Immunogenicity and Safety of Heterologous Omicron BA.1 and Bivalent SARS-CoV-2 Recombinant Spike Protein Booster Vaccines: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mutations present in emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants permit evasion of neutralization with prototype vaccines. A novel Omicron BA.1 subvariant-specific vaccine (NVX-CoV2515) was tested alone or as a bivalent preparation with the prototype vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) to assess antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Participants aged 18 to 64 years immunized with 3 doses of prototype mRNA vaccines were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a single dose of NVX-CoV2515, NVX-CoV2373, or the bivalent mixture in a phase 3 study investigating heterologous boosting with SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccines. Immunogenicity was measured 14 and 28 days after vaccination for the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 sublineage and ancestral strain. Safety profiles of vaccines were assessed. RESULTS: Of participants who received trial vaccine (N = 829), those administered NVX-CoV2515 (n = 286) demonstrated a superior neutralizing antibody response to BA.1 vs NVX-CoV2373 (n = 274) at day 14 (geometric mean titer ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.33-2.03). Seroresponse rates were 73.4% (91/124; 95% CI, 64.7-80.9) for NVX-CoV2515 vs 50.9% (59/116; 95% CI, 41.4-60.3) for NVX-CoV2373. All formulations were similarly well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: NVX-CoV2515 elicited a superior neutralizing antibody response against the Omicron BA.1 subvariant as compared with NVX-CoV2373 when administered as a fourth dose. Safety data were consistent with the established safety profile of NVX-CoV2373. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05372588).

Immunogenicity and safety of heterologous Omicron BA.1 and bivalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein booster vaccines: a phase 3, randomized, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Mutations present in emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants permit evasion of neutralization with prototype vaccines. A novel Omicron BA.1 subvariant-specific vaccine (NVX-CoV2515) was tested alone, or as a bivalent preparation in combination with the prototype vaccine (NVX-CoV2373), to assess antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Participants aged 18 to 64 years immunized with 3 doses of prototype mRNA vaccines were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a single dose of NVX-CoV2515, NVX-CoV2373, or bivalent mixture in a phase 3 study investigating heterologous boosting with SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccines. Immunogenicity was measured 14 and 28 days after vaccination for the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 sublineage and ancestral strain. Safety profiles of vaccines were assessed. RESULTS: Of participants who received trial vaccine (N = 829), those administered NVX-CoV2515 (n = 286) demonstrated superior neutralizing antibody response to BA.1 versus NVX-CoV2373 (n = 274) at Day 14 (geometric mean titer ratio [95% CI]: 1.6 [1.33, 2.03]). Seroresponse rates [n/N; 95% CI] were 73.4% [91/124; 64.7, 80.9] for NVX-CoV2515 versus 50.9% [59/116; 41.4, 60.3] for NVX-CoV2373. All formulations were similarly well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: NVX-CoV2515 elicited a superior neutralizing antibody response against the Omicron BA.1 subvariant compared with NVX-CoV2373 when administered as a fourth dose. Safety data were consistent with the established safety profile of NVX-CoV2373.

A Phase 1/2 Study of a Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prefusion F Vaccine With and Without Adjuvant in Healthy Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is an important cause of disease in older adults. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of a stabilized RSV prefusion F subunit (RSVpreF) vaccine candidate with/without adjuvant in adults aged 65-85 years. METHODS: Primary cohort participants were equally randomized to 1 of 7 RSVpreF formulations: 60 µg with either Al(OH)3 or CpG/Al(OH)3, 120 µg with either Al(OH)3 or CpG/Al(OH)3, 240 µg with either Al(OH)3 or CpG/Al(OH)3, 240 µg unadjuvanted, or placebo, administered concomitantly with high-dose seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine (SIIV). Participants in the month 0,2 cohort were randomized to RSVpreF 240 µg with CpG/Al(OH)3 or placebo, administered at months 0 and 2. RESULTS: All RSVpreF vaccine candidates elicited robust and persistent serum neutralizing responses when administered alone or with SIIV. There was no notable difference in neutralizing response between the formulations, including those containing CpG. In the month 0,2 cohort, there was no booster effect of dose 2. SIIV responses were similar or slightly lower with concomitant administration of RSVpreF. Most systemic and local reactions were mild and more frequent after RSVpreF than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: RSVpreF formulations were well tolerated and elicited robust neutralizing responses in older adults; however, CpG/Al(OH)3 did not further enhance responses. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03572062.

Efficacy and safety of topical brepocitinib for the treatment of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis: a phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, dose-ranging and parallel-group study.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a prevalent inflammatory, pruritic skin disease. The Janus kinase (JAK) pathway is a treatment target. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of topical cream brepocitinib, a small-molecule tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2)/JAK1 inhibitor, in participants with mild-to-moderate AD. METHODS: In this phase IIb, double-blind, dose-ranging study, participants were randomized to receive one of eight treatments for 6 weeks: brepocitinib 0·1% once daily (QD), 0·3% QD or twice daily (BID), 1·0% QD or BID, 3·0% QD, or vehicle QD or BID. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score at week 6. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored. RESULTS: Overall, 292 participants were enrolled and randomized. The brepocitinib 1% QD and 1% BID groups achieved statistically significantly greater (with multiplicity-adjusted P < 0·05 due to Hochberg's step-up method) percentage reductions from baseline in EASI total score at week 6 [least squares mean (90% confidence interval, CI): QD: -70·1 (-82·1 to -58·0); BID: -75·0 (-83·8 to -66·2)] compared with respective vehicle [QD: -44·4 (-57·3 to -31·6); BID: -47·6 (-57·5 to -37·7)]. There was not a dose-dependent trend in AE frequency, and there were no serious AEs or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Topical brepocitinib is effective and well tolerated in participants with mild-to-moderate AD. What is already known about this topic? Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are in development for treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD). The tyrosine kinase 2 and JAK 1 inhibition by brepocitinib may bring a new profile for topical JAK inhibitors for treatment of mild-to-moderate AD. What does this study add? Topical brepocitinib can provide rapid, effective symptom reduction, and could offer a novel alternative to current topical treatments for mild-to-moderate AD.

Efficacy and safety of methionine aminopeptidase 2 inhibition in type 2 diabetes: a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This multicentre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial assessed the efficacy and safety of a methionine aminopeptidase 2 (MetAP2) inhibitor, beloranib, in individuals with obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 53-97 mmol/mol [7-11%] and fasting glucose <15.6 mmol/l). METHODS: Participants were randomised (via a centralised interactive web response system) to placebo, 1.2 or 1.8 mg beloranib s.c. twice weekly for 26 weeks. Participants, investigators and the sponsor were blinded to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the change in weight from baseline to week 26. The trial was terminated early when beloranib development was stopped because of an imbalance of venous thromboembolism events in beloranib-treated individuals vs placebo that became evident during late-stage development of the drug. RESULTS: In total, 153 participants were randomised, 51 to placebo, 52 to 1.2 mg beloranib and 50 to 1.8 mg beloranib. In participants who completed week 26, the least squares mean ± SE weight change (baseline 111 kg) was -3.1 ± 1.2% with placebo (n = 22) vs -13.5 ± 1.1% and -12.7 ± 1.3% with 1.2 and 1.8 mg beloranib, respectively (n = 25; n = 19; p < 0.0001). The change in HbA1c (baseline 67 mmol/mol [8.3%]) was -6.6 ± 2.2 mmol/mol (-0.6 ± 0.2%) with placebo vs -21.9 ± 2.2 mmol/mol (-2.0 ± 0.2%) or -21.9 ± 3.3 mmol/mol (-2.0 ± 0.3%) with 1.2 or 1.8 mg beloranib (p < 0.0001), respectively. The most common beloranib adverse events were sleep related. One beloranib-treated participant experienced a non-fatal pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: MetAP2 inhibitors represent a novel mechanism for producing meaningful weight loss and improvement in HbA1c. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02324491 FUNDING: The study was funded by Zafgen, Inc.

Immunogenicity and safety of a bivalent (omicron BA.5 plus ancestral) SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine as a heterologous booster dose: interim analysis of a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised, clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 variants evade immunity despite vaccination with prototype COVID-19 vaccines or previous infection. The 2019nCoV-311 (part 2) study is evaluating immune responses after two booster doses of a vaccine containing the omicron BA.5 subvariant spike protein in adults previously vaccinated with a prototype mRNA vaccine. This interim analysis reports on day 28 immunogenicity and safety outcomes after one booster dose. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomised, observer-blinded study conducted at 35 sites in Australia, medically stable, previously COVID-19-vaccinated (mRNA-based; ≥three doses) adults aged 18 years or older were enrolled and randomly allocated (1:1:1; via an interactive web response system) to receive two doses of bivalent (NVX-CoV2373 + NVX-CoV2540; bivalent group), authorised prototype (NVX-CoV2373; prototype group), or BA.5 (NVX-CoV2540; BA.5 group) vaccine. Only blinded personnel performed study assessments or had participant contact to collect data after study vaccination. Participants received vaccines containing 5 µg SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein and 50 µg Matrix-M adjuvant, administered via a 0·5 mL intramuscular injection (2·5 µg of NVX-CoV2373 plus 2·5 µg of NVX-CoV2540 for the bivalent vaccine, prepared on-site as a 1:1 mixture). The coprimary endpoints include day 28 neutralising antibody geometric mean titre (GMT) ratios (GMTRs) to omicron BA.5 and the ancestral strain, and seroresponse rates to BA.5, in the bivalent and prototype groups. These endpoints were calculated in the per-protocol analysis set, which was defined as participants who had received a vaccine dose, had baseline and day 28 immunogenicity data, and were PCR-negative for SARS-CoV-2, with no major protocol deviations. The primary objective was to determine the primary outcome (antibody responses), which consisted of three comparisons: superiority of the bivalent versus prototype vaccine for neutralising antibody GMT to BA.5 (ie, lower bound of the GMTR 95% CI >1·0); non-inferiority of neutralising antibody seroresponse rate to BA.5 (ie, lower bound of the seroresponse rate 95% CI >-5%); and non-inferiority of neutralising antibody GMT to the ancestral strain (ie, lower bound of GMTR 95% CI >0·67). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT05372588. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2023 and May 2, 2023, 837 participants were screened for eligibility and 766 were randomly allocated to receive the BA.5 (n=255), prototype (n=252), or bivalent (n=259) vaccine. After accounting for exclusions due to participants being baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive, having previous infection, or protocol deviations, the per-protocol analysis set included 694 participants (236 in BA.5 group, 227 in prototype group, and 231 in bivalent group). In this interim analysis (maximum follow-up 35 days after the first dose), the bivalent group, compared with the prototype group, had superior neutralising antibody responses to BA.5 (GMT 1017·8 [95% CI 891·0-1162·6] vs 515·1 [450·4-589·0]; GMTR 2·0 [1·69-2·33]) and a non-inferior seroresponse rate to BA.5 at day 28 (39·8% [33·5-46·5] vs 12·3% [8·4-17·3]; difference 27·5% [19·8-35·0]). The bivalent group also had non-inferior neutralising antibody responses to the ancestral strain (GMTR 1·0 [0·84-1·20]), compared with the prototype group. All vaccines were similarly well tolerated. INTERPRETATION: All three coprimary endpoints were met in part 2 of the ongoing 2019nCoV-311 study. These data support the development of monovalent and/or bivalent vaccines for the most currently circulating variants, to optimise protection. With no new safety findings, further investigation of omicron-based subvariant vaccines is supported by the evidence. FUNDING: Novavax.

Tolerability and Efficacy of a 10:25 Preparation of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol for Treatment of Chronic Back or Neck Pain: A Multiple-Dose Escalation Study.

Introduction: The aim was to demonstrate the safety and tolerability of cannabidiol (CBD) with Δ9-THC in patients with moderate to severe chronic back or neck pain unresponsive to over-the-counter non-opioid analgesics. Methods: This was a non-randomized, single-arm, open-label study. Participants received escalating doses of an oromucosal-administered combination containing 10 mg/mL of Δ9-THC, 25 mg/mL of CBD. On day 1, patients received once-daily 0.5 mL Cybis® 10:25 (5 mg Δ9-THC plus 12.5 mg CBD daily), escalated at days 8, 15, and 22 to 0.5 mL twice-daily (bd) (10 mg Δ9-THC plus 25 mg CBD daily), 1.0 mL bd (20 mg Δ9-THC plus 50 mg CBD daily), and 1.5 mL bd (30 mg Δ9-THC plus 75 mg CBD daily), respectively. The primary outcome was safety and tolerability, with secondary objectives including pharmacokinetic and efficacy outcomes. Results: 28 patients were enrolled in the study. Their median age was 63.3 years, and half were female. The median history of neck/back pain was 10 years. The pharmacokinetics following single doses of 0.5 mL were variable; however, there were dose-dependent increases in trough levels of CBD and Δ9-THC. Cybis® 10:25 was well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events of mild severity. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, headache, paresthesia, and anxiety. There were dose-dependent improvements in numerical pain rating scores (p < 0.001), with clinically significant reductions in pain at 1.0 mL bd and 1.5 mL bd doses (28.8% and 34.1% reductions, respectively, p < 0.001). Depressive symptoms and stress had dose-dependent reductions (p = 0.0182, p < 0.01, respectively). Conclusion: In patients with chronic neck/back pain, CBD and Δ9-THC are well tolerated and doses of 1.0 mL bd and 1.5 mL bd showed clinically significant reductions in pain compared to baseline pain scores.