Omicron BA.1-containing mRNA-1273 boosters compared with the original COVID-19 vaccine in the UK: a randomised, observer-blind, active-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The omicron BA.1 bivalent booster is used globally. Previous open-label studies of the omicron BA.1 (Moderna mRNA-1273.214) booster showed superior neutralising antibody responses against omicron BA.1 and other variants compared with the original mRNA-1273 booster. We aimed to compare the safety and immunogenicity of omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters with the original mRNA-1273 vaccine in a large, randomised controlled trial. METHODS: In this large, randomised, observer-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trial in the UK (28 hospital and vaccination clinic sites), individuals aged 16 years or older who had previously received two injections of any authorised or approved COVID-19 vaccine, with or without an mRNA vaccine booster (third dose), were randomly allocated (1:1) using interactive response technology to receive 50 µg omicron BA.1 monovalent or bivalent vaccines or 50 µg mRNA-1273 administered as boosters via deltoid intramuscular injection. The primary outcomes were safety and immunogenicity at day 29, including prespecified non-inferiority and superiority of booster immune responses, based on the neutralising antibody geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios of the monovalent and bivalent boosters compared with mRNA-1273. Safety was assessed in all participants who received first or second boosters, and primary immunogenicity outcomes were assessed in all participants who received the planned booster dose, had pre-booster and day 29 antibody data, had no major protocol deviations, and who were SARS-CoV-2-negative. The study is registered with EudraCT (2022-000063-51) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05249829) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 16 and March 24, 2022, 724 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 monovalent (n=366) or mRNA-1273 (n=357), and between April 2 and June 17, 2022, 2824 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 bivalent (n=1418) or mRNA-1273 (n=1395) vaccines as second boosters. Median durations (months) between the most recent COVID-19 vaccine and study boosters were similar for omicron BA.1 monovalent (4·0 months [IQR 3·6-4·7]) and mRNA-1273 (4·1 [3·5-4·7]), and for the omicron BA.1 bivalent (5·5 [4·8-6·2]) and mRNA-1273 (5·4 [4·8-6·2]) boosters. The omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters elicited superior neutralising GMCs against the omicron BA.1 variant compared with mRNA-1273, with GMC ratios of 1·68 (99% CI 1·45-1·95) and 1·53 (1·41-1·67) at day 29 post-booster doses in participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Both boosters induced non-inferior ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (Asp614Gly) immune responses with GMCs that were similar for the bivalent (2987·2 [95% CI 2814·9-3169·9]) versus mRNA-1273 (2911·3 [2750·9-3081·0]) and lower for the monovalent (2699·7 [2431·3-2997·7] vs 3020·6 [2776·5-3286·2]) boosters, with respective GMC ratios of 1·05 (99% CI 0·96-1·15) and 0·82 (95% CI 0·74-0·91). Results were comparable regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Incidences of solicited adverse reactions with the omicron BA.1 monovalent (335 [91·3%] of 367 participants) and omicron BA.1 bivalent (1285 [90·4%] of 1421 participants) boosters were similar to those observed previously for mRNA-1273, with no new safety concerns identified and no occurrences of fatal adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Omicron-containing booster vaccines generated superior immunogenicity against omicron BA.1 and comparable immunogenicity against the original strain with no new safety concerns. It remains important to continuously monitor the immune responses and real-world vaccine effectiveness as divergent SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge. FUNDING: Moderna.

The development of sarcoidosis in patients receiving daclizumab: A case series from multiple clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Several drugs have been associated with druginduced sarcoidosis-like reactions (DISRs) that are clinically indistinguishable from sarcoidosis. Daclizumab is a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody that binds to CD25 that has been studied for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). During MS clinical trials of daclizumab, 12 subjects developed clinical conditions potentially consistent with sarcoidosis. Therefore, an independent adjudication committee of individuals with expertise in sarcoidosis was organized to determine the likelihood of these cases representing sarcoidosis. METHODS: The adjudication committee consisted of a pulmonologist, pathologist, and radiologist with clinical experience in sarcoidosis. The committee had access to the subjects' laboratory data, narratives of all suspect adverse reaction reports, radiographic imaging and histology from biopsies. A priori, a grading system was developed to determine criteria to establish the likelihood that the patient had developed sarcoidosis. RESULTS: The adjudication confirmed sarcoidosis in 11/12 subjects. The committee's decisions were unanimous in all cases. Biopsies were available in 7/11 of these. In the 4 subjects who did not have a biopsy, they all had presentations, clinical findings, and/or laboratory findings that were highly specific for sarcoidosis. Alternative causes for these clinical findings were reasonably excluded in all cases. The lung (8/11) and skin (6/11) were the most common organs involved. The mean daclizumab dose given when signs or symptoms of sarcoidosis occurred was 5413 ±â€¯2704 mg and the median time from first daclizumab dose was 996 days. The incidence rate of developing sarcoidosis in those participating in these daclizumab trials was 154/100,000 patient-years compared with incidence rates of sarcoidosis in the United States of 3.2-17.8/100,000/year. These data suggest that these sarcoidosis cases may have represented DISRs related to daclizumab therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Given the clinical presentation and subsequent evaluation of these 11 subjects, we suspect that they had DISRs from daclizumab.