Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of BCG re-vaccination in relation to COVID-19 morbidity in healthcare workers: A double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

BCG vaccination prevents severe childhood tuberculosis (TB) and was introduced in South Africa in the 1950s. It is hypothesised that BCG trains the innate immune system by inducing epigenetic and functional reprogramming, thus providing non-specific protection from respiratory tract infections. We evaluated BCG for reduction of morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19 in healthcare workers in South Africa.

Methods

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial recruited healthcare workers at three facilities in the Western Cape, South Africa, unless unwell, pregnant, breastfeeding, immunocompromised, hypersensitivity to BCG, or undergoing experimental COVID-19 treatment. Participants received BCG or saline intradermally (1:1) and were contacted once every 4 weeks for 1 year. COVID-19 testing was guided by symptoms. Hospitalisation, COVID-19, and respiratory tract infections were assessed with Cox proportional hazard modelling and time-to-event analyses, and event severity with post hoc Markovian analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04379336.

Findings

Between May 4 and Oct 23, 2020, we enrolled 1000 healthcare workers with a median age of 39 years (IQR 30-49), 70·4% were female, 16·5% nurses, 14·4% medical doctors, 48·5% had latent TB, and 15·3% had evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Hospitalisation due to COVID-19 occurred in 15 participants (1·5%); ten (66·7%) in the BCG group and five (33·3%) in the placebo group, hazard ratio (HR) 2·0 (95% CI 0·69-5·9, p = 0·20), indicating no statistically significant protection. Similarly, BCG had no statistically significant effect on COVID-19 (p = 0·63, HR = 1·08, 95% CI 0·82-1·42). Two participants (0·2%) died from COVID-19 and two (0·2%) from other reasons, all in the placebo group.

Interpretation

BCG did not protect healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2 infection or related severe COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation.

Funding

Funding provided by EDCTP, grant number RIA2020EF-2968. Additional funding provided by private donors including: Mediclinic, Calavera Capital (Pty) Ltd, Thys Du Toit, Louis Stassen, The Ryan Foundation, and Dream World Investments 401 (Pty) Ltd. The computations were enabled by resources in project SNIC 2020-5-524 provided by the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) at UPPMAX, partially funded by the Swedish Research Council through grant agreement No. 2018-05,973.

SUBMITTER: Upton CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9098089 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA large, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of repeat BCG found 49% efficacy against leprosy but no protection against tuberculosis after 6-9 years' follow-up in 1995. We report here additional follow-up, which resulted in greatly increased tuberculosis case numbers, and allowed subgroup analysis.MethodsNearly 47 000 individuals of all ages living in northern Malawi with a BCG vaccine scar were randomly assigned (1:1) between 1986 and 1989 to receive a second BCG or placebo. The investigators and project staff remained masked to all interventions. Enhanced passive surveillance ensured ascertainment of tuberculosis and leprosy to the end of 2018. Tuberculosis case definitions included rigorous microbiological or histological confirmation. Prespecified subgroup analyses were by tuberculosis type, age at vaccination, time since vaccination, previous tuberculin reactivity, HIV status and Mycobacterium tuberculosis lineage. The original trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11311670.FindingsIn follow-up until Dec 31, 2018, 824 participants had developed tuberculosis, including 786 with pulmonary disease, of whom 383 (63%) of 607 with known HIV status were HIV positive. There was no effect of a second BCG overall (odds ratio [OR] 0·92; 95% CI 0·80-1·05), or for pulmonary (0·93; 0·81-1·07), or lymph node tuberculosis (0·60; 0·31-1·17). The OR was lower for those with known HIV-negative tuberculosis (0·77; 0·59-1·00), for those vaccinated as children (aged <5 years, 0·74; 0·41-1·35; aged 5-14 years, 0·77; 0·60-0·99), and for cases arising at least 20 years after vaccination (0·79; 0·63-1·01). There were no differences by tuberculin status at vaccination, or lineage. There was no evidence of protection against leprosy beyond 10 years after vaccination (although there have been only nine diagnostically certain cases since 1995).InterpretationThere was no evidence that repeat BCG vaccination provides appreciable protection against overall tuberculosis in this rural African population with a high prevalence of HIV. Subgroup effects should not be overinterpreted given the multiple analyses done. However, the evidence for modest protection against HIV-negative tuberculosis, and for a delayed benefit in those vaccinated as children, is consistent with other observations in the literature.FundingLEPRA, Wellcome Trust, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Project description:Background: The coronavirus pneumonia is still spreading around the world. Much progress has been made in vaccine development, and vaccination will become an inevitable trend in the fight against this pandemic. However, the public acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination still remains uncertain. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was used in Wen Juan Xing survey platform. All the respondents were divided into healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the key sociodemographic, cognitive, and attitude associations among the samples of healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Results: A total of 2,580 respondents completed the questionnaire, including 1,329 healthcare workers and 1,251 non-healthcare workers. This study showed that 76.98% of healthcare workers accepted the COVID-19 vaccine, 18.28% workers were hesitant, and 4.74% workers were resistant. Among the non-healthcare workers, 56.19% workers received the COVID-19 vaccine, 37.57% workers were hesitant, and 6.24% workers were resistant. Among the healthcare workers, compared with vaccine recipients, vaccine-hesitant individuals were more likely to be female (AOR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.12-2.07); vaccine-resistant individuals were more likely to live in the suburbs (AOR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.44-3.99) with an income of 10,000 RMB or greater (AOR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.03-3.90). Among the non-healthcare workers, vaccine-hesitant individuals were more likely to be female (AOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.31-2.11); vaccine-resistant individuals were also more likely to be female (AOR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.16-3.02) and older than 65 years (AOR = 4.96, 95% CI: 1.40-7.62). There are great differences between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers in their cognition and attitude toward vaccines. Conclusions: Our study shows that healthcare workers are more willing to be vaccinated than non-healthcare workers. Current vaccine safety issues continue to be a major factor affecting public acceptance, and to expand vaccine coverage in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, appropriate vaccination strategies and immunization programs are essential, especially for non-healthcare workers.