GRT-R910: a self-amplifying mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosts immunity for ≥6 months in previously-vaccinated older adults.

SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in high levels of morbidity and mortality world-wide, and severe complications can occur in older populations. Humoral immunity induced by authorized vaccines wanes within 6 months, and frequent boosts may only offer transient protection. GRT-R910 is an investigational self-amplifying mRNA (samRNA)-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine delivering full-length Spike and selected conserved non-Spike T cell epitopes. This study reports interim analyses for a phase I open-label dose-escalation trial evaluating GRT-R910 in previously vaccinated healthy older adults (NCT05148962). Primary endpoints of safety and tolerability were assessed. Most solicited local and systemic adverse events (AEs) following GRT-R910 dosing were mild to moderate and transient, and no treatment-related serious AEs were observed. The secondary endpoint of immunogenicity was assessed via IgG binding assays, neutralization assays, interferon-gamma ELISpot, and intracellular cytokine staining. Neutralizing antibody titers against ancestral Spike and variants of concern were boosted or induced by GRT-R910 and, contrasting to authorized vaccines, persisted through at least 6 months after the booster dose. GRT-R910 increased and/or broadened functional Spike-specific T cell responses and primed functional T cell responses to conserved non-Spike epitopes. This study is limited due to small sample size, and additional data from ongoing studies will be required to corroborate these interim findings.

A Tutorial on Modern Bayesian Methods in Clinical Trials.

Clinical trials continue to be the gold standard for evaluating new medical technologies. New advancements in modern computation power have led to increasing interest in Bayesian methods. Despite the multiple benefits of Bayesian approaches, application to clinical trials has been limited. Based on insights from the survey of clinical researchers in drug development conducted by the Drug Information Association Bayesian Scientific Working Group (DIA BSWG), insufficient knowledge of Bayesian approaches was ranked as the most important perceived barrier to implementing Bayesian methods. Results of the same survey indicate that clinical researchers may find the interpretation of results from a Bayesian analysis to be more useful than conventional interpretations. In this article, we illustrate key concepts tied to Bayesian methods, starting with familiar concepts widely used in clinical practice before advancing in complexity, and use practical illustrations from clinical development.

Comparison of requirements for clinical study of SARS-CoV-2 antigen test kits in China, the USA and Europe.

Aims: This study was designed to analyze the requirements for clinical trials of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing to explore the rationality and scientific rigor of clinical trials. Methods: The guidelines for the listing of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests were compared and the requirements for clinical trials were analyzed to find similarities and differences between China, the USA and Europe. Results: The requirements for clinical trials of SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests in China, the USA and Europe were consistent in terms of methods. However, differences were found in the requirements for protocol design. Conclusion: The differences in clinical trial requirements stem from regulations and the actual conditions across regions, but all clinical trials are designed to obtain valid clinical performance of products.

The impact of COVID-19 on the interpretation of psycho-oncological support trial results: a quasi-experimental approach using the data from the new form of care "Integrated cross-sectoral psycho-oncology (nFC-isPO)".

OBJECTIVE: In addition to the common difficulties of ongoing trials, the COVID-19 pandemic posed several challenges to scientists worldwide and created an additional burden for vulnerable patient groups. In the nFC-isPO of individualised treatment for anxiety and depression in newly diagnosed patients with cancer caregivers (e.g. psycho-oncologists) reported elevated HADS scores in newly enrolled patients after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the question arises whether the pandemic affected HADS scores. Therefore, stratified analyses by the time of enrolment (T1) were performed for patients with 12 months of care (T3). METHODS: Patients with 12 months of care (N = 1,140) were analysed. A comparison within the regression discontinuity design according to the time points at which patients completed the baseline (T1) HADS questionnaire was conducted to examine differences between patients recruited before Q2/2020 (pre-pandemic) and after the coronavirus outbreak. Furthermore, mean HADS scores at T1 and T3 for all quarters during the study were compared. RESULTS: Mean T1 and T3 HADS scores of patients with cancer during the pandemic are only slightly higher than those of the pre-pandemic group. No significant treatment effect was observed in either the pre-pandemic (p = 0.5495, Late = 1.7711) or the post-pandemic group (p = 0.9098, LATE=-0.2933). In contrast, the average local treatment effect in the post-pandemic group suggests a minimal decrease in HADS score in the predefined range and thus a positive treatment effect for isPO. Comparison of mean HADS scores at T1 and T3 did not show a large increase by pandemic-related timepoints, however, a decrease of approximately 2-3 points over each quarter at 12 months compared to baseline is observed. CONCLUSION: The existing nFC-isPO care is resilient to crisis and may counteract external influences such as the Corona pandemic. Accordingly, the pandemic had little influence on the fears of patients with cancer in the nFC-isPO. This emphasises that psycho-oncology is vital for the reduction of stress, anxiety and depression in patients with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Registry on 30 October 2018 under the ID "DRKS00015326".

Health Equity and Decentralized Trials.

This Viewpoint discusses the proliferation of decentralized clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for rigorous studies to inform whether decentralized approaches promote or prevent access to clinical trials for people facing health disparities.

An industry update: the latest developments in therapeutic delivery covering May 2020.

The present industry update covers the period 1-31 May 2020, with information sourced from company press releases, regulatory and patent agencies as well as scientific literature.

The NIH-led research response to COVID-19.

Investment, collaboration, and coordination have been key.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on US Food and Drug Administration-funded clinical trials and natural history studies for rare diseases.

BACKGROUND: Since 1983, the Orphan Product Grants Program, administered by the US Food and Drug Administration, provides funding for clinical trials and natural history studies in rare diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic created new challenges in rare disease product development. This study sought to determine the effects of the pandemic on rare disease studies using data from grantees of this program, and determine lessons learned that can potentially be applied to future trials in rare diseases. METHODS: All grants that were being funded by the Orphan Products Grants Program between March 2020 and March 2021 were included in the study. Data was gathered from grantees and described the effects of the pandemic on multiple aspects of the studies including enrollment, patient follow-up, protocol, and budget. RESULTS: There were 62 grants active during the study period, and of these 54 (87%) were clinical trials and 8 (13%) were natural history studies. 94% of the grantees reported their studies being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the addition of virtual capabilities was reported by 34 (55%) of grantees. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested two important lessons learned. First, virtual capabilities, when appropriate, can be an important component of trials because they decrease the travel burden on participants and reduce in-person risks, which should increase patient recruitment and retention. Second, building in flexibility in clinical trials is critical in the post-COVID era and could include increasing the use of multi-site trials, clinical networks, and innovative designs and collaborations to speed up trials without compromising study data.

Decentralized clinical trials and rare diseases: a Drug Information Association Innovative Design Scientific Working Group (DIA-IDSWG) perspective.

BACKGROUND: Traditional clinical trials require tests and procedures that are administered in centralized clinical research sites, which are beyond the standard of care that patients receive for their rare and chronic diseases. The limited number of rare disease patients scattered around the world makes it particularly challenging to recruit participants and conduct these traditional clinical trials. MAIN BODY: Participating in clinical research can be burdensome, especially for children, the elderly, physically and cognitively impaired individuals who require transportation and caregiver assistance, or patients who live in remote locations or cannot afford transportation. In recent years, there is an increasing need to consider Decentralized Clinical Trials (DCT) as a participant-centric approach that uses new technologies and innovative procedures for interaction with participants in the comfort of their home. CONCLUSION: This paper discusses the planning and conduct of DCTs, which can increase the quality of trials with a specific focus on rare diseases.

A framework for setting enrollment goals to ensure participant diversity in sponsored clinical trials in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Diversity in clinical trials (CTs) has the potential to improve health equity and close health disparities. Underrepresentation of historically underserved groups compromises the generalizability of trial findings to the target population, hinders innovation, and contributes to low accrual. The aim of this study was to establish a transparent and reproducible process for setting trial diversity enrollment goals informed by the disease epidemiology. METHOD: An advisory board of epidemiologists with expertise in health disparities, equity, diversity, and social determinants of health was convened to evaluate and strengthen the initial goal-setting framework. Data sources used were the epidemiologic literature, US Census, and real-world data (RWD); limitations were considered and addressed where appropriate. A framework was designed to safeguard against the underrepresentation of historically medically underserved groups. A stepwise approach was created with Y/N decisions based on empirical data. RESULTS: We compared race and ethnicity distributions in the RWD of six diseases from Pfizer's portfolio chosen to represent different therapeutic areas (multiple myeloma, fungal infections, Crohn's disease, Gaucher disease, COVID-19, and Lyme disease) to the distributions in the US Census and established trial enrollment goals. Enrollment goals for potential CTs were based on RWD for multiple myeloma, Gaucher disease, and COVID-19; enrollment goals were based on the Census for fungal infections, Crohn's disease, and Lyme disease. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a transparent and reproducible framework for setting CT diversity enrollment goals. We note how limitations due to data sources can be mitigated and consider several ethical decisions in setting equitable enrollment goals.

Axes of social inequities in COVID-19 clinical trials: A systematic review.

Objective: The representativeness of participants is crucial to ensure external validity of clinical trials. We focused on the randomized clinical trials which assessed COVID-19 vaccines to assess the reporting of age, sex, gender identity, race, ethnicity, obesity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status in the results (description of the participants' characteristics, loss of follow-up, stratification of efficacy and safety results). Methods: We searched the following databases for randomized clinical trials published before 1st February 2022: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Excerpta Medica. We included peer-reviewed articles written in English or Spanish. Four researchers used the Rayyan platform to filter citations, first reading the title and abstract, and then accessing the full text. Articles were excluded if both reviewers agreed, or if a third reviewer decided to discard them. Results: Sixty three articles were included, which assessed 20 different vaccines, mainly in phase 2 or 3. When describing the participants' characteristics, all the studies reported sex or gender, 73.0% race, ethnicity, 68.9% age groups, and 22.2% obesity. Only one article described the age of participants lost to follow-up. Efficacy results were stratified by age in 61.9%, sex or gender in 26.9%, race and/or, ethnicity in 9.5%, and obesity in 4.8% of the articles. Safety results were stratified by age in 41.0%, and by sex or gender in 7.9% of the analysis. Reporting of gender identity, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status of participants was rare. Parity was reached in 49.2% of the studies, and sex-specific outcomes were mentioned in 22.9% of the analysis, most of the latter were related to females' health. Conclusions: Axes of social inequity other than age and sex were hardly reported in randomized clinical trials that assessed COVID-19 vaccines. This undermines their representativeness and external validity and sustains health inequities.

Expanding access to early phase trials: the CATCH-UP.2020 experience.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in cancer outcomes persist for underserved populations; one important aspect of this is limited access to promising early phase clinical trials. To address this, the National Cancer Institute-funded Create Access to Targeted Cancer Therapy for Underserved Populations (CATCH-UP.2020) was created. We report the tools developed and accrual metrics of the initial year of CATCH-UP.2020 with a focus on racial, ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomically underserved populations. METHODS: CATCH-UP.2020 is a P30 supplement awarded to 8 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers with existing resources to rapidly open and accrue to Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN) trials with emphasis on engaging patients from underserved populations. Sites used patient-based, community-based, investigator-based, and program-based tools to meet specific program goals. RESULTS: From September 2020 to August 2021, CATCH-UP.2020 sites opened 45 ETCTN trials. Weighted average trial activation time for the 7 sites reporting this was 107 days. In the initial year, sites enrolled 145 patients in CATCH-UP.2020 with 68 (46.9%) representing racial, ethnic, rural, and socioeconomically underserved populations using the broader definition of underserved encompassed in the grant charge. During the initial year of CATCH-UP.2020, a time impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, 15.8% (66 of 417) and 21.4% (31 of 145) of patients enrolled to ETCTN trials at network and at CATCH-UP sites, respectively, were from racial and ethnic minority groups, a more limited definition of underserved for which comparable data are available. CONCLUSION: Targeted funding accelerated activation and accrual of early phase trials and expanded access to this therapeutic option for underserved populations.