Uptake of genital mucosal sampling in HVTN 097, a phase 1b HIV vaccine trial in South Africa

Because sexual transmission of HIV occurs across mucosal membranes, understanding the immune responses of the genital mucosa to vaccines may contribute knowledge to finding an effective candidate HIV vaccine. We describe the uptake of rectal secretion, cervical secretion and seminal mucosal secretion sampling amongst volunteers in a Phase 1b HIV vaccine trial. Age at screening, gender, study site and the designation of the person conducting the informed consent procedure were collected for volunteers who screened for the HVTN 097 study. A total of 211 volunteers (54% female) were screened at three sites in South Africa: Soweto (n = 70, 33%), Cape Town (n = 68, 32%) and Klerksdorp (n = 73, 35%). Overall uptake of optional mucosal sampling amongst trial volunteers was 71% (n = 149). Compared to Cape Town, volunteers from Soweto and Klerksdorp were less likely to consent to sampling (Soweto OR 0.08 CI: 0.03-0.25 p<0.001 and Klerksdorp OR 0.13 CI: 0.04-0.41 p = 0.001). In contrast, volunteers over 25 years of age were 2.39 times more likely to consent than younger volunteers (CI: 1.13-5.08, p = 0.02). Further studies are required to better understand the cultural, demographic and sociobehavioral factors which influence willingness to participate in mucosal sampling in HIV prevention studies. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0210935

HIV research in South Africa: Advancing life

South African (SA) researchers have made both national and global contributions to HIV prevention and treatment. Research conducted in SA has contributed markedly to improved survival in HIV-infected infants, children and adults. The translation of clinical research into practice has enabled the curtailment of paediatric HIV in SA. Along with international collaborators, SA has made pivotal contributions to biomedical prevention modalities including medical male circumcision and oral and topical microbicides, and is undertaking pivotal HIV vaccine research. Research into the structural and psychosocial drivers of HIV infection will be critical for sustaining biomedical interventions, and necessary to end AIDS

Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies

Given the powerful implications of relationship quality for health and well-being, a central mission of relationship science is explaining why some romantic relationships thrive more than others. This large-scale project used machine learning (i.e., Random Forests) to 1) quantify the extent to which relationship quality is predictable and 2) identify which constructs reliably predict relationship quality. Across 43 dyadic longitudinal datasets from 29 laboratories, the top relationship-specific predictors of relationship quality were perceived-partner commitment, appreciation, sexual satisfaction, perceived-partner satisfaction, and conflict. The top individual-difference predictors were life satisfaction, negative affect, depression, attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety. Overall, relationship-specific variables predicted up to 45% of variance at baseline, and up to 18% of variance at the end of each study. Individual differences also performed well (21% and 12%, respectively). Actor-reported variables (i.e., own relationship-specific and individual-difference variables) predicted two to four times more variance than partner-reported variables (i.e., the partner’s ratings on those variables). Importantly, individual differences and partner reports had no predictive effects beyond actor-reported relationship-specific variables alone. These findings imply that the sum of all individual differences and partner experiences exert their influence on relationship quality via a person’s own relationship-specific experiences, and effects due to moderation by individual differences and moderation by partner-reports may be quite small. Finally, relationship-quality change (i.e., increases or decreases in relationship quality over the course of a study) was largely unpredictable from any combination of self-report variables. This collective effort should guide future models of relationships

Measuring progress and projecting attainment on the basis of past trends of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals in 188 countries: an analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are grounded in the global ambition of “leaving no one behind”. Understanding today’s gains and gaps for the health-related SDGs is essential for decision makers as they aim to improve the health of populations. As part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016), we measured 37 of the 50 health-related SDG indicators over the period 1990–2016 for 188 countries, and then on the basis of these past trends, we projected indicators to 2030

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors 2017 includes a comprehensive assessment of incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 354 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017. Previous GBD studies have shown how the decline of mortality rates from 1990 to 2016 has led to an increase in life expectancy, an ageing global population, and an expansion of the non-fatal burden of disease and injury. These studies have also shown how a substantial portion of the world's population experiences non-fatal health loss with considerable heterogeneity among different causes, locations, ages, and sexes. Ongoing objectives of the GBD study include increasing the level of estimation detail, improving analytical strategies, and increasing the amount of high-quality data. METHODS: We estimated incidence and prevalence for 354 diseases and injuries and 3484 sequelae. We used an updated and extensive body of literature studies, survey data, surveillance data, inpatient admission records, outpatient visit records, and health insurance claims, and additionally used results from cause of death models to inform estimates using a total of 68 781 data sources. Newly available clinical data from India, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Nepal, China, Brazil, Norway, and Italy were incorporated, as well as updated claims data from the USA and new claims data from Taiwan (province of China) and Singapore. We used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, as the main method of estimation, ensuring consistency between rates of incidence, prevalence, remission, and cause of death for each condition. YLDs were estimated as the product of a prevalence estimate and a disability weight for health states of each mutually exclusive sequela, adjusted for comorbidity. We updated the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary development indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and total fertility rate. Additionally, we calculated differences between male and female YLDs to identify divergent trends across sexes. GBD 2017 complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting

Two randomized trials of neutralizing antibodies to prevent HIV-1 acquisition

BACKGROUND : Whether a broadly neutralizing antibody (bnAb) can be used to prevent human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) acquisition is unclear. METHODS : We enrolled at-risk cisgender men and transgender persons in the Americas and Europe in the HVTN 704/HPTN 085 trial and at-risk women in sub-Saharan Africa in the HVTN 703/HPTN 081 trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive, every 8 weeks, infusions of a bnAb (VRC01) at a dose of either 10 or 30 mg per kilogram (low-dose group and high-dose group, respectively) or placebo, for 10 infusions in total. HIV-1 testing was performed every 4 weeks. The VRC01 80% inhibitory concentration (IC80) of acquired isolates was measured with the TZM-bl assay. RESULTS : Adverse events were similar in number and severity among the treatment groups within each trial. Among the 2699 participants in HVTN 704/HPTN 085, HIV-1 infection occurred in 32 in the low-dose group, 28 in the high-dose group, and 38 in the placebo group. Among the 1924 participants in HVTN 703/HPTN 081, infection occurred in 28 in the low-dose group, 19 in the high-dose group, and 29 in the placebo group. The incidence of HIV-1 infection per 100 person-years in HVTN 704/ HPTN 085 was 2.35 in the pooled VRC01 groups and 2.98 in the placebo group (estimated prevention efficacy, 26.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −11.7 to 51.8; P = 0.15), and the incidence per 100 person-years in HVTN 703/HPTN 081 was 2.49 in the pooled VRC01 groups and 3.10 in the placebo group (estimated prevention efficacy, 8.8%; 95% CI, −45.1 to 42.6; P = 0.70). In prespecified analyses pooling data across the trials, the incidence of infection with VRC01-sensitive isolates (IC80 <1 μg per milliliter) per 100 person-years was 0.20 among VRC01 recipients and 0.86 among placebo recipients (estimated prevention efficacy, 75.4%; 95% CI, 45.5 to 88.9). The prevention efficacy against sensitive isolates was similar for each VRC01 dose and trial; VRC01 did not prevent acquisition of other HIV-1 isolates. CONCLUSIONS : VRC01 did not prevent overall HIV-1 acquisition more effectively than placebo, but analyses of VRC01-sensitive HIV-1 isolates provided proof-of-concept that bnAb prophylaxis can be effective.Supported by Public Health Service Grants (UM1 AI068614, to the HIV Vaccine Trials Network [HVTN]; UM1 AI068635, to the HVTN Statistical Data and Management Center [SDMC], Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center [FHCRC]; UM1 AI068618, to HVTN Laboratory Center, FHCRC; 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, University of Washington) from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and by the Intramural Research Program of the NIAID.http://www.nejm.orgam2022School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

Vaccine efficacy of ALVAC-HIV and bivalent subtype C gp120–MF59 in adults

BACKGROUND : A safe, effective vaccine is essential to eradicating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. A canarypox–protein HIV vaccine regimen (ALVAC-HIV plus AIDSVAX B/E) showed modest efficacy in reducing infection in Thailand. An analogous regimen using HIV-1 subtype C virus showed potent humoral and cellular responses in a phase 1–2a trial in South Africa. Efficacy data and additional safety data were needed for this regimen in a larger population in South Africa. METHODS : In this phase 2b–3 trial, we randomly assigned 5404 adults without HIV-1 infection to receive the vaccine (2704 participants) or placebo (2700 participants). The vaccine regimen consisted of injections of ALVAC-HIV at months 0 and 1, followed by four booster injections of ALVAC-HIV plus bivalent subtype C gp120–MF59 adjuvant at months 3, 6, 12, and 18. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of HIV-1 infection from randomization to 24 months. RESULTS : In January 2020, prespecified criteria for non-efficacy were met at an interim analysis; further vaccinations were subsequently halted. The median age of the trial participants was 24 years; 70% of the participants were women. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. During the 24-month followup, HIV-1 infection was diagnosed in 138 participants in the vaccine group and in 133 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.30; P = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS : The ALVAC–gp120 regimen did not prevent HIV-1 infection among participants in South Africa despite previous evidence of immunogenicity.Supported by grants (HHSN272201300033C and HHSN272201600012C) to Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics (now part of the GlaxoSmithKline [GSK] Biologicals) by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for the selection and process development of the two gp120 envelope proteins TV1.C and 1086.C; by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Global Health Grant (OPP1017604) and NIAID for the manufacture and release of the gp120 clinical grade material; and by U.S. Public Health Service Grants — UM1 AI068614 to the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN), UM1 AI068635 to the HVTN Statistical and Data Management Center, and UM1 AI068618 to the HVTN Laboratory Center — from the NIAID. GSK Biologicals contributed financially to the provision of preexposure prophylaxis to trial participants. The South African Medical Research Council supported its affiliated research sites.http://www.nejm.orgam2022School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

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 &amp; 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