COVID-19 vaccine antibody responses in community-dwelling adults to 48 weeks post primary vaccine series.

We report a decentralized prospective cohort study of self-reported adverse events and antibody responses to COVID vaccines derived from dried blood spots. Data are presented for 911 older (aged >70 years) and 375 younger (30-50 years) recruits to 48 weeks after the primary vaccine series. After a single vaccine, 83% younger and 45% older participants had overall seropositivity (p < 0.0001) increasing to 100/98% with the second dose, respectively (p = 0.084). A cancer diagnosis (p = 0.009), no mRNA-1273 vaccine doses (p <0 .0001), and older age (p <0 .0001) predicted lower responses. Antibody levels declined in both cohorts at 12 and 24 weeks increasing with booster doses. At 48 weeks, for participants with 3 vaccine doses, the median antibody levels were higher in the older cohort (p = 0.04) with any dose of mRNA-1273 (p <0 .0001) and with COVID infection (p <0 .001). The vaccines were well tolerated. Breakthrough COVID infections were uncommon (16% older cohort, 29% younger cohort; p < 0.0001) and mild.

COVID-19 Vaccine Antibody Responses in Community Dwelling Adults to 48 weeks Post Primary Vaccine Series

We report a decentralized prospective cohort study of self-reported adverse events and antibody responses to COVID vaccines derived from dried blood spots. Data is presented for 911 older (aged >70 years) and 375 younger (30-50 years) recruits to 48 weeks after the primary vaccine series. After a single vaccine, 83% younger and 45% older participants had overall seropositivity (p<0.0001) increasing to 100/98% with the second dose respectively (p=0.084). A cancer diagnosis (p=.009), no mRNA1273 vaccine doses (p<.0001) and older age (p <.0001) predicted lower responses. Antibody levels declined in both cohorts at 12 and 24 weeks increasing with booster doses. At 48 weeks, for participants with 3 vaccine doses, the median antibody levels were higher in the older cohort (p=.04) with any dose of mRNA-1273 (p<.0001) and with COVID infection (p<.001). The vaccines were well tolerated. Breakthrough COVID infections were uncommon (16% older cohort, 29% younger cohort;p<0.0001) and mild. Graphical abstract

Clinical research in ovarian cancer: consensus recommendations from the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup.

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) sixth Ovarian Cancer Conference on Clinical Research was held virtually in October, 2021, following published consensus guidelines. The goal of the consensus meeting was to achieve harmonisation on the design elements of upcoming trials in ovarian cancer, to select important questions for future study, and to identify unmet needs. All 33 GCIG member groups participated in the development, refinement, and adoption of 20 statements within four topic groups on clinical research in ovarian cancer including first line treatment, recurrent disease, disease subgroups, and future trials. Unanimous consensus was obtained for 14 of 20 statements, with greater than 90% concordance in the remaining six statements. The high acceptance rate following active deliberation among the GCIG groups confirmed that a consensus process could be applied in a virtual setting. Together with detailed categorisation of unmet needs, these consensus statements will promote the harmonisation of international clinical research in ovarian cancer.

Ethical frameworks in clinical research processes during COVID-19: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic there have been significant developments in research, its conduct and the supporting ethical framework. While many protocols have been delayed, halted or modified, other research efforts have been accelerated, generating controversy. The goal of this paper is to determine the rates of references surrounding the ethical oversight of research as reported in current COVID-19-related research publications. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Population-based observational or interventional studies from December 2019 to May 2020 with sample size of two or more. Studies were searched through electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials. PARTICIPANTS: Eligibility criteria included participants within published studies who tested positive for COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data were extracted and charting methods included taking note of references to ethical frameworks, institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee (EC) or research ethics board (REB) involvement, consent processes, and other variables. RESULTS: 11 556 articles were screened, with 656 included in the final analysis. References to ethics were present in 530 (80.8%) studies, with 491 (74.8%) involving IRB/ECs/REBs and 126 (19.2%) not referencing ethics. Consent processes were outlined in 201 (30.6%) studies, with 198 (30.2%) reporting that they obtained consent waivers, however, 257 (39.2%) did not mention consent at all. Differences (p<0.001) in ethics-related references were apparent when analysed by continent, publication type, sample size and IF. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of published articles pertaining to COVID-19 research made mention of ethical considerations, however, national and regional variations in research ethics review requirements introduce heterogeneity between studies and raise important questions about the conduct of scientific research during global public emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osfio/z67wb.

Optimizing clinical research procedures in public health emergencies.

Public Health Emergencies of International Concern, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, have a devastating impact on an individual and societal level, and there is an urgent need to learn, understand and bridge the therapeutic gap at a time of extreme stress on the patient, health care systems and staff. Well-designed, controlled clinical trials play a crucial role in the discovery of novel diagnostic and management strategies; however, these catastrophic circumstances pose unique challenges in initiating research studies at institutional, national, and international levels, highlighting the importance of a coordinated, collaborative approach. This review discusses key elements necessary to consider for developing clinical trials within a Public Health Emergency setting.

COVID-19 Testing in Patients with Cancer: Does One Size Fit All?

The COVID-19 global pandemic has drastically impacted cancer care, posing challenges in treatment and diagnosis. There is increasing evidence that cancer patients, particularly those who have advanced age, significant comorbidities, metastatic disease, and/or are receiving active immunosuppressive therapy may be at higher risk of COVID-19 severe complications. Controlling viral spread from asymptomatic carriers in cancer centers is paramount, and appropriate screening methods need to be established. Universal testing of asymptomatic cancer patients may be key to ensure safe continuation of treatment and appropriate hospitalized patients cohorting during the pandemic. Here we perform a comprehensive review of the available evidence regarding SARS-CoV-2 testing in asymptomatic cancer patients, and describe the approach adopted at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, Canada) as a core component of COVID-19 control.