Ongoing Analytical Procedure Performance Verification Using a Risk-Based Approach to Determine Performance Monitoring Requirements.

The analytical procedure life cycle (APLC) provides a holistic framework to ensure analytical procedure fitness for purpose. USP's general chapter <1220> considers the validation activities that take place across the entire analytical procedure lifecycle and provides a three-stage framework for its implementation. Performing ongoing analytical procedure performance verification (OPPV) (stage 3) ensures that the procedure remains in a state of control across its lifecycle of use post validation (qualification) and involves an ongoing program to collect and analyze data that relate to the performance of the procedure. Knowledge generated during stages 1 (procedure design) and 2 (procedure performance qualification) is used as the basis for the design of the routine monitoring plan to support performance verification (stage 3). The extent of the routine monitoring required should be defined based on risk assessment, considering the complexity of the procedure, its intended purpose, and knowledge about process/procedure variability. The analytical target profile (ATP) can be used to provide or guide the establishment of acceptance criteria used to verify the procedure performance during routine use (e.g., through a system/sample suitability test (SST) or verification criteria applicable to procedure changes or transfers). An ATP however is not essentially required to perform OPPV, and a procedure performance monitoring program can be implemented even if the full APLC framework has not been applied. In these situations, verification criteria can be derived from existing validation or system suitability criteria. Elements of the life cycle approach can also be applied retrospectively if deemed useful.

Immune correlates analysis of a phase 3 trial of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine.

In the phase 3 trial of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine conducted in the U.S., Chile, and Peru, anti-spike binding IgG concentration (spike IgG) and pseudovirus 50% neutralizing antibody titer (nAb ID50) measured four weeks after two doses were assessed as correlates of risk and protection against PCR-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). These analyses of SARS-CoV-2 negative participants were based on case-cohort sampling of vaccine recipients (33 COVID-19 cases by 4 months post dose two, 463 non-cases). The adjusted hazard ratio of COVID-19 was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.14, 0.76) per 10-fold increase in spike IgG concentration and 0.28 (0.10, 0.77) per 10-fold increase in nAb ID50 titer. At nAb ID50 below the limit of detection (< 2.612 IU50/ml), 10, 100, and 270 IU50/ml, vaccine efficacy was -5.8% (-651%, 75.6%), 64.9% (56.4%, 86.9%), 90.0% (55.8%, 97.6%) and 94.2% (69.4%, 99.1%). These findings provide further evidence towards defining an immune marker correlate of protection to help guide regulatory/approval decisions for COVID-19 vaccines.

AZD1222-induced nasal antibody responses are shaped by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and correlate with virologic outcomes in breakthrough infection.

The nasal mucosa is an important initial site of host defense against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, intramuscularly administered vaccines typically do not achieve high antibody titers in the nasal mucosa. We measure anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgA in nasal epithelial lining fluid (NELF) following intramuscular vaccination of 3,058 participants from the immunogenicity substudy of a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of AZD1222 vaccination (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04516746). IgG is detected in NELF collected 14 days following the first AZD1222 vaccination. IgG levels increase with a second vaccination and exceed pre-existing levels in baseline-SARS-CoV-2-seropositive participants. Nasal IgG responses are durable and display strong correlations with serum IgG, suggesting serum-to-NELF transudation. AZD1222 induces short-lived increases to pre-existing nasal IgA levels in baseline-seropositive vaccinees. Vaccinees display a robust recall IgG response upon breakthrough infection, with overall magnitudes unaffected by time between vaccination and illness. Mucosal responses correlate with reduced viral loads and shorter durations of viral shedding in saliva.

Durability of protection and immunogenicity of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccine over 6 months.

BackgroundWe report updated safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) from an ongoing phase 3 trial.MethodsAdults at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection were randomized (2:1), stratified by age, to receive 2 doses of AZD1222 or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was confirmed SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase PCR-positive (RT-PCR-positive) symptomatic COVID-19 at 15 or more days after a second dose in baseline SARS-CoV-2-seronegative participants. The 21,634 and 10,816 participants were randomized to AZD1222 and placebo, respectively.FindingsData cutoff for this analysis was July 30, 2021; median follow-up from second dose was 78 and 71 days for the double-blind period (censoring at unblinding or nonstudy COVID-19 vaccination) and 201 and 82 days for the period to nonstudy COVID-19 vaccination (regardless of unblinding) in the AZD1222 and placebo groups, respectively. For the primary efficacy end point in the double-blind period (141 and 184 events; incidence rates: 39.2 and 118.8 per 1,000 person years), vaccine efficacy was 67.0% (P < 0.001). In the period to nonstudy COVID-19 vaccination, incidence of events remained consistently low and stable through 6 months in the AZD1222 group; for the primary efficacy end point (328 and 219 events; incidence rates: 36.4, 108.4) and severe/critical disease (5 and 13 events; incidence rates: 0.6, 6.4), respective vaccine efficacy estimates were 65.1% and 92.1%. AZD1222 elicited humoral immune responses over time, with waning at day 180. No emergent safety issues were seen.ConclusionAZD1222 is safe and well tolerated, demonstrating durable protection and immunogenicity with median follow-up (AZD1222 group) of 6 months.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04516746.FundingAstraZeneca; US government.

Robust humoral and cellular recall responses to AZD1222 attenuate breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to unvaccinated.

Background: Breakthrough severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinees typically produces milder disease than infection in unvaccinated individuals. Methods: To explore disease attenuation, we examined COVID-19 symptom burden and immuno-virologic responses to symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in participants (AZD1222: n=177/17,617; placebo: n=203/8,528) from a 2:1 randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of two-dose primary series AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccination (NCT04516746). Results: We observed that AZD1222 vaccinees had an overall lower incidence and shorter duration of COVID-19 symptoms compared with placebo recipients, as well as lower SARS-CoV-2 viral loads and a shorter median duration of viral shedding in saliva. Vaccinees demonstrated a robust antibody recall response versus placebo recipients with low-to-moderate inverse correlations with virologic endpoints. Vaccinees also demonstrated an enriched polyfunctional spike-specific Th-1-biased CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell response that was associated with strong inverse correlations with virologic endpoints. Conclusion: Robust immune responses following AZD1222 vaccination attenuate COVID-19 disease severity and restrict SARS-CoV-2 transmission potential by reducing viral loads and the duration of viral shedding in saliva. Collectively, these analyses underscore the essential role of vaccination in mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic.

Phase 3 Safety and Efficacy of AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) Covid-19 Vaccine.

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.).

Effect of Daytime Versus Night-time on Outcome in Patients Undergoing Emergent Neurosurgical Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Timing of neurosurgical procedures is controversial. Challenges identified with night-time surgeries include physician fatigue and sleep deprivation, and fewer staff and resources compared with daytime surgery. These might contribute to medical errors and complications, and, hence, worse patient outcomes. METHODS: This single center retrospective study of 304 patients who underwent emergent neurosurgical procedures between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2016 included 2 groups based on the timing of surgery: daytime (7:00 AM to 6:59 PM) and night-time (7:00 PM to 6:59 AM) surgery groups. Patient demographics, diagnosis, surgical characteristics, complications, and neurological outcome were obtained from the medical records. RESULTS: There was no difference in patient demographics, intraoperative complications, and length of surgery between the 2 groups. Although there was no statistically significant difference in neurological outcome between the 2 groups at hospital discharge and 1 month postdischarge, there was a higher proportion of patients in the night-time surgical group with unfavorable neurological outcome (Glasgow Outcome Score 1 to 3) at both these times. There were differences in hospital length of stay, location of postoperative management (postanesthesia care unit or intensive care unit), midline shift, baseline Glasgow Coma Scale score, and acuity of surgery between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analysis showed that age, baseline Glasgow Coma Scale score, surgery acuity status, procedure type, and intraoperative complications influenced neurological outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This study found no difference in the rate of unfavorable neurological outcome in patients undergoing emergent neurosurgical procedures during the daytime and night-time. However, our findings cannot exclude the possibility of an association between timing of surgery and outcome given its limitations, including small sample size and omission of potentially confounding variables. Further well-designed prospective trials are warranted to confirm our findings.

Long-term safety and efficacy of benralizumab in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma: 1-year results from the BORA phase 3 extension trial.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is an interleukin-5 receptor α-directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody that has been shown to safely reduce exacerbations and improve lung function for patients with asthma. We assessed the long-term safety and efficacy of benralizumab for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 extension study at 447 sites in 24 countries. Eligible patients had to have completed the SIROCCO or CALIMA trials and remained on subcutaneous benralizumab 30 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W). Patients who had received placebo in those trials were re-randomised in a 1:1 ratio, using an interactive web-based system, to benralizumab 30 mg either Q4W or Q8W (first three doses 4 weeks apart). Treatment lasted for 56 weeks for adult patients (age ≥18 years) and 108 weeks for adolescent patients (age 12-17 years). The primary endpoint was the safety and tolerability of the two dosing regimens of benralizumab up to 68 weeks for adult patients (including the follow-up visit post-treatment) and up to 56 weeks for adolescent patients. This endpoint was assessed in the full analysis set, which included all patients from the SIROCCO and CALIMA predecessor studies who received at least one dose of study treatment in BORA and did not continue into another trial. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02258542). FINDINGS: Between Nov 19, 2014, and July 6, 2016, we enrolled 1926 patients, of whom 633 had received benralizumab Q4W and 639 had received benralizumab Q8W in SIROCCO or CALIMA. The remaining 654 patients had received placebo in those trials and were randomly re-assigned in this trial to receive benralizumab Q4W (n=320) or Q8W (n=334). 1576 patients, including 783 who received benralizumab Q4W (265 newly assigned) and 793 who received benralizumab Q8W (281 newly assigned), were included in the full analysis set. The most common adverse events in all groups were viral upper respiratory tract infection (14-16%) and worsening asthma (7-10%). The most common serious adverse events were worsening asthma (3-4%), pneumonia (<1% to 1%), and pneumonia caused by bacterial infection (0-1%). The percentages of patients who had any on-treatment adverse event, any serious adverse event, or any adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation during BORA were similar between patients originally assigned benralizumab and those originally assigned placebo and between benralizumab treatment regimens. The percentage of patients who had any adverse event was similar between SIROCCO or CALIMA (71-75%; benralizumab group only) and BORA (65-71%), as was the percentage of patients who had an adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation (2% in SIROCCO and CALIMA vs 2-3% in BORA). INTERPRETATION: The 2 years of safety results validate that observations observed in the first year of benralizumab continued through a second year of treatment. No new consequences of long-term eosinophil depletion occurred, and the incidence of other adverse events, including opportunistic infections, were similar during the second year. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Kyowa Hakko Kirin.

Role of Antibodies in Protection Against Ebola Virus in Nonhuman Primates Immunized With Three Vaccine Platforms.

Background: Several vaccine platforms have been successfully evaluated for prevention of Ebola virus (EBOV) disease (EVD) in nonhuman primates and humans. Despite remarkable efficacy by multiple vaccines, the immunological correlates of protection against EVD are incompletely understood. Methods: We systematically evaluated the antibody response to various EBOV proteins in 79 nonhuman primates vaccinated with various EBOV vaccine platforms. We evaluated the serum immunoglobulin (Ig)G titers against EBOV glycoprotein (GP), the ability of the vaccine-induced antibodies to bind GP at acidic pH or to displace ZMapp, and virus neutralization titers. The correlation of these outcomes with survival from EVD was evaluated by appropriate statistical methods. Results: Irrespective of the vaccine platform, protection from EVD strongly correlated with anti-GP IgG titers. The GP-directed antibody levels required for protection in animals vaccinated with virus-like particles (VLPs) lacking nucleoprotein (NP) was significantly higher than animals immunized with NP-containing VLPs or adenovirus-expressed GP, platforms that induce strong T-cell responses. Furthermore, protective immune responses correlated with anti-GP antibody binding strength at acidic pH, neutralization of GP-expressing pseudovirions, and the ability to displace ZMapp components from GP. Conclusions: These findings suggest key quantitative and qualitative attributes of antibody response to EVD vaccines as potential correlates of protection.

Oral Glucocorticoid-Sparing Effect of Benralizumab in Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with severe asthma rely on oral glucocorticoids to manage their disease. We investigated whether benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha subunit of the interleukin-5 receptor that significantly reduces the incidence of asthma exacerbations, was also effective as an oral glucocorticoid-sparing therapy in patients relying on oral glucocorticoids to manage severe asthma associated with eosinophilia. METHODS: In a 28-week randomized, controlled trial, we assessed the effects of benralizumab (at a dose of 30 mg administered subcutaneously either every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks [with the first three doses administered every 4 weeks]) versus placebo on the reduction in the oral glucocorticoid dose while asthma control was maintained in adult patients with severe asthma. The primary end point was the percentage change in the oral glucocorticoid dose from baseline to week 28. Annual asthma exacerbation rates, lung function, symptoms, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Of 369 patients enrolled, 220 underwent randomization and started receiving benralizumab or placebo. The two benralizumab dosing regimens significantly reduced the median final oral glucocorticoid doses from baseline by 75%, as compared with a reduction of 25% in the oral glucocorticoid doses in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The odds of a reduction in the oral glucocorticoid dose were more than 4 times as high with benralizumab as with placebo. Among the secondary outcomes, benralizumab administered every 4 weeks resulted in an annual exacerbation rate that was 55% lower than the rate with placebo (marginal rate, 0.83 vs. 1.83, P=0.003), and benralizumab administered every 8 weeks resulted in an annual exacerbation rate that was 70% lower than the rate with placebo (marginal rate, 0.54 vs. 1.83, P<0.001). At 28 weeks, there was no significant effect of either benralizumab regimen on the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), as compared with placebo. The effects on various measures of asthma symptoms were mixed, with some showing significant changes in favor of benralizumab and others not showing significant changes. Frequencies of adverse events were similar between each benralizumab group and the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Benralizumab showed significant, clinically relevant benefits, as compared with placebo, on oral glucocorticoid use and exacerbation rates. These effects occurred without a sustained effect on the FEV1. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ZONDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02075255 .).

Benralizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody, as add-on treatment for patients with severe, uncontrolled, eosinophilic asthma (CALIMA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is a humanised, afucosylated, anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody that induces direct, rapid, and nearly complete depletion of eosinophils. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of benralizumab as add-on therapy for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma and elevated blood eosinophil counts. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (CALIMA) undertaken at 303 sites in 11 countries, we enrolled patients aged 12-75 years with severe asthma uncontrolled by medium-dosage to high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS plus LABA) and a history of two or more exacerbations in the previous year. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 56 weeks of benralizumab 30 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), benralizumab 30 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W; first three doses 4 weeks apart), or placebo (all subcutaneous injection). Patients were stratified (2:1) by baseline blood eosinophil counts 300 cells per µL or greater and less than 300 cells per µL, respectively. Patients and study centre staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was annual exacerbation rate ratio versus placebo for patients receiving high-dosage ICS plus LABA with baseline blood eosinophils 300 cells per µL or greater (intention-to-treat analysis). Key secondary endpoints were pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and total asthma symptom score. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01914757. FINDINGS: Between Aug 21, 2013, and March 16, 2015, 2505 patients were enrolled, of whom 1306 patients were randomised; 425 patients were randomly assigned to and received benralizumab 30 mg Q4W, 441 to benralizumab 30 mg Q8W, and 440 to placebo. 728 patients were included in the primary analysis population. Benralizumab resulted in significantly lower annual exacerbation rates with the Q4W regimen (rate 0·60 [95% CI 0·48-0·74], rate ratio 0·64 [95% CI 0·49-0·85], p=0·0018, n=241) and Q8W regimen (rate 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·82], rate ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·54-0·95], p=0·0188, n=239) compared with placebo (rate 0·93 [95% CI 0·77-1·12], n=248). Benralizumab also significantly improved pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (Q4W and Q8W) and total asthma symptom score (Q8W only) in these patients. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (90 [21%] in the Q4W group, 79 [18%] in the Q8W group, and 92 [21%] in the placebo group) and worsening asthma (61 [14%] in the Q4W group, 47 [11%] in the Q8W group, and 68 [15%] in the group). INTERPRETATION: Benralizumab significantly reduced annual exacerbation rates and was generally well tolerated for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with blood eosinophils 300 cells per µL or greater. Our data further refine the patient population likely to receive the greatest benefit from benralizumab treatment. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Kyowa Hakko Kirin.

Efficacy and safety of benralizumab for patients with severe asthma uncontrolled with high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß2-agonists (SIROCCO): a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilia is associated with worsening asthma severity and decreased lung function, with increased exacerbation frequency. We assessed the safety and efficacy of benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5 receptor α that depletes eosinophils by antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with eosinophilia. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 study at 374 sites in 17 countries. We recruited patients (aged 12-75 years) with a physician-based diagnosis of asthma for at least 1 year and at least two exacerbations while on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS plus LABA) in the previous year. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by an interactive web-based voice response system to benralizumab 30 mg either every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W; first three doses every 4 weeks) or placebo Q4W for 48 weeks as add on to their standard treatment. Patients were stratified 2:1 according to blood eosinophil counts of at least 300 cells per µL and less than 300 cells per µL. All patients and investigators involved in patient treatment or clinical assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was annual exacerbation rate ratio versus placebo, and key secondary endpoints were prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and total asthma symptom score at week 48, for patients with blood eosinophil counts of at least 300 cells per µL. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat (based on the full analysis set); safety analyses included patients according to study drug received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01928771. FINDINGS: Between Sept 19, 2013, and March 16, 2015, 2681 patients were enrolled, 1205 of whom met the study criteria and were randomly assigned: 407 to placebo, 400 to benralizumab 30 mg Q4W, and 398 to benralizumab 30 mg Q8W. 267 patients in the placebo group, 275 in the benralizumab 30 mg Q4W group, and 267 in the benralizumab 30 mg Q8W group had blood eosinophil counts at least 300 cells per µL and were included in the primary analysis population. Compared with placebo, benralizumab reduced the annual asthma exacerbation rate over 48 weeks when given Q4W (rate ratio 0·55, 95% CI 0·42-0·71; p<0·0001) or Q8W (0·49, 0·37-0·64; p<0·0001). Both benralizumab dosing regimens significantly improved prebronchodilator FEV1 in patients at week 48 compared with placebo (least-squares mean change from baseline: Q4W group 0·106 L, 95% CI 0·016-0·196; Q8W group 0·159 L, 0·068-0·249). Compared with placebo, asthma symptoms were improved by the Q8W regimen (least-squares mean difference -0·25, 95% CI -0·45 to -0·06), but not the Q4W regimen (-0·08, -0·27 to 0·12). The most common adverse events were worsening asthma (105 [13%] of 797 benralizumab-treated patients vs 78 [19%] of 407 placebo-treated patients) and nasopharyngitis (93 [12%] vs 47 [12%]). INTERPRETATION: These results confirm the efficacy and safety of benralizumab for patients with severe asthma and elevated eosinophils, which are uncontrolled by high-dosage ICS plus LABA, and provide support for benralizumab to be an additional option to treat this disease in this patient population. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Kyowa Hakko Kirin.