Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
Biostatistics ; 2024 Aug 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39142660

RESUMEN

Immune response decays over time, and vaccine-induced protection often wanes. Understanding how vaccine efficacy changes over time is critical to guiding the development and application of vaccines in preventing infectious diseases. The objective of this article is to develop statistical methods that assess the effect of decaying immune responses on the risk of disease and on vaccine efficacy, within the context of Cox regression with sparse sampling of immune responses, in a baseline-naive population. We aim to further disentangle the various aspects of the time-varying vaccine effect, whether direct on disease or mediated through immune responses. Based on time-to-event data from a vaccine efficacy trial and sparse sampling of longitudinal immune responses, we propose a weighted estimated induced likelihood approach that models the longitudinal immune response trajectory and the time to event separately. This approach assesses the effects of the decaying immune response, the peak immune response, and/or the waning vaccine effect on the risk of disease. The proposed method is applicable not only to standard randomized trial designs but also to augmented vaccine trial designs that re-vaccinate uninfected placebo recipients at the end of the standard trial period. We conducted simulation studies to evaluate the performance of our method and applied the method to analyze immune correlates from a phase III SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trial.

2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 79(1): 78-85, 2024 Jul 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38372392

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Protein-based vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide a traditional vaccine platform with long-lasting protection for non-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (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 used 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 = .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 < .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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Estudios Cruzados , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/epidemiología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Adulto , Femenino , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , Anciano , Inmunización Secundaria , Adulto Joven
3.
Malar J ; 22(1): 383, 2023 Dec 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38115002

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Antimaláricos , Vacunas contra la Malaria , Malaria Falciparum , Malaria , Adulto , Niño , Humanos , Lactante , Antimaláricos/uso terapéutico , Arteméter/uso terapéutico , Combinación Arteméter y Lumefantrina/uso terapéutico , Genotipo , Malaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Vacunas contra la Malaria/uso terapéutico , Malaria Falciparum/epidemiología , Primaquina/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto
4.
Vaccine ; 42(9): 2181-2190, 2024 Apr 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38458870

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Eficacia de las Vacunas , Vacunas , Proyectos de Investigación , Biomarcadores/análisis , Causalidad , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
5.
Nat Commun ; 15(1): 2175, 2024 Mar 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38467646

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Ad26COVS1 , COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Aminoácidos , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA