Real-world comparative effectiveness of a third dose of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 among adults aged ≥ 65 years in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: To compare the real-world effectiveness of a third dose of mRNA-1273 versus a third dose of BNT162b2 against breakthrough COVID-19 hospitalizations among adults aged ≥ 65 years who completed a primary series of an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine (regardless of which primary series was received). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational comparative vaccine effectiveness (VE) study was conducted using administrative claims data from the US HealthVerity database (September 22, 2021, to August 31, 2022). A third dose of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 was assessed for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations and medically attended COVID-19 among adults aged ≥ 65 years. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to balance baseline characteristics between vaccine groups. Incidence rates from patient-level data and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using weighted Cox proportional hazards models were calculated to estimate relative VE for each outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 94,587 and 92,377 individuals received a third dose of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2, respectively. Among the weighted population, the median age was 69 years (interquartile range, 66-74), 53 % were female, and 46 % were commercially insured. COVID-19 hospitalization rates per 1000 person-years (PYs) were 5.61 (95 % CI, 5.13-6.09) for mRNA-1273 and 7.06 (95 % CI, 6.54-7.57) for BNT162b2 (HR, 0.82; 0.69-0.98). Medically attended COVID-19 rates per 1000 PYs (95 % CI) were 95.05 (95 % CI, 93.03-97.06) for mRNA-1273 and 106.55 (95 % CI, 104.53-108.57) for BNT162b2 (HR, 0.93; 0.89-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this observational comparative VE database study provide evidence that among older adults, a third dose of mRNA-1273 was more effective in preventing breakthrough COVID-19 hospitalization and medically attended COVID-19 infection compared with a third dose of BNT162b2.

Real-World Effectiveness of a Third Dose of mRNA-1273 Versus BNT162b2 on Inpatient and Medically Attended COVID-19 Among Immunocompromised US Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Recent data have shown elevated infection rates in several subpopulations at risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19, including immunocompromised (IC) individuals. Previous research suggests that IC persons have reduced risks of hospitalization and medically attended COVID-19 with two doses of mRNA-1273 (SpikeVax; Moderna) compared to two doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty; Pfizer/BioNTech). The main objective of this retrospective cohort study was to compare real-world effectiveness of third doses of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 at multiple time points on occurrence of COVID-19 hospitalization and medically attended COVID-19 among IC adults in the United States (US). METHODS: This retrospective, observational comparative effectiveness study identified patients from the US HealthVerity database from December 11, 2020, through August 31, 2022. Medically attended SARS-CoV-2 infections and hospitalizations were assessed following a three-dose mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 regimen. Inverse probability weighting was applied to balance baseline confounders between vaccine groups. Relative risk (RR) and risk difference were calculated for subgroup and sensitivity analyses using a non-parametric method. RESULTS: In propensity score-adjusted analyses, receiving mRNA-1273 vs. BNT162b2 as third dose was associated with 32.4% (relative risk 0.676; 95% confidence interval 0.506-0.887), 29.3% (0.707; 0.573-0.858), and 23.4% (0.766; 0.626-0.927) lower risk of COVID-19 hospitalization after 90, 180, and 270 days, respectively. Corresponding reductions in medically attended COVID-19 were 8.4% (0.916; 0.860-0.976), 6.4% (0.936; 0.895-0.978), and 2.4% (0.976; 0.935-1.017), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a third dose of mRNA-1273 is more effective than a third dose of BNT162b2 in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization and breakthrough medically attended COVID-19 among IC adults in the US.

Vaccine preparation time, errors, satisfaction, and preference of prefilled syringes versus RSV vaccines requiring reconstitution: randomized, time and motion study.

AIM: The current study compared preparation time, errors, satisfaction, and preference for a prefilled syringe (PFS) versus two RSV vaccines requiring reconstitution (VRR1 and VRR2) in a randomized, single-blinded time and motion study. METHODS: Pharmacists, nurses, and pharmacy technicians were randomized to a preparation sequence of the three vaccines. Participants read instructions, then consecutively prepared the three vaccines with a 3-5-min washout period in between. Preparations were video recorded and reviewed by a trained pharmacist for preparation time and errors using predefined, vaccine-specific checklists. Participant demographics, satisfaction with vaccine preparation, and vaccine preference were recorded. Within-subjects analysis of variance was used to compare preparation time. Mixed-effects Poisson and ordered logistic regression models were used to compare the number of preparation errors and satisfaction scores, respectively. RESULTS: Sixty-three pharmacists (60%), nurses (35%), and pharmacy technicians (5%) participated at four sites in the United States. The least squares mean preparation time per dose for PFS was 141.8 s (95% CI = 156.8-126.7; p <.0001) faster than for VRR1, 103.6 s (95% CI = 118.7-88.5; p <.0001) faster than for VRR2, and 122.7 s (95% CI = 134.2-111.2; p <.0001) faster than the pooled VRRs. Overall satisfaction (combined "Very" and "Extremely") was 87.3% for PFS, 28.6% for VRR1, and 47.6% for VRR2. Most participants (81.0%) preferred the PFS vaccine. LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by the inability to completely blind observers. To minimize the effects of order, we utilized a 3-sequence block design; however, the order in which the vaccines were prepared may have affected outcomes. Participants were assessed once, whereas if repeated preparations were performed there may have been trained efficiencies gained for each vaccine. CONCLUSION: PFS vaccines can greatly simplify the vaccine preparation process, allowing administrators to prepare almost four times more doses per hour than with vial and syringe systems.

Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 in Immunocompromised Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Using GRADE.

INTRODUCTION: Immunocompromised (IC) patients mount poor immune responses to vaccination. Higher-dose coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines may offer increased immunogenicity. METHODS: A pairwise meta-analysis of 98 studies reporting comparisons of mRNA-1273 (50 or 100 mcg/dose) and BNT162b2 (30 mcg/dose) in IC adults was performed. Outcomes were seroconversion, total and neutralizing antibody titers, and cellular immune responses. RESULTS: mRNA-1273 was associated with a significantly higher seroconversion likelihood [relative risk, 1.11 (95% CI, 1.08, 1.14); P < 0.0001; I2 = 66.8%] and higher total antibody titers [relative increase, 50.45% (95% CI, 34.63%, 66.28%); P < 0.0001; I2 = 89.5%] versus BNT162b2. mRNA-1273 elicited higher but statistically nonsignificant relative increases in neutralizing antibody titers and cellular immune responses versus BNT162b2. CONCLUSION: Higher-dose mRNA-1273 had increased immunogenicity versus BNT162b2 in IC patients.

The Potential Economic Impact of the Updated COVID-19 mRNA Fall 2023 Vaccines in Japan.

This analysis estimates the economic and clinical impact of a Moderna updated COVID-19 mRNA Fall 2023 vaccine for adults ≥18 years in Japan. A previously developed Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered (SEIR) model with a one-year analytic time horizon (September 2023-August 2024) and consequences decision tree were used to estimate symptomatic infections, COVID-19 related hospitalizations, deaths, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a Moderna updated Fall 2023 vaccine versus no additional vaccination, and versus a Pfizer-BioNTech updated mRNA Fall 2023 vaccine. The Moderna vaccine is predicted to prevent 7.2 million symptomatic infections, 272,100 hospitalizations and 25,600 COVID-19 related deaths versus no vaccine. In the base case (healthcare perspective), the ICER was ¥1,300,000/QALY gained ($9400 USD/QALY gained). Sensitivity analyses suggest results are most affected by COVID-19 incidence, initial vaccine effectiveness (VE), and VE waning against infection. Assuming the relative VE between both bivalent vaccines apply to updated Fall 2023 vaccines, the base case suggests the Moderna version will prevent an additional 1,100,000 symptomatic infections, 27,100 hospitalizations, and 2600 deaths compared to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The updated Moderna vaccine is expected to be highly cost-effective at a ¥5 million willingness-to-pay threshold across a wide range of scenarios.

Comparative Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccines Among Older Adults: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis Using the GRADE Framework.

INTRODUCTION: The mRNA vaccines mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 demonstrated high efficacy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in phase 3 clinical trials, including among older adults. To inform coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine selection, this systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis assessed the comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 in older adults. METHODS: We systematically searched for relevant studies reporting COVID-19 outcomes with mRNA vaccines in older adults aged ≥ 50 years by first cross-checking relevant published SLRs. Based on the cutoff date from a previous similar SLR, we then searched the WHO COVID-19 Research Database for relevant articles published between April 9, 2022, and June 2, 2023. Outcomes of interest were SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalization, and COVID-19-related death following ≥ 2 vaccine doses. Random effects meta-analysis models were used to pool risk ratios (RRs) across studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated using chi-square testing. Evidence certainty was assessed per GRADE framework. RESULTS: Twenty-four non-randomized real-world studies reporting clinical outcomes with mRNA vaccines in individuals aged ≥ 50 years were included in the meta-analysis. Vaccination with mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64‒0.80]), symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.62‒0.83]), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 0.67 [95% CI 0.57‒0.78]), and COVID-19-related hospitalization (RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.53‒0.79]) but not COVID-19-related death (RR 0.80 [95% CI 0.64‒1.00]) compared with BNT162b2. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies for all outcomes (I2 > 75%) except death (I2 = 0%). Multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses excluding specific studies generally demonstrated consistent results. Certainty of evidence across outcomes was rated as low (type 3) or very low (type 4), reflecting the lack of randomized controlled trial data. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of 24 observational studies demonstrated significantly lower risk of asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infections and hospitalizations with the mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 vaccine in older adults aged ≥ 50 years.

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of the updated COVID-19 mRNA Autumn 2023 vaccines in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines updated for Autumn 2023 in adults aged ≥60 years and high-risk persons aged 30-59 years in Germany over a 1-year analytic time horizon (September 2023-August 2024). METHODS: A compartmental Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered model was updated and adapted to the German market. Numbers of symptomatic infections, a number of COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated using a decision tree model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an Autumn 2023 Moderna updated COVID-19 (mRNA-1273.815) vaccine was compared to no additional vaccination. Potential differences between the mRNA-1273.815 and the Autumn Pfizer-BioNTech updated COVID-19 (XBB.1.5 BNT162b2) vaccines, as well as societal return on investment for the mRNA-1273.815 vaccine relative to no vaccination, were also examined. RESULTS: Compared to no autumn vaccination, the mRNA-1273.815 campaign is predicted to prevent approximately 1,697,900 symptomatic infections, 85,400 hospitalizations, and 4,100 deaths. Compared to an XBB.1.5 BNT162b2 campaign, the mRNA-1273.815 campaign is also predicted to prevent approximately 90,100 symptomatic infections, 3,500 hospitalizations, and 160 deaths. Across both analyses we found the mRNA-1273.815 campaign to be dominant. CONCLUSIONS: The mRNA-1273.815 vaccine can be considered cost-effective relative to the XBB.1.5 BNT162b2 vaccine and highly likely to provide more benefits and save costs compared to no vaccine in Germany, and to offer high societal return on investment.

The potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of the updated COVID-19 mRNA fall 2023 vaccines in the United States.

AIMS: To assess the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines updated for fall 2023 in adults aged ≥18 years over a 1-year analytic time horizon (September 2023-August 2024). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A compartmental Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered model was updated to reflect COVID-19 cases in summer 2023. The numbers of symptomatic infections, COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths, and costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated using a decision tree model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a Moderna updated mRNA fall 2023 vaccine (Moderna Fall Campaign) was compared to no additional vaccination. Potential differences between the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech fall 2023 vaccines were also examined. RESULTS: Base case results suggest that the Moderna Fall Campaign would decrease the expected 64.2 million symptomatic infections by 7.2 million (11%) to 57.0 million. COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths are expected to decline by 343,000 (-29%) and 50,500 (-33%), respectively. The Moderna Fall Campaign would increase QALYs by 740,880 and healthcare costs by $5.7 billion relative to no vaccine, yielding an ICER of $7700 per QALY gained. Using a societal cost perspective, the ICER is $2100. Sensitivity analyses suggest that vaccine effectiveness, COVID-19 incidence, hospitalization rates, and costs drive cost-effectiveness. With a relative vaccine effectiveness of 5.1% for infection and 9.8% for hospitalization for the Moderna vaccine versus the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, use of the Moderna vaccine is expected to prevent 24,000 more hospitalizations and 3300 more deaths than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: As COVID-19 becomes endemic, future incidence, including patterns of infection, are highly uncertain. The effectiveness of fall 2023 vaccines is unknown, and it is unclear when a new variant that evades natural or vaccine immunity will emerge. Despite these limitations, our model predicts the Moderna Fall Campaign vaccine is highly cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bivalent (Original/Omicron BA.4/BA.5) COVID-19 Vaccines in Adults.

The emergence of Omicron variants coincided with declining vaccine-induced protection against SARS-CoV-2. Two bivalent mRNA vaccines, mRNA-1273.222 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 Bivalent (Pfizer-BioNTech), were developed to provide greater protection against the predominate circulating variants by including mRNA that encodes both the ancestral (original) strain and BA.4/BA.5. We estimated their relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) in preventing COVID-19-related outcomes in the US using a nationwide dataset linking primary care electronic health records and pharmacy/medical claims data. The study population (aged ≥18 years) received either vaccine between 31 August 2022 and 28 February 2023. We used propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences between groups. We estimated the rVE against COVID-19-related hospitalizations (primary outcome) and outpatient visits (secondary) for 1,034,538 mRNA-1273.222 and 1,670,666 BNT162b2 Bivalent vaccine recipients, with an adjusted rVE of 9.8% (95% confidence interval: 2.6-16.4%) and 5.1% (95% CI: 3.2-6.9%), respectively, for mRNA-1273.222 versus BNT162b2 Bivalent. The incremental relative effectiveness was greater among adults ≥ 65; the rVE against COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits in these patients was 13.5% (95% CI: 5.5-20.8%) and 10.7% (8.2-13.1%), respectively. Overall, we found greater effectiveness of mRNA-1273.222 compared with the BNT162b2 Bivalent vaccine in preventing COVID-19-related hospitalizations and outpatient visits, with increased benefits in older adults.

Comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis using the GRADE framework.

Introduction: Despite representing only 3% of the US population, immunocompromised (IC) individuals account for nearly half of the COVID-19 breakthrough hospitalizations. IC individuals generate a lower immune response after vaccination in general, and the US CDC recommended a third dose of either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines as part of their primary series. Influenza vaccine trials have shown that increasing dosage could improve effectiveness in IC populations. The objective of this systematic literature review and pairwise meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of mRNA-1273 (50 or 100 mcg/dose) vs BNT162b2 (30 mcg/dose) in IC populations using the GRADE framework. Methods: The systematic literature search was conducted in the World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database. Studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis if they reported comparisons of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 in IC individuals ≥18 years of age; outcomes of interest were symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization due to COVID-19, and mortality due to COVID-19. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models. Outcomes were also analyzed in subgroups of patients with cancer, autoimmune disease, and solid organ transplant. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Results: Overall, 17 studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis. Compared with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 was associated with significantly reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.75-0.97]; P=0.0151; I2 = 67.7%), severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.93]; P=0.0009; I2 = 0%), COVID-19-associated hospitalization (RR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]; P<0.0001; I2 = 0%), and COVID-19-associated mortality (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.44-0.90]; P=0.0119; I2 = 0%) in IC populations. Results were consistent across subgroups. Because of sample size limitations, relative effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in IC populations cannot be studied in randomized trials. Based on nonrandomized studies, evidence certainty among comparisons was type 3 (low) and 4 (very low), reflecting potential biases in observational studies. Conclusion: This GRADE meta-analysis based on a large number of consistent observational studies showed that the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine is associated with improved clinical effectiveness in IC populations compared with BNT162b2.

Relative Effectiveness of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S Vaccines and Homologous Boosting in Preventing COVID-19 in Adults in the US.

Background: Few head-to-head comparisons have been performed on the real-world effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccines. We evaluated the relative effectiveness (rVE) of a primary series of mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S and a homologous mRNA booster against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19. Methods: A data set linking primary care electronic medical records with medical claims data was used for this retrospective cohort study of US patients age ≥18 years vaccinated with a primary series between February and October 2021 (Part 1) and a homologous mRNA booster between October 2021 and January 2022 (Part 2). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were derived from 1:1 matching adjusted across potential covariates. rVE was (1 - HRadjusted) × 100. Additional analysis was performed across regions and age groups. Results: Following adjustment, Part 1 rVE for mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 was 23% (95% CI, 22%-25%), 23% (95% CI, 22%-25%), and 19% (95% CI, 14%-24%), while the rVE for mRNA-1273 vs Ad26.COV2.S was 50% (95% CI, 48%-51%), 50% (95% CI, 48%-52%), and 57% (95% CI, 53%-61%) against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19, respectively. The adjusted rVE in Part 2 for mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 was 14% (95% CI, 10%-18%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-17%), and 19% (95% CI, 1%-34%) against any medically attended, outpatient, and hospitalized COVID-19, respectively. rVE against medically attended COVID-19 was higher in adults age ≥65 years (35%; 95% CI, 24%-47%) than in those age 18-64 years (13%; 95% CI, 9%-17%) after the booster. Conclusions: In this study, mRNA-1273 was more effective than BNT162b2 or Ad26.COV2.S following a primary series during the Delta-dominant period and more effective than BNT162b2 as a booster during the Omicron-dominant period.

Factors associated with receipt of mRNA-1273 vaccine at a United States national retail pharmacy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prompted accelerated vaccine development of novel messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccines by Moderna and Pfizer, which received FDA Emergency Use Authorization in December 2020. The purpose of this study was to examine trends in primary series administration and multi-dose completion rates with Moderna's mRNA-1273 vaccine administered at a United States retail pharmacy. METHODS: Walgreens pharmacy data were joined to publicly available data sets to examine trends in mRNA-1273 primary series and multi-dose completion across patient race/ethnicity, age, gender, distance to first vaccination, and community characteristics. Eligible patients received their first dose of mRNA-1273 administered by Walgreens between December 18, 2020 and February 28, 2022. Variables significantly associated with on-time second dose (all patients) and third dose (immunocompromised patients) in univariate analyses were included in linear regression models. A subset of patients in selected states were studied to identify differences in early and late vaccine adoption. RESULTS: Patients (N = 4,870,915) who received ≥ 1 dose of mRNA-1273 were 57.0% White, 52.6% female, and averaged 49.4 years old. Approximately 85% of patients received a second dose during the study period. Factors associated with on-time second dose administration included older age, race/ethnicity, traveling ≤ 10 miles for the first dose, higher community-level health insurance, and residing in areas with low social vulnerability. Only 51.0% of immunocompromised patients received the third dose as recommended. Factors associated with third dose administration included older age, race/ethnicity, and small-town residence. Early adopters accounted for 60.6% of patients. Factors associated with early adoption included older age, race/ethnicity, and metropolitan residence. CONCLUSION: Over 80% of patients received their on-time second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine per CDC recommendations. Patient demographics and community characteristics were associated with vaccine receipt and series completion. Novel approaches to facilitate series completion during a pandemic should be further studied.

Patient preferences and health state utilities associated with the treatment process of antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV.

PURPOSE: People living with HIV (PLHIV) have reported challenges associated with daily oral antiretroviral therapy (ART), including missed doses, negative psychological impact, and difficulty remaining discreet while at home or traveling. Recently approved long-acting injectable (LAI) ART may help eliminate these concerns. The purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences and estimate health state utilities associated with oral and LAI treatment for ART. METHODS: Four health state vignettes were developed based on published literature, clinician interviews, and a pilot study. All vignettes included the same description of HIV, but differed in treatment regimens: (A) single daily oral tablet, (B) two daily oral tablets, (C) injections once monthly, and (D) injections every two months. PLHIV in the UK reported their preferences and valued the health states in time trade-off utility interviews. RESULTS: The sample included 201 PLHIV (83.1% male; mean age = 44.9y). The health states frequently selected as most preferable were D (n = 119; 59.2%) and A (n = 75; 37.3%). Utility differences among health states were relatively small, which is typical for treatment process utilities (mean utilities: A, 0.908; B, 0.905; C, 0.900; D, 0.910). Statistically significant differences in utility were found for one vs. two tablets and injections every month vs. every two months (p < 0.001). Participants' quotations highlight the wide range of reasons for treatment process preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Current results indicate that many PLHIV would prefer LAI ART. The reported utilities may be useful in economic modeling comparing oral vs. LAI ART.

The potential clinical impact of implementing different COVID-19 boosters in fall 2022 in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Emerging SARS-COV-2 variants are spurring the development of adapted vaccines as public health authorities plan for fall vaccinations. This study estimated the number of infections and hospitalizations prevented by three potential booster strategies for adults (≥18 years) in the United States: boosting with either Moderna's (1) licensed first generation monovalent vaccine mRNA-1273 (ancestral strain) or (2) candidate bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 (ancestral + BA.1 variant of concern [VOC]) starting in September 2022, or (3) Moderna's updated candidate bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.222 (ancestral + BA.4/5 VOC) starting November 2022 due to longer development time. METHODS: An age-stratified, transmission dynamic, Susceptible-Exposed-Infection-Recovered (SEIR) model, adapted from previous literature, was used to estimate infections over time; the model contains compartments defined by SEIR and vaccination status. A decision tree was used to estimate clinical consequences of infections. Calibration was performed so the model tracks the actual course of the pandemic to present time. RESULTS: Vaccinating with mRNA-1273(Sept), mRNA-1273.214(Sept), and mRNA-1273.222(Nov) is predicted to reduce infections by 34%, 40%, and 18%, respectively, and hospitalizations by 42%, 48%, and 25%, respectively, over 6 months compared to no booster. Sensitivity analyses around transmissibility, vaccine coverage, masking, and waning illustrate that boosting with mRNA-1273.214 in September prevented more cases of infection and hospitalization than the other vaccines. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: With the emergence of new variants, key characteristics of the virus that affect estimates of spread and clinical impact also evolve, making parameter estimation difficult. Our analysis demonstrated that boosting with mRNA-1273.214 was more effective over 6 months in preventing infections and hospitalizations with a BA.4/5 subvariant than the tailored vaccine, simply because it could be deployed 2 months earlier. We conclude that there is no advantage to delay boosting until a more effective BA.4/5 vaccine is available; earlier boosting with mRNA-1273.214 will prevent the most infections and hospitalizations.

Real-world comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines among immunocompromised adults identified in administrative claims data in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Head-to-head studies comparing COVID-19 mRNA vaccine effectiveness in immunocompromised individuals, who are vulnerable to severe disease are lacking, as large sample sizes are required to make meaningful inferences. METHODS: This observational comparative effectiveness study was conducted in closed administrative claims data from the US HealthVerity database (December 11, 2020-January 10, 2022, before omicron). A 2-dose mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 regimen was assessed for preventing medically-attended breakthrough COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalizations among immunocompromised adults. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to balance baseline characteristics between vaccine groups. Incidence rates from patient-level data and hazard ratios (HRs) using weighted Cox proportional hazards models were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 57,898 and 66,981 individuals received a 2-dose regimen of mRNA-1273 or BNT161b2, respectively. Among the weighted population, mean age was 51 years, 53 % were female, and baseline immunodeficiencies included prior blood transplant (8%-9%), prior organ transplant (7%), active cancer (12%-13%), primary immunodeficiency (5-6%), HIV (20%-21%), and immunosuppressive therapy use (60%-61%). Rates per 1,000 person-years (PYs; 95% confidence intervals [CI]s) of breakthrough medically-attended COVID-19 were 25.82 (23.83-27.97) with mRNA-1273 and 30.98 (28.93, 33.18) with BNT162b2 (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). When requiring evidence of an antigen or polymerase chain reaction test before COVID-19 diagnosis, the HR for medically-attended COVID-19 was 0.78 (0.67-0.92). Breakthrough COVID-19 hospitalization rates per 1,000 PYs (95% CI) were 3.66 (2.96-4.51) for mRNA-1273 and 4.68 (3.91-5.59) for BNT162b2 (HR, 0.78; 0.59-1.03). Utilizing open and closed claims for outcome capture only, or both cohort entry/outcome capture, produced HRs (95% CIs) for COVID-19 hospitalization of 0.72 (0.57-0.92) and 0.66 (0.58-0.76), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among immunocompromised adults, a 2-dose mRNA-1273 regimen was more effective in preventing medically-attended COVID-19 in any setting (inpatient and outpatient) than 2-dose BNT162b2. Results were similar for COVID-19 hospitalization, although statistical power was limited when using closed claims only. STUDY REGISTRATION: NCT05366322.

Indirect comparison of 48-week efficacy and safety of long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine maintenance every 8 weeks with daily oral standard of care antiretroviral therapy in participants with virologically suppressed HIV-1-infection.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety of long-acting cabotegravir (CAB) + rilpivirine (RPV) every 8 weeks (Q8W) versus daily oral standard of care (SoC) maintenance in treatment-experienced individuals with virologically suppressed human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) has not been directly compared in randomized clinical trials. This analysis aimed to indirectly compare these regimens. METHODS: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison of CAB + RPV Q8W with daily oral SoC was performed, using Phase 3 data from studies of CAB + RPV every 4 weeks (Q4W) vs SoC (ATLAS/FLAIR, n = 591 per group) and a Phase 3b trial of CAB + RPV Q8W vs Q4W (ATLAS-2M [excluding participants with prior CAB + RPV exposure]; n = 327 per group). Eligible participants were virologically suppressed (viral load < 50 HIV-1 ribonucleic acid (RNA) copies/mL), treatment-experienced individuals with HIV-1-infection. Treatment efficacy and safety assessments at Week 48 included virologic suppression and lack of virologic suppression (proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL or ≥ 50 copies/mL, respectively; both as per FDA snapshot algorithm), CD4-cell count change from baseline, no virologic data, discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs), and overall AEs, serious AEs and Grade 3-5 AEs excluding injection-site reactions. A subgroup analysis stratified by baseline third active drug class was performed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics between the Q4W arms of ATLAS/FLAIR and ATLAS-2M showed no significant differences or differences were not judged to be clinically relevant, apart from participants switching from a baseline third active drug class; more participants switched from integrase strand inhibitors in ATLAS/FLAIR, and from non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in ATLAS-2M. Injections of CAB + RPV Q8W showed no significant differences across efficacy and safety outcomes versus daily oral SoC. Univariate subgroup analysis found there were no significant differences on virologic suppression or lack of virologic suppression for any baseline third active drug class subgroup. These results suggest that CAB + RPV Q8W is non-inferior to daily oral SoC. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis supports the therapeutic potential of CAB + RPV Q8W for virologically suppressed people living with HIV-1 infection seeking an alternative maintenance treatment option to daily oral SoC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02938520, NCT02951052, NCT03299049.

Factors associated with interest in a long-acting HIV regimen: perspectives of people living with HIV and healthcare providers in four European countries.

OBJECTIVES: A novel long-acting regimen (LAR) of cabotegravir and rilpivirine for HIV treatment requires dosing every 2 months instead of daily. We assessed what proportion of people living with HIV and physicians would be interested in trying and offering LAR respectively and why. METHODS: 688 people living with HIV on treatment, and 120 HIV physicians completed web-based surveys in Germany, Italy, the UK and France during 2019. Balanced description of a hypothetical LAR regarding efficacy, administration and possible side effects were provided. The hypothetical long-acting injections were assumed to be cost-neutral to current daily oral antiretrovirals. Interest of people living with HIV in trying ('very'/'highly') and physicians' willingness to offer ('definitely'/'probably') this LAR in different situations, with perceived benefits/concerns was measured. RESULTS: Of people living with HIV, 65.8% were interested in trying LAR. The majority (~80%-90%) of those with unmet needs felt LAR would help, including those with strong medical needs (malabsorption and interfering gastrointestinal conditions), suboptimal adherence, confidentiality/privacy concerns and emotional burden of daily dosing. Of physicians, percentage willing to offer LAR varied situationally: strong medical need (dysphagia, 93.3%; malabsorption, 91.6%; interfering gastrointestinal issues, 90.0%; central nervous system disorders, 87.5%); suboptimal adherence (84.2%); confidentiality/privacy concerns (hiding medications, 86.6%) and convenience/lifestyle (84.2%). People living with HIV liked LAR for not having to carry pills when travelling (56.3%); physicians liked the increased patient contact (54.2%). Furthermore, 50.0% of people living with HIV perceived LAR would minimise transmission risk and improve their sexual health. The most disliked attribute was scheduling appointments (37.2%) and resource constraints (57.5%) for people living with HIV and physicians, respectively. Physicians estimated 25.7% of their patients would actually switch. CONCLUSION: Providers and people living with HIV viewed the described LAR as addressing several unmet needs. Alternative treatment routes and especially LAR may improve adherence and quality of life.

Cost-effectiveness of the long-acting regimen cabotegravir plus rilpivirine for the treatment of HIV-1 and its potential impact on adherence and viral transmission: A modelling study.

INTRODUCTION: Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) improves outcomes for people living with HIV (PLWH) but requires adherence to daily dosing. Suboptimal adherence results in reduced treatment effectiveness, increased costs, and greater risk of resistance and onwards transmission. Treatment with long-acting (LA), injection-based ART administered by healthcare professionals (directly observed therapy (DOT)) eliminates the need for adherence to daily dosing and may improve clinical outcomes. This study reports the cost-effectiveness of the cabotegravir plus rilpivirine LA regimen (CAB+RPV LA) and models the potential impact of LA DOT therapies. METHODS: Parameterisation was performed using pooled data from recent CAB+RPV LA Phase III trials. The analysis was conducted using a cohort-level hybrid decision-tree and state-transition model, with states defined by viral load and CD4 cell count. The efficacy of oral cART was adjusted to reflect adherence to daily regimens from published data. A Canadian health service perspective was adopted. RESULTS: CAB+RPV LA is predicted to be the dominant intervention when compared to oral cART, generating, per 1,000 patients treated, lifetime cost-savings of $1.5 million, QALY and life-year gains of 107 and 138 respectively with three new HIV cases averted. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations of LA DOTs need to account for the impact of adherence and HIV transmission. This study adds to the existing literature by incorporating transmission and using clinical data from the first LA DOT regimen. Providing PLWH and healthcare providers with novel modes of ART administration, enhancing individualisation of treatment, may facilitate the achievement of UNAIDS 95-95-95 objectives.

Dose-related and contextual aspects of suboptimal adherence to antiretroviral therapy among persons living with HIV in Western Europe.

BACKGROUND: The daily oral dosing requirement for antiretroviral therapy (ART) may be challenging for some people living with HIV (PLWHIV) with comorbid conditions, confidentiality concerns or pill fatigue. We investigated suboptimal adherence from the perspective of PLWHIV and HIV physicians. METHODS: PLWHIV on ART (n = 688) and HIV physicians (n = 120) were surveyed during 2019 in France, Germany, Italy and the UK. Suboptimal adherence was a report the participant missed taking their dose as prescribed 'Sometimes'/'Often'/'Very often'. Physicians' interest in offering a hypothetical long-acting HIV regimen for suboptimally adherent patients was assessed. Descriptive and multivariable analyses were performed (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Of PLWHIV, 23.8% (164/688) reported suboptimal adherence vs. providers' estimated prevalence of 33.6% (SD = 28.8). PLWHIV-reported prevalence of specific suboptimal adherence behaviors were: mistimed dose [16.1% (111/688)]; missed a dose [15.7% (108/688)]; dosed under wrong conditions [e.g. food restrictions, 10.5% (72/688)] and overdosed [3.3% (23/688)]. Odds of suboptimal adherence were higher among those with vs. without a report of the following: dysphagia (AOR = 3.61, 95% CI = 2.28-5.74), stress/anxiety because of their daily dosing schedule (AOR = 3.09, 95% CI = 1.97-4.85), gastrointestinal side effects (AOR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.39-3.15), neurocognitive/mental health conditions (AOR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.30-2.72) or hiding their HIV medication (AOR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.04-2.19). Of providers, 84.2% indicated they Definitely/Probably will offer a hypothetical long-acting HIV regimen 'for patients who have suboptimal levels of adherence to daily oral therapy (50-90%) for non-medical reasons'. CONCLUSIONS: Dysphagia, stressful daily oral dosing schedule, gastrointestinal side effects, neurocognitive/mental health conditions and confidentiality concerns were associated with suboptimal adherence in our study. Adherence support and alternative regimens, such as long-acting antiretroviral therapies, could help address these challenges.