Are Two Gliflozins Different: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Study to Assess Effect of Remogliflozin Compared With Empagliflozin on Biomarkers of Heart Failure in Indian Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Chronic Heart Failure (REMIT-HF Study).

There is limited data comparing two gliflozins on their effect on biomarkers in diabetic patients with chronic heart failure. A prospective, multicenter, active controlled, double-arm, investigator-initiated, interventional study enrolled 250 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and comorbid congestive heart failure (CHF; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <40%; N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] >600 pg/mL). A total of 125 patients were allocated each to a remogliflozin (R) and empagliflozin (E) group and followed up for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the mean percentage change from baseline in NT-proBNP level after 24 weeks. There was significant improvement from baseline in mean NT-proBNP level in both groups after 24 weeks. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = .214). The mean NT-proBNP level improved from 2078.15 ± 1764.70 pg/mL at baseline to 1185.06 ± 1164.21 pg/mL at 6 months in the R-group (P ≤ .001) and from 2283.98 ± 1759.15 pg/mL at baseline to 1395.33 ± 1304.18 pg/mL at 6 months in the E-group (P < .001). LVEF and LV volumes improved in both groups. The glycemic parameters (HbA1c, FPG, and PPG) demonstrated a significant reduction from baseline to week 24 in both groups. Similar improvement was seen in heart rate, blood pressure, and weight reduction over 6 months in both groups. There was no drug-related serious adverse events in any group. Remogliflozin and empagliflozin significantly improve glycemic parameters and NT-proBNP levels as the index of the therapeutic effects in T2DM patients with CHF. The positive effects are comparable in both groups.

Phase III Pivotal comparative clinical trial of intranasal (iNCOVACC) and intramuscular COVID 19 vaccine (Covaxin®).

One of the most preferable characteristics for a COVID-19 vaccine candidate is the ability to reduce transmission and infection of SARS-CoV-2, in addition to disease prevention. Unlike intramuscular vaccines, intranasal COVID-19 vaccines may offer this by generating mucosal immunity. In this open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 clinical trial (CTRI/2022/02/40065; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05522335), healthy adults were randomised to receive two doses, 28 days apart, of either intranasal adenoviral vectored SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BBV154) or licensed intramuscular vaccine, Covaxin®. Between April 16 and June 4, 2022, we enrolled 3160 subjects of whom, 2971 received 2 doses of BBV154 and 161 received Covaxin. On Day 42, 14 days after the second dose, BBV154 induced significant serum neutralization antibody titers against the ancestral (Wuhan) virus, which met the pre-defined superiority criterion for BBV154 over Covaxin®. Further, both vaccines showed cross protection against Omicron BA.5 variant. Salivary IgA titers were found to be higher in BBV154. In addition, extensive evaluation of T cell immunity revealed comparable responses in both cohorts due to prior infection. However, BBV154 showed significantly more ancestral specific IgA-secreting plasmablasts, post vaccination, whereas Covaxin recipients showed significant Omicron specific IgA-secreting plasmablasts only at day 42. Both vaccines were well tolerated. Overall reported solicited reactions were 6.9% and 25.5% and unsolicited reactions were 1.2% and 3.1% in BBV154 and Covaxin® participants respectively.

Efficacy of a bivalent (D614 + B.1.351) SARS-CoV-2 Protein Vaccine.

Background: COVID-19 vaccines with alternative strain compositions are needed to provide broad protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Methods: We conducted a global Phase 3, multi-stage efficacy study (NCT04904549) among adults aged ≥18 years. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive two intramuscular injections 21 days apart of a bivalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03-adjuvant (5 µg of ancestral (D614) and 5 µg of B.1.351 [beta] variant spike protein) or placebo. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with COVID-19-like illness (CLI) symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 ≥14 days after the second injection (post-dose 2 [PD2]). Results: Between 19 Oct 2021 and 15 Feb 2022, 12,924 participants received ≥1 study injection. 75% of participants were SARS-CoV-2 non-naïve. 11,416 participants received both study injections (efficacy-evaluable population [vaccine, n=5,736; placebo, n=5,680]). Up to 15 March 2022, 121 symptomatic COVID-19 cases were reported (32 in the vaccine group and 89 in the placebo group) ≥14 days PD2 with a vaccine efficacy (VE) of 64.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6; 77.2%). VE was 75.1% (95% CI 56.3; 86.6%) in non-naïve and 30.9% (95% CI -39.3; 66.7%) in naïve participants. Viral genome sequencing identified the infecting strain in 68 cases (Omicron [BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants]: 63; Delta: 4; Omicron and Delta: 1). The vaccine was well-tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile. Conclusions: A bivalent vaccine conferred heterologous protection against symptomatic infection with newly emergent Omicron (BA.1 and BA.2) in non-naïve adults 18-59 years of age.

Efficacy of a bivalent (D614 + B.1.351) SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03 adjuvant in adults: a phase 3, parallel, randomised, modified double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines with alternative strain compositions are needed to provide broad protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. This study aimed to describe the clinical efficacy and safety of a bivalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine as a two-injection primary series during a period of circulation of the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, parallel, randomised, modified double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults aged 18 years or older at 54 clinical research centres in eight countries (Colombia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Uganda, and Ukraine). Participants were recruited from the community and randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive response technology system to receive two intramuscular 0·5 mL injections, 21 days apart, of the bivalent vaccine (5 µg of ancestral [D614] and 5 µg of beta [B.1.351] variant spike protein, with AS03 adjuvant) or placebo (0·9% normal saline). All participants, outcome assessors, and laboratory staff performing assays were masked to group assignments; those involved in the preparation and administration of the vaccines were unmasked. Participants were stratified by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years) and baseline SARS-CoV-2 rapid serodiagnostic test positivity. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as laboratory-confirmed (via nucleic acid amplification test or PCR test) COVID-19 with COVID-19-like illness symptoms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical efficacy of the bivalent vaccine for prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 at least 14 days after the second injection (dose 2). Safety was assessed in all participants receiving at least one injection of the study vaccine or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04904549) and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2021, and Feb 15, 2022, 13 002 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive the first dose of the study vaccine (n=6512) or placebo (n=6490). 12 924 participants (6472 in the vaccine group and 6452 in the placebo group) received at least one study injection, of whom 7542 (58·4%) were male and 9693 (75·0%) were SARS-CoV-2 non-naive. Of these 12 924 participants, 11 543 (89·3%) received both study injections (5788 in the vaccine group and 5755 in the placebo group). The efficacy-evaluable population after dose 2 comprised 11 416 participants (5736 in the vaccine group and 5680 in the placebo group). The median duration of follow-up was 85 days (IQR 50-95) after dose 1 and 58 days (29-70) after dose 2. 121 symptomatic COVID-19 cases were reported at least 14 days after dose 2 (32 in the vaccine group and 89 in the placebo group), with an overall vaccine efficacy of 64·7% (95% CI 46·6 to 77·2). Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was 75·1% (95% CI 56·3 to 86·6) in SARS-CoV-2 non-naive participants and 30·9% (-39·3 to 66·7) in SARS-CoV-2-naive participants. Viral genome sequencing identified the infecting strain in 68 (56·2%) of 121 cases (omicron [BA.1 and BA.2] in 63; delta in four; and both omicron and delta in one). Immediate unsolicited adverse events were reported by four (<0·1%) participants in the vaccine group and seven (0·1%) participants in the placebo group. Immediate unsolicited adverse reactions within 30 min after any injection were reported by four (<0·1%) participants in the vaccine group and six (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. In the reactogenicity subset with available data, solicited reactions (solicited injection-site reactions and solicited systemic reactions) within 7 days after any injection occurred in 1398 (57·8%) of 2420 vaccine recipients and 983 (40·9%) of 2403 placebo recipients. Grade 3 solicited reactions were reported by 196 (8·1%; 95% CI 7·0 to 9·3) of 2420 vaccine recipients and 118 (4·9%; 4·1 to 5·9) of 2403 placebo recipients within 7 days after any injection, with comparable frequencies after dose 1 and dose 2 in the vaccine group. At least one serious adverse event occurred in 30 (0·5%) participants in the vaccine group and 26 (0·4%) in the placebo group. The proportion of adverse events of special interest and deaths was less than 0·1% in both study groups. No adverse event of special interest, serious adverse event, or death was deemed to be treatment related. There were no reported cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell's Palsy, or Guillain-Barré syndrome, or other immune-mediated diseases. INTERPRETATION: The bivalent variant vaccine conferred heterologous protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the epidemiological context of the circulating contemporary omicron variant. These findings suggest that vaccines developed with an antigen from a non-predominant strain could confer cross-protection against newly emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants, although further investigation is warranted. FUNDING: Sanofi, US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Efficacy of a monovalent (D614) SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03 adjuvant in adults: a phase 3, multi-country study.

Background: The literature on first generation COVID-19 vaccines show they were less effective against new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern including Omicron (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants). New vaccines developed against variant strains may provide cross-protection against emerging variants when used as boosters and facilitate vaccination across a range of countries, healthcare settings and populations. However, there are no data on such vaccines when used as a primary series. Methods: A global Phase 3, multi-stage efficacy study (NCT04904549) among adults (≥18 years) was conducted in 53 research centres in eight countries (United States, Honduras, Japan, Colombia, Kenya, India, Ghana, Nepal). Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive two intramuscular injections of a monovalent SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine with AS03-adjuvant (10 µg of the spike (S) protein from the ancestral D614 strain) or placebo on Day 1 (D01) and Day 22 (D22). The primary efficacy endpoint was prevention of virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with symptoms of COVID-19-like illness (CLI) ≥14 days after the second injection (post-dose 2 [PD2]) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve on D01 + D22. Safety and reactogenicity were also evaluated. Findings: Between May 26 and November 7, 2021, 10,114 participants received ≥1 study injection, and 9441 participants received both injections. 2108 (20.8%) participants were SARS-CoV-2 naïve at D01 and D22. The primary endpoint was analysed in a subset of the full analysis set (the modified full analysis set PD2 [mFAS-PD2], excluding participants who did not complete the vaccination schedule or received vaccination despite meeting one of the contraindication criteria, had onset of symptomatic COVID-19 between the first injection and before 14 days after the second injection, or participants who discontinued before 14 days after the second injection [n = 9377; vaccine, n = 4702; placebo, n = 4675]). Data were available for 2051 SARS-CoV-2 naïve and 7159 non-naïve participants. At the cut-off date (January 28, 2022), symptomatic COVID-19 was reported in 169 naïve participants (vaccine, n = 81; placebo, n = 88) ≥14 days PD2, with a vaccine efficacy (VE) of 15.3% (95% CI, -15.8; 38.2). VE regardless of D01/D22 serostatus was 32.9% (95% CI, 15.3; 47.0) and VE in non-naïve participants was 52.7% (95% CI, 31.2; 67.9). Viral genome sequencing was performed up to the data cut-off point and identified the infecting strain in 99/169 adjudicated cases in the PD2 naïve population (Delta [25], Omicron [72], other variants [3], one participant had infection with both Delta and Omicron variants and has been included in the totals for both Delta and Omicron). The vaccine was well-tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. Interpretation: In the context of changing circulating viral variants, it is challenging to induce protection in naïve individuals with a two-dose priming schedule based on the parental D614 strain. However, while the primary endpoint of this trial was not met, the results show that a monovalent D614 vaccine can still be of value in individuals previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Funding: This study was funded in whole or in part by Sanofi and by federal funds from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, part of the office of the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under contract number HHSO100201600005I, and in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Defense Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense under contract number W15QKN-16-9-1002. The views presented here are those of the authors and do not purport to represent those of the Department of the Army, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the U.S. government.

Oro-facial-digital syndrome type II.

Oro-facial-digital syndrome type II (OFD-II) is characterized by frenulated tongue, midline cleft lip, high arched or cleft palate, micrognathia, syndactyly and polydactyly, bilateral reduplicated hallux, conductive hearing loss, choroidal coloboma and normal intelligence. There are nine forms of oro-facial-digital syndromes with different modes of inheritance. A young female with features of oro-facio-digital syndrome type-II is being reported.

Persistence of immunity and impact of third dose of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine against emerging variants.

This is a comprehensive report on immunogenicity of COVAXIN® booster dose against ancestral and Variants of Concern (VOCs) up to 12 months. It is well known that neutralizing antibodies induced by COVID-19 vaccines wane within 6 months of vaccination leading to questions on the effectiveness of two-dose vaccination against breakthrough infections. Therefore, we assessed the persistence of immunogenicity up to 6 months after a two or three-dose with BBV152 and the safety of a booster dose in an ongoing phase 2, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04471519). We report persistence of humoral and cell mediated immunity up to 12 months of vaccination, despite decline in the magnitude of antibody titers. Administration of a third dose of BBV152 increased neutralization titers against both homologous (D614G) and heterologous strains (Alpha, Beta, Delta, Delta Plus and Omicron) with a slight increase in B cell memory responses. Thus, seronversion rate remain high in boosted recipients compared to non-booster, even after 6 months, post third dose against variants. No serious adverse events observed, except pain at the injection site, itching and redness. Hence, these results indicate that a booster dose of BBV152 is safe and necessary to ensure persistent immunity to minimize breakthrough infections of COVID-19, due to newly emerging variants.Trial registration: Registered with the Clinical Trials Registry (India) No. CTRI/2021/04/032942, dated 19/04/2021 and on Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04471519.

Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, BBV152: interim results from a double-blind, randomised, multicentre, phase 2 trial, and 3-month follow-up of a double-blind, randomised phase 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: BBV152 is a whole-virion inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (3 µg or 6 µg) formulated with a toll-like receptor 7/8 agonist molecule (IMDG) adsorbed to alum (Algel). We previously reported findings from a double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled phase 1 trial on the safety and immunogenicity of three different formulations of BBV152 (3 µg with Algel-IMDG, 6 µg with Algel-IMDG, or 6 µg with Algel) and one Algel-only control (no antigen), with the first dose administered on day 0 and the second dose on day 14. The 3 µg and 6 µg with Algel-IMDG formulations were selected for this phase 2 study. Herein, we report interim findings of the phase 2 trial on the immunogenicity and safety of BBV152, with the first dose administered on day 0 and the second dose on day 28. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, multicentre, phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of BBV152 in healthy adults and adolescents (aged 12-65 years) at nine hospitals in India. Participants with positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid and serology tests were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 3 µg with Algel-IMDG or 6 µg with Algel-IMDG. Block randomisation was done by use of an interactive web response system. Participants, investigators, study coordinators, study-related personnel, and the sponsor were masked to treatment group allocation. Two intramuscular doses of vaccine were administered on day 0 and day 28. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 wild-type neutralising antibody titres and seroconversion rates (defined as a post-vaccination titre that was at least four-fold higher than the baseline titre) at 4 weeks after the second dose (day 56), measured by use of the plaque-reduction neutralisation test (PRNT50) and the microneutralisation test (MNT50). The primary outcome was assessed in all participants who had received both doses of the vaccine. Cell-mediated responses were a secondary outcome and were assessed by T-helper-1 (Th1)/Th2 profiling at 2 weeks after the second dose (day 42). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of the vaccine. In addition, we report immunogenicity results from a follow-up blood draw collected from phase 1 trial participants at 3 months after they received the second dose (day 104). This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04471519. FINDINGS: Between Sept 5 and 12, 2020, 921 participants were screened, of whom 380 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the 3 µg with Algel-IMDG group (n=190) or 6 µg with Algel-IMDG group (n=190). Geometric mean titres (GMTs; PRNT50) at day 56 were significantly higher in the 6 µg with Algel-IMDG group (197·0 [95% CI 155·6-249·4]) than the 3 µg with Algel-IMDG group (100·9 [74·1-137·4]; p=0·0041). Seroconversion based on PRNT50 at day 56 was reported in 171 (92·9% [95% CI 88·2-96·2] of 184 participants in the 3 µg with Algel-IMDG group and 174 (98·3% [95·1-99·6]) of 177 participants in the 6 µg with Algel-IMDG group. GMTs (MNT50) at day 56 were 92·5 (95% CI 77·7-110·2) in the 3 µg with Algel-IMDG group and 160·1 (135·8-188·8) in the 6 µg with Algel-IMDG group. Seroconversion based on MNT50 at day 56 was reported in 162 (88·0% [95% CI 82·4-92·3]) of 184 participants in the 3 µg with Algel-IMDG group and 171 (96·6% [92·8-98·8]) of 177 participants in the 6 µg with Algel-IMDG group. The 3 µg with Algel-IMDG and 6 µg with Algel-IMDG formulations elicited T-cell responses that were biased to a Th1 phenotype at day 42. No significant difference in the proportion of participants who had a solicited local or systemic adverse reaction in the 3 µg with Algel-IMDG group (38 [20·0%; 95% CI 14·7-26·5] of 190) and the 6 µg with Algel-IMDG group (40 [21·1%; 15·5-27·5] of 190) was observed on days 0-7 and days 28-35; no serious adverse events were reported in the study. From the phase 1 trial, 3-month post-second-dose GMTs (MNT50) were 39·9 (95% CI 32·0-49·9) in the 3µg with Algel-IMDG group, 69·5 (53·7-89·9) in the 6 µg with Algel-IMDG group, 53·3 (40·1-71·0) in the 6 µg with Algel group, and 20·7 (14·5-29·5) in the Algel alone group. INTERPRETATION: In the phase 1 trial, BBV152 induced high neutralising antibody responses that remained elevated in all participants at 3 months after the second vaccination. In the phase 2 trial, BBV152 showed better reactogenicity and safety outcomes, and enhanced humoral and cell-mediated immune responses compared with the phase 1 trial. The 6 µg with Algel-IMDG formulation has been selected for the phase 3 efficacy trial. FUNDING: Bharat Biotech International. TRANSLATION: For the Hindi translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Image guided I125 prostate brachytherapy with Hybrid Interactive Mick technique in the community setting: How does it compare?

The aim of this study is to evaluate the target coverage, procedural techniques, and merits of Hybrid Interactive Mick (HIM) I125 transperineal permanent implantation (TPPI) of the prostate performed with 10 urologists in a community hospital. Detailed day 0 post-implant dosimetric evaluations of TPPI procedures were performed on 333 consecutive monotherapy patients treated between September 2000 and November 2003 at a single institution. All patients underwent TPPI with HIM. Pelvic and CXR films were obtained for a manual seed count at day 0 and again > day 90 on 175 patients. The HIM-prostate brachytherapy performed in a community hospital provided median D(90), V100, and V150 values of 157Gy, 94%, and 42.3%, respectively. 18% of patients had seed migration to the lungs while 2% had seed migration to the bladder. Only 7 patients (4%) had 2 or more seeds migrate to the lungs. Procedure times average 38 minutes and number of needles used averaged 18. The post-implant urinary retention rate was 2.1% Use of HIM-prostate brachytherapy in the community setting with multiple urologists reproducibly maintained excellent and consistent dosimetric coverage. Procedure times and number of needles used were minimized, and with careful attention to image-guided technique, seed migration to bladder and lung was also minimized.

Predictors of competing mortality in advanced head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE Death from noncancer causes (competing mortality) is an important event in head and neck cancer, but studies identifying predictors of this event are lacking. We sought to identify predictors of competing mortality and develop a risk stratification model for competing events. PATIENTS AND METHODS Cohort study of 479 patients with stage III to IV carcinoma of the head and neck diagnosed between August 1993 and November 2004. Patients were treated on consecutive prospective clinical trials involving organ-preserving chemoradiotherapy and surgery. We used multivariable competing risks regression models to analyze factors associated with the cumulative incidence of competing mortality, locoregional and distant failure, and second malignancies as first events. Results Median follow-up was 52 months median for survivors. The 5-year cumulative incidence of competing mortality was 19.6% (95% CI, 15.8 to 23.4). On multivariable analysis, competing mortality was associated with female sex (hazard ratio [HR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.63), increasing age (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.62), increasing Charlson Comorbidity Index (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.47), decreasing body mass index (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.84), and decreasing distance traveled to the treating center (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.98). Patients with zero, one, two, and > or = three risk factors had 5-year competing mortality of 8.9% (95% CI, 3.0% to 14.8%), 12.4% (95% CI, 7.0% to 17.8%), 22.1% (95% CI, 14.5% to 29.7%), and 39.3% (95% CI, 28.6% to 50.1%), respectively. CONCLUSION Competing mortality in advanced head and neck cancer is associated with several demographic and health status characteristics. Analyses of risk factors for competing mortality may be useful in outcomes reporting and designing clinical trials.

Palliative radiation therapy in the management of brain metastases, spinal cord compression, and bone metastases.

Radiation therapy plays an important role in both curative and palliative cancer treatment. Palliative radiation therapy is given to alleviate symptoms, restore function, relieve suffering caused by cancer, and improve quality of life. Pain relief, control of bleeding or ulceration, prevention of impending compression or obstruction from tumor, and shrinkage of tumor masses causing symptoms are indications for palliative radiotherapy. Palliative radiotherapy is a very effective tool in alleviating pain symptoms and generally well tolerated. Common fractionation schemes are 8 Gy delivered in one fraction and 30 Gy delivered in 10 fractions. This article discusses general principles of administering palliative radiation therapy. Site-specific treatment is addressed, divided into palliative radiotherapy for brain metastases, spinal cord compression, and bone metastases. In each of these areas, we discuss presentation, management, and therapeutic strategies.