BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty around the timing of booster vaccination against COVID-19 in highly vaccinated populations during the present endemic phase of COVID-19. Studies focused on primary vaccination have previously suggested improved immunity after delaying immunisation.
METHODS: We conducted a randomised controlled trial (Nov 2022 - Aug 2023) and assigned 52 fully vaccinated adults to an immediate or a 3-month delayed bivalent Spikevax mRNA booster vaccine. Follow-up visits were completed for 48 participants (n = 24 per arm), with saliva and plasma samples collected following each visit.
RESULTS: The rise in neutralising antibody responses to ancestral and Omicron strains were almost identical between the immediate and delayed vaccination arms. Analyses of plasma and salivary antibody responses (IgG, IgA), plasma antibody-dependent phagocytic activity, and the decay kinetics of antibody responses were similar between the 2 arms. Symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in 49% (21/49) participants over the median 11.5 months of follow up and were also similar between the 2 arms.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests no benefit from delaying COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination in pre-immune populations during the present endemic phase of COVID-19TRIAL REGISTRATION. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number 12622000411741.
BACKGROUND: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia, Program Grant App1149990 and Medical Research Future Fund App2005544.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the general and primary outcome-related characteristics of clinical trials protocols on COVID-19 vaccines.
METHODS: A meta-research study. A search for clinical trial protocols on COVID-19 vaccines was conducted on the ClinicalTrials.gov platform. We considered all protocols of comparative trials registered up to October 26, 2021.
RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-two trials were analysed. The median expected trial duration was 445 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 225), and the median target sample size was 420 participants (IQR = 1638). A retrospective registry (after the start date) was observed for 42.55% of the trials. Randomization procedures were planned by 84.75% and full-blinding procedures by 34.75% of the 282 trials. Most trials were labelled as active or still recruiting, and 14 trials (5%) were completed. None of the 14 trials labelled as completed on our search date had results available. Industry funding was reported by 198 trials (70.2%). Most studies declared more than one primary outcome, usually a safety or immunogenicity outcome, and 59 studies (20.9%) had at least one primary efficacy outcome. The description of the primary efficacy outcomes was limited in most cases, referred to as a non-specified \'efficacy\' outcome (18.6%) or described as \'COVID-19 cases\' (32.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: the primary outcomes of clinical trials on COVID-19 vaccines are poorly described, and the registers provide insufficient information about them. The registry was retrospectively fulfilled for many trials, which may lead to bias and research waste. Outcomes were generically described and did not provide transparent information for replication in practice, further trials or meta-analyses.

Early studies have found that the initial COVID-19 vaccination series was protective against severe symptoms and long COVID. However, few studies have explored the association of booster doses on severe disease outcomes and long COVID. This cross-sectional analysis used data from the 2022 US National Health Interview Survey data to investigate how vaccination status correlates with COVID-19 infection severity and long COVID among previously infected individuals. Participants were categorized into three groups: those who had received at least one booster, those with only the initial complete vaccination series, and those with either an incomplete series or no vaccinations. Out of 9521 survey respondents who reported a past positive COVID-19 test, 51.2% experienced moderate/severe infections, and 17.6% experienced long COVID. Multivariable regression models revealed that receiving at least one booster shot was associated with lower odds of experiencing moderate/severe symptoms (aOR = 0.78, p < 0.001) compared to those unvaccinated or with an incomplete series. Additionally, having at least one booster reduced long COVID odds by 24% (aOR = 0.76, p = 0.003). Completing only the primary vaccine series did not significantly decrease the likelihood of severe illness or long COVID. These findings support the continued promotion of booster vaccinations to mitigate long COVID risks in vulnerable populations.

Following up on the first PBPK model for an oral vaccine built for alpha-tocopherol, three peptides are explored in this article to verify if they could support an oral vaccine formulation as adjuvants using the same PBPK modeling approach. A literature review was conducted to verify what peptides have been used as adjuvants in the last decades, and it was noticed that MDP derivatives have been used, with one of them even being commercially approved and used as an adjuvant when administered intravenously in oncology. The aim of this study was to build optimized models for three MDP peptides (MDP itself, MTP-PE, and murabutide) and to verify if they could act as adjuvants for an oral vaccine. Challenges faced by peptides in an oral delivery system are taken into consideration, and improvements to the formulations to achieve better results are described in a step-wise approach to reach the most-optimized model. Once simulations are performed, results are compared to determine what would be the best peptide to support as an oral adjuvant. According to our results, MTP-PE, the currently approved and commercialized peptide, could have potential to be incorporated into an oral formulation. It would be interesting to proceed with further in vivo experiments to determine the behavior of this peptide when administered orally with a proper formulation to overcome the challenges of oral delivery systems.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The potential association between bivalent COVID-19 vaccination and ischemic stroke remains uncertain, despite several studies conducted thus far.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the risk of ischemic stroke following bivalent COVID-19 vaccination during the 2022-2023 season.
METHODS: A self-controlled case series study was conducted among members aged 12 years and older who experienced ischemic stroke between September 1, 2022, and March 31, 2023, in a large health care system. Ischemic strokes were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes in emergency departments and inpatient settings. Exposures were Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccination. Risk intervals were prespecified as 1-21 days and 1-42 days after bivalent vaccination; all non-risk-interval person-time served as the control interval. The incidence of ischemic stroke was compared in the risk interval and control interval using conditional Poisson regression. We conducted overall and subgroup analyses by age, history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and coadministration of influenza vaccine. When an elevated risk was detected, we performed a chart review of ischemic strokes and analyzed the risk of chart-confirmed ischemic stroke.
RESULTS: With 4933 ischemic stroke events, we found no increased risk within the 21-day risk interval for the 2 vaccines and by subgroups. However, risk of ischemic stroke was elevated within the 42-day risk interval among individuals aged younger than 65 years with coadministration of Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent and influenza vaccines on the same day; the relative incidence (RI) was 2.13 (95% CI 1.01-4.46). Among those who also had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the RI was 3.94 (95% CI 1.10-14.16). After chart review, the RIs were 2.34 (95% CI 0.97-5.65) and 4.27 (95% CI 0.97-18.85), respectively. Among individuals aged younger than 65 years who received Moderna bivalent vaccine and had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the RI was 2.62 (95% CI 1.13-6.03) before chart review and 2.24 (95% CI 0.78-6.47) after chart review. Stratified analyses by sex did not show a significantly increased risk of ischemic stroke after bivalent vaccination.
CONCLUSIONS: While the point estimate for the risk of chart-confirmed ischemic stroke was elevated in a risk interval of 1-42 days among individuals younger than 65 years with coadministration of Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent and influenza vaccines on the same day and among individuals younger than 65 years who received Moderna bivalent vaccine and had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the risk was not statistically significant. The potential association between bivalent vaccination and ischemic stroke in the 1-42-day analysis warrants further investigation among individuals younger than 65 years with influenza vaccine coadministration and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, the findings on ischemic stroke risk after bivalent COVID-19 vaccination underscore the need to evaluate monovalent COVID-19 vaccine safety during the 2023-2024 season.

The 17th Workshop on Recent Issues in Bioanalysis (17th WRIB) took place in Orlando, FL, USA on 19-23 June 2023. Over 1000 professionals representing pharma/biotech companies, CROs, and multiple regulatory agencies convened to actively discuss the most current topics of interest in bioanalysis. The 17th WRIB included 3 Main Workshops and 7 Specialized Workshops that together spanned 1 week to allow an exhaustive and thorough coverage of all major issues in bioanalysis of biomarkers, immunogenicity, gene therapy, cell therapy and vaccines.Moreover, in-depth workshops on \"EU IVDR 2017/746 Implementation and impact for the Global Biomarker Community: How to Comply with these NEW Regulations\" and on \"US FDA/OSIS Remote Regulatory Assessments (RRAs)\" were the special features of the 17th edition.As in previous years, WRIB continued to gather a wide diversity of international, industry opinion leaders and regulatory authority experts working on both small and large molecules as well as gene, cell therapies and vaccines to facilitate sharing and discussions focused on improving quality, increasing regulatory compliance, and achieving scientific excellence on bioanalytical issues.This 2023 White Paper encompasses recommendations emerging from the extensive discussions held during the workshop and is aimed to provide the bioanalytical community with key information and practical solutions on topics and issues addressed, in an effort to enable advances in scientific excellence, improved quality and better regulatory compliance. Due to its length, the 2023 edition of this comprehensive White Paper has been divided into three parts for editorial reasons.This publication (Part 2) covers the recommendations on Biomarkers, IVD/CDx, LBA and Cell-Based Assays. Part 1A (Mass Spectrometry Assays and Regulated Bioanalysis/BMV), P1B (Regulatory Inputs) and Part 3 (Gene Therapy, Cell therapy, Vaccines and Biotherapeutics Immunogenicity) are published in volume 16 of Bioanalysis, issues 9 and 7 (2024), respectively.

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

UNASSIGNED: The self-controlled case series (SCCS) is often used to monitor vaccine safety. The evaluation of intussusception after the rotavirus vaccine is complicated because the baseline rate varies with age. Time-varying baseline risk adjustments with data from unexposed cohorts are utilised. Self-controlled risk interval (SCRI), with a shorter observation period, can also mitigate the problem by studying a control period close to the risk period.
UNASSIGNED: An Indian rotavirus vaccine has previously been studied using SCCS. The risk of intussusception in the high-risk windows (21 days after vaccination) was comparable to the background risk. The aim was to re-analyse data of an existing SCCS study using alternate statistical methods to examine vaccine safety.
UNASSIGNED: We examined the mean age of intussusception in the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. We performed an SCRI analysis of the surveillance data from the SCCS study, limiting the observation period to 180 days. We analysed the time-to-intussusception from the last vaccination. Finally, we performed an SCCS analysis, excluding unvaccinated cases from the analysis.
UNASSIGNED: We found that the mean age of intussusception was significantly lower in the vaccinated (205 days) compared to the unvaccinated (223 days) (p-value 0.0026). The Incident Risk Ratio (IRR) on SCRI analysis was 1.62 (95% CI 1.07-2.44). There were significantly more intussusceptions in the first 30 days after vaccination compared to the next 30-day window. (92 vs 63 p-value = 0.009). We found that excluding unvaccinated infants from the SCCS analysis demonstrated significantly increased risk for the risk period 1-21 days after the 3rd dose (IRR 2.47, 95% CI 1.70-3.59). The risks of intussusception were missed in traditional SCCS analysis using unvaccinated infants as controls.
UNASSIGNED: Traditional risk adjustments using data from unexposed cohorts in SCCS may not be appropriate for investigating the risk of intussusception where vaccination lowers the mean age of intussusception.

BACKGROUND: Clear guidelines to implement ancillary care (AC) in clinical trials conducted in resource-constrained settings are lacking. Here, we evaluate an AC policy developed for a vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and formulate policy recommendations.
METHODS: To evaluate the AC policy, we performed a longitudinal cohort study, nested in an open-label, single-centre, randomised Ebola vaccine trial conducted among healthcare personnel. Participants\' demographic information, residence distance to the study site and details on the financial and/or medical support provided for any (serious) adverse events ((S)AE) were combined and analysed. To assess the feasibility of the AC policy, an expenditure analysis of the costs related to AC support outcomes was performed.
RESULTS: Enrolment in this evaluation study started on 29 November 2021. The study lasted 11 months and included 655 participants from the Ebola vaccine trial. In total, 393 participants used the AC policy, mostly for AE management (703 AE and 94 SAE) via medication provided by the study pharmacy (75.3%). Men had a 35.2% (95% CI 4.0% to 56.6%) lower likelihood of reporting AE compared with women. Likewise, this was 32.3% lower (95% CI 5.8% to 51.4%) for facility-based compared with community-based healthcare providers. The daily AE reporting was 78.8% lower during the passive vs the active trial stage, and 97.4% lower during unscheduled vs scheduled visits (p<0.001). Participants living further than 10 km from the trial site more frequently reported the travel distance as a reason for not using the policy (p<0.04). In practice, only 1.1% of the operational trial budget was used for AC policy support.
CONCLUSIONS: The trial design, study population and local health system impacted the use of the AC policy. Nonetheless, the AC policy implementation in this remote and resource-constrained setting was feasible, had negligible budgetary implications and contributed to participants\' healthcare options and well-being.