The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase 1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age  6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score  652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc = 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N = 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in Asia and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701

Immunogenicity and safety of a booster dose of a quadrivalent meningococcal tetanus toxoid-conjugate vaccine (MenACYW-TT) in adolescents and adults: a Phase III randomized study

The quadrivalent meningococcal tetanus toxoid-conjugate vaccine (MenACYW-TT) was assessed as a booster in this Phase III trial (NCT02752906). Quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4)-primed individuals aged ≥15 y (n = 810) were randomized 1:1 to receive a single booster dose of MenACYW-TT (n = 403) or a licensed MCV4 (Menactra®; MCV4-DT [n = 407]). Serum bactericidal antibody assay with human complement (hSBA) was used to measure functional antibodies against serogroups A, C, W, and Y at baseline and Day 30 post-vaccination. Proportions of participants achieving seroresponse (post-vaccination titer ≥1:16 for those with baseline titer <1:8 or ≥4-fold increase in post-vaccination titer for those with baseline titer ≥1:8) were determined. Safety data were collected for 180 d post-vaccination. Non-inferiority of the immune response was demonstrated for MenACYW-TT compared with MCV4-DT based on the proportion of participants achieving hSBA vaccine seroresponse for each of the meningococcal serogroups at Day 30. Moreover, ≥99% of participants in both study groups had hSBA titers ≥1:8 for the four meningococcal serogroups at Day 30. Reactogenicity profiles were comparable between groups. These Phase III data in adolescents and adults show that MenACYW-TT boosts the immune response in those primed with MCV4 vaccines 4–10 y previously, irrespective of whether MCV4-DT or MCV4-CRM was used for priming

Anti-Granulocyte–Macrophage Colony–Stimulating Factor Monoclonal Antibody Gimsilumab for COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled Trial

RATIONALE: GM-CSF (granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor) has emerged as a promising target against the hyperactive host immune response associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of gimsilumab, an anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of hospitalized patients with elevated inflammatory markers and hypoxemia secondary to COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a 24-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, BREATHE (Better Respiratory Education and Treatment Help Empower), at 21 locations in the United States. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive two doses of intravenous gimsilumab or placebo 1 week apart. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality rate at Day 43. Key secondary outcomes were ventilator-free survival rate, ventilator-free days, and time to hospital discharge. Enrollment was halted early for futility based on an interim analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the planned 270 patients, 225 were randomized and dosed; 44.9% of patients were Hispanic or Latino. The gimsilumab and placebo groups experienced an all-cause mortality rate at Day 43 of 28.3% and 23.2%, respectively (adjusted difference = 5% vs. placebo; 95% confidence interval [26 to 17]; P = 0.377). Overall mortality rates at 24 weeks were similar across the treatment arms. The key secondary endpoints demonstrated no significant differences between groups. Despite the high background use of corticosteroids and anticoagulants, adverse events were generally balanced between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Gimsilumab did not improve mortality or other key clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and evidence of systemic inflammation. The utility of anti-GM-CSF therapy for COVID-19 remains unclear. CLINICAL TRIAL registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 04351243

Efficacy and Safety of NVX-CoV2373 in Adults in the United States and Mexico.

BackgroundNVX-CoV2373 is an adjuvanted, recombinant spike protein nanoparticle vaccine that was shown to have clinical efficacy for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in phase 2b-3 trials in the United Kingdom and South Africa, but its efficacy had not yet been tested in North America.MethodsWe conducted a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United States and Mexico during the first half of 2021 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NVX-CoV2373 in adults (≥18 years of age) who had not had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive two doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo 21 days apart. The primary objective was to determine vaccine efficacy against reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction-confirmed Covid-19 occurring at least 7 days after the second dose. Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe disease and against different variants was also assessed.ResultsOf the 29,949 participants who underwent randomization between December 27, 2020, and February 18, 2021, a total of 29,582 (median age, 47 years; 12.6% ≥65 years of age) received at least one dose: 19,714 received vaccine and 9868 placebo. Over a period of 3 months, 77 cases of Covid-19 were noted - 14 among vaccine recipients and 63 among placebo recipients (vaccine efficacy, 90.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 82.9 to 94.6; P<0.001). Ten moderate and 4 severe cases occurred, all in placebo recipients, yielding vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe disease of 100% (95% CI, 87.0 to 100). Most sequenced viral genomes (48 of 61, 79%) were variants of concern or interest - largely B.1.1.7 (alpha) (31 of the 35 genomes for variants of concern, 89%). Vaccine efficacy against any variant of concern or interest was 92.6% (95% CI, 83.6 to 96.7). Reactogenicity was mostly mild to moderate and transient but was more frequent among NVX-CoV2373 recipients than among placebo recipients and was more frequent after the second dose than after the first dose.ConclusionsNVX-CoV2373 was safe and effective for the prevention of Covid-19. Most breakthrough cases were caused by contemporary variant strains. (Funded by Novavax and others; PREVENT-19 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04611802.)

Safety and Immunogenicity of an Investigational Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine (RSVPreF3) in Mothers and Their Infants : A Phase 2 Randomized Trial

Lay Summary What Is the Context? Infants, especially those less than 6 months of age, are at increased risk of lung infection caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). However, this risk could be reduced with maternal vaccination against RSV during pregnancy. A previous clinical trial found that a vaccine candidate (named RSVPreF3) was well tolerated when given to non-pregnant women. What is New? In pregnant women, RSVPreF3 was also well tolerated. Occurrence of unsolicited adverse events was similar between vaccine and placebo recipients. None of the serious adverse events or events of interest for pregnant women or newborns were considered related to the study intervention. One month after vaccination, mothers who received RSVPreF3 had 11-15 times higher levels of antibodies against RSV than before vaccination. These antibody levels remained similar until 43 days after delivery. In the infants born to mothers vaccinated during pregnancy with RSVPreF3, antibody levels were highest at birth, when levels were higher than in their mothers, and declined through day 181 postbirth. What Is the Impact? RSVPreF3 had an acceptable safety risk profile in pregnant women and their babies. This vaccine induced potent immune responses against RSV, with maternal antibodies transferred to infants of the vaccinated mothers.Background In a phase 1/2 study, a maternal respiratory syncytial virus vaccine candidate (RSVPreF3) demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and efficiently increased RSV-specific humoral immune responses in non-pregnant women. Methods In this phase 2 observer-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial (NCT04126213), the safety of RSVPreF3 (60 or 120 mu g), administered during late second or third trimester, was evaluated in 213 18- to 40-year-old healthy pregnant women through 6 months postdelivery and their offspring through infancy; immunogenicity was evaluated through day 43 postdelivery and day 181 postbirth, respectively. Results RSVPreF3 was well tolerated. No pregnancy-related or neonatal adverse events of special interest were considered vaccine/placebo related. In the 60 and 120 mu g RSVPreF3 groups: (1) neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers in mothers increased 12.7- and 14.9-fold against RSV-A and 10.6- and 13.2-fold against RSV-B, respectively, 1 month postvaccination and remained 8.9-10.0-fold over prevaccination at day 43 postdelivery; (2) nAb titers were consistently higher compared to placebo recipients; (3) placental transfer ratios for anti-RSVPreF3 antibodies at birth were 1.62 and 1.90, respectively, and (4) nAb levels in infants were highest at birth and declined through day 181 postbirth. Conclusions RSVPreF3 maternal vaccination had an acceptable safety risk profile and induced robust RSV-specific immune responses with successful antibody transfer to their newborns.In this phase 2 observer-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, RSVPreF3 maternal vaccination during late second or third trimester had an acceptable safety risk profile and induced robust RSV-specific immune responses with successful antibody transfer to their newborns.Peer reviewe

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

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

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: 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