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.

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.

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.

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccination

BACKGROUND

While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection.

METHODS

In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7-15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures.

FINDINGS

Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05-0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01-0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease.

INTERPRETATION

Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health.

Clinico-demographic characteristics and outcomes of radiation-induced sarcomas (RIS): a CanSaRCC study

Background

Radiation-induced sarcomas (RIS) tend to have aggressive behaviour and because of their rarity, the most appropriate management for these malignancies is uncertain.

Objectives

Using the Canadian Sarcoma Research and Clinical Collaboration (CanSaRCC) database, a national sarcoma registry, we aimed to investigate prognostic factors and outcomes for RIS.

Design

Retrospective study of RIS patients treated from 1996 to 2021 at three Canadian centres.

Methods

RIS was defined as a sarcoma arising in a previously irradiated field following a 3+ year latency period, whose histology was distinct from the initially irradiated tumour. Clinicopathologic and treatment-related information was extracted from the CanSaRCC database. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from RIS diagnosis to death from any cause. Response rate (RR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) was based on physician assessment. Time-to-event analyses were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with Cox regression for multivariate analysis. We considered a two-tailed p-value of <0.05 as statistically significant.

Results

One hundred seven tumours met the criteria for RIS and were divided into three subgroups: breast angiosarcoma (BAS, n = 54), osteosarcoma (OST, n = 16), and other soft-tissue sarcomas (STS, n = 37). Patients were mostly female (n = 85, 79%), treated initially for breast carcinomas (n = 54, 50.5%), and diagnosed with high-grade tumours (n = 61/71, 86%). None had evidence of synchronous metastasis. Patients with OST were younger (median age: 48 years, p < 0.001), and BAS had the shortest latency interval (8 versus 18 years for OST/STS, p < 0.001). Most patients underwent surgery, 76% (n = 76/100) R0; 24% (n = 26) received radiation therapy, mostly (n = 15, 57.7%) neoadjuvant. Among those receiving chemotherapy, 30 (75%) underwent NACT; among patients with documented response assessment, the RR was 68% (n = 17/25), being even higher in the BAS population (89.5%, n = 13/17). Median OS was 53 months (95% CI 34-101), with a 5-year OS of 47.6%; larger tumour size, high histologic grade and older age were independent prognostic factors for worse OS.

Conclusion

Surgery is standard, and NACT might be useful to downsize large lesions, especially in BAS patients. Raising RIS awareness is fundamental to promoting appropriate management and fostering research through multi-institutional collaborations.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Real-World Experience from a Canadian Comprehensive Cancer Centre

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have revolutionized the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ICI in a real-world cSCC population, including patients with conditions that would exclude clinical trial participation. In this single-center, retrospective cohort study, we included all non-trial patients with advanced cSCC treated with ICI between 2017 and 2022. We evaluated investigator-assessed best overall response (BOR) and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). We correlated survival outcomes with age, performance status, immune status and irAEs. Of the 36 patients identified, the best overall response (BOR) to ICI was a partial response (PR) in 41.7%, a complete response (CR) in 27.8%, and stable disease in (SD) 13.9%. The progression-free survival (PFS) rate for 1 year was 58.1%; the median PFS was 21.3 months (95% CI 6.4-NE). The 1-year overall survival (OS) was 76.7%, and the median OS was 38.6 months (95% CI 25.4-NE). Immune-compromised patients, ECOG performance 2-3, and age ≥ 75 years were not significantly associated with PFS or OS. IrAE grades 3-4 were seen in 13.9% of patients. In our Canadian experience with real-world patients, ICI was an effective and safe treatment for advanced cSCC patients. Patients achieved great benefits with ICI regardless of age, immune status or ECOG performance status. We acknowledge the small sample size and retrospective methodology as the main limitations of our study.

Dupilumab as a treatment for cutaneous immune-related adverse events induced by immune checkpoint inhibitors: A case series and review of the literature

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized cancer treatment. They can induce cutaneous immune-related adverse events. One patient with immune-related eczema and two with immune-related bullous pemphigoid were successfully treated with dupilumab. Guidelines recommend the use of systemic steroids to manage moderate-to-severe cutaneous immune-related adverse events. They could potentially interfere with immunotherapy. There is a need to find alternative treatments that are safe in a cancer setting.

Clinical and Demographic Factors Associated With COVID-19, Severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adults: A Secondary Cross-Protocol Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Current data identifying COVID-19 risk factors lack standardized outcomes and insufficiently control for confounders.

Objective

To identify risk factors associated with COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This secondary cross-protocol analysis included 4 multicenter, international, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with harmonized protocols established by the COVID-19 Prevention Network. Individual-level data from participants randomized to receive placebo within each trial were combined and analyzed. Enrollment began July 2020 and the last data cutoff was in July 2021. Participants included adults in stable health, at risk for SARS-CoV-2, and assigned to the placebo group within each vaccine trial. Data were analyzed from April 2022 to February 2023.

Exposures

Comorbid conditions, demographic factors, and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk at the time of enrollment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Coprimary outcomes were COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. Multivariate Cox proportional regression models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs for baseline covariates, accounting for trial, region, and calendar time. Secondary outcomes included severe COVID-19 among people with COVID-19, subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Results

A total of 57 692 participants (median [range] age, 51 [18-95] years; 11 720 participants [20.3%] aged ≥65 years; 31 058 participants [53.8%] assigned male at birth) were included. The analysis population included 3270 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (5.7%), 7849 Black or African American participants (13.6%), 17 678 Hispanic or Latino participants (30.6%), and 40 745 White participants (70.6%). Annualized incidence was 13.9% (95% CI, 13.3%-14.4%) for COVID-19 and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%) for severe COVID-19. Factors associated with increased rates of COVID-19 included workplace exposure (high vs low: aHR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.58]; medium vs low: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.65]; P < .001) and living condition risk (very high vs low risk: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.66]; medium vs low risk: aHR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.32]; P < .001). Factors associated with decreased rates of COVID-19 included previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.09-0.19]; P < .001), age 65 years or older (aHR vs age <65 years, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.50-0.64]; P < .001) and Black or African American race (aHR vs White race, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.91]; P = .002). Factors associated with increased rates of severe COVID-19 included race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 2.61 [95% CI, 1.85-3.69]; multiracial vs White: aHR, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.50-3.20]; P < .001), diabetes (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-2.08]; P = .005) and at least 2 comorbidities (aHR vs none, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.76]; P = .008). In analyses restricted to participants who contracted COVID-19, increased severe COVID-19 rates were associated with age 65 years or older (aHR vs <65 years, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.32-2.31]; P < .001), race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.38-2.83]; Black or African American vs White: aHR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.03-2.14]; multiracial: aHR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.21-2.69]; overall P = .001), body mass index (aHR per 1-unit increase, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.04]; P = .001), and diabetes (aHR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.37-2.49]; P < .001). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with decreased severe COVID-19 rates (aHR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.01-0.14]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this secondary cross-protocol analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials, exposure and demographic factors had the strongest associations with outcomes; results could inform mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 and viruses with comparable epidemiological characteristics.

Clinical Implications of Longitudinal Blood Eosinophil Counts in Patients With Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

The stability and variability of blood eosinophil counts (BECs) to phenotype patients with severe asthma is not fully understood.

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc, longitudinal, pooled analysis of placebo-arm patients from 2 phase 3 studies evaluated the clinical implications of BEC stability and variability in moderate-to-severe asthma.

METHODS

This analysis included patients from SIROCCO and CALIMA who received maintenance medium- to high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β2-agonists; 2:1 patients with BECs of 300 cells/μL or higher and less than 300 cells/μL were enrolled. The BECs were measured 6 times over 1 year in a centralized laboratory. Exacerbations, lung function, and Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 scores were documented across patients grouped by BEC (<300 cells/μL or ≥300 cells/μL) and variability (<80% or ≥80% BECs less than or greater than 300 cells/μL).

RESULTS

Among 718 patients, 42.2% (n = 303) had predominantly high, 30.9% (n = 222) had predominantly low, and 26.9% (n = 193) had variable BECs. Prospective exacerbation rates (mean ± SD) were significantly greater in patients with predominantly high (1.39 ± 2.20) and variable (1.41 ± 2.09) BECs versus predominantly low (1.05 ± 1.66) BECs. Similar results were observed for the number of exacerbations while on placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with variable BECs had intermittently high and low BECs, they experienced similar exacerbation rates to the predominantly high group, which were greater than those in the predominantly low group. A high BEC supports an eosinophilic phenotype in clinical settings without additional measurements, whereas a low BEC requires repeated measurements because it could reflect intermittently high or predominantly low BECs.

Immune correlates analysis of a phase 3 trial of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine

In the phase 3 trial of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine conducted in the U.S., Chile, and Peru, anti-spike binding IgG concentration (spike IgG) and pseudovirus 50% neutralizing antibody titer (nAb ID50) measured four weeks after two doses were assessed as correlates of risk and protection against PCR-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). These analyses of SARS-CoV-2 negative participants were based on case-cohort sampling of vaccine recipients (33 COVID-19 cases by 4 months post dose two, 463 non-cases). The adjusted hazard ratio of COVID-19 was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.14, 0.76) per 10-fold increase in spike IgG concentration and 0.28 (0.10, 0.77) per 10-fold increase in nAb ID50 titer. At nAb ID50 below the limit of detection (< 2.612 IU50/ml), 10, 100, and 270 IU50/ml, vaccine efficacy was -5.8% (-651%, 75.6%), 64.9% (56.4%, 86.9%), 90.0% (55.8%, 97.6%) and 94.2% (69.4%, 99.1%). These findings provide further evidence towards defining an immune marker correlate of protection to help guide regulatory/approval decisions for COVID-19 vaccines.

Assessing the methodological quality of quality-of-life analyses in first-line non-small cell lung cancer trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Non-cytotoxic therapy has changed the treatment paradigm for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. With unique mechanisms of action, these agents have decidedly improved survival and have demonstrated an improved toxicity profile. However, the real-life experience of the patient, which is commonly assessed by health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measurement, is not clearly established with this new generation of lung cancer treatments. The heterogeneity created by specific patient subgroups and different therapeutics calls for a tailored-approach to analyzing patient-reported outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the methodological quality of HRQoL analysis in Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) involving biologic agents to treat NSCLC.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify NSCLC RCTs published between January 1st, 2000 and January 1st, 2020 reporting HRQoL measures. Only RCTs that both enrolled previously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC and had HRQoL analysis were included.

RESULTS

4203 abstracts were screened, of which only 85 RCTs met inclusion and exclusion criteria for analysis. The most applied HRQoL assessment tools were the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (47, 55.3 %), and EORTC-QLQ-LC13 (35, 41.2 %). The median number of verified CONSORT-PRO Extension criteria in the included trials was 3, and only in 10 (11.8 %) trials were all criteria well-documented. Notably, only 21 (24.7 %) RCTs performed subgroup analyses to specifically evaluate HRQoL in different patient populations.

CONCLUSION

QoL reporting in clinical trials is inconsistent and the quality of QoL measures adopted in a majority of trials is suboptimal. Considering the fact that NSCLC is a biologically diverse disease and that the treatments differ based on patient and tumor-specifics, efforts should be pursued to tailor QoL measures for different subsets of this patient population in addition to mandating QoL reporting in clinical trials. We believe that this is necessary to understand the real-life experience of lung cancer patients in the era of personalized medicine.

Benralizumab Effectiveness in Severe Asthma Is Independent of Previous Biologic Use

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab is an IL-5 receptor alpha-directed cytolytic mAb that depletes eosinophils, reducing exacerbations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, and improves asthma control for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). Data on response in patients previously treated with other biologic therapies are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To describe real-world clinical outcomes with benralizumab for patients with and without prior biologic use for uncontrolled SEA.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared clinical outcomes before and after benralizumab initiation in adults with uncontrolled SEA with 3 or more asthma exacerbations in the previous 12 months or on maintenance OCS treatment. Outcomes included exacerbations, OCS use, patient-reported outcomes, and health care resource utilization, including emergency department visits and hospitalizations.

RESULTS

In all, 208 patients were enrolled, including 90 (43.3%) with previous experience with an alternate biologic for SEA. Benralizumab led to an 81% reduction in exacerbation rate, with 48% of patients with previous exacerbations experiencing none after 48 weeks. Overall, 67% of patients requiring baseline maintenance OCS achieved greater than or equal to 50% reduction in daily OCS dosage, and 53% eliminated maintenance OCS. Clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes were seen, with response at 4 weeks predicting longer-term benefits. Health care resource utilization also decreased. Improvements were observed irrespective of previous biologic experience, fractional exhaled nitric oxide concentrations, atopic status, or other baseline characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

In a multicenter real-world setting, patients with uncontrolled SEA achieved substantial improvements in all clinical outcome measures with benralizumab irrespective of previous biologic use, atopic status, or baseline fractional exhaled nitric oxide concentration.

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.).

Correlates of protection against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

The global supply of COVID-19 vaccines remains limited. An understanding of the immune response that is predictive of protection could facilitate rapid licensure of new vaccines. Data from a randomized efficacy trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in the United Kingdom was analyzed to determine the antibody levels associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2. Binding and neutralizing antibodies at 28 days after the second dose were measured in infected and noninfected vaccine recipients. Higher levels of all immune markers were correlated with a reduced risk of symptomatic infection. A vaccine efficacy of 80% against symptomatic infection with majority Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of SARS-CoV-2 was achieved with 264 (95% CI: 108, 806) binding antibody units (BAU)/ml: and 506 (95% CI: 135, not computed (beyond data range) (NC)) BAU/ml for anti-spike and anti-RBD antibodies, and 26 (95% CI: NC, NC) international unit (IU)/ml and 247 (95% CI: 101, NC) normalized neutralization titers (NF50) for pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization, respectively. Immune markers were not correlated with asymptomatic infections at the 5% significance level. These data can be used to bridge to new populations using validated assays, and allow extrapolation of efficacy estimates to new COVID-19 vaccines.

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 randomized controlled clinical trials of biologic therapies for the treatment of severe, uncontrolled asthma that enrolled comparable patient populations. Annualized asthma exacerbation rates (AAERs) for patients randomized 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 fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) concentration, with the greatest AAER occurring for patients with eosinophils ≥300 cells·μL^-1 and FeNO ≥50 ppb. No relationship was observed between baseline serum immunoglobulin E concentration and AAER. Combining type 2 inflammation criteria for eosinophils and FeNO had greater prognostic value than either biomarker alone. Persistent eosinophil and FeNO 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 FeNO concentrations (particularly when combined and/or persistently achieving type 2 inflammation criteria) were associated with increased exacerbation risk in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma.

Appraising the quality of meta-analysis for breast cancer treatment in the adjuvant setting: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the tumor with highest incidence in women worldwide and adjuvant treatment is extremely important to achieve disease control. Given the relevance of systematic reviews, their rigor should be warranted to avoid biased conclusions. Our objective was to investigate the methodological quality of meta-analysis of early breast cancer adjuvant treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed using electronic databases from 1/1/2007 to 11/12/2018. All studies identified as a systematic review with meta-analysis investigating the efficacy of breast cancer adjuvant treatments were included. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, then full-texts for eligibility. Quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) version 2 tool.

RESULTS

Of 950 citations retrieved, 66 studies (7.0%) were deemed eligible. Methodological quality was highly variable, median AMSTAR score 8.5 (IQR 7-9.5) and range 0-16. There was a weak positive correlation between journal impact factor and AMSTAR score (r = 0.17) and citation rate and AMSTAR score (r = 0.16). Cochrane Systematic Reviews were of higher quality than reviews from other journals. Overall confidence was critically low for 61 (92.4%) studies, and the least well-reported domains were the statement of conflict of interest and funding source for the included studies (4.6%), the report of a pre-defined study protocol (15.2%), and the description of details of excluded studies (6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reinforce concerns about the design, conduction and interpretation of meta-analysis in current literature. Methodological quality should be carefully considered and journal editors, decision makers and readers in general, must follow a critical approach to this studies.

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.

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.

Assessing Durability of Vaccine Effect Following Blinded Crossover in COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy Trials

BACKGROUND

Several candidate vaccines to prevent COVID-19 disease have entered large-scale phase 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials and some have demonstrated substantial short-term efficacy. Efficacious vaccines should, at some point, be offered to placebo participants, which will occur before long-term efficacy and safety are known.

METHODS

Following vaccination of the placebo group, we show that placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy can be derived by assuming the benefit of vaccination over time has the same profile for the original vaccine recipients and the placebo crossovers. This reconstruction allows estimation of both vaccine durability and potential vaccine-associated enhanced disease.

RESULTS

Post-crossover estimates of vaccine efficacy can provide insights about durability, identify waning efficacy, and identify late enhancement of disease, but are less reliable estimates than those obtained by a standard trial where the placebo cohort is maintained. As vaccine efficacy estimates for post-crossover periods depend on prior vaccine efficacy estimates, longer pre-crossover periods with higher case counts provide better estimates of late vaccine efficacy. Further, open-label crossover may lead to riskier behavior in the immediate crossover period for the unblinded vaccine arm, confounding vaccine efficacy estimates for all post-crossover periods.

CONCLUSIONS

We advocate blinded crossover and continued follow-up of trial participants to best assess vaccine durability and potential delayed enhancement of disease. This approach allows placebo recipients timely access to the vaccine when it would no longer be proper to maintain participants on placebo, yet still allows important insights about immunological and clinical effectiveness over time.

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).

Ability of Serum IgE Concentration to Predict Exacerbation Risk and Benralizumab Efficacy for Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma

Introduction

For patients with eosinophilic asthma with allergic characteristics, understanding the key drivers of exacerbations is important to identify optimal treatment strategies. Benralizumab is an interleukin-5 receptor alpha–directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody that significantly reduces exacerbation frequency for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. We evaluated the predictive value of baseline blood eosinophil counts vs. serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) concentrations on exacerbation risk and the association of these variables with benralizumab treatment effect.

Methods

Analyses were performed with data pooled from the phase III SIROCCO and CALIMA benralizumab trials. Crude annual asthma exacerbation rates (AERs) were determined for placebo as a function of baseline blood eosinophil counts and serum IgE concentrations with prespecified blood eosinophil count categories (< 150, ≥ 150 to < 300, ≥ 300 to < 450, ≥ 450 cells/µL) and IgE concentration quartiles (< 62.0, ≥ 62.0 to < 176.2, ≥ 176.2 to < 453.4, and ≥ 453.4 kU/L). We compared AERs for patients receiving benralizumab 30 mg every 8 weeks (first three doses every 4 weeks) vs. placebo for overlapping baseline blood eosinophil count categories and serum IgE concentration quartiles via a regression approach and by continuously using locally weighted regression smoothing analysis.

Results

Exacerbation risk for patients with severe asthma receiving placebo increased with increasing baseline blood eosinophil counts but not with increasing serum IgE concentrations. Addition of baseline atopy status did not influence the relationship between IgE concentrations and exacerbation risk for patients receiving placebo. Patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/µL had consistent decreases in exacerbation risk with benralizumab relative to placebo across all serum IgE concentration quartiles.

Conclusion

Baseline blood eosinophil counts, but not serum IgE concentrations, are an important predictor of exacerbation risk. Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma treated with benralizumab had consistent reductions in exacerbation risk, regardless of IgE concentrations.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: SIROCCO, NCT01928771; CALIMA, NCT01914757.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-01191-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Many patients with severe asthma have elevated numbers of eosinophils (a subset of white blood cells) and raised serum concentrations of immunoglobulin E (IgE; antibodies). Elevated eosinophil counts together with IgE concentrations are associated with more frequent asthma attacks. Benralizumab is a drug that almost completely depletes eosinophils and significantly reduces asthma attacks for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma and elevated blood eosinophil counts. The individual influence of eosinophils and IgE on benralizumab efficacy has been published. In this study, we further extend the analyses to evaluate the interrelationship of eosinophil counts and IgE concentrations with asthma attack frequency and benralizumab efficacy for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. We evaluated the association of blood eosinophil counts and IgE concentrations with asthma attack frequency for patients with severe asthma who received high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids plus additional controller medications but did not receive benralizumab in the benralizumab clinical trials. We observed that increased blood eosinophil counts were associated with greater asthma attack frequency, while serum IgE concentrations had no influence on asthma attack frequency. We also evaluated patients who received benralizumab and determined that benralizumab can reduce the occurrence of these attacks for patients with elevated blood eosinophil counts regardless of their serum IgE concentrations. Frequency of asthma attacks also decreased with benralizumab for patients with elevated serum IgE concentrations, but serum IgE concentrations did not influence benralizumab efficacy. Benralizumab is an efficacious treatment for patients with uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma, regardless of their IgE concentrations.

Novelty Improves the Formation and Persistence of Memory in a Naturalistic School Scenario

One of the top challenges in education and neuroscience consists in translating laboratory results into strategies to improve learning and memory in teaching environments. In that sense, during the last two decades, researchers have discovered specific temporal windows around learning, during which the intervention with some experiences induces modulatory effects on the formation and/or persistence of memory. Based on these results, the aim of the present study was to design a specific strategy to improve the memory of students in a high-school scenario, by assessing the effect of a novel situation experienced close to learning. We found that the long-term memory about a geometrical figure was more precise in the group of students that faced a novel situation 1 h before or after learning the figure than the control group of students who did not face the novelty. This enhancement was probably triggered by processes acting on memory formation mechanisms that remained evident 45 days after learning, indicating that the improvement was sustained over time. In addition, our results showed that novelty no longer improved the memory if it was experienced 4 h before or after learning. However, far beyond this window of efficacy, when it was faced around 10 h after learning, the novel experience improved the memory persistence tested 7 days later. In summary, our findings characterized different temporal windows of the effectiveness of novelty acting on memory processing, providing a simple and inexpensive strategy that could be used to improve memory formation and persistence in high-school students.

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).

Daily patient-reported health status assessment improvements with benralizumab for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma

Background

Patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma experience debilitating symptoms that result in meaningful reductions to health-related quality of life. Benralizumab is an interleukin-5 receptor alpha–directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody that reduces exacerbations and improves asthma symptoms for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate improvements in daily asthma-related health status outcomes following treatment with benralizumab.

Methods

Pooled results from the SIROCCO (NCT01928771) and CALIMA (NCT01914757) Phase III studies were analyzed. Patients aged 12–75 years with severe, uncontrolled asthma, and blood eosinophil counts (BEC) ≥300 and ≥150 cells/µL were evaluated. Patients received subcutaneous benralizumab 30 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W, first three doses Q4W) or placebo and completed a daily diary reporting rescue medication use, night-time awakening requiring rescue medication use, perceived tiredness, and asthma-related activity impairment. Outcome measures were compared across treatment arms from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures analyses.

Results

Patients with BEC ≥300 cells/µL receiving benralizumab Q8W had greater improvements in all patient-reported outcomes at EOT relative to baseline than patients receiving placebo (all nominal P≤0.013). Effects were reported as early as 3 days following the initial dose and sustained throughout treatment for daily and night-time rescue medication use and night-time awakenings requiring rescue medication. For patients with BEC ≥300 and ≥150 cells/ µL, sustained improvements in activity impairment items (all nominal P<0.05) were achieved with benralizumab Q8W at week 2.

Conclusion

Benralizumab produces sustained reductions by as early as 3 days in rescue medication use and activity impairment for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.

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 β₂-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⁻¹.

Baseline clinical factors and blood eosinophil counts can help identify patients potentially responsive to benralizumab.

Key baseline factors can aid in identifying patients who may respond to benralizumabhttp://ow.ly/uPVX30ltHTF

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 β₂-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.

Predictors of enhanced response with benralizumab for patients with severe asthma: pooled analysis of the SIROCCO and CALIMA studies

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab is an anti-eosinophilic, anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody that has been shown to significantly reduce asthma exacerbations and improve lung function for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. We further explored the efficacy of benralizumab for patients with different baseline blood eosinophil thresholds and exacerbation histories.

METHODS

This study is a pooled analysis of the results from the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled SIROCCO (NCT01928771) and CALIMA (NCT01914757) phase 3 studies. In these studies, patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous benralizumab 30 mg, either every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks (with first three doses given every 4 weeks), or placebo every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was annual exacerbation rate (AER) ratio versus placebo, analysed by baseline eosinophil counts (≥0, ≥150, ≥300, or ≥450 cells per μL) and by number of exacerbations (two vs three or more) during the year before enrolment. The analyses were done in accordance with the intention-to-treat principle.

FINDINGS

Of 2295 patients, 756 received benralizumab every 4 weeks, 762 received benralizumab every 8 weeks, and 777 patients received placebo. AER among patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts of at least 0 cells per μL was 1·16 (95% CI 1·05-1·28) in patients who received placebo versus 0·75 (0·66-0·84) in patients who received benralizumab every 8 weeks (rate ratio 0·64, 0·55-0·75; p<0·0001). In patients who received benralizumab every 4 weeks who had eosinophil counts of 0 or more cells per μL, AER was 0·73 (0·65-0·82); rate ratio versus placebo was 0·63 (0·54-0·74; p<0·0001). The extent to which exacerbation rates were reduced increased with increasing blood eosinophil thresholds and with greater exacerbation history in patients in the 4-weekly and 8-weekly benralizumab groups. Greater improvements in AER were seen with benralizumab compared with placebo for patients with a combination of high blood eosinophil thresholds and a history of more frequent exacerbations.

INTERPRETATION

These results will help to guide clinicians when they are deciding whether to use benralizumab to treat patients with severe, uncontrolled, eosinophilic asthma.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

The association between blood eosinophil count and benralizumab efficacy for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma: subanalyses of the Phase III SIROCCO and CALIMA studies

OBJECTIVE

Benralizumab, an anti-eosinophilic monoclonal antibody, in combination with high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β₂-agonists (ICS/LABA), significantly reduced asthma exacerbations, improved lung function, and reduced symptoms for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/μL in the Phase III SIROCCO and CALIMA studies. To understand the efficacy and safety of benralizumab for patients with eosinophil-driven disease with blood eosinophil counts lower than 300 cells/μL, we evaluated the effect of applying an eosinophil cutoff of ≥150 cells/μL.

METHODS

Adult patients with uncontrolled asthma despite high-dosage ICS/LABA ± additional asthma controller(s) received subcutaneous benralizumab 30 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W; first three doses every 4 weeks) or placebo for 48 (SIROCCO) or 56 (CALIMA) weeks. Efficacy measures including annual exacerbation rate, prebronchodilator FEV₁, and total asthma symptom score were analyzed by baseline blood eosinophil counts ≥150 vs. <150 cells/μL.

RESULTS

Benralizumab reduced asthma exacerbation rates by 42% in SIROCCO (rate ratio = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.46-0.74; p < 0.001; n = 325) and 36% in CALIMA (rate ratio = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.50-0.81; p < 0.001; n = 300) vs. placebo (n = 306 for SIROCCO, n = 315 for CALIMA) for patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/μL. Benralizumab increased prebronchodilator FEV₁ (both studies, p ≤ 0.002) and improved total asthma symptom score in SIROCCO (p = 0.009) at end of treatment vs. placebo for patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/μL. The overall adverse events frequency was similar between treatment groups and eosinophil count cohorts.

CONCLUSION

These results support the efficacy and safety of benralizumab for patients with severe asthma and blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/μL.

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.

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.