Immunogenicity of a third dose with mRNA-vaccines in the ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 vaccination regimen against SARS-CoV-2 variants.

CombiVacS study has demonstrated a strong immune response of the heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 vaccine combination. The primary outcomes of the study were to assess the humoral immune response against SARS-CoV-2, 28 days after a third dose of a mRNA vaccine, in subjects that received a previous prime-boost scheme with ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2. Secondary outcomes extended the study to 3 and 6 months. The third vaccine dose of mRNA-1273 in naive participants previously vaccinated with ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 regimen reached higher neutralizing antibodies titers against the variants of concern Delta and BA.1 lineage of Omicron compared with those receiving a third dose of BNT162b2 at day 28. These differences between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 arms were observed against the ancestral variant G614 at day 90. Suboptimal neutralizing response was observed against BQ.1.1, XBB.1.5/XBB.1.9, and JN.1 in a relevant proportion of individuals 180 days after the third dose, even after asymptomatic Omicron breakthrough infections. EudraCT (2021-001978-37); ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739).

Supporting Pharmacovigilance Signal Validation and Prioritization with Analyses of Routinely Collected Health Data: Lessons Learned from an EHDEN Network Study.

INTRODUCTION: Individual case reports are the main asset in pharmacovigilance signal management. Signal validation is the first stage after signal detection and aims to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify further assessment. Throughout signal management, a prioritization of signals is continually made. Routinely collected health data can provide relevant contextual information but are primarily used at a later stage in pharmacoepidemiological studies to assess communicated signals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility and utility of analysing routine health data from a multinational distributed network to support signal validation and prioritization and to reflect on key user requirements for these analyses to become an integral part of this process. METHODS: Statistical signal detection was performed in VigiBase, the WHO global database of individual case safety reports, targeting generic manufacturer drugs and 16 prespecified adverse events. During a 5-day study-a-thon, signal validation and prioritization were performed using information from VigiBase, regulatory documents and the scientific literature alongside descriptive analyses of routine health data from 10 partners of the European Health Data and Evidence Network (EHDEN). Databases included in the study were from the UK, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands and Serbia, capturing records from primary care and/or hospitals. RESULTS: Ninety-five statistical signals were subjected to signal validation, of which eight were considered for descriptive analyses in the routine health data. Design, execution and interpretation of results from these analyses took up to a few hours for each signal (of which 15-60 minutes were for execution) and informed decisions for five out of eight signals. The impact of insights from the routine health data varied and included possible alternative explanations, potential public health and clinical impact and feasibility of follow-up pharmacoepidemiological studies. Three signals were selected for signal assessment, two of these decisions were supported by insights from the routine health data. Standardization of analytical code, availability of adverse event phenotypes including bridges between different source vocabularies, and governance around the access and use of routine health data were identified as important aspects for future development. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of routine health data from a distributed network to support signal validation and prioritization are feasible in the given time limits and can inform decision making. The cost-benefit of integrating these analyses at this stage of signal management requires further research.

TransFAIR study: a European multicentre experimental comparison of EHR2EDC technology to the usual manual method for eCRF data collection.

PURPOSE: Regulatory authorities including the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency are encouraging to conduct clinical trials using routinely collected data. The aim of the TransFAIR experimental comparison was to evaluate, within real-life conditions, the ability of the Electronic Health Records to Electronic Data Capture (EHR2EDC) module to accurately transfer from EHRs to EDC systems patients' data of clinical studies in various therapeutic areas. METHODS: A prospective study including six clinical trials from three different sponsors running in three hospitals across Europe has been conducted. The same data from the six studies were collected using both traditional manual data entry and the EHR2EDC module. The outcome variable was the percentage of data accurately transferred using the EHR2EDC technology. This percentage was calculated considering all collected data and the data in four domains: demographics (DM), vital signs (VS), laboratories (LB) and concomitant medications (CM). RESULTS: Overall, 6143 data points (39.6% of the data in the scope of the TransFAIR study and 16.9% when considering all data) were accurately transferred using the platform. LB data represented 65.4% of the data transferred; VS data, 30.8%; DM data, 0.7% and CM data, 3.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The objective of accurately transferring at least 15% of the manually entered trial datapoints using the EHR2EDC module was achieved. Collaboration and codesign by hospitals, industry, technology company, supported by the Institute of Innovation through Health Data was a success factor in accomplishing these results. Further work should focus on the harmonisation of data standards and improved interoperability to extend the scope of transferable EHR data.

Contextualising adverse events of special interest to characterise the baseline incidence rates in 24 million patients with COVID-19 across 26 databases: a multinational retrospective cohort study.

Background: Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population. Methods: A multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases. Findings: Substantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism. Interpretation: Our findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term. Funding: None.

No changes in hemostasis after COVID-19-heterologous vaccination schedule: A subanalysis of the phase 2 CombiVacS study.

Background: Several cases of unusual thrombotic events and thrombocytopenia were described after vaccination with recombinant adenoviral vectors encoding the spike protein antigen of SARS-CoV-2. Objectives: The objective of this study was to elucidate the impact of a COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedule, including priming with adenovirus vaccine, on hemostasis profiles. Methods: The present study is a subanalysis of the CombiVacS clinical trial initiated in April 2021 that included adult participants previously vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S. Between 8 and 12 weeks after vaccination, they were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 vaccine (intervention group, n = 99) or continue observation (control group, n = 50). Samples drawn before and 28 days after a vaccination with BNT162b2 were analyzed for platelet count and markers of hemostasis (D-dimer, anti-PF4 antibodies, cfDNA, PAI-1, thrombin generation, and serum capacity to activate platelets). Results: Platelet count from all participants after receiving BNT162b2 was within the normal range. Anti-PF4 antibodies were present in 26% and 18% of the subjects from the control and intervention groups, respectively, at day 28. In most cases, the levels of anti-PF4 antibodies were high before receiving BNT162b2. Serum from these participants did not activate platelets from healthy controls. There were no differences between the groups in PAI-1 and cfDNA plasma levels. According to the D-dimer plasma concentration, the thrombin generation test showed that none of the participants had a procoagulant profile. Conclusion: Our data suggest that the heterologous vaccination against COVID-19 with ChAdOx1-S and a second dose with BNT162b2 might be safe in terms of haemostasis.

Immunogenic dynamics and SARS-CoV-2 variant neutralisation of the heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 vaccination: Secondary analysis of the randomised CombiVacS study.

Background: The CombiVacS study was designed to assess immunogenicity and reactogenicity of the heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2 combination, and 14-day results showed a strong immune response. The present secondary analysis addresses the evolution of humoral and cellular response up to day 180. Methods: Between April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 adults primed with ChAdOx1-S were enrolled in five hospitals in Spain, and randomised to receive BNT162b2 as second dose (interventional group [IG]) or no vaccine (control group [CG]). Individuals from CG received BNT162b2 as second dose and also on day 28, as planned based on favourable results on day 14. Humoral immunogenicity, measured by immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD), antibody functionality using pseudovirus neutralisation assays for the reference (G614), Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants, as well as cellular immune response using interferon-γ and IL-2 immunoassays were assessed at day 28 after BNT162b2 in both groups, at day 90 (planned only in the interventional group) and at day 180 (laboratory data cut-off on Nov 19, 2021). This study was registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739). Findings: In this secondary analysis, 664 individuals (441 from IG and 223 from CG) were included. At day 28 post vaccine, geometric mean titres (GMT) of RBD antibodies were 5616·91 BAU/mL (95% CI 5296·49-5956·71) in the IG and 7298·22 BAU/mL (6739·41-7903·37) in the CG (p < 0·0001). RBD antibodies titres decreased at day 180 (1142·0 BAU/mL [1048·69-1243·62] and 1836·4 BAU/mL [1621·62-2079·62] in the IG and CG, respectively; p < 0·0001). Neutralising antibodies also waned from day 28 to day 180 in both the IG (1429·01 [1220·37-1673·33] and 198·72 [161·54-244·47], respectively) and the CG (1503·28 [1210·71-1866·54] and 295·57 [209·84-416·33], respectively). The lowest variant-specific response was observed against Omicron-and Beta variants, with low proportion of individuals exhibiting specific neutralising antibody titres (NT50) >1:100 at day 180 (19% and 22%, respectively). Interpretation: Titres of RBD antibodies decay over time, similar to homologous regimes. Our findings suggested that delaying administration of the second dose did not have a detrimental effect after vaccination and may have improved the response obtained. Lower neutralisation was observed against Omicron and Beta variants at day 180. Funding: Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII).

Melatonin in the Prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Workers (MeCOVID): A Randomised Clinical Trial.

We evaluated in this randomised, double-blind clinical trial the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Healthcare workers fulfilling inclusion criteria were recruited in five hospitals in Spain and were randomised 1:1 to receive melatonin 2 mg administered orally for 12 weeks or placebo. The main outcome was the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. A total of 344 volunteers were screened, and 314 were randomised: 151 to placebo and 163 to melatonin; 308 received the study treatment (148 placebo; 160 melatonin). We detected 13 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 2.6% in the placebo arm and 5.5% in the melatonin arm (p = 0.200). A total of 294 adverse events were detected in 127 participants (139 in placebo; 155 in melatonin). We found a statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse events related to treatment: 43 in the placebo arm and 67 in the melatonin arm (p = 0.040), and in the number of participants suffering from somnolence related to treatment: 8.8% (n = 14) in the melatonin versus 1.4% (n = 2) in the placebo arm (p = 0.008). No severe adverse events related to treatment were reported. We cannot confirm our hypothesis that administration of melatonin prevents the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers.

Predictive Power of the "Trigger Tool" for the detection of adverse events in general surgery: a multicenter observational validation study.

BACKGROUND: In spite of the global implementation of standardized surgical safety checklists and evidence-based practices, general surgery remains associated with a high residual risk of preventable perioperative complications and adverse events. This study was designed to validate the hypothesis that a new "Trigger Tool" represents a sensitive predictor of adverse events in general surgery. METHODS: An observational multicenter validation study was performed among 31 hospitals in Spain. The previously described "Trigger Tool" based on 40 specific triggers was applied to validate the predictive power of predicting adverse events in the perioperative care of surgical patients. A prediction model was used by means of a binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of adverse events among a total of 1,132 surgical cases included in this study was 31.53%. The "Trigger Tool" had a sensitivity and specificity of 86.27% and 79.55% respectively for predicting these adverse events. A total of 12 selected triggers of overall 40 triggers were identified for optimizing the predictive power of the "Trigger Tool". CONCLUSIONS: The "Trigger Tool" has a high predictive capacity for predicting adverse events in surgical procedures. We recommend a revision of the original 40 triggers to 12 selected triggers to optimize the predictive power of this tool, which will have to be validated in future studies.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 booster in ChAdOx1-S-primed participants (CombiVacS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: To date, no immunological data on COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedules in humans have been reported. We assessed the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech, Mainz, Germany) administered as second dose in participants primed with ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria, AstraZeneca, Oxford, UK). METHODS: We did a phase 2, open-label, randomised, controlled trial on adults aged 18-60 years, vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S 8-12 weeks before screening, and no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 (0·3 mL) via a single intramuscular injection (intervention group) or continue observation (control group). The primary outcome was 14-day immunogenicity, measured by immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike protein and receptor binding domain (RBD). Antibody functionality was assessed using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay, and cellular immune response using an interferon-γ immunoassay. The safety outcome was 7-day reactogenicity, measured as solicited local and systemic adverse events. The primary analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 and who had at least one efficacy evaluation after baseline. The safety analysis included all participants who received BNT162b2. This study is registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739), and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 individuals were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=450) or control group (n=226) at five university hospitals in Spain (mean age 44 years [SD 9]; 382 [57%] women and 294 [43%] men). 663 (98%) participants (n=441 intervention, n=222 control) completed the study up to day 14. In the intervention group, geometric mean titres of RBD antibodies increased from 71·46 BAU/mL (95% CI 59·84-85·33) at baseline to 7756·68 BAU/mL (7371·53-8161·96) at day 14 (p<0·0001). IgG against trimeric spike protein increased from 98·40 BAU/mL (95% CI 85·69-112·99) to 3684·87 BAU/mL (3429·87-3958·83). The interventional:control ratio was 77·69 (95% CI 59·57-101·32) for RBD protein and 36·41 (29·31-45·23) for trimeric spike protein IgG. Reactions were mild (n=1210 [68%]) or moderate (n=530 [30%]), with injection site pain (n=395 [88%]), induration (n=159 [35%]), headache (n=199 [44%]), and myalgia (n=194 [43%]) the most commonly reported adverse events. No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: BNT162b2 given as a second dose in individuals prime vaccinated with ChAdOx1-S induced a robust immune response, with an acceptable and manageable reactogenicity profile. FUNDING: Instituto de Salud Carlos III. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.