Barriers and solutions to developing and maintaining research networks during a pandemic: An example from the iELEVATE perinatal network.

Introduction: To improve maternal health outcomes, increased diversity is needed among pregnant people in research studies and community surveillance. To expand the pool, we sought to develop a network encompassing academic and community obstetrics clinics. Typical challenges in developing a network include site identification, contracting, onboarding sites, staff engagement, participant recruitment, funding, and institutional review board approvals. While not insurmountable, these challenges became magnified as we built a research network during a global pandemic. Our objective is to describe the framework utilized to resolve pandemic-related issues. Methods: We developed a framework for site-specific adaptation of the generalized study protocol. Twice monthly video meetings were held between the lead academic sites to identify local challenges and to generate ideas for solutions. We identified site and participant recruitment challenges and then implemented solutions tailored to the local workflow. These solutions included the use of an electronic consent and videoconferences with local clinic leadership and staff. The processes for network development and maintenance changed to address issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, aspects of the sample processing/storage and data collection elements were held constant between sites. Results: Adapting our consenting approach enabled maintaining study enrollment during the pandemic. The pandemic amplified issues related to contracting, onboarding, and IRB approval. Maintaining continuity in sample management and clinical data collection allowed for pooling of information between sites. Conclusions: Adaptability is key to maintaining network sites. Rapidly changing guidelines for beginning and continuing research during the pandemic required frequent intra- and inter-institutional communication to navigate.

Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 SARS-CoV-2 Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results from the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial.

In a randomized clinical trial, we compare early neutralizing antibody responses after boosting with bivalent SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines based on either BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 Omicron spike protein combined with wildtype spike. Responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants exhibited the greatest reduction in titers against currently circulating Omicron subvariants for both bivalent vaccines.

Research unit network (RUN) as a learning research system.

The clinical research units (CRUs) are one of the main spaces where both translational research and science take place. However, there is a lack of information about both best practices for CRU operations and, ultimately, benchmarks to evaluate CRU performance. The Research Unit Network (RUN) was created with the purpose to enable direct communication and collaboration among CRUs. An online survey was administered to further illustrate the functionality and impact of RUN. Thirty-one individual survey responses (39.2%) were included in the final analysis. The members value RUN monthly meetings (87.1%) as the most useful aspect of this network and CRU budgeting (67.7%) and staffing (61.3%) were the most relevant topics discussed. This is followed by EPIC - Research (58.1%), delegation of authority logs, unit signatures, and policies (51.6%), COVID-19 pandemic response (41.9%), the implementation of clinical trial management system (29.0%), and protocol deviations (19.4%). The intermediate goal of RUN is to identify best practices CRUs are establishing, implementing, and sharing these experiences with the goal to adopt them in different CRUs. The network's long-term goal is to establish standard benchmarks that can be used for evaluating the performance of CRUs across the nation.

Bivalent Omicron BA.1-Adapted BNT162b2 Booster in Adults Older than 55 Years.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of immune-escape variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 warrants the use of sequence-adapted vaccines to provide protection against coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: In an ongoing phase 3 trial, adults older than 55 years who had previously received three 30-µg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine were randomly assigned to receive 30 µg or 60 µg of BNT162b2, 30 µg or 60 µg of monovalent B.1.1.529 (omicron) BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 (monovalent BA.1), or 30 µg (15 µg of BNT162b2 + 15 µg of monovalent BA.1) or 60 µg (30 µg of BNT162b2 + 30 µg of monovalent BA.1) of BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 (bivalent BA.1). Primary objectives were to determine superiority (with respect to 50% neutralizing titer [NT50] against BA.1) and noninferiority (with respect to seroresponse) of the BA.1-adapted vaccines to BNT162b2 (30 µg). A secondary objective was to determine noninferiority of bivalent BA.1 to BNT162b2 (30 µg) with respect to neutralizing activity against the ancestral strain. Exploratory analyses assessed immune responses against omicron BA.4, BA.5, and BA.2.75 subvariants. RESULTS: A total of 1846 participants underwent randomization. At 1 month after vaccination, bivalent BA.1 (30 µg and 60 µg) and monovalent BA.1 (60 µg) showed neutralizing activity against BA.1 superior to that of BNT162b2 (30 µg), with NT50 geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of 1.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17 to 2.08), 1.97 (95% CI, 1.45 to 2.68), and 3.15 (95% CI, 2.38 to 4.16), respectively. Bivalent BA.1 (both doses) and monovalent BA.1 (60 µg) were also noninferior to BNT162b2 (30 µg) with respect to seroresponse against BA.1; between-group differences ranged from 10.9 to 29.1 percentage points. Bivalent BA.1 (either dose) was noninferior to BNT162b2 (30 µg) with respect to neutralizing activity against the ancestral strain, with NT50 GMRs of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.20) and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.58), respectively. BA.4-BA.5 and BA.2.75 neutralizing titers were numerically higher with 30-µg bivalent BA.1 than with 30-µg BNT162b2. The safety profile of either dose of monovalent or bivalent BA.1 was similar to that of BNT162b2 (30 µg). Adverse events were more common in the 30-µg monovalent-BA.1 (8.5%) and 60-µg bivalent-BA.1 (10.4%) groups than in the other groups (3.6 to 6.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The candidate monovalent or bivalent omicron BA.1-adapted vaccines had a safety profile similar to that of BNT162b2 (30 µg), induced substantial neutralizing responses against ancestral and omicron BA.1 strains, and, to a lesser extent, neutralized BA.4, BA.5, and BA.2.75 strains. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.).

Barriers and solutions to developing and maintaining research networks during a pandemic: An example from the iELEVATE perinatal network

Introduction:To improve maternal health outcomes, increased diversity is needed among pregnant people in research studies and community surveillance. To expand the pool, we sought to develop a network encompassing academic and community obstetrics clinics. Typical challenges in developing a network include site identification, contracting, onboarding sites, staff engagement, participant recruitment, funding, and institutional review board approvals. While not insurmountable, these challenges became magnified as we built a research network during a global pandemic. Our objective is to describe the framework utilized to resolve pandemic-related issues.Methods:We developed a framework for site-specific adaptation of the generalized study protocol. Twice monthly video meetings were held between the lead academic sites to identify local challenges and to generate ideas for solutions. We identified site and participant recruitment challenges and then implemented solutions tailored to the local workflow. These solutions included the use of an electronic consent and videoconferences with local clinic leadership and staff. The processes for network development and maintenance changed to address issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, aspects of the sample processing/storage and data collection elements were held constant between sites.Results:Adapting our consenting approach enabled maintaining study enrollment during the pandemic. The pandemic amplified issues related to contracting, onboarding, and IRB approval. Maintaining continuity in sample management and clinical data collection allowed for pooling of information between sites.Conclusions:Adaptability is key to maintaining network sites. Rapidly changing guidelines for beginning and continuing research during the pandemic required frequent intra- and inter-institutional communication to navigate.