Six-month safety follow-up of an adjuvanted SARS-CoV-2 trimeric S-protein subunit vaccine (SCB-2019) in adults: A phase 2/3, double-blind, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the safety of SCB-2019, a protein subunit vaccine candidate containing a recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) trimer fusion protein, combined with CpG-1018/alum adjuvants. METHODS: This ongoing phase 2/3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial is being conducted in Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, the Philippines, and South Africa in participants ≥ 12 years of age. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 2 doses of SCB-2019 or placebo administered intramuscularly 21 days apart. Here, we present the safety results of SCB-2019 over the 6-month period following 2-dose primary vaccination series in all adult participants (≥18 years of age). RESULTS: A total of 30,137 adult participants received at least one dose of study vaccine (n = 15,070) or placebo (n = 15,067) between 24 March 2021 and 01 December 2021. Unsolicited adverse events, medically-attended adverse events, adverse events of special interest, and serious adverse events were reported in similar frequencies in both study arms over the 6-month follow-up period. Vaccine-related SAEs were reported by 4 of 15,070 SCB-2019 recipients (hypersensitivity reactions in two participants, Bell's palsy, and spontaneous abortion) and 2 of 15,067 placebo recipients (COVID-19, pneumonia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome in one participant and spontaneous abortion in the other one). No signs of vaccine-associated enhanced disease were observed. CONCLUSIONS: SCB-2019 administered as a 2-dose series has an acceptable safety profile. No safety concerns were identified during the 6-month follow-up after the primary vaccination. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04672395; EudraCT: 2020-004272-17.

Casirivimab and Imdevimab for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The open-label RECOVERY study reported improved survival in hospitalized, SARS-CoV-2 seronegative patients treated with casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD). METHODS: In this phase 1/2/3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted prior to widespread circulation of Delta and Omicron, hospitalized COVID-19 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to 2.4 g or 8.0 g CAS + IMD or placebo, and characterized at baseline for viral load and SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. RESULTS: In total, 1336 patients on low-flow or no supplemental (low-flow/no) oxygen were treated. The primary endpoint was met in seronegative patients, the least-squares mean difference (CAS + IMD versus placebo) for time-weighted average change from baseline in viral load through day 7 was -0.28 log10 copies/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], -.51 to -.05; P = .0172). The primary clinical analysis of death or mechanical ventilation from day 6 to 29 in patients with high viral load had a strong positive trend but did not reach significance. CAS + IMD numerically reduced all-cause mortality in seronegative patients through day 29 (relative risk reduction, 55.6%; 95% CI, 24.2%-74.0%). No safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow/no oxygen, CAS + IMD reduced viral load and likely improves clinical outcomes in the overall population, with the benefit driven by seronegative patients, and no harm observed in seropositive patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04426695.

Lay Summary . Monoclonal antibody therapies that block the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) can prevent patients from being hospitalized. We hypothesized that these antibodies may also benefit patients who are already hospitalized with COVID-19. Therefore, we performed a study to determine if the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS + IMD) can decrease the amount of virus in the nose of hospitalized patients and prevent the disease from becoming more severe. The study, conducted from June 2020 to April 2021, found that CAS + IMD treatment reduced the amount of virus in these patients, and may reduce their chance of dying or needing a ventilator (a machine that helps patients breathe). Patients were examined in 2 groups: those whose immune systems, at the start of the study, had not produced their own antibodies to fight SARS-CoV-2 (seronegative patients); or those that had already produced their own antibodies (seropositive patients) at the start of the study. Seronegative patients benefited the most from CAS + IMD. No safety concerns related to CAS + IMD were observed. These results demonstrate that monoclonal antibody therapy can help hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and may decrease their chances of needing assistance to breathe or dying.

Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Open-label platform trials and a prospective meta-analysis suggest efficacy of anti-interleukin (IL)-6R therapies in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving corticosteroids. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab, an anti-IL-6R monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this adaptive, phase 2/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults hospitalized with COVID-19 received intravenous sarilumab 400 mg or placebo. The phase 3 primary analysis population included patients with critical COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). The primary outcome was proportion of patients with ≥1-point improvement in clinical status from baseline to day 22. RESULTS: There were 457 and 1365 patients randomized and treated in phases 2 and 3, respectively. In phase 3, patients with critical COVID-19 receiving MV (n = 298; 28.2% on corticosteroids), the proportion with ≥1-point improvement in clinical status (alive, not receiving MV) at day 22 was 43.2% for sarilumab and 35.5% for placebo (risk difference, +7.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.4 to 21.3; P =.3261), a relative risk improvement of 21.7%. In post hoc analyses pooling phase 2 and 3 critical patients receiving MV, the hazard ratio for death for sarilumab vs placebo was 0.76 (95% CI, .51 to 1.13) overall and 0.49 (95% CI, .25 to .94) in patients receiving corticosteroids at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not establish the efficacy of sarilumab in hospitalized patients with severe/critical COVID-19. Post hoc analyses were consistent with other studies that found a benefit of sarilumab in patients receiving corticosteroids. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04315298.

Efficacy of the adjuvanted subunit protein COVID-19 vaccine, SCB-2019: a phase 2 and 3 multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A range of safe and effective vaccines against SARS CoV 2 are needed to address the COVID 19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine SCB-2019. METHODS: This ongoing phase 2 and 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done in adults aged 18 years and older who were in good health or with a stable chronic health condition, at 31 sites in five countries (Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Philippines, and South Africa). The participants were randomly assigned 1:1 using a centralised internet randomisation system to receive two 0·5 mL intramuscular doses of SCB-2019 (30 µg, adjuvanted with 1·50 mg CpG-1018 and 0·75 mg alum) or placebo (0·9% sodium chloride for injection supplied in 10 mL ampoules) 21 days apart. All study staff and participants were masked, but vaccine administrators were not. Primary endpoints were vaccine efficacy, measured by RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 of any severity with onset from 14 days after the second dose in baseline SARS-CoV-2 seronegative participants (the per-protocol population), and the safety and solicited local and systemic adverse events in the phase 2 subset. This study is registered on EudraCT (2020-004272-17) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04672395). FINDINGS: 30 174 participants were enrolled from March 24, 2021, until the cutoff date of Aug 10, 2021, of whom 30 128 received their first assigned vaccine (n=15 064) or a placebo injection (n=15 064). The per-protocol population consisted of 12 355 baseline SARS-CoV-2-naive participants (6251 vaccinees and 6104 placebo recipients). Most exclusions (13 389 [44·4%]) were because of seropositivity at baseline. There were 207 confirmed per-protocol cases of COVID-19 at 14 days after the second dose, 52 vaccinees versus 155 placebo recipients, and an overall vaccine efficacy against any severity COVID-19 of 67·2% (95·72% CI 54·3-76·8), 83·7% (97·86% CI 55·9-95·4) against moderate-to-severe COVID-19, and 100% (97·86% CI 25·3-100·0) against severe COVID-19. All COVID-19 cases were due to virus variants; vaccine efficacy against any severity COVID-19 due to the three predominant variants was 78·7% (95% CI 57·3-90·4) for delta, 91·8% (44·9-99·8) for gamma, and 58·6% (13·3-81·5) for mu. No safety issues emerged in the follow-up period for the efficacy analysis (median of 82 days [IQR 63-103]). The vaccine elicited higher rates of mainly mild-to-moderate injection site pain than the placebo after the first (35·7% [287 of 803] vs 10·3% [81 of 786]) and second (26·9% [189 of 702] vs 7·4% [52 of 699]) doses, but the rates of other solicited local and systemic adverse events were similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION: Two doses of SCB-2019 vaccine plus CpG and alum provides notable protection against the entire severity spectrum of COVID-19 caused by circulating SAR-CoV-2 viruses, including the predominating delta variant. FUNDING: Clover Biopharmaceuticals and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

REGEN-COV Antibody Combination and Outcomes in Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 1-2 portion of an adaptive trial, REGEN-COV, a combination of the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab, reduced the viral load and number of medical visits in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). REGEN-COV has activity in vitro against current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern. METHODS: In the phase 3 portion of an adaptive trial, we randomly assigned outpatients with Covid-19 and risk factors for severe disease to receive various doses of intravenous REGEN-COV or placebo. Patients were followed through day 29. A prespecified hierarchical analysis was used to assess the end points of hospitalization or death and the time to resolution of symptoms. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause occurred in 18 of 1355 patients in the REGEN-COV 2400-mg group (1.3%) and in 62 of 1341 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization concurrently (4.6%) (relative risk reduction [1 minus the relative risk], 71.3%; P<0.001); these outcomes occurred in 7 of 736 patients in the REGEN-COV 1200-mg group (1.0%) and in 24 of 748 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization concurrently (3.2%) (relative risk reduction, 70.4%; P = 0.002). The median time to resolution of symptoms was 4 days shorter with each REGEN-COV dose than with placebo (10 days vs. 14 days; P<0.001 for both comparisons). REGEN-COV was efficacious across various subgroups, including patients who were SARS-CoV-2 serum antibody-positive at baseline. Both REGEN-COV doses reduced viral load faster than placebo; the least-squares mean difference in viral load from baseline through day 7 was -0.71 log10 copies per milliliter (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.90 to -0.53) in the 1200-mg group and -0.86 log10 copies per milliliter (95% CI, -1.00 to -0.72) in the 2400-mg group. Serious adverse events occurred more frequently in the placebo group (4.0%) than in the 1200-mg group (1.1%) and the 2400-mg group (1.3%); infusion-related reactions of grade 2 or higher occurred in less than 0.3% of the patients in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: REGEN-COV reduced the risk of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause, and it resolved symptoms and reduced the SARS-CoV-2 viral load more rapidly than placebo. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04425629.).

REGN-COV2, a Neutralizing Antibody Cocktail, in Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that complications and death from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may be related to high viral loads. METHODS: In this ongoing, double-blind, phase 1-3 trial involving nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19, we investigated two fully human, neutralizing monoclonal antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein, used in a combined cocktail (REGN-COV2) to reduce the risk of the emergence of treatment-resistant mutant virus. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive placebo, 2.4 g of REGN-COV2, or 8.0 g of REGN-COV2 and were prospectively characterized at baseline for endogenous immune response against SARS-CoV-2 (serum antibody-positive or serum antibody-negative). Key end points included the time-weighted average change in viral load from baseline (day 1) through day 7 and the percentage of patients with at least one Covid-19-related medically attended visit through day 29. Safety was assessed in all patients. RESULTS: Data from 275 patients are reported. The least-squares mean difference (combined REGN-COV2 dose groups vs. placebo group) in the time-weighted average change in viral load from day 1 through day 7 was -0.56 log10 copies per milliliter (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.02 to -0.11) among patients who were serum antibody-negative at baseline and -0.41 log10 copies per milliliter (95% CI, -0.71 to -0.10) in the overall trial population. In the overall trial population, 6% of the patients in the placebo group and 3% of the patients in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups reported at least one medically attended visit; among patients who were serum antibody-negative at baseline, the corresponding percentages were 15% and 6% (difference, -9 percentage points; 95% CI, -29 to 11). The percentages of patients with hypersensitivity reactions, infusion-related reactions, and other adverse events were similar in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups and the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this interim analysis, the REGN-COV2 antibody cocktail reduced viral load, with a greater effect in patients whose immune response had not yet been initiated or who had a high viral load at baseline. Safety outcomes were similar in the combined REGN-COV2 dose groups and the placebo group. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and the Biomedical and Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04425629.).

Investigating Overlap in Signals from EVDAS, FAERS, and VigiBase®.

INTRODUCTION: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and VigiBase® are two established databases for safety monitoring of medicinal products, recently complemented with the EudraVigilance Data Analysis System (EVDAS). OBJECTIVE: Signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) can characterize the reporting profile of a drug, accounting for the distribution of all drugs and all events in the database. This study aims to quantify the redundancy among the three databases when characterized by two disproportionality-based analyses (DPA). METHODS: SDRs for 100 selected products were identified with two sets of thresholds (standard EudraVigilance SDR criteria for all vs Bayesian approach for FAERS and VigiBase®). Per product and database, the presence or absence of SDRs was determined and compared. Adverse events were considered at three levels: MedDRA® Preferred Term (PT), High Level Term (HLT), and HLT combined with Standardized MedDRA® Query (SMQ). Redundancy was measured in terms of recall (SDRs in EVDAS divided by SDRs from any database) and overlap (SDRs in EVDAS and at least one other database, divided by SDRs in EVDAS). Covariates with potential impact on results were explored with linear regression models. RESULTS: The median overlap between EVDAS and FAERS or VigiBase® was 85.0% at the PT level, 94.5% at the HLT level, and 97.7% at the HLT or SMQ level. The corresponding median recall of signals in EVDAS as a percentage of all signals generated in all three databases was 59.4%, 74.1%, and 87.9% at the PT, HLT, and HLT or SMQ levels, respectively. The overlap difference is partially explained by the relative number of EU cases in EudraVigilance and the ratio of EVDAS cases and FAERS cases, presumably due to differences in marketing authorizations, or market penetration in different regions. Products with few cases in EVDAS (< 1500) also display limited recall of signals relative to FAERs/VigiBase®. Time-on-market does not predict signal redundancy between the three databases. The choice of the DPA has an expected but somewhat small effect on redundancy. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations typically consider regulatory expectations, operating performance (e.g., positive predictive value), and procedural complexity when selecting databases for signal management. As SDRs can be seen as a proxy of general reporting characteristics identifiable in a systematic screening process, our results indicate that, for most products, these characteristics are largely similar in each of the databases.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of a co-formulated cocktail of three human monoclonal antibodies targeting Ebola virus glycoprotein in healthy adults: a randomised, first-in-human phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: REGN3470-3471-3479 is a co-formulated cocktail of three human monoclonal antibodies targeting three non-overlapping epitopes on Ebola virus. We investigated safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and anti-drug antibodies in healthy adults. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study was done at a phase 1 unit in the USA. Healthy adults, aged 18-60 years, with a body-mass index of 18·0-30·0 kg/m2 were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive a single intravenous dose of REGN3470-3471-3479 or placebo on day 1 (baseline) in one of the four sequential ascending intravenous dose cohorts (3 mg/kg, 15 mg/kg, 60 mg/kg, and 150 mg/kg). Site investigators and participants were masked to the treatment assignment, whereas designated personnel at the site who prepared and generated the study medication were aware of the randomisation treatment assignments. The primary outcome was safety and the secondary outcomes were the pharmacokinetic profiles and immunogenicity. Study assessments were done the day before study drug administration, on the day of drug administration, on day 2 (before discharge), on days 3, 4, 8, 15, 29, 57, 85, 113, and 141, and at the end of study on day 169. The safety analysis included all randomised participants who received study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT002777151. FINDINGS: Between May 18, 2016, and October 27, 2016, 70 adults were screened and 24 participants were enrolled in the study. 18 participants were assigned to and received REGN3470-3471-3479, and six participants were assigned to and received placebo as a single intravenous infusion. 19 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in the combined REGN3470-3471-3479 treatment groups, and four treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in combined placebo groups. Adverse events were transient and mild-to-moderate in severity. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was headache (six [33%] of 18 participants in the combined REGN3470-3471-3479 group vs none of six participants in the placebo group. Headaches were mild-to-moderate in severity, with onset between 2 h and 27 days after start of study drug infusion. There were no deaths, serious adverse events, or adverse events that led to study discontinuation. The pharmacokinetics of each antibody was linear, with mean half-lives of 27·3 days for REGN3471, 21·7 days for REGN3470, and 23·3 days for REGN3479. No participants tested positive for anti-REGN3470, anti-REGN3471, or anti-REGN3479 antibodies. INTERPRETATION: REGN3470-3471-3479 was well tolerated, displayed linear pharmacokinetics, and did not lead to detectable immunogenicity. These data support further clinical development of REGN3470-3471-3479 as a single-dose therapeutic drug for acute Ebola virus infection. FUNDING: The Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.