Monitoring Multiple U.S. Government-Supported Covid-19 Vaccine Trials

Operation Warp Speed was a partnership created to accelerate the development of Covid-19 vaccines. The National Institutes of Health oversaw one data and safety monitoring board to review/monitor all Operation Warp Speed trials. This article describes the challenges faced in monitoring these trials and provides ideas for future similar endeavors.

Safety and immunogenicity of AGS-v PLUS, a mosquito saliva peptide vaccine against arboviral diseases: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunity to mosquito salivary proteins could provide protection against multiple mosquito-borne diseases and significantly impact public health. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of AGS-v PLUS, a mosquito salivary peptide vaccine, in healthy adults 18-50 years old. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 1 study of AGS-v PLUS administered subcutaneously on Days 1 and 22 at the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. Participants were block randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to two doses saline placebo, two doses AGS-v PLUS, AGS-v PLUS/ISA-51 and saline placebo, two doses AGS-v PLUS/ISA-51, or two doses AGS-v PLUS/Alhydrogel. Primary endpoints were safety (all participants receiving ≥1 injection) and antibody and cytokine responses (all participants with day 43 samples), analysed by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Between 26 August 2019 and 25 February 2020, 51 participants were enrolled and randomized, 11 into the single dose AGS-v PLUS/ISA-51 group and ten in other groups. Due to COVID-19, 15 participants did not return for day 43 samplings. Participants experienced no treatment-emergent or serious adverse events. All solicited symptoms in 2/10 placebo recipients and 22/41 AGS-v PLUS recipients after dose one and 1/10 placebo recipients and 22/41 AGS-v PLUS recipients after dose two were mild/moderate except for one severe fever the day after vaccination (placebo group). Only injection site pain was more common in vaccine groups (15/51 after dose 1 and 11/51 after dose 2) versus placebo. Compared to placebo, all vaccine groups had significantly greater fold change in anti-AGS-v PLUS IgG and IFN-É£ from baseline. INTERPRETATION: AGS-v PLUS had favourable safety profile and induced robust immune responses. Next steps will determine if findings translate into clinical efficacy against mosquito-borne diseases. FUNDING: UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and delayed implementation of diagnostics have led to poorly defined viral prevalence rates in the United States and elsewhere. To address this, we analyzed seropositivity in 9089 adults in the United States who had not been diagnosed previously with COVID-19. Individuals with characteristics that reflected the U.S. population (n = 27,716) were selected by quota sampling from 462,949 volunteers. Enrolled participants (n = 11,382) provided medical, geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic information and dried blood samples. Survey questions coincident with the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey, a large probability-based national survey, were used to adjust for selection bias. Most blood samples (88.7%) were collected between 10 May and 31 July 2020 and were processed using ELISA to measure seropositivity (IgG and IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the spike protein receptor binding domain). The overall weighted undiagnosed seropositivity estimate was 4.6% (95% CI, 2.6 to 6.5%), with race, age, sex, ethnicity, and urban/rural subgroup estimates ranging from 1.1% to 14.2%. The highest seropositivity estimates were in African American participants; younger, female, and Hispanic participants; and residents of urban centers. These data indicate that there were 4.8 undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infections for every diagnosed case of COVID-19, and an estimated 16.8 million infections were undiagnosed by mid-July 2020 in the United States.

Data and Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials.

To speed the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, the United States Federal Government has funded multiple phase 3 trials of candidate vaccines. A single 11-member data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) monitors all government-funded trials to ensure coordinated oversight, promote harmonized designs, and allow shared insights related to safety across trials. DSMB reviews encompass 3 domains: (1) the conduct of trials, including overall and subgroup accrual and data quality and completeness; (2) safety, including individual events of concern and comparisons by randomized group; and (3) interim analyses of efficacy when event-driven milestones are met. Challenges have included the scale and pace of the trials, the frequency of safety events related to the combined enrollment of over 100 000 participants, many of whom are older adults or have comorbid conditions that place them at independent risk of serious health events, and the politicized environment in which the trials have taken place.

Standardization of ELISA protocols for serosurveys of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic using clinical and at-home blood sampling.

The extent of SARS-CoV-2 infection throughout the United States population is currently unknown. High quality serology is key to avoiding medically costly diagnostic errors, as well as to assuring properly informed public health decisions. Here, we present an optimized ELISA-based serology protocol, from antigen production to data analyses, that helps define thresholds for IgG and IgM seropositivity with high specificities. Validation of this protocol is performed using traditionally collected serum as well as dried blood on mail-in blood sampling kits. Archival (pre-2019) samples are used as negative controls, and convalescent, PCR-diagnosed COVID-19 patient samples serve as positive controls. Using this protocol, minimal cross-reactivity is observed for the spike proteins of MERS, SARS1, OC43 and HKU1 viruses, and no cross reactivity is observed with anti-influenza A H1N1 HAI. Our protocol may thus help provide standardized, population-based data on the extent of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity, immunity and infection.

Endpoints for randomized controlled clinical trials for COVID-19 treatments.

BACKGROUND: Endpoint choice for randomized controlled trials of treatments for novel coronavirus-induced disease (COVID-19) is complex. Trials must start rapidly to identify treatments that can be used as part of the outbreak response, in the midst of considerable uncertainty and limited information. COVID-19 presentation is heterogeneous, ranging from mild disease that improves within days to critical disease that can last weeks to over a month and can end in death. While improvement in mortality would provide unquestionable evidence about the clinical significance of a treatment, sample sizes for a study evaluating mortality are large and may be impractical, particularly given a multitude of putative therapies to evaluate. Furthermore, patient states in between "cure" and "death" represent meaningful distinctions. Clinical severity scores have been proposed as an alternative. However, the appropriate summary measure for severity scores has been the subject of debate, particularly given the variable time course of COVID-19. Outcomes measured at fixed time points, such as a comparison of severity scores between treatment and control at day 14, may risk missing the time of clinical benefit. An endpoint such as time to improvement (or recovery) avoids the timing problem. However, some have argued that power losses will result from reducing the ordinal scale to a binary state of "recovered" versus "not recovered." METHODS: We evaluate statistical power for possible trial endpoints for COVID-19 treatment trials using simulation models and data from two recent COVID-19 treatment trials. RESULTS: Power for fixed time-point methods depends heavily on the time selected for evaluation. Time-to-event approaches have reasonable statistical power, even when compared with a fixed time-point method evaluated at the optimal time. DISCUSSION: Time-to-event analysis methods have advantages in the COVID-19 setting, unless the optimal time for evaluating treatment effect is known in advance. Even when the optimal time is known, a time-to-event approach may increase power for interim analyses.