Search

Accelerating COVID-19 Treatment Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) was initiated by the US government to rapidly develop and test vaccines and therapeutics against COVID-19 in 2020. The ACTIV Therapeutics-Clinical Working Group selected ACTIV trial teams and clinical networks to expeditiously develop and launch master protocols based on therapeutic targets and patient populations. The suite of clinical trials was designed to collectively inform therapeutic care for COVID-19 outpatient, inpatient, and intensive care populations globally. In this report, we highlight challenges, strategies, and solutions around clinical protocol development and regulatory approval to document our experience and propose plans for future similar healthcare emergencies.

The United States Government (USG) public-private partnership “Accelerating COVID-19 Treatment Interventions and Vaccines” (ACTIV) was launched to identify safe, effective therapeutics to treat patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prevent hospitalization, progression of disease, and death. Eleven original master protocols were developed by ACTIV, and thirty-seven therapeutic agents entered evaluation for treatment benefit. Challenges encountered during trial implementation led to innovations enabling initiation and enrollment of over 26,000 participants in the trials. While only two ACTIV trials continue to enroll, the recommendations here reflect information from all the trials as of May 2023. We review clinical trial implementation challenges and corresponding lessons learned to inform future therapeutic clinical trials implemented in response to a public health emergency and the conduct of complex clinical trials during “peacetime,” as well.

Authors have previously reported on the efficacy and safety of the recombinant spike protein nanoparticle vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, in healthy adults. In this work, they assess anti-spike binding IgG, anti-RBD binding IgG and neutralising antibody titer as correlates of risk and protection against COVID-19.

BackgroundWestern Equine Encephalitis (WEE) is a naturally acquired infection and potentially devastating bioweapon, with no specific human countermeasures. An experimental inactivated Western Equine Encephalitis Vaccine (WEEV; WEE TSI-GSD 210) has been used under an IND (investigational New Drug) protocol at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) since 1976.MethodsOver 24 years from 1987 to 2011, 876 subjects received 3 primary vaccine doses under 3 studies with 1,537 booster doses administered (FY87-8, phase 2, laboratory workers, vaccine lots 1-81-1, 1-81-2, and 2-1-91; FY99-12, phase 2 laboratory workers, lot 2-1-91; and FY09-02, phase 1 healthy volunteer, lot 3-1-92). Post-vaccination safety and immunogenicity [plaque reduction neutralization test 80% (PRNT80) > 1:40] were analyzed.ResultsOverall PRNT80 response to the primary series in FY87-8 was 42% (326/770) but dropped to 16% (14/87) in FY99-12, prompting study FY09-02, which achieved 89% (17/19). The first booster response rate was 68% (814/1194) in FY87-8, 53% (171/324) in FY99-12, and 100% (10/10) in FY09-02. The majority of definitely related adverse reactions (AEs) were mild and local with no definitely related serious AEs. No laboratory acquired WEE infection was documented during this period despite 4 reported exposures in vaccinated subjects.ConclusionThe TSI-GSD 210 WEE vaccine was immunogenic, safe and well tolerated. Use of this vaccine could be considered in an emergency setting. Despite decades of safe and effective use under IND, full licensure is not planned due to manufacturing constraints, and a strategic decision to develop alternatives.Clinical Trial Registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT01159561.

Angola variant (MARV/Ang) has replaced Mt. Elgon variant Musoke isolate (MARV/MtE-Mus) as the consensus standard variant for Marburg virus research and is regarded as causing a more aggressive phenotype of disease in animal models; however, there is a dearth of published evidence supporting the higher virulence of MARV/Ang. In this retrospective study, we used data pooled from eight separate studies in nonhuman primates experimentally exposed with either 1000 pfu intramuscular (IM) MARV/Ang or MARV/MtE-Mus between 2012 and 2017 at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association of variant type with time to death, the development of anorexia, rash, viremia, and 10 select clinical laboratory values. A total of 47 cynomolgus monkeys were included, of which 18 were exposed to MARV/Ang in three separate studies and 29 to MARV/MtE-Mus in five studies. Following universally fatal Marburg virus exposure, compared to MARV/MtE-Mus, MARV/Ang was associated with an increased risk of death (HR = 22.10; 95% CI: 7.08, 68.93), rash (HR = 5.87; 95% CI: 2.76, 12.51) and loss of appetite (HR = 35.10; 95% CI: 7.60, 162.18). Our data demonstrate an increased virulence of MARV/Ang compared to MARV/MtE-Mus variant in the 1000 pfu IM cynomolgus macaque model.

Abdominal tuberculosis is one of the most prevalent forms ofextra-pulmonary tuberculosis. Various regions of gastrointestinaltract including cecum, terminal ileum, peritoneum, lymphaticsystem, and solid viscera can be affected by tuberculosis.Here we report a 33-year-old woman presented with fever,chills, and a history of abdominal discomfort. Lymphadenopathywas detected on physical examination. Contrast computedtomography of chest and abdomen showed patchy densitiesand thickening of the ileocecal wall respectively. Histologicalstudies of the biopsy samples documented the existence oftuberculosis.

Hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) can be associated with different infectious etiologies, but the relationship between pseudomembranous colitis and HUS was first described in the 1970s in some childhood patients. There is very limited published literature on Clostridium difficile-associated HUS. We report a case of C. difficile-related HUS in an adult patient and provide a review of the literature.

ABSTRACTBACKGROUND: This is an update of the original review published in 2008. The risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes is increased with influenza-like infection, and vaccination against influenza may improve cardiovascular outcomes.OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential benefits of influenza vaccination for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.METHODS:Search methods:We searched the following electronic databases on 18 October 2013: The Cochrane Library (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Economic Evaluation Database (EED) and Health Technology Assessment database (HTA)), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and ongoing trials registers (www.controlled-trials.com/ and www.clinicaltrials.gov). We examined reference lists of relevant primary studies and systematic reviews. We performed a limited PubMed search on 20 February 2015, just before publication.Selection criteria:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of influenza vaccination compared with placebo or no treatment in participants with or without cardiovascular disease, assessing cardiovascular death or non-fatal cardiovascular events.Data collection and analysis:We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We carried out meta-analyses only for cardiovascular death, as other outcomes were reported too infrequently. We expressed effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs), and we used random-effects models.MAIN RESULTS: We included eight trials of influenza vaccination compared with placebo or no vaccination, with 12,029 participants receiving at least one vaccination or control treatment. We included six new studies (n = 11,251), in addition to the two included in the previous version of the review. Four of these trials (n = 10,347) focused on prevention of influenza in the general or elderly population and reported cardiovascular outcomes among their safety analyses; four trials (n = 1682) focused on prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with established coronary heart disease. These populations were analysed separately. Follow-up continued between 42 days and one year. Five RCTs showed deficits in at least three of the risk of bias criteria assessed. When reported (seven studies), vaccination provided adequate immunogenicity or protection against influenza. Cardiovascular mortality was reported by four secondary prevention trials and was significantly reduced by influenza vaccination overall (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.76; P value 0.003) with no significant heterogeneity between studies, and by three trials reporting cardiovascular mortality as part of their safety analyses when the numbers of events were too small to permit conclusions. In studies of patients with coronary heart disease, composite outcomes of cardiovascular events tended to be decreased with influenza vaccination compared with placebo. Generally no significant difference was found between comparison groups regarding individual outcomes such as myocardial infarction.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cardiovascular disease, influenza vaccination may reduce cardiovascular mortality and combined cardiovascular events. However, studies had some risk of bias, and results were not always consistent, so additional higher-quality evidence is necessary to confirm these findings. Not enough evidence was available to establish whether influenza vaccination has a role to play in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.