in Version 4.0 comprising the primary analysis cohort. The primary endpoint is based on the antibody titer against the Ebola virus surface glycoprotein measured 12 months following the final injection. Results From April 2017 to December 2018, a total of 5002 volunteers were screened and 4789 enrolled. Participants were enrolled at 6 sites in four countries (Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali). Of the 4789 participants, 2560 (53%) were adults and 2229 (47%) were children. Those < 18 years of age included 549 (12%) aged 1 to 4 years, 750 (16%) 5 to 11 years, and 930 (19%) aged 12–17 years. At baseline, the median (25th, 75th percentile) antibody titer to Ebola virus glycoprotein for 1090 participants was 72 (50, 116) EU/mL. Discussion The PREVAC trial is evaluating—placebo-controlled—two promising Ebola candidate vaccines in advanced stages of development. The results will address unanswered questions related to short- and long-term safety and immunogenicity for three vaccine strategies in adults and children. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02876328 . Registered on 23 August 2016

Clinical phenotypes and outcomes in children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome across SARS-CoV-2 variant eras: a multinational study from the 4CE consortiumResearch in context

Summary: Background: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a severe complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection. It remains unclear how MIS-C phenotypes vary across SARS-CoV-2 variants. We aimed to investigate clinical characteristics and outcomes of MIS-C across SARS-CoV-2 eras. Methods: We performed a multicentre observational retrospective study including seven paediatric hospitals in four countries (France, Spain, U.K., and U.S.). All consecutive confirmed patients with MIS-C hospitalised between February 1st, 2020, and May 31st, 2022, were included. Electronic Health Records (EHR) data were used to calculate pooled risk differences (RD) and effect sizes (ES) at site level, using Alpha as reference. Meta-analysis was used to pool data across sites. Findings: Of 598 patients with MIS-C (61% male, 39% female; mean age 9.7 years [SD 4.5]), 383 (64%) were admitted in the Alpha era, 111 (19%) in the Delta era, and 104 (17%) in the Omicron era. Compared with patients admitted in the Alpha era, those admitted in the Delta era were younger (ES −1.18 years [95% CI −2.05, −0.32]), had fewer respiratory symptoms (RD −0.15 [95% CI −0.33, −0.04]), less frequent non-cardiogenic shock or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) (RD −0.35 [95% CI −0.64, −0.07]), lower lymphocyte count (ES −0.16 × 109/uL [95% CI −0.30, −0.01]), lower C-reactive protein (ES −28.5 mg/L [95% CI −46.3, −10.7]), and lower troponin (ES −0.14 ng/mL [95% CI −0.26, −0.03]). Patients admitted in the Omicron versus Alpha eras were younger (ES −1.6 years [95% CI −2.5, −0.8]), had less frequent SIRS (RD −0.18 [95% CI −0.30, −0.05]), lower lymphocyte count (ES −0.39 × 109/uL [95% CI −0.52, −0.25]), lower troponin (ES −0.16 ng/mL [95% CI −0.30, −0.01]) and less frequently received anticoagulation therapy (RD −0.19 [95% CI −0.37, −0.04]). Length of hospitalization was shorter in the Delta versus Alpha eras (−1.3 days [95% CI −2.3, −0.4]). Interpretation: Our study suggested that MIS-C clinical phenotypes varied across SARS-CoV-2 eras, with patients in Delta and Omicron eras being younger and less sick. EHR data can be effectively leveraged to identify rare complications of pandemic diseases and their variation over time. Funding: None

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee