Establishing COVID-19 trials at scale and pace: Experience from the RECOVERY trial

Characterization of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in lyophilized plasma prepared with amotosalen-UVA pathogen reduction

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-infected patients exhibit disease ranging from asymptomatic to severe pneumonia, multi-organ failure, and death. convalescent COVID plasma (CCP) from recovered patients with high levels of neutralizing antibodies has demonstrated therapeutic efficacy to reduce the morbidity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some studies. The development of assays to characterize the activity of CCP to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 infectivity offers the possibility to improve potential therapeutic efficacy. Lyophilization of CCP may increase the availability of this therapy. We hypothesized that SARS-CoV-2 antibody profiles of pooled lyophilized pathogen-reduced CCP from COVID-19-recovered blood donors retains virus-neutralizing efficacy as reported for frozen pathogen-reduced CCP.

METHODS

Pooled lyophilized pathogen-reduced plasma was prepared from recovered COVID plasma donors. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were characterized in each donor plasma prior to pathogen reduction and lyophilization and after lyophilization of individual CCP, and in the lyophilized CCP pool. Several complimentary assays were used to characterize antibody levels, neutralizing capacity, and the spectrum of antigen reactivity. The mean values for individual plasma samples and the value in the pool were compared.

RESULTS

The mean ratio for antibody binding to SARS-CoV-2 antigens before and after treatment was 0.95 ± 0.22 mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) units. Antibody activity to an array of influenza virus antigens demonstrated a mean activity ratio of 0.92 ± 0.12 MFI before and after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The antibody activity in pooled pathogen-reduced lyophilized CCPs demonstrated minimal impact due to pathogen reduction treatment and lyophilization.

Non-COVID-19 UK clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic: impact, challenges and possible solutions

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the operationalisation of non-COVID-19 clinical trials globally, particularly site and participant recruitment and trial success/stoppage. Trials which anticipate recruitment challenges may embed methods such as the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to help identify and understand the sources of challenges. Such interventions can help shed light on pandemic-related challenges. This paper reports our experience of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on conducting clinical trials with an embedded QRI, highlighting how the QRI aided in identifying challenges and potential solutions, particularly related to the site set-up and participant recruitment.

MAIN BODY

We report on 13 UK clinical trials which included a QRI. Information is from QRI data and researchers' experience and reflections. In most trials, recruitment was lower than even the lowest anticipated rates. The flexibility of the QRI facilitated rapid data collection to understand and document, and in some instances respond to, operational challenges. Challenges were mostly logistical, pandemic-related and beyond the control of the site or central trial teams. Specifically: disrupted and variable site opening timelines -often due to local research and development (R&D) delays- shortages of staff to recruit patients; fewer eligible patients or limited access to patients; and intervention-related factors. Almost all trials were affected by pandemic-related staffing issues including redeployment, prioritisation of COVID-19 care and research, and COVID-19-related staff illness and absence. Trials of elective procedures were particularly impacted by the pandemic, which caused changes to care/recruitment pathways, deprioritisation of services, reduced clinical and surgical capacity and longer waiting lists. Attempted solutions included extra engagement with staff and R&D departments, trial protocol changes (primarily moving online) and seeking additional resourcing.

CONCLUSION

We have highlighted wide-ranging, extensive and consistent pandemic-related challenges faced by UK clinical trials, which the QRI helped to identify and, in some cases, address. Many challenges were insurmountable at individual trials or trials unit level. This overview highlights the need to streamline trial regulatory processes, address staffing crises, improve recognition of NHS research staff and for clearer, more nuanced central guidance on the prioritisation of studies and how to deal with the backlog. Pre-emptively embedding qualitative work and stakeholder consultation into trials with anticipated difficulties, moving some processes online, and flexible trial protocols may improve the resilience of trials in the current challenging context.

Healthcare systems data in the context of clinical trials - A comparison of cardiovascular data from a clinical trial dataset with routinely collected data

BACKGROUND

Routinely-collected healthcare systems data (HSD) are proposed to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. A comparison was undertaken between cardiovascular (CVS) data from a clinical trial database with two HSD resources.

METHODS

Protocol-defined and clinically reviewed CVS events (heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), thromboembolic stroke, venous and arterial thromboembolism) were identified within the trial data. Data (using pre-specified codes) was obtained from NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) HF and myocardial ischaemia audits for trial participants recruited in England between 2010 and 2018 who had provided consent. The primary comparison was trial data versus HES inpatient (APC) main diagnosis (Box-1). Correlations are presented with descriptive statistics and Venn diagrams. Reasons for non-correlation were explored.

RESULTS

From 1200 eligible participants, 71 protocol-defined clinically reviewed CVS events were recorded in the trial database. 45 resulted in a hospital admission and therefore could have been recorded by either HES APC/ NICOR. Of these, 27/45 (60%) were recorded by HES inpatient (Box-1) with an additional 30 potential events also identified. HF and ACS were potentially recorded in all 3 datasets; trial data recorded 18, HES APC 29 and NICOR 24 events respectively. 12/18 (67%) of the HF/ACS events in the trial dataset were recorded by NICOR.

CONCLUSION

Concordance between datasets was lower than anticipated and the HSD used could not straightforwardly replace current trial practices, nor directly identify protocol-defined CVS events. Further work is required to improve the quality of HSD and consider event definitions when designing clinical trials incorporating HSD.

Additional consensus recommendations for conducting complex innovative trials of oncology agents: a post-pandemic perspective

In our 2020 consensus paper, we devised ten recommendations for conducting Complex Innovative Design (CID) trials to evaluate cancer drugs. Within weeks of its publication, the UK was hit by the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Large CID trials were prioritised to compare the efficacy of new and repurposed COVID-19 treatments and inform regulatory decisions. The unusual circumstances of the pandemic meant studies such as RECOVERY were opened almost immediately and recruited record numbers of participants. However, trial teams were required to make concessions and adaptations to these studies to ensure recruitment was rapid and broad. As these are relevant to cancer trials that enrol patients with similar risk factors, we have added three new recommendations to our original ten: employing pragmatism such as using focused information sheets and collection of only the most relevant data; minimising negative environmental impacts with paperless systems; and using direct-to-patient communication methods to improve uptake. These recommendations can be applied to all oncology CID trials to improve their inclusivity, uptake and efficiency. Above all, the success of CID studies during the COVID-19 pandemic underscores their efficacy as tools for rapid treatment evaluation.

Does natural and hybrid immunity obviate the need for frequent vaccine boosters against SARS-CoV-2 in the endemic phase?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has entered its endemic phase and we observe significantly declining infection fatality rates due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). On this background, it is crucial but challenging to define current and future vaccine policy in a population with a high immunity against SARS-CoV-2 conferred by previous infections and/or vaccinations. Vaccine policy must consider the magnitude of the risks conferred by new infection(s) with current and evolving SARS-CoV-2 variants, how these risks vary in different groups of individuals, how to balance these risks against the apparently small, but existent, risks of harms of vaccination, and the cost-benefit of different options. More evidence from randomized controlled trials and continuously accumulating national health data is required to inform shared decision-making with people who consider vaccination options. Vaccine policy makers should cautiously weight what vaccination schedules are needed, and refrain from urging frequent vaccine boosters unless supported by sufficient evidence.