Safety and efficacy of PfSPZ Vaccine against malaria in healthy adults and women anticipating pregnancy in Mali: two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 and 2 trials.

Plasmodium falciparum parasitaemia during pregnancy causes maternal, fetal, and infant mortality. Poor pregnancy outcomes are related to blood-stage parasite sequestration and the ensuing inflammatory response in the placenta, which decreases over successive pregnancies. A radiation-attenuated, non-replicating, whole-organism vaccine based on P falciparum sporozoites (PfSPZ Vaccine) has shown efficacy at preventing infection in African adults. Here, we aimed to examine vaccine safety and efficacy of the PfSPZ Vaccine in adults and women who anticipated conception. Two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (phase 1 MLSPZV3 and phase 2 MLSPZV4) were conducted at a clinical research centre in Mali. MLSPZV3 included adults aged 18-35 years and MLSPZV4 included non-pregnant women aged 18-38 years who anticipated conception within a year of enrolment. In MLSPZV3, participants were stratified by village and randomly assigned (2:1) using block randomisation to receive three doses of 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine or saline placebo at weeks 0, 1, and 4 (4-week schedule) or at weeks 0, 8, and 16 (16-week schedule) and a booster dose around 1 year later. In MLSPZV4, women received presumptive artemether-lumefantrine twice per day for 3 days 2 weeks before dose one and were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using block randomisation to receive three doses of 9 × 105 or 1·8 × 106 PfSPZ Vaccine or saline placebo all administered at weeks 0, 1, and 4 (4-week schedule). Participants in both studies received artemether-lumefantrine 2 weeks before dose three and additionally 2 weeks before dose four (booster dose) in MLSPZV3. Investigators and participants were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome, assessed in the as-treated population, was PfSPZ Vaccine safety and tolerability within 7 days after each dose. The secondary outcome, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, was vaccine efficacy against P falciparum parasitaemia (defined as the time-to-first positive blood smear) from dose three until the end of transmission season. In exploratory analyses, MLSPZV4 evaluated incidence of maternal obstetric and neonatal outcomes as safety outcomes, and vaccine efficacy against P falciparum parasitaemia during pregnancy (defined as time-to-first positive blood smear post-conception). In MLSPZV4, women were followed at least once a month with human chorionic gonadotropin testing, and those who became pregnant received standard of care (including intermittent presumptive sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine antimalarial drugs after the first trimester) during routine antenatal visits. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03510481 and NCT03989102. Participants were enrolled for vaccination during the onset of malaria seasons for two sequential studies conducted from 2018 to 2019 for MLSPZV3 and from 2019 to 2021 for MLSPZV4, with follow-up during malaria seasons across 2 years. In MLSPZV3, 478 adults were assessed for eligibility, of whom 220 were enrolled between May 30 and June 12, 2018, and then between Aug 13 and Aug 18, 2018, and 210 received dose one. 66 (96%) of 69 participants who received the 16-week schedule and 68 (97%) of 70 who received the 4-week schedule of the 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine and 70 (99%) of 71 who received saline completed all three doses in year 1. In MLSPZV4, 407 women were assessed for eligibility, of whom 324 were enrolled from July 3 to July 27, 2019, and 320 received dose one of presumptive artemether-lumefantrine. 300 women were randomly assigned with 100 per group (PfSPZ Vaccine 9 × 105, 1·8 × 106, or saline) receiving dose one. First trimester miscarriages were the most commonly reported serious adverse event but occurred at a similar rate across study groups (eight [15%] of 54 with 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine, 12 [21%] of 58 with 1·8 × 106 PfSPZ Vaccine, and five [12%] of 43 with saline). One unrelated maternal death occurred 425 days after the last vaccine dose in the 1·8 × 106 PfSPZ Vaccine group due to peritonitis shortly after childbirth. Most related adverse events reported in MLSPZV3 and MLSPZV4 were mild (grade 1) and frequency of adverse events in the PfSPZ Vaccine groups did not differ from that in the saline group. Two unrelated serious adverse events occurred in MLSPZV3 (one participant had appendicitis in the 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine group and the other in the saline group died due to a road traffic accident). In MLSPZV3, the 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine did not show vaccine efficacy against parasitaemia with the 4-week (27% [95% CI -18 to 55] in year 1 and 42% [-5 to 68] in year 2) and 16-week schedules (16% [-34 to 48] in year 1 and -14% [-95 to 33] in year 2); efficacies were similar or worse against clinical malaria compared with saline. In MLSPZV4, the PfSPZ Vaccine showed significant efficacy against parasitaemia at doses 9 × 105 (41% [15 to 59]; p=0·0069 in year 1 and 61% [36 to 77]; p=0·0011 in year 2) and 1·8 × 106 (54% [34 to 69]; p<0·0001 in year 1 and 45% [13 to 65]; p=0·029 in year 2); and against clinical malaria at doses 9 × 105 (47% [20 to 65]; p=0·0045 in year 1 and 56% [22 to 75]; p=0·0081 in year 2) and 1·8 × 106 (48% [22 to 65]; p=0·0013 in year 1 and 40% [2 to 64]; p=0·069 in year 2). Vaccine efficacy against post-conception P falciparum parasitaemia during first pregnancies that arose in the 2-year follow-up was 57% (14 to 78; p=0·017) in the 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine group versus 49% (3 to 73; p=0·042) in the 1·8 × 106 PfSPZ Vaccine group. Among 55 women who became pregnant within 24 weeks after dose three, vaccine efficacy against parasitaemia was 65% (23 to 84; p=0·0088) with the 9 × 105 PfSPZ Vaccine and 86% (64 to 94; p<0·0001) with the 1·8 × 106 PfSPZ Vaccine. When combined in a post-hoc analysis, women in the PfSPZ Vaccine groups had a non-significantly reduced time-to-first pregnancy after dose one compared with those in the saline group (log-rank test p=0·056). Exploratory maternal obstetric and neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly between vaccine groups and saline. PfSPZ Vaccine was safe and well tolerated in adults in Mali. The 9 × 105 and 1·8 × 106 doses of PfSPZ Vaccine administered as per the 4-week schedule, which incorporated presumptive antimalarial treatment before the first vaccine dose, showed significant efficacy against P falciparum parasitaemia and clinical malaria for two malaria transmission seasons in women of childbearing age and against pregnancy malaria. PfSPZ Vaccine without presumptive antimalarial treatment before the first vaccine dose did not show efficacy. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, and Sanaria.

Diawara H ，Healy SA ，Mwakingwe-Omari A ，Issiaka D ，Diallo A ，Traore S ，Soumbounou IH ，Gaoussou S ，Zaidi I ，Mahamar A ，Attaher O ，Fried M ，Wylie BJ ，Mohan R ，Doan V ，Doritchamou JYA ，Dolo A ，Morrison RD ，Wang J ，Hu Z ，Rausch KM ，Zeguime A ，Murshedkar T ，Kc N ，Sim BKL ，Billingsley PF ，Richie TL ，Hoffman SL ，Dicko A ，Duffy PE ，PfSPZ Vaccine Study Team ... -  《-》

Safety and immunogenicity of an AS03-adjuvanted SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) in healthy adults: interim findings from a phase 2, randomised, dose-finding, multicentre study.

We evaluated our SARS-CoV-2 prefusion spike recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) with different adjuvants, unadjuvanted, and in a one-injection and two-injection dosing schedule in a previous phase 1-2 study. Based on interim results from that study, we selected a two-injection schedule and the AS03 adjuvant for further clinical development. However, lower than expected antibody responses, particularly in older adults, and higher than expected reactogenicity after the second vaccination were observed. In the current study, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of an optimised formulation of CoV2 preS dTM adjuvanted with AS03 to inform progression to phase 3 clinical trial. This phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, dose-ranging study was done in adults (≥18 years old), including those with pre-existing medical conditions, those who were immunocompromised (except those with recent organ transplant or chemotherapy) and those with a potentially increased risk for severe COVID-19, at 20 clinical research centres in the USA and Honduras. Women who were pregnant or lactating or, for those of childbearing potential, not using an effective method of contraception or abstinence, and those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine, were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive response technology system, with stratification by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years), rapid serodiagnostic test result (positive or negative), and high-risk medical conditions (yes or no), to receive two injections (day 1 and day 22) of 5 7mu;g (low dose), 10 7mu;g (medium dose), or 15 7mu;g (high dose) CoV2 preS dTM antigen with fixed AS03 content. All participants and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment; unmasked study staff involved in vaccine preparation were not involved in safety outcome assessments. All laboratory staff performing the assays were masked to treatment. The primary safety objective was to describe the safety profile in all participants, for each candidate vaccine formulation. Safety endpoints were evaluated for all randomised participants who received at least one dose of the study vaccine (safety analysis set), and are presented here for the interim study period (up to day 43). The primary immunogenicity objective was to describe the neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant 14 days after the second vaccination (day 36) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naive who received both injections, provided samples at day 1 and day 36, did not have protocol deviations, and did not receive an authorised COVID-19 vaccine before day 36. Neutralising antibodies were measured using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay and are presented here up to 14 days after the second dose. As a secondary immunogenicity objective, we assessed neutralising antibodies in non-naive participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04762680) and is closed to new participants for the cohort reported here. Of 722 participants enrolled and randomly assigned between Feb 24, 2021, and March 8, 2021, 721 received at least one injection (low dose=240, medium dose=239, and high dose=242). The proportion of participants reporting at least one solicited adverse reaction (injection site or systemic) in the first 7 days after any vaccination was similar between treatment groups (217 [91%] of 238 in the low-dose group, 213 [90%] of 237 in the medium-dose group, and 218 [91%] of 239 in the high-dose group); these adverse reactions were transient, were mostly mild to moderate in intensity, and occurred at a higher frequency and intensity after the second vaccination. Four participants reported immediate unsolicited adverse events; two (one each in the low-dose group and medium-dose group) were considered by the investigators to be vaccine related and two (one each in the low-dose and high-dose groups) were considered unrelated. Five participants reported seven vaccine-related medically attended adverse events (two in the low-dose group, one in the medium-dose group, and four in the high-dose group). No vaccine-related serious adverse events and no adverse events of special interest were reported. Among participants naive to SARS-CoV-2 at day 36, 158 (98%) of 162 in the low-dose group, 166 (99%) of 168 in the medium-dose group, and 163 (98%) of 166 in the high-dose group had at least a two-fold increase in neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant from baseline. Neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMTs) at day 36 for participants who were naive were 2189 (95% CI 1744-2746) for the low-dose group, 2269 (1792-2873) for the medium-dose group, and 2895 (2294-3654) for the high-dose group. GMT ratios (day 36: day 1) were 107 (95% CI 85-135) in the low-dose group, 110 (87-140) in the medium-dose group, and 141 (111-179) in the high-dose group. Neutralising antibody titres in non-naive adults 21 days after one injection tended to be higher than titres after two injections in adults who were naive, with GMTs 21 days after one injection for participants who were non-naive being 3143 (95% CI 836-11 815) in the low-dose group, 2338 (593-9226) in the medium-dose group, and 7069 (1361-36 725) in the high-dose group. Two injections of CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 showed acceptable safety and reactogenicity, and robust immunogenicity in adults who were SARS-CoV-2 naive and non-naive. These results supported progression to phase 3 evaluation of the 10 7mu;g antigen dose for primary vaccination and a 5 7mu;g antigen dose for booster vaccination. Sanofi Pasteur and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

Sridhar S ，Joaquin A ，Bonaparte MI ，Bueso A ，Chabanon AL ，Chen A ，Chicz RM ，Diemert D ，Essink BJ ，Fu B ，Grunenberg NA ，Janosczyk H ，Keefer MC ，Rivera M DM ，Meng Y ，Michael NL ，Munsiff SS ，Ogbuagu O ，Raabe VN ，Severance R ，Rivas E ，Romanyak N ，Rouphael NG ，Schuerman L ，Sher LD ，Walsh SR ，White J ，von Barbier D ，de Bruyn G ，Canter R ，Grillet MH ，Keshtkar-Jahromi M ，Koutsoukos M ，Lopez D ，Masotti R ，Mendoza S ，Moreau C ，Ceregido MA ，Ramirez S ，Said A ，Tavares-Da-Silva F ，Shi J ，Tong T ，Treanor J ，Diazgranados CA ，Savarino S ... -  《-》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》

Single low-dose tafenoquine combined with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine to reduce Plasmodium falciparum transmission in Ouelessebougou, Mali: a phase 2, single-blind, randomised clinical trial.

Tafenoquine was recently approved as a prophylaxis and radical cure for Plasmodium vivax infection, but its Plasmodium falciparum transmission-blocking efficacy is unclear. We aimed to establish the efficacy and safety of three single low doses of tafenoquine in combination with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for reducing gametocyte density and transmission to mosquitoes. In this four-arm, single-blind, phase 2, randomised controlled trial, participants were recruited at the Clinical Research Unit of the Malaria Research and Training Centre of the University of Bamako in Mali. Eligible participants were aged 12-50 years, with asymptomatic P falciparum microscopy-detected gametocyte carriage, had a bodyweight of 80 kg or less, and had no clinical signs of malaria defined by fever. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to standard treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus a single dose of tafenoquine (in solution) at a final dosage of 0·42 mg/kg, 0·83 mg/kg, or 1·66 mg/kg. Randomisation was done with a computer-generated randomisation list and concealed with sealed, opaque envelopes. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine was administered as oral tablets over 3 days (day 0, 1, and 2), as per manufacturer instructions. A single dose of tafenoquine was administered as oral solution on day 0 in parallel with the first dose of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. Tafenoquine dosing was based on bodyweight to standardise efficacy and risk variance. The primary endpoint, assessed in the per-protocol population, was median percentage change in mosquito infection rate 7 days after treatment compared with baseline. Safety endpoints included frequency and incidence of adverse events. The final follow-up visit was on Dec 23, 2021; the trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04609098. From Oct 29 to Nov 25, 2020, 1091 individuals were screened for eligibility, 80 of whom were enrolled and randomly assigned (20 per treatment group). Before treatment, 53 (66%) individuals were infectious to mosquitoes, infecting median 12·50% of mosquitoes (IQR 3·64-35·00). Within-group reduction in mosquito infection rate on day 7 was 79·95% (IQR 57·15-100; p=0·0005 for difference from baseline) following dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine only, 100% (98·36-100; p=0·0005) following dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus tafenoquine 0·42 mg/kg, 100% (100-100; p=0·0001) following dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus tafenoquine 0·83 mg/kg, and 100% (100-100; p=0·0001) following dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus tafenoquine 1·66 mg/kg. 55 (69%) of 80 participants had a total of 94 adverse events over the course of the trial; 86 (92%) adverse events were categorised as mild, seven (7%) as moderate, and one (1%) as severe. The most common treatment-related adverse event was mild or moderate headache, which occurred in 15 (19%) participants (dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine n=2; dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus tafenoquine 0·42 mg/kg n=6; dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus tafenoquine 0·83 mg/kg n=3; and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine plus tafenoquine 1·66 mg/kg n=4). No serious adverse events occurred. No significant differences in the incidence of all adverse events (p=0·73) or treatment-related adverse events (p=0·62) were observed between treatment groups. Tafenoquine was well tolerated at all doses and accelerated P falciparum gametocyte clearance. All tafenoquine doses showed improved transmission reduction at day 7 compared with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine alone. These data support the case for further research on tafenoquine as a transmission-blocking supplement to standard antimalarials. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. For the French, Portuguese, Spanish and Swahili translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Stone W ，Mahamar A ，Smit MJ ，Sanogo K ，Sinaba Y ，Niambele SM ，Sacko A ，Keita S ，Dicko OM ，Diallo M ，Maguiraga SO ，Samake S ，Attaher O ，Lanke K ，Ter Heine R ，Bradley J ，McCall MBB ，Issiaka D ，Traore SF ，Bousema T ，Drakeley C ，Dicko A ... -  《Lancet Microbe》

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of LBP-EC01, a CRISPR-Cas3-enhanced bacteriophage cocktail, in uncomplicated urinary tract infections due to Escherichia coli (ELIMINATE): the randomised, open-label, first part of a two-part phase 2 trial.

The rate of antibiotic resistance continues to grow, outpacing small-molecule-drug development efforts. Novel therapies are needed to combat this growing threat, particularly for the treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs), which are one of the largest contributors to antibiotic use and associated antibiotic resistance. LBP-EC01 is a novel, genetically enhanced, six-bacteriophage cocktail developed by Locus Biosciences (Morrisville, NC, USA) to address UTIs caused by Escherichia coli, regardless of antibiotic resistance status. In this first part of the two-part phase 2 ELIMINATE trial, we aimed to define a dosing regimen of LBP-EC01 for the treatment of uncomplicated UTIs that could advance to the second, randomised, controlled, double-blinded portion of the study. This first part of ELIMINATE is a randomised, uncontrolled, open-label, phase 2 trial that took place in six private clinical sites in the USA. Eligible participants were female by self-identification, aged between 18 years and 70 years, and had an uncomplicated UTI at the time of enrolment, as well as a history of at least one drug-resistant UTI caused by E coli within the 12 months before enrolment. Participants were initially randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio into three treatment groups, but this part of the trial was terminated on the recommendation of the safety review committee after a non-serious tolerability signal was observed based on systemic drug exposure. A protocol update was then implemented, comprised of three new treatment groups. Groups A to C were dosed with intraurethral 2 × 1012 plaque-forming units (PFU) of LBP-EC01 on days 1 and 2 by catheter, plus one of three intravenous doses daily on days 1-3 of LBP-EC01 (1 mL of 1 × 1010 PFU intravenous bolus in group A, 1 mL of 1 × 109 PFU intravenous bolus in group B, and a 2 h 1 × 1011 PFU intravenous infusion in 100 mL of sodium lactate solution in group C). In all groups, oral trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX; 160 mg and 800 mg) was given twice daily on days 1-3. The primary outcome was the level of LBP-EC01 in urine and blood across the treatment period and over 48 h after the last dose and was assessed in patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who received at least one dose of LBP-EC01 and had concentration-time data available throughout the days 1-3 dosing period (pharmacokinetic population). Safety, a secondary endpoint, was assessed in enrolled patients who received at least one dose of study drug (safety population). As exploratory pharmacodynamic endpoints, we assessed E coli levels in urine and clinical symptoms of UTI in patients with at least 1·0 × 105 colony-forming units per mL E coli in urine at baseline who took at least one dose of study drug and completed their day 10 test-of-cure assessment (pharmacodynamic-evaluable population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05488340, and is ongoing. Between Aug 22, 2022, and Aug 28, 2023, 44 patients were screened for eligibility, and 39 were randomly assigned (ITT population). Initially, eight participants were assigned to the first three groups. After the protocol was updated, 31 participants were allocated into groups A (11 patients), B (ten patients), and C (ten patients). One patient in group C withdrew consent on day 2 for personal reasons, but as she had received the first dose of the study drug was included in the modified ITT population. Maximum urine drug concentrations were consistent across intraurethral dosing, with a maximum mean concentration of 6·3 × 108 PFU per mL (geometric mean 8·8 log10 PFU per mL and geometric SD [gSD] 0·3). Blood plasma level of bacteriophages was intravenous dose-dependent, with maximum mean concentrations of 4·0 × 103 (geometric mean 3·6 log10 PFU per mL [gSD 1·5]) in group A, 2·5 × 103 (3·4 log10 PFU per mL [1·7]) in group B, and 8·0 × 105 (5·9 log10 PFU per mL [1·4]) in group C. No serious adverse events were observed. 44 adverse events were reported across 18 (46%) of the 39 participants in the safety population, with more adverse events seen with higher intravenous doses. Three patients in groups 1 to 3 and one patient in group C, all of whom received 1 × 1011 LBP-EC01 intravenously, had non-serious tachycardia and afebrile chills after the second intravenous dose. A rapid reduction of E coli in urine was observed by 4 h after the first treatment and maintained at day 10 in all 16 evaluable patients; these individuals had complete resolution of UTI symptoms by day 10. A regimen consisting of 2 days of intraurethral LBP-EC01 and 3 days of concurrent intravenous LBP-EC01 (1 × 1010 PFU) and oral TMP-SMX twice a day was well tolerated, with consistent pharmacokinetic profiles in urine and blood. LBP-EC01 and TMP-SMX dosing resulted in a rapid and durable reduction of E coli, with corresponding elimination of clinical symptoms in evaluable patients. LBP-EC01 holds promise in providing an alternative therapy for uncomplicated UTIs, with further testing of the group A dosing regimen planned in the controlled, double-blind, second part of ELIMINATE. Federal funds from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).

Kim P ，Sanchez AM ，Penke TJR ，Tuson HH ，Kime JC ，McKee RW ，Slone WL ，Conley NR ，McMillan LJ ，Prybol CJ ，Garofolo PM ... -  《-》