Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.

METHODS

The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 μg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 μg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6-77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3-214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030-27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996-43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41-1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996-30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826-64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90-2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37-14·32) and 15·90 (12·92-19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24-16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90-9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).

INTERPRETATION

Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose.

FUNDING

UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.

Effects of oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation after spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage in the UK: a randomised, open-label, assessor-masked, pilot-phase, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulation reduces the rate of systemic embolism for patients with atrial fibrillation by two-thirds, but its benefits for patients with previous intracranial haemorrhage are uncertain. In the Start or STop Anticoagulants Randomised Trial (SoSTART), we aimed to establish whether starting is non-inferior to avoiding oral anticoagulation for survivors of intracranial haemorrhage who have atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

SoSTART was a prospective, randomised, open-label, assessor-masked, parallel-group, pilot phase trial done at 67 hospitals in the UK. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) who had survived at least 24 h after symptomatic spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage, had atrial fibrillation, and had a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2. Web-based computerised randomisation incorporating a minimisation algorithm allocated participants (1:1) to start or avoid long-term (≥1 year) full treatment dose open-label oral anticoagulation. The participants assigned to start oral anticoagulation received either a direct oral anticoagulant or vitamin K antagonist, and the group assigned to avoid oral anticoagulation received standard clinical practice (antiplatelet agent or no antithrombotic agent). The primary outcome was recurrent symptomatic spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage, and was adjudicated by an individual masked to treatment allocation. All outcomes were ascertained for at least 1 year after randomisation and assessed in the intention-to-treat population of all randomly assigned participants, using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for minimisation covariates. We planned a sample size of 190 participants (one-sided p=0·025, power 90%, allowing for non-adherence) based on a non-inferiority margin of 12% (or adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of 3·2). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03153150) and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between March 29, 2018, and Feb 27, 2020, consent was obtained at 61 sites for 218 participants, of whom 203 were randomly assigned at a median of 115 days (IQR 49-265) after intracranial haemorrhage onset. 101 were assigned to start and 102 to avoid oral anticoagulation. Participants were followed up for median of 1·2 years (IQR 0·97-1·95; completeness 97·2%). Starting oral anticoagulation was not non-inferior to avoiding oral anticoagulation: eight (8%) of 101 in the start group versus four (4%) of 102 in the avoid group had intracranial haemorrhage recurrences (adjusted HR 2·42 [95% CI 0·72-8·09]; p=0·152). Serious adverse events occurred in 17 (17%) participants in the start group and 15 (15%) in the avoid group. 22 (22%) patients in the start group and 11 (11%) patients in the avoid group died during the study.

INTERPRETATION

Whether starting oral anticoagulation was non-inferior to avoiding it for people with atrial fibrillation after intracranial haemorrhage was inconclusive, although rates of recurrent intracranial haemorrhage were lower than expected. In view of weak evidence from analyses of three composite secondary outcomes, the possibility that oral anticoagulation might be superior for preventing symptomatic major vascular events should be investigated in adequately powered randomised trials.

FUNDING

British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland.

Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Results of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects.

METHODS

FOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839-1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26-6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38-2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months.

INTERPRETATION

Fluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function.

FUNDING

UK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.