Efficacy and safety of MAS825 (anti-IL-1ꞵ/IL-18) in COVID-19 patients with pneumonia and impaired respiratory function.

MAS825, a bispecific IL-1⍰/IL-18 monoclonal antibody, could improve clinical outcomes in COVID19 pneumonia by reducing inflammasome-mediated inflammation. Hospitalized nonventilated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (n=138) were randomized (1:1) to receive MAS825 (10 mg/kg single i.v.) or placebo in addition to standard of care (SoC). The primary endpoint was the composite Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score on Day 15 or on day of discharge (whichever was earlier) with worst case imputation for death. Other study endpoints included safety, Creactive protein (CRP), SARS-CoV2 presence and inflammatory markers. On Day 15, the APACHE II score was 14.5±1.87 and 13.5±1.8 in the MAS825 and placebo groups, respectively (P=0.33). MAS825 + SoC led to 33% relative reduction in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, ~1 day reduction in ICU stay, reduction in mean duration of oxygen support (13.5 versus 14.3 days) and earlier clearance of virus on Day 15 versus placebo + SoC group. On Day 15, compared with placebo group, patients treated with MAS825 + SoC showed a 51% decrease in CRP levels, 42% lower IL-6 levels, 19% decrease in neutrophil levels and 16% lower interferon-γ levels, indicative of IL-1β and IL-18 pathway engagement. MAS825 + SoC did not improve APACHE II score in hospitalized patients with severe COVID19 pneumonia; however, it inhibited relevant clinical and inflammatory pathway biomarkers and resulted in faster virus clearance versus placebo + SoC. MAS825 used in conjunction with SoC was well tolerated. None of the adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs were treatment-related

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

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

Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a booster regimen of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine against COVID-19 (ENSEMBLE2) : results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Despite the availability of effective vaccines against COVID-19, booster vaccinations are needed to maintain vaccine-induced protection against variant strains and breakthrough infections. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen) as primary vaccination plus a booster dose. Methods ENSEMBLE2 is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial including crossover vaccination after emergency authorisation of COVID-19 vaccines. Adults aged at least 18 years without previous COVID-19 vaccination at public and private medical practices and hospitals in Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK, and the USA were randomly assigned 1:1 via a computer algorithm to receive intramuscularly administered Ad26.COV2.S as a primary dose plus a booster dose at 2 months or two placebo injections 2 months apart. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against the first occurrence of molecularly confirmed moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after booster vaccination, which was assessed in participants who received two doses of vaccine or placebo, were negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR at baseline and on serology at baseline and day 71, had no major protocol deviations, and were at risk of COVID-19 (ie, had no PCR-positive result or discontinued the study before day 71). Safety was assessed in all participants; reactogenicity, in terms of solicited local and systemic adverse events, was assessed as a secondary endpoint in a safety subset (approximately 6000 randomly selected participants). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04614948, and is ongoing. Findings Enrolment began on Nov 16, 2020, and the primary analysis data cutoff was June 25, 2021. From 34 571 participants screened, the double-blind phase enrolled 31 300 participants, 14 492 of whom received two doses (7484 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 7008 in the placebo group) and 11 639 of whom were eligible for inclusion in the assessment of the primary endpoint (6024 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 5615 in the placebo group). The median (IQR) follow-up post-booster vaccination was 36 center dot 0 (15 center dot 0-62 center dot 0) days. Vaccine efficacy was 75 center dot 2% (adjusted 95% CI 54 center dot 6-87 center dot 3) against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 (14 cases in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 52 cases in the placebo group). Most cases were due to the variants alpha (B.1.1.7) and mu (B.1.621); endpoints for the primary analysis accrued from Nov 16, 2020, to June 25, 2021, before the global dominance of delta (B.1.617.2) or omicron (B.1.1.529). The booster vaccine exhibited an acceptable safety profile. The overall frequencies of solicited local and systemic adverse events (evaluated in the safety subset, n=6067) were higher among vaccine recipients than placebo recipients after the primary and booster doses. The frequency of solicited adverse events in the Ad26.COV2.S group were similar following the primary and booster vaccinations (local adverse events, 1676 [55 center dot 6%] of 3015 vs 896 [57 center dot 5%] of 1559, respectively; systemic adverse events, 1764 [58 center dot 5%] of 3015 vs 821 [52 center dot 7%] of 1559, respectively). Solicited adverse events were transient and mostly grade 1-2 in severity. Interpretation A homologous Ad26.COV2.S booster administered 2 months after primary single-dose vaccination in adults had an acceptable safety profile and was efficacious against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. Studies assessing efficacy against newer variants and with longer follow-up are needed. Funding Janssen Research & Development. Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd

Long-term safety and efficacy of patisiran for hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy: 12-month results of an open-label extension study

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Background: Hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis is a rare, inherited, progressive disease caused by mutations in the transthyretin (TTR) gene. We assessed the safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with patisiran, an RNA interference therapeutic that inhibits TTR production, in patients with hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. Methods: This multicentre, open-label extension (OLE) trial enrolled patients at 43 hospitals or clinical centres in 19 countries as of Sept 24, 2018. Patients were eligible if they had completed the phase 3 APOLLO or phase 2 OLE parent studies and tolerated the study drug. Eligible patients from APOLLO (patisiran and placebo groups) and the phase 2 OLE (patisiran group) studies enrolled in this global OLE trial and received patisiran 0·3 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks with plans to continue to do so for up to 5 years. Efficacy assessments included measures of polyneuropathy (modified Neuropathy Impairment Score +7 [mNIS+7]), quality of life, autonomic symptoms, nutritional status, disability, ambulation status, motor function, and cardiac stress, with analysis by study groups (APOLLO-placebo, APOLLO-patisiran, phase 2 OLE patisiran) based on allocation in the parent trial. The global OLE is ongoing with no new enrolment, and current findings are based on the interim analysis of the patients who had completed 12-month efficacy assessments as of the data cutoff. Safety analyses included all patients who received one or more dose of patisiran up to the data cutoff. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02510261. Findings: Between July 13, 2015, and Aug 21, 2017, of 212 eligible patients, 211 were enrolled: 137 patients from the APOLLO-patisiran group, 49 from the APOLLO-placebo group, and 25 from the phase 2 OLE patisiran group. At the data cutoff on Sept 24, 2018, 126 (92%) of 137 patients from the APOLLO-patisiran group, 38 (78%) of 49 from the APOLLO-placebo group, and 25 (100%) of 25 from the phase 2 OLE patisiran group had completed 12-month assessments. At 12 months, improvements in mNIS+7 with patisiran were sustained from parent study baseline with treatment in the global OLE (APOLLO-patisiran mean change -4·0, 95 % CI -7·7 to -0·3; phase 2 OLE patisiran -4·7, -11·9 to 2·4). Mean mNIS+7 score improved from global OLE enrolment in the APOLLO-placebo group (mean change from global OLE enrolment -1·4, 95% CI -6·2 to 3·5). Overall, 204 (97%) of 211 patients reported adverse events, 82 (39%) reported serious adverse events, and there were 23 (11%) deaths. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the APOLLO-placebo group (28 [57%] of 49) than in the APOLLO-patisiran (48 [35%] of 137) or phase 2 OLE patisiran (six [24%] of 25) groups. The most common treatment-related adverse event was mild or moderate infusion-related reactions. The frequency of deaths in the global OLE was higher in the APOLLO-placebo group (13 [27%] of 49), who had a higher disease burden than the APOLLO-patisiran (ten [7%] of 137) and phase 2 OLE patisiran (0 of 25) groups. Interpretation: In this interim 12-month analysis of the ongoing global OLE study, patisiran appeared to maintain efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. Continued long-term follow-up will be important for the overall assessment of safety and efficacy with patisiran.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo