COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in participants with weakened immune systems from four randomized-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Although the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are highly efficacious at preventing severe disease in the general population, current data are lacking regarding vaccine efficacy (VE) for individuals with mild immunocompromising conditions. METHODS: A post-hoc, cross-protocol analysis of participant-level data from the blinded phase of four randomized, placebo-controlled, COVID-19 vaccine phase 3 trials (Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax) was performed. We defined a "tempered immune system" (TIS) variable via a consensus panel based on medical history and medications to determine VE against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 cases in TIS participants versus non-TIS (NTIS) individuals starting at 14 days after completion of the primary series through the blinded phase for each of the four trials. An analysis of participants living with well-controlled HIV was conducted using the same methods. RESULTS: 3,852/30,351 (12.7%) Moderna participants, 3,088/29,868 (10.3%) Novavax participants, 3,549/32,380 (11.0%) AstraZeneca participants, and 5,047/43,788 (11.5%) Janssen participants were identified as having a TIS. Most TIS conditions (73.9%) were due to metabolism and nutritional disorders. Vaccination (versus placebo) significantly reduced the likelihood of symptomatic and severe COVID-19 for all participants for each trial. VE was not significantly different for TIS participants vs NTIS for either symptomatic or severe COVID-19 for each trial, nor was VE significantly different in the symptomatic endpoint for participants with HIV. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with mildly immunocompromising conditions, there is no evidence of differences in VE against symptomatic or severe COVID-19 compared to those with non-tempered immune systems in the four COVID-19 vaccine randomized controlled efficacy trials.

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.).

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Clinical Endpoints for Evaluating Efficacy in COVID-19 Vaccine Trials.

Several vaccine candidates to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have entered or will soon enter large-scale, phase 3, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. To facilitate harmonized evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of these vaccines, a general set of clinical endpoints is proposed, along with considerations to guide the selection of the primary endpoints on the basis of clinical and statistical reasoning. The plausibility that vaccine protection against symptomatic COVID-19 could be accompanied by a shift toward more SARS-CoV-2 infections that are asymptomatic is highlighted, as well as the potential implications of such a shift.

A Deferred-Vaccination Design to Assess Durability of COVID-19 Vaccine Effect After the Placebo Group Is Vaccinated.

Multiple candidate vaccines to prevent COVID-19 have entered large-scale phase 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, and several have demonstrated substantial short-term efficacy. At some point after demonstration of substantial efficacy, placebo recipients should be offered the efficacious vaccine from their trial, which will occur before longer-term efficacy and safety are known. The absence of a placebo group could compromise assessment of longer-term vaccine effects. However, by continuing follow-up after vaccination of the placebo group, this study shows that placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy can be mathematically derived by assuming that the benefit of vaccination over time has the same profile for the original vaccine recipients and the original placebo recipients after their vaccination. Although this derivation provides less precise estimates than would be obtained by a standard trial where the placebo group remains unvaccinated, this proposed approach allows estimation of longer-term effect, including durability of vaccine efficacy and whether the vaccine eventually becomes harmful for some. Deferred vaccination, if done open-label, may lead to riskier behavior in the unblinded original vaccine group, confounding estimates of long-term vaccine efficacy. Hence, deferred vaccination via blinded crossover, where the vaccine group receives placebo and vice versa, would be the preferred way to assess vaccine durability and potential delayed harm. Deferred vaccination allows placebo recipients timely access to the vaccine when it would no longer be proper to maintain them on placebo, yet still allows important insights about immunologic and clinical effectiveness over time.

Patient characteristics, biomarkers and exacerbation risk in severe, uncontrolled asthma.

BACKGROUND: Greater precision in asthma exacerbation risk prediction may improve outcomes. We sought to identify clinical characteristics and biomarkers associated with elevated exacerbation risk in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: Data were pooled from seven similarly designed phase II and III randomised controlled clinical trials of biologic therapies for the treatment of severe, uncontrolled asthma that enrolled comparable patient populations. Annualised asthma exacerbation rates (AAERs) for patients randomised to placebo were assessed by baseline clinical characteristics, and by biomarker concentrations at baseline and over the study duration. RESULTS: The AAER for the 2016 patients in the combined placebo group was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84‒0.98). Baseline characteristics associated with greater AAER were frequent or severe exacerbations within the prior 12 months, nasal polyposis, maintenance oral corticosteroid use, Asian race and Asian or Western European region. AAER increased with baseline blood eosinophil counts and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (F ENO) concentration, with the greatest AAER occurring for patients with eosinophils ≥300 cells·µL-1 and F ENO ≥50 ppb. No relationship was observed between baseline serum IgE concentration and AAER. Combining type 2 inflammation criteria for eosinophils and F ENO had greater prognostic value than either biomarker alone. Persistent eosinophil and F ENO elevations throughout the study period were associated with greater AAER. CONCLUSIONS: Exacerbation history, maintenance corticosteroid use, nasal polyposis, Asian race, geographic region, and elevations in blood eosinophil counts and F ENO concentrations (particularly when combined and/or persistently achieving type 2 inflammation criteria) were associated with increased exacerbation risk in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma.

Benralizumab efficacy for patients with fixed airflow obstruction and severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Fixed airflow obstruction (FAO) is associated with severe eosinophilic asthma. Benralizumab is an interleukin-5 receptor alpha-directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated FAO influence on benralizumab treatment response. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of pooled phase III SIROCCO (NCT01928771) and CALIMA (NCT01914757) data for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with baseline blood eosinophil counts of 300 or more cells/µL who received benralizumab 30 mg every 8 weeks or placebo. Demographics, baseline clinical characteristics, and treatment responses were evaluated by FAO status. FAO+ and FAO- were defined as ratios of postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) to forced vital capacity of less than 70% and 70% or more, respectively, at baseline. RESULTS: FAO+ prevalence was 63% (935/1493). With benralizumab, similar annual asthma exacerbation rate (AER) reductions vs placebo were achieved for FAO+ and FAO- patients (rate ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.56 [0.44-0.71] and 0.58 [0.41-0.83], respectively), whereas annual AER reductions associated with emergency department visits or hospitalizations were greater for FAO+ vs FAO- patients (rate ratio [95% CI] = 0.55 [0.33-0.91] and 0.70 [0.33-1.48], respectively). Prebronchodilator FEV1 (95% CI) increase from baseline to end of treatment was greater for FAO+ vs FAO- patients receiving benralizumab compared with placebo (0.159 L [0.082-0.236] vs 0.103 L [-0.008 to 0.215]). Other lung function measures, patient-reported outcomes, and symptom improvements were also numerically greater for FAO+ vs FAO- patients. CONCLUSION: Benralizumab improved asthma control across several measures for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma and FAO. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SIROCCO trial: NCT01928771 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01928771) CALIMA trial: NCT01914757 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01914757).

Blood eosinophil count group shifts and kinetics in severe eosinophilic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Blood eosinophil count (BEC) measurements are a noninvasive, relatively reliable surrogate marker for eosinophilic airway inflammation. Single measurements of peripheral BEC greater than or equal to 150 cells/µL predict the response to anti-eosinophil therapies for patients with characteristics of severe eosinophilic asthma. OBJECTIVE: To describe how BECs shift over time for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma receiving placebo in 2 large, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of benralizumab (SIROCCO and CALIMA). METHODS: Our analysis included all adult patients who were randomized to placebo in the SIROCCO and CALIMA phase III benralizumab studies. Patients were categorized into baseline BEC groups of less than 150 cells/µL, greater than or equal to 150 cells/µL but less than 300 cells/µL, and greater than or equal to 300 cells/µL. The timing of the initial shift from baseline to a different group was evaluated at weeks 4, 8, 24, and 40 and at the end of treatment. Baseline characteristics, including oral corticosteroid use, were described based on the presence or absence of a BEC group shift. RESULTS: Of the 734 evaluable patients, 65% (n = 474) shifted BEC groups during the study, and most patients (86% [n = 410]) shifted by week 24. Patients who started in the less than 150 cells/µL group tended to shift groups earlier, with 59% shifting by week 4 compared with 38% to 55% for other groups in the same time frame. Patients who shifted BEC groups vs those who did not tend to have lower BECs, more oral corticosteroid use, and less incidence of nasal polyps or past polypectomy. CONCLUSION: A single BEC measurement, particularly when low, may be inadequate to help establish a phenotype of severe eosinophilic asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers NCT01928771 (SIROCCO trial) and NCT01914757 (CALIMA trial).

Rapid onset of effect of benralizumab on morning peak expiratory flow in severe, uncontrolled asthma.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is a unique eosinophil-depleting monoclonal antibody that significantly reduces asthma exacerbations, improves lung function and asthma symptoms, and permits the reduction of maintenance oral corticosteroid dosage for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. OBJECTIVE: To assess benralizumab's onset of action and efficacy by examining change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) after initiation of treatment in the phase 3 clinical trials SIROCCO, CALIMA, and ZONDA. METHODS: Mixed-model repeated-measures analysis was used to calculate PEF using daily least squares mean changes from baseline in morning PEF as well as differences between the benralizumab every 8 weeks (first 3 doses every 4 weeks) and placebo groups. A Bayesian nonlinear mixed-effects approach with an exponential relationship was used to model trial data to determine time to clinically meaningful improvement in morning PEF (defined as ≥25 L/min). RESULTS: Least squares mean morning PEF improvement from baseline was numerically greater by Day 2 after initiation of benralizumab therapy in all 3 trials. The Bayesian nonlinear mixed-effects model indicated that PEF improvement reached the clinically meaningful threshold within 3 weeks in SIROCCO and CALIMA and 2 weeks in ZONDA. CONCLUSION: In 3 phase 3 randomized clinical trials, benralizumab provided notable improvement in morning PEF 2 days after initiation and clinically meaningful improvements within 3 weeks for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. The rapid improvement in PEF demonstrated in these trials suggests that benralizumab's unique mechanism of action rapidly improves lung function for patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01928771 (SIROCCO), NCT01914757 (CALIMA), and NCT02075255 (ZONDA).

Baseline patient factors impact on the clinical efficacy of benralizumab for severe asthma.

Benralizumab is an anti-eosinophilic monoclonal antibody that reduces exacerbations and improves lung function for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with eosinophilic inflammation. We evaluated the impact of baseline factors on benralizumab efficacy for patients with severe asthma.This analysis used pooled data from the SIROCCO (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01928771) and CALIMA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01914757) Phase III studies. Patients aged 12-75 years with severe, uncontrolled asthma receiving high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting ß2-agonists received benralizumab 30 mg subcutaneously every 8 weeks (Q8W, first three doses every 4 weeks (Q4W)), Q4W or placebo. Baseline factors that influenced benralizumab efficacy were evaluated, including oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, nasal polyposis, pre-bronchodilator forced vital capacity (FVC), prior year exacerbations and age at diagnosis. Efficacy outcomes included annual exacerbation rate and change in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s at treatment end relative to placebo.Benralizumab Q8W treatment effect was enhanced with each baseline factor for all patients and those with ≥300 eosinophils·µL-1 relative to the overall population. OCS use, nasal polyposis and FVC <65% of predicted were associated with greater benralizumab Q8W responsiveness for reduced exacerbation rate for patients with <300 eosinophils·µL-1Baseline clinical factors and blood eosinophil counts can help identify patients potentially responsive to benralizumab.

Benralizumab efficacy by atopy status and serum immunoglobulin E for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma can have eosinophilic inflammation and/or allergen sensitization. Benralizumab is an anti-eosinophilic monoclonal antibody indicated for add-on maintenance treatment of patients with severe asthma aged 12 years and older, and with an eosinophilic phenotype. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of benralizumab by atopic status and serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) concentrations. METHODS: We analyzed pooled results from the SIROCCO (NCT01928771) and CALIMA (NCT01914757) phase III studies. Patients 12 to 75 years old with severe, uncontrolled asthma on high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting ß2-agonists received 30 mg of subcutaneous benralizumab every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks (first 3 doses every 4 weeks) or placebo every 4 weeks. The analysis stratified patients who did and did not meet similar omalizumab-qualifying criteria of atopy and serum IgE levels 30 to 700 kU/L. Patients also categorized as having high serum IgE (≥150 kU/L) or low serum IgE (<150 kU/L) and as having atopy or no atopy. Efficacy outcomes were for all patients and by blood eosinophil counts and included annual exacerbation rate ratio and pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second change at treatment end vs placebo. RESULTS: Benralizumab every 8 weeks decreased exacerbations by 46% (95% confidence interval 26-61, P = .0002) and increased forced expiratory volume in 1 second by 0.125 L (95% confidence interval 0.018-0.232, P = .0218) vs placebo for patients with at least 300 eosinophils/µL who met the atopy and IgE criteria. For patients with eosinophilia and high or low IgE, treatment with benralizumab every 8 weeks resulted in 42% and 43% decreases in exacerbation rate (P ≤ .0004) and 0.123- and 0.138-L increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (P ≤ .0041) vs placebo, respectively. CONCLUSION: Benralizumab treatment decreased exacerbations and improved lung function for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma regardless of serum IgE concentrations and atopy status.

Structured Benefit-risk assessment: a review of key publications and initiatives on frameworks and methodologies.

Introduction The conduct of structured benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of pharmaceutical products is a key area of interest for regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry. However, the acceptance of a standardized approach and implementation are slow. Statisticians play major roles in these organizations, and have a great opportunity to be involved and drive the shaping of future BRA. Method We performed a literature search of recent reviews and initiatives assessing BRA methodologies, and grouped them to assist those new to BRA in learning, understanding, and choosing methodologies. We summarized the key points and discussed the impact of this emerging field on various stakeholders, particularly statisticians in the pharmaceutical industry. Results We provide introductory, essential, special interest, and further information and initiatives materials that direct readers to the most relevant materials, which were published between 2000 and 2013. Based on recommendations in these materials we supply a toolkit of advocated BRA methodologies. Discussion Despite initiatives promoting these methodologies, there are still barriers, one of which being the lack of a consensus on the most appropriate methodologies among stakeholders. However, this opens up opportunities, for statisticians in the pharmaceutical industry especially, to champion appropriate BRA methodology use throughout the pharmaceutical product lifecycle. Conclusions This article may serve as a starting point for discussions and to reach a mutual consensus for methodology selection in a particular situation. Regulators and pharmaceutical industry should continue to collaborate to develop and take forward BRA methodologies, and by clear communication develop a mutual understanding of the key issues. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies.

BACKGROUND: The need for formal and structured approaches for benefit-risk assessment of medicines is increasing, as is the complexity of the scientific questions addressed before making decisions on the benefit-risk balance of medicines. We systematically collected, appraised and classified available benefit-risk methodologies to facilitate and inform their future use. METHODS: A systematic review of publications identified benefit-risk assessment methodologies. Methodologies were appraised on their fundamental principles, features, graphical representations, assessability and accessibility. We created a taxonomy of methodologies to facilitate understanding and choice. RESULTS: We identified 49 methodologies, critically appraised and classified them into four categories: frameworks, metrics, estimation techniques and utility survey techniques. Eight frameworks describe qualitative steps in benefit-risk assessment and eight quantify benefit-risk balance. Nine metric indices include threshold indices to measure either benefit or risk; health indices measure quality-of-life over time; and trade-off indices integrate benefits and risks. Six estimation techniques support benefit-risk modelling and evidence synthesis. Four utility survey techniques elicit robust value preferences from relevant stakeholders to the benefit-risk decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Methodologies to help benefit-risk assessments of medicines are diverse and each is associated with different limitations and strengths. There is not a 'one-size-fits-all' method, and a combination of methods may be needed for each benefit-risk assessment. The taxonomy introduced herein may guide choice of adequate methodologies. Finally, we recommend 13 of 49 methodologies for further appraisal for use in the real-life benefit-risk assessment of medicines.

Benefit-risk assessment in a post-market setting: a case study integrating real-life experience into benefit-risk methodology.

PURPOSE: Difficulties may be encountered when undertaking a benefit-risk assessment for an older product with well-established use but with a benefit-risk balance that may have changed over time. This case study investigates this specific situation by applying a formal benefit-risk framework to assess the benefit-risk balance of warfarin for primary prevention of patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We used the qualitative framework BRAT as the starting point of the benefit-risk analysis, bringing together the relevant available evidence. We explored the use of a quantitative method (stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis) to demonstrate how uncertainties and preferences on multiple criteria can be integrated into a single measure to reduce cognitive burden and increase transparency in decision making. RESULTS: Our benefit-risk model found that warfarin is favourable compared with placebo for the primary prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. This favourable benefit-risk balance is fairly robust to differences in preferences. The probability of a favourable benefit-risk for warfarin against placebo is high (0.99) in our model despite the high uncertainty of randomised clinical trial data. In this case study, we identified major challenges related to the identification of relevant benefit-risk criteria and taking into account the diversity and quality of evidence available to inform the benefit-risk assessment. CONCLUSION: The main challenges in applying formal methods for medical benefit-risk assessment for a marketed drug are related to outcome definitions and data availability. Data exist from many different sources (both randomised clinical trials and observational studies), and the variability in the studies is large.

Performance of Large Language Models on Medical Oncology Examination Questions.

Importance: Large language models (LLMs) recently developed an unprecedented ability to answer questions. Studies of LLMs from other fields may not generalize to medical oncology, a high-stakes clinical setting requiring rapid integration of new information. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy and safety of LLM answers on medical oncology examination questions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted between May 28 and October 11, 2023. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Oncology Self-Assessment Series on ASCO Connection, the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Examination Trial questions, and an original set of board-style medical oncology multiple-choice questions were presented to 8 LLMs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage of correct answers. Medical oncologists evaluated the explanations provided by the best LLM for accuracy, classified the types of errors, and estimated the likelihood and extent of potential clinical harm. Results: Proprietary LLM 2 correctly answered 125 of 147 questions (85.0%; 95% CI, 78.2%-90.4%; P < .001 vs random answering). Proprietary LLM 2 outperformed an earlier version, proprietary LLM 1, which correctly answered 89 of 147 questions (60.5%; 95% CI, 52.2%-68.5%; P < .001), and the best open-source LLM, Mixtral-8x7B-v0.1, which correctly answered 87 of 147 questions (59.2%; 95% CI, 50.0%-66.4%; P < .001). The explanations provided by proprietary LLM 2 contained no or minor errors for 138 of 147 questions (93.9%; 95% CI, 88.7%-97.2%). Incorrect responses were most commonly associated with errors in information retrieval, particularly with recent publications, followed by erroneous reasoning and reading comprehension. If acted upon in clinical practice, 18 of 22 incorrect answers (81.8%; 95% CI, 59.7%-94.8%) would have a medium or high likelihood of moderate to severe harm. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of the performance of LLMs on medical oncology examination questions, the best LLM answered questions with remarkable performance, although errors raised safety concerns. These results demonstrated an opportunity to develop and evaluate LLMs to improve health care clinician experiences and patient care, considering the potential impact on capabilities and safety.

Multivariate Cluster Analyses to Characterize Asthma Heterogeneity and Benralizumab Responsiveness.

BACKGROUND: An improved understanding of how severe asthma heterogeneity affects response could inform treatment decisions. OBJECTIVES: Characterize heterogeneity and benralizumab responsiveness in patients grouped by predefined Severe Asthma Research Program clusters using a multivariate approach. METHODS: In post-hoc analyses of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III SIROCCO (NCT01928771) and CALIMA (NCT01914757) studies, patients with severe asthma who received benralizumab or placebo were assigned to clusters using an established discriminant function to simultaneously analyze 11 clinical characteristics. Annualized asthma exacerbation rate, exacerbation incidence, and lung function were analyzed across clusters. RESULTS: Patients (N = 2,281) met criteria for 4 of 5 clusters: Cluster 2 (early-onset moderate asthma, n = 393), Cluster 4 (early-onset severe, n = 386), Cluster 3 (late-onset severe, n = 641), and Cluster 5 (late-onset severe, obstructed, n = 861); no patients met Cluster 1 criteria. Exacerbation rate reductions were significant in late-onset severe (-48% [95% CI: -61%, -31%], P<.0001) and late-onset severe, obstructed asthma (-50% [95% CI: -59%, -38%], P<.0001), with non-significant reductions in early-onset clusters. These differences could not be fully explained by blood eosinophil count differences. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second improvements were significant in late-onset severe (+133 mL [95% CI: 66 mL, 200 mL], P=.0001) and late-onset severe, obstructed asthma (+160 mL [95% CI: 85 mL, 235 mL], P<.0001) while maintaining acute bronchodilator responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Benralizumab reduced exacerbations and improved lung function, primarily in late-onset asthma clusters. This multivariate approach to identify subphenotypes, potentially reflecting pathobiological mechanisms, can guide therapy beyond univariate approaches.

Use of CompEx in eosinophilic patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma on benralizumab.

Background: CompEx Asthma, a composite end-point for asthma exacerbations, captures clinically relevant, diary-based acute worsening events (AWEs) (defined as deterioration in daily peak expiratory flow concurrent with deterioration in asthma symptoms and/or rescue therapy use) and severe exacerbations (SevEx) (defined by American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines). We hypothesised that CompEx and SevEx would show similar benralizumab treatment effects and correlations to blood eosinophil counts in patients with severe asthma. Methods: This post hoc analysis of pooled 12-month data from two phase 3 studies included patients aged ≥16 years with severe, uncontrolled asthma who were randomised to benralizumab 30 mg or placebo. Annualised event rates were analysed using a negative binomial model. The impact of blood eosinophil count on treatment effect was assessed. Results: Among patients with a blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells·µL-1 (n=913), benralizumab reduced the annualised event rate versus placebo for CompEx (1.57 versus 2.57; risk ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.70, p<0.001), SevEx (0.94 versus 1.55; risk ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.70, p<0.001) and AWE (0.92 versus 1.57; risk ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.72, p<0.001), with greater treatment effects observed for higher blood eosinophil counts. In patients with blood eosinophil count ≥300 cells·µL-1, benralizumab was associated with shorter median event duration (CompEx: 10.5 days versus 17.0 days; SevEx: 10.0 days versus 15.0 days; AWE: 5.0 days versus 6.0 days). Conclusions: Benralizumab reduced the risk of CompEx events with treatment effects similar to those for SevEx and AWEs across a range of blood eosinophil counts. Use of CompEx supports the evaluation of benralizumab and other novel drugs in clinical studies.

Estimating vaccine efficacy during open-label follow-up of COVID-19 vaccine trials based on population-level surveillance data.

While rapid development and roll out of COVID-19 vaccines is necessary in a pandemic, the process limits the ability of clinical trials to assess longer-term vaccine efficacy. We leveraged COVID-19 surveillance data in the U.S. to evaluate vaccine efficacy in U.S. Government-funded COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with a three-step estimation process. First, we used a compartmental epidemiological model informed by county-level surveillance data, a "population model", to estimate SARS-CoV-2 incidence among the unvaccinated. Second, a "cohort model" was used to adjust the population SARS-CoV-2 incidence to the vaccine trial cohort, taking into account individual participant characteristics and the difference between SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease. Third, we fit a regression model estimating the offset between the cohort-model-based COVID-19 incidence in the unvaccinated with the placebo-group COVID-19 incidence in the trial during blinded follow-up. Counterfactual placebo COVID-19 incidence was estimated during open-label follow-up by adjusting the cohort-model-based incidence rate by the estimated offset. Vaccine efficacy during open-label follow-up was estimated by contrasting the vaccine group COVID-19 incidence with the counterfactual placebo COVID-19 incidence. We documented good performance of the methodology in a simulation study. We also applied the methodology to estimate vaccine efficacy for the two-dose AZD1222 COVID-19 vaccine using data from the phase 3 U.S. trial (ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT04516746). We estimated AZD1222 vaccine efficacy of 59.1% (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 40.4%-74.3%) in April, 2021 (mean 106 days post-second dose), which reduced to 35.7% (95% UI: 15.0%-51.7%) in July, 2021 (mean 198 days post-second-dose). We developed and evaluated a methodology for estimating longer-term vaccine efficacy. This methodology could be applied to estimating counterfactual placebo incidence for future placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy trials of emerging pathogens with early termination of blinded follow-up, to active-controlled or uncontrolled COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials, and to other clinical endpoints influenced by vaccination.

SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in the Nasopharynx at Time of First Infection Among Unvaccinated Individuals: A Secondary Cross-Protocol Analysis of 4 Randomized Trials.

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 viral load (VL) in the nasopharynx is difficult to quantify and standardize across settings, but it may inform transmission potential and disease severity. Objective: To characterize VL at COVID-19 diagnosis among previously uninfected and unvaccinated individuals by evaluating the association of demographic and clinical characteristics, viral variant, and trial with VL, as well as the ability of VL to predict severe disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary cross-protocol analysis used individual-level data from placebo recipients from 4 harmonized, phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials sponsored by Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax. Participants were SARS-CoV-2 negative at baseline and acquired COVID-19 during the blinded phase of the trials. The setting included the US, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Argentina, Peru, Chile, and Mexico; start dates were July 27, 2020, to December 27, 2020; data cutoff dates were March 26, 2021, to July 30, 2021. Statistical analysis was performed from November 2022 to June 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Linear regression was used to assess the association of demographic and clinical characteristics, viral variant, and trial with polymerase chain reaction-measured log10 VL in nasal and/or nasopharyngeal swabs taken at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. Results: Among 1667 participants studied (886 [53.1%] male; 995 [59.7%] enrolled in the US; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [14.7] years; 204 [12.2%] aged 65 years or older; 196 [11.8%] American Indian or Alaska Native, 150 [9%] Black or African American, 1112 [66.7%] White; 762 [45.7%] Hispanic or Latino), median (IQR) log10 VL at diagnosis was 6.18 (4.66-7.12) log10 copies/mL. Participant characteristics and viral variant explained only 5.9% of the variability in VL. The independent factor with the highest observed differences was trial: Janssen participants had 0.54 log10 copies/mL lower mean VL vs Moderna participants (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.87 log10 copies/mL lower). In the Janssen study, which captured the largest number of COVID-19 events and variants and used the most intensive post-COVID surveillance, neither VL at diagnosis nor averaged over days 1 to 28 post diagnosis was associated with COVID-19 severity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of placebo recipients from 4 randomized phase 3 trials, high variability was observed in SARS-CoV-2 VL at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and only a fraction was explained by individual participant characteristics or viral variant. These results suggest challenges for future studies of interventions seeking to influence VL and elevates the importance of standardized methods for specimen collection and viral load quantitation.