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

Secondary education reform in Lesotho and Zimbabwe and the needs of rural girls: Pronouncements, policy and practice

Analysis of the educational needs of rural girls in Lesotho and Zimbabwe suggests a number of shortcomings in the current form of secondary education, and ways in which it might be modified so as to serve this sizeable group of students better. Several of the shortcomings, notably in relation to curricular irrelevance and excessive focus on examinations, have long been recognised, including by politicians. Yet political pronouncements are seldom translated into policy, and even where policy is formulated, reforms are seldom implemented in schools. This paper makes use of interviews with educational decision-makers in the two southern African countries and a range of documentary sources to explore why, despite the considerable differences between the two contexts, much needed educational reforms have been implemented in neither

Phase 2b Controlled Trial of M72/AS01E Vaccine to Prevent Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: A vaccine to interrupt the transmission of tuberculosis is needed. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial of the M72/AS01E tuberculosis vaccine in Kenya, South Africa, and Zambia. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative adults 18 to 50 years of age with latent M. tuberculosis infection (by interferon-γ release assay) were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive two doses of either M72/AS01E or placebo intramuscularly 1 month apart. Most participants had previously received the bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine. We assessed the safety of M72/AS01E and its efficacy against progression to bacteriologically confirmed active pulmonary tuberculosis disease. Clinical suspicion of tuberculosis was confirmed with sputum by means of a polymerase-chain-reaction test, mycobacterial culture, or both. RESULTS: We report the primary analysis (conducted after a mean of 2.3 years of follow-up) of the ongoing trial. A total of 1786 participants received M72/AS01E and 1787 received placebo, and 1623 and 1660 participants in the respective groups were included in the according-to-protocol efficacy cohort. A total of 10 participants in the M72/AS01E group met the primary case definition (bacteriologically confirmed active pulmonary tuberculosis, with confirmation before treatment), as compared with 22 participants in the placebo group (incidence, 0.3 cases vs. 0.6 cases per 100 person-years). The vaccine efficacy was 54.0% (90% confidence interval [CI], 13.9 to 75.4; 95% CI, 2.9 to 78.2; P=0.04). Results for the total vaccinated efficacy cohort were similar (vaccine efficacy, 57.0%; 90% CI, 19.9 to 76.9; 95% CI, 9.7 to 79.5; P=0.03). There were more unsolicited reports of adverse events in the M72/AS01E group (67.4%) than in the placebo group (45.4%) within 30 days after injection, with the difference attributed mainly to injection-site reactions and influenza-like symptoms. Serious adverse events, potential immune-mediated diseases, and deaths occurred with similar frequencies in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: M72/AS01E provided 54.0% protection for M. tuberculosis-infected adults against active pulmonary tuberculosis disease, without evident safety concerns. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals and Aeras; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01755598 .)

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

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

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

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

A partially randomised trial of pretomanid, moxifloxacin and pyrazinamide for pulmonary TB

STAND was sponsored by TB Alliance with support from the UK Department for International Development, UK Department of Health (London, UK), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Seattle, WA, USA), US Agency for International Development (Washington DC, USA), Directorate General for International Cooperation of the Netherlands (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), Irish Aid (Dublin, Ireland), Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Canberra ACT, Australia) and the Federal Ministry for Education and Research of Germany (Berlin, Germany) through KfW (Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH; Bethesda, MD, USA) under Award Numbers UM1 AI068634 and UM1 AI068636. AMC and AJN are supported by Medical Research Council Grant: MC_UU_12023/27 Tuberculosis Treatment Trials.BACKGROUND: Treatment for TB is lengthy and toxic, and new regimens are needed. METHODS: Participants with pulmonary drug-susceptible TB (DS-TB) were randomised to receive: 200 mg pretomanid (Pa, PMD) daily, 400 mg moxifloxacin (M) and 1500 mg pyrazinamide (Z) for 6 months (6Pa200MZ) or 4 months (4Pa200MZ); 100 mg pretomanid daily for 4 months in the same combination (4Pa100MZ); or standard DS-TB treatment for 6 months. The primary outcome was treatment failure or relapse at 12 months post-randomisation. The non-inferiority margin for between-group differences was 12.0%. Recruitment was paused following three deaths and not resumed. RESULTS: Respectively 4/47 (8.5%), 11/57 (19.3%), 14/52 (26.9%) and 1/53 (1.9%) DS-TB outcomes were unfavourable in patients on 6Pa200MZ, 4Pa200MZ, 4Pa100MZ and controls. There was a 6.6% (95% CI –2.2% to 15.4%) difference per protocol and 9.9% (95%CI –4.1% to 23.9%) modified intention-to-treat difference in unfavourable responses between the control and 6Pa200MZ arms. Grade 3+ adverse events affected 68/203 (33.5%) receiving experimental regimens, and 19/68 (27.9%) on control. Ten of 203 (4.9%) participants on experimental arms and 2/68 (2.9%) controls died. CONCLUSION: PaMZ regimens did not achieve non-inferiority in this under-powered trial. An ongoing evaluation of PMD remains a priority.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe