A Phase 1, Double-blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of HEV-239 (Hecolin®) Vaccine in Healthy US Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Establishing the safety and immunogenicity of a hepatitis E virus vaccine in multiple populations could facilitate broader access and prevent maternal and infant mortality. METHODS: We conducted a phase 1, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled (4:1 vaccine: placebo) trial of 30 µg HEV-239 (Hecolin®, Xiamen Innovax Biotech Company Limited, China) administered intramuscularly in healthy US adults aged 18-45 years. Participants were vaccinated on days 1, 29, and 180. Participants reported solicited local and systemic reactions for 7 days following vaccination and were followed through 12 months after enrollment for safety and immunogenicity (IgG, IgM). RESULTS: Solicited local and systemic reactions between treatment and placebo group were similar and overall mild. No participants experienced serious adverse events related to HEV-239. All participants receiving HEV-239 seroconverted at one month following the first dose and remained seropositive throughout the study. HEV-239 elicited a robust hepatitis E IgG response that peaked one month following the second dose (Geometric Mean Concentration (GMC) 6.16; 95% CI 4.40-8.63), was boosted with the third dose (GMC 11.50; 95% CI 7.90-16.75) and persisted through 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: HEV-239 is safe and elicits a durable immune response through at least 6 months after the third dose in healthy US adults. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03827395. Safety Study of Hepatitis E Vaccine (HEV239) - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov.

Safety of Ceftazidime-Avibactam in Combination with Aztreonam (COMBINE) in a Phase I, Open-Label Study in Healthy Adult Volunteers.

This phase I study evaluated the safety of the optimal ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA) with aztreonam (ATM) regimens identified in hollow fiber infection models of MBL-producing Enterobacterales. Eligible healthy subjects aged 18 to 45 years were assigned to one of six cohorts: 2.5 g CZA over 2 h every 8 h (approved dose), CZA continuous infusion (CI) (7.5 g daily), 2 g ATM over 2 h every 6 h, ATM CI (8 g daily), CZA (approved dose) with 1.5 g ATM over 2 h every 6 h, and CZA (approved dose) with 2 g ATM over 2 h every 6 h. Study drug(s) were administered for 7 days. The most frequently observed adverse events (AEs) were hepatic aminotransferase (ALT/AST) elevations (n = 19 subjects). Seventeen of the 19 subjects with ALT/AST elevations received ATM alone or CZA-ATM. The incidence of ALT/AST elevations was comparable between the ATM-alone and CZA-ATM cohorts. Two subjects in the ATM CI cohort experienced severe ALT/AST elevation AEs. All subjects with ALT/AST elevations were asymptomatic with no other findings suggestive of liver injury. Most other AEs were of mild to moderate severity and were similar across cohorts, except for prolonged prothrombin time (more frequent in CZA-ATM cohorts). These results suggest that CZA-ATM administered as 2-h intermittent infusions is safe and that some caution should be exercised with the use of ATM CI at an ATM dose of 8 g daily. If CZA-ATM is prescribed, clinicians are advised to monitor liver function, hematologic, and coagulation parameters. Future controlled studies are required to better define the safety and efficacy of the CZA-ATM regimens evaluated in this phase I study.

A Phase II Trial of Cytoreduction and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Recurrent Adrenocortical Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is an aggressive disease with few options offering durable survival benefit. Despite metastasectomy, recurrence is common. Cytoreduction and intraperitoneal chemotherapy have offered improved survival in other advanced cancers. We sought to evaluate the use of cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of recurrent intraperitoneal ACC. METHODS: A phase II, single institution clinical trial was approved for patients with radiographic evidence of resectable ACC limited to the peritoneum. Patients underwent treatment if optimal cytoreduction was deemed possible at exploratory laparotomy. Primary outcome was intraperitoneal progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes were treatment-related morbidities and overall survival. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were evaluated, of whom 11 met eligibility criteria. Nine patients underwent cytoreduction and HIPEC, including one patient who recurred and was re-treated (n = 10 treatments). One patient could not be optimally cytoreduced for HIPEC and therefore did not receive intraperitoneal chemotherapy. There was no perioperative mortality; perioperative comorbidities were limited to Clavien-Dindo grade 2 or 3 and included hematologic, infectious, and neurologic complications. Seven patients experienced disease recurrence and two patients died of disease during follow-up (median 24 mo). Intraperitoneal progression-free survival was 19 mo, and median overall survival has not yet been reached. CONCLUSIONS: Cytoreduction and HIPEC can be performed safely in selected patients. Patients with recurrent ACC confined to the peritoneal cavity can be considered for regional therapy in experienced hands. However, disease recurrence is common, and other treatment options should be explored.

Results of a Randomized Controlled Multicenter Phase III Trial of Percutaneous Hepatic Perfusion Compared with Best Available Care for Patients with Melanoma Liver Metastases.

PURPOSE: There is no consensus for the treatment of melanoma metastatic to the liver. Percutaneous hepatic perfusion with melphalan (PHP-Mel) is a method of delivering regional chemotherapy selectively to the liver. In this study, we report the results of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing PHP-Mel with best alternative care (BAC) for patients with ocular or cutaneous melanoma metastatic to the liver. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 93 patients were randomized to PHP-Mel (n = 44) or BAC (n = 49). On the PHP-Mel arm, melphalan was delivered via the hepatic artery, and the hepatic effluent captured and filtered extracorporeally prior to return to the systemic circulation via a venovenous bypass circuit. PHP-Mel was repeatable every 4-8 weeks. The primary endpoint was hepatic progression-free survival (hPFS), and secondary endpoints included overall PFS (oPFS), overall survival (OS), hepatic objective response (hOR), and safety. RESULTS: hPFS was 7.0 months for PHP-Mel and 1.6 months for BAC (p < 0.0001), while oPFS was 5.4 months for PHP-Mel and 1.6 months for BAC (p < 0.0001). Median OS was not significantly different (PHP-Mel 10.6 months vs. BAC 10.0 months), likely due to crossover to PHP-Mel treatment (57.1 %) from the BAC arm, and the hOR was 36.4 % for PHP-Mel and 2.0 % for BAC (p < 0.001). The majority of adverse events were related to bone marrow suppression. Four deaths were attributed to PHP-Mel, three in the primary PHP-Mel group, and one post-crossover to PHP-Mel from BAC. CONCLUSION: This randomized, phase III study demonstrated the efficacy of the PHP-Mel procedure. hPFS, oPFS, and hOR were significantly improved with PHP-Mel. PHP with melphalan should provide a new treatment option for unresectable metastatic melanoma in the liver.

Duodenal ischemia and upper GI bleeding are dose-limiting toxicities of 24-h continuous intra-arterial pancreatic perfusion of gemcitabine following vascular isolation of the pancreatic head: early results from the Regional Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer (RECLAP) study.

BACKGROUND: Regional chemotherapy is used successfully in the treatment of both primary and secondary malignancies, in particular of the peritoneal surface and the liver, and is currently explored as an attractive approach for patients with locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. To establish the feasibility and toxicity of regional intra-arterial gemcitabine delivered as a 24-h continuous infusion to the pancreas as a novel treatment option for patients with locally advanced PDAC a phase I clinical trial was conducted. METHODS: Between April 2011 and September 2013 six patients with biopsy confirmed, borderline or unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and having received at least one line of systemic chemotherapy, underwent vascular redistribution of the inflow to the head of the pancreas by arterial coil embolization followed by perfusion catheter placement within the splenic artery. Patients were treated with increasing doses of gemcitabine administered by continuous splenic arterial infusion over 24 h with inter-patient and intra-patient dose escalation scheme. The primary endpoint was toxicity of the intra-arterial gemcitabine regimen and to establish the maximum tolerated dose. RESULTS: Catheter placement and gemcitabine infusion was successful in all patients enrolled to date (n = 6). Four out of six patients experienced catheter tip migration requiring replacement or revision. Patients received a median of four doses of 24-h gemcitabine infusion. Two patients developed grade 3 and 4 duodenal ischemia and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Median overall survival was 15.3 months and median time to progression was 3 months. Three patients (50 %, n = 3/6) progressed systemically. Two patients had stable disease >4 months following treatment and underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: While technically feasible to treat locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, prolonged regional pancreatic perfusion with gemcitabine following pancreatic arterial redistribution carries a high risk for gastrointestinal toxicity. Shorter infusion schedules with frequent on treatment evaluations should be considered for future clinical trials.

Impact of maximal cytoreductive surgery plus regional heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) on outcome of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of gastric origin: results of the GYMSSA trial.

BACKGROUND: A prospective randomized trial was conducted to compare the impact of systemic chemotherapy versus multi-modality therapy (complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and systemic chemotherapy) on overall survival (OS) in patients with gastric carcinomatosis. METHODS: Patients with measurable metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma involving the peritoneum, and resectable to "no evidence of disease" were randomized to gastrectomy, metastasectomy, HIPEC, and systemic FOLFOXIRI (GYMS arm) or FOLFOXIRI alone (SA arm). RESULTS: Seventeen patients were enrolled (16 evaluable); 7 of 9 patients in the multi-modality GYMS arm achieved complete cytoreduction (CCR0). Median OS was 11.3 months in the GYMS arm and 4.3 months in the SA arm. Four patients in the GYMS arm survived >12 months, 2 patients close to 2 years at last follow-up, and 1 patient more than 4 years, with 2 of these patients still alive. No patient in the SA arm lived beyond 11 months. All patients surviving beyond 12 months in the surgery arm achieved complete cytoreduction and had an initial Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) of ≤ 15. CONCLUSION: Maximal cytoreductive surgery combined with regional (HIPEC) and systemic chemotherapy in selected patients with gastric carcinomatosis and limited disease burden can achieve prolonged survival.

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) Work Group: Enhancing vaccine safety monitoring during the pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, candidate COVID-19 vaccines were being developed for potential use in the United States on an unprecedented, accelerated schedule. It was anticipated that once available, under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or FDA approval, COVID-19 vaccines would be broadly used and potentially administered to millions of individuals in a short period of time. Intensive monitoring in the post-EUA/licensure period would be necessary for timely detection and assessment of potential safety concerns. To address this, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) convened an Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) work group focused solely on COVID-19 vaccine safety, consisting of independent vaccine safety experts and representatives from federal agencies - the ACIP COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST). This report provides an overview of the organization and activities of VaST, summarizes data reviewed as part of the comprehensive effort to monitor vaccine safety during the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights selected actions taken by CDC, ACIP, and FDA in response to accumulating post-authorization safety data. VaST convened regular meetings over the course of 29 months, from November 2020 through April 2023; through March 2023 FDA issued EUAs for six COVID-19 vaccines from four different manufacturers and subsequently licensed two of these COVID-19 vaccines. The independent vaccine safety experts collaborated with federal agencies to ensure timely assessment of vaccine safety data during this time. VaST worked closely with the ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group; that work group used safety data and VaST's assessments for benefit-risk assessments and guidance for COVID-19 vaccination policy. Safety topics reviewed by VaST included those identified in safety monitoring systems and other topics of scientific or public interest. VaST provided guidance to CDC's COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring efforts, provided a forum for review of data from several U.S. government vaccine safety systems, and assured that a diverse group of scientists and clinicians, external to the federal government, promptly reviewed vaccine safety data. In the event of a future pandemic or other biological public health emergency, the VaST model could be used to strengthen vaccine safety monitoring, enhance public confidence, and increase transparency through incorporation of independent, non-government safety experts into the monitoring process, and through strong collaboration among federal and other partners.

A novel nomogram for peritoneal mesothelioma predicts survival.

BACKGROUND: Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare disease treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Estimation of personalized survival times can potentially guide treatment and surveillance. METHODS: We analyzed 104 patients who underwent CRS and cisplatin-based HIPEC for MPM. By means of 25 demographic, laboratory, operative, and histopathological variables, we developed a novel nomogram using machine-learned Bayesian belief networks with stepwise training, testing, and cross-validation. RESULTS: The mean peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) was 15, and 66 % of patients had a completeness of cytoreduction (CC) score of 0 or 1. Eighty-seven percent of patients had epithelioid histology. The median follow-up time was 49 (1-195) months. The 3- and 5-year overall survivals (OS) were 58 and 46 %, respectively. The histological subtype, pre-CRS PCI, and preoperative serum CA-125 had the greatest impact on OS and were included in the nomogram. The mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the 10-fold cross-validation of the 3- and 5-year models were 0.77 and 0.74, respectively. The graphical calculator or nomogram uses color coding to assist the clinician in quickly estimating individualized patient-specific survival before surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Machine-learned Bayesian belief network analysis generated a novel nomogram predicting 3- and 5-year OS in patients treated with CRS and HIPEC for MPM. Pre-CRS estimation of survival times may potentially individualize patient care by influencing the use of systemic therapy and frequency of diagnostic imaging, and might prevent CRS in patients unlikely to achieve favorable outcomes despite surgical intervention.

Efficacy of a bivalent (D614 + B.1.351) SARS-CoV-2 Protein Vaccine.

Background: COVID-19 vaccines with alternative strain compositions are needed to provide broad protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Methods: We conducted a global Phase 3, multi-stage efficacy study (NCT04904549) among adults aged ≥18 years. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive two intramuscular injections 21 days apart of a bivalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03-adjuvant (5 µg of ancestral (D614) and 5 µg of B.1.351 [beta] variant spike protein) or placebo. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with COVID-19-like illness (CLI) symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 ≥14 days after the second injection (post-dose 2 [PD2]). Results: Between 19 Oct 2021 and 15 Feb 2022, 12,924 participants received ≥1 study injection. 75% of participants were SARS-CoV-2 non-naïve. 11,416 participants received both study injections (efficacy-evaluable population [vaccine, n=5,736; placebo, n=5,680]). Up to 15 March 2022, 121 symptomatic COVID-19 cases were reported (32 in the vaccine group and 89 in the placebo group) ≥14 days PD2 with a vaccine efficacy (VE) of 64.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6; 77.2%). VE was 75.1% (95% CI 56.3; 86.6%) in non-naïve and 30.9% (95% CI -39.3; 66.7%) in naïve participants. Viral genome sequencing identified the infecting strain in 68 cases (Omicron [BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants]: 63; Delta: 4; Omicron and Delta: 1). The vaccine was well-tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile. Conclusions: A bivalent vaccine conferred heterologous protection against symptomatic infection with newly emergent Omicron (BA.1 and BA.2) in non-naïve adults 18-59 years of age.

Efficacy of a bivalent (D614 + B.1.351) SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03 adjuvant in adults: a phase 3, parallel, randomised, modified double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines with alternative strain compositions are needed to provide broad protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. This study aimed to describe the clinical efficacy and safety of a bivalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine as a two-injection primary series during a period of circulation of the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, parallel, randomised, modified double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults aged 18 years or older at 54 clinical research centres in eight countries (Colombia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Uganda, and Ukraine). Participants were recruited from the community and randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive response technology system to receive two intramuscular 0·5 mL injections, 21 days apart, of the bivalent vaccine (5 µg of ancestral [D614] and 5 µg of beta [B.1.351] variant spike protein, with AS03 adjuvant) or placebo (0·9% normal saline). All participants, outcome assessors, and laboratory staff performing assays were masked to group assignments; those involved in the preparation and administration of the vaccines were unmasked. Participants were stratified by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years) and baseline SARS-CoV-2 rapid serodiagnostic test positivity. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as laboratory-confirmed (via nucleic acid amplification test or PCR test) COVID-19 with COVID-19-like illness symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical efficacy of the bivalent vaccine for prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 at least 14 days after the second injection (dose 2). Safety was assessed in all participants receiving at least one injection of the study vaccine or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04904549) and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2021, and Feb 15, 2022, 13 002 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive the first dose of the study vaccine (n=6512) or placebo (n=6490). 12 924 participants (6472 in the vaccine group and 6452 in the placebo group) received at least one study injection, of whom 7542 (58·4%) were male and 9693 (75·0%) were SARS-CoV-2 non-naive. Of these 12 924 participants, 11 543 (89·3%) received both study injections (5788 in the vaccine group and 5755 in the placebo group). The efficacy-evaluable population after dose 2 comprised 11 416 participants (5736 in the vaccine group and 5680 in the placebo group). The median duration of follow-up was 85 days (IQR 50-95) after dose 1 and 58 days (29-70) after dose 2. 121 symptomatic COVID-19 cases were reported at least 14 days after dose 2 (32 in the vaccine group and 89 in the placebo group), with an overall vaccine efficacy of 64·7% (95% CI 46·6 to 77·2). Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was 75·1% (95% CI 56·3 to 86·6) in SARS-CoV-2 non-naive participants and 30·9% (-39·3 to 66·7) in SARS-CoV-2-naive participants. Viral genome sequencing identified the infecting strain in 68 (56·2%) of 121 cases (omicron [BA.1 and BA.2] in 63; delta in four; and both omicron and delta in one). Immediate unsolicited adverse events were reported by four (<0·1%) participants in the vaccine group and seven (0·1%) participants in the placebo group. Immediate unsolicited adverse reactions within 30 min after any injection were reported by four (<0·1%) participants in the vaccine group and six (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. In the reactogenicity subset with available data, solicited reactions (solicited injection-site reactions and solicited systemic reactions) within 7 days after any injection occurred in 1398 (57·8%) of 2420 vaccine recipients and 983 (40·9%) of 2403 placebo recipients. Grade 3 solicited reactions were reported by 196 (8·1%; 95% CI 7·0 to 9·3) of 2420 vaccine recipients and 118 (4·9%; 4·1 to 5·9) of 2403 placebo recipients within 7 days after any injection, with comparable frequencies after dose 1 and dose 2 in the vaccine group. At least one serious adverse event occurred in 30 (0·5%) participants in the vaccine group and 26 (0·4%) in the placebo group. The proportion of adverse events of special interest and deaths was less than 0·1% in both study groups. No adverse event of special interest, serious adverse event, or death was deemed to be treatment related. There were no reported cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell's Palsy, or Guillain-Barré syndrome, or other immune-mediated diseases. INTERPRETATION: The bivalent variant vaccine conferred heterologous protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the epidemiological context of the circulating contemporary omicron variant. These findings suggest that vaccines developed with an antigen from a non-predominant strain could confer cross-protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants, although further investigation is warranted. FUNDING: Sanofi, US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Baricitinib Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Is Associated With a Reduction in Secondary Infections.

We performed a secondary analysis of the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) randomized controlled trial and found that baricitinib was associated with a 50% reduction in secondary infections after controlling for baseline and postrandomization patient characteristics. This finding provides a novel mechanism of benefit for baricitinib and supports the safety profile of this immunomodulator for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.

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.

Efficacy of a monovalent (D614) SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03 adjuvant in adults: a phase 3, multi-country study.

Background: The literature on first generation COVID-19 vaccines show they were less effective against new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern including Omicron (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants). New vaccines developed against variant strains may provide cross-protection against emerging variants when used as boosters and facilitate vaccination across a range of countries, healthcare settings and populations. However, there are no data on such vaccines when used as a primary series. Methods: A global Phase 3, multi-stage efficacy study (NCT04904549) among adults (≥18 years) was conducted in 53 research centres in eight countries (United States, Honduras, Japan, Colombia, Kenya, India, Ghana, Nepal). Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive two intramuscular injections of a monovalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03-adjuvant (10 µg of the spike (S) protein from the ancestral D614 strain) or placebo on Day 1 (D01) and Day 22 (D22). The primary efficacy endpoint was prevention of virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with symptoms of COVID-19-like illness (CLI) ≥14 days after the second injection (post-dose 2 [PD2]) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve on D01 + D22. Safety and reactogenicity were also evaluated. Findings: Between May 26 and November 7, 2021, 10,114 participants received ≥1 study injection, and 9441 participants received both injections. 2108 (20.8%) participants were SARS-CoV-2 naïve at D01 and D22. The primary endpoint was analysed in a subset of the full analysis set (the modified full analysis set PD2 [mFAS-PD2], excluding participants who did not complete the vaccination schedule or received vaccination despite meeting one of the contraindication criteria, had onset of symptomatic COVID-19 between the first injection and before 14 days after the second injection, or participants who discontinued before 14 days after the second injection [n = 9377; vaccine, n = 4702; placebo, n = 4675]). Data were available for 2051 SARS-CoV-2 naïve and 7159 non-naïve participants. At the cut-off date (January 28, 2022), symptomatic COVID-19 was reported in 169 naïve participants (vaccine, n = 81; placebo, n = 88) ≥14 days PD2, with a vaccine efficacy (VE) of 15.3% (95% CI, -15.8; 38.2). VE regardless of D01/D22 serostatus was 32.9% (95% CI, 15.3; 47.0) and VE in non-naïve participants was 52.7% (95% CI, 31.2; 67.9). Viral genome sequencing was performed up to the data cut-off point and identified the infecting strain in 99/169 adjudicated cases in the PD2 naïve population (Delta [25], Omicron [72], other variants [3], one participant had infection with both Delta and Omicron variants and has been included in the totals for both Delta and Omicron). The vaccine was well-tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. Interpretation: In the context of changing circulating viral variants, it is challenging to induce protection in naïve individuals with a two-dose priming schedule based on the parental D614 strain. However, while the primary endpoint of this trial was not met, the results show that a monovalent D614 vaccine can still be of value in individuals previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Funding: This study was funded in whole or in part by Sanofi and by federal funds from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, part of the office of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under contract number HHSO100201600005I, and in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Defense Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense under contract number W15QKN-16-9-1002. The views presented here are those of the authors and do not purport to represent those of the Department of the Army, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the U.S. government.

Evaluating Demographic Representation in Clinical Trials: Use of the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 Treatment Trial (ACTT) as a Test Case.

Background: Clinical trials initiated during emerging infectious disease outbreaks must quickly enroll participants to identify treatments to reduce morbidity and mortality. This may be at odds with enrolling a representative study population, especially when the population affected is undefined. Methods: We evaluated the utility of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET), the COVID-19 Case Surveillance System (CCSS), and 2020 United States (US) Census data to determine demographic representation in the 4 stages of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT). We compared the cumulative proportion of participants by sex, race, ethnicity, and age enrolled at US ACTT sites, with respective 95% confidence intervals, to the reference data in forest plots. Results: US ACTT sites enrolled 3509 adults hospitalized with COVID-19. When compared with COVID-NET, ACTT enrolled a similar or higher proportion of Hispanic/Latino and White participants depending on the stage, and a similar proportion of African American participants in all stages. In contrast, ACTT enrolled a higher proportion of these groups when compared with US Census and CCSS. The proportion of participants aged ≥65 years was either similar or lower than COVID-NET and higher than CCSS and the US Census. The proportion of females enrolled in ACTT was lower than the proportion of females in the reference datasets. Conclusions: Although surveillance data of hospitalized cases may not be available early in an outbreak, they are a better comparator than US Census data and surveillance of all cases, which may not reflect the population affected and at higher risk of severe disease.

Dalbavancin as an option for treatment of S. aureus bacteremia (DOTS): study protocol for a phase 2b, multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia is a life-threatening infection and leading cause of infective endocarditis, with mortality rates of 15-50%. Treatment typically requires prolonged administration of parenteral therapy, itself associated with high costs and potential catheter-associated complications. Dalbavancin is a lipoglycopeptide with potent activity against Staphylococcus and a long half-life, making it an appealing potential therapy for S. aureus bacteremia without the need for durable central venous access. METHODS: DOTS is a phase 2b, multicenter, randomized, assessor-blinded, superiority, active-controlled, parallel-group trial. The trial will enroll 200 adults diagnosed with complicated S. aureus bacteremia, including definite or possible right-sided infective endocarditis, who have been treated with effective antibiotic therapy for at least 72 h (maximum 10 days) and with subsequent clearance of bacteremia prior to randomization to study treatment. Subjects will be randomized 1:1 to complete their antibiotic treatment course with either two doses of dalbavancin on days 1 and 8, or with a total of 4-8 weeks of standard intravenous antibiotic therapy. The primary objective is to compare the Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) at day 70 for patients randomized to dalbavancin versus standard of care. Key secondary endpoints include quality of life outcomes and pharmacokinetic analyses of dalbavancin. DISCUSSION: The DOTS trial will establish whether dalbavancin is superior to standard parenteral antibiotic therapy for the completion of treatment of complicated S. aureus bacteremia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: US National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04775953 . Registered on 1 March 2021.

Efficacy of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised adults with COVID-19: a double-bind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 µg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04492475. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs placebo plus remdesivir 0·99 [95% CI 0·87-1·13]; p=0·88). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality at 28 days was 5% (95% CI 3-7%) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 3% (2-6%) in the placebo plus remdesivir group (hazard ratio 1·33 [95% CI 0·69-2·55]; p=0·39). Patients who did not require high-flow oxygen at baseline were more likely to have at least one related adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (33 [7%] of 442 patients) than in the placebo plus remdesivir group (15 [3%] of 435). In patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline, 24 (69%) of 35 had an adverse event and 21 (60%) had a serious adverse event in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group compared with 13 (39%) of 33 who had an adverse event and eight (24%) who had a serious adverse event in the placebo plus remdesivir group. INTERPRETATION: Interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir was not superior to remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients who required high-flow oxygen at baseline had worse outcomes after treatment with interferon beta-1a compared with those given placebo. FUNDING: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (USA).

Isolated hepatic perfusion with high-dose melphalan results in immediate alterations in tumor gene expression in patients with metastatic ocular melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ocular melanoma liver metastases have a poor prognosis, treatment options are limited, and median survival is less than 1 year. In this study, we characterized the early molecular changes that occur in tumors immediately after vascular isolation perfusion with melphalan with hyperthermia in patients with hepatic metastases from ocular melanoma. METHODS: Patients underwent treatment on a clinical trial using a 60-min hyperthermic isolated hepatic perfusion (IHP) with melphalan. Microarray analysis was performed in 28 tumor samples obtained intraoperatively of which 12 were pre- and 16 were post-IHP. Various statistical analyses were performed to identify differentially expressed genes and gene categories between the groups. RESULTS: Median survival of 17 treated patients was 11.9 months. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of all tumors resulted in separation of pre and post-IHP samples into two distinct groups. Analysis of genes showed that the Ras GTPase activator, ecotropic viral integration site 5 (EVI5), and several other melanoma-associated genes were overexpressed in pre-IHP tumors. In post-IHP samples the overexpression of a DNA replication associated gene, replication factor C (RFC5), was significantly associated with shortened survival (P < 0.003). Other major gene ontology categories identified in the post-IHP tumor samples were DNA-directed RNA polymerase activity and chromatin remodeling, both important categories involved in DNA replication and repair. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that acute changes in gene expression patterns occur in tumors immediately after treatment with melphalan administered via hyperthermic IHP. Rapid activation of DNA synthesis and repair pathways may be a mechanism of acquired tumor resistance in patients with ocular melanoma.

Cytoreductive surgery and continuous hyperthermic peritoneal perfusion in patients with mesothelioma and peritoneal carcinomatosis: hemodynamic, metabolic, and anesthetic considerations.

Cytoreductive surgery and continuous hyperthermic peritoneal perfusion (CHPP) involve the conduct of a complex surgical procedure and delivery of high-dose hyperthermic chemotherapy to the peritoneum. This therapeutic modality has been shown to benefit patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis resulting from gastrointestinal and ovarian tumors and mesothelioma. However, it is unknown whether the primary disease (mesothelioma versus peritoneal carcinomatosis) affects hemodynamic and metabolic perturbations during the course of CHPP with cisplatin. We examined the perioperative course of patients undergoing CHPP with cisplatin and evaluated the effect of primary diagnosis (mesothelioma versus peritoneal carcinomatosis) on hemodynamic and metabolic parameters in response to peritoneal perfusion. Sixty-nine mesothelioma and 100 peritoneal carcinomatosis patients underwent 169 consecutive cytoreduction and CHPP procedures with general anesthesia. During CHPP, patients from both groups developed significant increases in central venous pressure, and heart rate, decreases in mean arterial pressure (all P < 0.0001), metabolic acidosis with significant decreases in pH and bicarbonate (P < 0.0001), deterioration of gas exchange with significant increases in PaCO(2) and oxygen alveolar-arterial gradient (P < 0.0001), and significant increases in activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and prothrombin time (PT) and decreases in hematocrit and platelet counts (all P < 0.0001). However, patients with mesothelioma had lesser increases in temperature (P < 0.01) and heart rate (P < 0.0001) and lesser decreases in hematocrit (P = 0.0013) during CHPP and greater decreases in sodium bicarbonate (P = 0.0082) after completion of CHPP compared with patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. We conclude that the transient hemodynamic and metabolic perturbations associated with cytoreductive surgery and CHPP with cisplatin can vary according to the primary diagnosis (mesothelioma versus peritoneal carcinomatosis) warranting this therapy.

Site-specific gene expression profiles and novel molecular prognostic factors in patients with lower gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma diffusely metastatic to liver or peritoneum.

BACKGROUND: Generally, colorectal and high-grade appendiceal cancers are treated similarly; treatment approach is primarily based on tumor histology and stage of disease. Patients with adenocarcinoma of the lower gastrointestinal tract frequently experience diffuse metastases isolated to liver or peritoneum and have a poor survival. Identification of novel molecular pathways in metastases from these patients may identify novel targets and prognostic factors. METHODS: Microarray analyses of 20 metastatic tumors from patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma isolated to liver or peritoneum and eight high-grade appendiceal adenocarcinoma metastatic to peritoneum were performed using oligonucleotide microarray. RESULTS: In an unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis of 2-fold upregulated or downregulated genes, there was a clear site-specific segregation of liver versus peritoneal metastases. Genes primarily involved in metastasis, angiogenesis, cell cycle regulation, cell proliferation, and cell adhesion were distinctly altered between these two metastatic sites. Among the metastasis genes, the average expression levels of LI-cadherin, ALCAM, CD2, and CD14 were significantly higher in both metastatic sites. TIMP1 was overexpressed in both sites where as TIMP-2, IGF-1, and HIF-1alpha were upregulated only in peritoneal metastases demonstrating the potential benefit of metastasis site-specific treatments. Subsets of genes significantly associated with poor survival were defined, a RET proto-oncogene interacting gene, GOLGA5, was highly predictive for survival in patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that liver and peritoneal metastases of lower GI adenocarcinoma have distinct gene expression patterns; these distinctions may help in the development of therapies based on site of metastases.