ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are highly efficacious at preventing severe disease in the general population, current data are lacking regarding vaccine efficacy (VE) for individuals with mild immunocompromising conditions. METHODS: A post hoc, cross-protocol analysis of participant-level data from the blinded phase of four randomized, placebo-controlled, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine phase 3 trials (Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax) was performed. We defined a "tempered immune system" (TIS) variable via a consensus panel based on medical history and medications to determine VE against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 cases in TIS participants versus non-TIS individuals starting at 14 days after completion of the primary series through the blinded phase for each of the 4 trials. An analysis of participants living with well-controlled human immunodeficiency virus was conducted using the same methods. RESULTS: A total of 3852/30 351 (12.7%) Moderna participants, 3088/29 868 (10.3%) Novavax participants, 3549/32 380 (11.0%) AstraZeneca participants, and 5047/43 788 (11.5%) Janssen participants were identified as having a TIS. Most TIS conditions (73.9%) were due to metabolism and nutritional disorders. Vaccination (vs placebo) significantly reduced the likelihood of symptomatic and severe COVID-19 for all participants for each trial. VE was not significantly different for TIS participants versus non-TIS for either symptomatic or severe COVID-19 for each trial, nor was VE significantly different in the symptomatic endpoint for participants with human immunodeficiency virus. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with mildly immunocompromising conditions, there is no evidence of differences in VE against symptomatic or severe COVID-19 compared with those with non-TIS in the 4 COVID-19 vaccine randomized controlled efficacy trials.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccine Efficacy , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Male , Female , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Middle Aged , Adult , Immunocompromised Host , Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: At interim analysis in a phase 3, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, the mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). After emergency use of the vaccine was authorized, the protocol was amended to include an open-label phase. Final analyses of efficacy and safety data from the blinded phase of the trial are reported. METHODS: We enrolled volunteers who were at high risk for Covid-19 or its complications; participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 µg) or placebo, 28 days apart, at 99 centers across the United States. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The data cutoff date was March 26, 2021. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 30,415 participants; 15,209 were assigned to receive the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and 15,206 to receive placebo. More than 96% of participants received both injections, 2.3% had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and the median follow-up was 5.3 months in the blinded phase. Vaccine efficacy in preventing Covid-19 illness was 93.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.0 to 94.8), with 55 confirmed cases in the mRNA-1273 group (9.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 7.2 to 12.5) and 744 in the placebo group (136.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 127.0 to 146.8). The efficacy in preventing severe disease was 98.2% (95% CI, 92.8 to 99.6), with 2 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 106 in the placebo group, and the efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection starting 14 days after the second injection was 63.0% (95% CI, 56.6 to 68.5), with 214 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 498 in the placebo group. Vaccine efficacy was consistent across ethnic and racial groups, age groups, and participants with coexisting conditions. No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The mRNA-1273 vaccine continued to be efficacious in preventing Covid-19 illness and severe disease at more than 5 months, with an acceptable safety profile, and protection against asymptomatic infection was observed. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Incidence , Intention to Treat Analysis , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. METHODS: This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 µg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Single-Blind Method , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus , Treatment Outcome , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine in a large, diverse population at increased risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the United States, Chile, and Peru has not been known. METHODS: In this ongoing, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial, we investigated the safety, vaccine efficacy, and immunogenicity of two doses of AZD1222 as compared with placebo in preventing the onset of symptomatic and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) 15 days or more after the second dose in adults, including older adults, in the United States, Chile, and Peru. RESULTS: A total of 32,451 participants underwent randomization, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive AZD1222 (21,635 participants) or placebo (10,816 participants). AZD1222 was safe, with low incidences of serious and medically attended adverse events and adverse events of special interest; the incidences were similar to those observed in the placebo group. Solicited local and systemic reactions were generally mild or moderate in both groups. Overall estimated vaccine efficacy was 74.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.3 to 80.5; P<0.001) and estimated vaccine efficacy was 83.5% (95% CI, 54.2 to 94.1) in participants 65 years of age or older. High vaccine efficacy was consistent across a range of demographic subgroups. In the fully vaccinated analysis subgroup, no severe or critical symptomatic Covid-19 cases were observed among the 17,662 participants in the AZD1222 group; 8 cases were noted among the 8550 participants in the placebo group (<0.1%). The estimated vaccine efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (nucleocapsid antibody seroconversion) was 64.3% (95% CI, 56.1 to 71.0; P<0.001). SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binding and neutralizing antibodies increased after the first dose and increased further when measured 28 days after the second dose. CONCLUSIONS: AZD1222 was safe and efficacious in preventing symptomatic and severe Covid-19 across diverse populations that included older adults. (Funded by AstraZeneca and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04516746.).
Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Vaccine Efficacy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/adverse effects , Chile/epidemiology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Male , Middle Aged , Peru/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , United States/epidemiology , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Malaria is a potentially life-threatening disease caused by Plasmodium protozoa transmitted by infected Anopheles mosquitoes. Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) trials are used to assess the efficacy of interventions for malaria elimination. The operating characteristics of statistical methods for assessing the ability of interventions to protect individuals from malaria is uncertain in small CHMI studies. This paper presents simulation studies comparing the performance of a variety of statistical methods for assessing efficacy of intervention in CHMI trials. METHODS: Two types of CHMI designs were investigated: the commonly used single high-dose design (SHD) and the repeated low-dose design (RLD), motivated by simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) challenge studies. In the context of SHD, the primary efficacy endpoint is typically time to infection. Using a continuous time survival model, five statistical tests for assessing the extent to which an intervention confers partial or full protection under single dose CHMI designs were evaluated. For RLD, the primary efficacy endpoint is typically the binary infection status after a specific number of challenges. A discrete time survival model was used to study the characteristics of RLD versus SHD challenge studies. RESULTS: In a SHD study with the continuous time survival model, log-rank test and t-test are the most powerful and provide more interpretable results than Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Lachenbruch tests, while the likelihood ratio test is uniformly most powerful but requires knowledge of the underlying probability model. In the discrete time survival model setting, SHDs are more powerful for assessing the efficacy of an intervention to prevent infection than RLDs. However, additional information can be inferred from RLD challenge designs, particularly using a likelihood ratio test. CONCLUSIONS: Different statistical methods can be used to analyze controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) experiments, and the choice of method depends on the specific characteristics of the experiment, such as the sample size allocation between the control and intervention groups, and the nature of the intervention. The simulation results provide guidance for the trade off in statistical power when choosing between different statistical methods and study designs.
Subject(s)
Malaria , Humans , Malaria/prevention & control , Animals , Research Design , Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic , Models, Statistical , Anopheles/parasitologyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Developing alternative approaches to evaluating absolute efficacy of new HIV prevention interventions is a priority, as active-controlled designs, whereby individuals without HIV are randomized to the experimental intervention or an active control known to be effective, are increasing. With this design, however, the efficacy of the experimental intervention to prevent HIV acquisition relative to placebo cannot be evaluated directly. METHODS: One proposed approach to estimate absolute prevention efficacy is to use an HIV exposure marker, such as incident rectal gonorrhea, to infer counterfactual placebo HIV incidence. We formalize a statistical framework for this approach, specify working regression and likelihood-based estimation approaches, lay out three assumptions under which valid inference can be achieved, evaluate finite-sample performance, and illustrate the approach using a recent active-controlled HIV prevention trial. RESULTS: We find that in finite samples and under correctly specified assumptions accurate and precise estimates of counterfactual placebo incidence and prevention efficacy are produced. Based on data from the DISCOVER trial in men and transgender women who have sex with men, and assuming correctly specified assumptions, the estimated prevention efficacy for tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine is 98.1% (95% confidence interval: 96.4%-99.4%) using the working model approach and 98.1% (95% confidence interval: 96.4%-99.7%) using the likelihood-based approach. CONCLUSION: Careful assessment of the underlying assumptions, study of their violation, evaluation of the approach in trials with placebo arms, and advancement of improved exposure markers are needed before the HIV exposure marker approach can be relied upon in practice.
Subject(s)
Anti-HIV Agents , HIV Infections , Female , Humans , Male , Anti-HIV Agents/therapeutic use , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/prevention & control , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Incidence , Likelihood Functions , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are highly efficacious at preventing symptomatic infection, severe disease, and death. Most of the evidence that COVID-19 vaccines also reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is based on retrospective, observational studies. Specifically, an increasing number of studies are evaluating vaccine effectiveness against the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 using data available in existing health-care databases or contact-tracing databases. Since these types of databases were designed for clinical diagnosis or management of COVID-19, they are limited in their ability to provide accurate information on infection, infection timing, and transmission events. We highlight challenges with using existing databases to identify transmission units and confirm potential SARS-CoV-2 transmission events. We discuss the impact of common diagnostic testing strategies, including event-prompted and infrequent testing, and illustrate their potential biases in estimating vaccine effectiveness against the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2. We articulate the need for prospective observational studies of vaccine effectiveness against the SARS-CoV-2 secondary attack rate, and we provide design and reporting considerations for studies using retrospective databases.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Incidence , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
In South Africa, HIV acquisition risk has been studied less in people assigned male at birth. We studied the associations between risk behaviors, clinical features and HIV incidence amongst males in two South African HIV preventive vaccine efficacy trials. We used Cox proportional hazards models to test for associations between demographics, sexual behaviors, clinical variables and HIV acquisition among males followed in the HVTN 503 (n = 219) and HVTN 702 (n = 1611) trials. Most males reported no male sexual partners (99.09% in HVTN 503) or identified as heterosexual (88.08% in HVTN 702). Annual HIV incidence was 1.39% in HVTN 503 (95% CI 0.76-2.32%) and 1.33% in HVTN 702 (95% CI 0.80-2.07%). Increased HIV acquisition was significantly associated with anal sex (HR 6.32, 95% CI 3.44-11.62), transactional sex (HR 3.42, 95% CI 1.80-6.50), and non-heterosexual identity (HR 16.23, 95%CI 8.13-32.41) in univariate analyses and non-heterosexual identity (HR 14.99, 95% CI 4.99-45.04; p < 0.01) in multivariate analysis. It is appropriate that prevention efforts in South Africa, although focused on the severe epidemic in young women, also encompass key male populations, including men who have sex with men, but also men who engage in anal or transactional sex.
Subject(s)
AIDS Vaccines , HIV Infections , Sexual and Gender Minorities , Humans , Male , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/prevention & control , Homosexuality, Male , Risk Factors , Sexual Behavior , South Africa/epidemiology , Vaccine Efficacy , Clinical Trials as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Immunoassays for determining past SARS-CoV-2 infection have not been systematically evaluated in vaccinated persons in comparison with unvaccinated persons. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate antinucleocapsid antibody (anti-N Ab) seropositivity in mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccinees with breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN: Nested substudy of a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04470427). SETTING: 99 sites in the United States, July 2020 through March 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 18 years or older, had no known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and were at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19. Substudy participants were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the trial's blinded phase. INTERVENTION: 2 mRNA-1273 or placebo injections 28 days apart. MEASUREMENTS: Nasopharyngeal swabs from days 1 and 29 (vaccination days) and from symptom-prompted illness visits were tested for SARS-CoV-2 via polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Serum samples from days 1, 29, and 57 and the participant decision visit (PDV, when participants were informed of treatment assignment; median day 149) were tested for anti-N Abs by the Elecsys immunoassay. RESULTS: Among 812 participants with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 illness during the blinded phase of the trial (through March 2021), seroconversion to anti-N Abs (median of 53 days after diagnosis) occurred in 21 of 52 mRNA-1273 vaccinees (40% [95% CI, 27% to 54%]) versus 605 of 648 placebo recipients (93% [CI, 92% to 95%]). Each 1-log increase in SARS-CoV-2 viral copies at diagnosis was associated with 90% higher odds of anti-N Ab seroconversion (odds ratio, 1.90 [CI, 1.59 to 2.28]). LIMITATION: The scope was restricted to mRNA-1273 vaccinees and the Elecsys assay, the sample size was small, data on Delta and Omicron infections were lacking, and the analysis did not address a prespecified objective of the trial. CONCLUSION: Vaccination status should be considered when interpreting seroprevalence and seropositivity data based solely on anti-N Ab testing. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Double-Blind Method , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , United States , Vaccine EfficacyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The ALVAC/gp120 + MF59 vaccines in the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) 702 efficacy trial did not prevent human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) acquisition. Vaccine-matched immunological endpoints that were correlates of HIV-1 acquisition risk in RV144 were measured in HVTN 702 and evaluated as correlates of HIV-1 acquisition. METHODS: Among 1893 HVTN 702 female vaccinees, 60 HIV-1-seropositive cases and 60 matched seronegative noncases were sampled. HIV-specific CD4+ T-cell and binding antibody responses were measured 2 weeks after fourth and fifth immunizations. Cox proportional hazards models assessed prespecified responses as predictors of HIV-1 acquisition. RESULTS: The HVTN 702 Env-specific CD4+ T-cell response rate was significantly higher than in RV144 (63% vs 40%, P = .03) with significantly lower IgG binding antibody response rate and magnitude to 1086.C V1V2 (67% vs 100%, P < .001; Pmag < .001). Although no significant univariate associations were observed between any T-cell or binding antibody response and HIV-1 acquisition, significant interactions were observed (multiplicity-adjusted P ≤.03). Among vaccinees with high IgG A244 V1V2 binding antibody responses, vaccine-matched CD4+ T-cell endpoints associated with decreased HIV-1 acquisition (estimated hazard ratios = 0.40-0.49 per 1-SD increase in CD4+ T-cell endpoint). CONCLUSIONS: HVTN 702 and RV144 had distinct immunogenicity profiles. However, both identified significant correlations (univariate or interaction) for IgG V1V2 and polyfunctional CD4+ T cells with HIV-1 acquisition. Clinical Trials Registration . NCT02968849.
Subject(s)
AIDS Vaccines , HIV Infections , HIV Seropositivity , HIV-1 , Female , HIV Antibodies , HIV Envelope Protein gp120 , HIV Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Male , South AfricaABSTRACT
Although interim results from several large, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials demonstrated high vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is unknown how effective the vaccines are in preventing people from becoming asymptomatically infected and potentially spreading the virus unwittingly. It is more difficult to evaluate VE against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection than against symptomatic COVID-19 because infection is not observed directly but rather is known to occur between 2 antibody or reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests. Additional challenges arise as community transmission changes over time and as participants are vaccinated on different dates because of staggered enrollment of participants or crossover of placebo recipients to the vaccine arm before the end of the study. Here, we provide valid and efficient statistical methods for estimating potentially waning VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection with blood or nasal samples under time-varying community transmission, staggered enrollment, and blinded or unblinded crossover. We demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed methods through numerical studies that mimic the BNT162b2 phase 3 trial and the Prevent COVID U study. In addition, we assess how crossover and the frequency of diagnostic tests affect the precision of VE estimates.
Subject(s)
BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19 , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Vaccine EfficacyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite the development of safe and effective vaccines, effective treatments for COVID-19 disease are still urgently needed. Several antiviral drugs have shown to be effective in reducing progression of COVID-19 disease. METHODS: In the present work, we use an agent-based mathematical model to assess the potential population impact of the use of antiviral treatments in four countries with different demographic structure and current levels of vaccination coverage: Kenya, Mexico, United States (US) and Belgium. We analyzed antiviral effects on reducing hospitalization and death, and potential antiviral effects on reducing transmission. For each country, we varied daily treatment initiation rate (DTIR) and antiviral effect in reducing transmission (AVT). RESULTS: Irrespective of location and AVT, widespread antiviral treatment of symptomatic adult infections (20% DTIR) prevented the majority of COVID-19 deaths, and recruiting 6% of all adult symptomatic infections daily reduced mortality by over 20% in all countries. Furthermore, our model projected that targeting antiviral treatment to the oldest age group (65 years old and older, DTIR of 20%) can prevent over 30% of deaths. Our results suggest that early antiviral treatment (as soon as possible after inception of infection) is needed to mitigate transmission, preventing 50% more infections compared to late treatment (started 3 to 5 days after symptoms onset). Our results highlight the synergistic effect of vaccination and antiviral treatment: as the vaccination rate increases, antivirals have a larger relative impact on population transmission. Finally, our model projects that even in highly vaccinated populations, adding antiviral treatment can be extremely helpful to mitigate COVID-19 deaths. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that antiviral treatments can become a strategic tool that, in combination with vaccination, can significantly reduce COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths and can help control SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 , Adult , Aged , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospitalization , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , United StatesABSTRACT
Several vaccine candidates to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have entered or will soon enter large-scale, phase 3, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. To facilitate harmonized evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of these vaccines, a general set of clinical endpoints is proposed, along with considerations to guide the selection of the primary endpoints on the basis of clinical and statistical reasoning. The plausibility that vaccine protection against symptomatic COVID-19 could be accompanied by a shift toward more SARS-CoV-2 infections that are asymptomatic is highlighted, as well as the potential implications of such a shift.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic/methods , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness IndexABSTRACT
Multiple candidate vaccines to prevent COVID-19 have entered large-scale phase 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, and several have demonstrated substantial short-term efficacy. At some point after demonstration of substantial efficacy, placebo recipients should be offered the efficacious vaccine from their trial, which will occur before longer-term efficacy and safety are known. The absence of a placebo group could compromise assessment of longer-term vaccine effects. However, by continuing follow-up after vaccination of the placebo group, this study shows that placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy can be mathematically derived by assuming that the benefit of vaccination over time has the same profile for the original vaccine recipients and the original placebo recipients after their vaccination. Although this derivation provides less precise estimates than would be obtained by a standard trial where the placebo group remains unvaccinated, this proposed approach allows estimation of longer-term effect, including durability of vaccine efficacy and whether the vaccine eventually becomes harmful for some. Deferred vaccination, if done open-label, may lead to riskier behavior in the unblinded original vaccine group, confounding estimates of long-term vaccine efficacy. Hence, deferred vaccination via blinded crossover, where the vaccine group receives placebo and vice versa, would be the preferred way to assess vaccine durability and potential delayed harm. Deferred vaccination allows placebo recipients timely access to the vaccine when it would no longer be proper to maintain them on placebo, yet still allows important insights about immunologic and clinical effectiveness over time.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic/standards , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic/methods , Cross-Over Studies , Double-Blind Method , Drug Administration Schedule , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Research Design/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The advent and subsequent widespread availability of preventive vaccines has altered the course of public health over the past century. Despite this success, effective vaccines to prevent many high-burden diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), have been slow to develop. Vaccine development can be aided by the identification of immune response markers that serve as effective surrogates for clinically significant infection or disease endpoints. However, measuring immune response marker activity is often costly, which has motivated the usage of two-phase sampling for immune response evaluation in clinical trials of preventive vaccines. In such trials, the measurement of immunological markers is performed on a subset of trial participants, where enrollment in this second phase is potentially contingent on the observed study outcome and other participant-level information. We propose nonparametric methodology for efficiently estimating a counterfactual parameter that quantifies the impact of a given immune response marker on the subsequent probability of infection. Along the way, we fill in theoretical gaps pertaining to the asymptotic behavior of nonparametric efficient estimators in the context of two-phase sampling, including a multiple robustness property enjoyed by our estimators. Techniques for constructing confidence intervals and hypothesis tests are presented, and an open source software implementation of the methodology, the txshift R package, is introduced. We illustrate the proposed techniques using data from a recent preventive HIV vaccine efficacy trial.
Subject(s)
AIDS Vaccines , HIV Infections , Clinical Trials as Topic , HIV Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Probability , Vaccine EfficacyABSTRACT
HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) 505 was a phase 2b efficacy trial of a DNA/recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) HIV vaccine regimen. Although the trial was stopped early for lack of overall efficacy, later correlates of risk and sieve analyses generated the hypothesis that the DNA/rAd5 vaccine regimen protected some vaccinees from HIV infection yet enhanced HIV infection risk for others. Here, we assessed whether and how host Fc gamma receptor (FcγR) genetic variations influenced the DNA/rAd5 vaccine regimen's effect on HIV infection risk. We found that vaccine receipt significantly increased HIV acquisition compared with placebo receipt among participants carrying the FCGR2C-TATA haplotype (comprising minor alleles of four FCGR2C single-nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] sites) (hazard ratio [HR] = 9.79, P = 0.035) but not among participants without the haplotype (HR = 0.86, P = 0.67); the interaction of vaccine and haplotype effect was significant (P = 0.034). Similarly, vaccine receipt increased HIV acquisition compared with placebo receipt among participants carrying the FCGR3B-AGA haplotype (comprising minor alleles of the 3 FCGR3B SNPs) (HR = 2.78, P = 0.058) but not among participants without the haplotype (HR = 0.73, P = 0.44); again, the interaction of vaccine and haplotype was significant (P = 0.047). The FCGR3B-AGA haplotype also influenced whether a combined Env-specific CD8+ T-cell polyfunctionality score and IgG response correlated significantly with HIV risk; an FCGR2A SNP and two FCGR2B SNPs influenced whether anti-gp140 antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis correlated significantly with HIV risk. These results provide further evidence that Fc gamma receptor genetic variations may modulate HIV vaccine effects and immune function after HIV vaccination.IMPORTANCE By analyzing data from the HVTN 505 efficacy trial of a DNA/recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) vaccine regimen, we found that host genetics, specifically Fc gamma receptor genetic variations, influenced whether receiving the DNA/rAd5 regimen was beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to an individual with respect to HIV-1 acquisition risk. Moreover, Fc gamma receptor genetic variations influenced immune responses to the DNA/rAd5 vaccine regimen. Thus, Fc gamma receptor genetic variations should be considered in the analysis of future HIV vaccine trials and the development of HIV vaccines.
Subject(s)
B-Lymphocytes/virology , HIV Infections/virology , HIV-1/genetics , Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide , Receptors, IgG/genetics , Vaccines, DNA/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal/immunology , B-Lymphocytes/immunology , B-Lymphocytes/metabolism , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/metabolism , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/virology , Case-Control Studies , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic , Genetic Vectors/administration & dosage , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Infections/genetics , HIV Infections/immunology , HIV Seropositivity , HIV-1/immunology , Humans , Incidence , Phagocytosis , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination , env Gene Products, Human Immunodeficiency Virus/immunologyABSTRACT
Referral strategies based on risk scores and medical tests are commonly proposed. Direct assessment of their clinical utility requires implementing the strategy and is not possible in the early phases of biomarker research. Prior to late-phase studies, net benefit measures can be used to assess the potential clinical impact of a proposed strategy. Validation studies, in which the biomarker defines a prespecified referral strategy, are a gold standard approach to evaluating biomarker potential. Uncertainty, quantified by a confidence interval, is important to consider when deciding whether a biomarker warrants an impact study, does not demonstrate clinical potential, or that more data are needed. We establish distribution theory for empirical estimators of net benefit and propose empirical estimators of variance. The primary results are for the most commonly employed estimators of net benefit: from cohort and unmatched case-control samples, and for point estimates and net benefit curves. Novel estimators of net benefit under stratified two-phase and categorically matched case-control sampling are proposed and distribution theory developed. Results for common variants of net benefit and for estimation from right-censored outcomes are also presented. We motivate and demonstrate the methodology with examples from lung cancer research and highlight its application to study design.
Subject(s)
Research Design , Biomarkers , Case-Control Studies , Humans , UncertaintyABSTRACT
Background: DSM265 is a selective inhibitor of Plasmodium dihydroorotate dehydrogenase that fully protected against controlled human malarial infection (CHMI) by direct venous inoculation of Plasmodium falciparum sporozoites when administered 1 day before challenge and provided partial protection when administered 7 days before challenge. Methods: A double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was performed to assess safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of 1 oral dose of 400 mg of DSM265 before CHMI. Three cohorts were studied, with DSM265 administered 3 or 7 days before direct venous inoculation of sporozoites or 7 days before 5 bites from infected mosquitoes. Results: DSM265-related adverse events consisted of mild-to-moderate headache and gastrointestinal symptoms. DSM265 concentrations were consistent with pharmacokinetic models (mean area under the curve extrapolated to infinity, 1707 µg*h/mL). Placebo-treated participants became positive by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and were treated 7-10 days after CHMI. Among DSM265-treated subjects, 2 of 6 in each cohort were sterilely protected. DSM265-treated recipients had longer times to development of parasitemia than placebo-treated participants (P < .004). Conclusions: This was the first CHMI study of a novel antimalarial compound to compare direct venous inoculation of sporozoites and mosquito bites. Times to qRT-PCR positivity and treatment were comparable for both routes. DSM265 given 3 or 7 days before CHMI was safe and well tolerated but sterilely protected only one third of participants.
Subject(s)
Antimalarials/administration & dosage , Chemoprevention/methods , Malaria, Falciparum/prevention & control , Pyrimidines/administration & dosage , Triazoles/administration & dosage , Adolescent , Adult , Animals , Antimalarials/adverse effects , Antimalarials/pharmacokinetics , Double-Blind Method , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/epidemiology , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/pathology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Parasitemia/prevention & control , Placebos/administration & dosage , Plasmodium falciparum/genetics , Plasmodium falciparum/isolation & purification , Pyrimidines/adverse effects , Pyrimidines/pharmacokinetics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Treatment Outcome , Triazoles/adverse effects , Triazoles/pharmacokinetics , Young AdultABSTRACT
Background: HVTN 505 was a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) preventive vaccine efficacy trial of a DNA/recombinant adenovirus serotype 5 (rAd5) vaccine regimen. We assessed antibody responses measured 1 month after final vaccination (month 7) as correlates of HIV-1 acquisition risk. Methods: Binding antibody responses were quantified in serum samples from 25 primary endpoint vaccine cases (diagnosed with HIV-1 infection between month 7 and month 24) and 125 randomly sampled frequency-matched vaccine controls (HIV-1 negative at month 24). We prespecified for a primary analysis tier 6 antibody response biomarkers that measure immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin A (IgA) binding to Env proteins and 2 previously assessed T-cell response biomarkers. Results: Envelope-specific IgG responses were significantly correlated with decreased HIV-1 risk. Moreover, the interaction of IgG responses and Env-specific CD8+ T-cell polyfunctionality score had a highly significant association with HIV-1 risk after adjustment for multiple comparisons. Conclusions: Vaccinees with higher levels of Env IgG have significantly decreased HIV-1 risk when CD8+ T-cell responses are low. Moreover, vaccinees with high CD8+ T-cell responses generally have low risk, and those with low CD8+ T-cell and low Env antibody responses have high risk. These findings suggest the critical importance of inducing a robust IgG Env response when the CD8+ T-cell response is low.
Subject(s)
AIDS Vaccines/immunology , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/physiology , HIV Infections/prevention & control , Antibody Formation/immunology , HIV Antibodies/blood , HIV-1/immunology , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/classification , MaleABSTRACT
Biomarker endpoints measuring vaccine-induced immune responses are essential to HIV vaccine development because of their potential to predict the effect of a vaccine in preventing HIV infection. A vaccine's immune response profile observed in phase I immunogenicity studies is a key factor in determining whether it is advanced for further study in phase II and III efficacy trials. The multiplicity of immune variables and scientific uncertainty in their relative importance, however, pose great challenges to the development of formal algorithms for selecting vaccines to study further. Motivated by the practical need to identify a set of promising vaccines from a pool of candidate regimens for inclusion in an upcoming HIV vaccine efficacy trial, we propose a new statistical framework for the selection of vaccine regimens based on their immune response profile. In particular, we propose superiority and non-redundancy criteria to be achieved in down-selection, and develop novel statistical algorithms that integrate hypothesis testing and ranking for selecting vaccine regimens satisfying these criteria. Performance of the proposed selection algorithms are evaluated through extensive numerical studies. We demonstrate the application of the proposed methods through the comparison of immune responses between several HIV vaccine regimens. The methods are applicable to general down-selection applications in clinical trials.