A Blueprint to Address Research Gaps in the Development of Biomarkers for Pediatric Tuberculosis

Childhood tuberculosis contributes significantly to the global tuberculosis disease burden but remains challenging to diagnose due to inadequate methods of pathogen detection in paucibacillary pediatric samples and lack of a child-specific host biomarker to identify disease. Accurately diagnosing tuberculosis in children is required to improve case detection, surveillance, healthcare delivery, and effective advocacy. In May 2014, the National Institutes of Health convened a workshop including researchers in the field to delineate priorities to address this research gap. This blueprint describes the consensus from the workshop, identifies critical research steps to advance this field, and aims to catalyze efforts toward harmonization and collaboration in this are

Towards early inclusion of children in tuberculosis drugs trials : a consensus statement

Children younger than 18 years account for a substantial proportion of patients with tuberculosis worldwide. Available treatments for paediatric drug-susceptible and drug-resistant tuberculosis, albeit generally eff ective, are hampered by high pill burden, long duration of treatment, coexistent toxic eff ects, and an overall scarcity of suitable child-friendly formulations. Several new drugs and regimens with promising activity against both drug-susceptible and drug-resistant strains have entered clinical development and are either in various phases of clinical investigation or have received marketing authorisation for adults; however, none have data on their use in children. This consensus statement, generated from an international panel of opinion leaders on childhood tuberculosis and incorporating reviews of published literature from January, 2004, to May, 2014, addressed four key questions: what drugs or regimens should be prioritised for clinical trials in children? Which populations of children are high priorities for study? When can phase 1 or 2 studies be initiated in children? What are the relevant elements of clinical trial design? The consensus panel found that children can be included in studies at the early phases of drug development and should be an integral part of the clinical development plan, rather than studied after regulatory approval in adults is obtained.National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and National Institute of Health.Department of Health and Human Services.http://www.thelancet.com/infection2016-06-30hb201

A blueprint to address research gaps in the development of biomarkers for pediatric tuberculosis

Childhood tuberculosis contributes significantly to the global tuberculosis disease burden but remains challenging to diagnose due to inadequate methods of pathogen detection in paucibacillary pediatric samples and lack of a child-specific host biomarker to identify disease. Accurately diagnosing tuberculosis in children is required to improve case detection, surveillance, healthcare delivery, and effective advocacy. In May 2014, the National Institutes of Health convened a workshop including researchers in the field to delineate priorities to address this research gap. This blueprint describes the consensus from the workshop, identifies critical research steps to advance this field, and aims to catalyze efforts toward harmonization and collaboration in this area

Safety and efficacy assessment of two new leprosy skin test antigens: randomized double blind clinical study.

New tools are required for the diagnosis of pre-symptomatic leprosy towards further reduction of disease burden and its associated reactions. To address this need, two new skin test antigens were developed to assess safety and efficacy in human trials.A Phase I safety trial was first conducted in a non-endemic region for leprosy (U.S.A.). Healthy non-exposed subjects (n = 10) received three titrated doses (2.5 µg, 1.0 µg and 0.1 µg) of MLSA-LAM (n = 5) or MLCwA (n = 5) and control antigens [Rees MLSA (1.0 µg) and saline]. A randomized double blind Phase II safety and efficacy trial followed in an endemic region for leprosy (Nepal), but involved only the 1.0 µg (high dose) and 0.1 µg (low dose) of each antigen; Tuberculin PPD served as a control antigen. This Phase II safety and efficacy trial consisted of three Stages: Stage A and B studies were an expansion of Phase I involving 10 and 90 subjects respectively, and Stage C was then conducted in two parts (high dose and low dose), each enrolling 80 participants: 20 borderline lepromatous/lepromatous (BL/LL) leprosy patients, 20 borderline tuberculoid/tuberculoid (BT/TT) leprosy patients, 20 household contacts of leprosy patients (HC), and 20 tuberculosis (TB) patients. The primary outcome measure for the skin test was delayed type hypersensitivity induration.In the small Phase I safety trial, reactions were primarily against the 2.5 µg dose of both antigens and Rees control antigen, which were then excluded from subsequent studies. In the Phase II, Stage A/B ramped-up safety study, 26% of subjects (13 of 50) showed induration against the high dose of each antigen, and 4% (2 of 50) reacted to the low dose of MLSA-LAM. Phase II, Stage C safety and initial efficacy trial showed that both antigens at the low dose exhibited low sensitivity at 20% and 25% in BT/TT leprosy patients, but high specificity at 100% and 95% compared to TB patients. The high dose of both antigens showed lower specificity (70% and 60%) and sensitivity (10% and 15%). BL/LL leprosy patients were anergic to the leprosy antigens.MLSA-LAM and MLCwA at both high (1.0 µg) and low (0.1 µg) doses were found to be safe for use in humans without known exposure to leprosy and in target populations. At a sensitivity rate of 20-25% these antigens are not suitable as a skin test for the detection of the early stages of leprosy infection; however, the degree of specificity is impressive given the presence of cross-reactive antigens in these complex native M. leprae preparations.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920750 (Phase I), NCT00128193 (Phase II)

Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results From the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial.

In a randomized clinical trial, we compare early neutralizing antibody responses after boosting with bivalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines based on either BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 Omicron spike protein combined with wild-type spike. Responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants exhibited the greatest reduction in titers against currently circulating Omicron subvariants for both bivalent vaccines