COVID-19 vaccine booster doses provide increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with previously vaccinated individuals: Interim findings from the REFORCO-Brazil real-world effectiveness study during Delta and Omicron.

BACKGROUND: Although COVID-19 booster vaccination is widely recommended, there is limited long-term, population-level, real-world evidence on the magnitude of improved protection against severe COVID-19 conferred by boosting with monovalent COVID-19 vaccines developed against ancestral SARS-CoV-2, especially in low- or middle-income countries. We present interim results from the first large-scale assessment of the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of first and second booster doses against severe COVID-19 in a low-/middle-income country. METHODS: REFORCO-Brazil is an ongoing, test-negative case-control study (NCT05697705) utilizing Brazil national severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) surveillance and vaccination data. In SARS hospitalizations from August 1, 2021 to July 31, 2022, we matched test-positive (via SARS-CoV-2 antigen/reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]) cases and test-negative case-controls (via RT-PCR) based on admission date, preceding vaccinations, and age. We evaluated the rVEs of four monovalent COVID-19 vaccines (AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, CoronaVac, and BNT162b2) as second boosters compared with any first boosters received ≥4 months previously, and as first boosters compared with primary-series vaccinations completed ≥4 months previously. RESULTS: The overall rVE of second boosters, from 5668 (2238 test-positive) evaluated hospitalizations, was 24.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 12.6-35.1); the overall rVE of first boosters, from 30,272 (12,063 test-positive) hospitalizations, was 46.8 % (95 % CI: 43.3-50.0). The rVEs of AZD1222 and BNT162b2 were similar: 29.4 % (95 % CI: 8.6-45.5) and 25.5 % (95 % CI: 4.2-42.2), respectively, for second boosters; and 42.5 % (95 % CI: 28.0-54.0) and 50.8 % (95 % CI: 47.5-54.0), respectively, for first boosters. In general, rVEs were higher in elderly (≥80 years) and immunocompromised/high-risk individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of AZD1222 and other adenoviral/mRNA vaccine boosters to maintain protection against COVID-19 hospitalization from Omicron subvariants, including in elderly and immunocompromised individuals at increased risk of accelerated waning or severe outcomes.

Protection against COVID-19 hospitalisation conferred by primary-series vaccination with AZD1222 in non-boosted individuals: first vaccine effectiveness results of the European COVIDRIVE study and meta-regression analysis.

Background: Vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies with long-term follow-up are needed to understand durability of protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes conferred by primary-series vaccination in individuals not receiving boosters. COVIDRIVE is a European public-private partnership evaluating brand-specific vaccine effectiveness (VE). We report a prespecified interim analysis of primary-series AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) VE. Methods: Seven Study Contributors in Europe collected data on individuals aged ≥18 years who were hospitalised with severe acute respiratory infection (June 1st, 2021-September 5th, 2022) and eligible for COVID-19 vaccination prior to hospitalisation. In this test-negative case-control study, individuals were defined as test-positive cases or test-negative controls (SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR) and were either fully vaccinated (two AZD1222 doses, 4-12 weeks apart, completed ≥14 days prior to symptom onset; no booster doses) or unvaccinated (no COVID-19 vaccine prior to hospitalisation). The primary objective was to estimate AZD1222 VE against COVID-19 hospitalisation. A literature review and meta-regression were conducted to contextualise findings on durability of protection. Findings: 761 individuals were included during the 15-month analysis period. Overall AZD1222 VE estimate was 72.8% (95% CI, 53.4-84.1). VE was 93.8% (48.6-99.3) in participants who received second AZD1222 doses ≤8 weeks prior to hospitalisation, with spline-based VE estimates demonstrating protection (VE ≥ 50%) 30 weeks post-second dose. Meta-regression analysis (data from seven publications) showed consistent results, with ≥80% protection against COVID-19 hospitalisation through ∼43 weeks post-second dose, with some degree of waning. Interpretation: Primary-series AZD1222 vaccination confers protection against COVID-19 hospitalisation with enduring levels of VE through ≥6 months. Funding: AstraZeneca.

Comparing Findings From a Friends of Cancer Research Exploratory Analysis of Real-World End Points With the Cancer Analysis System in England.

PURPOSE: This study compared real-world end points extracted from the Cancer Analysis System (CAS), a national cancer registry with linkage to national mortality and other health care databases in England, with those from diverse US oncology data sources, including electronic health care records, insurance claims, unstructured medical charts, or a combination, that participated in the Friends of Cancer Research Real-World Evidence Pilot Project 1.0. Consistency between data sets and between real-world overall survival (rwOS) was assessed in patients with immunotherapy-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with aNSCLC, diagnosed between January 2013 and December 2017, who initiated treatment with approved programmed death ligand-1 (PD-[L]1) inhibitors until March 2018 were included. Real-world end points, including rwOS and real-world time to treatment discontinuation (rwTTD), were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. A synthetic data set, Simulacrum, on the basis of conditional random sampling of the CAS data was used to develop and refine analysis scripts while protecting patient privacy. RESULTS: Characteristics (age, sex, and histology) of the 2,035 patients with immunotherapy-treated aNSCLC included in the CAS study were broadly comparable with US data sets. In CAS, a higher proportion (46.7%) of patients received a PD-(L)1 inhibitor in the first line than in US data sets (18%-30%). Median rwOS (11.4 months; 95% CI, 10.4 to 12.7) and rwTTD (4.9 months; 95% CI, 4.7 to 5.1) were within the range of US-based data sets (rwOS, 8.6-13.5 months; rwTTD, 3.2-7.0 months). CONCLUSION: The CAS findings were consistent with those from US-based oncology data sets. Such consistency is important for regulatory decision making. Differences observed between data sets may be explained by variation in health care settings, such as the timing of PD-(L)1 approval and reimbursement, and data capture.

A Framework for Methodological Choice and Evidence Assessment for Studies Using External Comparators from Real-World Data.

Several approaches have been proposed recently to accelerate the pathway from drug discovery to patient access. These include novel designs such as using controls external to the clinical trial where standard randomised controls are not feasible. In parallel, there has been rapid growth in the application of routinely collected healthcare 'real-world' data for post-market safety and effectiveness studies. Thus, using real-world data to establish an external comparator arm in clinical trials is a natural next step. Regulatory authorities have begun to endorse the use of external comparators in certain circumstances, with some positive outcomes for new drug approvals. Given the potential to introduce bias associated with observational studies, there is a need for recommendations on how external comparators should be best used. In this article, we propose an evaluation framework for real-world data external comparator studies that enables full assessment of available evidence and related bias. We define the principle of exchangeability and discuss the applicability of criteria described by Pocock for consideration of the exchangeability of the external and trial populations. We explore how trial designs using real-world data external comparators fit within the evidence hierarchy and propose a four-step process for good conduct of external comparator studies. This process is intended to maximise the quality of evidence based on careful study design and the combination of covariate balancing, bias analysis and combining outcomes.

Persistence and Adherence to ICS/LABA Drugs in UK Patients with Asthma: A Retrospective New-User Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma is associated with significant economic burden. Inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA) combination therapies are considered mainstays of treatment. We describe real-world use of ICS/LABAs by comparing treatment persistence and adherence among patients with asthma in the United Kingdom initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM) or beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol (BDP/FM). METHODS: A retrospective new-user active comparator database study was conducted in the IQVIA Medical Research Database. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed for FF/VI versus BUD/FM, and FF/VI versus BDP/FM. The primary objective was to compare patient treatment persistence (time to discontinuation), while secondary objectives included assessing adherence (mean proportion of days covered [PDC] with medication in the study period) and the proportions of patients achieving ≥ 50% and ≥ 80% PDC. RESULTS: New users of FF/VI (N = 966), BUD/FM (N = 5931) and BDP/FM (N = 9607) were identified and PS-matched: FF/VI (n = 945) versus BUD/FM (n = 3272), and FF/VI (n = 902) versus BDP/FM (n = 3465). At 12 months, treatment persistence was 69% (FF/VI), 53% (BUD/FM) and 57% (BDP/FM). The likelihood of treatment discontinuation within 12 months after initiation with FF/VI was 35% lower than with BUD/FM and 31% lower than for BDP/FM (both p < 0.001). Mean PDC was higher for FF/VI compared with BUD/FM (77.7 vs 72.4; p < 0.0001) and BDP/FM (78.2 vs 71.0; p < 0.0001). The odds of achieving ≥ 50% and ≥ 80% PDC were greater for FF/VI than for BUD/FM and BDP/FM. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients who initiated FF/VI were less likely to discontinue treatment and showed greater treatment adherence versus patients who initiated BUD/FM or BDP/FM.

Diagnostic accuracy of TB-LAMP for pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The need for a rapid, molecular test to diagnose tuberculosis (TB) has prompted exploration of TB-LAMP (Eiken; Tokyo, Japan) for use in resource-limited settings. We conducted a systematic review to assess the accuracy of TB-LAMP as a diagnostic test for pulmonary TB. METHODS: We analyzed individual-level data for eligible patients from all studies of TB-LAMP conducted between Jan 2012 and October 2015 to compare the diagnostic accuracy of TB-LAMP with that of smear microscopy and Xpert MTB/RIF® using 3 reference standards of varying stringency. Pooled sensitivity and specificity and pooled differences in sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects meta-analysis. Study quality was evaluated using QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Four thousand seven hundred sixty individuals across 13 studies met eligibility criteria. Methodological quality was judged to be low for all studies. TB-LAMP had higher sensitivity than sputum smear microscopy (pooled sensitivity difference + 13·2, 95% CI 4·5-21·9%) and similar sensitivity to Xpert MTB/RIF (pooled sensitivity difference - 2·5, 95% CI -8·0 to + 2·9) using the most stringent reference standard available. Specificity of TB-LAMP was similar to that of sputum smear microscopy (pooled specificity difference - 1·8, 95% CI -3·8 to + 0·2) and Xpert MTB/RIF (pooled specificity difference 0·5, 95% CI -0·9 to + 1·8). CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of diagnostic accuracy, TB-LAMP may be considered as an alternative test for sputum smear microscopy. Additional factors such as cost, feasibility, and acceptability in settings that continue to rely on sputum smear microscopy should be considered when deciding to adopt this technology. Xpert MTB/RIF should continue to be preferred in settings where resource and infrastructure requirements are adequate and where HIV co-infection or drug-resistance is of concern.

Correcting for measurement error in fractional polynomial models using Bayesian modelling and regression calibration, with an application to alcohol and mortality.

Exposure measurement error can result in a biased estimate of the association between an exposure and outcome. When the exposure-outcome relationship is linear on the appropriate scale (e.g. linear, logistic) and the measurement error is classical, that is the result of random noise, the result is attenuation of the effect. When the relationship is non-linear, measurement error distorts the true shape of the association. Regression calibration is a commonly used method for correcting for measurement error, in which each individual's unknown true exposure in the outcome regression model is replaced by its expectation conditional on the error-prone measure and any fully measured covariates. Regression calibration is simple to execute when the exposure is untransformed in the linear predictor of the outcome regression model, but less straightforward when non-linear transformations of the exposure are used. We describe a method for applying regression calibration in models in which a non-linear association is modelled by transforming the exposure using a fractional polynomial model. It is shown that taking a Bayesian estimation approach is advantageous. By use of Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms, one can sample from the distribution of the true exposure for each individual. Transformations of the sampled values can then be performed directly and used to find the expectation of the transformed exposure required for regression calibration. A simulation study shows that the proposed approach performs well. We apply the method to investigate the relationship between usual alcohol intake and subsequent all-cause mortality using an error model that adjusts for the episodic nature of alcohol consumption.

Performance of the TB-LAMP diagnostic assay in reference laboratories: Results from a multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of TB-LAMP, a manual molecular tuberculosis (TB) detection method, and provide comparison to the Xpert MTB/RIF assay. METHODS: In a large multicentre study, two sputum samples were collected from participants with TB symptoms in reference laboratories in Peru, South Africa, Brazil, and Vietnam. Each sample was tested with TB-LAMP. The reference standard consisted of four direct smears, four cultures, and clinical and radiological findings. Individuals negative on conventional tests were followed up after 8 weeks. The Xpert MTB/RIF assay was performed on fresh or frozen samples as a molecular test comparison. RESULTS: A total of 1036 adults with suspected TB were enrolled. Among 375 culture-confirmed TB cases with 750 sputum samples, TB-LAMP detected 75.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71.8-79.4%), including 97.9% (95% CI 96.4-99.4%) of smear-positive TB samples and 46.6% (95% CI 40.6-52.7%) of smear-negative TB samples. Specificity in 477 culture-negative participants not treated for TB (954 sputum samples) was 98.7% (95% CI 97.9-99.6%). TB-LAMP test results were indeterminate in 0.3% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: TB-LAMP detects nearly all smear-positive and half of smear-negative TB cases and has a high specificity when performed in reference laboratories. Performance was similar to the Xpert MTB/RIF assay.

Diagnostic Performance of Tuberculosis-Specific IgG Antibody Profiles in Patients with Presumptive Tuberculosis from Two Continents.

BACKGROUND: Development of rapid diagnostic tests for tuberculosis is a global priority. A whole proteome screen identified Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens associated with serological responses in tuberculosis patients. We used World Health Organization (WHO) target product profile (TPP) criteria for a detection test and triage test to evaluate these antigens. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting to microscopy centers and district hospitals in Peru and to outpatient clinics at a tuberculosis reference center in Vietnam were recruited. We tested blood samples from 755 HIV-uninfected adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis to measure IgG antibody responses to 57 M. tuberculosis antigens using a field-based multiplexed serological assay and a 132-antigen bead-based reference assay. We evaluated single antigen performance and models of all possible 3-antigen combinations and multiantigen combinations. RESULTS: Three-antigen and multiantigen models performed similarly and were superior to single antigens. With specificity set at 90% for a detection test, the best sensitivity of a 3-antigen model was 35% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-40). With sensitivity set at 85% for a triage test, the specificity of the best 3-antigen model was 34% (95% CI, 29-40). The reference assay also did not meet study targets. Antigen performance differed significantly between the study sites for 7/22 of the best-performing antigens. CONCLUSIONS: Although M. tuberculosis antigens were recognized by the IgG response during tuberculosis, no single antigen or multiantigen set performance approached WHO TPP criteria for clinical utility among HIV-uninfected adults with presumed tuberculosis in high-volume, urban settings in tuberculosis-endemic countries.

Feasibility and Operational Performance of Tuberculosis Detection by Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Platform in Decentralized Settings: Results from a Multicenter Study.

Currently available nucleic acid amplification platforms for tuberculosis (TB) detection are not designed to be simple or inexpensive enough to implement in decentralized settings in countries with a high burden of disease. The loop-mediated isothermal amplification platform (LAMP) may change this. We conducted a study in adults with symptoms suggestive of TB in India, Uganda, and Peru to establish the feasibility of using TB-LAMP (Eiken Chemical Co.) in microscopy laboratories compared with using smear microscopy against a reference standard of solid and liquid cultures. Operational characteristics were evaluated as well. A total of 1,777 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included for analysis. Overall, TB-LAMP sensitivities among culture-positive samples were 97.2% (243/250; 95% confidence interval [CI], 94.3% to 98.2%) and 62.0% (88/142; 95% CI, 53.5% to 70.0%) for smear-positive and smear-negative TB, respectively, but varied widely by country and operator. Specificities ranged from 94.5% (446/472; 95% CI, 92.0% to 96.4%) to 98.0% (350/357; 95% CI, 96.0% to 99.2%) by country. A root cause analysis identified high temperatures, high humidity, and/or low reaction volumes as possible causes for false-positive results, as they may result in nonspecific amplification. The study was repeated in India with training focused on vulnerable steps and an updated protocol; 580 participants were included for analysis. Specificity in the repeat trial was 96.6% (515/533; 95% CI, 94.7% to 97.9%). To achieve acceptable performance of LAMP at the microscopy center level, significant training and infrastructure requirements are necessary.