Safety and Efficacy of a Third Dose of BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Active immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) has been a critical mitigation tool against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In light of reports of waning protection occurring 6 months after the primary two-dose vaccine series, data are needed on the safety and efficacy of offering a third (booster) dose in persons 16 years of age or older. METHODS: In this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned participants who had received two 30-µg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least 6 months earlier to be injected with a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine or with placebo. We assessed vaccine safety and efficacy against Covid-19 starting 7 days after the third dose. RESULTS: A total of 5081 participants received a third BNT162b2 dose and 5044 received placebo. The median interval between dose 2 and dose 3 was 10.8 months in the vaccine group and 10.7 months in the placebo group; the median follow-up was 2.5 months. Local and systemic reactogenicity events from the third dose were generally of low grade. No new safety signals were identified, and no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported. Among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated, Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after dose 3 was observed in 6 participants in the vaccine group and in 123 participants in the placebo group, which corresponded to a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.3% (95% confidence interval, 89.5 to 98.3). CONCLUSIONS: A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered a median of 10.8 months after the second dose provided 95.3% efficacy against Covid-19 as compared with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine during a median follow-up of 2.5 months. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591031 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.).

Efficacy and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in participants with a history of cancer: subgroup analysis of a global phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with an underlying malignancy have high risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes. In clinical trials, COVID-19 vaccines were safe and efficacious against infection, hospitalization, and death, but most trials excluded participants with cancer. We report results from participants with a history of past or active neoplasm (malignant or benign/unknown) and up to 6 months' follow-up post-dose 2 from the placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial of the 2-dose BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2020-January 2021, 46,429 participants aged ≥ 12 years were randomized at 152 sites in 6 countries. Healthy participants with pre-existing stable neoplasm could participate; those receiving immunosuppressive therapy were excluded. Data are reported for participants, aged ≥ 16 years for safety and ≥ 12 years for efficacy, who had any history of neoplasm at baseline (data cut-off: March 13, 2021). Adverse-event (AE) data are controlled for follow-up time before unblinding and reported as incidence rates (IRs) per 100 person-years follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, 3813 participants had a history of neoplasm; most common malignancies were breast (n = 460), prostate (n = 362), and melanoma (n = 223). Four BNT162b2 and 71 placebo recipients developed COVID-19 from 7 days post-dose 2; vaccine efficacy was 94.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 98.5) after up to 6 months' follow-up post-dose 2. This compares favorably with vaccine efficacy of 91.1% in the overall trial population after the same follow-up. AEs were reported at IRs of 95.4(BNT162b2) and 48.3 (placebo) per 100 person-years. Most common AEs were reactogenicity events (injection-site pain, fatigue, pyrexia). Three BNT162b2 and 1 placebo recipients withdrew because of vaccine-related AEs. No vaccine-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: In participants with past or active neoplasms, BNT162b2 vaccine has a similar efficacy and safety profile as in the overall trial population. These results can inform BNT162b2 use during the COVID-19 pandemic and future trials in participants with cancer. Clinical trial number: NCT04368728.

Avelumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 200): an open-label, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with ovarian cancer will relapse after receiving frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and eventually develop platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. We report results of avelumab alone or avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. METHODS: JAVELIN Ovarian 200 was an open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 149 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (maximum of three previous lines for platinum-sensitive disease, none for platinum-resistant disease) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks), avelumab plus PLD (40 mg/m2 intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02580058. The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints. FINDINGS: Between Jan 5, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 566 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (combination n=188; PLD n=190, avelumab n=188). At data cutoff (Sept 19, 2018), median duration of follow-up for overall survival was 18·4 months (IQR 15·6-21·9) for the combination group, 17·4 months (15·2-21·3) for the PLD group, and 18·2 months (15·8-21·2) for the avelumab group. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·3-5·1) in the combination group, 3·5 months (2·1-4·0) in the PLD group, and 1·9 months (1·8-1·9) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·78 [repeated 93·1% CI 0·59-1·24], one-sided p=0·030; avelumab vs PLD: 1·68 [1·32-2·60], one-sided p>0·99). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 12·7-18·7) in the combination group, 13·1 months (11·8-15·5) in the PLD group, and 11·8 months (8·9-14·1) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·89 [repeated 88·85% CI 0·74-1·24], one-sided p=0·21; avelumab vs PLD: 1·14 [0·95-1·58], one-sided p=0·83]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (18 [10%] in the combination group vs nine [5%] in the PLD group vs none in the avelumab group), rash (11 [6%] vs three [2%] vs none), fatigue (ten [5%] vs three [2%] vs none), stomatitis (ten [5%] vs five [3%] vs none), anaemia (six [3%] vs nine [5%] vs three [2%]), neutropenia (nine [5%] vs nine [5%] vs none), and neutrophil count decreased (eight [5%] vs seven [4%] vs none). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (18%) patients in the combination group, 19 (11%) in the PLD group, and 14 (7%) in the avelumab group. Treatment-related adverse events resulted in death in one patient each in the PLD group (sepsis) and avelumab group (intestinal obstruction). INTERPRETATION: Neither avelumab plus PLD nor avelumab alone significantly improved progression-free survival or overall survival versus PLD. These results provide insights for patient selection in future studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

A Phase I Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of Recombinant Human Hyaluronidase PH20 Administered Intravenously in Healthy Volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) is used in subcutaneous formulations (eg, RITUXAN HYCELA [rituximab and hyaluronidase human], HERCEPTIN HYLECTA [trastuzumab and hyaluronidase-oysk], PHESGO [pertuzumab/trastuzumab/hyaluronidase-zzxf], and Darzalex FASPRO [daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj]) to increase the dispersion and absorption of coadministered therapeutics. Although unlikely, subcutaneous products that include rHuPH20 could be mistaken for the intravenous formulation of the corresponding drugs (eg, RITUXAN [rituximab], HERCEPTIN [trastuzumab], and DARZALEX [daratumumab]). To understand the potential effects of inadvertent intravenous injection of rHuPH20, we investigated the safety profile, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of rHuPH20 administered intravenously. OBJECTIVES: This Phase I, open-label, single-center study in healthy volunteers was designed to assess the safety profile, tolerability, PK, and PD of rHuPH20 administered intravenously. METHODS: Healthy volunteers received 5 mL intravenous infusion of either 10,000 U (n = 12) or 30,000 U (n = 12) rHuPH20 over 5 minutes. Blood samples for PK and PD analysis were obtained at baseline and at various times after initiation of infusion. Adverse events and laboratory parameters were measured to assess the safety profile and tolerability of the intravenous infusion. The PK of rHuPH20 was assessed using both an enzymatic assay and a mass-based immunoassay, and plasma hyaluronan concentrations were measured as a PD marker using an HPLC-MS/MS disaccharide assay. RESULTS: All 24 volunteers (mean age = 36.5 years) completed the study, and no serious adverse events were reported in either treatment group. Overall, 2 adverse events (both Grade 1) were reported; catheter site pain in the 10,000 U group and hypotension in the 30,000 U group. Plasma concentrations of rHuPH20 increased during the 5-minute intravenous infusion (median tmax = 6 minutes from intravenous initiation) followed by a rapid plasma clearance (t1/2 ∼10 minutes from intravenous initiation). Plasma hyaluronan concentrations increased with dose and time (tmax range = 45‒120 minutes from intravenous initiation) and returned to baseline within 1 week of administration. Changes in both PK and PD measurements appeared proportional to dose. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that intravenous administration of up to 30,000 U rHuPH20 was well tolerated, rapidly cleared from the plasma, and did not appear to be associated with any serious adverse effects at doses used in subcutaneous therapeutic products. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81).

Avelumab (anti-PD-L1) in platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer: JAVELIN Ovarian 200 Phase III study design.

Avelumab is a human anti-PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor with clinical activity in multiple solid tumors. Here, we describe the rationale and design for JAVELIN Ovarian 200 (NCT02580058), the first randomized Phase III trial to evaluate the role of checkpoint inhibition in women with ovarian cancer. This three-arm trial is comparing avelumab administered alone or in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin alone in patients with platinum-resistant/refractory recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube or peritoneal cancer. Eligible patients are not preselected based on PD-L1 expression and may have received up to three prior lines of chemotherapy for platinum-sensitive disease, but none for resistant disease. Overall survival and progression-free survival are primary end points, and secondary end points include biomarker evaluations and pharmacokinetics.

Phase 1 trials of PEGylated recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 in patients with advanced solid tumours.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.327.

Phase 1 trials of PEGylated recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronan accumulation in tumour stroma is associated with reduced survival in preclinical cancer models. PEGPH20 degrades hyaluronan to facilitate tumour access for cancer therapies. Our objective was to assess safety and antitumour activity of PEGPH20 in patients with advanced solid tumours. METHODS: In HALO-109-101 (N=14), PEGPH20 was administered intravenously once or twice weekly (0.5 or 50 µg kg-1) or once every 3 weeks (0.5-1.5 µg kg-1). In HALO-109-102 (N=27), PEGPH20 was administered once or twice weekly (0.5-5.0 µg kg-1), with dexamethasone predose and postdose. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities included grade ⩾3 myalgia, arthralgia, and muscle spasms; the maximum tolerated dose was 3.0 µg kg-1 twice weekly. Plasma hyaluronan increased in a dose-dependent manner, achieving steady state by Day 8 in multidose studies. A decrease in tumour hyaluronan level was observed in 5 of the 6 patients with pretreatment and posttreatment tumour biopsies. Exploratory imaging showed changes in tumour perfusion and decreased tumour metabolic activity, consistent with observations in animal models. CONCLUSIONS: The tumour stroma has emerging importance in the development of cancer therapeutics. PEGPH20 3.0 µg kg-1 administered twice weekly is feasible in patients with advanced cancers; exploratory analyses indicate antitumour activity supporting further evaluation of PEGPH20 in solid tumours.

Clinical Immunogenicity of rHuPH20, a Hyaluronidase Enabling Subcutaneous Drug Administration.

Recombinant human PH20 hyaluronidase (rHuPH20) is used to facilitate dispersion of subcutaneously delivered fluids and drugs. This report summarizes rHuPH20 immunogenicity findings from clinical trials where rHuPH20 was co-administered with SC human immunoglobulin, trastuzumab, rituximab, or insulin. Plasma samples were obtained from evaluable subjects participating in ten different clinical trials as well as from healthy plasma donors. A bridging immunoassay and a modified hyaluronidase activity assay were used to determine rHuPH20-reactive antibody titers and neutralizing antibodies, respectively. rHuPH20-binding antibody populations from selected subjects with positive titers were affinity-purified and subjected to further characterization such as cross-reactivity with endogenous PH20. Among individual trials, the prevalence of pre-existing rHuPH20-reactive antibodies varied between 3 and 12%, excepting the primary immunodeficiency (PID) studies. Incidence of treatment-induced rHuPH20 antibodies was 2 to 18%, with the highest titers (81,920) observed in PID. No neutralizing antibodies were observed. Within most trials, the kinetics of antibody responses were comparable between pre-existing and treatment-induced antibody responses, although responses classified as persistent were more common in subjects with pre-existing titers. There was no association between antibody positivity and either local or systemic adverse events. Pre-existing and treatment-induced antibody populations were of similar immunoglobulin isotypes and cross-reacted to endogenous PH20 to similar extents. No cross-reactivity to PH20 paralogs was detected. rHuPH20 induces only modest immunogenicity which has no association with adverse events. In addition, antibodies purified from baseline-positive individuals are qualitatively similar to those purified from individuals developing rHuPH20-reactive antibodies following exposure to the enzyme.

Tolerability and pharmacokinetic properties of ondansetron administered subcutaneously with recombinant human hyaluronidase in minipigs and healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous ondansetron facilitated by recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) is an alternative for treating nausea/vomiting in patients who cannot receive ondansetron by other routes of administration. OBJECTIVE: Based on preclinical results in minipigs, a Phase I study was designed to assess the tolerability and pharmacokinetic properties of subcutaneous ondansetron + rHuPH20 compared with intramuscular, intravenous, or oral ondansetron monotherapy in healthy volunteers. METHODS: In a crossover design, 3 minipigs were dosed with subcutaneous ondansetron 0.08 mg/kg + rHuPH20, or as intramuscular or intravenous monotherapy, for the evaluation of plasma ondansetron concentrations and local tolerability. In a randomized, open-label, 4-way crossover study, subjects received a randomized sequence of SC ondansetron 4 mg + rHuPH20, or ondansetron monotherapy IM (4 mg), IV (4 mg), or PO (8 mg), over 4 daily visits. Study participants included healthy volunteers aged 19 to 65 years with adequate venous access in both upper extremities and no history of QT-interval prolongation. Primary tolerability end points (administration-site observations, systemic adverse events [AEs], and subject-assessed pain) were assessed, and pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC, Cmax, Tmax, t½) were computed to compare relative rate and extent of systemic exposure. Results were described using summary statistics, and bioequivalence was determined with a linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: In the preclinical study, no adverse events or significant local reactions were observed. The Cmax (45.8 ng/mL at 0.08 hour) with subcutaneous administration + rHuPH20 was 83% greater and was achieved 68% faster than with intramuscular administration (Cmax = 25 ng/mL at 0.25 hour). In the clinical study, a total of 12 subjects (7 women, 5 men; white majority; mean age, 44.8) were randomized. The majority of AEs were at the injection site, mild in severity, and transient. After subcutaneous administration of ondansetron + rHuPH20, geometric mean Cmax was 35% higher than with intramuscular ondansetron, 43% lower than with intravenous ondansetron, and 126% higher than with oral ondansetron (corrected for dose). Bioequivalence tests demonstrated that systemic exposure after subcutaneous administration was similar to that after intramuscular or intravenous administration and significantly greater than that after oral administration. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous ondansetron + rHuPH20 was generally well-tolerated. Subcutaneous dosing resulted in an extent of systemic exposure similar to that with intramuscular or intravenous dosing and greater than that with oral administration, and may be an option for clinical administration of ondansetron. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01572012.

Subcutaneous drug delivery: a route to increased safety, patient satisfaction, and reduced costs.

The subcutaneous (SC) route of administration is generally preferred over intravenous administration because it enables at-home injection, improves quality of life, and reduces health care costs. In general, a volume of no greater than 1 to 2 mL is injected SC; however, for high-dose agents with limited solubility, such as monoclonal antibodies, larger volumes must be administered, which requires divided doses, smaller volumes, or more frequent dose administration. Therapeutics are being formulated with an enzyme, recombinant human hyaluronidase, to enhance the dispersion and absorption of SC administered therapeutics by transiently depolymerizing hyaluronan, a major component of the interstitial matrix.

Intravenous therapy: a review of complications and economic considerations of peripheral access.

Despite the growing frequency of intravenous (IV) injections, establishing peripheral IV access is challenging, particularly in patients with small or collapsed veins. Therefore, patients often endure failed attempts and eventually become venous depleted. Furthermore, maintaining patients' vascular access throughout treatment is difficult because a number of complications including phlebitis, infiltration, extravasation, and infections can occur. The aim of this article is to review the use of the IV route for administering therapy, identify and analyze key risks and complications associated with achieving and maintaining peripheral IV access, examine measures to reduce these risks, and discuss implications for nurses in clinical practice.

Comparison of the tolerability of recombinant human hyaluronidase + normal saline and recombinant human hyaluronidase + lactated ringer's solution administered subcutaneously: A phase IV, double-blind, randomized pilot study in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human hyaluronidase (rHuPH20) (150 U) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to facilitate subcutaneous fluid administration in adults and children. OBJECTIVE: This Phase IV, double-blind, randomized pilot study was designed to compare the tolerability, flow rate, and safety profile of subcutaneous infusions of normal saline (NS) and lactated Ringer's (LR) solutions following subcutaneous administration of rHuPH20. METHODS: Healthy volunteers received 1 mL rHuPH20 (150 U) in each thigh, followed by simultaneous gravity-driven subcutaneous infusions of 500 mL of LR solution into 1 thigh and NS solution into the contralateral thigh. Subjects rated infusion-site discomfort in each thigh using a 100-mm (0 = no pain to 100 = most severe pain) visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline (ie, after catheter placement/ rHuPH20 injection and just prior to the start of the infusions) and at the following times: after infusion of 250 mL, after infusion of 500 mL (end of infusion), and when thigh circumference returned to within 5% of baseline. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study. The primary tolerability end point was the maximal increase from baseline in infusion-site discomfort on the VAS. Secondary end points included infusion flow rate, change in thigh circumference, subject preference for leftversus right-thigh infusion, and safety profile measures. RESULTS: Fifteen subjects (14 women, 1 man; mean age, 41 years [range, 20-60 years]) were included in the study. Mean (SD) maximal increase from baseline VAS pain score was significantly greater with NS solution than with LR solution (20.0 [19.4] vs 9.4 [18.3] mm, respectively; P = 0.005). Mean infusion flow rate was not significantly different between the NS and LR solutions (384.1 [118.1] vs 395.8 [132.8] mL/h). No significant differences between solutions were observed in mean maximal change in thigh circumference (5.2% [1.6%] vs 5.3% [1.5%]). All subjects expressed global preference for LR infusion over NS infusion. All subjects experienced ≥1 AE; the majority of AEs were mild, localized infusion-site reactions. Of all AEs (regardless of their relationship to study drug or procedure), 81% were mild injectionsite reactions that were similar in nature for the NS and LR solutions. Although the types of mild local AEs were similar for the 2 infusions, they were numerically more common with NS infusions (15 subjects [100%]) than with LR infusions (9 subjects [60%]). For the NS and LR solutions, the most frequent infusion-site AEs were pain (67% vs 40%, respectively), erythema (47% vs 13%), and irritation (27% vs 20%). CONCLUSIONS: This small pilot study found that the mean maximal increase from baseline in self-assessed pain VAS scores was statistically significantly higher with NS solution than LR solution. In addition, all subjects preferred LR solution to NS solution, and the incidence of some infusion-site AEs was numerically greater with NS solution. Although the VAS score indicated a statistically significant difference in tolerability favoring LR, the modest changes from baseline suggest both solutions were generally well tolerated and support the use of both NS and LR, as appropriate, for rHuPH20-facilitated subcutaneous isotonic fluid infusion in healthy adults. These results need to be confirmed in larger, controlled clinical studies.

Hypothyroidism after sunitinib treatment for patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib malate is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor recently approved for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors and renal cell carcinoma. Because the ret proto-oncogene is also inhibited by this agent, clinical evaluation of thyroid function was performed. OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and clinical presentation of thyroid dysfunction related to sunitinib therapy. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: 42 patients treated for a median of 37 weeks (range, 10 to 167 weeks). MEASUREMENTS: Following analysis of serial thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) measurements collected prospectively during a clinical trial of sunitinib, the authors determined the proportion of patients with thyroid dysfunction. RESULTS: Abnormal serum TSH concentrations were documented in 26 of 42 patients (62%): 15 (36%) developed persistent, primary hypothyroidism; 4 (10%) developed isolated TSH suppression; and 7 (17%) experienced transient, mild TSH elevations. The risk for hypothyroidism increased with the duration of sunitinib therapy. Six of 15 (40%) hypothyroid patients had suppressed TSH concentrations before developing hypothyroidism, suggesting thyroiditis. Two hypothyroid patients evaluated with thyroid ultrasonography had no visualized thyroid tissue despite normal baseline thyroid function. LIMITATIONS: The exploratory nature of this study precluded more frequent biochemical and sonographic analysis that may better define the mechanism of sunitinib-associated thyroid dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Hypothyroidism is a frequent complication of sunitinib therapy. Regular surveillance of thyroid function is warranted in patients receiving the drug. Although the mechanism by which this complication occurs is unknown, the observations of preceding TSH suppression and subsequent absence of visualized thyroid tissue in some patients suggest that sunitinib may induce a destructive thyroiditis through follicular cell apoptosis. This provides a rationale for further investigation of sunitinib treatment in patients with advanced thyroid cancer.