Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health.

Fusarium is a ubiquitous mold that can cause superficial infections such as keratitis and onychomycosis in immunocompetent humans; however, infections in immunocompromised hosts can be fatal. We report an unusual case of epidural abscess and vertebral osteomyelitis in a patient with an autoimmune disorder who was on long-term glucocorticoids. Multilocus DNA sequence-based typing revealed that the infection was caused by a novel three-locus haplotype of Fusarium falciforme designated FSSC 3+4qqq.

To the Editor: Humoral and cellular immune responses contribute to overall protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2, with neutralizing antibody playing a key role in preventing viral infection. This is evident from the large number of Omicron infections occurring in vaccinated and convalescent patients, since antibodies induced after vaccination or infection by the ancestral WA1 strain do not neutralize Omicron variants efficiently (1, 2). These findings have led to the FDA recommendation for inclusion of the Omicron variant in bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. However, issues have been raised about the value of adding Omicron to the vaccine based on data showing only modest differences between antibody responses after booster immunization with Omicron- versus WA1-based vaccines (3, 4). Also, a recent study has shown that booster responses to Omicron infection are affected by previous SARS-CoV-2 infections (5). Thus, having additional information on the types of neutralizing antibody responses induced after infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants will be helpful in addressing this important issue.

Background: Western (WEEV), eastern (EEEV), and Venezuelan (VEEV) equine encephalitis viruses are mosquito-borne pathogens classified as potential biological warfare agents for which there are currently no approved human vaccines or therapies. We aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of an investigational trivalent virus-like particle (VLP) vaccine, western, eastern, and Venezuelan equine encephalitis (WEVEE) VLP, composed of WEEV, EEEV, and VEEV VLPs. Methods: The WEVEE VLP vaccine was evaluated in a phase 1, randomised, open-label, dose-escalation trial at the Hope Clinic of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. Eligible participants were healthy adults aged 18–50 years with no previous vaccination history with an investigational alphavirus vaccine. Participants were assigned to a dose group of 6 μg, 30 μg, or 60 μg vaccine product and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive the WEVEE VLP vaccine with or without aluminium hydroxide suspension (alum) adjuvant by intramuscular injection at study day 0 and at week 8. The primary outcomes were the safety and tolerability of the vaccine (assessed in all participants who received at least one administration of study product) and the secondary outcome was immune response measured as neutralising titres by plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT) 4 weeks after the second vaccination. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03879603. Findings: Between April 2, 2019, and June 13, 2019, 30 trial participants were enrolled (mean age 32 years, range 21–48; 16 [53%] female participants and 14 [47%] male participants). Six groups of five participants each received 6 μg, 30 μg, or 60 μg vaccine doses with or without adjuvant, and all 30 participants completed study follow-up. Vaccinations were safe and well tolerated. The most frequently reported symptoms were mild injection-site pain and tenderness (22 [73%] of 30) and malaise (15 [50%] of 30). Dose-dependent differences in the frequency of pain and tenderness were found between the 6 μg, 30 μg, and 60 μg groups (p=0·0217). No significant differences were observed between dosing groups for any other reactogenicity symptom. Two adverse events (mild elevated blood pressure and moderate asymptomatic neutropenia) were assessed as possibly related to the study product in one trial participant (60 μg dose with alum); both resolved without clinical sequelae. 4 weeks after second vaccine administration, neutralising antibodies were induced in all study groups with the highest response seen against all three vaccine antigens in the 30 μg plus alum group (PRNT80 geometric mean titre for EEEV 60·8, 95% CI 29·9–124·0; for VEEV 111·5, 49·8–249·8; and for WEEV 187·9, 90·0–392·2). Finally, 4 weeks after second vaccine administration, for all doses, the majority of trial participants developed an immune response to all three vaccine components (24 [83%] of 29 for EEEV; 26 [90%] of 29 for VEEV; 27 [93%] of 29 for WEEV; and 22 [76%] of 29 for EEEV, VEEV, and WEEV combined). Interpretation: The favourable safety profile and neutralising antibody responses, along with pressing public health need, support further evaluation of the WEVEE VLP vaccine in advanced-phase clinical trials. Funding: The Vaccine Research Center of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health funded the clinical trial. The US Department of Defense contributed funding for manufacturing of the study product.

Background: The identification of baseline host determinants that associate with robust HIV-1 vaccine-induced immune responses could aid HIV-1 vaccine development. We aimed to assess both the collective and relative performance of baseline characteristics in classifying individual participants in nine different Phase 1-2 HIV-1 vaccine clinical trials (26 vaccine regimens, conducted in Africa and in the Americas) as High HIV-1 vaccine responders. Methods: This was a meta-analysis of individual participant data, with studies chosen based on participant-level (vs. study-level summary) data availability within the HIV-1 Vaccine Trials Network. We assessed the performance of 25 baseline characteristics (demographics, safety haematological measurements, vital signs, assay background measurements) and estimated the relative importance of each characteristic in classifying 831 participants as High (defined as within the top 25th percentile among positive responders or above the assay upper limit of quantification) versus Non-High responders. Immune response outcomes included HIV-1-specific serum IgG binding antibodies and Env-specific CD4+ T-cell responses assessed two weeks post-last dose, all measured at central HVTN laboratories. Three variable importance approaches based on SuperLearner ensemble machine learning were considered. Findings: Overall, 30.1%, 50.5%, 36.2%, and 13.9% of participants were categorized as High responders for gp120 IgG, gp140 IgG, gp41 IgG, and Env-specific CD4+ T-cell vaccine-induced responses, respectively. When including all baseline characteristics, moderate performance was achieved for the classification of High responder status for the binding antibody responses, with cross-validated areas under the ROC curve (CV-AUC) of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.76) for gp120 IgG, 0.73 (0.69, 0.76) for gp140 IgG, and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.72) for gp41 IgG. In contrast, the collection of all baseline characteristics yielded little improvement over chance for predicting High Env-specific CD4+ T-cell responses [CV-AUC: 0.53 (0.48, 0.58)]. While estimated variable importance patterns differed across the three approaches, female sex assigned at birth, lower height, and higher total white blood cell count emerged as significant predictors of High responder status across multiple immune response outcomes using Approach 1. Of these three baseline variables, total white blood cell count ranked highly across all three approaches for predicting vaccine-induced gp41 and gp140 High responder status. Interpretation: The identified features should be studied further in pursuit of intervention strategies to improve vaccine responses and may be adjusted for in analyses of immune response data to enhance statistical power. Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (UM1AI068635 to YH, UM1AI068614 to GDT, UM1AI068618 to MJM, and UM1 AI069511 to MCK), the Duke CFAR P30 AI064518 to GDT, and National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (R01DE027245 to JJK). This work was also supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of any of the funding sources.

Background: The phase 2b proof-of-concept Antibody Mediated Prevention (AMP) trials showed that VRC01, an anti-HIV-1 broadly neutralising antibody (bnAb), prevented acquisition of HIV-1 sensitive to VRC01. To inform future study design and dosing regimen selection of candidate bnAbs, we investigated the association of VRC01 serum concentration with HIV-1 acquisition using AMP trial data. Methods: The case–control sample included 107 VRC01 recipients who acquired HIV-1 and 82 VRC01 recipients who remained without HIV-1 during the study. We measured VRC01 serum concentrations with a qualified pharmacokinetic (PK) Binding Antibody Multiplex Assay. We employed nonlinear mixed effects PK modelling to estimate daily-grid VRC01 concentrations. Cox regression models were used to assess the association of VRC01 concentration at exposure and baseline body weight, with the hazard of HIV-1 acquisition and prevention efficacy as a function of VRC01 concentration. We also compared fixed dosing vs. body weight-based dosing via simulations. Findings: Estimated VRC01 concentrations in VRC01 recipients without HIV-1 were higher than those in VRC01 recipients who acquired HIV-1. Body weight was inversely associated with HIV-1 acquisition among both placebo and VRC01 recipients but did not modify the prevention efficacy of VRC01. VRC01 concentration was inversely correlated with HIV-1 acquisition, and positively correlated with prevention efficacy of VRC01. Simulation studies suggest that fixed dosing may be comparable to weight-based dosing in overall predicted prevention efficacy. Interpretation: These findings suggest that bnAb serum concentration may be a useful marker for dosing regimen selection, and operationally efficient fixed dosing regimens could be considered for future trials of HIV-1 bnAbs. Funding: Was provided by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (UM1 AI068614, to the HIV Vaccine Trials Network [HVTN]; UM1 AI068635, to the HVTN Statistical Data and Management Center [SDMC], Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center [FHCC]; 2R37 054165 to the FHCC; UM1 AI068618, to HVTN Laboratory Center, FHCC; 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, Duke University (AI P30 AI064518) and University of Washington (P30 AI027757) Centers for AIDS Research; R37AI054165 from NIAID to the FHCC; and OPP1032144 CA-VIMC Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

As part of a multicenter study evaluating homologous and heterologous COVID-19 booster vaccines, we assessed the magnitude, breadth, and short-term durability of binding and pseudovirus-neutralizing antibody (PsVNA) responses following a single booster dose of NVX-CoV2373 in adults primed with either Ad26.COV2.S, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2 vaccines. NVX-CoV2373 as a heterologous booster was immunogenic and associated with no safety concerns through Day 91. Fold-rises in PsVNA titers from baseline (Day 1) to Day 29 were highest for prototypic D614G variant and lowest for more recent Omicron sub-lineages BQ.1.1 and XBB.1. Peak humoral responses against all SARS-CoV-2 variants were lower in those primed with Ad26.COV2.S than with mRNA vaccines. Prior SARS CoV-2 infection was associated with substantially higher baseline PsVNA titers, which remained elevated relative to previously uninfected participants through Day 91. These data support the use of heterologous protein-based booster vaccines as an acceptable alternative to mRNA or adenoviral-based COVID-19 booster vaccines. This trial was conducted under ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04889209.

The VRC01 Antibody Mediated Prevention (AMP) efficacy trials conducted between 2016 and 2020 showed for the first time that passively administered broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) could prevent HIV-1 acquisition against bnAb-sensitive viruses. HIV-1 viruses isolated from AMP participants who acquired infection during the study in the sub-Saharan African (HVTN 703/HPTN 081) and the Americas/European (HVTN 704/HPTN 085) trials represent a panel of currently circulating strains of HIV-1 and offer a unique opportunity to investigate the sensitivity of the virus to broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) being considered for clinical development. Pseudoviruses were constructed using envelope sequences from 218 individuals. The majority of viruses identified were clade B and C; with clades A, D, F and G and recombinants AC and BF detected at lower frequencies. We tested eight bnAbs in clinical development (VRC01, VRC07-523LS, 3BNC117, CAP256.25, PGDM1400, PGT121, 10–1074 and 10E8v4) for neutralization against all AMP placebo viruses (n = 76). Compared to older clade C viruses (1998–2010), the HVTN703/HPTN081 clade C viruses showed increased resistance to VRC07-523LS and CAP256.25. At a concentration of 1μg/ml (IC80), predictive modeling identified the triple combination of V3/V2-glycan/CD4bs-targeting bnAbs (10-1074/PGDM1400/VRC07-523LS) as the best against clade C viruses and a combination of MPER/V3/CD4bs-targeting bnAbs (10E8v4/10-1074/ VRC07-523LS) as the best against clade B viruses, due to low coverage of V2-glycan directed bnAbs against clade B viruses. Overall, the AMP placebo viruses represent a valuable resource for defining the sensitivity of contemporaneous circulating viral strains to bnAbs and highlight the need to update reference panels regularly. Our data also suggests that combining bnAbs in passive immunization trials would improve coverage of global viruses.

Background: Modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) is being developed as a safer smallpox vaccine and is being placed in the US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) as a liquid formulation for subcutaneous (SC) administration at a dose of 1×108 TCID50 in a volume of 0.5mL. This study compared the safety and immunogenicity of the standard formulation, dose and route with both a more stable, lyophilized formulation and with an antigen-sparing intradermal (ID) route of administration. Methods: 524 subjects were randomized to receive either a full dose of Lyophilized-SC, a full dose of Liquid-SC or 20% (2×107 TCID50 in 0.1mL) of a full dose Liquid-ID MVA on Days 0 and 28. Safety and immunogenicity were followed through 180 days post second vaccination. Results: Among the 3 groups, the proportion of subjects with moderate/severe functional local reactions was significantly different (P= 0.0013) between the Lyophilized-SC group (30.3%), the Liquid-SC group (13.8%) and Liquid-ID group (22.0%) only after first vaccination; and for moderate/severe measured erythema and/or induration after any vaccination (P= 0.0001) between the Lyophilized-SC group (58.2%), the Liquid-SC group (58.1%) and the Liquid-ID group (94.8%) and the reactions lasted longer in the Liquid-ID group. In the ID Group, 36.1% of subjects had mild injection site skin discoloration lasting ≥6 months.After second vaccination Day (42-208), geometric mean of peak neutralization titers were 87.8, 49.5 and 59.5 for the Lyophilized-SC, Liquid-SC and Liquid-ID groups, respectively, and the maximum number of responders based on peak titer in each group was 142/145 (97.9%), 142/149 (95.3%) and 138/146 (94.5%), respectively. At 180 days after the second vaccination, geometric mean neutralization titers declined to 11.7, 10.2 and 10.4 with only 54.3%, 39.2% and 35.2% of subjects remaining seropositive for the Lyophilized-SC, Liquid-SC and Liquid-ID groups, respectively. Both the Lyophilized-SC and Liquid-ID groups were considered non-inferior (primary objective) to the Liquid-SC group. Conclusions: Transitioning to a lyophilized formulation, which has a longer shelf life, will not negatively impact immunogenicity. In a situation where insufficient vaccine is available, ID vaccination could be used, increasing the number of available doses of vaccine in the SNS 5-fold (i.e., from 20 million to 100 million doses).

Introduction: Multiple antiretroviral agents have demonstrated efficacy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). As a result, clinical trials of novel agents have transitioned from placebo- to active-controlled designs; however, active-controlled trials do not provide an estimate of efficacy versus no use of PrEP. Counterfactual placebo comparisons using other data sources could be employed to provide this information. Methods: We compared the active-controlled study (HPTN 084) of injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) versus daily oral emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) among women from seven countries in Africa to three external, contemporaneous randomized HIV prevention trials from which we constructed counterfactual placebo estimates. We used direct standardization via analysis weights to achieve the same distribution of person-years between the external study and HPTN 084, across strata predictive of HIV risk (country and selected risk covariates). We estimated prevention efficacy against a counterfactual placebo to provide information on the use of CAB-LA and FTC/TDF compared to no intervention. We compared the counterfactual placebo findings for FTC/TDF to previous placebo-controlled trials, adjusted for observed adherence to daily pills. Results: Distribution of age and baseline prevalence of gonorrhoea and chlamydia were similar among matched counterfactual placebo and observed HPTN 084 arms after standardization. Counterfactual estimates of CAB-LA versus placebo in all three settings showed a consistent risk reduction of 93%–94%, with lower bounds of the confidence intervals above 72%. Observed adherence (quantifiable tenofovir in plasma) in HPTN 084 was 54%–56%, and estimated efficacy of daily oral FTC/TDF against a counterfactual placebo was consistent with a predicted risk reduction of 39%–40% for this level of daily pill use. Conclusions: Counterfactual placebo rates of HIV acquisition derived from external trial data in similar locations and time can be used to support estimates of placebo-based efficacy of a novel HIV prevention agent. External trial data must be standardized to be representative of the clinical trial cohort testing the novel HIV prevention agent, accounting for confounders.