COVAC1 phase 2a expanded safety and immunogenicity study of a self-amplifying RNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND: Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) encapsulated self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) is well tolerated and immunogenic in SARS-CoV-2 seronegative and seropositive individuals aged 18-75. METHODS: A phase 2a expanded safety and immunogenicity study of a saRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate LNP-nCoVsaRNA, was conducted at participating centres in the UK between 10th August 2020 and 30th July 2021. Participants received 1 μg then 10 μg of LNP-nCoVsaRNA, ∼14 weeks apart. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for one week post-each vaccine, and unsolicited AEs throughout. Binding and neutralisating anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody raised in participant sera was measured by means of an anti-Spike (S) IgG ELISA, and SARS-CoV-2 pseudoneutralisation assay. (The trial is registered: ISRCTN17072692, EudraCT 2020-001646-20). FINDINGS: 216 healthy individuals (median age 51 years) received 1.0 μg followed by 10.0 μg of the vaccine. 28/216 participants were either known to have previous SARS-CoV2 infection and/or were positive for anti-Spike (S) IgG at baseline. Reactogenicity was as expected based on the reactions following licensed COVID-19 vaccines, and there were no serious AEs related to vaccination. 80% of baseline SARS-CoV-2 naïve individuals (147/183) seroconverted two weeks post second immunization, irrespective of age (18-75); 56% (102/183) had detectable neutralising antibodies. Almost all (28/31) SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals had increased S IgG binding antibodies following their first 1.0 μg dose with a ≥0.5log10 increase in 71% (22/31). INTERPRETATION: Encapsulated saRNA was well tolerated and immunogenic in adults aged 18-75 years. Seroconversion rates in antigen naïve were higher than those reported in our dose-ranging study. Further work is required to determine if this difference is related to a longer dosing interval (14 vs. 4 weeks) or dosing with 1.0 μg followed by 10.0 μg. Boosting of S IgG antibodies was observed with a single 1.0 μg injection in those with pre-existing immune responses. FUNDING: Grants and gifts from the Medical Research Council UKRI (MC_PC_19076), the National Institute for Health Research/Vaccine Task Force, Partners of Citadel and Citadel Securities, Sir Joseph Hotung Charitable Settlement, Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Pierre Andurand, and Restore the Earth

Enhanced prophylaxis with antiretroviral therapy for advanced HIV in Africa

BACKGROUND In sub-Saharan Africa, among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, the rate of death from infection (including tuberculosis and cryptococcus) shortly after the initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) is approximately 10%. METHODS In this factorial open-label trial conducted in Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Kenya, we enrolled HIV-infected adults and children 5 years of age or older who had not received previous ART and were starting ART with a CD4+ count of fewer than 100 cells per cubic millimeter. They underwent simultaneous randomization to receive enhanced antimicrobial prophylaxis or standard prophylaxis, adjunctive raltegravir or no raltegravir, and supplementary food or no supplementary food. Here, we report on the effects of enhanced antimicrobial prophylaxis, which consisted of continuous trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole plus at least 12 weeks of isoniazid–pyridoxine (coformulated with trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole in a single fixed-dose combination tablet), 12 weeks of fluconazole, 5 days of azithromycin, and a single dose of albendazole, as compared with standard prophylaxis (trimethoprim– sulfamethoxazole alone). The primary end point was 24-week mortality. RESULTS A total of 1805 patients (1733 adults and 72 children or adolescents) underwent randomization to receive either enhanced prophylaxis (906 patients) or standard prophylaxis (899 patients) and were followed for 48 weeks (loss to follow-up, 3.1%). The median baseline CD4+ count was 37 cells per cubic millimeter, but 854 patients (47.3%) were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. In the Kaplan–Meier analysis at 24 weeks, the rate of death with enhanced prophylaxis was lower than that with standard prophylaxis (80 patients [8.9% vs. 108 [12.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.98; P=0.03); 98 patients (11.0%) and 127 (14.4%), respectively, had died by 48 weeks (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.99; P=0.04). Patients in the enhanced-prophylaxis group had significantly lower rates of tuberculosis (P=0.02), cryptococcal infection (P=0.01), oral or esophageal candidiasis (P=0.02), death of unknown cause (P=0.03), and new hospitalization (P=0.03). However, there was no significant between-group difference in the rate of severe bacterial infection (P=0.32). There were nonsignificantly lower rates of serious adverse events and grade 4 adverse events in the enhanced-prophylaxis group (P=0.08 and P=0.09, respectively). Rates of HIV viral suppression and adherence to ART were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among HIV-infected patients with advanced immunosuppression, enhanced antimicrobial prophylaxis combined with ART resulted in reduced rates of death at both 24 weeks and 48 weeks without compromising viral suppression or increasing toxic effects

Gabapentin for chronic pelvic pain in women (GaPP2):a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BackgroundChronic pelvic pain affects 2–24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18–50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16–17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13–16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762.FindingsParticipants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13–16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was −1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and −1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference −0·20 [97·5% CI −0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was −1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and −0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference −0·18 [97·5% CI −0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group.InterpretationThis study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.FundingNational Institute for Health Research

Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

Gender disparities in the tumor genetics and clinical outcome of multiple myeloma

Background: Several cancer types have differences in incidence and clinical outcome dependent on gender, but these are not well described in myeloma. The aim of this study was to characterize gender disparities in myeloma. Methods: We investigated the association of gender with the prevalence of tumor genetic lesions and the clinical outcome of 1,960 patients enrolled in the phase III clinical trial MRC Myeloma IX. Genetic lesions were characterized by FISH. Results: Disparities were found in the prevalence of primary genetic lesions with immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IGH) translocations being more common in women (50% of female patients vs. 38% of male patients, P < 0.001) and hyperdiploidy being more common in men (50% female vs. 62% male, P < 0.001). There were also differences in secondary genetic events with del(13q) (52% female vs. 41% male, P < 0.001) and +1q (43% female vs. 36% male, P = 0.042) being found more frequently in female myeloma patients. Female gender was associated with inferior overall survival (median: 44.8 months female vs. 49.9 months male, P = 0.020). Conclusions: We found gender-dependent differences in the prevalence of the primary genetic events of myeloma, with IGH translocations being more common in women and hyperdiploidy more common in men. This genetic background may impact subsequent genetic events such as +1q and del(13q), which were both more frequent in women. The higher prevalence of lesions associated with poor prognosis in the female myeloma population, such as t(4;14), t(14;16) and +1q, may adversely affect clinical outcome

Effects of zoledronic acid versus clodronic acid on skeletal morbidity in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MRC Myeloma IX): secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial

SummaryBackgroundBisphosphonates are the standard of care for reducing the risk of skeletal-related events in patients with bone lesions from multiple myeloma. The MRC Myeloma IX study was designed to compare the effects of zoledronic acid versus clodronic acid in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma. Here, we report the secondary outcomes relating to skeletal events.MethodsPatients (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were enrolled from 120 centres in the UK and received intensive or non-intensive antimyeloma treatment. A computer-generated randomisation sequence was used to allocate patients in a 1:1 ratio, through an automated telephone service to intravenous zoledronic acid (4 mg every 21–28 days) or oral clodronic acid (1600 mg/day), and the drugs were continued at least until disease progression. No investigators, staff, or patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoints—overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rate—and adverse events have been reported previously. We assessed between-group differences with Cox proportional hazards models for time to first skeletal-related event and incidence of skeletal-related events. These were defined as fractures, spinal cord compression, radiation or surgery to bone, and new osteolytic lesions. Data were analysed until disease progression. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN68454111.Findings1960 patients were randomly assigned and analysed—981 in the zoledronic acid group and 979 in the clodronic acid group. This trial is fully enrolled, and follow-up continues. At a median follow-up of 3·7 years (IQR 2·9–4·7), patients in the zoledronic acid group had a lower incidence of skeletal-related events than did those in the clodronic acid group (265 [27%] vs 346 [35%], respectively; hazard ratio 0·74, 95% CI 0·62–0·87; p=0·0004). Zoledronic acid was also associated with a lower risk of any skeletal-related event in the subsets of patients with (233 [35%] of 668 vs 292 [43%] of 682 with clodronic acid; 0·77, 0·65–0·92; p=0·0038) and without bone lesions at baseline (29 [10%] of 302 vs 48 [17%] of 276 with clodronic acid; 0·53, 0·33–0·84; p=0·0068). Fewer patients in the zoledronic acid group had vertebral fractures than did those in the clodronic acid group (50 [5%] in the zoledronic acid group vs 88 [9%] in the clodronic acid group; p=0·0008), other fractures (45 [5%] vs 66 [7%]; p=0·04), and new osteolytic lesions (46 [5%] vs 95 [10%]; p<0·0001).InterpretationThe results of this study support the early use of zoledronic acid rather than clodronic acid in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma for the prevention of skeletal-related events, irrespective of bone disease status at baseline.FundingMedical Research Council (London, UK), Novartis, Schering Health Care, Chugai, Pharmion, Celgene, and Ortho Biotech

COVAC1 phase 2a expanded safety and immunogenicity study of a self-amplifying RNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2Research in context

Summary: Background: Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) encapsulated self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) is well tolerated and immunogenic in SARS-CoV-2 seronegative and seropositive individuals aged 18–75. Methods: A phase 2a expanded safety and immunogenicity study of a saRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate LNP-nCoVsaRNA, was conducted at participating centres in the UK between 10th August 2020 and 30th July 2021. Participants received 1 μg then 10 μg of LNP-nCoVsaRNA, ∼14 weeks apart. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for one week post-each vaccine, and unsolicited AEs throughout. Binding and neutralisating anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody raised in participant sera was measured by means of an anti-Spike (S) IgG ELISA, and SARS-CoV-2 pseudoneutralisation assay. (The trial is registered: ISRCTN17072692, EudraCT 2020-001646-20). Findings: 216 healthy individuals (median age 51 years) received 1.0 μg followed by 10.0 μg of the vaccine. 28/216 participants were either known to have previous SARS-CoV2 infection and/or were positive for anti-Spike (S) IgG at baseline. Reactogenicity was as expected based on the reactions following licensed COVID-19 vaccines, and there were no serious AEs related to vaccination. 80% of baseline SARS-CoV-2 naïve individuals (147/183) seroconverted two weeks post second immunization, irrespective of age (18–75); 56% (102/183) had detectable neutralising antibodies. Almost all (28/31) SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals had increased S IgG binding antibodies following their first 1.0 μg dose with a ≥0.5log10 increase in 71% (22/31). Interpretation: Encapsulated saRNA was well tolerated and immunogenic in adults aged 18–75 years. Seroconversion rates in antigen naïve were higher than those reported in our dose-ranging study. Further work is required to determine if this difference is related to a longer dosing interval (14 vs. 4 weeks) or dosing with 1.0 μg followed by 10.0 μg. Boosting of S IgG antibodies was observed with a single 1.0 μg injection in those with pre-existing immune responses. Funding: Grants and gifts from the Medical Research Council UKRI (MC_PC_19076), the National Institute for Health Research/Vaccine Task Force, Partners of Citadel and Citadel Securities, Sir Joseph Hotung Charitable Settlement, Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Pierre Andurand, and Restore the Earth