Comparative Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccines Among Older Adults: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis Using the GRADE Framework

INTRODUCTION

The mRNA vaccines mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 demonstrated high efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in phase 3 clinical trials, including among older adults. To inform coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine selection, this systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis assessed the comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 in older adults.

METHODS

We systematically searched for relevant studies reporting COVID-19 outcomes with mRNA vaccines in older adults aged ≥ 50 years by first cross-checking relevant published SLRs. Based on the cutoff date from a previous similar SLR, we then searched the WHO COVID-19 Research Database for relevant articles published between April 9, 2022, and June 2, 2023. Outcomes of interest were SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and COVID-19-related death following ≥ 2 vaccine doses. Random effects meta-analysis models were used to pool risk ratios (RRs) across studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated using chi-square testing. Evidence certainty was assessed per GRADE framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-four non-randomized real-world studies reporting clinical outcomes with mRNA vaccines in individuals aged ≥ 50 years were included in the meta-analysis. Vaccination with mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64‒0.80]), symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.62‒0.83]), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.67 [95% CI 0.57‒0.78]), and COVID-19-related hospitalization (RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.53‒0.79]) but not COVID-19-related death (RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.64‒1.00]) compared with BNT162b2. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies for all outcomes (I2 > 75%) except death (I2 = 0%). Multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses excluding specific studies generally demonstrated consistent results. Certainty of evidence across outcomes was rated as low (type 3) or very low (type 4), reflecting the lack of randomized controlled trial data.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of 24 observational studies demonstrated significantly lower risk of asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infections and hospitalizations with the mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 vaccine in older adults aged ≥ 50 years.

Network meta-analysis for indirect comparison of lanadelumab and berotralstat for the treatment of hereditary angioedema

Aim: With no head-to-head studies comparing the effectiveness of lanadelumab and berotralstat for prevention of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks, this network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to indirectly compare the effectiveness of these treatments. Materials & methods: The NMA, using the published data from Phase III trials, was performed using a frequentist weighted regression-based approach following Rücker et al. Efficacy outcomes of interest were HAE attack rate per 28 days and ≥90% reduction in monthly HAE attacks. Results & conclusion: In this NMA, lanadelumab 300 mg administered every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks was associated with statistically significantly higher effectiveness versus berotralstat 150 mg once daily (q.d.) or 110 mg q.d. for both efficacy outcomes assessed.

Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β₂-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD.

METHODS

This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible).

RESULTS

The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV₁ at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV₁ (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.

RESULTS

The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV₁ versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV₁ at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.

Indirect Comparison of Lanadelumab and Intravenous C1-INH Using Data from the HELP and CHANGE Studies: Bayesian and Frequentist Analyses

BACKGROUND

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) with C1-esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) deficiency is a rare disease associated with painful, potentially fatal swelling episodes affecting subcutaneous or submucosal tissues. HAE attacks recur with unpredictable severity and frequency throughout patients' lives; long-term prophylaxis is essential for some patients. In the absence of head-to-head studies, indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of long-term prophylactic agents is a valid approach to evaluate comparative efficacy.

METHODS

We conducted an ITC using data from the placebo-controlled HELP study (assessing patients receiving lanadelumab 300 mg every 2 or 4 weeks) and the 12-week, parallel arm, crossover CHANGE study (assessing intravenous C1-INH). Outcomes of interest were attack rate ratio (ARR) and time to attack after day 0 (TTA0) and after day 70 (TTA70). Two ITC methodologies were used: a Bayesian approach using study results to update non-informative prior distributions to posterior distributions on relative treatment effects, and a frequentist approach using patient-level data from HELP and CHANGE to generate Poisson regressions (for ARR) and Cox models (for TTA0 and TT70).

RESULTS

Both Bayesian and frequentist analyses suggested that lanadelumab reduced HAE attack rate by 46-73% versus intravenous C1-INH. Relative to intravenous C1-INH, risk of first attack after day 0 was comparable between intravenous C1-INH and both lanadelumab doses; risk of first attack after day 70 was reduced by 81-83% with lanadelumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, compared with C1-INH.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from these two ITC methodologies support the favorable efficacy of lanadelumab in reducing the HAE attack rate and extending attack-free intervals in patients with HAE.

Experience of mismatch repair/microsatellite instability (MMR/MSI) testing among patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer in the US

Objective: We assessed knowledge and awareness of MMR/MSI testing among advanced/metastatic CRC patients in the US who had previously taken the test.Methods: A non-interventional, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 150 US CRC patients invited through a research panel. Eligible patients had to be ≥18 years, with stage III or IV CRC (self-reported), had undergone MMR/MSI testing for CRC in past 12 months and could recall the test, and provided informed consent. Descriptive analyses were performed.Results: 81.3% of patients received MMR/MSI testing information from their doctor. Of 64.7% of patients who were a member of a patient support group, 86.6% received information from their groups. Most patients (82.7%) also searched for information on their own (internet searches). Most patients (93.5 to 96.9%) were satisfied with information received from these sources. Reasons for having testing done included increasing knowledge about their cancer (69.3%), being beneficial to determining treatment options (60.7%), and doctor recommendation (62.7%). Key barriers to testing included personal reservations regarding benefits of the test (29.3%), insurance coverage (27.3%), and out-of-pocket costs (18.7%); 45.3% reported no barriers.Conclusions: Patients were well informed about MMR/MSI testing. Increased education of testing benefits and addressing financial barriers may help to further improve testing rates.

Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Instability Testing Practices among US Physicians Treating Patients with Advanced/Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

The study objective was to assess US physicians’ Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Instability (MMR/MSI) testing practices for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. A non-interventional, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 151 physicians (91 oncologists, 15 surgeons and 45 pathologists) treating mCRC patients in the US. Eligible physicians were US-based with at least 5 years of experience treating CRC patients, had at least one mCRC patient in their routine care in the past 6 months, and had ordered at least one MMR/MSI test for CRC in the past 6 months. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were performed. Awareness of specific MMR/MSI testing guidelines was high (n = 127, 84.1%). Of those, 93.7% (119/127) physicians had awareness of specific published guidelines with majority 67.2% (80/119) being aware of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Universal testing for all CRC patients was performed by 68.9% (104/151) physicians, while 29.8% (45/151) selectively order the test for some CRC patients. Key barriers for testing included insufficient tissue sample (48.3%, 73/151), patient declined to have the test done (35.8%, 54/151) and insurance cost concerns for patients (31.1%, 47/151), while 27.2% (41/151) reported no barriers. The survey demonstrated high awareness and compliance with MMR/MSI testing guidelines although universal testing rates seem to be suboptimal.

Fabry International Prognostic Index: a predictive severity score for Anderson-Fabry disease

BACKGROUND

Anderson-Fabry disease (AFD) is a disorder of glycosphingolipid metabolism resulting from deficiency of α-galactosidase A and accumulation of globotriaosylceramide. Presentation is heterogeneous and, despite guidelines for initiation of therapy, there is no basis for defining subgroups that will progress more rapidly, whether treated or not. The authors of this study used clinical and pathological data recorded on 1483 patients in the Fabry Outcome Survey, a large international registry, to develop a prognostic severity score.

METHODS

Parameters relevant to disease progression or outcome were initially selected, using variables that are readily available in clinical practice. Individual end points for renal, cardiac, neurological disease, and death were selected, and a composite end point developed. Potential prognostic variables were correlated with each end point, before multivariate analysis. Variables retaining significance were then used to construct organ specific and composite prognostic scores. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis, according to score, was performed for each end point.

RESULTS

Analysis demonstrated that it is possible to differentiate groups of patients with different outcome probabilities. Cardiac, renal and neurological end points could each be categorised into three separate groups. The 80% event-free survival for these groups differed by approximately 10 years. The overall composite score, the Fabry International Prognostic Index (FIPI), distinguished two distinct groups where the 50% event-free survival differed by 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

A prognostic scoring system for AFD has been developed and retrospective validation performed. The FIPI should prove to be a valuable tool in the counselling and management of AFD patients, and in comparative analyses of outcome using different therapies.

Greater reduction of knee than hip pain in osteoarthritis treated with naproxen, as evaluated by WOMAC and SF-36

OBJECTIVES

To compare the improvement of hip and knee osteoarthritis during treatment with naproxen.

METHODS

Men and women aged 40 to 75 years with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee or hip of at least three months' duration participated in a six week placebo controlled, double blind study with naproxen 500 mg twice daily as one treatment arm. Naproxen was given to 403 patients (280 knee, 123 hip) and placebo to 108 patients (75 knee, 33 hip). WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index) 3.1 visual analogue scale and SF-36 (36 item short form health survey) were used to assess response to treatment between baseline and week 6.

RESULTS

There were no differences at baseline between knee and hip osteoarthritis for any of the WOMAC subscales or SF-36 domains. Improvement was between 4 and 7 mm greater for knee than for hip for all WOMAC subscales (pain, delta = 4.7 mm (p = 0.03); stiffness, delta = 6.6 mm (p = 0.004); function, delta = 4.8 mm (p = 0.06)). Effect size was about 0.8 for all WOMAC subscales for the knee and between 0.5 and 0.6 for the hip. Knee patients treated with naproxen improved 4.6 (p = 0.033) more than hip patients for SF-36 bodily pain and 10.3 (p = 0.014) more for SF-36 role-physical.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with knee osteoarthritis improved more with naproxen treatment than patients with hip osteoarthritis, as monitored by WOMAC and the SF-36 domains bodily pain and role-physical. These findings warrant further investigation and strongly suggest that efficacy of treatment of osteoarthritis of knee and hip should be evaluated separately.

A randomised, placebo controlled, comparative trial of the gastrointestinal safety and efficacy of AZD3582 versus naproxen in osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the gastrointestinal safety and efficacy of the COX inhibiting nitric oxide donator AZD3582 in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

970 patients were randomised (7:7:2) to AZD3582 750 mg twice daily, naproxen 500 mg twice daily, or placebo twice daily in a double blind study. The primary end point was the six week incidence of endoscopic gastroduodenal ulcers (diameter > or =3 mm). Overall damage measured on the Lanza scale was a secondary end point. Safety and tolerability assessments included endoscopic upper gastrointestinal erosions and the gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS). Efficacy was primarily assessed by WOMAC.

RESULTS

The incidence of ulcers with AZD3582 was 9.7% and with naproxen 13.7% (p = 0.07, NS), v 0% on placebo. The incidence of Lanza scores >2 was higher with naproxen (43.7%) than with AZD3582 (32.2%) (p<0.001). Compared with baseline, significantly fewer ulcers and erosions developed in stomach and stomach/duodenum combined, and fewer erosions developed in stomach, duodenum, and both combined on AZD3582 than on naproxen. GSRS reflux and abdominal pain subscale scores were lower for AZD3582 than for naproxen but there was no difference for indigestion, constipation, and diarrhoea. AZD3582 was as effective as naproxen at improving WOMAC scores. Both agents were well tolerated, with no significant effects on blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

At doses with similar efficacy in relieving osteoarthritis symptoms, the primary end point of six week endoscopic gastroduodenal ulcer incidence was not significantly different between AZD3582 and naproxen. Most secondary endoscopic gastrointestinal end points favoured AZD3582.