Search

Background Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. Methods In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. Findings From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77–1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66–1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14–4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29–0·90; pinteraction=0·001). Interpretation When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. Funding US National Institutes of Health.

In the United States, clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics quickly exhausted available clinical research capacity at large medical centers. The NIAID Division of Clinical Research tapped community hospitals to help fill the gap.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19.METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978.FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50-72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74-1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67-1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74-1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68-1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91-1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88-1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90.INTERPRETATION: Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19.FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Speed.

Objective In November 2015, a 15-year-old boy received a diagnosis of Ebola virus disease (EVD) at the John F. Kennedy Medical Center in Monrovia, Liberia. Two additional family members received a diagnosis of EVD. The protocol for a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of 2 Ebola vaccines was amended and approved; in 4 days, a single-arm cluster vaccination trial using the Merck rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine was initiated. Here, we evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine and discuss challenges for its implementation in a small Ebola outbreak. Method We conducted a ring vaccination study among contacts and contacts of close contacts of EVD cases a in Monrovia. Participants were evaluated 1 and 6 months after vaccination. Results Among 650 close contacts and contacts of close contacts of EVD cases, 210 (32%) consented and were vaccinated with rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP. Of those vaccinated, 189 (90%) attended the month 1 follow-up visit; 166 (79%) attended the month 6 visit. No serious adverse events were reported. Among 88 participants without an elevated antibody level at baseline, 77.3% (95% confidence interval, 68.5-86.1) had an antibody response at 1 month. Conclusions The Merck rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine appeared to be safe and immunogenic among the vaccinated individuals. However, fewer than one third of eligible individuals consented to vaccination. These data may help guide implementation decisions for of cluster vaccination programs in an Ebola cluster outbreak response situation.

Introduction: This article describes a retrospective review of participant follow-up and retention strategies in the Partnership for Research on the Ebola Virus in Liberia (PREVAIL) I Vaccine Trial. It illustrates and analyzes strategies used to retain participants in an emergency clinical research response vaccine trial conducted during the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Liberia. Methods: An anecdotal review of participant retention strategies developed and employed during the PREVAIL I vaccine trial. Results: Though other factors likely contributed to the high retention rate of trial participants, the unique PREVAIL I follow-up process described resulted in an exceptionally high participant retention rate (97.8%) through 12 months of follow-up, increased the ability to obtain meaningful trial results, and provided a platform through which to respond to social issues in an emergency clinical research response setting. Conclusion: Successful strategies were developed and employed in the PREVAIL I vaccine trial that resulted in extraordinarily high participant retention and follow-up rates during an infectious disease outbreak. This review illustrates that employing host country social mobilization concepts within a modified clinical research management framework is highly correlated to elevated rates of retention and minimal loss to follow-up. These strategies also contributed to increased data quality and enhanced adherence to protocol requirements. The increased ability to respond to social issues such as stigma, job retention and relationship conflicts was an additional and significant benefit of this follow-up methodology. Keywords: Follow-up, Retention, Participant trackers

Clinical trials are challenging endeavors. Planning and implementing an investigational vaccine trial in Liberia, in the midst of an Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic that World Health Organization classified a public health emergency of international concern, presented extraordinary challenges. Normally, years of preparation and a litany of tasks lay the groundwork for a successful, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial focused on safety and efficacy. Difficult research settings, unpredictable events, and other unique circumstances can add complexity. The setting in Liberia was especially problematic due to an infrastructure still badly damaged following a lengthy civil war and a very fragile health-care system that was further devastated by the EVD outbreak. The Partnership for Research on Vaccines in Liberia I EVD vaccine trial was planned and implemented in less than 3 months by a Liberian and U.S. research partnership, and its Phase II substudy was fully enrolled 3 months later. Contrasting conventional wisdom with trial outcomes offers an opportunity to compare early assumptions, barriers encountered, and adaptive strategies used, with end results. Understanding what was learned can inform future trial responses when disease outbreaks, especially in resource-poor locations with minimal infrastructure, pose a significant threat to public health.

It has been argued that a country such as Liberia, not fully recovered from the devastation of decades of civil unrest, lacked the appropriate ethical and regulatory framework, basic human and health care services, and infrastructure to carry out clinical trials according to international standards of quality during a public health emergency. However, as Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea were being ravaged by the largest and most devastating Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak ever recorded, the topic of conducting clinical trials of experimental vaccine and treatment candidates in these resource-poor countries generated the keen interest and concern of scientists, researchers, physicians, bioethicists, philanthropists, and even politicians. Decisive action on behalf of the Liberian government, and a timely positive and supportive response from the United States (U.S.) government, led to the formation of PREVAIL (Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines in Liberia) – a clinical research partnership between the two governments. Within a span of 12 weeks, this partnership accomplished the unimaginable: the successful initiation of a Phase II/III vaccine clinical trial for EVD in Liberia. This paper will discuss the dynamics of the research collaboration, barriers encountered, breakthroughs realized, key elements of success, and lessons learned in the process.

While accepted as serving an important function to safeguard human subjects, the process of obtaining regulatory approvals to conduct clinical trials is generally regarded as cumbersome and time-consuming. For large multinational trials, U.S. federally sponsored human subject research abroad involves specific U.S. regulatory requirements, in addition to those of the host country, that act as further hurdles. These requirements may include obtaining an Assurance of Protection for Human Subjects from the Office of Human Research Protection of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, maintaining specific Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board (EC/IRB) composition, and incorporating mandated elements in informed consents, all of which may differ from local policies and guidelines. Specific examples of issues that led to delays in regulatory approvals for sites participating in the multinational clinical trial entitled Evaluation of Subcutaneous Proleukin in a Randomized International Trial (ESPRIT) are presented here. While the goal of these requirements is to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects, they may create substantial delays and engender resentment over the notion of lack of respect for individual country sovereignty. Substudies within ESPRIT have been undertaken to obtain feedback from EC/IRB chairpersons, site personnel responsible for processing the required assurances, ESPRIT investigators, and study participants regarding aspects of current U.S. regulatory requirements related to human subject protection and ethical issues in multinational research. The purpose of these substudies is to compare the attitudes and experiences across countries regarding important ethical issues associated with conducting ESPRIT. One objective of the substudies is to gather additional insight to the impact of U.S. regulatory processes. Another is to help to inform the debate about how to best maximize the rights and welfare of clinical trial participants without delaying the initiation of research, while respecting the importance of national sensitivities.

Controversy exists regarding an ethical requirement to make products proven effective in research available after the trial. Little is known about the views of several stakeholders. Phone or self-administered questionnaires were completed by 65 IRB/REC chairs, 117 investigators, and 500 research participants in a multinational HIV trial to assess their views about posttrial access to interventions proven effective in the study. A total of 83% of research participants, 29% of IRB/REC chairs, and 42% of researchers (p = 0.046) thought IL-2 should be guaranteed for every HIV-infected person in the world if proven effective. Most European and Latin American research participants thought IL-2 should be provided free, while North American, Australian, and Thai participants commonly said at a price the average person could afford (p < 0.001). Most IRB/REC chairs and researchers thought the CIOMS "reasonable availability" requirement applied to people in the country where the study was conducted and meant a drug should be available at a price the average person could afford and that host country governments had primary responsibility for making it available. Most research participants believe an HIV drug proven effective in research should be made available to everyone in the world who needs it. IRB/REC chairs and researchers were less expansive both in who and how they thought a drug should be guaranteed.

btaining the informed consent of participants in clinical studies is a fundamental requirement for ethical research.' Based on the principle of respect for persons, potential research subjects are provided with relevant information about a study so that they can make an informed and voluntary decision about participation. Skepticism and controversy exists, however, about informed consent from research participants in developing countries. In addition to concepts about research and individual choice that might be unfamiliar, developing country participants may be plagued by poverty, illiteracy, and limited access to health care services that make it difficult for them to give valid informed consent.2 Most agree that following the provision of adequate and accurate information about a study, valid informed consent requires at least some knowledge of the study details and a voluntary decision to enroll.3 Evaluation of the quality of informed consent therefore should attempt to measure what participants understand and how freely they made the enrollment decision. A small yet increasing number of studies using quantitative or qualitative methods to evaluate participants' informed consent or to test informed consent interventions have been reported. Yet, only a few published studies from Thailand,4 South Africa,s The Gambia,6 Bangladesh,7 and Haiti,8 have used quantitative methods to survey research participants in developing countries about the informed consent process. Although the results of these studies show mixed comprehension, the paucity and small size of these studies make it difficult to say much about the quality of informed consent in developing countries or to compare it to the quality of informed consent in developed countries. This difficulty is compounded by methodological limitations in the studies that have been conducted in both settings. For example, in some studies the time period between the informed consent process and the administration of the informed consent questionnaire varied from respondent to respondent, even extending to several months.9 In other studies, crucial domains, such as the degree to which subjects felt pressured to participate in the clinical research, were excluded. 10 To assess the quality of informed consent in a developing country while avoiding some of these methodological limitations, we interviewed 141 individuals immediately after they consented to participate in a randomized HIV study in Bangkok, Thailand. In Thai culture, individuals often defer to the authority of the health care professional. However, because there has been a considerable volume of clinical research in Thailand including HIV research, Thai citizens may be more familiar with and experienced in research overall than people in other resource poor countries. Very little is known, however, about the quality of informed consent given by Thai subjects in HIV studies. In this study, individuals were surveyed about their experience with the informed consent process, their understanding of the information they were given about the trial, and the voluntary nature of their decision to join.