Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
SSRN; 2022.
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-332455

ABSTRACT

Background: Many high-income countries have deployed third “booster” doses of COVID-19 vaccines to populations and some countries have started offering fourth doses. Methods: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase II trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines as third dose boosters. The current study invited participants who received BNT162b2 (BNT) as third dose in COV-BOOST to be randomised to receive a fourth dose of BNT or mRNA1273 (50 µg, half-m1273). The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. Results: Between 11 and 25 January 2022, 166 participants in the original BNT arm were randomised and received a fourth dose vaccine. The median age was 70.1 (interquartile range: 51.6-77.5) years with 51.8 % (n=86) female participants. The median interval between third and fourth dose was 208.5 (interquartile range: 203.25-214.75) days.Pain and fatigue were the most common local and systemic solicited adverse events for BNT and half-m1273. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose were related to study vaccine.The fold rises in anti-spike IgG pre- and post-fourth dose were 12.19 (95%CI: 10.37-14.32) and 15.90 (95%CI: 12.92-19.58) in BNT and half-m1273 arms respectively, with fold changes compared to the post third dose-peak of 1.59 (95%CI: 1.41-1.78) and 2.19 (95%CI: 1.90-2.52). T cell responses also boosted. Conclusions: Fourth dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well-tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity up to, and beyond peak levels achieved following third dose boosters (ISRCTN: 73765130).

2.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-323307

ABSTRACT

The primary objective of MATIS is to determine the efficacy of ruxolitinib (RUX) or fostamatinib (FOS) compared to standard of care (SOC) with respect to reducing the proportion of hospitalised patients progressing from mild or moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Secondary objectives, at 14 and 28 days, are to: · Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce mortality · Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for invasive ventilation or ECMO· Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for non-invasive ventilation · Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the proportion of participants suffering significant oxygen desaturationDetermine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for renal replacement therapy · Determine the efficacy of RUX and FOS to reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism · Determine the efficacy of RUX and FOS to reduce the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia [graded by a 9-point modified WHO Ordinal Scale*· Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce systemic inflammation· Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to the incidence of renal impairment · Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce duration of hospital stay · Evaluate the safety of RUX and FOS for treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. Trial design A multi-arm, multi-stage (3-arm parallel-group, 2-stage) randomised controlled trial that allocates participants 1:1:1 and tests for superiority in experimental arms versus standard of care.

3.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-308873

ABSTRACT

Background: The coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19) presents a variety of challenges for ongoing clinical trials, including an inevitably higher rate of missing outcome data, with new and non-standard reasons for missingness. International drug trial guidelines recommend trialists review plans for handling missing data in the conduct and statistical analysis, but clear recommendations are lacking. Methods: : We present a four-step strategy for handling missing outcome data in the analysis of randomised trials that are ongoing during a pandemic. We consider handling missing data arising due to (i) participant infection, (ii) treatment disruptions and (iii) loss to follow-up. We consider both settings where treatment effects for a ‘pandemic-free world’ and ‘world including a pandemic’ are of interest. Results: : In any trial, investigators should;(1) Clarify the treatment estimand of interest with respect to the occurrence of the pandemic;(2) Establish what data are missing for the chosen estimand;(3) Perform primary analysis under the most plausible missing data assumptions followed by;(4) Sensitivity analysis under alternative plausible assumptions. To obtain an estimate of the treatment effect in a ‘pandemic-free world’, participant data that are clinically affected by the pandemic (directly due to infection or indirectly via treatment disruptions) are not relevant and can be set to missing. For primary analysis, a missing-at-random assumption that conditions on all observed data that are expected to be associated with both the outcome and missingness may be most plausible. For the treatment effect in the ‘world including a pandemic’, all participant data is relevant and should be included in the analysis. For primary analysis, a missing-at-random assumption – potentially incorporating a pandemic time-period indicator and participant infection status – or a missing-not-at-random assumption with a poorer response may be most relevant, depending on the setting. In all scenarios, sensitivity analysis under credible missing-not-at-random assumptions should be used to evaluate the robustness of results. We highlight controlled multiple imputation as an accessible tool for conducting sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: : Missing data problems will be exacerbated for trials active during the Covid-19 pandemic. This four-step strategy will facilitate clear thinking about the appropriate analysis for relevant questions of interest.

4.
Lancet ; 398(10318): 2258-2276, 2021 12 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1550152

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT). METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130. FINDINGS: Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5-2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8-42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4-5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0-1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4-14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1-7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30-69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273. INTERPRETATION: All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization, Secondary/methods , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/immunology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Safety , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom
5.
Trials ; 22(1): 270, 2021 Apr 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1181120

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of MATIS is to determine the efficacy of ruxolitinib (RUX) or fostamatinib (FOS) compared to standard of care (SOC) with respect to reducing the proportion of hospitalised patients progressing from mild or moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Secondary objectives, at 14 and 28 days, are to: Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce mortality Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for invasive ventilation or ECMO Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for non-invasive ventilation Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the proportion of participants suffering significant oxygen desaturation Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for renal replacement therapy Determine the efficacy of RUX and FOS to reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism Determine the efficacy of RUX and FOS to reduce the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia [graded by a 9-point modified WHO Ordinal Scale* Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce systemic inflammation Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to the incidence of renal impairment Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce duration of hospital stay Evaluate the safety of RUX and FOS for treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. TRIAL DESIGN: A multi-arm, multi-stage (3-arm parallel-group, 2-stage) randomised controlled trial that allocates participants 1:1:1 and tests for superiority in experimental arms versus standard of care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients will be recruited while inpatients during hospitalisation for COVID-19 in multiple centres throughout the UK including Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. INCLUSION: Patients age ≥ 18 years at screening Patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, defined as Grade 3 or 4 severity by the WHO COVID-19 Ordinal Scale Patients meeting criteria: Hospitalization AND SARS-CoV2 infection (clinically suspected or laboratory confirmed) AND Radiological change consistent with COVID-19 disease CRP ≥ 30mg/L at any time point Informed consent from patient or personal or professional representative Agreement to abstain from sexual intercourse or use contraception that is >99% effective for all participants of childbearing potential for 42 days after the last dose of study drug. For male participants, agreement to abstain from sperm donation for 42 days after the last dose of study drug. EXCLUSION: Requiring either invasive or non-invasive ventilation including CPAP or high flow nasal oxygen at any point after hospital admission but before baseline, not related to a pre-existing condition (e.g., obstructive sleep apnoea) Grade ≥ 5 severity on the modified WHO COVID-19 Ordinal Scale, i.e. SpO2 < 90% on ≥ 60% inspired oxygen by facemask at baseline; non-invasive ventilation; or invasive mechanical ventilation In the opinion of the investigator, progression to death is inevitable within the next 24 hours, irrespective of the provision of therapy Known severe allergic reactions to the investigational agents Child-Pugh B or C grade hepatic dysfunction Use of drugs within the preceding 14 days that are known to interact with any study treatment (FOS or RUX), as listed in the Summary of Product Characteristics Pregnant or breastfeeding Any medical condition or concomitant medication that in the opinion of the investigator would compromise subjects' safety or compliance with study procedures. Any medical condition which in the opinion of the principal investigator would compromise the scientific integrity of the study Non-English speakers will be able to join the study. If participants are unable to understand verbal or written information in English, then hospital translation services will be requested at the participating site for the participant where possible. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: RUXOLITINIB (RUX) (14 days): An oral selective and potent inhibitor of Janus Associated Kinases (JAK1 and JAK2) and cell proliferation (Verstovek, 2010). It is approved for the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or constitutional symptoms in myelofibrosis, polycythaemia vera and graft-versus-host-disease. RUX will be administered orally 10mg bd Day 1-7 and 5mg bd Day 8-14. FOSTAMATINIB (FOS) (14 days): An oral spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of thrombocytopenia in adult participants with chronic immune thrombocytopenia. FOS will be administered orally 150mg bd Day 1-7 and 100mg bd Day 8-14. Please see protocol for recommended dose modifications where required. COMPARATOR (Standard of Care, SOC): experimental arms will be compared to participants receiving standard of care. It is accepted that SOC may change during a rapidly evolving pandemic. Co-enrolment to other trials and rescue therapy, either pre- or post-randomisation, is permitted and will be accounted for in the statistical analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES: Pairwise comparison (RUX vs SOC and FOS vs SOC) of the proportion of participants diagnosed with severe COVID-19 pneumonia within 14 days. Severe COVID-19 pneumonia is defined by a score ≥ 5 on a modified WHO COVID-19 Ordinal Scale, comprising the following indicators of disease severity: Death OR Requirement for invasive ventilation OR Requirement for non-invasive ventilation including CPAP or high flow oxygen OR O2 saturation < 90% on ≥60% inspired oxygen RANDOMISATION: Participants will be allocated to interventions using a central web-based randomisation service that generates random sequences using random permuted blocks (1:1:1), with stratification by age (<65 and ≥65 years) and site. BLINDING (MASKING): No participants or caregivers are blinded to group assignment. Clinical outcomes will be compared blind to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): For an early informal dose examination by the Data Monitoring Committee a minimum of 30 participants will be recruited. For Stage 1 of this multi-arm multi-stage study, 171 participants will be randomised, with 57 participants in each arm. If at least one experimental intervention shows promise, then Stage 2 will recruit a further 95 participants per arm. Sample size calculations are given in the protocol. TRIAL STATUS: Recruitment is ongoing and started 2nd October 2020. We anticipate completion of Stage 1 by July 2021 and Stage 2 by April 2022. The current protocol version 2.0 of 11th February 2021 is appended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2020-001750-22 , 9th July 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04581954 , 9th October 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Oxazines/therapeutic use , Pyrazoles/therapeutic use , Pyridines/therapeutic use , Adult , Aminopyridines , Humans , Morpholines , Nitriles , Pandemics , Pyrimidines , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial , Treatment Outcome , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control
6.
Trials ; 21(1): 1028, 2020 Dec 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-992539

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide valuable information and inform the development of harm profiles of new treatments. Harms are typically assessed through the collection of adverse events (AEs). Despite AEs being routine outcomes collected in trials, analysis and reporting of AEs in journal articles are continually shown to be suboptimal. One key challenge is the large volume of AEs, which can make evaluation and communication problematic. Prominent practice is to report frequency tables of AEs by arm. Visual displays offer an effective solution to assess and communicate complex information; however, they are rarely used and there is a lack of practical guidance on what and how to visually display complex AE data. METHODS: In this article, we demonstrate the use of two plots identified to be beneficial for wide use in RCTs, since both can display multiple AEs and are suitable to display point estimates for binary, count, or time-to-event AE data: the volcano and dot plots. We compare and contrast the use of data visualisations against traditional frequency table reporting, using published AE information in two placebo-controlled trials, of remdesivir for COVID-19 and GDNF for Parkinson disease. We introduce statistical programmes for implementation in Stata. RESULTS/CASE STUDY: Visualisations of AEs in the COVID-19 trial communicated a risk profile for remdesivir which differed from the main message in the published authors' conclusion. In the Parkinson's disease trial of GDNF, the visualisation provided immediate communication of harm signals, which had otherwise been contained within lengthy descriptive text and tables. Asymmetry in the volcano plot helped flag extreme events that were less obvious from review of the frequency table and dot plot. The dot plot allowed a more comprehensive representation by means of a more detailed summary. CONCLUSIONS: Visualisations can better support investigators to assimilate large volumes of data and enable improved informal between-arm comparisons compared to tables. We endorse increased uptake for use in trial publications. Care in construction of visual displays needs to be taken as there can be potential to overemphasise treatment effects in some circumstances.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , COVID-19/drug therapy , Data Display , Data Visualization , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/diagnosis , Glial Cell Line-Derived Neurotrophic Factor/adverse effects , Parkinson Disease/drug therapy , Research Design/standards , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Alanine/adverse effects , Antiparkinson Agents/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Computer Graphics , Data Accuracy , Data Analysis , Drug Monitoring/methods , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
7.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 20(1): 208, 2020 08 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-713161

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19) presents a variety of challenges for ongoing clinical trials, including an inevitably higher rate of missing outcome data, with new and non-standard reasons for missingness. International drug trial guidelines recommend trialists review plans for handling missing data in the conduct and statistical analysis, but clear recommendations are lacking. METHODS: We present a four-step strategy for handling missing outcome data in the analysis of randomised trials that are ongoing during a pandemic. We consider handling missing data arising due to (i) participant infection, (ii) treatment disruptions and (iii) loss to follow-up. We consider both settings where treatment effects for a 'pandemic-free world' and 'world including a pandemic' are of interest. RESULTS: In any trial, investigators should; (1) Clarify the treatment estimand of interest with respect to the occurrence of the pandemic; (2) Establish what data are missing for the chosen estimand; (3) Perform primary analysis under the most plausible missing data assumptions followed by; (4) Sensitivity analysis under alternative plausible assumptions. To obtain an estimate of the treatment effect in a 'pandemic-free world', participant data that are clinically affected by the pandemic (directly due to infection or indirectly via treatment disruptions) are not relevant and can be set to missing. For primary analysis, a missing-at-random assumption that conditions on all observed data that are expected to be associated with both the outcome and missingness may be most plausible. For the treatment effect in the 'world including a pandemic', all participant data is relevant and should be included in the analysis. For primary analysis, a missing-at-random assumption - potentially incorporating a pandemic time-period indicator and participant infection status - or a missing-not-at-random assumption with a poorer response may be most relevant, depending on the setting. In all scenarios, sensitivity analysis under credible missing-not-at-random assumptions should be used to evaluate the robustness of results. We highlight controlled multiple imputation as an accessible tool for conducting sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Missing data problems will be exacerbated for trials active during the Covid-19 pandemic. This four-step strategy will facilitate clear thinking about the appropriate analysis for relevant questions of interest.


Subject(s)
Outcome Assessment, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Research Design/statistics & numerical data , Betacoronavirus/physiology , COVID-19 , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Humans , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL