Rapid Development of an Integrated Network Infrastructure to Conduct Phase 3 COVID-19 Vaccine Trials

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused millions of infections and deaths and resulted in unprecedented international public health social and economic crises. As SARS-CoV-2 spread across the globe and its impact became evident, the development of safe and effective vaccines became a priority. Outlining the processes used to establish and support the conduct of the phase 3 randomized clinical trials that led to the rapid emergency use authorization and approval of several COVID-19 vaccines is of major significance for current and future pandemic response efforts. Observations: To support the rapid development of vaccines for the US population and the rest of the world, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases established the COVID-19 Prevention Network (CoVPN) to assist in the coordination and implementation of phase 3 efficacy trials for COVID-19 vaccine candidates and monoclonal antibodies. By bringing together multiple networks, CoVPN was able to draw on existing clinical and laboratory infrastructure, community partnerships, and research expertise to quickly pivot clinical trial sites to conduct COVID-19 vaccine trials as soon as the investigational products were ready for phase 3 testing. The mission of CoVPN was to operationalize phase 3 vaccine trials using harmonized protocols, laboratory assays, and a single data and safety monitoring board to oversee the various studies. These trials, while staggered in time of initiation, overlapped in time and course of conduct and ultimately led to the successful completion of multiple studies and US Food and Drug Administration-licensed or -authorized vaccines, the first of which was available to the public less than 1 year from the discovery of the virus. Conclusions and Relevance: This Special Communication describes the design, geographic distribution, and underlying principles of conduct of these efficacy trials and summarizes data from 136 382 prospectively followed-up participants, including more than 2500 with documented COVID-19. These successful efforts can be replicated for other important research initiatives and point to the importance of investments in clinical trial infrastructure integral to pandemic preparedness

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 57692 participants (median [range] age, 51 [18-95] years; 11720 participants [20.3%] aged ≥65 years; 31058 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%), 17678 Hispanic or Latino participants (30.6%), and 40745 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

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

The immune space: a concept and template for rationalizing vaccine development.

Abstract Empirical testing of candidate vaccines has led to the successful development of a number of lifesaving vaccines. The advent of new tools to manipulate antigens and new methods and vectors for vaccine delivery has led to a veritable explosion of potential vaccine designs. As a result, selection of candidate vaccines suitable for large-scale efficacy testing has become more challenging. This is especially true for diseases such as dengue, HIV, and tuberculosis where there is no validated animal model or correlate of immune protection. Establishing guidelines for the selection of vaccine candidates for advanced testing has become a necessity. A number of factors could be considered in making these decisions, including, for example, safety in animal and human studies, immune profile, protection in animal studies, production processes with product quality and stability, availability of resources, and estimated cost of goods. The "immune space template" proposed here provides a standardized approach by which the quality, level, and durability of immune responses elicited in early human trials by a candidate vaccine can be described. The immune response profile will demonstrate if and how the candidate is unique relative to other candidates, especially those that have preceded it into efficacy testing and, thus, what new information concerning potential immune correlates could be learned from an efficacy trial. A thorough characterization of immune responses should also provide insight into a developer's rationale for the vaccine's proposed mechanism of action. HIV vaccine researchers plan to include this general approach in up-selecting candidates for the next large efficacy trial. This "immune space" approach may also be applicable to other vaccine development endeavors where correlates of vaccine-induced immune protection remain unknown

Comparison of chlorproguanil-dapsone with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria in young African children: Double-blind randomised controlled trial

Background: Increasing resistance to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine is leading to a decline in its effectiveness. We aimed to assess the safety profile of chlorproguanil-dapsone (CD), and to compare the safety and efficacy of this drug with that of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) as treatment for uncomplicated falciparum malaria. Methods: We undertook a double-blind, randomised trial in 1850 consecutively recruited children with uncomplicated falciparum malaria, pooling data from five African countries. Analyses were based on all randomised patients with available data. Findings: CD was significantly more efficacious than SP (odds ratio 3·1 [95% CI 2·0-4·8]); 1313 patients (96%) given CD and 306 (89%) given SP achieved acceptable clinical and parasitological response by day 14. Adverse events were reported in 46% and 50% of patients randomised to CD and SP, respectively (treatment difference -4·4%, [95% CI -10·1 to 1·3]). Haemoglobin in the CD group was significantly lower than in the SP group at day 7, a difference of -4 g/L (95% CI -6 to -2). Mean day 14 haemoglobin (measured only for the small number of patients whose day 7 data caused concern) was 94 g/L (92-96) and 97 g/L (92-102) after CD and SP, respectively. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficient patients on CD had greater odds than those on SP of having a fall of 20 g/dL or more in haemoglobin when baseline temperature was high. Methaemoglobinaemia was seen in the CD group (n=320, mean 0·4% [95% CI 0·4-0·4]) before treatment, 4·2% (95% CI 3·8-4·6) (n=301) at day 3, and 0·6% (0·6-0·7) (n=300) at day 7). Interpretation: CD had greater efficacy than SP in Africa and was well tolerated. Haematological adverse effects were more common with CD than with SP and were reversible. CD is a useful alternative where SP is failing due to resistance

Phase 1 Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Vaccine Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of HIV Subtype C DNA and MF59-Adjuvanted Subtype C Envelope Protein.

The Pox-Protein Public-Private Partnership is performing a suite of trials to evaluate the bivalent subtype C envelope protein (TV1.C and 1086.C glycoprotein 120) vaccine in the context of different adjuvants and priming agents for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 (HIV-1) prevention. In the HIV Vaccine Trials Network 111 trial, we compared the safety and immunogenicity of DNA prime followed by DNA/protein boost with DNA/protein coadministration injected intramuscularly via either needle/syringe or a needle-free injection device (Biojector). One hundred thirty-two healthy, HIV-1-uninfected adults were enrolled from Zambia, South Africa, and Tanzania and were randomized to 1 of 6 arms: DNA prime, protein boost by needle/syringe; DNA and protein coadministration by needle/syringe; placebo by needle/syringe; DNA prime, protein boost with DNA given by Biojector; DNA and protein coadministration with DNA given by Biojector; and placebo by Biojector. All vaccinations were safe and well tolerated. DNA and protein coadministration was associated with increased HIV-1 V1/V2 antibody response rate, a known correlate of decreased HIV-1 infection risk. DNA administration by Biojector elicited significantly higher CD4+ T-cell response rates to HIV envelope protein than administration by needle/syringe in the prime/boost regimen (85.7% vs 55.6%; P = .02), but not in the coadministration regimen (43.3% vs 48.3%; P = .61). Both the prime/boost and coadministration regimens are safe and may be promising for advancement into efficacy trials depending on whether cellular or humoral responses are desired. South African National Clinical Trials Registry (application 3947; Department of Health [DoH] no. DOH-27-0715-4917) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02997969)

Efficacy of Messenger RNA-1273 Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Acquisition in Young Adults From March to December 2021

Background. The efficacy of messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273 against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is not well defined, particularly among young adults. Methods. Adults aged 18-29 years with no known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection or prior vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were recruited from 44 US sites from 24 March to 13 September 2021 and randomized 1:1 to immediate vaccination (receipt of 2 doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine at months 0 and 1) or the standard of care (receipt of COVID-19 vaccine). Randomized participants were followed up for SARS-CoV-2 infection measured by nasal swab testing and symptomatic COVID-19 measured by nasal swab testing plus symptom assessment and assessed for the primary efficacy outcome. A vaccine-declined observational group was also recruited from 16 June to 8 November 2021 and followed up for SARS-CoV-2 infection as specified for the randomized participants. Results. The study enrolled 1149 in the randomized arms and 311 in the vaccine-declined group and collected >122 000 nasal swab samples. Based on randomized participants, the efficacy of 2 doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 52.6% (95% confidence interval, -14.1% to 80.3%), with the majority of infections due to the Delta variant. Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 was 71.0% (95% confidence interval, -9.5% to 92.3%). Precision was limited owing to curtailed study enrollment and off-study vaccination censoring. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the vaccine-declined group was 1.8 times higher than in the standard-of-care group. Conclusions. mRNA-1273 vaccination reduced the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection from March to September 2021, but vaccination was only one factor influencing risk. © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Two Randomized Trials of Neutralizing Antibodies to Prevent HIV-1 Acquisition.

Whether a broadly neutralizing antibody (bnAb) can be used to prevent human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) acquisition is unclear. We enrolled at-risk cisgender men and transgender persons in the Americas and Europe in the HVTN 704/HPTN 085 trial and at-risk women in sub-Saharan Africa in the HVTN 703/HPTN 081 trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive, every 8 weeks, infusions of a bnAb (VRC01) at a dose of either 10 or 30 mg per kilogram (low-dose group and high-dose group, respectively) or placebo, for 10 infusions in total. HIV-1 testing was performed every 4 weeks. The VRC01 80% inhibitory concentration (IC &lt;sub&gt;80&lt;/sub&gt; ) of acquired isolates was measured with the TZM-bl assay. Adverse events were similar in number and severity among the treatment groups within each trial. Among the 2699 participants in HVTN 704/HPTN 085, HIV-1 infection occurred in 32 in the low-dose group, 28 in the high-dose group, and 38 in the placebo group. Among the 1924 participants in HVTN 703/HPTN 081, infection occurred in 28 in the low-dose group, 19 in the high-dose group, and 29 in the placebo group. The incidence of HIV-1 infection per 100 person-years in HVTN 704/HPTN 085 was 2.35 in the pooled VRC01 groups and 2.98 in the placebo group (estimated prevention efficacy, 26.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.7 to 51.8; P = 0.15), and the incidence per 100 person-years in HVTN 703/HPTN 081 was 2.49 in the pooled VRC01 groups and 3.10 in the placebo group (estimated prevention efficacy, 8.8%; 95% CI, -45.1 to 42.6; P = 0.70). In prespecified analyses pooling data across the trials, the incidence of infection with VRC01-sensitive isolates (IC &lt;sub&gt;80&lt;/sub&gt; &lt;1 μg per milliliter) per 100 person-years was 0.20 among VRC01 recipients and 0.86 among placebo recipients (estimated prevention efficacy, 75.4%; 95% CI, 45.5 to 88.9). The prevention efficacy against sensitive isolates was similar for each VRC01 dose and trial; VRC01 did not prevent acquisition of other HIV-1 isolates. VRC01 did not prevent overall HIV-1 acquisition more effectively than placebo, but analyses of VRC01-sensitive HIV-1 isolates provided proof-of-concept that bnAb prophylaxis can be effective. (Supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; HVTN 704/HPTN 085 and HVTN 703/HPTN 081 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02716675 and NCT02568215.)