Clinical endpoints to inform vaccine policy: A systematic review of outcome measures from pediatric influenza vaccine efficacy trials.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic review of pediatric influenza vaccine efficacy trials to assess clinical outcome measures and whether the trials defined important public health endpoints. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We systematically identified phase 3 or 4 influenza vaccine randomized controlled trials among children ≤18 years of age with laboratory-confirmed influenza outcomes since 1980. We recorded countries, age groups, vaccine formulations, specimen collection criteria, laboratory diagnostics, primary and secondary outcome measures, and funders, and we determined income category for study countries. We used descriptive statistics to summarize study characteristics. We analyzed the studies overall and a subset of studies conducted in at least one low- and middle-income country (LMIC). RESULTS: From 6455 potentially relevant articles, we identified 41 eligible studies. Twenty-one studies (51%) were conducted in at least one LMIC, while the remaining studies (49%) were conducted in high-income countries only. Thirty-one studies (76%) included children younger than six years. We found 40 different primary outcome measures among the 41 eligible studies. Thirty-three studies (80%) reported standardized symptoms or findings which defined a primary outcome or triggered specimen collection. One study defined a primary outcome which captured more severe illness; however, cases were mostly due to high body temperature without other severity criteria. Of the 21 studies from at least one LMIC, 15 (71%) were published since 2010 and 17 (81%) enrolled children younger than six years. Eighteen (86%) studies from at least one LMIC reported standardized symptoms or findings which defined a primary outcome or triggered specimen collection. CONCLUSIONS: Among pediatric influenza vaccine efficacy trials, primary outcome measures and clinical specimen collection criteria were highly variable and, with one exception, focused on capturing any influenza illness. As most LMICs do not have influenza vaccination programs, our study highlights a potential data limitation affecting policy and implementation decisions in these settings.

Review of Analyses Estimating Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Cell-Based Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Three Consecutive US Influenza Seasons.

The adaptation of influenza seed viruses in egg culture can result in a variable antigenic vaccine match each season. The cell-based quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4c) contains viruses grown in mammalian cell lines rather than eggs. IIV4c is not subject to egg-adaptive changes and therefore may offer improved protection relative to egg-based vaccines, depending on the degree of match with circulating influenza viruses. We summarize the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of IIV4c versus egg-based quadrivalent influenza vaccines (IIV4e) to prevent influenza-related medical encounters (IRMEs) from three retrospective observational cohort studies conducted during the 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020 US influenza seasons using the same underlying electronic medical record dataset for all three seasons-with the addition of linked medical claims for the latter two seasons. We identified IRMEs using diagnostic codes specific to influenza disease (ICD J09*-J11*) from the records of over 10 million people. We estimated rVE using propensity score methods adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, geographic location, week of vaccination, and health status. Subgroup analyses included specific age groups. IIV4c consistently had higher relative effectiveness than IIV4e across all seasons assessed, which were characterized by different dominant circulating strains and variable antigenic drift or egg adaptation.

Performance Analysis of the National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score in the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial Cohort.

We sought to validate prognostic scores in coronavirus disease 2019 including National Early Warning Score, Modified Early Warning Score, and age-based modifications, and define their performance characteristics. DESIGN: We analyzed prospectively collected data from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial. National Early Warning Score was collected daily during the trial, Modified Early Warning Score was calculated, and age applied to both scores. We assessed prognostic value for the end points of recovery, mechanical ventilation, and death for score at enrollment, average, and slope of score over the first 48 hours. SETTING: A multisite international inpatient trial. PATIENTS: A total of 1,062 adult nonpregnant inpatients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia. INTERVENTIONS: Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1 randomized participants to receive remdesivir or placebo. The prognostic value of predictive scores was evaluated in both groups separately to assess for differential performance in the setting of remdesivir treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For mortality, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score were weakly to moderately prognostic (c-index, 0.60-0.68), and improved with addition of age (c-index, 0.66-0.74). For recovery, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score demonstrated somewhat better prognostic ability (c-index, 0.65-0.69); however, National Early Warning Score+age and Modified Early Warning Score+age further improved performance (c-index, 0.68-0.71). For deterioration, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score were weakly to moderately prognostic (c-index, 0.59-0.69) and improved with addition of age (c-index, 0.63-0.70). All prognostic performance improvements due to addition of age were significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1 cohort, National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score demonstrated moderate prognostic performance in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019, with improvement in predictive ability for National Early Warning Score+age and Modified Early Warning Score+age. Area under receiver operating curve for National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score improved in patients receiving remdesivir versus placebo early in the pandemic for recovery and mortality. Although these scores are simple and readily obtainable in myriad settings, in our data set, they were insufficiently predictive to completely replace clinical judgment in coronavirus disease 2019 and may serve best as an adjunct to triage, disposition, and resourcing decisions.

Evaluation of post-introduction COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness: Summary of interim guidance of the World Health Organization.

Phase 3 randomized-controlled trials have provided promising results of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, ranging from 50 to 95% against symptomatic disease as the primary endpoints, resulting in emergency use authorization/listing for several vaccines. However, given the short duration of follow-up during the clinical trials, strict eligibility criteria, emerging variants of concern, and the changing epidemiology of the pandemic, many questions still remain unanswered regarding vaccine performance. Post-introduction vaccine effectiveness evaluations can help us to understand the vaccine's effect on reducing infection and disease when used in real-world conditions. They can also address important questions that were either not studied or were incompletely studied in the trials and that will inform evolving vaccine policy, including assessment of the duration of effectiveness; effectiveness in key subpopulations, such as the very old or immunocompromised; against severe disease and death due to COVID-19; against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern; and with different vaccination schedules, such as number of doses and varying dosing intervals. WHO convened an expert panel to develop interim best practice guidance for COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness evaluations. We present a summary of the interim guidance, including discussion of different study designs, priority outcomes to evaluate, potential biases, existing surveillance platforms that can be used, and recommendations for reporting results.

The potential effects of deploying SARS-Cov-2 vaccines on cold storage capacity and immunization workload in countries of the WHO African Region.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will be deployed to countries with limited immunization systems. METHODS: We assessed the effect of deploying SARS-Cov-2 vaccines on cold storage capacity and immunization workload in a simulated WHO African Region country using region-specific data on immunization, population, healthcare workers (HCWs), cold storage capacity (quartile values for national and subnational levels), and characteristics of an approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We calculated monthly increases in vaccine doses, doses per vaccinator, and cold storage volumes for four-month SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns targeting risk groups compared to routine immunization baselines. RESULTS: Administering SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to risk groups would increase total monthly doses by 27.0% for ≥ 65 years, 91.7% for chronic diseases patients, and 1.1% for HCWs. Assuming median nurse density estimates adjusted for absenteeism and proportion providing immunization services, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns would increase total monthly doses per vaccinator by 29.3% for ≥ 65 years, 99.6% for chronic diseases patients, and 1.2% for HCWs. When we applied quartiles of actual African Region country vaccine storage capacity, routine immunization vaccine volumes exceeded national-level storage capacity for at least 75% of countries, but subnational levels had sufficient storage capacity for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for at least 75% of countries. CONCLUSIONS: In the WHO African Region, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns would substantially increase doses per vaccinator and cold storage capacity requirements over routine immunization baselines. Pandemic vaccination campaigns would increase storage requirements of national-level stores already at their limits, but sufficient capacity exists at subnational levels. Immediate attention to strengthening immunization systems is essential to support pandemic responses.

Guidance for design and analysis of observational studies of fetal and newborn outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.

COVID-19 vaccines are now being deployed as essential tools in the public health response to the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Pregnant individuals are a unique subgroup of the population with distinctive considerations regarding risk and benefit that extend beyond themselves to their fetus/newborn. As a complement to traditional pharmacovigilance and clinical studies, evidence to comprehensively assess COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy will need to be generated through observational epidemiologic studies in large populations. However, there are several unique methodological challenges that face observational assessments of vaccination during pregnancy, some of which may be more pronounced for COVID-19 studies. In this contribution, we discuss the most critical study design, data collection, and analytical issues likely to arise. We offer brief guidance to optimize the quality of such studies to ensure their maximum value for informing public health decision-making.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) as an adverse event following immunization: Case definition & guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data.

This is a Brighton Collaboration Case Definition of the term "Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome - ARDS" to be utilized in the evaluation of adverse events following immunization. The Case Definition was developed by a group of experts convened by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) in the context of active development of vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and other emerging pathogens. The case definition format of the Brighton Collaboration was followed to develop a consensus definition and defined levels of certainty, after an exhaustive review of the literature and expert consultation. The document underwent peer review by the Brighton Collaboration Network and by selected Expert Reviewers prior to submission. The comments of the reviewers were taken into consideration and edits incorporated in this final manuscript.