Safety and Efficacy of Single-Dose Ad26.COV2.S Vaccine against Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine is a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 vector encoding full-length severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein in a prefusion-stabilized conformation. METHODS: In an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adult participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S (5×1010 viral particles) or placebo. The primary end points were vaccine efficacy against moderate to severe-critical coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) with an onset at least 14 days and at least 28 days after administration among participants in the per-protocol population who had tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: The per-protocol population included 19,630 SARS-CoV-2-negative participants who received Ad26.COV2.S and 19,691 who received placebo. Ad26.COV2.S protected against moderate to severe-critical Covid-19 with onset at least 14 days after administration (116 cases in the vaccine group vs. 348 in the placebo group; efficacy, 66.9%; adjusted 95% confidence interval [CI], 59.0 to 73.4) and at least 28 days after administration (66 vs. 193 cases; efficacy, 66.1%; adjusted 95% CI, 55.0 to 74.8). Vaccine efficacy was higher against severe-critical Covid-19 (76.7% [adjusted 95% CI, 54.6 to 89.1] for onset at ≥14 days and 85.4% [adjusted 95% CI, 54.2 to 96.9] for onset at ≥28 days). Despite 86 of 91 cases (94.5%) in South Africa with sequenced virus having the 20H/501Y.V2 variant, vaccine efficacy was 52.0% and 64.0% against moderate to severe-critical Covid-19 with onset at least 14 days and at least 28 days after administration, respectively, and efficacy against severe-critical Covid-19 was 73.1% and 81.7%, respectively. Reactogenicity was higher with Ad26.COV2.S than with placebo but was generally mild to moderate and transient. The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the two groups. Three deaths occurred in the vaccine group (none were Covid-19-related), and 16 in the placebo group (5 were Covid-19-related). CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of Ad26.COV2.S protected against symptomatic Covid-19 and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and was effective against severe-critical disease, including hospitalization and death. Safety appeared to be similar to that in other phase 3 trials of Covid-19 vaccines. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development and others; ENSEMBLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04505722.).

Antiviral Activity, Safety, and Pharmacokinetics of AL-794, a Novel Oral Influenza Endonuclease Inhibitor: Results of an Influenza Human Challenge Study.

Background: AL-794 is an orally active prodrug of ALS-033719, which selectively inhibits the endonuclease domain of influenza virus A and B polymerase. Methods: In a phase 1, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study, healthy subjects were inoculated intranasally with influenza virus (A/Perth/16/2009 H3N2) after confirmation of infection or on day 4. Subjects received 50 mg of AL-794, 150 mg of AL-794, or placebo twice daily for 5 days. Viral load, influenza symptoms, pharmacokinetics, and safety were evaluated. Results: A total of 61 subjects were inoculated. In 42 infected subjects, the mean peak viral load for 50-mg AL-794 recipients, 150-mg AL-794 recipients, and placebo recipients was 3.54, 2.77, and 3.72 log10 50% tissue culture infectious doses (TCID50)/mL, respectively. The mean influenza viral load area under the curve in the corresponding treatment groups was 137, 87.5, and 142 log10 TCID50/mL·h, respectively, and the median time to virus nondetection was 117, 75.3, and 108 hours, respectively. AL-794 was well tolerated, and no viral resistance to ALS-033719 was identified. Conclusion: Following oral administration of AL-794, significant dose-dependent antiviral activity was noted, with a greater decrease in viral load, symptoms, and mucus weight at the 150-mg dose, compared with the 50-mg dose, and no safety concerns for either dose or placebo. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02588521.

Use of Sugammadex in Patients With Obesity: A Pooled Analysis.

A growing proportion of patients undergoing surgical procedures are obese, providing anesthesiologists with numerous challenges for patient management. The current pooled analysis evaluated recovery times following sugammadex reversal of neuromuscular blockade by body mass index (BMI) in general, and in particular, in patients with BMIs ≥30 kg/m (defined as obese) and <30 kg/m (defined as non-obese). Data were pooled from 27 trials evaluating recommended sugammadex doses for reversal of moderate [reappearance of the second twitch of the train-of-four (TOF); sugammadex 2 mg/kg] or deep (1-2 post-tetanic counts or 15 minutes after rocuronium; sugammadex 4 mg/kg) rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade. All doses of sugammadex were administered based on actual body weight. The recovery time from sugammadex administration to a TOF ratio ≥0.9 was the primary efficacy variable in all individual studies and in the pooled analysis. This analysis comprised a total of 1418 adult patients treated with sugammadex; 267 (18.8%) of these patients had a BMI ≥30 kg/m. The average time to recovery of the TOF ratio to 0.9 was 1.9 minutes for rocuronium-induced blockade and 3.0 minutes for vecuronium-induced blockade. No clinically relevant correlation was observed between BMI and recovery time. The recommended sugammadex doses based on actual body weight provide rapid recovery from neuromuscular blockade in both obese and non-obese patients; no dose adjustments are required in the obese patient.

Effect of reversal of neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex versus usual care on bleeding risk in a randomized study of surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies show a prolongation of activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time in healthy volunteers after treatment with sugammadex. The authors investigated the effect of sugammadex on postsurgical bleeding and coagulation variables. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind trial enrolled patients receiving thromboprophylaxis and undergoing hip or knee joint replacement or hip fracture surgery. Patients received sugammadex 4 mg/kg or usual care (neostigmine or spontaneous recovery) for reversal of rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by thromboprophylaxis and renal status, was used to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI) of bleeding events with sugammadex versus usual care. Safety was further evaluated by prespecified endpoints and adverse event reporting. RESULTS: Of 1,198 patients randomized, 1,184 were treated (sugammadex n = 596, usual care n = 588). Bleeding events within 24 h (classified by an independent, blinded Adjudication Committee) were reported in 17 (2.9%) sugammadex and 24 (4.1%) usual care patients (relative risk [95% CI], 0.70 [0.38 to 1.29]). Compared with usual care, increases of 5.5% in activated partial thromboplastin time (P < 0.001) and 3.0% in prothrombin time (P < 0.001) from baseline with sugammadex occurred 10 min after administration and resolved within 60 min. There were no significant differences between sugammadex and usual care for other blood loss measures (transfusion, 24-h drain volume, drop in hemoglobin, and anemia), or risk of venous thromboembolism, and no cases of anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: Sugammadex produced limited, transient (<1 h) increases in activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time but was not associated with increased risk of bleeding versus usual care.

Validation of the controlled ovarian stimulation impact measure (COSI): assessing the patient perspective.

BACKGROUND: Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) is the first step for in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, a treatment often described and experienced as stressful to patients and their partners. COS also requires concerted efforts by the patients in administering medication and general compliance to treatment protocols. Little is known about the impacts on patients that may be specific to this important first step in treatment. The absence of a conceptually sound and well-validated measure assessing patient experience and functioning during ovarian stimulation has been an obstacle to understanding the impacts of ovarian stimulation on women pursuing IVF. To address this gap, the Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Impact Measure (COSI) was developed based upon accepted methods for designing patient reported outcome (PRO) measures. The purpose of this study was to psychometrically validate the COSI. METHODS: 267 patients from three countries (Ireland, United Kingdom, United States) were administered the COSI. Psychometric validation was conducted according to an a priori statistical analysis plan. RESULTS: The final 28-item COSI was found to have robust scale structure with four domains: Interference in Daily Life (Work and Home), Injection Burden, Psychological Health and Compliance Worry. Internal consistency of all domains was adequate (between 0.80 to 0.87) as was test-retest reliability (between 0.72-0.87). All a-priori hypotheses for convergent and known-groups validity tests were met. CONCLUSIONS: There is a measurable impact of COS on patient functioning and well-being. The COSI is a well-developed and validated PRO measure of this impact. Future work should include examination of responsiveness and confirmation of concepts in non-western countries.

No clinically relevant interaction between sugammadex and aspirin on platelet aggregation and coagulation parameters.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated interaction potential between sugammadex and aspirin on platelet aggregation. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-period crossover study in 26 healthy adult males. Treatments were i.v. placebo, i.v. sugammadex 4 mg/kg, and i.v. placebo/sugammadex with oncedaily oral aspirin 75 mg. Primary objective was to assess interaction between sugammadex and aspirin on platelet aggregation using collagen-induced whole-blood aggregometry. Effects on activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and cutaneous bleeding time were also evaluated. Platelet aggregation and APTT were evaluated by geometric mean ratios, using area-under-effect curves 3 - 30 minutes after sugammadex/placebo dosing. Bleeding time ratio was evaluated at 5 minutes post-dosing. Non-inferiority margins were pre-specified via literature review. Type I error was controlled using a hierarchical strategy. RESULTS: Ratio for platelet aggregation for aspirin with sugammadex vs. aspirin alone was 1.01, with lower limit of two-sided 90% CI of 0.91(above non-inferiority margin of 0.75). Ratio for statistical interaction between sugammadex and aspirin on APTT was 1.01, with upper 90% CI of 1.04 (below non-inferiority margin of 1.50), and for sugammadex vs. placebo alone was 1.06, with an upper 90% CI of 1.07 (below non-inferiority margin of 1.50). Ratio for bleeding time for aspirin with sugammadex vs. aspirin plus placebo was 1.20, with upper 90% CI of 1.45 (below non-inferiority margin of 1.50). Sugammadex was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: There was no clinically relevant reduction in platelet aggregation with addition of sugammadex 4 mg/kg to aspirin. Pre-determined non-inferiority margins were not exceeded for bleeding time and APTT.

Measuring respiratory syncytial virus infection severity in hospitalized children using the Pediatric Respiratory Syncytial Virus Electronic Severity and Outcome Rating System (PRESORS).

BACKGROUND: The Pediatric Respiratory Syncytial Virus Electronic Severity and Outcome Rating System (PRESORS) was developed to assess the severity of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in children. Because young children cannot report how they feel or function, ratings are based on observations by the child's caregiver (Observer-Reported Outcome questionnaire [ObsRO]) and clinician (Clinician-Reported Outcome questionnaire [ClinRO]). This prospective study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the PRESORS. METHODS: The PRESORS version 6 ObsRO and ClinRO were evaluated in children with RSV infection requiring hospitalization in centers in the United States, Argentina, and Chile. Assessments were performed from days 1 to 7 by the child's caregiver and clinician. To assess inter-rater reliability, two clinicians independently performed the ClinRO near in time. RESULTS: A total of 124 children aged ≤36 months were enrolled (mean age, 8 months). Factor analysis demonstrated that RSV severity consists of two dimensions, respiratory signs and illness behavior, and that these dimensions were consistent over time. The inter-rater reliability for the ClinRO was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.75) but improved to 0.79 (95% CI, 0.71-0.86) after removing one outlying site, suggesting that quantifying RSV severity is not trivial, even using qualified raters, but that an adequate inter-rater reliability is achievable with the PRESORS through adequate training. ClinRO and ObsRO displayed acceptable internal consistency and acceptable convergent validity with the Respiratory Syncytial Virus Network Scale, global impression scores, and key hospital characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The PRESORS is relevant and appropriate for assessing the severity of RSV infection in infants requiring hospitalization.

Translating the HAM-D into the MADRS and vice versa with equipercentile linking.

BACKGROUND: The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are scales used frequently to rate the symptoms of depression. There are many situations in which it is important to know what a given total score or a percent reduction from baseline score of one scale means in relation to the other scale. METHOD: We used the equipercentile linking method to identify corresponding scores of simultaneous HAM-D and MADRS ratings in 4388 patients from 31 mirtazapine trials in major depressive disorder. Data were collected at baseline and at weeks 1, 2 and 4. RESULTS: HAM-D scores of 10, 20, 30 and 40 roughly corresponded to MADRS scores of 13, 26, 39 and 52-53, respectively. An absolute HAM-D improvement of 10, 20, 25 points corresponded to a MADRS improvement of 12, 26, and 34. A percentage improvement from baseline of the HAM-D was approximately the same as a percentage improvement on the MADRS. CONCLUSION: These results are important for the comparison of trials that used the HAM-D and MADRS. We present conversion tables for future research.

What does the MADRS mean? Equipercentile linking with the CGI using a company database of mirtazapine studies.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the clinical relevance of the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores. It is unclear how total scores translate into clinical severity, or how commonly used measures for response (reduction from baseline of ≥50% in the total score) translate into clinical relevance. Moreover, MADRS based definitions of remission vary. METHODS: We therefore compared: a/ the MADRS total score with the Clinical Global Impression - Severity Score (CGI-S) b/ the percentage and absolute change in the MADRS total scores with Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I); c/ the absolute and percentage change in the MADRS total scores with CGI-S absolute change. The method used was equipercentile linking of MADRS and CGI ratings from 22 drug trials in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) (n=3288). RESULTS: Our results confirm the validity of the commonly used measures for response in MDD trials: a CGI-I score of 2 ('much improved') corresponded to a percentage MADRS reduction from baseline of 48-57%, and a CGI-I score of 1 ('very much improved') to a reduction of 80-84%. If a state of almost complete absence of symptoms were required for a definition of remission, a MADRS total score would be <8, because such scores corresponded to a CGI-S score of 2 ('borderline mentally ill'). LIMITATIONS: Although our analysis is based on a large number of patients, the original trials were not specifically designed to examine our research question. CONCLUSIONS: The results might contribute to a better understanding and improved interpretation of clinical trial results in MDD.

Deep Neuromuscular Blockade Improves Laparoscopic Surgical Conditions: A Randomized, Controlled Study.

INTRODUCTION: Sustained deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) during laparoscopic surgery may facilitate optimal surgical conditions. This exploratory study assessed whether deep NMB improves surgical conditions and, in doing so, allows use of lower insufflation pressures during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We further assessed whether use of low insufflation pressure improves patient pain scores after surgery. METHODS: This randomized, controlled, blinded study (NCT01728584) compared use of deep (1-2 post-tetanic-counts) or moderate (train-of-four ratio 10%) NMB, and lower (8 mmHg) or higher (12 mmHg; 'standard') insufflation pressure in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Primary endpoint was surgeon's overall satisfaction with surgical conditions, rated at end of surgery using an 11-point numerical scale. Post-operative pain scores were also evaluated. Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Of 127 randomized patients, 120 had evaluable data for the primary endpoint. Surgeon's score of overall satisfaction with surgical conditions was significantly higher with deep versus moderate NMB indicated by a least-square mean difference of 1.1 points (95% confidence interval 0.1-2.0; P = 0.026). Furthermore, strong evidence of an effect was observed for standard versus low pressure: least-square mean difference of 3.0 points (95% confidence interval 2.1-4.0; P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in average pain scores within 24 h post-surgery for low versus standard pressure [0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.67 to +0.33); P = 0.494]. CONCLUSIONS: Although associated with significantly improved surgical conditions, deep NMB alone was insufficient to promote use of low insufflation pressure during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Furthermore, low insufflation pressure did not result in reduced pain, compared with standard pressure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01728584. FUNDING: Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Ability of recombinant factor VIIa to reverse the anticoagulant effect of the pentasaccharide fondaparinux in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: The novel anticoagulant fondaparinux proved to be effective and safe in the postoperative prevention of venous thrombosis. Current phase III trials with this synthetic selective factor Xa inhibitor focus on its use in the treatment of patients with venous and arterial thrombosis. As with any anticoagulant therapy, there is a risk of bleeding complications; hence, a strategy to reverse the effects of fondaparinux is desirable. The aim of this study was to investigate whether recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) could neutralize the anticoagulant effects of subcutaneously administered fondaparinux. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a randomized, placebo-controlled design, 16 healthy male subjects received either a single subcutaneous dose of fondaparinux (10 mg) and a single intravenous bolus of rFVIIa (90 microg/kg; n=8), fondaparinux and placebo (n=4), or placebo and rFVIIa (n=4). Fondaparinux (or placebo) was administered 2 hours before rFVIIa (or placebo). Injection of rFVIIa after fondaparinux normalized the prolonged activated partial thromboplastin and prothrombin times and reversed the decrease in prothrombin activation fragments 1+2 (F(1+2)), as observed with fondaparinux alone. Thrombin-generation time and endogenous thrombin potential, which were inhibited by fondaparinux, normalized up to 6 hours after rFVIIa injection. CONCLUSIONS: rFVIIa is capable of normalizing coagulation times and thrombin generation during fondaparinux treatment. The duration of this effect ranged from 2 to 6 hours after rFVIIa injection. These results suggest that rFVIIa may be useful to reverse the anticoagulant effect of fondaparinux in case of serious bleeding complications or need for acute surgery during treatment with fondaparinux.

What does the HAMD mean?

Little is known about the clinical relevance of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) total scores. It is unclear how total scores translate into clinical severity, or what commonly used measures for response (reduction from baseline of ≥ 50% in the total score) and remission (total HAMD-17 score ≤ 7) mean from a clinical perspective. We therefore compared: (a) the percentage and absolute change in the HAMD-17 total scores with Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I); (b) the absolute and percentage change in the HAMD-17 total scores with Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) absolute change; and (c) the percentage and absolute change in the HAMD-17 total scores with CGI-I in the subgroups of patients with ≤ median and > median HAMD-17 total scores at baseline. The method used was equipercentile linking of HAMD-17 and CGI ratings from 43 drug trials in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) (n = 7131). Our results confirm the validity of the commonly used measures for remission and response in MDD trials: a CGI-I score of 2 ('much improved') corresponded to a reduction from baseline of > 50% and < 60%, and a CGI-I score of 1 ('very much improved') to a reduction of > 75% and < 85%. The CGI-S score of 1 ('normal., not at all ill') corresponded to the HAMD-17 total score of < 5 and the CGI-S score of 2 ('borderline mentally ill') to the score between 6 and 8. An effect of baseline illness severity was observed.

Meta-analyses of the efficacy of asenapine for acute schizophrenia: comparisons with placebo and other antipsychotics.

CONTEXT: Asenapine is an approved treatment for schizophrenia in the United States. OBJECTIVE: Meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of asenapine in acute schizophrenia compared with placebo and other antipsychotics. DATA SOURCES: Four asenapine trials from the asenapine development program were pooled for the meta-analysis. To compare asenapine versus placebo treatment effect with other antipsychotics, we added integrated asenapine data to a previously published meta-analysis. For comparative efficacy of asenapine versus other second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), data from a second published meta-analysis were combined with the 4 asenapine trials. DATA ANALYSES: To evaluate efficacy, mean change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score was examined in asenapine and other antipsychotics. To assess clinical relevance, PANSS response rates and associated odds ratios (ORs) for treatment response were assessed. To assess the relative efficacy of SGAs, a network meta-analysis with PANSS total score change was conducted by using data from the 2 published meta-analyses together with asenapine data. RESULTS: Asenapine was superior to placebo with regard to mean change in PANSS total score (last observation carried forward [LOCF]: -3.6, P = .002; mixed model for repeated measures [MMRM]: -4.1, P = .001), an effect comparable to active controls from the same trials (LOCF: -4.0, P = .002; MMRM: -4.8, P = .001). PANSS responder rates were significantly better with asenapine versus placebo (OR, 1.9; P < .001) and comparable to active controls (OR, 1.7; P = .002). Effect sizes for asenapine were somewhat lower than those reported in the literature for other SGAs. Network meta-analysis also demonstrated that the efficacy of asenapine was comparable to that of other SGAs; estimated differences between asenapine and other SGAs ranged from 3.9 points (95% CI, 0.3 to 7.4) greater than ziprasidone to 2.9 points (95% CI, -0.1 to 5.9) less than olanzapine. CONCLUSIONS: These meta-analyses indicate that the efficacy of asenapine for acute schizophrenia is superior to placebo and comparable to several other SGAs.

Recombinant factor VIIa reverses the anticoagulant effect of the long-acting pentasaccharide idraparinux in healthy volunteers.

We investigated whether the anticoagulant effect of idraparinux, a selective long-acting factor Xa inhibitor, could be neutralized by recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) in healthy male volunteers. We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, comparing idraparinux [7.5 mg subcutaneous (s.c.)] followed at 3 h by rFVIIa [90 microg/kg intravenous (i.v.)] (n = 6), or idraparinux (7.5 mg s.c) followed after 1 week by rFVIIa (90 microg/kg i.v.)(n = 6). rFVIIa, given 3 h after idraparinux, significantly reversed the increased thrombin generation time (TGT), the increased activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and prothrombin time (PT), and the reduced prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F1+2) levels caused by idraparinux, although no clear effect of rFVIIa on the endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) was observed. One week after idraparinux, injection of rFVIIa resulted in a similar relative reduction of the remaining increased aPTT, PT and TGT, with correction to pre-idraparinux values. A clear increase of F1+2 was observed, together with a small increase in ETP. We conclude that rFVIIa has significant effects on the idraparinux-inhibited thrombin generation and clotting parameters. These results suggest that rFVIIa may be useful in serious bleeding complications in idraparinux treated patients.