Pharmacogenomic testing in paediatrics: Clinical implementation strategies

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) relates to the study of genetic factors determining variability in drug response. Implementing PGx testing in paediatric patients can enhance drug safety, helping to improve drug efficacy or reduce the risk of toxicity. Despite its clinical relevance, the implementation of PGx testing in paediatric practice to date has been variable and limited. As with most paediatric pharmacological studies, there are well-recognised barriers to obtaining high-quality PGx evidence, particularly when patient numbers may be small, and off-label or unlicensed prescribing remains widespread. Furthermore, trials enrolling small numbers of children can rarely, in isolation, provide sufficient PGx evidence to change clinical practice, so extrapolation from larger PGx studies in adult patients, where scientifically sound, is essential. This review paper discusses the relevance of PGx to paediatrics and considers implementation strategies from a child health perspective. Examples are provided from Canada, the Netherlands and the UK, with consideration of the different healthcare systems and their distinct approaches to implementation, followed by future recommendations based on these cumulative experiences. Improving the evidence base demonstrating the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of paediatric PGx testing will be critical to drive implementation forwards. International, interdisciplinary collaborations will enhance paediatric data collation, interpretation and evidence curation, while also supporting dedicated paediatric PGx educational initiatives. PGx consortia and paediatric clinical research networks will continue to play a central role in the streamlined development of effective PGx implementation strategies to help optimise paediatric pharmacotherapy

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling approaches in paediatric infectious diseases and immunology.

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PKPD) modelling is used to describe and quantify dose-concentration-effect relationships. Within paediatric studies in infectious diseases and immunology these methods are often applied to developing guidance on appropriate dosing. In this paper, an introduction to the field of PKPD modelling is given, followed by a review of the PKPD studies that have been undertaken in paediatric infectious diseases and immunology. The main focus is on identifying the methodological approaches used to define the PKPD relationship in these studies. The major findings were that most studies of infectious diseases have developed a PK model and then used simulations to define a dose recommendation based on a pre-defined PD target, which may have been defined in adults or in vitro. For immunological studies much of the modelling has focused on either PK or PD, and since multiple drugs are usually used, delineating the relative contributions of each is challenging. The use of dynamical modelling of in vitro antibacterial studies, and paediatric HIV mechanistic PD models linked with the PK of all drugs, are emerging methods that should enhance PKPD-based recommendations in the future

Sex-dependent immune responses to infant vaccination: an individual participant data meta-analysis of antibody and memory B cells.

BACKGROUND: Biological sex can be an important source of variation in infection and immunity and sex-dependent differences in immune response to vaccination have been reported in some studies. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of vaccine trials from one research centre, in which vaccines were administered to children under three years of age and immunological parameters measured. Log-transformed antigen-specific antibody and memory B cell results were meta-analysed and differences between girls and boys reported as geometric mean ratios. RESULTS: Antibody and memory B cell data were available from nine trials and 2378 children. Statistically significant differences between girls and boys were observed for diphtheria toxoid, capsular group A, W, and Y meningococcal, and pneumococcal vaccines. No sex-differences were observed for responses to Haemophilus influenzae type b, capsular group C meningococcal or tetanus toxoid vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: In young children, immune responses to vaccines were consistently higher or equivalent in girls compared with boys. In no instance were responses in boys significantly higher than girls. While these data do not indicate differences in protection conferred by immunisation in boys and girls, they do support further consideration of biological sex in planning of clinical trials of vaccines

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

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

Reported rates of diarrhea following oral penicillin therapy in pediatric clinical trials

OBJECTIVES: Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) is a well-recognized adverse reaction to oral penicillins. This review analyzed the literature to determine the incidence of AAD following amoxicillin, amoxicillin/clavulanate, and penicillin V oral therapy in pediatric clinical trials. METHODS: An advanced search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase databases for articles in any language reporting the incidence of AAD following oral penicillin therapy for any indicated infection in children (0–17 years). The search was limited to clinical trials. Articles were excluded if treatment was related to chronic conditions, involved concomitant antimicrobials, or if the dose or number of patients was not specified. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-five articles relating to clinical trials were identified (307 from Embase; 128 from MEDLINE). Thirty-five articles reporting on 42 studies were included for analysis. The indications included acute otitis media, sinusitis, pharyngitis, and pneumonia. Thirty-three trials reported on amoxicillin/clavulanate, 6 on amoxicillin, and 3 on penicillin V. In total, the 42 trials included 7729 children who were treated with an oral penicillin. On average, 17.2% had AAD. Data were pooled for each penicillin. The AAD incidence was 19.8% for amoxicillin/clavulanate, 8.1% for amoxicillin, and 1.2% for penicillin V. The amoxicillin/clavulanate data were analyzed according to formulation: pooled-average. The incidence of ADD was 24.6% for the 4:1 formulation, 12.8% for the 7:1 formulation, 19.0% for the 8:1 formulation, and 20.2% for the 14:1 formulation. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate substantially increased incidence of AAD following use of amoxicillin/clavulanate, compared to use of amoxicillin and penicillin V, as well as varying AAD rates with diffierent amoxicillin/clavulanate formulations. These findings warrant consideration when prescribing. The underlying mechanisms of AAD in children remain unclear

Variation in Target Attainment of Beta-Lactam Antibiotic Dosing Between International Pediatric Formularies

As antimicrobial susceptibility of common bacterial pathogens decreases, ensuring optimal dosing may preserve the use of older antibiotics in order to limit the spread of resistance to newer agents. Beta‐lactams represent the most widely prescribed antibiotic class, yet most were licensed prior to legislation changes mandating their study in children. As a result, significant heterogeneity persists in the pediatric doses used globally, along with quality of evidence used to inform dosing. This review summarizes dosing recommendations from the major pediatric reference sources and tries to answer the questions: Does beta‐lactam dose heterogeneity matter? Does it impact pharmacodynamic target attainment? For three important severe clinical infections—pneumonia, sepsis, and meningitis—pharmacokinetic models were identified for common for beta‐lactam antibiotics. Real‐world demographics were derived from three multicenter point prevalence surveys. Simulation results were compared with minimum inhibitory concentration distributions to inform appropriateness of recommended doses in targeted and empiric treatment. While cephalosporin dosing regimens are largely adequate for target attainment, they also pose the most risk of neurotoxicity. Our review highlights aminopenicillin, piperacillin, and meropenem doses as potentially requiring review/optimization in order to preserve the use of these agents in future