#Respiratory #Viruses #Research #References (by #AMEDEO, June 20 ’21)

  1. MCCULLOUGH PA.
    The Reply.
    Am J Med. 2021;134:e346-e347.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=33962710&s=flu&pm=2

Share: http://m.amedeo.com/33962710

  1. MCCULLOUGH PA.
    The Reply.
    Am J Med. 2021;134:e343-e344.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=33962708&s=flu&pm=2

Share: http://m.amedeo.com/33962708

  1. PALMER BS.
    Covid-19 eradication: stopping transmission between countries.
    BMJ. 2021;373:n1425.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=34099495&s=flu&pm=2

Share: http://m.amedeo.com/34099495

  1. RAMOS DA SILVA S, Ju E, Meng W, Paniz Mondolfi AE, et al.
    Broad Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Cell Tropism and Immunopathology in Lung Tissues From Fatal Coronavirus Disease 2019.
    J Infect Dis. 2021;223:1842-1854.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=33837392&s=flu&pm=2
    ABSTRACT available
    Share: http://m.amedeo.com/33837392
  2. ABBASI J.
    “Nanotraps” Designed to Capture and Clear SARS-CoV-2.
    JAMA. 2021;325:2243.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=34100886&s=flu&pm=2

Share: http://m.amedeo.com/34100886

  1. KUMAR A, Bernasconi V, Manak M, de Almeida Aranha AP, et al.
    The CEPI centralised laboratory network: supporting COVID-19 vaccine development.
    Lancet. 2021;397:2148-2149.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=34090600&s=flu&pm=2

Share: http://m.amedeo.com/34090600

  1. KUPPALLI K, Gala P, Cherabuddi K, Kalantri SP, et al.
    India’s COVID-19 crisis: a call for international action.
    Lancet. 2021 May 14. pii: S0140-6736(21)01121.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=34000256&s=flu&pm=2

Share: http://m.amedeo.com/34000256

  1. BURRIS S, Anderson ED, Wagenaar AC.
    The “Legal Epidemiology” of Pandemic Control.
    N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1973-1975.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=34043295&s=flu&pm=2

Share: http://m.amedeo.com/34043295

  1. CINES DB, Bussel JB.
    SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia.
    N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2106315.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=33861524&s=flu&pm=2

Share: http://m.amedeo.com/33861524

  1. MOYO-GWETE T, Madzivhandila M, Makhado Z, Ayres F, et al.
    Cross-Reactive Neutralizing Antibody Responses Elicited by SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 (B.1.351).
    N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2104192.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=33826816&s=flu&pm=2

Share: http://m.amedeo.com/33826816

  1. SCHMELZ K, Bowles S.
    Overcoming COVID-19 vaccination resistance when alternative policies affect the dynamics of conformism, social norms, and crowding out.
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=34099578&s=flu&pm=2
    ABSTRACT available
    Share: http://m.amedeo.com/34099578
  2. REES CA, Rostad CA, Mantus G, Anderson EJ, et al.
    Altered amino acid profile in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=34088793&s=flu&pm=2
    ABSTRACT available
    Share: http://m.amedeo.com/34088793
  3. BEAU RENEER Z, Abreu RB, Jamal US, Corn MR, et al.
    Seasonal influenza vaccination does not effectively expand H2 cross-reactive antibodies in humans.
    Vaccine. 2021 Jun 11. pii: S0264-410X(21)00659.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=34127298&s=flu&pm=2
    ABSTRACT available
    Share: http://m.amedeo.com/34127298
  4. LUTZ CS, Biggerstaff M, Rolfes MA, Lafond KE, et al.
    Estimating the number of averted illnesses and deaths as a result of vaccination against an influenza pandemic in nine low- and middle-income countries.
    Vaccine. 2021 Jun 9. pii: S0264-410X(21)00557.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=34119348&s=flu&pm=2
    ABSTRACT available
    Share: http://m.amedeo.com/34119348
  5. JENSEN A, A F Simoes E, Bohn Christiansen C, Graff Stensballe L, et al.
    Respiratory syncytial virus and influenza hospitalizations in Danish children 2010-2016.
    Vaccine. 2021 Jun 8. pii: S0264-410X(21)00705.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=34116876&s=flu&pm=2
    ABSTRACT available
    Share: http://m.amedeo.com/34116876
  6. UEDA H, Yamakawa N, Takeuchi K.
    Amino- and carboxyl-terminal ends of the bovine parainfluenza virus type 3 matrix protein are important for virion and virus-like particle release.
    Virology. 2021;561:17-27.
    PubMed: http://www.amedeo.com/p2.php?id=34130198&s=flu&pm=2
    ABSTRACT available
    Share: http://m.amedeo.com/34130198

Cases of #Cerebral #Venous Sinus #Thrombosis with #Thrombocytopenia after Receipt of the Johnson & Johnson #COVID19 #Vaccine (@CDCgov, HAN, April 14 ’21)

[Source: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), full page: https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00442.asp?ACSTrackingID=USCDC_511-DM54873&ACSTrackingLabel=HAN%20442%20-%20General%20Public&deliveryName=USCDC_511-DM54873  – Edited.]

Cases of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia after Receipt of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine

Distributed via the CDC Health Alert Network | April 13, 2021, 1:00 PM ET | CDCHAN-00442

Summary

As of April 12, 2021, approximately 6.85 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine (Janssen) have been administered in the United States.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are reviewing data involving six U.S. cases of a rare type of blood clot in individuals after receiving the J&J COVID-19 vaccine that were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

In these cases, a type of blood clot called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) was seen in combination with low levels of blood platelets (thrombocytopenia).

All six cases occurred among women aged 18–48 years.

The interval from vaccine receipt to symptom onset ranged from 6–13 days.

One patient died.

Providers should maintain a high index of suspension for symptoms that might represent serious thrombotic events or thrombocytopenia in patients who have recently received the J&J COVID-19 vaccine.

When these specific types of blood clots are observed following J&J COVID-19 vaccination, treatment is different from the treatment that might typically be administered for blood clots.

Based on studies conducted among the patients diagnosed with immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in Europe, the pathogenesis of these rare and unusual adverse events after vaccination may be associated with platelet-activating antibodies against platelet factor-4 (PF4), a type of protein.

Usually, the anticoagulant drug called heparin is used to treat blood clots.

In this setting, the use of heparin may be harmful, and alternative treatments need to be given.

CDC will convene an emergency meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on Wednesday, April 14, 2021, to further review these cases and assess potential implications on vaccine policy.

FDA will review that analysis as it also investigates these cases.

Until that process is complete, CDC and FDA are recommending a pause in the use of the J&J COVID-19 vaccine out of an abundance of caution.

The purpose of this Health Alert is, in part, to ensure that the healthcare provider community is aware of the potential for these adverse events and can provide proper management due to the unique treatment required with this type of blood clot.

Background

VAERS is a national passive surveillance system jointly managed by CDC and FDA that monitors adverse events after vaccinations.

The six patients (after 6.85 million vaccine doses administered) described in these VAERS reports came to attention in the latter half of March and early April of 2021 and developed symptoms a median of 9 days (range = 6–13 days) after receiving the J&J COVID-19 vaccine.

Initial presenting symptoms were notable for headache in five of six patients, and back pain in the sixth who subsequently developed a headache.

One patient also had abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting.

Four developed focal neurological symptoms (focal weakness, aphasia, visual disturbance) prompting presentation for emergency care.

The median days from vaccination to hospital admission was 15 days (range = 10–17 days).

All were eventually diagnosed with CVST by intracranial imaging; two patients were also diagnosed with splanchnic* and portal vein thrombosis.

Unusual for patients presenting with thrombotic events, all six patients showed evidence of thrombocytopenia (<150,000 platelets per microliter of blood), consistent with a condition known as thrombotic thrombocytopenia, with platelet nadir counts ranging from 10,000 to 127,000 during their hospitalizations.

Four patients developed intraparenchymal brain hemorrhage and one subsequently died.

All data presented in this HAN are preliminary and investigations of these VAERS reports are ongoing.

The Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project which includes experts in infectious disease and hematology are also reviewing these cases.

To date, VAERS has received no reports of CVST with thrombocytopenia among persons who received either of the two mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines.

These reports following the J&J COVID-19 vaccine are similar to reports of thrombotic events with thrombocytopenia after receipt of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in Europe.

Both vaccines contain replication-incompetent adenoviral vectors (human [Ad26.COV2.S] for J&J and chimpanzee [ChAdOx1] for AstraZeneca) that encode the spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Based on studies conducted among the patients diagnosed with immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in Europe, the pathogenesis of these rare and unusual adverse events may be associated with platelet-activating antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4).

Anti-PF4, also known as heparin-PF4 antibody, can induce thrombotic thrombocytopenia in a small percentage of persons exposed to heparin. However, none of the cases reported from Europe had recent heparin exposure.

As with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, the administration of the anticoagulant heparin should be avoided in patients with potential vaccine-associated immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), unless heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) testing is negative.

Non-heparin anticoagulants and high-dose intravenous immune globulin should be considered in treatment of patients who present with immune-mediated thrombotic events with thrombocytopenia after J&J COVID-19 vaccination. Consultation with hematology specialists is strongly recommended.

* The term ‘splanchnic circulation’ describes the blood flow to the abdominal gastrointestinal organs including the stomach, liver, spleen, pancreas, small intestine, and large intestine.

Recommendations

For Clinicians

  • Pause the use of the J&J COVID-19 vaccine until the ACIP is able to further review these CVST cases in the context of thrombocytopenia and assess their potential significance.
  • Maintain a high index of suspicion for symptoms that might represent serious thrombotic events or thrombocytopenia in patients who have recently received the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, including severe headache, backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, petechiae (tiny red spots on the skin), or new or easy bruising. Obtain platelet counts and screen for evidence of immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia.
  • In patients with a thrombotic event and thrombocytopenia after the J&J COVID-19 vaccine, evaluate initially with a screening PF4 enzyme-linked immunosorbent (ELISA) assay as would be performed for autoimmune HIT. Consultation with a hematologist is strongly recommended.
  • Do not treat patients with thrombotic events and thrombocytopenia following receipt of J&J COVID-19 vaccine with heparin, unless HIT testing is negative.
  • If HIT testing is positive or unable to be performed in patient with thrombotic events and thrombocytopenia following receipt of J&J COVID-19 vaccine, non-heparin anticoagulants and high-dose intravenous immune globulin should be strongly considered.
  • Report adverse events to VAERS, including serious and life-threatening adverse events and deaths in patients following receipt of COVID-19 vaccines as required under the Emergency Use Authorizations for COVID-19 vaccines.

For Public Health

  • Pause the use of the J&J COVID-19 vaccine in public health clinics until the ACIP is able to further review these CVST cases in the context of thrombocytopenia and assess their potential significance.
  • Encourage healthcare providers and the public to report all serious and life-threatening adverse events and deaths following receipt of COVID-19 vaccines to VAERS as required under the EUAs for COVID-19 vaccines.
  • Disseminate this alert to healthcare providers in your jurisdictions.

For the Public

  • If you have received the J&J COVID-19 vaccine and develop severe headache, abdominal pain, leg pain, or shortness of breath within three weeks after vaccination, contact your healthcare provider, or seek medical care.
  • Report adverse events following receipt of any COVID-19 vaccine to VAERS.
  • If you are scheduled to receive the J&J vaccine, please contact your healthcare provider, vaccination location, or clinic to learn about additional vaccine availability.

For More Information

(…)

Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Vaccines; Drugs safety.

——

Preliminary #Efficacy of the #NVXCoV2373 #Covid19 #Vaccine Against the #B1351 #Variant (MedRxIV, abstract)

[Source: MedRxIV, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

Preliminary Efficacy of the NVX-CoV2373 Covid-19 Vaccine Against the B.1.351 Variant

Vivek Shinde, Sutika Bhikha, Zaheer Hossain, Moherndran Archary, Qasim Bhorat, L ee Fairlie, Umesh Lalloo, Mduduzi Lawrance Sandile Masilela, Dhayendre Moodley,  Sherika Hanley, Leon Fouche, Cheryl Louw, Michele Tameris, Nishanta Singh,  Ameena Goga, Keertan Dheda, Coert Grobbelaar, Gertruida Kruger, Nazira Carrim- Ganey, Vicky Baillie,  Tulio de Oliveira, Anthonet Lombard Koen, Jonah J Lombaard,  Rosie Mngqibisa, As’ad Ebrahim Bhorat, Gabriella Benade, Natasha Lalloo, Annah  Pitsi, Pieter-Louis Vollgraaff, Angelique Luabeya, Aliasgar Esmail, Friedrich G.  Petrick, Aylin Oommen Jose, Sharne Foulkes, Khatija Ahmed, Asha Thombrayil, Lou  Fries, Shane Cloney-Clark, Mingzhu Zhu, Chijioke Bennett, Gary Albert, Emmanuel Faust, Joyce Plested, Andreana Robertson, Susan Neal, Iksung Cho, Gregory M. Glenn, Filip Dubovsky, Shabir Madhi

doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.25.21252477 | This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Abstract

Background

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) variants threatens progress toward control of the Covid-19 pandemic. Evaluation of Covid-19 vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 variants is urgently needed to inform vaccine development and use.

Methods

In this phase 2a/b, multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in South Africa, healthy human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative adults (18 to 84 years) or medically stable people living with HIV (PLWH) (18 to 84 years) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, administered 21 days apart, of either NVX-CoV2373 nanoparticle vaccine (5 micrograms recombinant spike protein with 50 micrograms Matrix-M1 adjuvant) or placebo. The primary endpoints were safety and vaccine efficacy greater than or equal to 7 days following the second dose against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic Covid-19 in previously SARS-CoV-2 uninfected participants.

Results

A total of 4387 participants were randomized and dosed at least once, 2199 with NVX CoV2373 and 2188 with placebo. Approximately 30% of participants were seropositive at baseline. Among 2684 baseline seronegative participants (94% HIV negative; 6% PLWH), there were 15 and 29 predominantly mild to moderate Covid-19 cases in NVX CoV2373 and placebo recipients, respectively; vaccine efficacy was 49.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.1 to 72.8). Efficacy in HIV negative participants was 60.1% (95% CI: 19.9 to 80.1), and did not differ by baseline serostatus. Of the primary endpoint cases with available whole genome sequencing, 38 (92.7%) of 41 were the B.1.351 variant. Post-hoc vaccine efficacy against B.1.351 was 51.0% (95% CI: -0.6 to 76.2) in HIV-negative participants. Among placebo recipients, the incidence of symptomatic Covid-19 was similar in baseline seronegative vs baseline seropositive participants during the first 2 months of follow-up (5.3% vs 5.2%). Preliminary local and systemic reactogenicity were primarily mild to moderate and transient, and higher with NVX CoV2373; serious adverse events were rare in both groups.

Conclusions

The NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was efficacious in preventing Covid-19, which was predominantly mild to moderate and due to the B.1.351 variant, while evidence of prior infection with the presumptive original SARS CoV-2 did not confer protection against probable B.1.351 disease. (Funded by Novavax, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04533399)

Competing Interest Statement: Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

Clinical Trial NCT04533399

Clinical Protocols: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04533399?term=NVX-CoV2373+Covid-19+Vaccine&draw=2&rank=2

Funding Statement: Supported by Novavax, Inc., The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The trial protocol was approved by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA; Ref 20200420) and Institutional Ethics Review Boards and registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04533399 and the Pan African Clinical trials Registry (PACTR202009726132275). Safety oversight, including for specific vaccination pause rules, was performed by an independent safety monitoring committee

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv

Copyright  – The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.

Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; B1351; Vaccines.

——

#Guidance for #design and #analysis of observational #studies of #fetal and #newborn #outcomes following #COVID19 #vaccination during #pregnancy (Vaccine, abstract)

[Source: Vaccine, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

Vaccine | Available online 2 March 2021 | In Press, Journal Pre-proof | Short communication

Guidance for design and analysis of observational studies of fetal and newborn outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy

Deshayne B. Fell a,b, Michelle C. Dimitris b, Jennifer A. Hutcheon c, Justin R. Ortiz d, Robert W. Platte f,g, Annette K. Regan h,i, David A. Savitz j

a School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Canada; b Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute, Ottawa Canada; c Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Canada; d Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore United States; e Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal Canada; f Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal Canada; g McGill University Health Center Research Institute and Department of Pediatrics, McGill University, Montreal Canada; h School of Nursing and Health Professions, University of San Francisco, San Francisco United States; i Fielding School of Public Health, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles United States; j Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence United States

Received 13 January 2021, Revised 26 February 2021, Accepted 27 February 2021, Available online 2 March 2021.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.02.070

Abstract

COVID-19 vaccines are now being deployed as essential tools in the public health response to the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Pregnant individuals are a unique subgroup of the population with distinctive considerations regarding risk and benefit that extend beyond themselves to their fetus/newborn. As a compliment to traditional pharmacovigilance and clinical studies, evidence to comprehensively assess COVID- 19 vaccine safety in pregnancy will need to be generated through observational epidemiologic studies in large populations. However, there are several unique methodological challenges that face observational assessments of vaccination during pregnancy, some of which may be more pronounced for COVID-19 studies. In this contribution, we discuss the most critical study design, data collection, and analytical issues likely to arise. We offer brief guidance to optimize the quality of such studies to ensure their maximum value for informing public health decision-making.

Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Vaccines; Pregnancy.

——

The #ACIP Interim #Recommendation for Use of #Janssen #COVID19 #Vaccine — United States, February 2021 (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep., abstract)

[Source: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Interim Recommendation for Use of Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine — United States, February 2021

Early Release / March 2, 2021 / 70

Sara E. Oliver, MD1; Julia W. Gargano, PhD1; Heather Scobie, PhD1; Megan Wallace, DrPH1,2; Stephen C. Hadler, MD1; Jessica Leung, MPH1; Amy E. Blain, MPH1; Nancy McClung, PhD1; Doug Campos-Outcalt, MD3; Rebecca L. Morgan, PhD4; Sarah Mbaeyi, MD1; Jessica MacNeil, MPH1; José R. Romero, MD5; H. Keipp Talbot, MD6; Grace M. Lee, MD7; Beth P. Bell, MD8; Kathleen Dooling, MD1

Summary

  • What is already known about this topic?
    • On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine.
  • What is added by this report?
    • On February 28, 2021, after a transparent evidence-based review of all available data, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation for use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years for the prevention of COVID-19.
  • What are the implications for public health practice?
    • The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine has high efficacy against COVID-19–associated hospitalization and death. Persons may receive any ACIP-recommended COVID-19 vaccine and are encouraged to receive the earliest vaccine available to them. Use of all EUA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines is critical in controlling the pandemic.

Abstract

On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Janssen COVID-19 (Ad.26.COV2.S) vaccine (Janssen Biotech, Inc, a Janssen Pharmaceutical company, Johnson & Johnson; New Brunswick, New Jersey). The Janssen COVID-19 vaccine is a recombinant, replication-incompetent adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector vaccine, encoding the stabilized prefusion spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 (1). Vaccination with the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine consists of a single dose (5 × 1010 virus particles per 0.5-mL dose) administered intramuscularly. On February 28, 2021, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issued an interim recommendation* for use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in persons aged ≥18 years for the prevention of COVID-19. This vaccine is the third COVID-19 vaccine authorized under an EUA for the prevention of COVID-19 in the United States (2). To guide its deliberations regarding the vaccine, ACIP used the Evidence to Recommendations (EtR) framework,† following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.§ The ACIP recommendation for the use of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine under an EUA is interim and will be updated as additional information becomes available.

(…)

Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Vaccines; USA.

——

Early #effectiveness of #COVID19 #vaccination with #BNT162b2 #mRNA #vaccine and #ChAdOx1 adenovirus vector vaccine on symptomatic disease, hospitalisations and mortality in older adults in #England (MedRxIV, abstract)

[Source: MedRxIV, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

Early effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination with BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine and ChAdOx1 adenovirus vector vaccine on symptomatic disease, hospitalisations and mortality in older adults in England

Jamie Lopez  Bernal, Nick Andrews, Charlotte Gower, Julia Stowe, Chris Robertson, Elise Tessier, Ruth Simmons, Simon Cottrell, Richard Robertson, Mark O’Doherty, Kevin Brown, Claire Cameron, Diane Stockton, Jim McMenamin, Mary Ramsay

doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.01.21252652 | This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Abstract

Objectives

To estimate the real-world effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine and Astrazeneca ChAdOx1 vaccine against Confirmed COVID-19, hospitalisations and deaths. To estimate effectiveness on the UK variant of concern.

Design

Test negative case control design

Setting

Community COVID-19 PCR testing in England

Participants

All adults in England aged 70 years and older (over 7.5 million). All COVID-19 testing in the community among eligible individuals who reported symptoms between 8th December 2020 and 19th February 2021 was included in the analysis.

Interventions

One and two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine. One dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine.

Main outcome measures

Symptomatic PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalisations and deaths with COVID-19.

Results

Individuals aged >=80 years vaccinated with BNT162b2 prior to 4th January, had a higher odds of testing positive in the first 9 days after vaccination (odds ratio up to 1.48, 95%CI 1.23-1.77), indicating that those initially targeted had a higher underlying risk of infection. Vaccine effectiveness was therefore estimated relative to the baseline post-vaccination period. Vaccine effects were noted from 10-13 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 70% (95% CI 59-78%) from 28-34 days, then plateauing. From 14 days after the second dose a vaccine effectiveness of 89% (95%CI: 85-93%) was seen. Individuals aged >=70 years vaccinated from 4th January had a similar underlying risk of COVID-19 to unvaccinated individuals. With BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness reached 61% (95%CI 51-69%) from 28-34 days after vaccination then plateaued. With the ChAdOx1 vaccine, vaccine effects were seen from 14-20 days after vaccination reaching an effectiveness of 60% (95%CI 41-73%) from 28-34 days and further increasing to 73% (95%CI 27-90%) from day 35 onwards. On top of the protection against symptomatic disease, cases who had been vaccinated with one dose of BNT162b2 had an additional 43% (95%CI 33-52%) lower risk of emergency hospitalisation and an additional 51% (95%CI 37-62%) lower risk of death. Cases who had been vaccinated with one dose of ChAdOx1 had an additional 37% (95% CI 3-59%) lower risk of emergency hospitalisation. There was insufficient follow-up to assess the effect of ChAdOx1 on mortality due to the later rollout of this vaccine. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, this indicates that a single dose of either vaccine is approximately 80% effective at preventing hospitalisation and a single dose of BNT162b2 is 85% effective at preventing death with COVID-19.

Conclusion

Vaccination with either a single dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic SARS-CoV2 positive cases in older adults with even greater protection against severe disease. Both vaccines show similar effects. Protection was maintained for the duration of follow-up (>6 weeks). A second dose of BNT162b2 provides further protection against symptomatic disease but second doses of ChAdOx1 have not yet been rolled out in England. There is a clear effect of the vaccines against the UK variant of concern.

Competing Interest Statement: The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement: This study was funded by Public Health England

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

PHE Research Ethics and Governance Group Statement: Surveillance of COVID-19 testing and vaccination is undertaken under Regulation 3 of The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 to collect confidential patient information (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1438/regulation/3/made) under Sections 3(i) (a) to (c), 3(i)(d) (i) and (ii) and 3(3). The study protocol was subject to an internal review by the PHE Research Ethics and Governance Group and was found to be fully compliant with all regulatory requirements. As no regulatory issues were identified, and ethical review is not a requirement for this type of work, it was decided that a full ethical review would not be necessary.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv

Copyright – The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.

Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Vaccines; B117; England.

——

Negligible #impact of #SARS-CoV-2 #variants on #CD4+ and #CD8+ T cell #reactivity in #COVID19 exposed donors and #vaccinees (BioRxIV, abstract)

[Source: BioRxIV, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees.

Alison Tarke, John Sidney, Nils Methot,  Yun Zhang,  Jennifer M Dan, Benjamin Goodwin, Paul Rubiro, Aaron Sutherland,  Ricardo da Silva Antunes, April Fraizer, Stephen A. Rawlings, Davey M. Smith, Bjoern Peters, Richard H. Scheuermann, Daniela Weiskopf,  Shane Crotty,  Alba Grifoni, Alessandro Sette

doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.27.433180 | This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review.

Abstract

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants highlighted the need to better understand adaptive immune responses to this virus. It is important to address whether also CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses are affected, because of the role they play in disease resolution and modulation of COVID-19 disease severity. Here we performed a comprehensive analysis of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses from COVID-19 convalescent subjects recognizing the ancestral strain, compared to variant lineages B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, and CAL.20C as well as recipients of the Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccines. Similarly, we demonstrate that the sequences of the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes are not affected by the mutations found in the variants analyzed. Overall, the results demonstrate that CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses in convalescent COVID-19 subjects or COVID-19 mRNA vaccinees are not substantially affected by mutations found in the SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Competing Interest Statement: A.S. is a consultant for Gritstone, Flow Pharma, Oxford Immunetech, Caprion, Arcturus and Avalia. S.C. is a consultant for Avalia. All other authors declare no conflict of interest. LJI has filed for patent protection for various aspects of vaccine design and identification of specific epitopes.

Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv

Copyright – The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.

Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; B117; B1351; P1; Vaccines; Immune escape.

——

#REACT2 Round 5: increasing #prevalence of #SARS-CoV-2 #antibodies demonstrate #impact of the second #wave and of #vaccine roll-out in #England (MedRxIV, abstract)

[Source: MedRxIV, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

REACT-2 Round 5: increasing prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies demonstrate impact of the second wave and of vaccine roll-out in England

Helen Ward Professor,   Graham Cooke Professor,   Matthew Whitaker Mr,    Rozlyn Redd Dr,   Oliver Eales Mr, Jonathan Brown Mr, Katharine Collet Ms, Emily Cooper Ms,   Daunt Anna Dr, Jones Kathryn Dr, Moshe Maya Ms,   Michelle Willicombe Dr,   Sophie Day Professor,   Christina Atchison Dr,   Ara Darzi Professor,   Christl A Donnelly Professor,   Steven Riley Professor,   Deborah Ashby Professor,   Wendy S Barclay Professor,   Paul Elliott Professor

doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.26.21252512 | This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Abstract

Background

England has experienced high rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting in particular minority ethnic groups and more deprived communities. A vaccination programme began in England in December 2020, with priority given to administering the first dose to the largest number of older individuals, healthcare and care home workers.

Methods

A cross-sectional community survey in England undertaken between 26 January and 8 February 2021 as the fifth round of the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-2 (REACT-2) programme. Participants completed questionnaires, including demographic details and clinical and COVID-19 vaccination histories, and self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test to detect IgG against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. There were sufficient numbers of participants to analyse antibody positivity after 21 days from vaccination with the PfizerBioNTech but not the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine which was introduced slightly later.

Results

The survey comprised 172,099 people, with valid IgG antibody results from 155,172. The overall prevalence of antibodies (weighted to be representative of the population of England and adjusted for test sensitivity and specificity) in England was 13.9% (95% CI 13.7, 14.1) overall, 37.9% (37.2, 38.7) in vaccinated and 9.8% (9.6, 10.0) in unvaccinated people. The prevalence of antibodies (weighted) in unvaccinated people was highest in London at 16.9% (16.3, 17.5), and higher in people of Black (22.4%, 20.8, 24.1) and Asian (20.0%, 19.0, 21.0) ethnicity compared to white (8.5%, 8.3, 8.7) people. The uptake of vaccination by age was highest in those aged 80 years or older (93.5%). Vaccine confidence was high with 92.0% (91.9, 92.1) of people saying that they had accepted or intended to accept the offer. Vaccine confidence varied by age and ethnicity, with lower confidence in young people and those of Black ethnicity. Particular concerns were identified around pregnancy, fertility and allergies. In 971 individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the proportion testing positive was high across all age groups. Following a single dose of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine after 21 days or more, 84.1% (82.2, 85.9) of people under 60 years tested positive (unadjusted) with a decreasing trend with increasing age, but high responses to a single dose in those with confirmed or suspected prior COVID at 90.1% (87.2, 92.4) across all age groups.

Conclusions

There is uneven distribution of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the population with a higher burden in key workers and some minority ethnic groups, similar to the pattern in the first wave. Confidence in the vaccine programme is high overall although it was lower in some of the higher prevalence groups which suggests the need for improved communication about specific perceived risks. Two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, or a single dose following previous infection, confers high levels of antibody positivity across all ages. Further work is needed to understand the relationship between antibody positivity, clinical outcomes such as hospitalisation, and transmission.

Competing Interest Statement: The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement: The study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care in England. HW is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator and acknowledges support from NIHR Biomedical Research Centre of Imperial College NHS Trust, NIHR School of Public Health Research, NIHR Applied Research Collaborative North West London, and Wellcome Trust (UNS32973). GC is supported by an NIHR Professorship. WSB is the Action Medical Research Professor, AD is an NIHR senior investigator and DA and PE are Emeritus NIHR Senior Investigators. SR acknowledges support from MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU), Wellcome Trust (200861/Z/16/Z, 200187/Z/15/Z), and Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (US, U01CK0005-01-02). PE is Director of the MRC Centre for Environment and Health (MR/L01341X/1, MR/S019669/1). PE acknowledges support from the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the NIHR HPRUs in Chemical and Radiation Threats and Hazards and in Environmental Exposures and Health, the British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence at Imperial College London (RE/18/4/34215), Health Data Research UK (HDR UK) and the UK Dementia Research Institute at Imperial (MC_PC_17114). We thank The Huo Family Foundation for their support of our work on COVID-19. SD acknowledges support from NIHR Biomedical Research Centre of Imperial College NHS Trust.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

We obtained research ethics approval from the South Central-Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 283787), and MHRA approval for use of the LFIA for research purposes only. The REACT Public Advisory Panel provides regular review of the study processes and results. The healthcare worker study was approved by the Health Research Authority, Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/WA/0123).

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv

Copyright – The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.

Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Vaccines; England.

——

S-Trimer, a #COVID19 #subunit #vaccine #candidate, induces protective immunity in nonhuman primates (Nat Commun., abstract)

[Source: Nature Communications, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

S-Trimer, a COVID-19 subunit vaccine candidate, induces protective immunity in nonhuman primates

Joshua G. Liang, Danmei Su, Tian-Zhang Song, Yilan Zeng, Weijin Huang, Jinhua Wu, Rong Xu, Peiwen Luo, Xiaofang Yang, Xiaodong Zhang, Shuangru Luo, Ying Liang, Xinglin Li, Jiaju Huang, Qiang Wang, Xueqin Huang, Qingsong Xu, Mei Luo, Anliang Huang, Dongxia Luo, Chenyan Zhao, Fan Yang, Jian-Bao Han, Yong-Tang Zheng & Peng Liang

Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 1346 (2021)

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 is the underlying cause for the COVID-19 pandemic. Like most enveloped RNA viruses, SARS-CoV-2 uses a homotrimeric surface antigen to gain entry into host cells. Here we describe S-Trimer, a native-like trimeric subunit vaccine candidate for COVID-19 based on Trimer-Tag technology. Immunization of S-Trimer with either AS03 (oil-in-water emulsion) or CpG 1018 (TLR9 agonist) plus alum adjuvants induced high-level of neutralizing antibodies and Th1-biased cellular immune responses in animal models. Moreover, rhesus macaques immunized with adjuvanted S-Trimer were protected from SARS-CoV-2 challenge compared to vehicle controls, based on clinical observations and reduction of viral loads in lungs. Trimer-Tag may be an important platform technology for scalable production and rapid development of safe and effective subunit vaccines against current and future emerging RNA viruses.

Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Vaccines; Animal models.

——

Projected #COVID19 #epidemic in the #USA in the context of the #effectiveness of a potential #vaccine and implications for #social #distancing and #facemask use (Vaccine, abstract)

[Source: Vaccine, full page: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]

Vaccine | Available online 27 February 2021 | In Press, Journal Pre-proof

Projected COVID-19 epidemic in the United States in the context of the effectiveness of a potential vaccine and implications for social distancing and face mask use

Mingwang Shen a, Jian Zu b, Christopher K. Fairley a,c,d, José A. Pagáne f, Li Ang h, Zhanwei Du i, Yuming Guo d, Libin Rong j, Yanni Xiao b, Guihua Zhuang a, Yan Li k,l, Lei Zhang a,c,d,m

a China-Australia Joint Research Center for Infectious Diseases, School of Public Health, Xi’an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China; b School of Mathematics and Statistics, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China; c Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; d Central Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; e Department of Public Health Policy and  Management, School of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY,  USA; f Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; g Center for Complex Human-Environment Systems, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA; h Department of Geography, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA; i Department of Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA; j Department of Mathematics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; k Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; l Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Science, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; m Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China

Received 30 November 2020, Revised 20 February 2021, Accepted 24 February 2021, Available online 27 February 2021.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.02.056

Highlights

  • This paper predicts the COVID-19 epidemic in the four largest states in the US under different conditions in which the effectiveness of a potential vaccine and the level of social distancing restrictions vary.
  • The study is timely and highly significant as the COVID-19 vaccine may become available in the US soon and public health policymakers need more evidence to make the most informed decisions on whether to maintain social distancing and face mask use in the post-vaccine era.

Abstract

Background

Multiple candidates of COVID-19 vaccines have entered Phase III clinical trials in the United States (US). There is growing optimism that social distancing restrictions and face mask requirements could be eased with widespread vaccine adoption soon.

Methods

We developed a dynamic compartmental model of COVID-19 transmission for the four most severely affected states (New York, Texas, Florida, and California). We evaluated the vaccine effectiveness and coverage required to suppress the COVID-19 epidemic in scenarios when social contact was to return to pre-pandemic levels and face mask use was reduced. Daily and cumulative COVID-19 infection and death cases from 26th January to 15th September 2020 were obtained from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus resource center and used for model calibration.

Results

Without a vaccine (scenario 1), the spread of COVID-19 could be suppressed in these states by maintaining strict social distancing measures and face mask use levels. But relaxing social distancing restrictions to the pre-pandemic level without changing the current face mask use would lead to a new COVID-19 outbreak, resulting in 0.8-4 million infections and 15,000-240,000 deaths across these four states over the next 12 months. Under this circumstance, introducing a vaccine (scenario 2) would partially offset this negative impact even if the vaccine effectiveness and coverage are relatively low. However, if face mask use is reduced by 50% (scenario 3), a vaccine that is only 50% effective (weak vaccine) would require coverage of 55-94% to suppress the epidemic in these states. A vaccine that is 80% effective (moderate vaccine) would only require 32-57% coverage to suppress the epidemic. In contrast, if face mask usage stops completely (scenario 4), a weak vaccine would not suppress the epidemic, and further major outbreaks would occur. A moderate vaccine with coverage of 48-78% or a strong vaccine (100% effective) with coverage of 33-58% would be required to suppress the epidemic. Delaying vaccination rollout for 1-2 months would not substantially alter the epidemic trend if the current non-pharmaceutical interventions are maintained.

Conclusions

The degree to which the US population can relax social distancing restrictions and face mask use will depend greatly on the effectiveness and coverage of a potential COVID-19 vaccine if future epidemics are to be prevented. Only a highly effective vaccine will enable the US population to return to life as it was before the pandemic.

Keywords: COVID-19 vaccine – Vaccine effectiveness – Vaccine coverage – Social distancing – face mask use

Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Vaccines; Face masks; Social distancing measures; USA; Epidemiology.

——