Florbetapir F 18 amyloid PET and 36-month cognitive decline:a prospective multicenter study

This study was designed to evaluate whether subjects with amyloid beta (Aβ) pathology, detected using florbetapir positron emission tomorgraphy (PET), demonstrated greater cognitive decline than subjects without Aβ pathology. Sixty-nine cognitively normal (CN) controls, 52 with recently diagnosed mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 31 with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia were included in the study. PET images obtained in these subjects were visually rated as positive (Aβ+) or negative (Aβ−), blind to diagnosis. Fourteen percent (10/69) of CN, 37% (19/52) of MCI and 68% (21/31) of AD were Aβ+. The primary outcome was change in ADAS-Cog score in MCI subjects after 36 months; however, additional outcomes included change on measures of cognition, function and diagnostic status. Aβ+ MCI subjects demonstrated greater worsening compared with Aβ− subjects on the ADAS-Cog over 36 months (5.66±1.47 vs −0.71±1.09, P=0.0014) as well as on the mini-mental state exam (MMSE), digit symbol substitution (DSS) test, and a verbal fluency test (P<0.05). Similar to MCI subjects, Aβ+ CN subjects showed greater decline on the ADAS-Cog, digit-symbol-substitution test and verbal fluency (P<0.05), whereas Aβ+ AD patients showed greater declines in verbal fluency and the MMSE (P<0.05). Aβ+ subjects in all diagnostic groups also showed greater decline on the CDR-SB (P<0.04), a global clinical assessment. Aβ+ subjects did not show significantly greater declines on the ADCS-ADL or Wechsler Memory Scale. Overall, these findings suggest that in CN, MCI and AD subjects, florbetapir PET Aβ+ subjects show greater cognitive and global deterioration over a 3-year follow-up than Aβ− subjects do

Use of Flutemetamol F18-Labeled Positron Emission Tomography and Other Biomarkers to Assess Risk of Clinical Progression in Patients With Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment

Importance: Patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) may progress to clinical Alzheimer disease (AD), remain stable, or revert to normal. Earlier progression to AD among patients who were β-amyloid positive vs those who were β-amyloid negative has been previously observed. Current research now accepts that a combination of biomarkers could provide greater refinement in the assessment of risk for clinical progression. Objective: To evaluate the ability of flutemetamol F 18 and other biomarkers to assess the risk of progression from aMCI to probable AD. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter cohort study, from November 11, 2009, to January 16, 2014, patients with aMCI underwent positron emission tomography (PET) at baseline followed by local clinical assessments every 6 months for up to 3 years. Patients with aMCI (365 screened; 232 were eligible) were recruited from 28 clinical centers in Europe and the United States. Physicians remained strictly blinded to the results of PET, and the standard of truth was an independent clinical adjudication committee that confirmed or refuted local assessments. Flutemetamol F 18-labeled PET scans were read centrally as either negative or positive by 5 blinded readers with no knowledge of clinical status. Statistical analysis was conducted from February 19, 2014, to January 26, 2018. Interventions: Flutemetamol F 18-labeled PET at baseline followed by up to 6 clinical visits every 6 months, as well as magnetic resonance imaging and multiple cognitive measures. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time from PET to probable AD or last follow-upwas plotted as a Kaplan-Meier survival curve; PET scan results, age, hippocampal volume, and aMCI stage were entered into Cox proportional hazards logistic regression analyses to identify variables associated with progression to probable AD. Results: Of 232 patients with aMCI (118 women and 114 men; mean [SD] age, 71.1 [8.6] years), 98 (42.2%) had positive results detected on PET scan. By 36 months, the rates of progression to probable AD were 36.2% overall (81 of 224 patients), 53.6%(52 of 97) for patients with positive results detected on PET scan, and 22.8% (29 of 127) for patients with negative results detected on PET scan. Hazard ratios for association with progression were 2.51 (95% CI, 1.57-3.99; P \u3c .001) for a positive β-amyloid scan alone (primary outcome measure), 5.60 (95%CI, 3.14-9.98; P \u3c .001) with additional low hippocampal volume, and 8.45 (95%CI, 4.40-16.24; P \u3c .001) when poorer cognitive status was added to the model. Conclusions and Relevance: A combination of positive results of flutemetamol F 18-labeled PET, low hippocampal volume, and cognitive status corresponded with a high probability of risk of progression from aMCI to probable AD within 36 months

Use of flutemetamol F18-labeled positron emission tomography and other biomarkers to assess risk of clinical progression in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment

Importance: Patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) may progress to clinical Alzheimer disease (AD), remain stable, or revert to normal. Earlier progression to AD among patients who were β-amyloid positive vs those who were β-amyloid negative has been previously observed. Current research now accepts that a combination of biomarkers could provide greater refinement in the assessment of risk for clinical progression. Objective: To evaluate the ability of flutemetamol F 18 and other biomarkers to assess the risk of progression from aMCI to probable AD. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter cohort study, from November 11, 2009, to January 16, 2014, patients with aMCI underwent positron emission tomography (PET) at baseline followed by local clinical assessments every 6 months for up to 3 years. Patients with aMCI (365 screened; 232 were eligible) were recruited from 28 clinical centers in Europe and the United States. Physicians remained strictly blinded to the results of PET, and the standard of truth was an independent clinical adjudication committee that confirmed or refuted local assessments. Flutemetamol F 18-labeled PET scans were read centrally as either negative or positive by 5 blinded readers with no knowledge of clinical status. Statistical analysis was conducted from February 19, 2014, to January 26, 2018. Interventions: Flutemetamol F 18-labeled PET at baseline followed by up to 6 clinical visits every 6 months, as well as magnetic resonance imaging and multiple cognitive measures. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time from PET to probable AD or last follow-upwas plotted as a Kaplan-Meier survival curve; PET scan results, age, hippocampal volume, and aMCI stage were entered into Cox proportional hazards logistic regression analyses to identify variables associated with progression to probable AD. Results: Of 232 patients with aMCI (118 women and 114 men; mean [SD] age, 71.1 [8.6] years), 98 (42.2%) had positive results detected on PET scan. By 36 months, the rates of progression to probable AD were 36.2% overall (81 of 224 patients), 53.6%(52 of 97) for patients with positive results detected on PET scan, and 22.8% (29 of 127) for patients with negative results detected on PET scan. Hazard ratios for association with progression were 2.51 (95% CI, 1.57-3.99; P &lt; .001) for a positive β-amyloid scan alone (primary outcome measure), 5.60 (95%CI, 3.14-9.98; P &lt; .001) with additional low hippocampal volume, and 8.45 (95%CI, 4.40-16.24; P &lt; .001) when poorer cognitive status was added to the model. Conclusions and Relevance: A combination of positive results of flutemetamol F 18-labeled PET, low hippocampal volume, and cognitive status corresponded with a high probability of risk of progression from aMCI to probable AD within 36 months.</p

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&lt;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.)

Amyloid-&amp;bgr; assessed by florbetapir F 18 PET and 18-month cognitive decline

ObjectivesFlorbetapir F 18 PET can image amyloid-β (Aβ) aggregates in the brains of living subjects. We prospectively evaluated the prognostic utility of detecting Aβ pathology using florbetapir PET in subjects at risk for progressive cognitive decline.MethodsA total of 151 subjects who previously participated in a multicenter florbetapir PET imaging study were recruited for longitudinal assessment. Subjects included 51 with recently diagnosed mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 69 cognitively normal controls (CN), and 31 with clinically diagnosed Alzheimer disease dementia (AD). PET images were visually scored as positive (Aβ+) or negative (Aβ-) for pathologic levels of β-amyloid aggregation, blind to diagnostic classification. Cerebral to cerebellar standardized uptake value ratios (SUVr) were determined from the baseline PET images. Subjects were followed for 18 months to evaluate changes in cognition and diagnostic status. Analysis of covariance and correlation analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between baseline PET amyloid status and subsequent cognitive decline.ResultsIn both MCI and CN, baseline Aβ+ scans were associated with greater clinical worsening on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog (p &lt; 0.01) and Clinical Dementia Rating-sum of boxes (CDR-SB) (p &lt; 0.02). In MCI Aβ+ scans were also associated with greater decline in memory, Digit Symbol Substitution (DSS), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (p &lt; 0.05). In MCI, higher baseline SUVr similarly correlated with greater subsequent decline on the ADAS-Cog (p &lt; 0.01), CDR-SB (p &lt; 0.03), a memory measure, DSS, and MMSE (p &lt; 0.05). Aβ+ MCI tended to convert to AD dementia at a higher rate than Aβ- subjects (p &lt; 0.10).ConclusionsFlorbetapir PET may help identify individuals at increased risk for progressive cognitive decline

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

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