scholarly journals 1010. Cross-Species Translation of Correlates of Protection for COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates Using Quantitative Tools

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S595-S596
Author(s):  
Anna Largajolli ◽  
Nele Plock ◽  
Bhargava Kandala ◽  
Akshita Chawla ◽  
Seth H Robey ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Several COVID-19 vaccines have been authorized, and the need for rapid, further modification is anticipated. This work uses a Model-Based Meta-Analysis (MBMA) to relate, across species, immunogenicity to peak viral load (VL) after challenge and to clinical efficacy. Together with non-clinical and/or early clinical immunogenicity data (ECID), this enables prediction of a candidate vaccine’s clinical efficacy. The goal of this work was to enable the accelerated development of vaccine candidates by supporting Go/No-Go and study design decisions, and the resulting MBMA can be instrumental in decisions not to progress candidates to late stage development. Methods A literature review with pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria enabled creation of a database including nonclinical serum neutralizing titers (SN), peak VL after challenge with SARS-CoV-2 (VL), along with data from several clinical vaccine candidates. Rhesus Macaque (RM) and golden hamster (GH) were selected (due to availability and consistency of data) for MBMA modeling. For both RM and GH, peak post-challenge VL in lung and nasal tissues were used as surrogates for clinical disease and were related to pre-challenge SN via the MBMA. The VL predictions from the RM MBMA were scaled to incidence rates in humans, with a scaling factor between RM and human SN estimated using early Phase 3 efficacy data. This enabled clinical efficacy predictions based on ECID. To qualify the model’s predictive power, efficacies of COVID-19 vaccine candidates were compared to those predicted from the MBMA and their respective Ph1/2 SN data. More recently available clinical data enable building a clinical MBMA; comparing this to the RM MBMA further supports SN as predictive. Results The MBMA analyses identified a sigmoidal decrease in VL (increasing protection) with increase in SN in all three species, with more SN needed (in both RM and GH) for protection in nasal swabs than in BAL (see figure). The comparison between predicted and reported clinical efficacies demonstrated the model’s predictive power across vaccine platforms. RM and GH MBMA Protection Models and Translational Prediction with Observed Efficacies Sizes of circles indicate relative weight of the data in the respective quantitative model. Model and data visualizations have been harmonized (across tissue-types) separately for each of RM and GH using VACHER (Lommerse, et al., CPT:PSP, in press). Conclusion By quantifying adjustments needed between species and assays, translational MBMA can inform development decisions by using nonclinical SN and VL, and ECID to predict protection from COVID-19. Disclosures Anna Largajolli, PhD, Certara (Employee) Nele Plock, PhD, Certara (Employee, Shareholder)Merck & Co., Inc. (Independent Contractor) Bhargava Kandala, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Akshita Chawla, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Seth H. Robey, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Kenny Watson, PhD, Certara (Employee, Shareholder) Raj Thatavarti, MS, Certara (Employee, Shareholder) Sheri Dubey, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) S. Y. Amy Cheung, PhD, Certara (Employee, Shareholder) Rik de Greef, MSc, Certara (Employee, Shareholder) Jeffrey R. Sachs, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (7) ◽  
pp. 030006052110327
Author(s):  
Weihua Liu ◽  
Wenli Yu ◽  
Hongli Yu ◽  
Mingwei Sheng

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Results Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.95–7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = −2.72–8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25–1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46–2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11–0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38–6.54). Conclusions Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Raquel Pacheco ◽  
Maria Alzira Cavacas ◽  
Paulo Mascarenhas ◽  
Pedro Oliveira ◽  
Carlos Zagalo

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the literature about the incidence of oral mucositis and its degrees (mild, moderate, and severe), in patients undergoing head and neck cancer treatment (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery). Addressing this issue is important since oral mucositis has a negative impact on oral health and significantly deteriorates the quality of life. Therefore, a multidisciplinary team, including dentists, should be involved in the treatment. The overall oral mucositis incidence was 89.4%. The global incidence for mild, moderate, and severe degrees were 16.8%, 34.5%, and 26.4%, respectively. The high incidence rates reported in this review point out the need for greater care in terms of the oral health of these patients.


2021 ◽  
pp. 175045892096415
Author(s):  
Tito D Tubog ◽  
Richard S Bramble

The incidence rates of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension vary depending on the surgical procedures. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron in reducing the incidence of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension in non-caesarean delivery. Thirteen trials consisting of 1166 patients were included for analysis. Compared to placebo, there is a low quality of evidence that ondansetron was effective in reducing the incidence of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.87; p = 0.005) and bradycardia (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; p = 0.02). We also found a moderate quality of evidence that ondansetron lowered the number of rescue ephedrine (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87; p = 0.007). Patients treated with ondansetron have higher mean arterial pressure 15 to 20 minutes after spinal anaesthesia induction and higher systolic arterial pressure 5, 10, 15 and 20 minutes after spinal anaesthesia. The evidence suggests that prophylactic administration of ondansetron results in the reduction of the incidence of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension, bradycardia and rescue ephedrine in patients undergoing non-caesarean delivery under spinal anaesthesia.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e002325
Author(s):  
Rongqi Liu ◽  
Brian J Petersen ◽  
Gary M Rothenberg ◽  
David G Armstrong

In this study, we determined the reamputation-free survival to both limbs and to the contralateral limb only following an index amputation of any-level and assessed whether reamputation rates have changed over time. We completed a systematic search using PubMed and screened a total of 205 articles for data on reamputation rates. We reported qualitative characteristics of 56 studies that included data on reamputation rates and completed a meta-analysis on 22 of the studies which enrolled exclusively participants with diabetes. The random-effects meta-analysis fit a parametric survival distribution to the data for reamputations to both limbs and to the contralateral limb only. We assessed whether there was a temporal trend in the reamputation rate using the Mann-Kendall test. Incidence rates were high for reamputation to both limbs and to the contralateral limb only. At 1 year, the reamputation rate for all contralateral and ipsilateral reamputations was found to be 19% (IQR=5.1%–31.6%), and at 5 years, it was found to be 37.1% (IQR=27.0%–47.2%). The contralateral reamputation rate at 5 years was found to be 20.5% (IQR=13.3%–27.2%). We found no evidence of a trend in the reamputation rates over more than two decades of literature analyzed. The incidence of lower extremity reamputation is high among patients with diabetes who have undergone initial amputations secondary to diabetes, and rates of reamputation have not changed over at least two decades.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document