Data and Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Joffe S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8240876 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Severe adverse events (AEs) after COVID-19 vaccination are not well studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) due to rarity and short follow-up. To monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines ("Pfizer" vaccine dose 1 and 2, "Moderna" vaccine dose 1 and 2, and "Janssen" vaccine single dose) in the U.S., especially regarding severe AEs, we compare the relative rankings of these vaccines using both RCT and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data. The risks of local and systemic AEs were assessed from the three pivotal COVID-19 vaccine trials and also calculated in the VAERS cohort consisting of 559,717 reports between December 14, 2020 and September 17, 2021. AE rankings of the five vaccine groups calculated separately by RCT and VAERS were consistent, especially for systemic AEs. For severe AEs reported in VAERS, the reported risks of thrombosis and GBS after Janssen vaccine were highest. The reported risk of shingles after the first dose of Moderna vaccine was highest, followed by the second dose of the Moderna vaccine. The reported risk of myocarditis was higher after the second dose of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The reported risk of anaphylaxis was higher after the first dose of Pfizer vaccine. Limitations of this study are the inherent biases of the spontaneous reporting system data, and only including three pivotal RCTs and no comparison with other active vaccine safety surveillance systems.
| S-EPMC9243073 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in December 2019 and the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 was declared a pandemic in March 2020 by the World Health Organization. This sparked a plethora of investigations into diagnostics and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2, as well as treatments for COVID-19. Since COVID-19 is a severe disease associated with a high mortality, clinical trials in this disease should be monitored by a data monitoring committee (DMC), also known as data safety monitoring board (DSMB). DMCs in this indication face a number of challenges including fast recruitment requiring an unusually high frequency of safety reviews, more frequent use of complex designs and virtually no prior experience with the disease. In this paper, we provide a perspective on the work of DMCs for clinical trials of treatments for COVID-19. More specifically, we discuss organizational aspects of setting up and running DMCs for COVID-19 trials, in particular for trials with more complex designs such as platform trials or adaptive designs. Furthermore, statistical aspects of monitoring clinical trials of treatments for COVID-19 are considered. Some recommendations are made regarding the presentation of the data, stopping rules for safety monitoring and the use of external data. The proposed stopping boundaries are assessed in a simulation study motivated by clinical trials in COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7833551 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNVX-CoV2373 (Nuvaxovid™ or the Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted), the first protein-based COVID-19 vaccine, received emergency use authorization (EUA) as a primary series/booster and is available globally. NVX-CoV2373 primary series demonstrated efficacy rates of 89.7-90.4 % and an acceptable safety profile. This article summarizes safety in adult recipients (aged ≥ 18 years) of primary series NVX-CoV2373 in four randomized placebo-controlled trials.MethodsAll participants who received NVX-CoV2373 primary series or placebo (pre-crossover) were included according to actual received treatment. The safety period was from Day 0 (first vaccination) to unblinding/receipt of EUA-approved/crossover vaccine, end of each study (EOS), or last visit date/cutoff date minus 14 days. The analysis reviewed local and systemic solicited adverse events (AEs) within 7 days after NVX-CoV2373 or placebo; unsolicited AEs from after Dose 1 to 28 days after Dose 2; serious AEs (SAEs), deaths, AEs of special interest, and vaccine-related medically attended AEs from Day 0 through end of follow-up (incidence rate per 100 person-years).FindingsPooled data from 49,950 participants (NVX-CoV2373, n = 30,058; placebo, n = 19,892) were included. Solicited reactions after any dose were more frequent in NVX-CoV2373 recipients (local, 76 %/systemic, 70 %) than placebo recipients (local, 29 %/systemic, 47 %), and were mostly of mild-to-moderate severity. Grade 3+ reactions were infrequent, with greater frequency in NVX-CoV2373 recipients (local, 6.28 %/systemic, 11.36 %) than placebo recipients (local, 0.48 %/systemic, 3.58 %). SAEs and deaths occurred with similarly low frequency in NVX-CoV2373 (SAEs: 0.91 %, deaths: 0.07 %) and placebo recipients (SAEs: 1.0 %, deaths: 0.06 %).InterpretationTo date, NVX-CoV2373 has displayed an acceptable safety profile in healthy adults.FundingSupported by Novavax, Inc.
| S-EPMC10169578 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8726001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAll clinical trial investigators have ethical and regulatory obligations to monitor participant safety and trial integrity. Specific procedures for meeting these obligations, however, may differ substantially between pragmatic trials and traditional explanatory clinical trials.Methods/resultsAppropriate monitoring of clinical trials typically includes assessing rate of recruitment or enrollment; monitoring safe and effective delivery of study treatments; assuring that study staff act to minimize risks; monitoring quality and timeliness of study data; and considering interim analyses for early detection of benefit, harm, or futility. Each of these responsibilities applies to pragmatic clinical trials. Just as design of pragmatic trials typically involves specific and necessary departures from methods of explanatory clinical trials, appropriate monitoring of pragmatic trials typically requires specific departures from monitoring procedures used in explanatory clinical trials. We discuss how specific aspects of pragmatic trial design and operations influence selection of monitoring procedures and illustrate those choices using examples from three ongoing pragmatic trials conducted by the Mental Health Research Network.ConclusionsPragmatic trial investigators should not routinely adopt monitoring procedures used in explanatory clinical trials. Instead, investigators should consider core principles of trial monitoring and design monitoring procedures appropriate for each pragmatic trial.
| S-EPMC6902512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several vaccine candidates to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have entered or will soon enter large-scale, phase 3, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. To facilitate harmonized evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of these vaccines, a general set of clinical endpoints is proposed, along with considerations to guide the selection of the primary endpoints on the basis of clinical and statistical reasoning. The plausibility that vaccine protection against symptomatic COVID-19 could be accompanied by a shift toward more SARS-CoV-2 infections that are asymptomatic is highlighted, as well as the potential implications of such a shift.
| S-EPMC7596738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionClinical trials provide the "gold standard" evidence for advancing the practice of medicine, even as they evolve to integrate real-world data sources. Modern clinical trials are increasingly incorporating real-world data sources - data not intended for research and often collected in free-living contexts. We refer to trials that incorporate real-world data sources as real-world trials. Such trials may have the potential to enhance the generalizability of findings, facilitate pragmatic study designs, and evaluate real-world effectiveness. However, key differences in the design, conduct, and implementation of real-world vs traditional trials have ramifications in data management that can threaten their desired rigor.MethodsThree examples of real-world trials that leverage different types of data sources - wearables, medical devices, and electronic health records are described. Key insights applicable to all three trials in their relationship to Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) are derived.ResultsInsight and recommendations are given on four topic areas: A. Charge of the DSMB; B. Composition of the DSMB; C. Pre-launch Activities; and D. Post-launch Activities. We recommend stronger and additional focus on data integrity.ConclusionsClinical trials can benefit from incorporating real-world data sources, potentially increasing the generalizability of findings and overall trial scale and efficiency. The data, however, present a level of informatic complexity that relies heavily on a robust data science infrastructure. The nature of monitoring the data and safety must evolve to adapt to new trial scenarios to protect the rigor of clinical trials.
| S-EPMC10514684 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The rapid development, introduction, and global uptake of COVID-19 vaccines required countries to have strong pharmacovigilance systems in place to monitor and address adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). These systems provide timely data on vaccine safety that support decisions about the potential risks of vaccine adverse events relative to the benefit of disease prevention. In Ethiopia, the monitoring system was limited by the lack of data being submitted through its passive surveillance system, delays in investigating serious adverse events and conducting causality assessments, and the lack of reporting to the World Health Organization (WHO) global database, VigiBase. In Pakistan, the pharmacovigilance system lacked reporting requirements and guidance documentation, regulatory policies were insufficient, and staff lacked the capacity to evaluate AEFI reports. Several interventions were implemented in both countries to improve pharmacovigilance systems and processes necessary to collect, analyze, and report AEFIs from health care facilities to the national level and facilitate the use of global and national electronic reporting tools. In addition, Pakistan improved the regulatory policy environment and engaged vaccine manufacturers and private sector health facilities in AEFI reporting for the first time in the country. Outcomes include an increased number of COVID-19 vaccine-related AEFIs reported and causality assessments completed, which means that potential safety issues were being analyzed more quickly, comprehensively, and accurately. The number of AEFI reports submitted to VigiBase by Pakistan's regulatory authority more than quintupled from approximately 5,000/quarter in 2021 to 28,555/quarter in 2022. In Ethiopia, by October 2022, 44,000 AEFI reports had been received, and 40 causality assessments completed. In both countries, timely AEFI data review and analysis led to prompt recommendations and regulatory actions, highlighting the far-reaching implications of strengthening the country-level pharmacovigilance systems. These strengthened systems are now in place for use with all vaccines.
| S-EPMC10948120 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text Abstract The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to scale up around the world, costing severe health and economic losses. The development of an effective COVID-19 vaccine is of utmost importance. Most vaccine designs can be classified into three camps: protein based (inactivated vaccines, protein subunit, VLP and T-cell based vaccines), gene based (DNA or RNA vaccines, replicating or non-replicating viral/bacterial vectored vaccines), and a combination of both protein-based and gene-based (live-attenuated virus vaccines). Up to now, 237 candidate vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are in development worldwide, of which 63 have been approved for clinical trials and 27 are evaluated in phase 3 clinical trials. Six candidate vaccines have been authorized for emergency use or conditional licensed, based on their efficacy data in phase 3 trials. This review summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate COVID-19 vaccines from various platforms, compares, and discusses their protective efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity according to the published clinical trials results.
| S-EPMC8057314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Large-scale deployment of COVID-19 vaccines will seriously affect the ongoing phases 2 and 3 randomised placebo-controlled trials assessing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates. The effect will be particularly acute in high-income countries where the entire adult or older population could be vaccinated by late 2021. Regrettably, only a small proportion of the population in many low-income and middle-income countries will have access to available vaccines. Sponsors of COVID-19 vaccine candidates currently in phase 2 or initiating phase 3 trials in 2021 should consider continuing the research in countries with limited affordability and availability of COVID-19 vaccines. Several ethical principles must be implemented to ensure the equitable, non-exploitative, and respectful conduct of trials in resource-poor settings. Once sufficient knowledge on the immunogenicity response to COVID-19 vaccines is acquired, non-inferiority immunogenicity trials-comparing the immune response of a vaccine candidate to that of an authorised vaccine-would probably be the most common trial design. Until then, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trials will continue to play a role in the development of new vaccine candidates. WHO or the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences should define an ethical framework for the requirements and benefits for trial participants and host communities in resource-poor settings that should require commitment from all vaccine candidate sponsors from high-income countries.
| S-EPMC8131060 | biostudies-literature