Search

We review standard mediation assumptions as they apply to identifying antibody effects in a randomized vaccine trial and propose new study designs to allow the identification of an estimand that was previously unidentifiable. For these mediation analyses, we partition the total ratio effect (one minus the vaccine effect) from a randomized vaccine trial into indirect (effects through antibodies) and direct effects (other effects). Identifying λ\lambda , the proportion of the total effect due to an indirect effect, depends on a cross-world quantity, the potential outcome among vaccinated individuals with antibody levels as if given placebo, or vice versa. We review assumptions for identifying λ\lambda and show that there are two versions of λ\lambda , unless the effect of adding antibodies to the placebo arm is equal in magnitude to the effect of subtracting antibodies from the vaccine arm. We focus on the case when individuals in the placebo arm are unlikely to have the needed antibodies. In that case, if a standard assumption (given confounders the potential mediators and potential outcomes are independent) is true, only one version of λ\lambda is identifiable, and if not neither is identifiable. We propose alternatives for identifying the other version of λ\lambda , using experimental design to identify a formerly cross-world quantity. Two alternative experimental designs use a three-arm trial with the extra arm being passive immunization (administering monoclonal antibodies), with or without closeout vaccination. Another alternative is to combine information from a placebo-controlled vaccine trial with a placebo-controlled passive immunization trial.

Objective: To assess the effects of supplementation with oral potassium on blood pressure in humans.Design: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Data Sources: English-language articles published before July 1995.Study Selection: Thirty-three randomized controlled trials (2609 participants) in which potassium supplementation was the only difference between the intervention and control conditions.Data Extraction: Using a standardized protocol, 2 of us independently abstracted information on sample size, duration, study design, potassium dose, participant characteristics, and treatment results.Results: By means of a random-effects model, findings from individual trials were pooled, after results for each trial were weighted by the inverse of its variance. An extreme effect of potassium in lowering blood pressure was noted in 1 trial. After exclusion of this trial, potassium supplementation was associated with a significant reduction in mean (95% confidence interval) systolic and diastolic blood pressure of -3.11 mm Hg (-1.91 to -4.31 mm Hg) and -1.97 mm Hg (-0.52 to -3.42 mm Hg), respectively. Effects of treatment appeared to be enhanced in studies in which participants were concurrently exposed to a high intake of sodium.Conclusions: Our results support the premise that low potassium intake may play an important role in the genesis of high blood pressure. Increased potassium intake should be considered as a recommendation for prevention and treatment of hypertension, especially in those who are unable to reduce their intake of sodium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the effect of dietary calcium supplementation on blood pressure.Data Sources: Published reports of trials studying the effect of dietary calcium supplementation on blood pressure were identified by a search of previous reviews, a MEDLINE search, a manual review of journal articles, and a review of abstracts from scientific meetings.Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials in which dietary calcium intake varied by intervention group were selected. Multifactorial trials were not included.Data Synthesis: Data from 28 active treatment arms or strata from 22 randomized clinical trials were pooled using a weighted average method, with weights proportional to the inverse of the variance of the treatment effect. The total sample comprised 1231 persons. Because trials of both normotensive and hypertensive persons were included, subgroup analyses could be done. Pooled estimates of the effect of calcium supplementation on blood pressure were -0.18 mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -0.75 to 0.40 mm Hg) and -0.89 mm Hg for systolic blood pressure (CI, -1.74 to -0.05 mm Hg). Pooled estimates for systolic blood pressure were -0.53 mm Hg (CI, -1.56 to 0.49 mm Hg) for trials of normotensive persons and -1.68 mm Hg (CI, -3.18 to -0.18 mm Hg) for trials of hypertensive persons. Diastolic blood pressure was not significantly affected in either subgroup.Conclusion: The pooled estimate shows a statistically significant decrease of systolic blood pressure with calcium supplementation, both for hypertensive persons and for the overall sample. However, the effect is too small to support the use of calcium supplementation for preventing or treating hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Three randomized trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy vs medical treatment for the prevention of death in survivors of ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia have been reported with what might appear to be different results. The present analysis was performed to obtain the most precise estimate of the efficacy of the ICD, compared to amiodarone, for prolonging survival in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmia.Methods and Results Individual patient data from the Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator (AVID) study, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH) and the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) were merged into a master database according to a pre-specified protocol. Proportional hazard modelling of individual patient data was used to estimate hazard ratios and to investigate subgroup interactions. Fixed effect meta-analysis techniques were also used to evaluate treatment effects and to assess heterogeneity across studies. The classic fixed effects meta-analysis showed that the estimates of ICD benefit from the three studies were consistent with each other (P heterogeneity=0·306). It also showed a significant reduction in death from any cause with the ICD; with a summary hazard ratio (ICD:amiodarone) of 0·72 (95% confidence interval 0·60, 0·87;P=0·0006). For the outcome of arrhythmic death, the hazard ratio was 0·50 (95% confidence interval 0·37, 0·67;P<0·0001). Survival was extended by a mean of 4·4 months by the ICD over a follow-up period of 6 years. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% derived significantly more benefit from ICD therapy than those with better preserved left ventricular function. Patients treated before the availability of non-thoracotomy ICD implants derived significantly less benefit from ICD therapy than those treated in the non-thoracotomy era.Conclusion Results from the three trials of the ICD vs amiodarone are consistent with each other. There is a 28% reduction in the relative risk of death with the ICD that is due almost entirely to a 50% reduction in arrhythmic death. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article presents a study on the safety and efficacy of vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease (EVD) in Liberia. Information is provided on the chimpanzee adeno-virus 3 vaccine (ChAd3-EBO-Z) and recombinant vesicular stomatitis vaccine (rVSVAG-ZEBOV-GP) vaccines. Particular attention is given to the challenges of conducting medical research during an outbreak.

Objectives: This was a retrospective analysis to determine the effect of diabetes on outcome in patients with advanced heart failure (HF), and to determine the effect of beta-blockade in patients with HF with and without diabetes mellitus.Background: In chronic HF the impact on clinical outcomes and therapeutic response of the prevalent comorbid condition diabetes mellitus has not been extensively investigated.Methods: We assessed the impact of diabetes on prognosis and effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy with bucindolol in patients with HF enrolled in the Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST). We conducted a retrospective analysis to examine the prognosis of patients with advanced HF with and without diabetes, and the effect of beta-blocker therapy on mortality and HF progression or myocardial infarction (MI). The database was the 2,708 patients with advanced HF (36% with diabetes and 64% without diabetes) who were randomized to the beta-blocker bucindolol or placebo in BEST and followed for mortality, hospitalization, and MI for an average of two years.Results: Patients with diabetes had more severe chronic HF and more coronary risk factors than patients without diabetes. Diabetes was independently associated with increased mortality in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.58, p = 0.001), but not in those with a nonischemic etiology (adjusted hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.30, p = 0.89). Compared with patients without diabetes, in diabetic patients beta-blocker therapy was at least as effective in reducing death or HF hospitalizations, total hospitalizations, HF hospitalizations, and MI. Ventricular function and physiologic responses to beta-blockade were similar in patients with and without diabetes.Conclusions: Diabetes worsens prognosis in patients with advanced HF, but this worsening appears to be limited to patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. In advanced HF beta-blockade is effective in reducing major clinical end points in patients with and without diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For COVAIL recipients of a COVID-19 Sanofi booster vaccine, neutralizing antibody titers were assessed as a correlate of risk (CoR) of COVID-19. Peak and exposure-proximal titers were inverse CoRs with covariate-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) 0.30 (0.11, 0.78) and 0.25 (0.07, 0.85) per 10-fold increase in weighted average titer., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In the phase 3 Coronavirus Efficacy (COVE) trial (NCT04470427), post-dose two Ancestral Spike-specific binding (bAb) and neutralizing (nAb) antibodies were shown to be correlates of risk (CoR) and of protection against Ancestral-lineage COVID-19 in SARS-CoV-2 naive participants. In the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron era, Omicron subvariants with varying degrees of immune escape now dominate, seropositivity rates are high, and booster doses are administered, raising questions on whether and how these developments affect the bAb and nAb correlates. To address these questions, we assess post-boost BA.1 Spike-specific bAbs and nAbs as CoRs and as correlates of booster efficacy in COVE. For naive individuals, bAbs and nAbs inversely correlate with Omicron COVID-19: hazard ratios (HR) per 10-fold marker increase (95% confidence interval) are 0.16 (0.03, 0.79) and 0.31 (0.10, 0.96), respectively. In non-naive individuals the analogous results are similar: 0.15 (0.04, 0.63) and 0.28 (0.07, 1.08). For naive individuals, three vs two-dose booster efficacy correlates with predicted nAb titer at exposure, with estimates -8% (-126%, 48%), 50% (25%, 67%), and 74% (49%, 87%), at 56, 251, and 891 Arbitrary Units/ml. These results support the continued use of antibody as a surrogate endpoint., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Primary vaccination with mRNA-1273 (100-µg) was safe and efficacious at preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the previously reported, blinded Part A of the phase 3 Coronavirus Efficacy (COVE; NCT04470427) trial in adults (≥18 years) across 99 U.S. sites. The open-label (Parts B and C) primary objectives were evaluation of long-term safety and effectiveness of primary vaccination plus a 50-µg booster dose; immunogenicity was a secondary objective. Of 29,035 open-label participants, 19,609 received boosters (mRNA-1273 [n = 9647]; placebo-mRNA-1273 [n = 9952]; placebo [n = 10] groups). Booster safety was consistent with that reported for primary vaccination. Incidences of COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 were higher during the Omicron BA.1 than Delta variant waves and boosting versus non-boosting was associated with a significant, 47.0% (95% CI : 39.0-53.9%) reduction of Omicron BA.1 incidence (24.6 [23.4 - 25.8] vs 46.4 [40.6 - 52.7]/1000 person-months). In an exploratory Cox regression model adjusted for time-varying covariates, a longer median interval between primary vaccination and boosting (mRNA-1273 [13 months] vs placebo-mRNA-1273 [8 months]) was associated with significantly lower, COVID-19 risk (24.0% [16.0% - 32.0%]) during Omicron BA.1 predominance. Boosting elicited greater immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 than primary vaccination, irrespective of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary vaccination and boosting with mRNA-1273 demonstrated acceptable safety, effectiveness and immunogenicity against COVID-19, including emergent variants., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Immune response decays over time, and vaccine-induced protection often wanes. Understanding how vaccine efficacy changes over time is critical to guiding the development and application of vaccines in preventing infectious diseases. The objective of this article is to develop statistical methods that assess the effect of decaying immune responses on the risk of disease and on vaccine efficacy, within the context of Cox regression with sparse sampling of immune responses, in a baseline-naive population. We aim to further disentangle the various aspects of the time-varying vaccine effect, whether direct on disease or mediated through immune responses. Based on time-to-event data from a vaccine efficacy trial and sparse sampling of longitudinal immune responses, we propose a weighted estimated induced likelihood approach that models the longitudinal immune response trajectory and the time to event separately. This approach assesses the effects of the decaying immune response, the peak immune response, and/or the waning vaccine effect on the risk of disease. The proposed method is applicable not only to standard randomized trial designs but also to augmented vaccine trial designs that re-vaccinate uninfected placebo recipients at the end of the standard trial period. We conducted simulation studies to evaluate the performance of our method and applied the method to analyze immune correlates from a phase III SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trial., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. [br]For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Protein-based vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide a traditional vaccine platform with long-lasting protection for non-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pathogens and may complement messenger RNA vaccines as a booster dose. While NVX-CoV2373 showed substantial early efficacy, the durability of protection has not been delineated., Methods: The PREVENT-19 vaccine trial used a blinded crossover design; the original placebo arm received NVX-CoV2373 after efficacy was established. Using novel statistical methods that integrate surveillance data of circulating strains with post-crossover cases, we estimated placebo-controlled vaccine efficacy and durability of NVX-CoV2373 against both pre-Delta and Delta strains of SARS-CoV-2., Results: Vaccine efficacy against pre-Delta strains of COVID-19 was 89% (95% CI, 75-95%) and 87% (72-94%) at 0 and 90 days after 2 doses of NVX-CoV2373, respectively, with no evidence of waning (P = .93). Vaccine efficacy against the Delta strain was 88% (71-95%), 82% (56-92%), and 77% (44-90%) at 40, 120, and 180 days, respectively, with evidence of waning (P < .01). In sensitivity analyses, the estimated Delta vaccine efficacy at 120 days ranged from 66% (15-86%) to 89% (74-95%) per various assumptions of the surveillance data., Conclusions: NVX-CoV2373 has high initial efficacy against pre-Delta and Delta strains of COVID-19 with little evidence of waning for pre-Delta strains through 90 days and moderate waning against Delta strains over 180 days., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. M. P. F. reports support for meetings and/or travel from NIAID. A. M. received funds from the National Cancer Institute. C. A. M. received funds to their institution from the National Institutes of Health Coronavirus Prevention Network. Y. H., H. A., and K. K. received funds to their institution from NIAID. Y. H. received funds to their institution from the World Health Organization. K. K. also received funds to their institution for Novavax: A 2-Part Phase 2/3 Open-Label Study to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of a XBB.1.5 (Omicron Subvariant) SARS-CoV-2 rS Vaccine Booster Dose in Previously mRNA COVID-19 Vaccinated and Baseline SARS-CoV-2 Seropositive COVID-19 Vaccine Naïve Participants and has leadership as the National Co-Chair Novavax Phase 3 Trials of NIAID. L. M. D., W. W., and I. C. are employees and stockholders of Novavax, Inc. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2024.)

A central goal of vaccine research is to characterize and validate immune correlates of protection (CoPs). In addition to helping elucidate immunological mechanisms, a CoP can serve as a valid surrogate endpoint for an infectious disease clinical outcome and thus qualifies as a primary endpoint for vaccine authorization or approval without requiring resource-intensive randomized, controlled phase 3 trials. Yet, it is challenging to persuasively validate a CoP, because a prognostic immune marker can fail as a reliable basis for predicting/inferring the level of vaccine efficacy against a clinical outcome, and because the statistical analysis of phase 3 trials only has limited capacity to disentangle association from cause. Moreover, the multitude of statistical methods garnered for CoP evaluation in phase 3 trials renders the comparison, interpretation, and synthesis of CoP results challenging. Toward promoting broader harmonization and standardization of CoP evaluation, this article summarizes four complementary statistical frameworks for evaluating CoPs in a phase 3 trial, focusing on the frameworks' distinct scientific objectives as measured and communicated by distinct causal vaccine efficacy parameters. Advantages and disadvantages of the frameworks are considered, dependent on phase 3 trial context, and perspectives are offered on how the frameworks can be applied and their results synthesized., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In the ENSEMBLE randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (NCT04505722), estimated single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine efficacy (VE) was 56% against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 Spike sequences were determined from 484 vaccine and 1,067 placebo recipients who acquired COVID-19. In this set of prespecified analyses, we show that in Latin America, VE was significantly lower against Lambda vs. Reference and against Lambda vs. non-Lambda [family-wise error rate (FWER) p < 0.05]. VE differed by residue match vs. mismatch to the vaccine-insert at 16 amino acid positions (4 FWER p < 0.05; 12 q-value ≤ 0.20); significantly decreased with physicochemical-weighted Hamming distance to the vaccine-strain sequence for Spike, receptor-binding domain, N-terminal domain, and S1 (FWER p < 0.001); differed (FWER ≤ 0.05) by distance to the vaccine strain measured by 9 antibody-epitope escape scores and 4 NTD neutralization-impacting features; and decreased (p = 0.011) with neutralization resistance level to vaccinee sera. VE against severe-critical COVID-19 was stable across most sequence features but lower against the most distant viruses., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Stochastic interventional vaccine efficacy (SVE) analysis is a new approach to correlate of protection (CoP) analysis of a phase III trial that estimates how vaccine efficacy (VE) would change under hypothetical shifts of an immune marker., Methods: We applied nonparametric SVE methodology to the COVE trial of messenger RNA-1273 vs placebo to evaluate post-dose 2 pseudovirus neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer against the D614G strain as a CoP against COVID-19. Secondly, we evaluated the ability of these results to predict VE against variants based on shifts of geometric mean titers to variants vs D614G. Prediction accuracy was evaluated by 13 validation studies, including 12 test-negative designs., Results: SVE analysis of COVE supported post-dose 2 D614G titer as a CoP: estimated VE ranged from 66.9% (95% confidence interval: 36.2, 82.8%) to 99.3% (99.1, 99.4%) at 10-fold decreased or increased titer shifts, respectively. The SVE estimates only weakly predicted variant-specific VE estimates (concordance correlation coefficient 0.062 for post 2-dose VE)., Conclusion: SVE analysis of COVE supports nAb titer as a CoP for messenger RNA vaccines. Predicting variant-specific VE proved difficult due to many limitations. Greater anti-Omicron titers may be needed for high-level protection against Omicron vs anti-D614G titers needed for high-level protection against pre-Omicron COVID-19., Competing Interests: Declarations of competing interest WD, HZ, and BL are employed by Moderna, Inc. and have stock and/or stock options in Moderna, Inc. DCM's laboratory receives funding from Moderna, Inc. to perform neutralizing antibody assays on serum samples from their clinical studies of COVID-19 vaccines., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

When multiple mediators are present, there are additional effects that may be of interest beyond the well-known natural (NDE) and controlled direct effects (CDE). These effects cross the type of control on the mediators, setting one to a constant level and one to its natural level, which differs across subjects. We introduce five such estimands for the cross-CDE and -NDE when two mediators are measured. We consider both the scenario where one mediator is influenced by the other, referred to as sequential mediators, and the scenario where the mediators do not influence each other. Such estimands may be of interest in immunology, as we discuss in relation to measured immunological responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We provide identifying expressions for the estimands in observational settings where there is no residual confounding, and where intervention, outcome, and mediators are of arbitrary type. We further provide tight symbolic bounds for the estimands in randomized settings where there may be residual confounding of the outcome and mediator relationship and all measured variables are binary., (© The Author 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

BACKGROUNDWarts, hypogammaglobulinemia, infections, and myelokathexis (WHIM) syndrome is a primary immunodeficiency disorder caused by heterozygous gain-of-function CXCR4 mutations. Myelokathexis is a kind of neutropenia caused by neutrophil retention in bone marrow and in WHIM syndrome is associated with lymphopenia and monocytopenia. The CXCR4 antagonist plerixafor mobilizes leukocytes to the blood; however, its safety and efficacy in WHIM syndrome are undefined.METHODSIn this investigator-initiated, single-center, quadruple-masked phase III crossover trial, we compared the total infection severity score (TISS) as the primary endpoint in an intent-to-treat manner in 19 patients with WHIM who each received 12 months treatment with plerixafor and 12 months treatment with granulocyte CSF (G-CSF, the standard of care for severe congenital neutropenia). The treatment order was randomized for each patient.RESULTSPlerixafor was nonsuperior to G-CSF for TISS (P = 0.54). In exploratory endpoints, plerixafor was noninferior to G-CSF for maintaining neutrophil counts of more than 500 cells/μL (P = 0.023) and was superior to G-CSF for maintaining lymphocyte counts above 1,000 cells/μL (P < 0.0001). Complete regression of a subset of large wart areas occurred on plerixafor in 5 of 7 patients with major wart burdens at baseline. Transient rash occurred on plerixafor, and bone pain was more common on G-CSF. There were no significant differences in drug preference or quality of life or the incidence of drug failure or serious adverse events.CONCLUSIONPlerixafor was not superior to G-CSF in patients with WHIM for TISS, the primary endpoint. Together with wart regression and hematologic improvement, the infection severity results support continued study of plerixafor as a potential treatment for WHIM syndrome.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicaltrials.gov NCT02231879.FUNDINGThis study was funded by the Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection., Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7-15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures., Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05-0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01-0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease., Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection., Funding: National Institutes of Health., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests YiH, CY, TCSM, RMM, HMES, BG, GEG, PBG, JGK, LC, and DF declare no conflicts of interest. AMR declares unrelated grants or contracts from NIAID, I4kids, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine, Beckwith Clinical Innovation Award, CTSI COVID-19 Pilot Award; unrelated consulting fees from Pfizer; unrelated support for attending meetings/travel from IDweek (2023); and an unrelated unpaid leadership role as the medical director of Human Milk Science Institute and Biobank. MBL declares unrelated grants or contracts from NIH VTEU paid to their institution. CaAR declares unrelated grants or contracts paid to their institution from Novavax and Moderna. ChAR declares unrelated grants or contracts paid to their institution from BioFire, Inc, GSK, Merck, Micron, MedImmune, Novavax, PaxVax, Regeneron, Pfizer, Sanofi-Pasteur, Janssen, Moderna, NIH, and CDC; unrelated royalties or licenses from Meissa Vaccines, Inc; and unrelated patent interests for “RSV Live-Attenuated Vaccine Candidates with Deleted G-Protein Mucin Domains” and “Chimeric RSV, Immunogenic, Compositions, and Methods of Use”. LRB declares unrelated grants or contracts paid to their institution from NIH/Harvard Medical School and Wellcome Trust/Gates Foundation; unrelated participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for NIAID and FDA; and unrelated involvement in HIV and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine clinical trials conducted in collaboration with the NIH, HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN), Covid Vaccine Prevention Network (CoVPN), International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), Crucell/Janssen, Moderna, Military HIV Research Program (MHRP), the Gates Foundation, and Harvard Medical School. CLG declares unrelated grants or contracts paid to their institution from NIH. HEJ declares unrelated grants or contracts paid to their institution from NIH; and unrelated participation in multiple NIH-convened DSMBs. YuH declares unrelated grants or contracts paid to their institution from WHO and unrelated participation (with payment) on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for WHV. BL is an employee of Moderna, Inc. IH is an employee of AstraZeneca and declares unrelated stock options held in AstraZeneca. FS is an employee of Janssen and declares unrelated stock received as compensation for past employment with GlaxoSmithKline. LMD is an employee of Novavax, Inc. KMN declares unrelated grants or contracts from Pfizer (no salary support) and NIH. PAG declares unrelated grants or contracts from NIH and patent interests for “Human monoclonal antibodies to SARS-COV-2 and use thereof”. SRW declares unrelated grants or contracts from Sanofi Pasteur, Moderna, Vir Biotechnology, Worcester HIV Vaccine, Pfizer, and Janssen Vaccines/Johnson & Johnson paid to their institution; unrelated support for attending meetings and/or travel from Sasnofi Pasteur; unrelated participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Janssen Vaccines/Johnson & Johnson; and that their spouse is an employee that holds stock/stock options at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. KLK declares unrelated grants or contracts from NIAID. The CoVPN was funded by the NIH., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The COVE trial randomized participants to receive two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine or placebo on Days 1 and 29 (D1, D29). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG binding antibodies (bAbs), anti-receptor binding domain IgG bAbs, 50% inhibitory dilution neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers, and 80% inhibitory dilution nAb titers were measured at D29 and D57. We assessed these markers as correlates of protection (CoPs) against COVID-19 using stochastic interventional vaccine efficacy (SVE) analysis and principal surrogate (PS) analysis, frameworks not used in our previous COVE immune correlates analyses. By SVE analysis, hypothetical shifts of the D57 Spike IgG distribution from a geometric mean concentration (GMC) of 2737 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL (estimated vaccine efficacy (VE): 92.9% (95% CI: 91.7%, 93.9%)) to 274 BAU/mL or to 27,368 BAU/mL resulted in an overall estimated VE of 84.2% (79.0%, 88.1%) and 97.6% (97.4%, 97.7%), respectively. By binary marker PS analysis of Low and High subgroups (cut-point: 2094 BAU/mL), the ignorance interval (IGI) and estimated uncertainty interval (EUI) for VE were [85%, 90%] and (78%, 93%) for Low compared to [95%, 96%] and (92%, 97%) for High. By continuous marker PS analysis, the IGI and 95% EUI for VE at the 2.5th percentile (519.4 BAU/mL) vs. at the 97.5th percentile (9262.9 BAU/mL) of D57 Spike IgG concentration were [92.6%, 93.4%] and (89.2%, 95.7%) vs. [94.3%, 94.6%] and (89.7%, 97.0%). Results were similar for other D29 and D57 markers. Thus, the SVE and PS analyses additionally support all four markers at both time points as CoPs.

Questions remain regarding the effect of baseline host and exposure factors on vaccine efficacy (VE) across pathogens and vaccine platforms. We report placebo-controlled data from four Phase 3 COVID-19 trials during the early period of the pandemic. This was a cross-protocol analysis of four randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy trials (Moderna/mRNA1273, AstraZeneca/AZD1222, Janssen/Ad26.COV2.S, and Novavax/NVX-CoV2373) using a harmonized design. Trials were conducted in the United States and international sites in adults ≥ 18 years of age. VE was assessed for symptomatic and severe COVID-19. We analyzed 114,480 participants from both placebo and vaccine arms, enrolled July 2020 to February 2021, with follow up through July 2021. VE against symptomatic COVID-19 showed little heterogeneity across baseline socio-demographic, clinical or exposure characteristics, in either univariate or multivariate analysis, regardless of vaccine platform. Similarly, VE against severe COVID-19 in the single trial (Janssen) with sufficient endpoints for analysis showed little evidence of heterogeneity. COVID-19 VE is not influenced by baseline host or exposure characteristics across efficacy trials of different vaccine platforms and countries when well matched to circulating virus strains. This supports use of these vaccines, regardless of platform type, as effective tools in the near term for reducing symptomatic and severe COVID-19, particularly for older individuals and those with common co-morbidities during major variant shifts. Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT04470427, NCT04516746, NCT04505722, and NCT04611802., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Brett Leav reports a relationship with Moderna Inc that includes: employment. Jacqueline Miller reports a relationship with Moderna Inc that includes: employment. Kathryn Shoemaker reports a relationship with AstraZeneca R&D Gaithersburg that includes: employment and equity or stocks. An Vandenbosch reports a relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc that includes: employment. Jerald Sadoff reports a relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc that includes: employment. Wayne Woo reports a relationship with Novavax Inc that includes: employment. Iksung Cho reports a relationship with Novavax Inc that includes: employment. Lisa M. Dunkle reports a relationship with Novavax Inc that includes: employment. Peter Gilbert reports a relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Hana M. El Sahly reports a relationship with Gilead Sciences Inc that includes: funding grants. Hana M. El Sahly reports a relationship with Janssen Global Services LLC that includes: funding grants. Hana M. El Sahly reports a relationship with Merck & Co Inc that includes: funding grants. Hana M. El Sahly reports a relationship with Sanofi Pasteur Inc that includes: funding grants. Kathleen M. Neuzil reports a relationship with Pfizer Inc that includes: funding grants. Ann R. Falsey reports a relationship with Biofire Diagnostics Inc that includes: funding grants. Ann R. Falsey reports a relationship with Janssen Biotech Inc that includes: funding grants. Ann R. Falsey reports a relationship with Merck & Co Inc that includes: funding grants. Ann R. Falsey reports a relationship with Pfizer Inc that includes: funding grants. Ann R. Falsey reports a relationship with Novavax Inc that includes: consulting or advisory., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Current data identifying COVID-19 risk factors lack standardized outcomes and insufficiently control for confounders., Objective: To identify risk factors associated with COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 infection., Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary cross-protocol analysis included 4 multicenter, international, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with harmonized protocols established by the COVID-19 Prevention Network. Individual-level data from participants randomized to receive placebo within each trial were combined and analyzed. Enrollment began July 2020 and the last data cutoff was in July 2021. Participants included adults in stable health, at risk for SARS-CoV-2, and assigned to the placebo group within each vaccine trial. Data were analyzed from April 2022 to February 2023., Exposures: Comorbid conditions, demographic factors, and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk at the time of enrollment., Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. Multivariate Cox proportional regression models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs for baseline covariates, accounting for trial, region, and calendar time. Secondary outcomes included severe COVID-19 among people with COVID-19, subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 infection., Results: A total of 57 692 participants (median [range] age, 51 [18-95] years; 11 720 participants [20.3%] aged ≥65 years; 31 058 participants [53.8%] assigned male at birth) were included. The analysis population included 3270 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (5.7%), 7849 Black or African American participants (13.6%), 17 678 Hispanic or Latino participants (30.6%), and 40 745 White participants (70.6%). Annualized incidence was 13.9% (95% CI, 13.3%-14.4%) for COVID-19 and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%) for severe COVID-19. Factors associated with increased rates of COVID-19 included workplace exposure (high vs low: aHR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.58]; medium vs low: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.65]; P < .001) and living condition risk (very high vs low risk: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.66]; medium vs low risk: aHR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.32]; P < .001). Factors associated with decreased rates of COVID-19 included previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.09-0.19]; P < .001), age 65 years or older (aHR vs age <65 years, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.50-0.64]; P < .001) and Black or African American race (aHR vs White race, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.91]; P = .002). Factors associated with increased rates of severe COVID-19 included race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 2.61 [95% CI, 1.85-3.69]; multiracial vs White: aHR, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.50-3.20]; P < .001), diabetes (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-2.08]; P = .005) and at least 2 comorbidities (aHR vs none, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.76]; P = .008). In analyses restricted to participants who contracted COVID-19, increased severe COVID-19 rates were associated with age 65 years or older (aHR vs <65 years, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.32-2.31]; P < .001), race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.38-2.83]; Black or African American vs White: aHR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.03-2.14]; multiracial: aHR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.21-2.69]; overall P = .001), body mass index (aHR per 1-unit increase, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.04]; P = .001), and diabetes (aHR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.37-2.49]; P < .001). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with decreased severe COVID-19 rates (aHR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.01-0.14]; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary cross-protocol analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials, exposure and demographic factors had the strongest associations with outcomes; results could inform mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 and viruses with comparable epidemiological characteristics.

While new vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are authorized based on neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer against emerging variants of concern, an analogous pathway does not exist for preventative monoclonal antibodies. In this work, nAb titers were assessed as correlates of protection against COVID-19 in the casirivimab + imdevimab monoclonal antibody (mAb) prevention trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT4452318) and in the mRNA-1273 vaccine trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT04470427). In the mAb trial, protective efficacy of 92% (95% confidence interval (CI): 84%, 98%) is associated with a nAb titer of 1000 IU50/ml, with lower efficacy at lower nAb titers. In the vaccine trial, protective efficacies of 93% [95% CI: 91%, 95%] and 97% (95% CI: 95%, 98%) are associated with nAb titers of 100 and 1000 IU50/ml, respectively. These data quantitate a nAb titer correlate of protection for mAbs benchmarked alongside vaccine induced nAb titers and support nAb titer as a surrogate endpoint for authorizing new mAbs., (© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: The optimal duration for antibiotics in patients hospitalized with culture-negative serious infection (CNSI) is unknown. We compared outcomes in patients with CNSI treated with 3 or 4 vs ≥5 days of antibiotics., Methods: CNSI was identified among adults admitted to 111 US hospitals between 2009 and 2014 via electronic health record data, defined as suspected serious infection (blood cultures drawn and ≥3 days of antibiotics) and negative culture- and nonculture-based tests for infection. Patients treated with antibiotics on their last hospital day and patients with diagnosis codes for sepsis-mimicking conditions were excluded. Among patients without fevers/hypothermia or vasopressors by day 3, we calculated odds ratios for in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice associated with 3 or 4 vs ≥5 days of antibiotics, adjusting for confounders., Results: Antibiotics were discontinued in 3 or 4 days in 1862 (9%) of 20 714 patients with CNSI. Early discontinuation was not associated with higher mortality odds overall (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% CI, .98-1.65), in patients presenting with (1.39; .88-2.22) and without sepsis (1.17; .81-1.69), and in those with pulmonary (1.23; .65-2.34) and nonpulmonary CNSI (1.30; .99-1.72). Early discontinuation appeared detrimental with propensity score weighting (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.03-1.80) and when retaining patients with sepsis mimics (1.38; 1.16-1.65), but it was protective (0.48; .37-.64]) when retaining patients who received antibiotics on their last hospital day., Conclusions: Early discontinuation of antibiotics in CNSI was not associated with significant harm in our primary analysis, but different conclusions based on alternative analytic decisions, as well as risk of residual confounding, indicate that randomized controlled trials are needed., Competing Interests: Potential conflict of interest: Dr. MK has received grant funding from CDC and AHRQ and royalties from UpToDate Inc. for authoring chapters. Dr. CR receives royalties from UpToDate, Inc. for authoring chapters and payments from IDSA for role as associate editor for Clinical Infectious Diseases. Other authors report no conflicts of interest., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2023.)

The best assay or marker to define mRNA-1273 vaccine-induced antibodies as a correlate of protection (CoP) is unclear. In the COVE trial, participants received two doses of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine or placebo. We previously assessed IgG binding antibodies to the spike protein (spike IgG) or receptor binding domain (RBD IgG) and pseudovirus neutralizing antibody 50 or 80% inhibitory dilution titer measured on day 29 or day 57, as correlates of risk (CoRs) and CoPs against symptomatic COVID-19 over 4 months after dose. Here, we assessed a new marker, live virus 50% microneutralization titer (LV-MN 50 ), and compared and combined markers in multivariable analyses. LV-MN 50 was an inverse CoR, with a hazard ratio of 0.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.19 to 0.83) at day 29 and 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 1.04) at day 57 per 10-fold increase. In multivariable analyses, pseudovirus neutralization titers and anti-spike binding antibodies performed best as CoRs; combining antibody markers did not improve correlates. Pseudovirus neutralization titer was the strongest independent correlate in a multivariable model. Overall, these results supported pseudovirus neutralizing and binding antibody assays as CoRs and CoPs, with the live virus assay as a weaker correlate in this sample set. Day 29 markers performed as well as day 57 markers as CoPs, which could accelerate immunogenicity and immunobridging studies.