Background The safety and efficacy of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine in a large, diverse population at increased risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the United States, Chile, and Peru has not been known. Methods In this ongoing, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial, we investigated the safety, vaccine efficacy, and immunogenicity of two doses of AZD1222 as compared with placebo in preventing the onset of symptomatic and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) 15 days or more after the second dose in adults, including older adults, in the United States, Chile, and Peru. Results A total of 32,451 participants underwent randomization, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive AZD1222 (21,635 participants) or placebo (10,816 participants). AZD1222 was safe, with low incidences of serious and medically attended adverse events and adverse events of special interest; the incidences were similar to those observed in the placebo group. Solicited local and systemic reactions were generally mild or moderate in both groups. Overall estimated vaccine efficacy was 74.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.3 to 80.5; P<0.001) and estimated vaccine efficacy was 83.5% (95% CI, 54.2 to 94.1) in participants 65 years of age or older. High vaccine efficacy was consistent across a range of demographic subgroups. In the fully vaccinated analysis subgroup, no severe or critical symptomatic Covid-19 cases were observed among the 17,662 participants in the AZD1222 group; 8 cases were noted among the 8550 participants in the placebo group (<0.1%). The estimated vaccine efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (nucleocapsid antibody seroconversion) was 64.3% (95% CI, 56.1 to 71.0; P<0.001). SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binding and neutralizing antibodies increased after the first dose and increased further when measured 28 days after the second dose. Conclusions AZD1222 was safe and efficacious in preventing symptomatic and severe Covid-19 across diverse populations that included older adults. (Funded by AstraZeneca and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04516746 .)

BackgroundA vaccine to prevent infection and disease caused by Plasmodium vivax is needed both to reduce the morbidity caused by this parasite and as a key component in efforts to eradicate malaria worldwide. Vivax malaria protein 1 (VMP001), a novel chimeric protein that incorporates the amino- and carboxy- terminal regions of the circumsporozoite protein (CSP) and a truncated repeat region that contains repeat sequences from both the VK210 (type 1) and the VK247 (type 2) parasites, was developed as a vaccine candidate for global use.MethodsWe conducted a first-in-human Phase 1 dose escalation vaccine study with controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) of VMP001 formulated in the GSK Adjuvant System AS01B. A total of 30 volunteers divided into 3 groups (10 per group) were given 3 intramuscular injections of 15μg, 30μg, or 60μg respectively of VMP001, all formulated in 500μL of AS01B at each immunization. All vaccinated volunteers participated in a P. vivax CHMI 14 days following the third immunization. Six non-vaccinated subjects served as infectivity controls.ResultsThe vaccine was shown to be well tolerated and immunogenic. All volunteers generated robust humoral and cellular immune responses to the vaccine antigen. Vaccination did not induce sterile protection; however, a small but significant delay in time to parasitemia was seen in 59% of vaccinated subjects compared to the control group. An association was identified between levels of anti-type 1 repeat antibodies and prepatent period.SignificanceThis trial was the first to assess the efficacy of a P. vivax CSP vaccine candidate by CHMI. The association of type 1 repeat-specific antibody responses with delay in the prepatency period suggests that augmenting the immune responses to this domain may improve strain-specific vaccine efficacy. The availability of a P. vivax CHMI model will accelerate the process of P. vivax vaccine development, allowing better selection of candidate vaccines for advancement to field trials.

MethodsIn an observer blind, phase 2 trial, 55 adults were randomized to receive one dose of Ad35.CS.01 vaccine followed by two doses of RTS,S/AS01 (ARR-group) or three doses of RTS,S/AS01 (RRR-group) at months 0, 1, 2 followed by controlled human malaria infection.ResultsARR and RRR vaccine regimens were well tolerated. Efficacy of ARR and RRR groups after controlled human malaria infection was 44% (95% confidence interval 21%-60%) and 52% (25%-70%), respectively. The RRR-group had greater anti-CS specific IgG titers than did the ARR-group. There were higher numbers of CS-specific CD4 T-cells expressing > 2 cytokine/activation markers and more ex vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospots in the ARR-group than the RRR-group. Protected subjects had higher CS-specific IgG titers than non-protected subjects (geometric mean titer, 120.8 vs 51.8 EU/ml, respectively; P = .001).ConclusionsAn increase in vaccine efficacy of ARR-group over RRR-group was not achieved. Future strategies to improve upon RTS,S-induced protection may need to utilize alternative highly immunogenic prime-boost regimens and/or additional target antigens.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01366534

BackgroundThe use of malaria-specific quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) is increasing due to its high sensitivity, speciation and quantification of malaria parasites. However, due to the lack of consensus or standardized methods in performing qPCR, it is difficult to evaluate and/or compare the quality of work reported by different authors for a cross-study and/or cross-platform assay analysis.MethodsThe performances of seven published qPCR assays that detect Plasmodium spp or Plasmodium falciparum were compared using standard DNA and samples from a clinical trial. Amplification and qPCR measurements were performed using the Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR System. All the analyses were automatically established using the default settings. For the TaqMan probe format, the assays were performed in the background of QuantiFast Probe Master Mix whereas in SYBR Green format, the assays were performed in the background of QuantiFast SYBR Green Master Mix and QuantiTect SYBR Green Master Mix background.ResultsAssays with high PCR efficiencies outperformed those with low efficiencies in all categories including sensitivity, precision and consistency regardless of the assay format and background. With the exception of one assay, all assays evaluated showed lower sensitivity compared to what have been published. When samples from a malaria challenge study were analysed, the qPCR assay with the overall best performance detected parasites in subjects earliest and with most consistency.ConclusionThe data demonstrate the need for increased consensus and guidelines that will encourage better experimental practices, allowing more consistent and unambiguous interpretation of qPCR results.

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative.