Four statistical frameworks for assessing an immune correlate of protection (surrogate endpoint) from a randomized, controlled, vaccine efficacy trial.

A central goal of vaccine research is to characterize and validate immune correlates of protection (CoPs). In addition to helping elucidate immunological mechanisms, a CoP can serve as a valid surrogate endpoint for an infectious disease clinical outcome and thus qualifies as a primary endpoint for vaccine authorization or approval without requiring resource-intensive randomized, controlled phase 3 trials. Yet, it is challenging to persuasively validate a CoP, because a prognostic immune marker can fail as a reliable basis for predicting/inferring the level of vaccine efficacy against a clinical outcome, and because the statistical analysis of phase 3 trials only has limited capacity to disentangle association from cause. Moreover, the multitude of statistical methods garnered for CoP evaluation in phase 3 trials renders the comparison, interpretation, and synthesis of CoP results challenging. Toward promoting broader harmonization and standardization of CoP evaluation, this article summarizes four complementary statistical frameworks for evaluating CoPs in a phase 3 trial, focusing on the frameworks' distinct scientific objectives as measured and communicated by distinct causal vaccine efficacy parameters. Advantages and disadvantages of the frameworks are considered, dependent on phase 3 trial context, and perspectives are offered on how the frameworks can be applied and their results synthesized.

Quantifying how single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine efficacy depends on Spike sequence features.

In the ENSEMBLE randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (NCT04505722), estimated single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine efficacy (VE) was 56% against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 Spike sequences were determined from 484 vaccine and 1,067 placebo recipients who acquired COVID-19. In this set of prespecified analyses, we show that in Latin America, VE was significantly lower against Lambda vs. Reference and against Lambda vs. non-Lambda [family-wise error rate (FWER) p < 0.05]. VE differed by residue match vs. mismatch to the vaccine-insert at 16 amino acid positions (4 FWER p < 0.05; 12 q-value ≤ 0.20); significantly decreased with physicochemical-weighted Hamming distance to the vaccine-strain sequence for Spike, receptor-binding domain, N-terminal domain, and S1 (FWER p < 0.001); differed (FWER ≤ 0.05) by distance to the vaccine strain measured by 9 antibody-epitope escape scores and 4 NTD neutralization-impacting features; and decreased (p = 0.011) with neutralization resistance level to vaccinee sera. VE against severe-critical COVID-19 was stable across most sequence features but lower against the most distant viruses.

Durability of Protection Against COVID-19 Through the Delta Surge for the NVX-CoV2373 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Protein-based vaccines for COVID-19 provide a traditional vaccine platform with long-lasting protection for non-SARS-CoV-2 pathogens and may complement messenger RNA vaccines as a booster dose. While NVX-CoV2373 showed substantial early efficacy, the durability of protection has not been delineated. METHODS: The PREVENT-19 vaccine trial employed a blinded crossover design; the original placebo arm received NVX-CoV2373 after efficacy was established. Using novel statistical methods that integrate surveillance data of circulating strains with post-crossover cases, we estimated placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy and durability of NVX-CoV2373 against both pre-Delta and Delta strains of SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Vaccine efficacy against pre-Delta strains of COVID-19 was 89% (95% CI: 75%, 95%) and 87% (72%, 94%) at 0 and 90 days after 2 doses of NVX-CoV2373, respectively, with no evidence of waning (p=0.93). Vaccine efficacy against the Delta strain was 88% (71%, 95%), 82% (56%, 92%), and 77% (44%, 90%) at 40, 120, and 180 days, respectively, with evidence of waning (p<0.01). In sensitivity analyses, the estimated Delta vaccine efficacy at 120 days ranged from 66% (15%, 86%) to 89% (74%, 95%) per various assumptions of the surveillance data. CONCLUSION: NVX-CoV2373 has high initial efficacy against pre-Delta and Delta strains of COVID-19 with little evidence of waning for pre-Delta strains through 90 days and moderate waning against Delta strains over 180 days.

Can incorporating genotyping data into efficacy estimators improve efficiency of early phase malaria vaccine trials?

BACKGROUND: Early phase malaria vaccine field trials typically measure malaria infection by PCR or thick blood smear microscopy performed on serially sampled blood. Vaccine efficacy (VE) is the proportion reduction in an endpoint due to vaccination and is often calculated as VEHR = 1-hazard ratio or VERR = 1-risk ratio. Genotyping information can distinguish different clones and distinguish multiple infections over time, potentially increasing statistical power. This paper investigates two alternative VE endpoints incorporating genotyping information: VEmolFOI, the vaccine-induced proportion reduction in incidence of new clones acquired over time, and VEC, the vaccine-induced proportion reduction in mean number of infecting clones per exposure. METHODS: Power of VEmolFOI and VEC was compared to that of VEHR and VERR by simulations and analytic derivations, and the four VE methods were applied to three data sets: a Phase 3 trial of RTS,S malaria vaccine in 6912 African infants, a Phase 2 trial of PfSPZ Vaccine in 80 Burkina Faso adults, and a trial comparing Plasmodium vivax incidence in 466 Papua New Guinean children after receiving chloroquine + artemether lumefantrine with or without primaquine (as these VE methods can also quantify effects of other prevention measures). By destroying hibernating liver-stage P. vivax, primaquine reduces subsequent reactivations after treatment completion. RESULTS: In the trial of RTS,S vaccine, a significantly reduced number of clones at first infection was observed, but this was not the case in trials of PfSPZ Vaccine or primaquine, although the PfSPZ trial lacked power to show a reduction. Resampling smaller data sets from the large RTS,S trial to simulate phase 2 trials showed modest power gains from VEC compared to VEHR for data like those from RTS,S, but VEC is less powerful than VEHR for trials in which the number of clones at first infection is not reduced. VEmolFOI was most powerful in model-based simulations, but only the primaquine trial collected enough serial samples to precisely estimate VEmolFOI. The primaquine VEmolFOI estimate decreased after most control arm liver-stage infections reactivated (which mathematically resembles a waning vaccine), preventing VEmolFOI from improving power. CONCLUSIONS: The power gain from the genotyping methods depends on the context. Because input parameters for early phase power calculations are often uncertain, these estimators are not recommended as primary endpoints for small trials unless supported by targeted data analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT00866619, NCT02663700, NCT02143934.

Can incorporating genotyping data into efficacy estimators improve efficiency of early phase malaria vaccine trials?

Background: Early phase malaria vaccine field trials typically measure malaria infection by PCR or thick blood smear microscopy performed on serially sampled blood. Vaccine efficacy (VE) is the proportion reduction in an endpoint due to vaccination and is often calculated as VEHR=1 - hazard ratio or VERR=1 - risk ratio. Genotyping information can distinguish different clones and distinguish multiple infections over time, potentially increasing statistical power. This paper investigates two alternative VE endpoints incorporating genotyping information: VEmolFOI, the vaccine-induced proportion reduction in incidence of new clones acquired over time, and VEC, the vaccine-induced proportion reduction in mean number of infecting clones per exposure. Methods: We used simulations and analytic derivations to compare power of these methods to VEHR and VERR and applied them to three data sets: a Phase 3 trial of RTS,S malaria vaccine in 6912 African infants, a Phase 2 trial of PfSPZ Vaccine in 80 Burkina Faso adults, and a trial comparing Plasmodium vivax incidence in 466 Papua New Guinean children after receiving chloroquine + artemether lumefantrine with or without primaquine (as these VE methods can also quantify effects of other prevention measures). By destroying hibernating liver-stage P. vivax, primaquine reduces subsequent reactivations after treatment completion. Results: The RTS,S vaccine significantly reduced the number of clones at first infection, but PfSPZ vaccine and primaquine did not. Resampling smaller data sets from the large RTS,S trial to simulate phase 2 trials showed modest power gains from VEC compared to VEHR for data like RTS,S, but VEC is less powerful than VEHR for vaccines which do not reduce the number of clones at first infection. VEmolFOI was most powerful in model-based simulations, but only the primaquine trial collected enough serial samples to precisely estimate VEmolFOI. The primaquine VEmolFOI estimate decreased after most control arm liver-stage infections reactivated (which mathematically resembles a waning vaccine), preventing VEmolFOI from improving power. Conclusions: The power gain from the genotyping methods depends on the context. Because input parameters for early phase power calculations are often uncertain, we recommend against these estimators as primary endpoints for small trials unless supported by targeted data analysis. Trial registrations: NCT00866619, NCT02663700, NCT02143934.

Stochastic Interventional Vaccine Efficacy and Principal Surrogate Analyses of Antibody Markers as Correlates of Protection against Symptomatic COVID-19 in the COVE mRNA-1273 Trial.

The COVE trial randomized participants to receive two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine or placebo on Days 1 and 29 (D1, D29). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG binding antibodies (bAbs), anti-receptor binding domain IgG bAbs, 50% inhibitory dilution neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers, and 80% inhibitory dilution nAb titers were measured at D29 and D57. We assessed these markers as correlates of protection (CoPs) against COVID-19 using stochastic interventional vaccine efficacy (SVE) analysis and principal surrogate (PS) analysis, frameworks not used in our previous COVE immune correlates analyses. By SVE analysis, hypothetical shifts of the D57 Spike IgG distribution from a geometric mean concentration (GMC) of 2737 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL (estimated vaccine efficacy (VE): 92.9% (95% CI: 91.7%, 93.9%)) to 274 BAU/mL or to 27,368 BAU/mL resulted in an overall estimated VE of 84.2% (79.0%, 88.1%) and 97.6% (97.4%, 97.7%), respectively. By binary marker PS analysis of Low and High subgroups (cut-point: 2094 BAU/mL), the ignorance interval (IGI) and estimated uncertainty interval (EUI) for VE were [85%, 90%] and (78%, 93%) for Low compared to [95%, 96%] and (92%, 97%) for High. By continuous marker PS analysis, the IGI and 95% EUI for VE at the 2.5th percentile (519.4 BAU/mL) vs. at the 97.5th percentile (9262.9 BAU/mL) of D57 Spike IgG concentration were [92.6%, 93.4%] and (89.2%, 95.7%) vs. [94.3%, 94.6%] and (89.7%, 97.0%). Results were similar for other D29 and D57 markers. Thus, the SVE and PS analyses additionally support all four markers at both time points as CoPs.

Stochastic interventional approach to assessing immune correlates of protection: Application to the COVE messenger RNA-1273 vaccine trial.

BACKGROUND: Stochastic interventional vaccine efficacy (SVE) analysis is a new approach to correlate of protection (CoP) analysis of a phase III trial that estimates how vaccine efficacy (VE) would change under hypothetical shifts of an immune marker. METHODS: We applied nonparametric SVE methodology to the COVE trial of messenger RNA-1273 vs placebo to evaluate post-dose 2 pseudovirus neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer against the D614G strain as a CoP against COVID-19. Secondly, we evaluated the ability of these results to predict VE against variants based on shifts of geometric mean titers to variants vs D614G. Prediction accuracy was evaluated by 13 validation studies, including 12 test-negative designs. RESULTS: SVE analysis of COVE supported post-dose 2 D614G titer as a CoP: estimated VE ranged from 66.9% (95% confidence interval: 36.2, 82.8%) to 99.3% (99.1, 99.4%) at 10-fold decreased or increased titer shifts, respectively. The SVE estimates only weakly predicted variant-specific VE estimates (concordance correlation coefficient 0.062 for post 2-dose VE). CONCLUSION: SVE analysis of COVE supports nAb titer as a CoP for messenger RNA vaccines. Predicting variant-specific VE proved difficult due to many limitations. Greater anti-Omicron titers may be needed for high-level protection against Omicron vs anti-D614G titers needed for high-level protection against pre-Omicron COVID-19.

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.

A phase III randomized crossover trial of plerixafor versus G-CSF for treatment of WHIM syndrome.

BACKGROUNDWarts, hypogammaglobulinemia, infections, and myelokathexis (WHIM) syndrome is a primary immunodeficiency disorder caused by heterozygous gain-of-function CXCR4 mutations. Myelokathexis is a kind of neutropenia caused by neutrophil retention in bone marrow and in WHIM syndrome is associated with lymphopenia and monocytopenia. The CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor mobilizes leukocytes to the blood; however, its safety and efficacy in WHIM syndrome are undefined.METHODSIn this investigator-initiated, single-center, quadruple-masked phase III crossover trial, we compared the total infection severity score (TISS) as the primary endpoint in an intent-to-treat manner in 19 patients with WHIM who each received 12 months treatment with plerixafor and 12 months treatment with granulocyte CSF (G-CSF, the standard of care for severe congenital neutropenia). The treatment order was randomized for each patient.RESULTSPlerixafor was nonsuperior to G-CSF for TISS (P = 0.54). In exploratory endpoints, plerixafor was noninferior to G-CSF for maintaining neutrophil counts of more than 500 cells/µL (P = 0.023) and was superior to G-CSF for maintaining lymphocyte counts above 1,000 cells/µL (P < 0.0001). Complete regression of a subset of large wart areas occurred on plerixafor in 5 of 7 patients with major wart burdens at baseline. Transient rash occurred on plerixafor, and bone pain was more common on G-CSF. There were no significant differences in drug preference or quality of life or the incidence of drug failure or serious adverse events.CONCLUSIONPlerixafor was not superior to G-CSF in patients with WHIM for TISS, the primary endpoint. Together with wart regression and hematologic improvement, the infection severity results support continued study of plerixafor as a potential treatment for WHIM syndrome.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicaltrials.gov NCT02231879.FUNDINGThis study was funded by the Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Quantifying how single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine efficacy depends on Spike sequence features.

It is of interest to pinpoint SARS-CoV-2 sequence features defining vaccine resistance. In the ENSEMBLE randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, estimated single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine efficacy (VE) was 56% against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 Spike sequences were measured from 484 vaccine and 1,067 placebo recipients who acquired COVID-19 during the trial. In Latin America, where Spike diversity was greatest, VE was significantly lower against Lambda than against Reference and against all non-Lambda variants [family-wise error rate (FWER) p < 0.05]. VE also differed by residue match vs. mismatch to the vaccine-strain residue at 16 amino acid positions (4 FWER p < 0.05; 12 q-value ≤ 0.20). VE significantly decreased with physicochemical-weighted Hamming distance to the vaccine-strain sequence for Spike, receptor-binding domain, N-terminal domain, and S1 (FWER p < 0.001); differed (FWER ≤ 0.05) by distance to the vaccine strain measured by 9 different antibody-epitope escape scores and by 4 NTD neutralization-impacting features; and decreased (p = 0.011) with neutralization resistance level to vaccine recipient sera. VE against severe-critical COVID-19 was stable across most sequence features but lower against viruses with greatest distances. These results help map antigenic specificity of in vivo vaccine protection.

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.

Early Discontinuation of Antibiotics in Patients Admitted With Clinically Suspected Serious Infection but Negative Cultures: Retrospective Cohort Study of Practice Patterns and Outcomes at 111†US Hospitals.

Background: The optimal duration for antibiotics in patients hospitalized with culture-negative serious infection (CNSI) is unknown. We compared outcomes in patients with CNSI treated with 3 or 4 vs ≥5 days of antibiotics. Methods: CNSI was identified among adults admitted to 111 US hospitals between 2009 and 2014 via electronic health record data, defined as suspected serious infection (blood cultures drawn and ≥3 days of antibiotics) and negative culture- and nonculture-based tests for infection. Patients treated with antibiotics on their last hospital day and patients with diagnosis codes for sepsis-mimicking conditions were excluded. Among patients without fevers/hypothermia or vasopressors by day 3, we calculated odds ratios for in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice associated with 3 or 4 vs ≥5 days of antibiotics, adjusting for confounders. Results: Antibiotics were discontinued in 3 or 4 days in 1862 (9%) of 20 714 patients with CNSI. Early discontinuation was not associated with higher mortality odds overall (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% CI, .98-1.65), in patients presenting with (1.39; .88-2.22) and without sepsis (1.17; .81-1.69), and in those with pulmonary (1.23; .65-2.34) and nonpulmonary CNSI (1.30; .99-1.72). Early discontinuation appeared detrimental with propensity score weighting (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.03-1.80) and when retaining patients with sepsis mimics (1.38; 1.16-1.65), but it was protective (0.48; .37-.64]) when retaining patients who received antibiotics on their last hospital day. Conclusions: Early discontinuation of antibiotics in CNSI was not associated with significant harm in our primary analysis, but different conclusions based on alternative analytic decisions, as well as risk of residual confounding, indicate that randomized controlled trials are needed.

Examining protective effects of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies after vaccination or monoclonal antibody administration.

While new vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are authorized based on neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer against emerging variants of concern, an analogous pathway does not exist for preventative monoclonal antibodies. In this work, nAb titers were assessed as correlates of protection against COVID-19 in the casirivimab + imdevimab monoclonal antibody (mAb) prevention trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT4452318) and in the mRNA-1273 vaccine trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT04470427). In the mAb trial, protective efficacy of 92% (95% confidence interval (CI): 84%, 98%) is associated with a nAb titer of 1000 IU50/ml, with lower efficacy at lower nAb titers. In the vaccine trial, protective efficacies of 93% [95% CI: 91%, 95%] and 97% (95% CI: 95%, 98%) are associated with nAb titers of 100 and 1000 IU50/ml, respectively. These data quantitate a nAb titer correlate of protection for mAbs benchmarked alongside vaccine induced nAb titers and support nAb titer as a surrogate endpoint for authorizing new mAbs.

Modifiers of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy: Results from four COVID-19 prevention network efficacy trials.

Questions remain regarding the effect of baseline host and exposure factors on vaccine efficacy (VE) across pathogens and vaccine platforms. We report placebo-controlled data from four Phase 3 COVID-19 trials during the early period of the pandemic. This was a cross-protocol analysis of four randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy trials (Moderna/mRNA1273, AstraZeneca/AZD1222, Janssen/Ad26.COV2.S, and Novavax/NVX-CoV2373) using a harmonized design. Trials were conducted in the United States and international sites in adults ≥ 18 years of age. VE was assessed for symptomatic and severe COVID-19. We analyzed 114,480 participants from both placebo and vaccine arms, enrolled July 2020 to February 2021, with follow up through July 2021. VE against symptomatic COVID-19 showed little heterogeneity across baseline socio-demographic, clinical or exposure characteristics, in either univariate or multivariate analysis, regardless of vaccine platform. Similarly, VE against severe COVID-19 in the single trial (Janssen) with sufficient endpoints for analysis showed little evidence of heterogeneity. COVID-19 VE is not influenced by baseline host or exposure characteristics across efficacy trials of different vaccine platforms and countries when well matched to circulating virus strains. This supports use of these vaccines, regardless of platform type, as effective tools in the near term for reducing symptomatic and severe COVID-19, particularly for older individuals and those with common co-morbidities during major variant shifts. Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT04470427, NCT04516746, NCT04505722, and NCT04611802.

Comparing antibody assays as correlates of protection against COVID-19 in the COVE mRNA-1273 vaccine efficacy trial.

The best assay or marker to define mRNA-1273 vaccine-induced antibodies as a correlate of protection (CoP) is unclear. In the COVE trial, participants received two doses of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine or placebo. We previously assessed IgG binding antibodies to the spike protein (spike IgG) or receptor binding domain (RBD IgG) and pseudovirus neutralizing antibody 50 or 80% inhibitory dilution titer measured on day 29 or day 57, as correlates of risk (CoRs) and CoPs against symptomatic COVID-19 over 4 months after dose. Here, we assessed a new marker, live virus 50% microneutralization titer (LV-MN50), and compared and combined markers in multivariable analyses. LV-MN50 was an inverse CoR, with a hazard ratio of 0.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.19 to 0.83) at day 29 and 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 1.04) at day 57 per 10-fold increase. In multivariable analyses, pseudovirus neutralization titers and anti-spike binding antibodies performed best as CoRs; combining antibody markers did not improve correlates. Pseudovirus neutralization titer was the strongest independent correlate in a multivariable model. Overall, these results supported pseudovirus neutralizing and binding antibody assays as CoRs and CoPs, with the live virus assay as a weaker correlate in this sample set. Day 29 markers performed as well as day 57 markers as CoPs, which could accelerate immunogenicity and immunobridging studies.

Kinetics of the Antibody Response to Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Individuals in the Blinded Phase of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy Trial.

Background: Hybrid immunity is associated with more durable protection against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We describe the antibody responses following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Methods: The 55 vaccine arm COVID-19 cases diagnosed during the blinded phase of the Coronavirus Efficacy trial were matched with 55 placebo arm COVID-19 cases. Pseudovirus neutralizing antibody (nAb) activity to the ancestral strain and binding antibody (bAb) responses to nucleocapsid and spike antigens (ancestral and variants of concern [VOCs]) were assessed on disease day 1 (DD1) and 28 days later (DD29). Results: The primary analysis set was 46 vaccine cases and 49 placebo cases with COVID-19 at least 57 days post-first dose. For vaccine group cases, there was a 1.88-fold rise in ancestral antispike bAbs 1 month post-disease onset, although 47% had no increase. The vaccine-to-placebo geometric mean ratios for DD29 antispike and antinucleocapsid bAbs were 6.9 and 0.04, respectively. DD29 mean bAb levels were higher for vaccine vs placebo cases for all VOCs. DD1 nasal viral load positively correlated with bAb levels in the vaccine group. Conclusions: Following COVID-19, vaccinated participants had higher levels and greater breadth of antispike bAbs and higher nAb titers than unvaccinated participants. These were largely attributable to the primary immunization series.

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.

Rapid Development of an Integrated Network Infrastructure to Conduct Phase 3 COVID-19 Vaccine Trials.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused millions of infections and deaths and resulted in unprecedented international public health social and economic crises. As SARS-CoV-2 spread across the globe and its impact became evident, the development of safe and effective vaccines became a priority. Outlining the processes used to establish and support the conduct of the phase 3 randomized clinical trials that led to the rapid emergency use authorization and approval of several COVID-19 vaccines is of major significance for current and future pandemic response efforts. Observations: To support the rapid development of vaccines for the US population and the rest of the world, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases established the COVID-19 Prevention Network (CoVPN) to assist in the coordination and implementation of phase 3 efficacy trials for COVID-19 vaccine candidates and monoclonal antibodies. By bringing together multiple networks, CoVPN was able to draw on existing clinical and laboratory infrastructure, community partnerships, and research expertise to quickly pivot clinical trial sites to conduct COVID-19 vaccine trials as soon as the investigational products were ready for phase 3 testing. The mission of CoVPN was to operationalize phase 3 vaccine trials using harmonized protocols, laboratory assays, and a single data and safety monitoring board to oversee the various studies. These trials, while staggered in time of initiation, overlapped in time and course of conduct and ultimately led to the successful completion of multiple studies and US Food and Drug Administration-licensed or -authorized vaccines, the first of which was available to the public less than 1 year from the discovery of the virus. Conclusions and Relevance: This Special Communication describes the design, geographic distribution, and underlying principles of conduct of these efficacy trials and summarizes data from 136 382 prospectively followed-up participants, including more than 2500 with documented COVID-19. These successful efforts can be replicated for other important research initiatives and point to the importance of investments in clinical trial infrastructure integral to pandemic preparedness.

Immune correlates analysis of the PREVENT-19 COVID-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trial.

In the PREVENT-19 phase 3 trial of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (NCT04611802), anti-spike binding IgG concentration (spike IgG), anti-RBD binding IgG concentration (RBD IgG), and pseudovirus 50% neutralizing antibody titer (nAb ID50) measured two weeks post-dose two are assessed as correlates of risk and as correlates of protection against COVID-19. Analyses are conducted in the U.S. cohort of baseline SARS-CoV-2 negative per-protocol participants using a case-cohort design that measures the markers from all 12 vaccine recipient breakthrough COVID-19 cases starting 7 days post antibody measurement and from 639 vaccine recipient non-cases. All markers are inversely associated with COVID-19 risk and directly associated with vaccine efficacy. In vaccine recipients with nAb ID50 titers of 50, 100, and 7230 international units (IU50)/ml, vaccine efficacy estimates are 75.7% (49.8%, 93.2%), 81.7% (66.3%, 93.2%), and 96.8% (88.3%, 99.3%). The results support potential cross-vaccine platform applications of these markers for guiding decisions about vaccine approval and use.