Search

What is this summary about? This is a summary of an article about part of a clinical study for the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine, also called the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The article was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 2021. This summary describes how the vaccine worked in participants 12- to 15-years old. The part of the study described in the article is ongoing and expected to finish March 2023. This means that the final results may be different from the results included in this summary. What happened in this study? The part of the study described in this summary included participants 12- to 15-years old who had no serious health issues. The BNT162b2 vaccine had already been studied in participants 16 years of age or older. In this part of the study, the researchers wanted to find out: How effective and safe the vaccine was in participants 12- to 15-years old. What the immune response to the vaccine and the vaccine safety were like in 12- to 15-year-olds compared with 16- to 25-year-olds. How well the vaccine prevented SARS-CoV-2 infections in participants who received the vaccine compared to those who did not. This is also called efficacy of the BNT162b2 vaccine Half of the participants in this study received 2 injections of the BNT162b2 vaccine and half received 2 injections of a placebo in a muscle of the upper arm. The placebo looked like the BNT162b2 vaccine but did not have any active vaccine in it. What were the results? BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile. The most common reactions were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. None of the participants had serious reactions to the vaccine. The 12- to 15-year-old participants' immune system responses to the BNT162b2 vaccine were as good as or stronger than the 16- to 25-year-old participants' immune responses. The participants who received the BNT162b2 vaccine were less likely to get COVID-19 compared with the participants who got the placebo. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04368728 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )

What is this summary about? This is a summary of an article about part of a clinical study for the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine, also called the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The article was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September 2021. The part of the study described in the article began in July 2020 and is ongoing. This means that the final results may be different from the results included in this summary. What happened in this study? The participants in this study received 2 injections of either the BNT162b2 vaccine or a placebo, 21 days apart. The placebo looked like the BNT162b2 vaccine but had no active vaccine in it. None of the trial participants or study teams knew who received vaccine or placebo. What were the results? Most of the reactions to the injections were mild or moderate and lasted for a short period of time. The most common reactions were pain at the injection site, extreme tiredness (fatigue), and headache. These reactions usually happened in the first 7 days after receiving a vaccine dose. A small number of participants had severe reactions to the vaccine. Compared to participants who received the placebo, participants who received the BNT162b2 vaccine were much less likely to become ill if they were infected with the virus that causes COVID-19. The vaccine also had very good efficacy at preventing severe COVID-19. Participants in South Africa who received the BNT162b2 vaccine were less likely to become ill after infection with the beta variant of the virus compared to participants who received the placebo. The beta variant was very common in South Africa when the study was taking place. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04368728 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )

Introduction Individuals with an underlying malignancy have high risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes. In clinical trials, COVID-19 vaccines were safe and efficacious against infection, hospitalization, and death, but most trials excluded participants with cancer. We report results from participants with a history of past or active neoplasm (malignant or benign/unknown) and up to 6 months’ follow-up post-dose 2 from the placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial of the 2-dose BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Patients and methods Between July 2020–January 2021, 46,429 participants aged ≥12 years were randomized at 152 sites in 6 countries. Healthy participants with pre-existing stable neoplasm could participate; those receiving immunosuppressive therapy were excluded. Data are reported for participants, aged ≥16 years for safety and ≥12 years for efficacy, who had any history of neoplasm at baseline (data cut-off: March 13, 2021). Adverse-event (AE) data are controlled for follow-up time before unblinding and reported as incidence rates (IRs) per 100 person-years follow-up. Results At baseline, 3813 participants had a history of neoplasm; most common malignancies were breast (n = 460), prostate (n = 362), and melanoma (n = 223). Four BNT162b2 and 71 placebo recipients developed COVID-19 from 7 days post-dose 2; vaccine efficacy was 94.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 98.5) after up to 6 months’ follow-up post-dose 2. This compares favorably with vaccine efficacy of 91.1% in the overall trial population after the same follow-up. AEs were reported at IRs of 95.4 (BNT162b2) and 48.3 (placebo) per 100 person-years. Most common AEs were reactogenicity events (injection-site pain, fatigue, pyrexia). Three BNT162b2 and 1 placebo recipients withdrew because of vaccine-related AEs. No vaccine-related deaths were reported. Conclusion In participants with past or active neoplasms, BNT162b2 vaccine has a similar efficacy and safety profile as in the overall trial population. These results can inform BNT162b2 use during the COVID-19 pandemic and future trials in participants with cancer. Clinical trial number: NCT04368728

Background BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and is currently approved, conditionally approved, or authorized for emergency use worldwide. At the time of initial authorization, data beyond 2 months after vaccination were unavailable. Methods In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned 44,165 participants 16 years of age or older and 2264 participants 12 to 15 years of age to receive two 30-μg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 or placebo. The trial end points were vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety, which were both evaluated through 6 months after vaccination. Results BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile. Few participants had adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.0 to 93.2) through 6 months of follow-up among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated. There was a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy. Vaccine efficacy of 86 to 100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse ages, sexes, race or ethnic groups, and risk factors for Covid-19 among participants without evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine efficacy against severe disease was 96.7% (95% CI, 80.3 to 99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.351 (or beta) was predominant, a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI, 53.5 to 100) was observed. Conclusions Through 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)

Active immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) has been a critical mitigation tool against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In light of reports of waning protection occurring 6 months after the primary two-dose vaccine series, data are needed on the safety and efficacy of offering a third (booster) dose in persons 16 years of age or older.In this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned participants who had received two 30-μg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least 6 months earlier to be injected with a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine or with placebo. We assessed vaccine safety and efficacy against Covid-19 starting 7 days after the third dose.A total of 5081 participants received a third BNT162b2 dose and 5044 received placebo. The median interval between dose 2 and dose 3 was 10.8 months in the vaccine group and 10.7 months in the placebo group; the median follow-up was 2.5 months. Local and systemic reactogenicity events from the third dose were generally of low grade. No new safety signals were identified, and no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported. Among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated, Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after dose 3 was observed in 6 participants in the vaccine group and in 123 participants in the placebo group, which corresponded to a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.3% (95% confidence interval, 89.5 to 98.3).A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered a median of 10.8 months after the second dose provided 95.3% efficacy against Covid-19 as compared with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine during a median follow-up of 2.5 months. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591031 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.).

In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)1, a pandemic. With rapidly accumulating numbers of cases and deaths reported globally2, a vaccine is urgently needed. Here we report the available safety, tolerability and immunogenicity data from an ongoing placebo-controlled, observer-blinded dose-escalation study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04368728) among 45 healthy adults (18–55 years of age), who were randomized to receive 2 doses—separated by 21 days—of 10 μg, 30 μg or 100 μg of BNT162b1. BNT162b1 is a lipid-nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine that encodes the trimerized receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2. Local reactions and systemic events were dose-dependent, generally mild to moderate, and transient. A second vaccination with 100 μg was not administered because of the increased reactogenicity and a lack of meaningfully increased immunogenicity after a single dose compared with the 30-μg dose. RBD-binding IgG concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titres in sera increased with dose level and after a second dose. Geometric mean neutralizing titres reached 1.9–4.6-fold that of a panel of COVID-19 convalescent human sera, which were obtained at least 14 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR. These results support further evaluation of this mRNA vaccine candidate. In a dose-escalation study of the COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in 45 healthy adults, RBD-binding IgG concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titres in sera increased with dose level and after a second vaccine dose.

Background Safe, effective vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) are urgently needed in children younger than 12 years of age. Methods A phase 1, dose-finding study and an ongoing phase 2-3 randomized trial are being conducted to investigate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered 21 days apart in children 6 months to 11 years of age. We present results for 5-to-11-year-old children. In the phase 2-3 trial, participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive two doses of either the BNT162b2 vaccine at the dose level identified during the open-label phase 1 study or placebo. Immune responses 1 month after the second dose of BNT162b2 were immunologically bridged to those in 16-to-25-year-olds from the pivotal trial of two 30-μg doses of BNT162b2. Vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 at 7 days or more after the second dose was assessed. Results During the phase 1 study, a total of 48 children 5 to 11 years of age received 10 μg, 20 μg, or 30 μg of the BNT162b2 vaccine (16 children at each dose level). On the basis of reactogenicity and immunogenicity, a dose level of 10 μg was selected for further study. In the phase 2-3 trial, a total of 2268 children were randomly assigned to receive the BNT162b2 vaccine (1517 children) or placebo (751 children). At data cutoff, the median follow-up was 2.3 months. In the 5-to-11-year-olds, as in other age groups, the BNT162b2 vaccine had a favorable safety profile. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were noted. One month after the second dose, the geometric mean ratio of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing titers in 5-to-11-year-olds to those in 16-to-25-year-olds was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.18), a ratio meeting the prespecified immunogenicity success criterion (lower bound of two-sided 95% CI, >0.67; geometric mean ratio point estimate, ≥0.8). Covid-19 with onset 7 days or more after the second dose was reported in three recipients of the BNT162b2 vaccine and in 16 placebo recipients (vaccine efficacy, 90.7%; 95% CI, 67.7 to 98.3). Conclusions A Covid-19 vaccination regimen consisting of two 10-μg doses of BNT162b2 administered 21 days apart was found to be safe, immunogenic, and efficacious in children 5 to 11 years of age. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04816643.).

Immune Response to a Third Dose of BNT162b2 A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine was administered to 23 volunteers 8 to 9 months after the second dose, and the immune response was assessed. Local r...

BackgroundBNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against COVID-19 and is currently authorized for emergency use or conditional approval worldwide. At the time of authorization, data beyond 2 months post-vaccination were unavailable.MethodsIn an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy study, 44,165 ≥16-year-old participants and 2,264 12-15-year-old participants were randomized to receive 2 doses, 21 days apart, of 30 µg BNT162b2 or placebo. Study endpoints reported here are vaccine efficacy (VE) against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and safety data, both up to 6 months post-vaccination.ResultsBNT162b2 continued to be safe and well tolerated. Few participants had adverse events leading to study withdrawal. VE against COVID-19 was 91% (95% CI 89.0-93.2) through up to 6 months of follow-up, among evaluable participants and irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE of 86%-100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse characteristics of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and COVID-19 risk factors in participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE against severe disease was 97% (95% CI 80.3−99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, B.1.351 (beta), was predominant, 100% (95% CI 53.5, 100.0) VE was observed.ConclusionWith up to 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradually declining trend in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19. (ClinicalTrials.govnumber,NCT04368728)

Background Until very recently, vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had not been authorized for emergency use in persons younger than 16 years of age. Safe, effective vaccines are needed to protect this population, facilitate in-person learning and socialization, and contribute to herd immunity. Methods In this ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial, we randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive two injections, 21 days apart, of 30 μg of BNT162b2 or placebo. Noninferiority of the immune response to BNT162b2 in 12-to-15-year-old participants as compared with that in 16-to-25-year-old participants was an immunogenicity objective. Safety (reactogenicity and adverse events) and efficacy against confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19; onset, ≥7 days after dose 2) in the 12-to-15-year-old cohort were assessed. Results Overall, 2260 adolescents 12 to 15 years of age received injections; 1131 received BNT162b2, and 1129 received placebo. As has been found in other age groups, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety and side-effect profile, with mainly transient mild-to-moderate reactogenicity (predominantly injection-site pain [in 79 to 86% of participants], fatigue [in 60 to 66%], and headache [in 55 to 65%]); there were no vaccine-related serious adverse events and few overall severe adverse events. The geometric mean ratio of SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralizing titers after dose 2 in 12-to-15-year-old participants relative to 16-to-25-year-old participants was 1.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47 to 2.10), which met the noninferiority criterion of a lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval greater than 0.67 and indicated a greater response in the 12-to-15-year-old cohort. Among participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, no Covid-19 cases with an onset of 7 or more days after dose 2 were noted among BNT162b2 recipients, and 16 cases occurred among placebo recipients. The observed vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI, 75.3 to 100). Conclusions The BNT162b2 vaccine in 12-to-15-year-old recipients had a favorable safety profile, produced a greater immune response than in young adults, and was highly effective against Covid-19. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently.In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety.A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups.A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.).

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and the resulting disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), have spread to millions of persons worldwide. Multiple vaccine candidates are under development, but no vaccine is currently available. Interim safety and immunogenicity data about the vaccine candidate BNT162b1 in younger adults have been reported previously from trials in Germany and the United States. Methods In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial conducted in the United States, we randomly assigned healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age and those 65 to 85 years of age to receive either placebo or one of two lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine candidates: BNT162b1, which encodes a secreted trimerized SARS-CoV-2 receptor–binding domain; or BNT162b2, which encodes a membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike, stabilized in the prefusion conformation. The primary outcome was safety (e.g., local and systemic reactions and adverse events); immunogenicity was a secondary outcome. Trial groups were defined according to vaccine candidate, age of the participants, and vaccine dose level (10 μg, 20 μg, 30 μg, and 100 μg). In all groups but one, participants received two doses, with a 21-day interval between doses; in one group (100 μg of BNT162b1), participants received one dose. Results A total of 195 participants underwent randomization. In each of 13 groups of 15 participants, 12 participants received vaccine and 3 received placebo. BNT162b2 was associated with a lower incidence and severity of systemic reactions than BNT162b1, particularly in older adults. In both younger and older adults, the two vaccine candidates elicited similar dose-dependent SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing geometric mean titers, which were similar to or higher than the geometric mean titer of a panel of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent serum samples. Conclusions The safety and immunogenicity data from this U.S. phase 1 trial of two vaccine candidates in younger and older adults, added to earlier interim safety and immunogenicity data regarding BNT162b1 in younger adults from trials in Germany and the United States, support the selection of BNT162b2 for advancement to a pivotal phase 2–3 safety and efficacy evaluation. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)

BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and the resulting disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), have spread to millions of people globally. Multiple vaccine candidates are under development, but no vaccine is currently available.MethodsHealthy adults 18–55 and 65–85 years of age were randomized in an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded dose-escalation study to receive 2 doses at 21-day intervals of placebo or either of 2 lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine candidates: BNT162b1, which encodes a secreted trimerized SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain, or BNT162b2, which encodes a prefusion stabilized membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike. In each of 13 groups of 15 participants, 12 received vaccine and 3 received placebo. Groups were distinguished by vaccine candidate, age of participant, and vaccine dose level. Interim safety and immunogenicity data of BNT162b1 in younger adults have been reported previously from US and German trials. We now present additional safety and immunogenicity data from the US Phase 1 trial that supported selection of the vaccine candidate advanced to a pivotal Phase 2/3 safety and efficacy evaluation.ResultsIn both younger and older adults, the 2 vaccine candidates elicited similar dose- dependent SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing geometric mean titers (GMTs), comparable to or higher than the GMT of a panel of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent sera. BNT162b2 was associated with less systemic reactogenicity, particularly in older adults.ConclusionThese results support selection of the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate for Phase 2/3 large-scale safety and efficacy evaluation, currently underway.

Pre-clinical and epidemiology studies suggest that antibodies directed at C. difficile toxins protect against recurrence of C. difficile infection (CDI). Human monoclonal antibodies (MAb) targeting...

Adaptive design (AD) clinical trials use accumulating subject data to modify the parameters of the design of an ongoing study, without compromising the validity and integrity of the study. The 2010 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Draft Guidance on Adaptive Design Clinical Trials described a subset of 7 primary design types as "less well-understood." FDA defined these designs as those with limited regulatory experience. To better understand the properties of these less well-understood ADs and to promote their use when applicable, the Best Practices Subteam for DIA's Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group conducted an extensive nonsystematic search and reviewed trials from multiple sponsors who had employed these designs. Here, we review 10 specific case studies for which less well-understood ADs were employed and share feedback about their challenges and successes, as well as details about the regulatory interactions from these trials. We learned that these designs and associated statistical methodologies can make difficult research situations more amenable for study and, therefore, are needed in our toolbox. While they can be used to study many diseases, they are particularly valuable for rare diseases, small populations, studies involving terminal illnesses, and vaccine trials, in which it is important to find efficient ways to bring effective treatments to market more rapidly. It is imperative, however, that these methodologies be utilized appropriately, which requires careful planning and precise operational execution.

Skeletal tibial traction is a temporizing measure used preoperatively for femoral fractures to improve the length and alignment of the limb and provide pain relief. The goal of this study was to identify possible neurovascular morbidity associated with the use of bedside skeletal tibial traction to treat femur fractures. All femoral fractures treated with proximal tibial traction during a 10-year period at an urban level I trauma center were retrospectively reviewed. The medical record was reviewed to determine whether a pin-related complication had occurred. Records also were reviewed to identify ipsilateral multi-ligamentous knee injuries that were not diagnosed until after the application of traction. In total, 303 proximal tibial traction pins were placed. A total of 7 (2.3%; 95% confidence interval, 0.60%–4.0%) pin-related neurologic complications and zero vascular complications were noted. All complications involved motor and/or sensory deficits in the distribution of the peroneal nerve. Of the 7 complications, 6 resolved fully after surgery and removal of the pin. After traction placement, 6 (2.0%) ipsilateral multiligamentous knee injuries were diagnosed. None of these patients had a neurovascular complication. This study suggests that bedside placement of proximal tibial traction for femoral fractures is associated with a low incidence of neurovascular complications and that traction can be safely placed at the bedside by residents. A thorough neurovascular examination should be performed before insertion, and care should be taken to identify the proper starting point and reduce soft tissue trauma during pin placement. [ Orthopedics. 2017; 40(6):e1004–e1008.]

Background In the United States, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of respiratory-related hospitalization in infants. The well-studied efficacy of the prophylactic monoclonal antibody, palivizumab, at preventing RSV disease in the highest risk infants provides proof of mechanism that serum neutralizing antibody protects against RSV. The expense and burden of monthly antibody injections limit the utility of palivizumab, leaving a large unmet medical need. Maternal immunization, with transplacental transfer of antibodies to the fetus, is an alternative, highly practical approach to protect many more infants. Methods Levels of protection by known palivizumab serum concentrations provide a basis for predicting maternal RSV vaccine efficacy in infants based on serum neutralizing antibody titers elicited in vaccine clinical trials, using statistical modeling to compensate for differences between palivizumab prophylaxis and maternal immunization. The model adjusts for the dependency of maternal vaccine responses on pre-immunization RSV neutralizing titers, exponential decay of maternal antibodies in infants, and exponentially decreasing airway resistance (reducing RSV disease risk) as infants grow. Results The rates of severe RSV disease by age projected from the model match the pattern of US infant hospitalization for RSV, with a peak at 1.5 months of age. The model relates vaccine-elicited increases in maternal RSV neutralizing titers to predicted reductions in severe RSV disease in infants from 0 to 6 months of age. Conclusion Statistical modeling of maternal RSV vaccine efficacy based on elicited RSV neutralizing titers provides a rational basis for decision-making during RSV vaccine development. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Previous studies of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment have demonstrated variations in response among racial and ethnic groups including poorer efficacy rates among African American and Hispanic patients. The individualized dosing efficacy vs flat dosing to assess optimaL pegylated interferon therapy (IDEAL) trial enrolled 3070 patients from 118 United States centres to compare treatment with peginterferon (PEG-IFN) alfa-2a and ribavirin (RBV) and two doses of PEG-IFN alfa-2b and RBV. This analysis examines treatment response among the major racial and ethnic groups in the trial. Overall, sustained virologic response (SVR) rates were 44% for white, 22% for African American, 38% for Hispanic and 59% for Asian American patients. For patients with undetectable HCV RNA at treatment week 4, the positive predictive value of SVR was 86% for white, 92% for African American, 83% for Hispanic and 89% for Asian American patients. The positive predictive values of SVR in those with undetectable HCV RNA at treatment week 12 ranged from 72% to 81%. Multivariate regression analysis using baseline characteristics demonstrated that treatment regimen was not a predictor of SVR. Despite wide-ranging SVR rates among the different racial and ethnic groups, white and Hispanic patients had similar SVR rates. In all groups, treatment response was largely determined by antiviral activity in the first 12 weeks of treatment. Therefore, decisions regarding HCV treatment should consider the predictive value of the early on-treatment response, not just baseline characteristics, such as race and ethnicity.

Since the first properly randomized control trial of streptomycin for pulmonary tuberculosis in the late 1940s, society has made great advances in combating bacterial infections and in developing vaccines to prevent such infections. One constant challenge that anti-bacterial clinical development must grapple with is to determine the potential benefit of newer agents over existing agents, in an era when anti-bacterial resistance is a constantly shifting target. By contrast, the development of anti-fungal agents went into high gear only in the late 1980s and early 1990s in an effort to manage fungal infections in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, especially in patients with haematologic malignancies, bone marrow transplantation, or lymphoma. The pursuit of anti-fungal agents intensified with the AIDS epidemic. The evaluation of anti-fungal agents often faces complications brought on by competing risks in situations where the underlying infections are associated with a high chance of mortality or severe morbidity. In this paper, we use four case studies to illustrate some of the challenges and opportunities in developing anti-bacterial and anti-fungal agents. The illustrations touch on not only statistical issues, but also issues related to the availability of new anti-bacterials in the future. Some suggestions on how statisticians could take advantage of the opportunities and answer to the challenges are also included. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

International audience; BACKGROUND & AIMS:HCV-infected cirrhotics may urgently need therapy but are often under-represented in clinical trials resulting in limited data to guide their management. We performed a meta-analysis of well-compensated cirrhotic patients from five Phase 3 trials.METHODS:Patients received P/R (peginterferon/ribavirin; 4 weeks) followed by BOC (boceprevir)/P/R or P/R for 24, 32, or 44 weeks. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates were calculated by Metavir score. Multivariate logistic regression (MLR) models identified baseline and on-treatment predictors of SVR. Safety was evaluated by adverse-event (AE) reporting and laboratory monitoring.RESULTS:Pooled meta-estimates for SVR rates (95% confidence interval) in 212 F4 (cirrhotic) patients were 55% (43, 66) with BOC/P/R vs.17% (0, 41) with P/R. MLR identified 4 predictors of SVR in F3/F4 patients: undetectable HCV-RNA at treatment week (TW) 8; ⩾ 1 log10 decline in HCV-RNA from baseline at TW4; male; and baseline HCV-RNA ⩽ 800,000 IU/ml. SVR rate was 89% (65/73) in F4 patients who were HCV-RNA undetectable at TW8. No F3 (0/5) or F4 (0/17) patients with

Summary Background A sustained virological response (SVR) rate of 41% has been achieved with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin therapy of chronic hepatitis C. In this randomised trial, peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin was compared with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin. Methods 1530 patients with chronic hepatitis C were assigned interferon alfa-2b (3 MU subcutaneously three times per week) plus ribavirin 1000–1200 mg/day orally, peginterferon alfa-2b 15 μg/kg each week plus 800 mg/day ribavirin, or peginterferon alfa-2b 1·5 μg/kg per week for 4 weeks then 0·5 μg/kg per week plus ribavirin 1000–1200 mg/day for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the SVR rate (undetectable hepatitis C virus [HCV] RNA in serum at 24-week follow-up). Analyses were based on patients who received at least one dose of study medication. Findings The SVR rate was significantly higher (p=0·01 for both comparisons) in the higher-dose peginterferon group (274/511 [54%]) than in the lower-dose peginterferon (244/514 [47%]) or interferon (235/505 [47%]) groups. Among patients with HCV genotype 1 infection, the corresponding SVR rates were 42% (145/348), 34% (118/349), and 33% (114/343). The rate for patients with genotype 2 and 3 infections was about 80% for all treatment groups. Secondary analyses identified bodyweight as an important predictor of SVR, prompting comparison of the interferon regimens after adjusting ribavirin for bodyweight (mg/kg). Side-effect profiles were similar between the treatment groups. Interpretation In patients with chronic hepatitis C, the most effective therapy is the combination of peginterferon alfa-2b 1·5 μg/kg per week plus ribavirin. The benefit is mostly achieved in patients with HCV genotype 1 infections.

Elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels and statin use have been associated with higher sustained virological response (SVR) rates in patients receiving chronic hepatitis C therapy. However, these relationships have not been well characterized in randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, little is known about the relationship between high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and virological response. To determine whether baseline LDL or HDL levels and statin use affect SVR rates, we retrospectively evaluated the IDEAL (Individualized Dosing Efficacy Versus Flat Dosing to Assess Optimal Pegylated Interferon Therapy) trial, in which 3070 treatment-naive, hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1–infected patients were treated for up to 48 weeks in one of the following arms: (1) peginterferon (PEG-IFN) alfa-2b at 1.5 μg/kg/week with ribavirin (RBV) at 800 to 1400 mg/day, (2) PEG-IFN alfa-2b at 1.0 μg/kg/week with RBV at 800 to 1400 mg/day, or (3) PEG-IFN alfa-2a at 180 μg/week with RBV at 1000 to 1200 mg/day. Virological responses were assessed by pretreatment statin use and baseline elevated LDL levels (≥130 mg/dL) or low HDL levels (

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment is frequently complicated by anemia from ribavirin (RBV)-related hemolysis and peginterferon-alfa (PEG-IFN)-related bone marrow suppression. We investigated the relationships among treatment outcomes, anemia, and their management with RBV dose reduction and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs).We analyzed data from a trial conducted at 118 United States academic and community centers in treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1. Patients were treated for as many as 48 weeks with 1 of 3 PEG-IFN/RBV regimens. ESAs were permitted for anemic patients (hemoglobin [Hb]10 g/dL) after RBV dose reduction. Sustained virologic responses (SVR) were assessed based on decreases in Hb, anemia, and ESA use.While patients received treatment, 3023 had their Hb levels measured at least once. An SVR was associated with the magnitude of Hb decrease:3 g/dL, 43.7%; ≤3 g/dL, 29.9% (P.001). Anemia occurred in 865 patients (28.6%); 449 of these (51.9%) used ESAs. In patients with early-onset anemia (≤ 8 weeks of treatment), ESAs were associated with higher SVR rate (45.0% vs 25.9%; P.001) and reduced discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events (12.6% vs 30.1%, P.001). ESAs did not affect SVR or discontinuation rates among patients with late-stage anemia.Among HCV genotype 1-infected patients treated with PEG-IFN/RBV, anemia was associated with higher rates of SVR. The effect of ESAs varied by time to anemia; patients with early-onset anemia had higher rates of SVR with ESA use, whereas no effect was observed in those with late-onset anemia. Prospective trials are needed to assess the role of ESAs in HCV treatment.

Background Treatment guidelines recommend the use of peginterferon alfa-2b or peginterferon alfa-2a in combination with ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. However, these regimens have not been adequately compared. Methods At 118 sites, patients who had HCV genotype 1 infection and who had not previously been treated were randomly assigned to undergo 48 weeks of treatment with one of three regimens: peginterferon alfa-2b at a standard dose of 1.5 μg per kilogram of body weight per week or a low dose of 1.0 μg per kilogram per week, plus ribavirin at a dose of 800 to 1400 mg per day, or peginterferon alfa-2a at a dose of 180 μg per week plus ribavirin at a dose of 1000 to 1200 mg per day. We compared the rate of sustained virologic response and the safety and adverse-event profiles between the peginterferon alfa-2b regimens and between the standard-dose peginterferon alfa2b regimen and the peginterferon alfa-2a regimen. Results Among 3070 patients, rates of sustained virologic response were similar among the regimens: 39.8% with standard-dose peginterferon alfa-2b, 38.0% with low-dose peginterferon alfa-2b, and 40.9% with peginterferon alfa-2a (P = 0.20 for standarddose vs. low-dose peginterferon alfa-2b; P = 0.57 for standard-dose peginterferon alfa-2b vs. peginterferon alfa-2a). Estimated differences in response rates were 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], −2.3 to 6.0) between standard-dose and low-dose peg interferon alfa-2b and −1.1% (95% CI, −5.3 to 3.0) between standard-dose peginterferon alfa-2b and peginterferon alfa-2a. Relapse rates were 23.5% (95% CI, 19.9 to 27.2) for standard-dose peginterferon alfa-2b, 20.0% (95% CI, 16.4 to 23.6) for lowdose peginterferon alfa-2b, and 31.5% (95% CI, 27.9 to 35.2) for peginterferon alfa2a. The safety profile was similar among the three groups; serious adverse events were observed in 8.6 to 11.7% of patients. Among the patients with undetectable HCV RNA levels at treatment weeks 4 and 12, a sustained virologic response was achieved in 86.2% and 78.7%, respectively. Conclusions In patients infected with HCV genotype 1, the rates of sustained virologic response and tolerability did not differ significantly between the two available peginterferon– ribavirin regimens or between the two doses of peginterferon alfa-2b. (ClinicalTrials. gov number, NCT00081770.)

Sir—We would like to address three essential points about the study by Michael Manns and colleagues. The investigators’ primary measure of efficacy was sustained virological response (SVR), which was found at the end of the follow-up in 54%, 47%, and 47%, respectively, in the three groups studied. Patients with missing HCV RNA values during the follow-up were classified as non-responders, but Manns and colleagues provide no further information on the proportion missing for each group. If the trial does not follow up an equal number of patients in all groups and describe precisely missing data, internal validity is compromised. The researchers state that the study shows a higher response rate for standard therapy than another published trial. Again, we cannot accept this statement without having access to information about drop-out rates in the groups. The dose of peginterferon was adjusted for bodyweight, and it was Sir—I disagree with Michael Manns and colleagues’ statement that ribavirin doses higher than 10·6 mg/kg produce higher sustained response rates than lower ribavirin doses. Ribavirin is a weak anti-HCV drug compared with interferon, which is why the two high-dose ribavirin groups (2 and 3) that received 1000 or 1200 mg per day did worse than group 1, which received only 800 mg of ribavirin per day. The end-oftreatment response rate and the sustained viral response rate were highest in group 1 (peginterferon 1·5 g/kg) because this group was given the most interferon. Virtually every HCV study shows that heavier patients are harder to treat than light ones. Manns and colleagues’ study is no exception. Pretreatment weight correlates highly with sustained viral response rate. The researchers try to explain this finding by stating that when dose of ribavirin per kg was entered into their multivariate logistic regression model, baseline weight was no longer significant. What they do not state is, if the pretreatment weight Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis

We recently identified a polymorphism upstream of interleukin (IL)-28B to be associated with a 2-fold difference in sustained virologic response (SVR) rates to pegylated interferon-alfa and ribavirin therapy in a large cohort of treatment-naive, adherent patients with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 (HCV-1) infection. We sought to confirm the polymorphism's clinical relevance by intention-to-treat analysis evaluating on-treatment virologic response and SVR.HCV-1 patients were genotyped as CC, CT, or TT at the polymorphic site, rs12979860. Viral kinetics and rates of rapid virologic response (RVR, week 4), complete early virologic response (week 12), and SVR were compared by IL-28B type in 3 self-reported ethnic groups: Caucasians (n = 1171), African Americans (n = 300), and Hispanics (n = 116).In Caucasians, the CC IL-28B type was associated with improved early viral kinetics and greater likelihood of RVR (28% vs 5% and 5%; P.0001), complete early virologic response (87% vs 38% and 28%; P.0001), and SVR (69% vs 33% and 27%; P.0001) compared with CT and TT. A similar association occurred within African Americans and Hispanics. In a multivariable regression model, CC IL-28B type was the strongest pretreatment predictor of SVR (odds ratio, 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 4.1-6.7). RVR was a strong predictor of SVR regardless of IL-28B type. In non-RVR patients, the CC IL-28B type was associated with a higher rate of SVR (Caucasians, 66% vs 31% and 24%; P.0001).In treatment-naive HCV-1 patients treated with pegylated interferon and ribavirin, a polymorphism upstream of IL-28B is associated with increased on-treatment and sustained virologic response and effectively predicts treatment outcome.