Evaluating Use Cases for Human Challenge Trials in Accelerating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Development

Analysis of recurrent research pathways for assessing and improving effectiveness in life sciences laboratories

Background

Life sciences research often turns out to be ineffective. Our aim was to develop a method for mapping repetitive research processes, detecting practice variations, and exploring inefficiencies.

Methods

Three samples of R&I projects were used: companion diagnostics of cancer treatments, identification of COVID-19 variants, and COVID-19 vaccine development. Major steps involved: defined starting points, desired end points; measurement of transition times and success rates; exploration of variations, and recommendations for improved efficiency.

Results

Over 50% of CDX developments failed to reach market simultaneously with new drugs. There were significant variations among phases of co-development (Bartlett test P<0.001). Length of time in vaccine development also shows variations (P<0.0001). Similarly, subject participation indicates unexplained variations in trials (Phase I: 489.7 (±461.8); Phase II: 857.3 (±450.1); Phase III: 35402 (±18079).

Conclusion

Analysis of repetitive research processes can highlight inefficiencies and show ways to improve quality and productivity in life sciences.

Characterizing altruistic motivation in potential volunteers for SARS-CoV-2 challenge trials

In human challenge trials (HCTs), volunteers are deliberately infected with an infectious agent. Such trials can be used to accelerate vaccine development and answer important scientific questions. Starting early in the COVID-19 pandemic, ethical concerns were raised about using HCTs to accelerate development and approval of a vaccine. Some of those concerns pertained to potential exploitation of and/or lack of truly informed consent from volunteers. Specific areas of concern arose around individuals who may be unusually risk-seeking or too economically vulnerable to refuse the payments these trials provide, as opposed to being motivated primarily by altruistic goals. This pre-registered study is the first large-scale survey to characterize people who, early in the pandemic, expressed interest and intention to volunteer to participate in COVID-19 HCTs. We found that individuals expressing interest in SARS-CoV-2 HCTs exhibit consistently altruistic motivations without any special indication of poor risk perception or economic vulnerability. In finding that, early in the pandemic, COVID-19 HCTs were able to attract volunteers whose values align with the nature of these trials, and who are not unusually vulnerable to exploitation, this study may allay some ethical concerns about the volunteers interested in participating in such trials.

Controlled Human Infection Models To Accelerate Vaccine Development

The timelines for developing vaccines against infectious diseases are lengthy, and often vaccines that reach the stage of large phase 3 field trials fail to provide the desired level of protective efficacy. The application of controlled human challenge models of infection and disease at the appropriate stages of development could accelerate development of candidate vaccines and, in fact, has done so successfully in some limited cases. Human challenge models could potentially be used to gather critical information on pathogenesis, inform strain selection for vaccines, explore cross-protective immunity, identify immune correlates of protection and mechanisms of protection induced by infection or evoked by candidate vaccines, guide decisions on appropriate trial endpoints, and evaluate vaccine efficacy. We prepared this report to motivate fellow scientists to exploit the potential capacity of controlled human challenge experiments to advance vaccine development. In this review, we considered available challenge models for 17 infectious diseases in the context of the public health importance of each disease, the diversity and pathogenesis of the causative organisms, the vaccine candidates under development, and each model's capacity to evaluate them and identify correlates of protective immunity. Our broad assessment indicated that human challenge models have not yet reached their full potential to support the development of vaccines against infectious diseases. On the basis of our review, however, we believe that describing an ideal challenge model is possible, as is further developing existing and future challenge models.

Risk, benefit, and social value in Covid-19 human challenge studies: pandemic decision making in historical context

During the Covid-19 pandemic, ethicists and researchers proposed human challenge studies as a way to speed development of a vaccine that could prevent disease and end the global public health crisis. The risks to healthy volunteers of being deliberately infected with a deadly and novel pathogen were not low, but the benefits could have been immense. This essay is a history of the three major efforts to set up a challenge model and run challenge studies in 2020 and 2021. The pharmaceutical company Johnson and Johnson, the National Institutes of Health in the United States, and a private-public partnership of industry, university, and government partners in Britain all undertook preparations. The United Kingdom’s consortium began their Human Challenge Programme in March of 2021.

Beyond documenting each effort, the essay puts these scientific and ethical debates in dialogue with the social, epidemiological, and institutional conditions of the pandemic as well as the commercial, intellectual, and political systems in which medical research and Covid-19 challenge studies operated. It shows how different institutions understood risk, benefit, and social value depending on their specific contexts. Ultimately the example of Covid-19 challenge studies highlights the constructedness of such assessments and reveals the utility of deconstructing them retrospectively so as to better understand the interplay of medical research and research ethics with larger social systems and historical contexts.

Ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies: a joint HRA/WHO workshop

This report of a joint World Health Organization (WHO) and United Kingdom (UK) Health Research Authority (HRA) workshop discusses the ethics review of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies, undertaken in the midst of the pandemic. It reviews the early efforts of international and national institutions to define the ethical standards required for COVID-19 human challenge studies and create the frameworks to ensure rigorous and timely review of these studies.

This report evaluates the utility of the WHO’s international guidance document Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies (WHO Key Criteria) as a practical resource for the ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies. It also assesses the UK HRA’s approach to these complex ethics reviews, including the formation of a Specialist Ad-Hoc Research Ethics Committee (REC) for COVID-19 Human Challenge Studies to review all current and future COVID-19 human challenge studies. In addition, the report outlines the reflections of REC members and researchers regarding the ethics review process of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies. Finally, it considers the potential ongoing scientific justification for COVID-19 human challenge studies, particularly in relation to next-generation vaccines and optimisation of vaccination schedules.

Overall, there was broad agreement that the WHO Key Criteria represented an international consensus document that played a powerful role in setting norms and delineating the necessary conditions for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies. Workshop members suggested that the WHO Key Criteria could be practically implemented to support researchers and ethics reviewers, including in the training of ethics committee members. In future, a wider audience may be engaged by the original document and potential additional materials, informed by the experiences of those involved in the first COVID-19 human challenge studies outlined in this document.

Review: Development of SARS-CoV-2 immuno-enhanced COVID-19 vaccines with nano-platform

Vaccination is the most effective way to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccine development approaches consist of viral vector vaccines, DNA vaccine, RNA vaccine, live attenuated virus, and recombinant proteins, which elicit a specific immune response. The use of nanoparticles displaying antigen is one of the alternative approaches to conventional vaccines. This is due to the fact that nano-based vaccines are stable, able to target, form images, and offer an opportunity to enhance the immune responses. The diameters of ultrafine nanoparticles are in the range of 1-100 nm. The application of nanotechnology on vaccine design provides precise fabrication of nanomaterials with desirable properties and ability to eliminate undesirable features. To be successful, nanomaterials must be uptaken into the cell, especially into the target and able to modulate cellular functions at the subcellular levels. The advantages of nano-based vaccines are the ability to protect a cargo such as RNA, DNA, protein, or synthesis substance and have enhanced stability in a broad range of pH, ambient temperatures, and humidity for long-term storage. Moreover, nano-based vaccines can be engineered to overcome biological barriers such as nonspecific distribution in order to elicit functions in antigen presenting cells. In this review, we will summarize on the developing COVID-19 vaccine strategies and how the nanotechnology can enhance antigen presentation and strong immunogenicity using advanced technology in nanocarrier to deliver antigens. The discussion about their safe, effective, and affordable vaccines to immunize against COVID-19 will be highlighted.

A practical approach to SARS-CoV-2 testing in a pre and post-vaccination era

As countries globally are in the process of planning, introducing or implementing mass vaccination strategies while continuing to deal with the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, an evolution in testing strategies may be required to minimize spread in mixed vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations. This mini-review explores the key public health questions associated with the widely varying efficacy of commercially available vaccines and their persistence of protection in the context of a growing number of variant virus strains. A new strategy for SARS-CoV-2 testing that accommodates the current and evolving pandemic paradigm is proposed.

Human Challenge Studies for Vaccine Development : Regulatory Aspects of Human Challenge Studies

The traditional regulatory pathway for the evaluation of new vaccine candidates generally proceeds from preclinical through three successive phases of human trials, and the demonstration of efficacy is usually done through randomized-controlled clinical trials. However, human challenge trials or controlled human infection models have been used in vaccine clinical development to generate supportive data for establishment of correlates of protection, supportive data for licensure, as well as licensure in the case of Vaxchora® by the US FDA. Despite this, there are no codified regulations from national regulatory authorities (NRAs) that specifically address HCTs, nor guidance related to standardization of approaches to HCTs among regulators. NRAs may agree that HCTs are innovative, promising tools to accelerate vaccine development; however, a strong benefit/risk assessment is needed to ensure the safety of study participants. Lastly, it is important to consider the regulatory framework in which the human challenge trial may be conducted.

COVID-19 controlled human infection studies: worries about local community impact and demands for local engagement

In spring, summer and autumn 2020, one abiding argument against controlled human infection (CHI) studies of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been their impact on local communities. Leading scientists and bioethicists expressed concern about undue usage of local residents' direly needed scarce resources at a time of great need and even about their unintended infection. They recommended either avoiding CHI trials or engaging local communities before conducting any CHIs. Similar recommendations were not made for the alternative-standard phase III field trials of these same vaccines. We argue that the health effects of CHI studies on local residents not participating in the study tend to be smaller and more positive than those of field trials. That is all the more so now that tested vaccines are being rolled out. Whether or not local community engagement is necessary for urgent vaccine studies in the pandemic, the case for its engagement is stronger prior to field trials than prior to CHI studies.

Repeated Exposure to Subinfectious Doses of SARS-CoV-2 May Promote T Cell Immunity and Protection against Severe COVID-19

Europe is experiencing a third wave of COVID-19 due to the spread of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants. A number of positive and negative factors constantly shape the rates of COVID-19 infections, hospitalization, and mortality. Among these factors, the rise in increasingly transmissible variants on one side and the effect of vaccinations on the other side create a picture deeply different from that of the first pandemic wave. Starting from the observation that in several European countries the number of COVID-19 infections in the second and third pandemic wave increased without a proportional rise in disease severity and mortality, we hypothesize the existence of an additional factor influencing SARS-CoV-2 dynamics. This factor consists of an immune defence against severe COVID-19, provided by SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells progressively developing upon natural exposure to low virus doses present in populated environments. As suggested by recent studies, low-dose viral particles entering the respiratory and intestinal tracts may be able to induce T cell memory in the absence of inflammation, potentially resulting in different degrees of immunization. In this scenario, non-pharmaceutical interventions would play a double role, one in the short term by reducing the detrimental spreading of SARS-CoV-2 particles, and one in the long term by allowing the development of a widespread (although heterogeneous and uncontrollable) form of immune protection.

Exploring Risks of Human Challenge Trials For COVID-19

Human challenge trials (HCTs) are a potential method to accelerate development of vaccines and therapeutics. However, HCTs for COVID-19 pose ethical and practical challenges, in part due to the unclear and developing risks. In this article , we introduce an interactive model for exploring some risks of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV-2) dosing study, a prerequisite for any COVID-19 challenge trials. The risk estimates we use are based on a Bayesian evidence synthesis model which can incorporate new data on infection fatality risks (IFRs) to patients, and infer rates of hospitalization. The model estimates individual risk, which we then extrapolate to overall mortality and hospitalization risk in a dosing study. We provide a web tool to explore risk under different study designs. Based on the Bayesian model, IFR for someone between 20 and 30 years of age is 15.1 in 100,000, with a 95% uncertainty interval from 11.8 to 19.2, while risk of hospitalization is 130 per 100,000 (100-160). However, risk will be reduced in an HCT via screening for comorbidities, selecting lower-risk population, and providing treatment. Accounting for this with stronger assumptions, we project the fatality risk to be as low as 2.5 per 100,000 (1.6-3.9) and the hospitalization risk to be 22.0 per 100,000 (14.0-33.7). We therefore find a 50-person dosing trial has a 99.74% (99.8-99.9%) chance of no fatalities, and a 98.9% (98.3-99.3%) probability of no cases requiring hospitalization.

Promoting Ethical Payment in Human Infection Challenge Studies

To prepare for potential human infection challenge studies (HICS) involving SARS-CoV-2, we convened a multidisciplinary working group to address ethical questions regarding whether and how much SARS-CoV-2 HICS participants should be paid. Because the goals of paying HICS participants, as well as the relevant ethical concerns, are the same as those arising for other types of clinical research, the same basic framework for ethical payment can apply. This framework divides payment into reimbursement, compensation, and incentives, focusing on fairness and promoting adequate recruitment and retention as counterweights to concerns about undue inducement. Within the basic framework, several factors are especially salient for HICS, and for SARS-CoV-2 HICS in particular, including the nature of participant confinement, anticipated discomfort, risks and uncertainty, participant motivations, and trust. These factors are reflected in a payment worksheet created to help sponsors, researchers, and ethics reviewers systematically develop and assess ethically justifiable payment amounts.

Promoting versatile vaccine development for emerging pandemics

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the importance of rapid and versatile development of emergency medical countermeasures such as vaccines. We discuss the role of platform vaccines and prototype pathogen research in modern vaccine development, and outline how previous pathogen-specific funding approaches can be improved to adequately promote vaccine R&D for emerging pandemics. We present a more comprehensive approach to financing vaccine R&D, which maximises biomedical pandemic preparedness by promoting flexible vaccine platforms and translatable research into prototype pathogens. As the numerous platform-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines show, funders can accelerate pandemic vaccine development by proactively investing in versatile platform technologies. For certain emerging infectious diseases, where vaccine research can translate to other related pathogens with pandemic potential, investment decisions should reflect the full social value of increasing overall preparedness, rather than just the value of bringing a vaccine to market for individual pathogens.

Immunological surrogate endpoints of COVID-2019 vaccines: the evidence we have versus the evidence we need

In response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, over 200 vaccine candidates against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019) are under development and currently moving forward at an unparalleled speed. The availability of surrogate endpoints would help to avoid large-scale filed efficacy trials and facilitate the approval of vaccine candidates, which is crucial to control COVID-19 pandemic. Several phase 3 efficacy trials of COVID-19 vaccine candidates are under way, which provide opportunities for the determination of COVID-19 correlates of protection. In this paper, we review current knowledge for existence of COVID-19 correlates of protection, methods for assessment of immune correlates of protection and issues related to COVID-19 correlates of protection.

Measuring immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection: comparing assays and animal models

The rapid scale-up of research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spawned a large number of potential vaccines and immunotherapies, accompanied by a commensurately large number of in vitro assays and in vivo models to measure their effectiveness. These assays broadly have the same end-goal - to predict the clinical efficacy of prophylactic and therapeutic interventions in humans. However, the apparent potency of different interventions can vary considerably between assays and animal models, leading to very different predictions of clinical efficacy. Complete harmonization of experimental methods may be intractable at the current pace of research. However, here we analyse a selection of existing assays for measuring antibody-mediated virus neutralization and animal models of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and provide a framework for comparing results between studies and reconciling observed differences in the effects of interventions. Finally, we propose how we might optimize these assays for better comparison of results from in vitro and animal studies to accelerate progress.

Neutralizing Antibodies Correlate with Protection from SARS-CoV-2 in Humans during a Fishery Vessel Outbreak with a High Attack Rate

The development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 would be greatly facilitated by the identification of immunological correlates of protection in humans. However, to date, studies on protective immunity have been performed only in animal models and correlates of protection have not been established in humans. Here, we describe an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 on a fishing vessel associated with a high attack rate. Predeparture serological and viral reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) testing along with repeat testing after return to shore was available for 120 of the 122 persons on board over a median follow-up of 32.5 days (range, 18.8 to 50.5 days). A total of 104 individuals had an RT-PCR-positive viral test with a cycle threshold (CT ) of <35 or seroconverted during the follow-up period, yielding an attack rate on board of 85.2% (104/122 individuals). Metagenomic sequencing of 39 viral genomes suggested that the outbreak originated largely from a single viral clade. Only three crew members tested seropositive prior to the boat's departure in initial serological screening and also had neutralizing and spike-reactive antibodies in follow-up assays. None of the crew members with neutralizing antibody titers showed evidence of bona fide viral infection or experienced any symptoms during the viral outbreak. Therefore, the presence of neutralizing antibodies from prior infection was significantly associated with protection against reinfection (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.002).

Neutralizing antibodies correlate with protection from SARS-CoV-2 in humans during a fishery vessel outbreak with high attack rate

The development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 would be greatly facilitated by the identification of immunological correlates of protection in humans. However, to date, studies on protective immunity have only been performed in animal models and correlates of protection have not been established in humans. Here, we describe an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 on a fishing vessel associated with a high attack rate. Predeparture serological and viral RT-PCR testing along with repeat testing after return to shore was available for 120 of the 122 persons on board over a median follow-up of 32.5 days (range 18.8 to 50.5 days). A total of 104 individuals had an RT-PCR positive viral test with Ct <35 or seroconverted during the follow-up period, yielding an attack rate on board of 85.2% (104/122 individuals). Metagenomic sequencing of 39 viral genomes suggested the outbreak originated largely from a single viral clade. Only three crewmembers tested seropositive prior to the boat's departure in initial serological screening and also had neutralizing and spike-reactive antibodies in follow-up assays. None of these crewmembers with neutralizing antibody titers showed evidence of bona fide viral infection or experienced any symptoms during the viral outbreak. Therefore, the presence of neutralizing antibodies from prior infection was significantly associated with protection against re-infection (Fisher's exact test, p=0.002).