Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines PREVenar13 and SynflorIX in sequence or alone in high-risk Indigenous infants (PREV-IX_COMBO): protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Otitis media (OM) starts within weeks of birth in almost all Indigenous infants living in remote areas of the Northern Territory (NT). OM and associated hearing loss persist from infancy throughout childhood and often into adulthood. Educational and social opportunities are greatly compromised. Pneumococcus and non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi) are major OM pathogens that densely colonise the nasopharynx and infect the middle ear from very early in life. Our hypothesis is that compared to current single vaccine schedules, a combination of vaccines starting at 1 month of age, may provide earlier, broadened protection. METHODS AND ANALYSES: This randomised outcome assessor, blinded controlled trial will recruit 425 infants between 28 and 38 days of age and randomly allocate them (1:1:1) to one of three pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) schedules: Synflorix at 2, 4, 6 months of age, Prevenar13 at 2, 4 and 6 months of age, or an investigational schedule of Synflorix at 1, 2 and 4 months plus Prevenar13 at 6 months of age. The blinded primary outcomes at 7 months of age are immunogenicity of specific vaccine antigens (geometric mean concentration (GMC) and proportion of participants with above threshold GMC of 0.35 µg/L). Secondary outcomes at all timepoints are additional immunogenicity measures and proportion of participants with nasopharyngeal carriage of vaccine-type pneumococci and NTHi, and any OM, including any tympanic membrane perforation. Parental interviews will provide data on common risk factors for OM. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from NT Department of Health and Menzies HREC (EC00153), Central Australian HREC (EC00155) and West Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee (WAAHEC- 377-12/2011). Final trial results, data analyses, interpretation and conclusions will be presented in appropriate written and oral formats to parents and guardians, participating communities, local, national and international conferences, and published in peer-reviewed open access journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ACTRN12610000544077 and NCT01174849

Age-Associated mRNA and miRNA Expression Changes in the Blood-Brain Barrier

Functional and structural age-associated changes in the blood-brain barrier (BBB) may affect the neurovascular unit and contribute to the onset and progression of age-associated neurodegenerative pathologies, including Alzheimer’s disease. The current study interrogated the RNA profile of the BBB in an ageing human autopsy brain cohort and an ageing mouse model using combined laser capture microdissection and expression profiling. Only 12 overlapping genes were altered in the same direction in the BBB of both ageing human and mouse cohorts. These included genes with roles in regulating vascular tone, tight junction protein expression and cell adhesion, all processes prone to dysregulation with advancing age. Integrated mRNA and miRNA network and pathway enrichment analysis of the datasets identified 15 overlapping miRNAs that showed altered expression. In addition to targeting genes related to DNA binding and/or autophagy, many of the miRNAs identified play a role in age-relevant processes, including BBB dysfunction and regulating the neuroinflammatory response. Future studies have the potential to develop targeted therapeutic approaches against these candidates to prevent vascular dysfunction in the ageing brain

Experiences with community engagement and informed consent in a genetic cohort study of severe childhood diseases in Kenya

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The potential contribution of community engagement to addressing ethical challenges for international biomedical research is well described, but there is relatively little documented experience of community engagement to inform its development in practice. This paper draws on experiences around community engagement and informed consent during a genetic cohort study in Kenya to contribute to understanding the strengths and challenges of community engagement in supporting ethical research practice, focusing on issues of communication, the role of field workers in 'doing ethics' on the ground and the challenges of community consultation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The findings are based on action research methods, including analysis of community engagement documentation and the observations of the authors closely involved in their development and implementation. Qualitative and quantitative content analysis has been used for documentation of staff meetings and trainings, a meeting with 24 community leaders, and 40 large public and 70 small community group meetings. Meeting minutes from a purposive sample of six community representative groups have been analysed using a thematic framework approach.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Field workers described challenges around misunderstandings about research, perceived pressure for recruitment and challenges in explaining the study. During consultation, leaders expressed support for the study and screening for sickle cell disease. In community meetings, there was a common interpretation of research as medical care. Concerns centred on unfamiliar procedures. After explanations of study procedures to leaders and community members, few questions were asked about export of samples or the archiving of samples for future research.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Community engagement enabled researchers to take account of staff and community opinions and issues during the study and adapt messages and methods to address emerging ethical challenges. Field workers conducting informed consent faced complex issues and their understanding, attitudes and communication skills were key influences on ethical practice. Community consultation was a challenging concept to put into practice, illustrating the complexity of assessing information needs and levels of deliberation that are appropriate to a given study.</p

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

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

Interchangeability, immunogenicity and safety of a combined 10-valent pneumococcal Haemophilus influenzae protein D conjugate vaccine (Synflorix) and 13-valent-PCV (Prevenar13) schedule at 1-2-4-6 months: PREVIX_COMBO, a 3-arm randomised controlled trial

Background: Aboriginal children living in remote communities are at high risk of early and persistent otitis media. Streptococcus pneumoniae and non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi) are primary pathogens. Vaccines with potential to prevent early OM have not been evaluated in this population. We compared immunogenicity (ELISA and opsonophagocytic activity) of a combination of Synflorix™ (PHiD-CV10, 10 serotypes and protein D of NTHi) and Prevenar13™ (PCV13, 10 serotypes plus 3, 6A, and 19A), with recommended schedules. Methods: This open-label superiority trial randomised (1:1:1) Aboriginal infants at 28 to 38 days of age, to PCV13 (P) at 2-4-6 months (_PPP), PHiD-CV10 (S) at 2-4-6 months (_SSS), or PHiD-CV10 at 1-2-4 plus PCV13 at -6 months (SSSP). Primary outcomes (blinded) were immunogenicity against PCV13-only serotypes 3, 6A, 19A, and PHiD-CV10-only protein D at 7 months. Secondary outcomes include immunogenicity against all serotypes at 2, 4 and 7 months. Findings: Between 2011 and 2017, 425 infants were allocated to _PPP(143), _SSS(141) or SSSP(1 4 1). An intention to treat approach including all available data was used. The SSSP group had superior immunogenicity against serotypes 3, 6A, and 19A compared to _SSS (OPA GMT ratios 8.1 to 59.5, p < 0.001), and against protein D compared to _PPP (GMC ratio 11.9 (95%CI 9.7 to 14.6)). Immune responses to protein D and 3, 6A, and 19A in SSSP were not significantly lower (i.e. no harm) than either _SSS or _PPP. For ten common serotypes responses at 2, 4 and 7 months were superior for SSSP (following 1-, 2-, and 4- doses) than _SSS and _PPP (following 0-, 1-, and 3- doses). At 4 months, _SSS was superior to _PPP. Reactogenicity and hospitalisations were rare and unrelated to the intervention. Interpretation: From two months, the 1-2-4-6-month combined schedule (SSSP) was safe and significantly more immunogenic than 2-4-6-month schedules. The earlier responses may be beneficial in high-risk populations