Diarrhea is a leading cause of antibiotic consumption among children in low- and middle-income countries. While vaccines may prevent diarrhea infections for which children often receive antibiotics, the contribution of individual enteropathogens to antibiotic use is minimally understood. We used data from the Global Enteric Multicenter Study (GEMS) to estimate pathogen-specific incidence of antibiotic-treated diarrhea among children under five years old residing in six countries of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia before rotavirus vaccine implementation. GEMS was an age-stratified, individually-matched case-control study. Stool specimens were obtained from children presenting to sentinel health clinics with newly-onset, acute diarrhea (including moderate-to-severe and less-severe diarrhea) as well as matched community controls without diarrhea. We used data from conventional and quantitative molecular diagnostic assays applied to stool specimens to estimate the proportion of antibiotic-treated diarrhea cases attributable to each pathogen. Antibiotics were administered or prescribed to 9,606 of 12,109 moderate-to-severe cases and 1,844 of 3,174 less-severe cases. Across all sites, incidence rates of clinically-attended, antibiotic-treated diarrhea were 12.2 (95% confidence interval: 9.0-17.8), 10.2 (7.4-13.9) and 1.9 (1.3-3.0) episodes per 100 child-years at risk at ages 6 weeks to 11 months, 12-23 months, and 24-59 months, respectively. Based on the recommendation for antibiotic treatment to be reserved for cases with dysentery, we estimated a ratio of 12.6 (8.6-20.8) inappropriately-treated diarrhea cases for each appropriately-treated case. Rotavirus, adenovirus serotypes 40/41, Shigella, sapovirus, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, and Cryptosporidium were the leading antibiotic-treated diarrhea etiologies. Rotavirus caused 29.2% (24.5-35.2%) of antibiotic-treated cases, including the largest share in both the first and second years of life. Shigella caused 14.9% (11.4-18.9%) of antibiotic-treated cases, and was the leading etiology at ages 24-59 months. Our findings should inform the prioritization of vaccines with the greatest potential to reduce antibiotic exposure among children.

Questions remain regarding the effect of baseline host and exposure factors on vaccine efficacy (VE) across pathogens and vaccine platforms. We report placebo-controlled data from four Phase 3 COVID-19 trials during the early period of the pandemic. This was a cross-protocol analysis of four randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy trials (Moderna/mRNA1273, AstraZeneca/AZD1222, Janssen/Ad26.COV2.S, and Novavax/NVX-CoV2373) using a harmonized design. Trials were conducted in the United States and international sites in adults ≥ 18 years of age. VE was assessed for symptomatic and severe COVID-19. We analyzed 114,480 participants from both placebo and vaccine arms, enrolled July 2020 to February 2021, with follow up through July 2021. VE against symptomatic COVID-19 showed little heterogeneity across baseline socio-demographic, clinical or exposure characteristics, in either univariate or multivariate analysis, regardless of vaccine platform. Similarly, VE against severe COVID-19 in the single trial (Janssen) with sufficient endpoints for analysis showed little evidence of heterogeneity. COVID-19 VE is not influenced by baseline host or exposure characteristics across efficacy trials of different vaccine platforms and countries when well matched to circulating virus strains. This supports use of these vaccines, regardless of platform type, as effective tools in the near term for reducing symptomatic and severe COVID-19, particularly for older individuals and those with common co-morbidities during major variant shifts. Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT04470427, NCT04516746, NCT04505722, and NCT04611802.

Background

NVX-CoV2373 is an adjuvanted, recombinant spike protein nanoparticle vaccine that was shown to have clinical efficacy for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in phase 2b-3 trials in the United Kingdom and South Africa, but its efficacy had not yet been tested in North America.

Methods

We conducted a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United States and Mexico during the first half of 2021 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NVX-CoV2373 in adults (≥18 years of age) who had not had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive two doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo 21 days apart. The primary objective was to determine vaccine efficacy against reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction-confirmed Covid-19 occurring at least 7 days after the second dose. Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe disease and against different variants was also assessed.

Results

Of the 29,949 participants who underwent randomization between December 27, 2020, and February 18, 2021, a total of 29,582 (median age, 47 years; 12.6% ≥65 years of age) received at least one dose: 19,714 received vaccine and 9868 placebo. Over a period of 3 months, 77 cases of Covid-19 were noted - 14 among vaccine recipients and 63 among placebo recipients (vaccine efficacy, 90.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 82.9 to 94.6; P<0.001). Ten moderate and 4 severe cases occurred, all in placebo recipients, yielding vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe disease of 100% (95% CI, 87.0 to 100). Most sequenced viral genomes (48 of 61, 79%) were variants of concern or interest - largely B.1.1.7 (alpha) (31 of the 35 genomes for variants of concern, 89%). Vaccine efficacy against any variant of concern or interest was 92.6% (95% CI, 83.6 to 96.7). Reactogenicity was mostly mild to moderate and transient but was more frequent among NVX-CoV2373 recipients than among placebo recipients and was more frequent after the second dose than after the first dose.

Conclusions

NVX-CoV2373 was safe and effective for the prevention of Covid-19. Most breakthrough cases were caused by contemporary variant strains. (Funded by Novavax and others; PREVENT-19 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04611802.).

We urgently need answers to basic epidemiological questions regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant and postpartum women and its effect on their newborns. While many national registries, health facilities, and research groups are collecting relevant data, we need a collaborative and methodologically rigorous approach to better combine these data and address knowledge gaps, especially those related to rare outcomes. We propose that using a sequential, prospective meta-analysis (PMA) is the best approach to generate data for policy- and practice-oriented guidelines. As the pandemic evolves, additional studies identified retrospectively by the steering committee or through living systematic reviews will be invited to participate in this PMA. Investigators can contribute to the PMA by either submitting individual patient data or running standardized code to generate aggregate data estimates. For the primary analysis, we will pool data using two-stage meta-analysis methods. The meta-analyses will be updated as additional data accrue in each contributing study and as additional studies meet study-specific time or data accrual thresholds for sharing. At the time of publication, investigators of 25 studies, including more than 76,000 pregnancies, in 41 countries had agreed to share data for this analysis. Among the included studies, 12 have a contemporaneous comparison group of pregnancies without COVID-19, and four studies include a comparison group of non-pregnant women of reproductive age with COVID-19. Protocols and updates will be maintained publicly. Results will be shared with key stakeholders, including the World Health Organization (WHO) Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent Health (MNCAH) Research Working Group. Data contributors will share results with local stakeholders. Scientific publications will be published in open-access journals on an ongoing basis.

Introduction

Despite a growing body of research on the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy, there is continued controversy given heterogeneity in the quality and design of published studies.

Methods

We screened ongoing studies in our sequential, prospective meta-analysis. We pooled individual participant data to estimate the absolute and relative risk (RR) of adverse outcomes among pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with confirmed negative pregnancies. We evaluated the risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

We screened 137 studies and included 12 studies in 12 countries involving 13 136 pregnant women.Pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection-as compared with uninfected pregnant women-were at significantly increased risk of maternal mortality (10 studies; n=1490; RR 7.68, 95% CI 1.70 to 34.61); admission to intensive care unit (8 studies; n=6660; RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.03 to 7.17); receiving mechanical ventilation (7 studies; n=4887; RR 15.23, 95% CI 4.32 to 53.71); receiving any critical care (7 studies; n=4735; RR 5.48, 95% CI 2.57 to 11.72); and being diagnosed with pneumonia (6 studies; n=4573; RR 23.46, 95% CI 3.03 to 181.39) and thromboembolic disease (8 studies; n=5146; RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 27.12).Neonates born to women with SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to be admitted to a neonatal care unit after birth (7 studies; n=7637; RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.08); be born preterm (7 studies; n=6233; RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.29) or moderately preterm (7 studies; n=6071; RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.88 to 4.54); and to be born low birth weight (12 studies; n=11 930; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40). Infection was not linked to stillbirth. Studies were generally at low or moderate risk of bias.

Conclusions

This analysis indicates that SARS-CoV-2 infection at any time during pregnancy increases the risk of maternal death, severe maternal morbidities and neonatal morbidity, but not stillbirth or intrauterine growth restriction. As more data become available, we will update these findings per the published protocol.

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.