Incidence and predictors of recovery from anaemia within an HIV-infected South African Cohort, 2004-2010

Introduction: Anaemia is one of the most frequent haematological complications in HIV-infected  persons. Understanding factors associated with recovery from anaemia during ART is vital in improving clinical outcomes since anaemia is a strong predictor of mortality.Methods: Cohort study of 12,441 HIV-infected adults initiating ART between 2004- 2010 in Johannesburg, South Africa. A further 2,489 patients with prevalent anaemia at ART initiation were examined to  determine the incidence and predictors of recovery from anaemia. Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to investigate predictors of recovery from anaemia.Results: Of the 2,489 patients with prevalent anaemia, most patients (n=2,225, 89.4%) recovered from anaemia. Median time to anaemia recovery was 3.9 months (IQR: 3.22-6.20) and incidence rate was 180 per 100person years (95% CI: 172-187). In univariate analysis, sex, CD4 count, BMI, WHO stage,  employment status, smoking status and presence of tuberculosis at initiation of ART were significant  predictors of recovery from anaemia. However in multivariate analysis, predictors of recovery from  anaemia were: male sex- HR: 1.43 (95% CI: 1.29-1.59) p< 0.001, advanced WHO stage III/IV - HR: 1.17 (95% CI: 1.07-1.29) p=0.001). There was no significant association with CD4 count in multivariate  analysis.Conclusion: A large proportion of HIV infected patients with anaemia at baseline recover early during the course of ART. Females and those with less advanced WHO stage seem to be at higher risk of poor  recovery from anaemia. Understanding the predictors for poor recovery from anaemia would allow closer follow-up and more targeted interventions thus reducing excess anaemia and mortality burden.Key words: Haemoglobin, human immunodeficiency virus, AIDS, Themba Lethu clinical cohort, antiretroviral therap

Incidence of cardiometabolic diseases in a Lesotho HIV cohort : evidence for policy decision-making

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral treatment (ART) has been associated with the development of certain cardiometabolic diseases (CMDs). The burden of CMDs amongst ART-experienced patients in sub-Saharan Africa was unknown. OBJECTIVE: We quantified the burden of CMDs and identified the associated risk factors in a large treatment cohort on ART at a high-volume facility in Lesotho. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we extracted data from the daily dispensing electronic system and routine clinical records of 785 adults on ART between 2011 and 2015 in Maseru, Lesotho. CMD was defined as a diagnosis of hypertension, diabetes mellitus or dyslipidaemia (singly or collectively). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the disease burden; Kaplan–Meier curves and cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to examine the impact of the ART regimen and identify the risk factors associated with the occurrence of CMD. RESULTS: Of the 785 participants, 473 (60%) were women. The median age of the group was 42 years, interquartile range (IQR), 36–51 years. The overall incidence of CMD was 5.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.4–7.1) per 100 person-months of follow-up. The median time to onset of CMD was 16.6 months (IQR = 7.4–23.4). ART was not associated with the occurrence of CMD (cause-specific hazard ratio [CHR] = 1.55; 95% CI = 0.14–16.85; P = 0.72). Higher body mass index (BMI) was associated with the occurrence of diabetes mellitus (CHR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.14–1.38; P = 0.026). CONLCUSION: The incidence of CMD in this relatively young patient population is low yet noteworthy. We recommend that patients living with HIV and AIDS should be routinely screened for CMD. Higher BMI is generally associated with the occurrence of CMD.http://www.sajhivmed.org.za/index.php/hivmeddm2022School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

Eligibility for co-trimoxazole prophylaxis among adult HIV-infected patients in South Africa

Co-trimoxazole (fixed-dose trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) is a broad-spectrum antibiotic used to prevent opportunistic infections in patients with HIV infection. Primary prophylaxis with co-trimoxazole has been shown to decrease hospitalisation, morbidity and mortality among people living with HIV, primarily by decreasing rates of malaria, pneumonia, diarrhoea, Pneumocystis pneumonia, toxoplasmosis and severe bacterial infections.[1-4] Co-trimoxazole is inexpensive and widely available. In standard adult treatment guidelines and essential medicine lists in South Africa (SA), the current recommendation is that co-trimoxazole should be provided for HIV-infected patients with a CD4+ count ˂200 cells/μL, HIV/tuberculosis (TB) co-infection and/or advanced HIV disease (World Health Organization (WHO) stage 3 or 4). Because of expanded access and progression towards initiation of antiretroviral treatment (ART), the WHO issued updated guidelines for co-trimoxazole prophylaxis in 2014.[5] These guidelines recommend co-trimoxazole prophylaxis for adults (including pregnant women) with severe or advanced HIV clinical disease (WHO stage 3 or 4) and/or with a CD4+ count ≤350 cells/μL. In settings with a high prevalence of malaria and/or severe bacterial infections, prophylaxis is recommended for all patients regardless of WHO clinical stage or CD4+ cell count. However, the timing of discontinuation of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis may vary and is dependent on the malarial/ bacterial infection burden in different settings.[5] Therefore, the current WHO guidance should be adapted in the context of a country-specific epidemiological profile and priorities. The impact and benefit of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis on morbidity and mortality among HIV-infected patients with a CD4+ count ≤350 cells/μL in regions with high infectious disease burdens (irrespective of CD4+ count) have been shown in a good-quality systematic review and meta-analysis that included both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies.[6] This extensive systematic review by Suthar et al.[6] showed that co-trimoxazole prophylaxis reduced the rate of death when initiated at CD4+ counts ≤350 cells/μL with ART in populations in Africa and Asia. Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis in ART-naive patients with CD4+ counts >350 cells/μL reduced the rate of death and malaria, and continuation of prophylaxis after ART-induced recovery with CD4+ counts >350 cells/μL reduced hospital admission, pneumonia, malaria and diarrhoea in African populations (SA, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Malawi, Mozambique and Ethiopia).[6] While this review largely informed the 2014 WHO guideline update, the findings need to be interpreted in the context of studies included and the varied epidemiological profile across middle- and low-income countries. There were only 2 relatively small RCTs with very few events of key endpoints; therefore, the finding of non-significance was likely (e.g. total of ~5 deaths in both arms from both trials).[7,8] One of the 2 studies was unblinded, and the follow-up in the other study was only 4 months. Ongoing co-trimoxazole prophylaxis was better than discontinuation of the drug at CD4+ counts >200 cells/μL for 3 endpoints with an adequate number of events (pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria). Furthermore, 8 of 9 studies were conducted in countries with a high burden of malaria and bacterial and parasitic diseases, which is generalisable to the SA context.[9] Although seasonal malaria occurs in the north-eastern parts of SA, the incidence of malaria mortality and morbidity has declined remarkably over time (˂10 000 cases annually for the past 10 years).[10] In contrast, in Uganda, >9 million confirmed cases of malaria were reported in the public health sector in 2015.[9] In this review, further stratification of the impact of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis at CD4+ counts ˂200 cells/μL v. 200 - 350 cells/μL was not available. Lower bacterial resistance to co-trimoxazole is possible among populations included in this review, while resistance to co-trimoxazole in SA is common in patients with community-acquired bacterial infections.[11-13] This potential risk of resistance compounded by the lack of long-term toxicity data needs to be weighed against recommending prophylaxis in populations where benefit has not been established. Local observational studies suggest no benefit of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis with a CD4+ count >200 cells/μL or in patients who were not WHO clinical stage 3 or 4.[14,15] In an observational cohort of patients attending the adult HIV clinics at the University of Cape Town, SA, the effect of prophylactic low-dose co-trimoxazole on survival and morbidity was examined over a 5-year follow-up period. Co-trimoxazole reduced the hazards of mortality by ~44% and the incidence of severe HIV-related illnesses by ~48% in patients with evidence of advanced immunosuppression (WHO stage 3 or 4) or laboratory measurement of total lymphocyte count ˂1 250 × 106/L or CD4+ count ˂200 cells/μL. However, no beneficial effect was seen in patients with WHO clinical stage 2 or CD4+ count 200 - 500 cells/μL. A potential limitation of this study was that the sample size of patients with a CD4+ count 200 - 500 cells/μL receiving co-trimoxazole was small and may have been underpowered to observe a significant benefit. In this study, patients on ART were excluded.[14] In another SA cohort study by Hoffmann et al.,[15] examining co-trimoxazole effectiveness in reducing mortality risk during ART among persons with a CD4+ count >200 cells/μL and varying WHO clinical stages, overall co-trimoxazole prophylaxis reduced mortality by 36% across all CD4+ count strata. Analysis stratified by baseline CD4+ count showed a similar reduction in mortality risk among persons with a CD4+ count ˂200 cells/μL, but no statistically significant association was found between co-trimoxazole prophylaxis and survival in the subgroup of persons with a CD4+ count >200 - 350 cells/μL, CD4+ count >350 cells/μL and WHO stage 1 or 2 disease. However, the findings of this study need to be interpreted cautiously for the following reasons: the group with a CD4+ count >350 cells/μL was small (n=917) and might not have had enough events to draw inferences; the study population was a cohort of miners and might not have been potentially representative of the SA population; and, being a non-randomised study, residual confounding might have been a potential limitation. An earlier Cochrane review established the benefit of initiating prophylaxis at a CD4+ count ˂200 cells/μL in those with stage 2, 3 or 4 HIV disease (including TB), and discontinuation once the CD4+ count was >200 cells/μL for >6 months.[16] There was a reduction of ~31% in mortality, 27% in morbid events and 55% in hospitalisation. Significant reductions were also detected for bacterial and parasitic infections and for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. Considering the above-mentioned evidence gaps and lack of generalisability of studies to SA, the current National Essential Medicines List Committee and Adult Hospital-Level Technical Sub-committee do not support the implementation of the updated guidance by the WHO for co-trimoxazole prophylaxis among adult HIV-infected patients. Efforts should be directed towards exploring several research gaps. The impact of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis on morbidity and mortality at higher CD4+ counts in low-malariaburden areas needs to be investigated further. More data are needed on timing of co-trimoxazole cessation in HIV and TB co-infection in our context

Eligibility for co-trimoxazole prophylaxis among adult HIV-infected patients in South Africa

Co-trimoxazole (fixed-dose trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) is a broad-spectrum antibiotic used to prevent opportunistic infections in patients with HIV infection. Primary prophylaxis with co-trimoxazole has been shown to decrease hospitalisation, morbidity and mortality among people living with HIV, primarily by decreasing rates of malaria, pneumonia, diarrhoea, Pneumocystis pneumonia, toxoplasmosis and severe bacterial infections.[1-4] Co-trimoxazole is inexpensive and widely available. In standard adult treatment guidelines and essential medicine lists in South Africa (SA), the current recommendation is that co-trimoxazole should be provided for HIV-infected patients with a CD4+ count ˂200 cells/μL, HIV/tuberculosis (TB) co-infection and/or advanced HIV disease (World Health Organization (WHO) stage 3 or 4). Because of expanded access and progression towards initiation of antiretroviral treatment (ART), the WHO issued updated guidelines for co-trimoxazole prophylaxis in 2014.[5] These guidelines recommend co-trimoxazole prophylaxis for adults (including pregnant women) with severe or advanced HIV clinical disease (WHO stage 3 or 4) and/or with a CD4+ count ≤350 cells/μL. In settings with a high prevalence of malaria and/or severe bacterial infections, prophylaxis is recommended for all patients regardless of WHO clinical stage or CD4+ cell count. However, the timing of discontinuation of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis may vary and is dependent on the malarial/ bacterial infection burden in different settings.[5] Therefore, the current WHO guidance should be adapted in the context of a country-specific epidemiological profile and priorities. The impact and benefit of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis on morbidity and mortality among HIV-infected patients with a CD4+ count ≤350 cells/μL in regions with high infectious disease burdens (irrespective of CD4+ count) have been shown in a good-quality systematic review and meta-analysis that included both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies.[6] This extensive systematic review by Suthar et al.[6] showed that co-trimoxazole prophylaxis reduced the rate of death when initiated at CD4+ counts ≤350 cells/μL with ART in populations in Africa and Asia. Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis in ART-naive patients with CD4+ counts >350 cells/μL reduced the rate of death and malaria, and continuation of prophylaxis after ART-induced recovery with CD4+ counts >350 cells/μL reduced hospital admission, pneumonia, malaria and diarrhoea in African populations (SA, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Malawi, Mozambique and Ethiopia).[6] While this review largely informed the 2014 WHO guideline update, the findings need to be interpreted in the context of studies included and the varied epidemiological profile across middle- and low-income countries. There were only 2 relatively small RCTs with very few events of key endpoints; therefore, the finding of non-significance was likely (e.g. total of ~5 deaths in both arms from both trials).[7,8] One of the 2 studies was unblinded, and the follow-up in the other study was only 4 months. Ongoing co-trimoxazole prophylaxis was better than discontinuation of the drug at CD4+ counts >200 cells/μL for 3 endpoints with an adequate number of events (pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria). Furthermore, 8 of 9 studies were conducted in countries with a high burden of malaria and bacterial and parasitic diseases, which is generalisable to the SA context.[9] Although seasonal malaria occurs in the north-eastern parts of SA, the incidence of malaria mortality and morbidity has declined remarkably over time (˂10 000 cases annually for the past 10 years).[10] In contrast, in Uganda, >9 million confirmed cases of malaria were reported in the public health sector in 2015.[9] In this review, further stratification of the impact of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis at CD4+ counts ˂200 cells/μL v. 200 - 350 cells/μL was not available. Lower bacterial resistance to co-trimoxazole is possible among populations included in this review, while resistance to co-trimoxazole in SA is common in patients with community-acquired bacterial infections.[11-13] This potential risk of resistance compounded by the lack of long-term toxicity data needs to be weighed against recommending prophylaxis in populations where benefit has not been established. Local observational studies suggest no benefit of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis with a CD4+ count >200 cells/μL or in patients who were not WHO clinical stage 3 or 4.[14,15] In an observational cohort of patients attending the adult HIV clinics at the University of Cape Town, SA, the effect of prophylactic low-dose co-trimoxazole on survival and morbidity was examined over a 5-year follow-up period. Co-trimoxazole reduced the hazards of mortality by ~44% and the incidence of severe HIV-related illnesses by ~48% in patients with evidence of advanced immunosuppression (WHO stage 3 or 4) or laboratory measurement of total lymphocyte count ˂1 250 × 106/L or CD4+ count ˂200 cells/μL. However, no beneficial effect was seen in patients with WHO clinical stage 2 or CD4+ count 200 - 500 cells/μL. A potential limitation of this study was that the sample size of patients with a CD4+ count 200 - 500 cells/μL receiving co-trimoxazole was small and may have been underpowered to observe a significant benefit. In this study, patients on ART were excluded.[14] In another SA cohort study by Hoffmann et al.,[15] examining co-trimoxazole effectiveness in reducing mortality risk during ART among persons with a CD4+ count >200 cells/μL and varying WHO clinical stages, overall co-trimoxazole prophylaxis reduced mortality by 36% across all CD4+ count strata. Analysis stratified by baseline CD4+ count showed a similar reduction in mortality risk among persons with a CD4+ count ˂200 cells/μL, but no statistically significant association was found between co-trimoxazole prophylaxis and survival in the subgroup of persons with a CD4+ count >200 - 350 cells/μL, CD4+ count >350 cells/μL and WHO stage 1 or 2 disease. However, the findings of this study need to be interpreted cautiously for the following reasons: the group with a CD4+ count >350 cells/μL was small (n=917) and might not have had enough events to draw inferences; the study population was a cohort of miners and might not have been potentially representative of the SA population; and, being a non-randomised study, residual confounding might have been a potential limitation. An earlier Cochrane review established the benefit of initiating prophylaxis at a CD4+ count ˂200 cells/μL in those with stage 2, 3 or 4 HIV disease (including TB), and discontinuation once the CD4+ count was >200 cells/μL for >6 months.[16] There was a reduction of ~31% in mortality, 27% in morbid events and 55% in hospitalisation. Significant reductions were also detected for bacterial and parasitic infections and for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. Considering the above-mentioned evidence gaps and lack of generalisability of studies to SA, the current National Essential Medicines List Committee and Adult Hospital-Level Technical Sub-committee do not support the implementation of the updated guidance by the WHO for co-trimoxazole prophylaxis among adult HIV-infected patients. Efforts should be directed towards exploring several research gaps. The impact of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis on morbidity and mortality at higher CD4+ counts in low-malariaburden areas needs to be investigated further. More data are needed on timing of co-trimoxazole cessation in HIV and TB co-infection in our context

Clinical correlations to distinguish severe from milder forms of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome using overnight oximetry for prioritising adenotonsillectomy in a limited-resource setting

BACKGROUND : In resource-poor settings with limited surgical services, it is essential to identify and prioritise children with severe and very severe obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) to expedite surgery. McGill's Oximetry Score (MOS) has been validated against polysomnography for OSAS and is affordable and easy to use. AIMS : The aim of this study was to assess the correlation of tonsillar size and clinical symptoms with MOS grade 3 or 4, to identify who requires overnight oximetry and who to prioritise for adenotonsillectomy. METHODS : Children with suspected OSAS were recruited from the otolaryngology clinic at the Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital. Demographics, symptom screening scores (SSS), patient characteristics, overnight oximetry (OO), echocardiography and MOS scores (graded 1–4) were recorded. Multivariate modified-Poisson regression models were used to examine correlations of patient characteristics ‘with grade 3 or 4 MOS. RESULTS : One-hundred-and-three children were analysed, 38% were female, and median (IQR) age was 3.8 (2.5–5.3) years. Increased tonsil size was associated with a 60% increased risk of grade 3 or 4 MOS, risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% CI 1.10–2.29 (p = 0.014). Children with witnessed apnoeic events during sleep had 1.3 times increased risk of MOS Grade 3 or 4, RR 1.31, 95% CI (p = 0.033). A significant correlation was shown with grade 3 or 4 MOS, RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03–1.27 (p = 0.010) by combining tonsillar size with the following symptoms: apnoeic events; struggling to breathe during sleep and needing to stimulate the child to breathe. CONCLUSION : Identifying children with suspected OSAS who require overnight oximetry can be performed using a simple 3-question screening tool: witnessed apnoeic events, struggling to breathe and the need to shake them awake to breathe. This is more precise with an additional clinical finding of grade 3 or 4 tonsils. These children should have surgery expedited. Any child with a MOS 3 or 4 score on OO needs to have expedited surgery.https://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijporlhj2023School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

Allergic reactions to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine in South Africa

BACKGROUND : The Janssen-Ad26.COV2.S vaccine is authorized for use in several countries, with more than 30 million doses administered. Mild and severe allergic adverse events following immunization (AEFI) have been reported. OBJECTIVE : We sought to detail allergic reactions reported during the Sisonke phase 3B study in South Africa. METHODS : A single dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was administered to 4,77,234 South African health care workers between February 17 and May 17, 2021. Monitoring of adverse events used a combination of passive reporting and active case finding. Telephonic contact was attempted for all adverse events reported as “allergy.” Anaphylaxis adjudication was performed using the Brighton Collaboration and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease case definitions. RESULTS : Only 251 (0.052%) patients reported any allergic-type reaction (<1 in 2000), with 4 cases of adjudicated anaphylaxis (Brighton Collaboration level 1, n = 3) (prevalence of 8.4 per million doses). All anaphylaxis cases had a previous history of drug or vaccine-associated anaphylaxis. Cutaneous allergic reactions were the commonest nonanaphylatic reactions and included self-limiting, transient/localized rashes requiring no health care contact (n = 92) or isolated urticaria and/or angioedema (n = 70; median onset, 48 [interquartile range, 11.5-120] hours postvaccination) that necessitated health care contact (81%), antihistamine (63%), and/or systemic/topical corticosteroid (16%). All immediate (including adjudicated anaphylaxis) and most delayed AEFI (65 of 69) cases resolved completely. CONCLUSIONS : Allergic AEFI are rare following a single dose of Ad26.COV, with complete resolution in all cases of anaphylaxis. Although rare, isolated, delayed-onset urticaria and/or angioedema was the commonest allergic AEFI requiring treatment, with nearly half occurring in participants without known atopic disease.The Sinsonke Study is funded by the South African Medical Research Council. J.P.’s research is supported by a career development award and financial support from the National Institutes of Health; the European Developing Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP2 Program supported by the European Union; and the SA Medical Research Council and National Research Foundation.https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-allergy-and-clinical-immunology-globalhj2023Paediatrics and Child HealthSchool of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

Safety evaluation of the single-dose Ad26. COV2.S vaccine among healthcare workers in the Sisonke study in South Africa : a phase 3b implementation trial

Real-world evaluation of the safety profile of vaccines after licensure is crucial to accurately characterise safety beyond clinical trials, support continued use, and thereby improve public confidence. The Sisonke study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the Janssen Ad26.COV2.S vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs) in South Africa. Here, we present the safety data.Funding for the Sisonke Study was provided by: The National Department of Health through baseline funding to the South African Medical Research Council; the Solidarity Response Fund NPC; The Michael & Susan Dell Foundation; the ELMA Vaccines and Immunization Foundation; the ELMA Vaccines and Immunization Foundation; and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicinedm2022Paediatrics and Child HealthSchool of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

Infusion reactions after receiving the broadly neutralizing antibody VRC01 or placebo to reduce HIV-1 acquisition : results from the Phase 2b antibody-mediated prevention randomized trials

Presented at Conference for Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; March 06–10, 2021.BACKGROUND : The antibody-mediated prevention (AMP) studies (HVTN 703/HPTN 081 and HVTN 704/HPTN 085) are harmonized phase 2b trials to assess HIV prevention efficacy and safety of intravenous infusion of anti-gp120 broadly neutralizing antibody VRC01. Antibodies for other indications can elicit infusion-related reactions (IRRs), often requiring premedication and limiting their application. We report on AMP study IRRs. METHODS : From 2016 to 2018, 2699 HIV-uninfected, at-risk men and transgender adults in the Americas and Switzerland (704/085) and 1924 at-risk heterosexual women in sub-Saharan Africa (703/081) were randomized 1:1:1 to VRC01 10 mg/kg, 30 mg/kg, or placebo. Participants received infusions every 8 weeks (n = 10/participant) over 72 weeks, with 104 weeks of follow-up. Safety assessments were conducted before and after infusion and at noninfusion visits. A total of 40,674 infusions were administered. RESULTS : Forty-seven participants (1.7%) experienced 49 IRRs in 704/085; 93 (4.8%) experienced 111 IRRs in 703/081 (P < 0.001). IRRs occurred more frequently in VRC01 than placebo recipients in 703/081 (P < 0.001). IRRs were associated with atopic history (P = 0.046) and with younger age (P = 0.023) in 703/081. Four clinical phenotypes of IRRs were observed: urticaria, dyspnea, dyspnea with rash, and “other.” Urticaria was most prevalent, occurring in 25 (0.9%) participants in 704/085 and 41 (2.1%) participants in 703/081. Most IRRs occurred with the initial infusion and incidence diminished through the last infusion. All reactions were managed successfully without sequelae. CONCLUSIONS : IRRs in the AMP studies were uncommon, typically mild or moderate, successfully managed at the research clinic, and resolved without sequelae. Analysis is ongoing to explore potential IRR mechanisms.Clinical trial funding from Janssen Vaccines.http://www.jaids.comhj2023School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

Effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine in health-care workers in South Africa (the Sisonke study) : results from a single-arm, open-label, phase 3B, implementation study

DATA SHARING : Individual participant data will not be made available. Study protocol, statistical analysis plan, and analytical code will be available from the time of publication in response to any reasonable request to the corresponding author.BACKGROUND : We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a single dose of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Johnson & Johnson) in health-care workers in South Africa during two waves of the South African COVID-19 epidemic. METHODS : In the single-arm, open-label, phase 3B implementation Sisonke study, health-care workers aged 18 years and older were invited for vaccination at one of 122 vaccination sites nationally. Participants received a single dose of 5 x 10¹⁰ viral particles of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. Vaccinated participants were linked with their person-level data from one of two national medical insurance schemes (scheme A and scheme B) and matched for COVID-19 risk with an unvaccinated member of the general population. The primary outcome was vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19, defined as COVID-19-related admission to hospital, hospitalisation requiring critical or intensive care, or death, in health-care workers compared with the general population, ascertained 28 days or more after vaccination or matching, up to data cutoff. This study is registered with the South African National Clinical Trial Registry, DOH-27-022021-6844, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04838795, and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR202102855526180, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS : Between Feb 17 and May 17, 2021, 477 102 health-care workers were enrolled and vaccinated, of whom 357 401 (74·9%) were female and 119 701 (25·1%) were male, with a median age of 42·0 years (33·0–51·0). 215 813 vaccinated individuals were matched with 215 813 unvaccinated individuals. As of data cutoff (July 17, 2021), vaccine effectiveness derived from the total matched cohort was 83% (95% CI 75–89) to prevent COVID-19-related deaths, 75% (69–82) to prevent COVID-19-related hospital admissions requiring critical or intensive care, and 67% (62–71) to prevent COVID-19-related hospitalisations. The vaccine effectiveness for all three outcomes were consistent across scheme A and scheme B. The vaccine effectiveness was maintained in older health-care workers and those with comorbidities including HIV infection. During the course of the study, the beta (B.1.351) and then the delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variants of concerns were dominant, and vaccine effectiveness remained consistent (for scheme A plus B vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related hospital admission during beta wave was 62% [95% CI 42–76] and during delta wave was 67% [62–71], and vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related death during beta wave was 86% [57–100] and during delta wave was 82% [74–89]). INTERPRETATION : The single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine shows effectiveness against severe COVID-19 disease and COVID-19-related death after vaccination, and against both beta and delta variants, providing real-world evidence for its use globally.National Treasury of South Africa, the National Department of Health, Solidarity Response Fund NPC, The Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, The Elma Vaccines and Immunization Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.http;//thelancet.comam2023Paediatrics and Child HealthSchool of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH

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