Comparing antibody assays as correlates of protection against COVID-19 in the COVE mRNA-1273 vaccine efficacy trial.

The best assay or marker to define mRNA-1273 vaccine-induced antibodies as a correlate of protection (CoP) is unclear. In the COVE trial, participants received two doses of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine or placebo. We previously assessed IgG binding antibodies to the spike protein (spike IgG) or receptor binding domain (RBD IgG) and pseudovirus neutralizing antibody 50 or 80% inhibitory dilution titer measured on day 29 or day 57, as correlates of risk (CoRs) and CoPs against symptomatic COVID-19 over 4 months after dose. Here, we assessed a new marker, live virus 50% microneutralization titer (LV-MN50), and compared and combined markers in multivariable analyses. LV-MN50 was an inverse CoR, with a hazard ratio of 0.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.19 to 0.83) at day 29 and 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 1.04) at day 57 per 10-fold increase. In multivariable analyses, pseudovirus neutralization titers and anti-spike binding antibodies performed best as CoRs; combining antibody markers did not improve correlates. Pseudovirus neutralization titer was the strongest independent correlate in a multivariable model. Overall, these results supported pseudovirus neutralizing and binding antibody assays as CoRs and CoPs, with the live virus assay as a weaker correlate in this sample set. Day 29 markers performed as well as day 57 markers as CoPs, which could accelerate immunogenicity and immunobridging studies.

Immune correlates analysis of a phase 3 trial of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine.

In the phase 3 trial of the AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) vaccine conducted in the U.S., Chile, and Peru, anti-spike binding IgG concentration (spike IgG) and pseudovirus 50% neutralizing antibody titer (nAb ID50) measured four weeks after two doses were assessed as correlates of risk and protection against PCR-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). These analyses of SARS-CoV-2 negative participants were based on case-cohort sampling of vaccine recipients (33 COVID-19 cases by 4 months post dose two, 463 non-cases). The adjusted hazard ratio of COVID-19 was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.14, 0.76) per 10-fold increase in spike IgG concentration and 0.28 (0.10, 0.77) per 10-fold increase in nAb ID50 titer. At nAb ID50 below the limit of detection (< 2.612 IU50/ml), 10, 100, and 270 IU50/ml, vaccine efficacy was -5.8% (-651%, 75.6%), 64.9% (56.4%, 86.9%), 90.0% (55.8%, 97.6%) and 94.2% (69.4%, 99.1%). These findings provide further evidence towards defining an immune marker correlate of protection to help guide regulatory/approval decisions for COVID-19 vaccines.

The clinical effect of point-of-care HIV diagnosis in infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis and treatment of HIV is crucial in HIV-exposed infants to prevent the high rates of mortality seen during the first 2 years of life if HIV is untreated. However, challenges with sample transportation, testing, and result delivery to caregivers have led to long delays in treatment initiation. We aimed to compare the clinical effect of point-of-care HIV testing versus laboratory-based testing (standard of care) in HIV-exposed infants. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and WHO Global Index Medicus, from Jan 1, 2014, to Aug 31, 2020. Studies were included if they pertained to the use of point-of-care nucleic acid testing for infant HIV diagnosis, had a laboratory-based nucleic acid test as the comparator or standard of care against the index test (same-day point-of-care testing), evaluated clinical outcomes when point-of-care testing was used, and included HIV-exposed infants aged younger than 2 years. Studies were excluded if they did not use a laboratory-based comparator, a nucleic acid test that had been approved by a stringent regulatory authority, or diagnostic-accuracy or performance evaluations (eg, no clinical outcomes included). Reviews, non-research letters, commentaries, and editorials were also excluded. The risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I framework. Data were extracted from published reports. Data from all studies were analysed using frequency statistics to describe the overall populations evaluated and their results. Key outcomes were time to result delivery and antiretroviral therapy initiation, and proportion of HIV-positive infants initiated on antiretroviral therapy within 60 days after sample collection. FINDINGS: 164 studies were identified by the search and seven were included in the analysis, comprising 37 377 infants in total across 15 countries, including 25 170 (67%) who had point-of-care HIV testing and 12 207 (33%) who had standard-of-care testing. The certainty of evidence was high. Same-day point-of-care testing led to a significantly shorter time between sample collection and result delivery to caregivers compared with standard-of-care testing (median 0 days [95% CI 0-0] vs 35 days [35-37]). Time from sample collection to antiretroviral therapy initiation in infants found to be HIV-positive was significantly lower with point-of-care testing compared with standard of care (median 0 days [95% CI 0-1] vs 40 days [36-44]). When each study's result was weighted equally, 90·3% (95% CI 76·7-96·5) of HIV-positive infants diagnosed using point-of-care testing had started antiretroviral therapy within 60 days of sample collection, compared with only 51·6% (27·1-75·7) who had standard-of-care testing (odds ratio 8·74 [95% CI 6·6-11·6]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Overall, the certainty of the evidence in this analysis was rated as high for the primary outcomes related to result delivery and treatment initiation, with no serious risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, or imprecision. In HIV-exposed infants, same-day point-of-care HIV testing was associated with significantly improved time to result delivery, time to antiretroviral therapy initiation, and proportion of HIV-positive infants starting antiretroviral therapy within 60 days compared with standard of care. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Correlates of Protection, Thresholds of Protection, and Immunobridging among Persons with SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Several studies have shown that neutralizing antibody levels correlate with immune protection from COVID-19 and have estimated the relationship between neutralizing antibodies and protection. However, results of these studies vary in terms of estimates of the level of neutralizing antibodies required for protection. By normalizing antibody titers, we found that study results converge on a consistent relationship between antibody levels and protection from COVID-19. This finding can be useful for planning future vaccine use, determining population immunity, and reducing the global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Immune correlates analysis of the PREVENT-19 COVID-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trial.

In the PREVENT-19 phase 3 trial of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (NCT04611802), anti-spike binding IgG concentration (spike IgG), anti-RBD binding IgG concentration (RBD IgG), and pseudovirus 50% neutralizing antibody titer (nAb ID50) measured two weeks post-dose two are assessed as correlates of risk and as correlates of protection against COVID-19. Analyses are conducted in the U.S. cohort of baseline SARS-CoV-2 negative per-protocol participants using a case-cohort design that measures the markers from all 12 vaccine recipient breakthrough COVID-19 cases starting 7 days post antibody measurement and from 639 vaccine recipient non-cases. All markers are inversely associated with COVID-19 risk and directly associated with vaccine efficacy. In vaccine recipients with nAb ID50 titers of 50, 100, and 7230 international units (IU50)/ml, vaccine efficacy estimates are 75.7% (49.8%, 93.2%), 81.7% (66.3%, 93.2%), and 96.8% (88.3%, 99.3%). The results support potential cross-vaccine platform applications of these markers for guiding decisions about vaccine approval and use.

Immune correlates analysis of the ENSEMBLE single Ad26.COV2.S dose vaccine efficacy clinical trial.

Measuring immune correlates of disease acquisition and protection in the context of a clinical trial is a prerequisite for improved vaccine design. We analysed binding and neutralizing antibody measurements 4 weeks post vaccination as correlates of risk of moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 through 83 d post vaccination in the phase 3, double-blind placebo-controlled phase of ENSEMBLE, an international randomized efficacy trial of a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S. We also evaluated correlates of protection in the trial cohort. Of the three antibody immune markers we measured, we found most support for 50% inhibitory dilution (ID50) neutralizing antibody titre as a correlate of risk and of protection. The outcome hazard ratio was 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29, 0.81; P = 0.006) per 10-fold increase in ID50; vaccine efficacy was 60% (43%, 72%) at non-quantifiable ID50 (<2.7 IU50 ml-1) and increased to 89% (78%, 96%) at ID50 = 96.3 IU50 ml-1. Comparison of the vaccine efficacy by ID50 titre curves for ENSEMBLE-US, the COVE trial of the mRNA-1273 vaccine and the COV002-UK trial of the AZD1222 vaccine supported the ID50 titre as a correlate of protection across trials and vaccine types.

A controlled effects approach to assessing immune correlates of protection.

An immune correlate of risk (CoR) is an immunologic biomarker in vaccine recipients associated with an infectious disease clinical endpoint. An immune correlate of protection (CoP) is a CoR that can be used to reliably predict vaccine efficacy (VE) against the clinical endpoint and hence is accepted as a surrogate endpoint that can be used for accelerated approval or guide use of vaccines. In randomized, placebo-controlled trials, CoR analysis is limited by not assessing a causal vaccine effect. To address this limitation, we construct the controlled risk curve of a biomarker, which provides the causal risk of an endpoint if all participants are assigned vaccine and the biomarker is set to different levels. Furthermore, we propose a causal CoP analysis based on controlled effects, where for the important special case that the biomarker is constant in the placebo arm, we study the controlled vaccine efficacy curve that contrasts the controlled risk curve with placebo arm risk. We provide identification conditions and formulae that account for right censoring of the clinical endpoint and two-phase sampling of the biomarker, and consider G-computation estimation and inference under a semiparametric model such as the Cox model. We add modular approaches to sensitivity analysis that quantify robustness of CoP evidence to unmeasured confounding. We provide an application to two phase 3 trials of a dengue vaccine indicating that controlled risk of dengue strongly varies with 50$\%$ neutralizing antibody titer. Our work introduces controlled effects causal mediation analysis to immune CoP evaluation.

Immune correlates analysis of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trial.

In the coronavirus efficacy (COVE) phase 3 clinical trial, vaccine recipients were assessed for neutralizing and binding antibodies as correlates of risk for COVID-19 disease and as correlates of protection. These immune markers were measured at the time of second vaccination and 4 weeks later, with values reported in standardized World Health Organization international units. All markers were inversely associated with COVID-19 risk and directly associated with vaccine efficacy. Vaccine recipients with postvaccination 50% neutralization titers 10, 100, and 1000 had estimated vaccine efficacies of 78% (95% confidence interval, 54 to 89%), 91% (87 to 94%), and 96% (94 to 98%), respectively. These results help define immune marker correlates of protection and may guide approval decisions for messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines and other COVID-19 vaccines.

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.

Clinical Endpoints for Evaluating Efficacy in COVID-19 Vaccine Trials.

Several vaccine candidates to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have entered or will soon enter large-scale, phase 3, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. To facilitate harmonized evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of these vaccines, a general set of clinical endpoints is proposed, along with considerations to guide the selection of the primary endpoints on the basis of clinical and statistical reasoning. The plausibility that vaccine protection against symptomatic COVID-19 could be accompanied by a shift toward more SARS-CoV-2 infections that are asymptomatic is highlighted, as well as the potential implications of such a shift.