Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22276362

ABSTRACT

In the randomized, placebo-controlled PREVENT-19 phase 3 trial conducted in the U.S. and Mexico of the NVX-CoV2373 adjuvanted, recombinant spike protein nanoparticle vaccine, anti-spike binding IgG concentration (spike IgG) and pseudovirus 50% neutralizing antibody titer (nAb ID50) measured two weeks after two doses were assessed as correlates of risk and as correlates of protection against PCR-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID- 19). These immune correlates analyses were conducted in the U.S. cohort of baseline SARS- CoV-2 negative per-protocol participants using a case-cohort design that measured the antibody markers from all 12 vaccine recipient breakthrough COVID-19 cases starting 7 days post antibody measurement and from 639 vaccine recipient non-cases (Mexico was excluded due to zero breakthrough cases with the efficacy data cut-off date April 19, 2021). In vaccine recipients, the baseline risk factor-adjusted hazard ratio of COVID-19 was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.20, 0.63), p<0.001 (adjusted p-0.005) per 10-fold increase in IgG spike concentration and 0.39 (0.19, 0.82), p=0.013 (adjusted p=0.030) per 10-fold increase in nAb ID50 titer. At spike IgG concentration 100, 1000, and 6934 binding antibody units/ml (100 is the 3rd percentile, 6934 is the 97.5th percentile), vaccine efficacy to reduce the probability of acquiring COVID-19 at 59 days post marker measurement was 65.5% (95% CI: 23.0%, 90.8%), 87.7% (77.7%, 94.4%), and 94.8% (88.0%, 97.9%), respectively. At nAb ID50 titers of 50, 100, 1000, and 7230 IU50/ml (50 is the 5th percentile, 7230 the 97.5th percentile), these estimates were 75.7% (49.8%, 93.2%), 81.7% (66.3%, 93.2%), 92.8% (85.1%, 97.4%) and 96.8% (88.3%, 99.3%). The same two antibody markers were assessed as immune correlates via the same study design and statistical analysis in the mRNA-1273 phase 3 COVE trial (except in COVE the markers were measured four weeks post dose two). Spike IgG levels were slightly lower and nAb ID50 titers slightly higher after NVX-CoV2373 than after mRNA-1273 vaccination. The strength of the nAb ID50 correlate was similar between the trials, whereas the spike IgG antibodies appeared to correlate more strongly with NVX-CoV2373 in PREVENT-19, as quantified by the hazard ratio and the degree of change in vaccine efficacy across antibody levels. However, the relatively few breakthrough cases in PREVENT-19 limited the ability to infer a stronger correlate. The conclusion is that both markers were consistent correlates of protection for the two vaccines, supporting potential cross-vaccine platform applications of these markers for guiding decisions about vaccine approval and use.

2.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22272763

ABSTRACT

Anti-spike IgG binding antibody, anti-receptor binding domain IgG antibody, and pseudovirus neutralizing antibody measurements four weeks post-vaccination were assessed as correlates of risk of moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 outcomes through 83 days post-vaccination and as correlates of protection following a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine in the placebo-controlled phase of ENSEMBLE, an international, randomized efficacy trial. Each marker had evidence as a correlate of risk and of protection, with strongest evidence for 50% inhibitory dilution (ID50) neutralizing antibody titer. The outcome hazard ratio was 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29, 0.81; p=0.006) per 10-fold increase in ID50; vaccine efficacy was 60% (43, 72%) at nonquantifiable ID50 (< 2.7 IU50/ml) and rose to 89% (78, 96%) at ID50 = 96.3 IU50/ml. Comparison of the vaccine efficacy by ID50 titer curves for ENSEMBLE-US, the COVE trial of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and the COV002-UK trial of the AZD1222 vaccine supported consistency of the ID50 titer correlate of protection across trials and vaccine types.

3.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20248137

ABSTRACT

BackgroundSeveral candidate vaccines to prevent COVID-19 disease have entered large-scale phase 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials and some have demonstrated substantial short-term efficacy. Efficacious vaccines should, at some point, be offered to placebo participants, which will occur before long-term efficacy and safety are known. MethodsFollowing vaccination of the placebo group, we show that placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy can be derived by assuming the benefit of vaccination over time has the same profile for the original vaccine recipients and the placebo crossovers. This reconstruction allows estimation of both vaccine durability and potential vaccine-associated enhanced disease. ResultsPost-crossover estimates of vaccine efficacy can provide insights about durability, identify waning efficacy, and identify late enhancement of disease, but are less reliable estimates than those obtained by a standard trial where the placebo cohort is maintained. As vaccine efficacy estimates for post-crossover periods depend on prior vaccine efficacy estimates, longer pre-crossover periods with higher case counts provide better estimates of late vaccine efficacy. Further, open-label crossover may lead to riskier behavior in the immediate crossover period for the unblinded vaccine arm, confounding vaccine efficacy estimates for all post-crossover periods. ConclusionsWe advocate blinded crossover and continued follow-up of trial participants to best assess vaccine durability and potential delayed enhancement of disease. This approach allows placebo recipients timely access to the vaccine when it would no longer be proper to maintain participants on placebo, yet still allows important insights about immunological and clinical effectiveness over time.

4.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20090274

ABSTRACT

PurposeGiven incomplete data reporting by race, we used data on COVID-19 cases and deaths in US counties to describe racial disparities in COVID-19 disease and death and associated determinants. MethodsUsing publicly available data (accessed April 13, 2020), predictors of COVID-19 cases and deaths were compared between disproportionately ([≥]13%) black and all other (<13% black) counties. Rate ratios were calculated and population attributable fractions (PAF) were estimated using COVID-19 cases and deaths via zero-inflated negative binomial regression model. National maps with county-level data and an interactive scatterplot of COVID-19 cases were generated. ResultsNearly ninety-seven percent of disproportionately black counties (656/677) reported a case and 49% (330/677) reported a death versus 81% (1987/2,465) and 28% (684/ 2465), respectively, for all other counties. Counties with higher proportions of black people have higher prevalence of comorbidities and greater air pollution. Counties with higher proportions of black residents had more COVID-19 diagnoses (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.17-1.33) and deaths (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00-1.40), after adjusting for county-level characteristics such as age, poverty, comorbidities, and epidemic duration. COVID-19 deaths were higher in disproportionally black rural and small metro counties. The PAF of COVID-19 diagnosis due to lack of health insurance was 3.3% for counties with <13% black residents and 4.2% for counties with [≥]13% black residents. ConclusionsNearly twenty-two percent of US counties are disproportionately black and they accounted for 52% of COVID-19 diagnoses and 58% of COVID-19 deaths nationally. County-level comparisons can both inform COVID-19 responses and identify epidemic hot spots. Social conditions, structural racism, and other factors elevate risk for COVID-19 diagnoses and deaths in black communities.

5.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20069922

ABSTRACT

SO_SCPLOWUMMARYC_SCPLOWTime is of the essence in evaluating potential drugs and biologics for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. There are currently over 400 clinical trials (phase 2 and 3) of treatments for COVID-19 registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Covariate adjustment is a statistical analysis method with potential to improve precision and reduce the required sample size for a substantial number of these trials. Though covariate adjustment is recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, it is underutilized, especially for the types of outcomes (binary, ordinal and time-to-event) that are common in COVID-19 trials. To demonstrate the potential value added by covariate adjustment in this context, we simulated two-arm, randomized trials comparing a hypothetical COVID-19 treatment versus standard of care, where the primary outcome is binary, ordinal, or time-to-event. Our simulated distributions are derived from two sources: longitudinal data on over 500 patients hospitalized at Weill Cornell Medicine New York Presbyterian Hospital, and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) preliminary description of 2449 cases. We found substantial precision gains from using covariate adjustment-equivalent to 9-21% reductions in the required sample size to achieve a desired power-for a variety of estimands (targets of inference) when the trial sample size was at least 200. We provide an R package and practical recommendations for implementing covariate adjustment. The estimators that we consider are robust to model misspecification.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...