Delivering COVID-19 vaccine trials at speed: the implementation of a phase IV UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines (ComFluCOV).

BACKGROUND: In February 2021, the UK Department of Health and Social Care sought evidence on the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 and influenza vaccine co-administration to inform the 2021/2022 influenza vaccine policy. Co-administration could support vaccine uptake and reduce healthcare appointments. ComFluCOV was a randomised controlled trial designed to provide this evidence. This report outlines the methods used to deliver the trial in 6 months to answer an urgent public health question as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. METHODS: ComFluCOV was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care and was managed by the Bristol Trials Centre, a UK-registered clinical trials unit. It was classed as an Urgent Public Health trial which facilitated fast-track regulatory approvals. Trial materials and databases were developed using in-house templates and those used in other COVID-19 vaccine trials. Participants were recruited by advertising, and via a trial website. Electronic trial systems enabled daily review of participant data. Weekly virtual meetings were held with stakeholders and trial sites. RESULTS: ComFluCOV was delivered within 6 months from inception to reporting, and trial milestones to inform the Department of Health and Social Care policy were met. Set-up was achieved within 1 month. Regulators provided expedited reviews, with feedback ahead of submission. Recruitment took place at 12 sites. Over 380 site staff were trained. Overall, 679 participants were recruited in two months. The final report to the Department of Health and Social Care was submitted in September 2021, following a preliminary safety report in May 2021. Trial results have been published. CONCLUSION: The rapid delivery of ComFluCOV was resource intensive. It was made possible in part due to a unique set of circumstances created by the pandemic situation including measures put in place to support urgent public health research and public support for COVID-19 vaccine research. Elements of the trial could be adopted to increase efficiency in 'non-pandemic' situations including working with a clinical trials unit to enable immediate mobilisation of a team of experienced researchers, greater sharing of resources between clinical trials units, use of electronic trial systems and virtual meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14391248, submitted on 17/03/2021. Registered on 30/03/2021.

Working under short timescales to deliver a national trial: a case study of the ComFluCOV trial from a statistician's perspective.

BACKGROUND: In early 2021, the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK called for research on the safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. Co-administration of these vaccines would facilitate uptake and reduce the number of healthcare visits required. The ComFluCOV trial was designed to deliver the necessary evidence in time to inform the autumn (September-November) 2021 vaccination policy. This paper presents the statistical methodology applied to help successfully deliver the trial results in 6 months. METHODS: ComFluCOV was a parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial managed by the Bristol Trials Centre. Two study statisticians, supported by a senior statistician, worked together on all statistical tasks. Tools were developed to aid the pre-screening process. Automated data monitoring reports of clinic data and electronic diaries were produced daily and reviewed by the trial team and feedback provided to sites. Analyses were performed independently in parallel, and derivations and results of all outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Set-up was achieved in less than a month, and 679 participants were recruited over 8 weeks. A total of 537 [at least] daily reports outlining recruitment, protocol adherence, and data quality, and 695 daily reports of participant electronic diaries identifying any missed diary entries and adverse events were produced over a period of 16 weeks. A preliminary primary outcome analysis of validated data was reported to the Department of Health and Social Care in May 2021. The database was locked 6 weeks after the final participant follow-up and final analyses completed 3 weeks later. A pre-print publication was submitted within 14 days of the results being made available. The results were reported 6 months after first discussions about the trial. CONCLUSION: The statistical methodologies implemented in ComFluCOV helped to deliver the study in the timescale set. Working in a new clinical area to tight timescales was challenging. Having two statisticians working together on the study provided a quality assurance process that enabled analyses to be completed efficiently and ensured data were interpreted correctly. Processes developed could be applied to other studies to maximise quality, reduce the risk of errors, and overall provide enhanced validation methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14391248, registered on 30 March 2021.

Safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of COVID-19 vaccines (ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2) with seasonal influenza vaccines in adults in the UK (ComFluCOV): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines could reduce burden on health-care systems. We aimed to assess the safety of concomitant administration of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial, adults in receipt of a single dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 were enrolled at 12 UK sites and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive concomitant administration of either an age-appropriate influenza vaccine or placebo alongside their second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. 3 weeks later the group who received placebo received the influenza vaccine, and vice versa. Participants were followed up for 6 weeks. The influenza vaccines were three seasonal, inactivated vaccines (trivalent, MF59C adjuvanted or a cellular or recombinant quadrivalent vaccine). Participants and investigators were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was one or more participant-reported solicited systemic reactions in the 7 days after first trial vaccination(s), with a difference of less than 25% considered non-inferior. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Local and unsolicited systemic reactions and humoral responses were also assessed. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14391248. FINDINGS: Between April 1 and June 26, 2021, 679 participants were recruited to one of six cohorts, as follows: 129 ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 139 BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 146 ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 79 BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 128 ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine, and 58 BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine. 340 participants were assigned to concomitant administration of influenza and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by placebo at day 21, and 339 participants were randomly assigned to concomitant administration of placebo and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by influenza vaccine at day 21. Non-inferiority was indicated in four cohorts, as follows: ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (risk difference for influenza vaccine minus placebos -1·29%, 95% CI -14·7 to 12·1), BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (6·17%, -6·27 to 18·6), BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine (-12·9%, -34·2 to 8·37), and ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (2·53%, -13·3 to 18·3). In the other two cohorts, the upper limit of the 95% CI exceeded the 0·25 non-inferiority margin (ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine 10·3%, -5·44 to 26·0; BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine 6·75%, -11·8 to 25·3). Most systemic reactions to vaccination were mild or moderate. Rates of local and unsolicited systemic reactions were similar between the randomly assigned groups. One serious adverse event, hospitalisation with severe headache, was considered related to the trial intervention. Immune responses were not adversely affected. INTERPRETATION: Concomitant vaccination with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine raises no safety concerns and preserves antibody responses to both vaccines. Concomitant vaccination with both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines over the next immunisation season should reduce the burden on health-care services for vaccine delivery, allowing for timely vaccine administration and protection from COVID-19 and influenza for those in need. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme.

Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 - Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results.

BACKGROUND: World Health Organization expert groups recommended mortality trials of four repurposed antiviral drugs - remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: We randomly assigned inpatients with Covid-19 equally between one of the trial drug regimens that was locally available and open control (up to five options, four active and the local standard of care). The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug available but patient assigned to the same care without that drug). Rate ratios for death were calculated with stratification according to age and status regarding mechanical ventilation at trial entry. RESULTS: At 405 hospitals in 30 countries, 11,330 adults underwent randomization; 2750 were assigned to receive remdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug. Adherence was 94 to 96% midway through treatment, with 2 to 6% crossover. In total, 1253 deaths were reported (median day of death, day 8; interquartile range, 4 to 14). The Kaplan-Meier 28-day mortality was 11.8% (39.0% if the patient was already receiving ventilation at randomization and 9.5% otherwise). Death occurred in 301 of 2743 patients receiving remdesivir and in 303 of 2708 receiving its control (rate ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.50), in 104 of 947 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine and in 84 of 906 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.59; P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.25; P = 0.97), and in 243 of 2050 patients receiving interferon and in 216 of 2050 receiving its control (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.39; P = 0.11). No drug definitely reduced mortality, overall or in any subgroup, or reduced initiation of ventilation or hospitalization duration. CONCLUSIONS: These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay. (Funded by the World Health Organization; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN83971151; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04315948.).

The Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of Community versus Hospital Eye Service follow-up for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration with quiescent disease (ECHoES): a virtual randomised balanced incomplete block trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) usually attend regular reviews, even when the disease is quiescent. Reviews are burdensome to health services, patients and carers. OBJECTIVES: To compare the proportion of correct lesion classifications made by community-based optometrists and ophthalmologists from vignettes of patients; to estimate the cost-effectiveness of community follow-up by optometrists compared with follow-up by ophthalmologists in the Hospital Eye Service (HES); to ascertain views of patients, their representatives, optometrists, ophthalmologists and clinical commissioners on the proposed shared care model. DESIGN: Community-based optometrists and ophthalmologists in the HES classified lesions from vignettes comprising clinical information, colour fundus photographs and optical coherence tomography images. Participants' classifications were validated against experts' classifications (reference standard). SETTING: Internet-based application. PARTICIPANTS: Ophthalmologists had to have ≥ 3 years post-registration experience in ophthalmology, have passed part 1 of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, Diploma in Ophthalmology or equivalent examination, and have experience in the age-related macular degeneration service. Optometrists had to be fully qualified, be registered with the General Optical Council for ≥ 3 years and not be participating in nAMD shared care. INTERVENTIONS: The trial sought to emulate a conventional trial in comparing optometrists' and ophthalmologists' decision-making, but vignettes, not patients, were assessed; therefore, there were no interventions. Participants received training prior to assessing vignettes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - correct classification of the activity status of a lesion based on a vignette, compared with a reference standard. Secondary outcomes - frequencies of potentially sight-threatening errors, participants' judgements about specific lesion components, participant-rated confidence in their decisions and cost-effectiveness of follow-up by community-based optometrists compared with HES ophthalmologists. RESULTS: In total, 155 participants registered for the trial; 96 (48 in each professional group) completed training and main assessments and formed the analysis population. Optometrists and ophthalmologists achieved 1702 out of 2016 (84.4%) and 1722 out of 2016 (85.4%) correct classifications, respectively [odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.25; p = 0.543]. Optometrists' decision-making was non-inferior to ophthalmologists' with respect to the pre-specified limit of 10% absolute difference (0.298 on the odds scale). Frequencies of sight-threatening errors were similar for optometrists and ophthalmologists [57/994 (5.7%) vs. 62/994 (6.2%), OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.57; p = 0.789]. Ophthalmologists assessed lesion components as present less often than optometrists and were more confident about their lesion classifications than optometrists. The mean care-pathway cost for assessment was very similar by group, namely £397.33 for ophthalmologists and £410.78 for optometrists. The optometrist-led monitoring reviews were slightly more costly and less effective than ophthalmologist-led reviews, although the differences were extremely small. There was consensus that optometrist-led monitoring has the potential to reduce clinical workload and be more patient-centred. However, potential barriers are ophthalmologists' perceptions of optometrists' competence, the need for clinical training, the ability of the professions to work collaboratively and the financial feasibility of shared care for Clinical Commissioning Groups. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of optometrists to make nAMD retreatment decisions from vignettes is non-inferior to that of ophthalmologists. Various barriers to implementing shared cared for nAMD were identified. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: The Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of Community versus Hospital Eye Service follow-up for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration with quiescent disease (ECHoES) study web application was robust and could be used for future training or research. The benefit of reducing HES workload was not considered in the economic evaluation. A framework of programme budgeting and marginal analysis could explicitly explore the resource implications of shifting resources within a given health service area, as the benefit of reducing HES workload was not considered in the economic evaluation. Future qualitative research could investigate professional differences of opinion that were identified in multidisciplinary focus groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07479761. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 80. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.