Homologous and Heterologous Covid-19 Booster Vaccinations.

BACKGROUND: Although the three vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) that have received emergency use authorization in the United States are highly effective, breakthrough infections are occurring. Data are needed on the serial use of homologous boosters (same as the primary vaccine) and heterologous boosters (different from the primary vaccine) in fully vaccinated recipients. METHODS: In this phase 1-2, open-label clinical trial conducted at 10 sites in the United States, adults who had completed a Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier and had no reported history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection received a booster injection with one of three vaccines: mRNA-1273 (Moderna) at a dose of 100 µg, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) at a dose of 5×1010 virus particles, or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) at a dose of 30 µg. The primary end points were safety, reactogenicity, and humoral immunogenicity on trial days 15 and 29. RESULTS: Of the 458 participants who were enrolled in the trial, 154 received mRNA-1273, 150 received Ad26.COV2.S, and 153 received BNT162b2 as booster vaccines; 1 participant did not receive the assigned vaccine. Reactogenicity was similar to that reported for the primary series. More than half the recipients reported having injection-site pain, malaise, headache, or myalgia. For all combinations, antibody neutralizing titers against a SARS-CoV-2 D614G pseudovirus increased by a factor of 4 to 73, and binding titers increased by a factor of 5 to 55. Homologous boosters increased neutralizing antibody titers by a factor of 4 to 20, whereas heterologous boosters increased titers by a factor of 6 to 73. Spike-specific T-cell responses increased in all but the homologous Ad26.COV2.S-boosted subgroup. CD8+ T-cell levels were more durable in the Ad26.COV2.S-primed recipients, and heterologous boosting with the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine substantially increased spike-specific CD8+ T cells in the mRNA vaccine recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Homologous and heterologous booster vaccines had an acceptable safety profile and were immunogenic in adults who had completed a primary Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; DMID 21-0012 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04889209.).

Acceptability and Preference for 3-Month Versus 1-Month Vaginal Rings for HIV-1 Risk Reduction Among Participants in a Phase 1 Trial.

Background: The monthly dapivirine vaginal ring provides partial protection against HIV, and a longer duration ring may reduce user burden and improve adherence. We examined acceptability and preference for 3-month versus 1-month rings for HIV-1 risk reduction in a phase 1 clinical trial. Materials and Methods: In Microbicide Trials Network-036/International Partnership for Microbicides 047, 49 HIV-negative participants aged 18-45 were randomized to one of two 3-month rings or the 1-month ring. Acceptability ratings were collected at enrollment, week 4, and study exit (week 13). At exit, ring preference was assessed quantitatively among all participants and a randomly selected subset of 24 participants completed in-depth interviews. Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated to explore factors influencing acceptability and preference. Results: Acceptability of each ring was initially moderate and increased during the trial. Ratings were lower in the 3-month ring arms than the 1-month arm at each time point, including baseline. Most participants (34/47; 72%) preferred a 3-month ring at exit; however, this proportion was significantly lower within some subgroups characterized by site, education, race/ethnicity, and experiences with ring use. Qualitative interviews revealed reservations about hygiene and safety of the 3-month ring, including discomfort with use during menses, but these were usually outweighed by its increased convenience. Conclusions: Both ring durations were highly acceptable at study exit. Although most participants preferred a 3-month ring, preference was more divided in certain subgroups, highlighting the benefit of offering different duration options. Providing additional support to address concerns about hygiene and safety may improve acceptability of a 3-month vaginal ring.

Heterologous SARS-CoV-2 Booster Vaccinations - Preliminary Report.

Background: While Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines are highly effective, breakthrough infections are occurring. Booster vaccinations have recently received emergency use authorization (EUA) for certain populations but are restricted to homologous mRNA vaccines. We evaluated homologous and heterologous booster vaccination in persons who had received an EUA Covid-19 vaccine regimen. Methods: In this phase 1/2 open-label clinical trial conducted at ten U.S. sites, adults who received one of three EUA Covid-19 vaccines at least 12 weeks prior to enrollment and had no reported history of SARS-CoV-2 infection received a booster injection with one of three vaccines (Moderna mRNA-1273 100-µg, Janssen Ad26.COV2.S 5×1010 virus particles, or Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 30-µg; nine combinations). The primary outcomes were safety, reactogenicity, and humoral immunogenicity on study days 15 and 29. Results: 458 individuals were enrolled: 154 received mRNA-1273, 150 received Ad26.CoV2.S, and 153 received BNT162b2 booster vaccines. Reactogenicity was similar to that reported for the primary series. Injection site pain, malaise, headache, and myalgia occurred in more than half the participants. Booster vaccines increased the neutralizing activity against a D614G pseudovirus (4.2-76-fold) and binding antibody titers (4.6-56-fold) for all combinations; homologous boost increased neutralizing antibody titers 4.2-20-fold whereas heterologous boost increased titers 6.2-76-fold. Day 15 neutralizing and binding antibody titers varied by 28.7-fold and 20.9-fold, respectively, across the nine prime-boost combinations. Conclusion: Homologous and heterologous booster vaccinations were well-tolerated and immunogenic in adults who completed a primary Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier.

Incorporating external evidence on between-trial heterogeneity in network meta-analysis.

In a network meta-analysis, between-study heterogeneity variances are often very imprecisely estimated because data are sparse, so standard errors of treatment differences can be highly unstable. External evidence can provide informative prior distributions for heterogeneity and, hence, improve inferences. We explore approaches for specifying informative priors for multiple heterogeneity variances in a network meta-analysis. First, we assume equal heterogeneity variances across all pairwise intervention comparisons (approach 1); incorporating an informative prior for the common variance is then straightforward. Models allowing unequal heterogeneity variances are more realistic; however, care must be taken to ensure implied variance-covariance matrices remain valid. We consider three strategies for specifying informative priors for multiple unequal heterogeneity variances. Initially, we choose different informative priors according to intervention comparison type and assume heterogeneity to be proportional across comparison types and equal within comparison type (approach 2). Next, we allow all heterogeneity variances in the network to differ, while specifying a common informative prior for each. We explore two different approaches to this: placing priors on variances and correlations separately (approach 3) or using an informative inverse Wishart distribution (approach 4). Our methods are exemplified through application to two network metaanalyses. Appropriate informative priors are obtained from previously published evidence-based distributions for heterogeneity. Relevant prior information on between-study heterogeneity can be incorporated into network meta-analyses, without needing to assume equal heterogeneity across treatment comparisons. The approaches proposed will be beneficial in sparse data sets and provide more appropriate intervals for treatment differences than those based on imprecise heterogeneity estimates.

Maternal and Fetal Outcomes of Anticoagulation in Pregnant Women With Mechanical Heart Valves.

BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation for mechanical heart valves during pregnancy is essential to prevent thromboembolic events. Each regimen has drawbacks with regard to maternal or fetal risk. OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis sought to estimate and compare the risk of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes in pregnant women with mechanical heart valves who received different methods of anticoagulation. METHODS: Studies were identified using a Medline search including all publications up to June 5, 2016. Study inclusion required reporting of maternal death, thromboembolism, and valve failure, and/or fetal spontaneous abortion, death, and congenital defects in pregnant women treated with any of the following: 1) a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) throughout pregnancy; 2) low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) throughout pregnancy; 3) LMWH for the first trimester, followed by a VKA (LMWH and VKA); or 4) unfractionated heparin for the first trimester, followed by a VKA (UFH and VKA). RESULTS: A total of 800 pregnancies from 18 publications were included. Composite maternal risk was lowest with VKA (5%), compared with LMWH (16%; ratio of averaged risk [RAR]: 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5 to 7.5), LMWH and VKA (16%; RAR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.2 to 7.5), or UFH and VKA (16%; RAR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.5 to 7.1). Composite fetal risk was lowest with LMWH (13%; RAR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1 to 0.8), compared with VKA (39%), LMWH and VKA (23%), or UFH and VKA (34%). No significant difference in fetal risk was observed between women taking ≤5 mg daily warfarin and those with an LMWH regimen (RAR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.3 to 2.4). CONCLUSIONS: VKA treatment was associated with the lowest risk of adverse maternal outcomes, whereas the use of LMWH throughout pregnancy was associated with the lowest risk of adverse fetal outcomes. Fetal risk was similar between women taking ≤5 mg warfarin daily and women treated with LMWH.

Adapting group sequential methods to observational postlicensure vaccine safety surveillance: results of a pentavalent combination DTaP-IPV-Hib vaccine safety study.

To address gaps in traditional postlicensure vaccine safety surveillance and to promote rapid signal identification, new prospective monitoring systems using large health-care database cohorts have been developed. We newly adapted clinical trial group sequential methods to this observational setting in an original safety study of a combination diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis adsorbed (DTaP), inactivated poliovirus (IPV), and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) conjugate vaccine (DTaP-IPV-Hib) among children within the Vaccine Safety Datalink population. For each prespecified outcome, we conducted 11 sequential Poisson-based likelihood ratio tests during September 2008-January 2011 to compare DTaP-IPV-Hib vaccinees with historical recipients of other DTaP-containing vaccines. No increased risk was detected among 149,337 DTaP-IPV-Hib vaccinees versus historical comparators for any outcome, including medically attended fever, seizure, meningitis/encephalitis/myelitis, nonanaphylactic serious allergic reaction, anaphylaxis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, or invasive Hib disease. In end-of-study prespecified subgroup analyses, risk of medically attended fever was elevated among 1- to 2-year-olds who received DTaP-IPV-Hib vaccine versus historical comparators (relative risk = 1.83, 95% confidence interval: 1.34, 2.50) but not among infants under 1 year old (relative risk = 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.73, 0.94). Findings were similar in analyses with concurrent comparators who received other DTaP-containing vaccines during the study period. Although lack of a controlled experiment presents numerous challenges, implementation of group sequential monitoring methods in observational safety surveillance studies is promising and warrants further investigation.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of acetaminophen for prevention of post-vaccination fever in infants.

BACKGROUND: Fever is common following infant vaccinations. Two randomized controlled trials demonstrated the efficacy of acetaminophen prophylaxis in preventing fever after whole cell pertussis vaccination, but acetaminophen prophylaxis has not been evaluated for prevention of fever following contemporary vaccines recommended for infants in the United States. METHODS: Children six weeks through nine months of age were randomized 1:1 to receive up to five doses of acetaminophen (10-15 mg per kg) or placebo following routine vaccinations. The primary outcome was a rectal temperature ≥38°C within 32 hours following the vaccinations. Secondary outcomes included medical utilization, infant fussiness, and parents' time lost from work. Parents could request unblinding of the treatment assignment if the child developed fever or symptoms that would warrant supplementary acetaminophen treatment for children who had been receiving placebo. RESULTS: A temperature ≥38°C was recorded for 14% (25/176) of children randomized to acetaminophen compared with 22% (37/176) of those randomized to placebo but that difference was not statistically significant (relative risk [RR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.01). Children randomized to acetaminophen were less likely to be reported as being much more fussy than usual (10% vs 24%) (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25-0.70) or to have the treatment assignment unblinded (3% vs 9%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.83) than those randomized to placebo. In age-stratified analyses, among children ≥24 weeks of age, there was a significantly lower risk of temperature ≥38°C in the acetaminophen group (13% vs. 25%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The results of this relatively small trial suggest that acetaminophen may reduce the risk of post-vaccination fever and fussiness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00325819.