Search

While new vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are authorized based on neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer against emerging variants of concern, an analogous pathway does not exist for preventative monoclonal antibodies. In this work, nAb titers were assessed as correlates of protection against COVID-19 in the casirivimab + imdevimab monoclonal antibody (mAb) prevention trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT4452318) and in the mRNA-1273 vaccine trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT04470427). In the mAb trial, protective efficacy of 92% (95% confidence interval (CI): 84%, 98%) is associated with a nAb titer of 1000 IU50/ml, with lower efficacy at lower nAb titers. In the vaccine trial, protective efficacies of 93% [95% CI: 91%, 95%] and 97% (95% CI: 95%, 98%) are associated with nAb titers of 100 and 1000 IU50/ml, respectively. These data quantitate a nAb titer correlate of protection for mAbs benchmarked alongside vaccine induced nAb titers and support nAb titer as a surrogate endpoint for authorizing new mAbs. Here the authors assess neutralizing antibody (nAb) levels as correlate of protection in a monoclonal antibody prevention trial and a vaccine trial for COVID-19 and show that nAb titers correlate with clinical protection against COVID-19 supporting nAb titer as a surrogate endpoint for authorization of monoclonal antibodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • Inactivated influenza A/H7N7 vaccine results in development of memory responses. • Cross-reactive antibodies develop post heterologous influenza A/H7 prime-boost. • The inclusion of an AS03 adjuvant results in broadly cross-reactive antibodies. Abstract Background Influenza A/H7N9 viruses are undergoing antigenic drift since their emergence in 2013, and vaccination strategies are needed for pandemic preparedness. Two doses of adjuvanted monovalent inactivated influenza A/H7N9 vaccine (IIV1 A/H7N9) are needed for optimal serological responses. However, administering 2 doses in a pandemic setting might be challenging. We evaluated the immunogenicity of "boosting" with IIV1 A/H7N9 in subjects "primed" 8 years previously with IIV1 A/H7N7. Methods We administered 1 booster dose containing 45 mcg of IIV1 A/H7N9 hemagglutinin to 17 recipients of 2 prior doses of IIV1 A/H7N7, and to 10 influenza A/H7-naïve subjects. We tested their post-boosting sera for antibodies (Ab) against homologous influenza A/H7N9 using a hemagglutination inhibition assay; and compared their Ab titers to those in stored sera from recipients of AS03-adjuvanted IIV1 A/H7N9 against 9 strains of influenza A/H7N9 viruses. Results The percentage of subjects with Ab titers ≥40 on Days 9 and 29 post boosting, respectively, was 65% and 41% in primed subjects and 10% and 0% in unprimed subjects. The Ab titers in recipients of AS03-adjuvanted IIV1 A/H7N9 were higher than those in the prime-boost group against a panel of influenza A/H7N9 viruses, except for 2 highly pathogenic strains. Conclusions Priming with IIV1 A/H7 results in serological responses following a delayed boost with 1 dose of unadjuvanted IIV1 A/H7N9, despite lack of antibody response after the prime. Optimizing prime-boost approaches would benefit pandemic preparedness. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02586792. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Tularemia is caused by Francisella tularensis , a gram-negative bacterium that has been weaponized as an aerosol. For protection of personnel conducting biodefense research, the United States Army required clinical evaluation of a new lot of tularemia live vaccine strain manufactured in accordance with Current Good Manufacturing Practices. Methods A phase 2 randomized clinical trial compared the new lot (DVC-LVS) to the existing vaccine that has been in use for decades (USAMRIID-LVS). The vaccines were delivered by scarification to 228 participants. Safety, reactogenicity, take and/or antibody levels were assessed on days 0, 1, 2, 8, 14, 28, 56, and 180. Principal Results Both vaccines were safe and had acceptable reactogenicity profiles during six months of follow-up. There were no serious or grade 3 and 4 laboratory adverse events. Moderate systemic reactogenicity (mostly headache or feeling tired) was reported by ∼23% of participants receiving either vaccine. Injection site reactogenicity was mostly mild itchiness and pain. The frequencies of vaccine take skin reactions were 73% (95% CI, 64, 81) for DVC-LVS and 80% (95% CI, 71, 87) for USAMRIID-LVS. The 90% CI for the difference in proportions was −6.9% (−16.4, 2.6). The rates of seroconversion measured by microagglutination assay on days 28 or 56 were 94% (95% CI, 88, 98; n = 98/104) for DVC-LVS and 94% (95% CI, 87, 97; n = 103/110) for USAMRIID-LVS (p = 1.00). Day 14 sera revealed more rapid seroconversion for DVC-LVS relative to USAMRIID-LVS: 82% (95% CI, 73, 89) versus 55% (95% CI, 45, 65), respectively (p < 0.0001). Major conclusions The DVC-LVS vaccine had similar safety, reactogenicity, take and antibody responses compared to the older USAMRIID vaccine, and was superior for early (day 14) antibody production. Vaccination take was not a sensitive surrogate for seroconversion in a multi-center study where personnel at five research clinics performed assessments. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01150695 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]