Lancet Infectious Diseases最新文献

Background: Rising Lyme borreliosis incidence rates, potential for severe outcomes, and limitations in accurate and timely diagnosis for treatment initiation suggest the need for a preventive vaccine; however, no vaccine is currently available for human use. We performed two studies in adults to optimise the dose level and vaccination schedule for VLA15, an investigational Lyme borreliosis vaccine targeting outer surface protein A (OspA) serotypes 1-6, which are associated with the most common pathogenic Borrelia species in Europe and North America.

Methods: Both randomised, observer-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 2 studies included participants aged 18-65 years without recent history of Lyme borreliosis or tick bites. Study one was conducted at nine clinical research and study centre sites in the USA (n=6), Germany (n=2), and Belgium (n=1); study two was conducted at five of the study one US sites. Based on a randomisation list created by an unmasked statistician for each study, participants were randomly assigned via an electronic case report form randomisation module to receive 90 μg (study one only), 135 μg, or 180 μg VLA15 or placebo by intramuscular injection at months 0, 1, and 2 (study one) or 0, 2, and 6 (study two). Study one began with a run-in phase to confirm safety, after which the Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended the removal of the 90 μg group and continuation of the study. In the study one run-in phase, randomisation was stratified by study site, whereas in the study one main phase and in study two, randomisation was stratified by study site, age group, and baseline B burgdorferi (sensu lato) serostatus. All individuals were masked, other than staff involved in randomisation, vaccine preparation or administration, or safety data monitoring. The primary endpoint for both studies was OspA-specific IgG geometric mean titres (GMTs) at 1 month after the third vaccination and was evaluated in the per-protocol population. Safety endpoints were evaluated in the safety population: all participants who received at least one vaccination. Both studies are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (study one NCT03769194 and study two NCT03970733) and are completed.

Findings: For study one, 573 participants were screened and randomly assigned to treatment groups between Dec 21, 2018, and Sept, 26, 2019. For study two, 248 participants were screened and randomly assigned between June 26 and Sept 3, 2019. In study one, 29 participants were assigned to receive 90 μg VLA15, 215 to 135 μg, 205 to 180 μg, and 124 to placebo. In study two, 97 participants were assigned to receive 135 μg VLA15, 100 to 180 μg, and 51 to placebo. At 1 month after the third vaccination (ie, month 3), OspA-specific IgG GMTs in study one ranged from 74·3 (serotype 1; 95% CI 46·4-119·0) to 267·4 units per mL (serotype 3; 194·8-367·1) for 90 μg VLA15, 101·9 (serotype 1; 87·1-119·4) to 283·2 units p

Background: During the 2023 Danish COVID-19 vaccination campaign, an updated monovalent mRNA vaccine targeting the SARS-CoV-2 omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant was administered. However, the rapid spread of a genetically divergent omicron BA.2.86 subvariant, JN.1, since September, 2023, poses potential challenges due to its rapid dominance and possible immune escape. Using national electronic health registry data from all regions of Denmark, we aimed to investigate whether the SARS-CoV-2 subvariant BA.2.86, and its descendant JN.1, differed from other circulating variants in terms of their ability to escape vaccine protection, the risk of infection leading to severe disease, and self-reported symptoms among infected people.

Methods: In this observational study, we included all residents of Denmark aged 65 years and older who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR between Oct 1 and Dec 31, 2023, and for whom genomic data on the SARS-CoV-2 variant that had caused their infection were available. Data from clinical testing, sentinel, and self-sampling-based surveillance were linked with national electronic civil, vaccination, and hospitalisation registers. The relative protection of the XBB.1.5 updated COVID-19 vaccine against BA.2.86 infections versus infections with other variants was analysed in a case-only study, and the relative risk of hospitalisation in people infected with BA.2.86 versus other variants was analysed in a case-control study. Both analyses were adjusted for time, comorbidities, and previous vaccination history, among other potential confounders. Additionally, prevalence patterns in self-reported symptoms among people of all ages infected with SARS-CoV-2 were reported separately by subvariant.

Findings: Of the 7581 people in Denmark aged 65 years or older who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR during the study period, 5882 (78%) samples were eligible for sequencing. 3862 (66%) of these passed quality control, were successfully sequenced, and the SARS-CoV-2 variant and subvariant identified, and these individuals were included in the study. Of these 3862 people, 2184 (57%) were infected with the BA.2.86 subvariant, including 1615 JN.1 infections. Participants infected with BA.2.86 had 1·52 (95% CI 1·25-1·86) times the odds, and those infected with JN.1 had 1·60 (1·27-2·02) times the odds, of having received the XBB.1.5 vaccine at least 7 days before their infection compared with participants infected with a non-BA.2.86 variant. The severity analysis showed no evidence of association between the infecting variant and the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation (odds ratio 1·04 [95% CI 0·86-1·26] for BA.2.86 and 1·07 [0·85-1·34] for JN.1). Similarly, there was no evidence of differences in self-reported symptoms by variant strain.

Interpretation: Compared with other SARS-CoV-2 variants, BA.2.86 and the JN.1 sublineage were less sensitive to vaccine-induced