1.
Efficacy of the adjuvanted subunit protein COVID-19 vaccine, SCB-2019: a phase 2 and 3 multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.
Bravo, L, Smolenov, I, Han, HH, Li, P, Hosain, R, Rockhold, F, Clemens, SAC, Roa, C, Borja-Tabora, C, Quinsaat, A, et al
Lancet (London, England). 2022;(10323):461-472
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND A range of safe and effective vaccines against SARS CoV 2 are needed to address the COVID 19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine SCB-2019. METHODS This ongoing phase 2 and 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done in adults aged 18 years and older who were in good health or with a stable chronic health condition, at 31 sites in five countries (Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Philippines, and South Africa). The participants were randomly assigned 1:1 using a centralised internet randomisation system to receive two 0·5 mL intramuscular doses of SCB-2019 (30 μg, adjuvanted with 1·50 mg CpG-1018 and 0·75 mg alum) or placebo (0·9% sodium chloride for injection supplied in 10 mL ampoules) 21 days apart. All study staff and participants were masked, but vaccine administrators were not. Primary endpoints were vaccine efficacy, measured by RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 of any severity with onset from 14 days after the second dose in baseline SARS-CoV-2 seronegative participants (the per-protocol population), and the safety and solicited local and systemic adverse events in the phase 2 subset. This study is registered on EudraCT (2020-004272-17) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04672395). FINDINGS 30 174 participants were enrolled from March 24, 2021, until the cutoff date of Aug 10, 2021, of whom 30 128 received their first assigned vaccine (n=15 064) or a placebo injection (n=15 064). The per-protocol population consisted of 12 355 baseline SARS-CoV-2-naive participants (6251 vaccinees and 6104 placebo recipients). Most exclusions (13 389 [44·4%]) were because of seropositivity at baseline. There were 207 confirmed per-protocol cases of COVID-19 at 14 days after the second dose, 52 vaccinees versus 155 placebo recipients, and an overall vaccine efficacy against any severity COVID-19 of 67·2% (95·72% CI 54·3-76·8), 83·7% (97·86% CI 55·9-95·4) against moderate-to-severe COVID-19, and 100% (97·86% CI 25·3-100·0) against severe COVID-19. All COVID-19 cases were due to virus variants; vaccine efficacy against any severity COVID-19 due to the three predominant variants was 78·7% (95% CI 57·3-90·4) for delta, 91·8% (44·9-99·8) for gamma, and 58·6% (13·3-81·5) for mu. No safety issues emerged in the follow-up period for the efficacy analysis (median of 82 days [IQR 63-103]). The vaccine elicited higher rates of mainly mild-to-moderate injection site pain than the placebo after the first (35·7% [287 of 803] vs 10·3% [81 of 786]) and second (26·9% [189 of 702] vs 7·4% [52 of 699]) doses, but the rates of other solicited local and systemic adverse events were similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION Two doses of SCB-2019 vaccine plus CpG and alum provides notable protection against the entire severity spectrum of COVID-19 caused by circulating SAR-CoV-2 viruses, including the predominating delta variant. FUNDING Clover Biopharmaceuticals and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.
2.
Breakfast replacement with a low-glycaemic response liquid formula in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised clinical trial.
Stenvers, DJ, Schouten, LJ, Jurgens, J, Endert, E, Kalsbeek, A, Fliers, E, Bisschop, PH
The British journal of nutrition. 2014;(4):504-12
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Low-glycaemic index diets reduce glycated Hb (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes, but require intensive dietary support. Using a liquid meal replacement with a low glycaemic response (GR) may be an alternative dietary approach. In the present study, we investigated whether breakfast replacement with a low-GR liquid meal would reduce postprandial glycaemia and/or improve long-term glycaemia. In the present randomised, controlled, cross-over design, twenty patients with type 2 diabetes consumed either a breakfast replacement consisting of an isoenergetic amount of Glucerna SR or a free-choice breakfast for 3 months. Postprandial AUC levels were measured using continuous glucose measurement at home. After the 3-month dietary period, meal profiles and oral glucose tolerance were assessed in the clinical setting. The low-GR liquid meal replacement reduced the AUC of postprandial glucose excursions at home compared with a free-choice control breakfast (estimated marginal mean 141 (95 % CI 114, 174) v. estimated marginal mean 259 (95 % CI 211, 318) mmol × min/l; P= 0·0002). The low-GR liquid meal replacement also reduced glucose AUC levels in the clinical setting compared with an isoenergetic control breakfast (low GR: median 97 (interquartile range (IQR) 60-188) mmol × min/l; control: median 253 (IQR 162-386) mmol × min/l; P< 0·001). However, the 3-month low-GR liquid meal replacement did not affect fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c or lipid levels, and even slightly reduced oral glucose tolerance. In conclusion, the low-GR liquid meal replacement is a potential dietary approach to reduce postprandial glycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, clinical trials into the effects of replacing multiple meals on long-term glycaemia in poorly controlled patients are required before a low-GR liquid meal replacement can be adopted as a dietary approach to the treatment of type 2 diabetes.