Multivariate Cluster Analyses to Characterize Asthma Heterogeneity and Benralizumab Responsiveness.

BACKGROUND: An improved understanding of how severe asthma heterogeneity affects response could inform treatment decisions. OBJECTIVES: Characterize heterogeneity and benralizumab responsiveness in patients grouped by predefined Severe Asthma Research Program clusters using a multivariate approach. METHODS: In post-hoc analyses of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III SIROCCO (NCT01928771) and CALIMA (NCT01914757) studies, patients with severe asthma who received benralizumab or placebo were assigned to clusters using an established discriminant function to simultaneously analyze 11 clinical characteristics. Annualized asthma exacerbation rate, exacerbation incidence, and lung function were analyzed across clusters. RESULTS: Patients (N = 2,281) met criteria for 4 of 5 clusters: Cluster 2 (early-onset moderate asthma, n = 393), Cluster 4 (early-onset severe, n = 386), Cluster 3 (late-onset severe, n = 641), and Cluster 5 (late-onset severe, obstructed, n = 861); no patients met Cluster 1 criteria. Exacerbation rate reductions were significant in late-onset severe (-48% [95% CI: -61%, -31%], P<.0001) and late-onset severe, obstructed asthma (-50% [95% CI: -59%, -38%], P<.0001), with non-significant reductions in early-onset clusters. These differences could not be fully explained by blood eosinophil count differences. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second improvements were significant in late-onset severe (+133 mL [95% CI: 66 mL, 200 mL], P=.0001) and late-onset severe, obstructed asthma (+160 mL [95% CI: 85 mL, 235 mL], P<.0001) while maintaining acute bronchodilator responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Benralizumab reduced exacerbations and improved lung function, primarily in late-onset asthma clusters. This multivariate approach to identify subphenotypes, potentially reflecting pathobiological mechanisms, can guide therapy beyond univariate approaches.

Estimating vaccine efficacy during open-label follow-up of COVID-19 vaccine trials based on population-level surveillance data.

While rapid development and roll out of COVID-19 vaccines is necessary in a pandemic, the process limits the ability of clinical trials to assess longer-term vaccine efficacy. We leveraged COVID-19 surveillance data in the U.S. to evaluate vaccine efficacy in U.S. Government-funded COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with a three-step estimation process. First, we used a compartmental epidemiological model informed by county-level surveillance data, a "population model", to estimate SARS-CoV-2 incidence among the unvaccinated. Second, a "cohort model" was used to adjust the population SARS-CoV-2 incidence to the vaccine trial cohort, taking into account individual participant characteristics and the difference between SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease. Third, we fit a regression model estimating the offset between the cohort-model-based COVID-19 incidence in the unvaccinated with the placebo-group COVID-19 incidence in the trial during blinded follow-up. Counterfactual placebo COVID-19 incidence was estimated during open-label follow-up by adjusting the cohort-model-based incidence rate by the estimated offset. Vaccine efficacy during open-label follow-up was estimated by contrasting the vaccine group COVID-19 incidence with the counterfactual placebo COVID-19 incidence. We documented good performance of the methodology in a simulation study. We also applied the methodology to estimate vaccine efficacy for the two-dose AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine using data from the phase 3 U.S. trial (ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT04516746). We estimated AZD1222 vaccine efficacy of 59.1% (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 40.4%-74.3%) in April, 2021 (mean 106 days post-second dose), which reduced to 35.7% (95% UI: 15.0%-51.7%) in July, 2021 (mean 198 days post-second-dose). We developed and evaluated a methodology for estimating longer-term vaccine efficacy. This methodology could be applied to estimating counterfactual placebo incidence for future placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy trials of emerging pathogens with early termination of blinded follow-up, to active-controlled or uncontrolled COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials, and to other clinical endpoints influenced by vaccination.

COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in participants with weakened immune systems from four randomized-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Although the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are highly efficacious at preventing severe disease in the general population, current data are lacking regarding vaccine efficacy (VE) for individuals with mild immunocompromising conditions. METHODS: A post-hoc, cross-protocol analysis of participant-level data from the blinded phase of four randomized, placebo-controlled, COVID-19 vaccine phase 3 trials (Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax) was performed. We defined a "tempered immune system" (TIS) variable via a consensus panel based on medical history and medications to determine VE against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 cases in TIS participants versus non-TIS (NTIS) individuals starting at 14 days after completion of the primary series through the blinded phase for each of the four trials. An analysis of participants living with well-controlled HIV was conducted using the same methods. RESULTS: 3,852/30,351 (12.7%) Moderna participants, 3,088/29,868 (10.3%) Novavax participants, 3,549/32,380 (11.0%) AstraZeneca participants, and 5,047/43,788 (11.5%) Janssen participants were identified as having a TIS. Most TIS conditions (73.9%) were due to metabolism and nutritional disorders. Vaccination (versus placebo) significantly reduced the likelihood of symptomatic and severe COVID-19 for all participants for each trial. VE was not significantly different for TIS participants vs NTIS for either symptomatic or severe COVID-19 for each trial, nor was VE significantly different in the symptomatic endpoint for participants with HIV. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with mildly immunocompromising conditions, there is no evidence of differences in VE against symptomatic or severe COVID-19 compared to those with non-tempered immune systems in the four COVID-19 vaccine randomized controlled efficacy trials.

Use of CompEx in eosinophilic patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma on benralizumab.

Background: CompEx Asthma, a composite end-point for asthma exacerbations, captures clinically relevant, diary-based acute worsening events (AWEs) (defined as deterioration in daily peak expiratory flow concurrent with deterioration in asthma symptoms and/or rescue therapy use) and severe exacerbations (SevEx) (defined by American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines). We hypothesised that CompEx and SevEx would show similar benralizumab treatment effects and correlations to blood eosinophil counts in patients with severe asthma. Methods: This post hoc analysis of pooled 12-month data from two phase 3 studies included patients aged ≥16 years with severe, uncontrolled asthma who were randomised to benralizumab 30 mg or placebo. Annualised event rates were analysed using a negative binomial model. The impact of blood eosinophil count on treatment effect was assessed. Results: Among patients with a blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells·µL-1 (n=913), benralizumab reduced the annualised event rate versus placebo for CompEx (1.57 versus 2.57; risk ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.70, p<0.001), SevEx (0.94 versus 1.55; risk ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.70, p<0.001) and AWE (0.92 versus 1.57; risk ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.72, p<0.001), with greater treatment effects observed for higher blood eosinophil counts. In patients with blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells·µL-1, benralizumab was associated with shorter median event duration (CompEx: 10.5 days versus 17.0 days; SevEx: 10.0 days versus 15.0 days; AWE: 5.0 days versus 6.0 days). Conclusions: Benralizumab reduced the risk of CompEx events with treatment effects similar to those for SevEx and AWEs across a range of blood eosinophil counts. Use of CompEx supports the evaluation of benralizumab and other novel drugs in clinical studies.

Clinico-demographic characteristics and outcomes of radiation-induced sarcomas (RIS): a CanSaRCC study.

Background: Radiation-induced sarcomas (RIS) tend to have aggressive behaviour and because of their rarity, the most appropriate management for these malignancies is uncertain. Objectives: Using the Canadian Sarcoma Research and Clinical Collaboration (CanSaRCC) database, a national sarcoma registry, we aimed to investigate prognostic factors and outcomes for RIS. Design: Retrospective study of RIS patients treated from 1996 to 2021 at three Canadian centres. Methods: RIS was defined as a sarcoma arising in a previously irradiated field following a 3+ year latency period, whose histology was distinct from the initially irradiated tumour. Clinicopathologic and treatment-related information was extracted from the CanSaRCC database. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from RIS diagnosis to death from any cause. Response rate (RR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) was based on physician assessment. Time-to-event analyses were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with Cox regression for multivariate analysis. We considered a two-tailed p-value of <0.05 as statistically significant. Results: One hundred seven tumours met the criteria for RIS and were divided into three subgroups: breast angiosarcoma (BAS, n = 54), osteosarcoma (OST, n = 16), and other soft-tissue sarcomas (STS, n = 37). Patients were mostly female (n = 85, 79%), treated initially for breast carcinomas (n = 54, 50.5%), and diagnosed with high-grade tumours (n = 61/71, 86%). None had evidence of synchronous metastasis. Patients with OST were younger (median age: 48 years, p < 0.001), and BAS had the shortest latency interval (8 versus 18 years for OST/STS, p < 0.001). Most patients underwent surgery, 76% (n = 76/100) R0; 24% (n = 26) received radiation therapy, mostly (n = 15, 57.7%) neoadjuvant. Among those receiving chemotherapy, 30 (75%) underwent NACT; among patients with documented response assessment, the RR was 68% (n = 17/25), being even higher in the BAS population (89.5%, n = 13/17). Median OS was 53 months (95% CI 34-101), with a 5-year OS of 47.6%; larger tumour size, high histologic grade and older age were independent prognostic factors for worse OS. Conclusion: Surgery is standard, and NACT might be useful to downsize large lesions, especially in BAS patients. Raising RIS awareness is fundamental to promoting appropriate management and fostering research through multi-institutional collaborations.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Real-World Experience from a Canadian Comprehensive Cancer Centre.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have revolutionized the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ICI in a real-world cSCC population, including patients with conditions that would exclude clinical trial participation. In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, we included all non-trial patients with advanced cSCC treated with ICI between 2017 and 2022. We evaluated investigator-assessed best overall response (BOR) and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). We correlated survival outcomes with age, performance status, immune status and irAEs. Of the 36 patients identified, the best overall response (BOR) to ICI was a partial response (PR) in 41.7%, a complete response (CR) in 27.8%, and stable disease in (SD) 13.9%. The progression-free survival (PFS) rate for 1 year was 58.1%; the median PFS was 21.3 months (95% CI 6.4-NE). The 1-year overall survival (OS) was 76.7%, and the median OS was 38.6 months (95% CI 25.4-NE). Immune-compromised patients, ECOG performance 2-3, and age ≥ 75 years were not significantly associated with PFS or OS. IrAE grades 3-4 were seen in 13.9% of patients. In our Canadian experience with real-world patients, ICI was an effective and safe treatment for advanced cSCC patients. Patients achieved great benefits with ICI regardless of age, immune status or ECOG performance status. We acknowledge the small sample size and retrospective methodology as the main limitations of our study.

Dupilumab as a treatment for cutaneous immune-related adverse events induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors: A case series and review of the literature.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized cancer treatment. They can induce cutaneous immune-related adverse events. One patient with immune-related eczema and two with immune-related bullous pemphigoid were successfully treated with dupilumab. Guidelines recommend the use of systemic steroids to manage moderate-to-severe cutaneous immune-related adverse events. They could potentially interfere with immunotherapy. There is a need to find alternative treatments that are safe in a cancer setting.

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccination.

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.

Clinical and Demographic Factors Associated With COVID-19, Severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adults: A Secondary Cross-Protocol Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Current data identifying COVID-19 risk factors lack standardized outcomes and insufficiently control for confounders. Objective: To identify risk factors associated with COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary cross-protocol analysis included 4 multicenter, international, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with harmonized protocols established by the COVID-19 Prevention Network. Individual-level data from participants randomized to receive placebo within each trial were combined and analyzed. Enrollment began July 2020 and the last data cutoff was in July 2021. Participants included adults in stable health, at risk for SARS-CoV-2, and assigned to the placebo group within each vaccine trial. Data were analyzed from April 2022 to February 2023. Exposures: Comorbid conditions, demographic factors, and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk at the time of enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. Multivariate Cox proportional regression models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs for baseline covariates, accounting for trial, region, and calendar time. Secondary outcomes included severe COVID-19 among people with COVID-19, subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: A total of 57 692 participants (median [range] age, 51 [18-95] years; 11 720 participants [20.3%] aged ≥65 years; 31 058 participants [53.8%] assigned male at birth) were included. The analysis population included 3270 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (5.7%), 7849 Black or African American participants (13.6%), 17 678 Hispanic or Latino participants (30.6%), and 40 745 White participants (70.6%). Annualized incidence was 13.9% (95% CI, 13.3%-14.4%) for COVID-19 and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%) for severe COVID-19. Factors associated with increased rates of COVID-19 included workplace exposure (high vs low: aHR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.58]; medium vs low: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.65]; P < .001) and living condition risk (very high vs low risk: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.66]; medium vs low risk: aHR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.32]; P < .001). Factors associated with decreased rates of COVID-19 included previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.09-0.19]; P < .001), age 65 years or older (aHR vs age <65 years, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.50-0.64]; P < .001) and Black or African American race (aHR vs White race, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.91]; P = .002). Factors associated with increased rates of severe COVID-19 included race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 2.61 [95% CI, 1.85-3.69]; multiracial vs White: aHR, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.50-3.20]; P < .001), diabetes (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-2.08]; P = .005) and at least 2 comorbidities (aHR vs none, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.76]; P = .008). In analyses restricted to participants who contracted COVID-19, increased severe COVID-19 rates were associated with age 65 years or older (aHR vs <65 years, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.32-2.31]; P < .001), race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.38-2.83]; Black or African American vs White: aHR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.03-2.14]; multiracial: aHR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.21-2.69]; overall P = .001), body mass index (aHR per 1-unit increase, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.04]; P = .001), and diabetes (aHR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.37-2.49]; P < .001). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with decreased severe COVID-19 rates (aHR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.01-0.14]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary cross-protocol analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials, exposure and demographic factors had the strongest associations with outcomes; results could inform mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 and viruses with comparable epidemiological characteristics.

Clinical Implications of Longitudinal Blood Eosinophil Counts in Patients With Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: The stability and variability of blood eosinophil counts (BECs) to phenotype patients with severe asthma is not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: This post hoc, longitudinal, pooled analysis of placebo-arm patients from 2 phase 3 studies evaluated the clinical implications of BEC stability and variability in moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: This analysis included patients from SIROCCO and CALIMA who received maintenance medium- to high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting ß2-agonists; 2:1 patients with BECs of 300 cells/µL or higher and less than 300 cells/µL were enrolled. The BECs were measured 6 times over 1 year in a centralized laboratory. Exacerbations, lung function, and Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 scores were documented across patients grouped by BEC (<300 cells/µL or ≥300 cells/µL) and variability (<80% or ≥80% BECs less than or greater than 300 cells/µL). RESULTS: Among 718 patients, 42.2% (n = 303) had predominantly high, 30.9% (n = 222) had predominantly low, and 26.9% (n = 193) had variable BECs. Prospective exacerbation rates (mean ± SD) were significantly greater in patients with predominantly high (1.39 ± 2.20) and variable (1.41 ± 2.09) BECs versus predominantly low (1.05 ± 1.66) BECs. Similar results were observed for the number of exacerbations while on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with variable BECs had intermittently high and low BECs, they experienced similar exacerbation rates to the predominantly high group, which were greater than those in the predominantly low group. A high BEC supports an eosinophilic phenotype in clinical settings without additional measurements, whereas a low BEC requires repeated measurements because it could reflect intermittently high or predominantly low BECs.

Immune correlates analysis of a phase 3 trial of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine.

In the phase 3 trial of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine conducted in the U.S., Chile, and Peru, anti-spike binding IgG concentration (spike IgG) and pseudovirus 50% neutralizing antibody titer (nAb ID50) measured four weeks after two doses were assessed as correlates of risk and protection against PCR-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). These analyses of SARS-CoV-2 negative participants were based on case-cohort sampling of vaccine recipients (33 COVID-19 cases by 4 months post dose two, 463 non-cases). The adjusted hazard ratio of COVID-19 was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.14, 0.76) per 10-fold increase in spike IgG concentration and 0.28 (0.10, 0.77) per 10-fold increase in nAb ID50 titer. At nAb ID50 below the limit of detection (< 2.612 IU50/ml), 10, 100, and 270 IU50/ml, vaccine efficacy was -5.8% (-651%, 75.6%), 64.9% (56.4%, 86.9%), 90.0% (55.8%, 97.6%) and 94.2% (69.4%, 99.1%). These findings provide further evidence towards defining an immune marker correlate of protection to help guide regulatory/approval decisions for COVID-19 vaccines.

Assessing the methodological quality of quality-of-life analyses in first-line non-small cell lung cancer trials: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Non-cytotoxic therapy has changed the treatment paradigm for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. With unique mechanisms of action, these agents have decidedly improved survival and have demonstrated an improved toxicity profile. However, the real-life experience of the patient, which is commonly assessed by health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measurement, is not clearly established with this new generation of lung cancer treatments. The heterogeneity created by specific patient subgroups and different therapeutics calls for a tailored-approach to analyzing patient-reported outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the methodological quality of HRQoL analysis in Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) involving biologic agents to treat NSCLC. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify NSCLC RCTs published between January 1st, 2000 and January 1st, 2020 reporting HRQoL measures. Only RCTs that both enrolled previously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC and had HRQoL analysis were included. RESULTS: 4203 abstracts were screened, of which only 85 RCTs met inclusion and exclusion criteria for analysis. The most applied HRQoL assessment tools were the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (47, 55.3 %), and EORTC-QLQ-LC13 (35, 41.2 %). The median number of verified CONSORT-PRO Extension criteria in the included trials was 3, and only in 10 (11.8 %) trials were all criteria well-documented. Notably, only 21 (24.7 %) RCTs performed subgroup analyses to specifically evaluate HRQoL in different patient populations. CONCLUSION: QoL reporting in clinical trials is inconsistent and the quality of QoL measures adopted in a majority of trials is suboptimal. Considering the fact that NSCLC is a biologically diverse disease and that the treatments differ based on patient and tumor-specifics, efforts should be pursued to tailor QoL measures for different subsets of this patient population in addition to mandating QoL reporting in clinical trials. We believe that this is necessary to understand the real-life experience of lung cancer patients in the era of personalized medicine.

Benralizumab Effectiveness in Severe Asthma Is Independent of Previous Biologic Use.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is an IL-5 receptor alpha-directed cytolytic mAb that depletes eosinophils, reducing exacerbations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, and improves asthma control for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). Data on response in patients previously treated with other biologic therapies are limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe real-world clinical outcomes with benralizumab for patients with and without prior biologic use for uncontrolled SEA. METHODS: This retrospective study compared clinical outcomes before and after benralizumab initiation in adults with uncontrolled SEA with 3 or more asthma exacerbations in the previous 12 months or on maintenance OCS treatment. Outcomes included exacerbations, OCS use, patient-reported outcomes, and health care resource utilization, including emergency department visits and hospitalizations. RESULTS: In all, 208 patients were enrolled, including 90 (43.3%) with previous experience with an alternate biologic for SEA. Benralizumab led to an 81% reduction in exacerbation rate, with 48% of patients with previous exacerbations experiencing none after 48 weeks. Overall, 67% of patients requiring baseline maintenance OCS achieved greater than or equal to 50% reduction in daily OCS dosage, and 53% eliminated maintenance OCS. Clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes were seen, with response at 4 weeks predicting longer-term benefits. Health care resource utilization also decreased. Improvements were observed irrespective of previous biologic experience, fractional exhaled nitric oxide concentrations, atopic status, or other baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter real-world setting, patients with uncontrolled SEA achieved substantial improvements in all clinical outcome measures with benralizumab irrespective of previous biologic use, atopic status, or baseline fractional exhaled nitric oxide concentration.

Correlates of protection against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The global supply of COVID-19 vaccines remains limited. An understanding of the immune response that is predictive of protection could facilitate rapid licensure of new vaccines. Data from a randomized efficacy trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in the United Kingdom was analyzed to determine the antibody levels associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2. Binding and neutralizing antibodies at 28 days after the second dose were measured in infected and noninfected vaccine recipients. Higher levels of all immune markers were correlated with a reduced risk of symptomatic infection. A vaccine efficacy of 80% against symptomatic infection with majority Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of SARS-CoV-2 was achieved with 264 (95% CI: 108, 806) binding antibody units (BAU)/ml: and 506 (95% CI: 135, not computed (beyond data range) (NC)) BAU/ml for anti-spike and anti-RBD antibodies, and 26 (95% CI: NC, NC) international unit (IU)/ml and 247 (95% CI: 101, NC) normalized neutralization titers (NF50) for pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization, respectively. Immune markers were not correlated with asymptomatic infections at the 5% significance level. These data can be used to bridge to new populations using validated assays, and allow extrapolation of efficacy estimates to new COVID-19 vaccines.

Phase 3 Safety and Efficacy of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) Covid-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine in a large, diverse population at increased risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the United States, Chile, and Peru has not been known. METHODS: In this ongoing, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial, we investigated the safety, vaccine efficacy, and immunogenicity of two doses of AZD1222 as compared with placebo in preventing the onset of symptomatic and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) 15 days or more after the second dose in adults, including older adults, in the United States, Chile, and Peru. RESULTS: A total of 32,451 participants underwent randomization, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive AZD1222 (21,635 participants) or placebo (10,816 participants). AZD1222 was safe, with low incidences of serious and medically attended adverse events and adverse events of special interest; the incidences were similar to those observed in the placebo group. Solicited local and systemic reactions were generally mild or moderate in both groups. Overall estimated vaccine efficacy was 74.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.3 to 80.5; P<0.001) and estimated vaccine efficacy was 83.5% (95% CI, 54.2 to 94.1) in participants 65 years of age or older. High vaccine efficacy was consistent across a range of demographic subgroups. In the fully vaccinated analysis subgroup, no severe or critical symptomatic Covid-19 cases were observed among the 17,662 participants in the AZD1222 group; 8 cases were noted among the 8550 participants in the placebo group (<0.1%). The estimated vaccine efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (nucleocapsid antibody seroconversion) was 64.3% (95% CI, 56.1 to 71.0; P<0.001). SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binding and neutralizing antibodies increased after the first dose and increased further when measured 28 days after the second dose. CONCLUSIONS: AZD1222 was safe and efficacious in preventing symptomatic and severe Covid-19 across diverse populations that included older adults. (Funded by AstraZeneca and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04516746.).

Patient characteristics, biomarkers and exacerbation risk in severe, uncontrolled asthma.

BACKGROUND: Greater precision in asthma exacerbation risk prediction may improve outcomes. We sought to identify clinical characteristics and biomarkers associated with elevated exacerbation risk in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: Data were pooled from seven similarly designed phase II and III randomised controlled clinical trials of biologic therapies for the treatment of severe, uncontrolled asthma that enrolled comparable patient populations. Annualised asthma exacerbation rates (AAERs) for patients randomised to placebo were assessed by baseline clinical characteristics, and by biomarker concentrations at baseline and over the study duration. RESULTS: The AAER for the 2016 patients in the combined placebo group was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84‒0.98). Baseline characteristics associated with greater AAER were frequent or severe exacerbations within the prior 12 months, nasal polyposis, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, Asian race and Asian or Western European region. AAER increased with baseline blood eosinophil counts and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (F ENO) concentration, with the greatest AAER occurring for patients with eosinophils ≥300 cells·µL-1 and F ENO ≥50 ppb. No relationship was observed between baseline serum IgE concentration and AAER. Combining type 2 inflammation criteria for eosinophils and F ENO had greater prognostic value than either biomarker alone. Persistent eosinophil and F ENO elevations throughout the study period were associated with greater AAER. CONCLUSIONS: Exacerbation history, maintenance corticosteroid use, nasal polyposis, Asian race, geographic region, and elevations in blood eosinophil counts and F ENO concentrations (particularly when combined and/or persistently achieving type 2 inflammation criteria) were associated with increased exacerbation risk in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma.

Appraising the quality of meta-analysis for breast cancer treatment in the adjuvant setting: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer is the tumor with highest incidence in women worldwide and adjuvant treatment is extremely important to achieve disease control. Given the relevance of systematic reviews, their rigor should be warranted to avoid biased conclusions. Our objective was to investigate the methodological quality of meta-analysis of early breast cancer adjuvant treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Comprehensive searches were performed using electronic databases from 1/1/2007 to 11/12/2018. All studies identified as a systematic review with meta-analysis investigating the efficacy of breast cancer adjuvant treatments were included. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, then full-texts for eligibility. Quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) version 2 tool. RESULTS: Of 950 citations retrieved, 66 studies (7.0%) were deemed eligible. Methodological quality was highly variable, median AMSTAR score 8.5 (IQR 7-9.5) and range 0-16. There was a weak positive correlation between journal impact factor and AMSTAR score (r = 0.17) and citation rate and AMSTAR score (r = 0.16). Cochrane Systematic Reviews were of higher quality than reviews from other journals. Overall confidence was critically low for 61 (92.4%) studies, and the least well-reported domains were the statement of conflict of interest and funding source for the included studies (4.6%), the report of a pre-defined study protocol (15.2%), and the description of details of excluded studies (6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reinforce concerns about the design, conduction and interpretation of meta-analysis in current literature. Methodological quality should be carefully considered and journal editors, decision makers and readers in general, must follow a critical approach to this studies.

A Deferred-Vaccination Design to Assess Durability of COVID-19 Vaccine Effect After the Placebo Group Is Vaccinated.

Multiple candidate vaccines to prevent COVID-19 have entered large-scale phase 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, and several have demonstrated substantial short-term efficacy. At some point after demonstration of substantial efficacy, placebo recipients should be offered the efficacious vaccine from their trial, which will occur before longer-term efficacy and safety are known. The absence of a placebo group could compromise assessment of longer-term vaccine effects. However, by continuing follow-up after vaccination of the placebo group, this study shows that placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy can be mathematically derived by assuming that the benefit of vaccination over time has the same profile for the original vaccine recipients and the original placebo recipients after their vaccination. Although this derivation provides less precise estimates than would be obtained by a standard trial where the placebo group remains unvaccinated, this proposed approach allows estimation of longer-term effect, including durability of vaccine efficacy and whether the vaccine eventually becomes harmful for some. Deferred vaccination, if done open-label, may lead to riskier behavior in the unblinded original vaccine group, confounding estimates of long-term vaccine efficacy. Hence, deferred vaccination via blinded crossover, where the vaccine group receives placebo and vice versa, would be the preferred way to assess vaccine durability and potential delayed harm. Deferred vaccination allows placebo recipients timely access to the vaccine when it would no longer be proper to maintain them on placebo, yet still allows important insights about immunologic and clinical effectiveness over time.

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.