Efficacy, safety, and lot-to-lot immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BBV152): interim results of a randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 3 trial

A lipidated TLR7/8 adjuvant enhances the efficacy of a vaccine against fentanyl in mice

Opioid use disorders (OUD) and opioid-related fatal overdoses are a public health concern in the United States. Approximately 100,000 fatal opioid-related overdoses occurred annually from mid-2020 to the present, the majority of which involved fentanyl or fentanyl analogs. Vaccines have been proposed as a therapeutic and prophylactic strategy to offer selective and long-lasting protection against accidental or deliberate exposure to fentanyl and closely related analogs. To support the development of a clinically viable anti-opioid vaccine suitable for human use, the incorporation of adjuvants will be required to elicit high titers of high-affinity circulating antibodies specific to the target opioid. Here we demonstrate that the addition of a synthetic TLR7/8 agonist, INI-4001, but not a synthetic TLR4 agonist, INI-2002, to a candidate conjugate vaccine consisting of a fentanyl-based hapten, F1, conjugated to the diphtheria cross-reactive material (CRM), significantly increased generation of high-affinity F1-specific antibody concentrations, and reduced drug distribution to the brain after fentanyl administration in mice.

Outcome of COVID-19 infection and the impact of COVID-19 vaccination in chronic kidney disease patients: A single-center study

Introduction

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients have increased vulnerability to infections including Covid-19. There is limited availability of antiviral in CKD patients. All guidelines have prioritized vaccinations for CKD patients. The variability in immunogenic response is multifactorial in CKD group. We have tried to analyze the outcome of Covid-19 infection and the impact of COVID-19 vaccination [COVAXIN / COVISHIELD] in our cohort.

Materials Methods and Statistical Analysis

In a retrospective observational study, 73 cases of Covid-19 positive CKD patients were selected, who were managed as per MOFHW guidelines. The data of first laboratory values and radiological findings were evaluated. Their treatment outcome and stay during hospitalization were studied. All data were later analyzed using STATA 16.1 software.

Results

In this study, 73 cases of CKD with Covid-19 were included. There were 38 patients who were vaccinated with at least one dose of the Covid-19 vaccine, while there were 35 patients who were unvaccinated. Out of 38 patients, 20 were vaccinated with 2 doses of Covid-19 while 18 received only one dose. The unvaccinated group was having more hypoxia and raised inflammatory markers, and had more lung involvement [i.e. higher CT severity value] [p value for CTSS-0.0765]. There was a higher mortality rate observed in the unvaccinated group [i.e-65.71%] than the vaccinated group [39.47%] [p-value 0.0249]. Dialysis was needed in 57.50% of the study population either due to failure of conservative management for renal failure or due to maintenance dialysis. The mean duration of hospitalization was 11.47 days with a mortality rate of 52% which is much higher than the reported average data in CKD patients.

Conclusion

Vaccination seems to be very helpful in combating the adverse effect of Covid-19 in CKD patients. It also reduces mortality significantly in Covid-19 infected CKD patients.

The End or a New Era of Development of SARS-CoV-2 Virus: Genetic Variants Responsible for Severe COVID-19 and Clinical Efficacy of the Most Commonly Used Vaccines in Clinical Practice

Although the chief of the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a global health emergency, the disease is still a global threat. To be able to manage such pandemics in the future, it is necessary to develop proper strategies and opportunities to protect human life. The data on the SARS-CoV-2 virus must be continuously analyzed, and the possibilities of mutation and the emergence of new, more infectious variants must be anticipated, as well as the options of using different preventive and therapeutic techniques. This is because the fast development of severe acute coronavirus 2 syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern have posed a significant problem for COVID-19 pandemic control using the presently available vaccinations. This review summarizes data on the SARS-CoV-2 variants that are responsible for severe COVID-19 and the clinical efficacy of the most commonly used vaccines in clinical practice. The consequences after the disease (long COVID or post-COVID conditions) continue to be the subject of studies and research, and affect social and economic life worldwide.

Efficacy of Vaccine Protection Against COVID-19 Virus Infection in Patients with Chronic Liver Diseases

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 is a useful weapon to combat the virus. Patients with chronic liver diseases (CLDs), including compensated or decompensated liver cirrhosis and noncirrhotic diseases, have a decreased immunologic response to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines. At the same time, they have increased mortality if infected. Current data show a reduction in mortality when patients with chronic liver diseases are vaccinated. A suboptimal vaccine response has been observed in liver transplant recipients, especially those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, so an early booster dose is recommended to achieve a better protective effect. Currently, there are no clinical data comparing the protective efficacy of different vaccines in patients with chronic liver diseases. Patient preference, availability of the vaccine in the country or area, and adverse effect profiles are factors to consider when choosing a vaccine. There have been reports of immune-mediated hepatitis after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, and clinicians should be aware of that potential side effect. Most patients who developed hepatitis after vaccination responded well to treatment with prednisolone, but an alternative type of vaccine should be considered for subsequent booster doses. Further prospective studies are required to investigate the duration of immunity and protection against different viral variants in patients with chronic liver diseases or liver transplant recipients, as well as the effect of heterologous vaccination.

Immunogenicity and efficacy of a novel multi-patch SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccine candidate

Introduction

While there has been considerable progress in the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, largely based on the S (spike) protein of the virus, less progress has been made with vaccines delivering different viral antigens with cross-reactive potential.

Methods

In an effort to develop an immunogen with the capacity to induce broad antigen presentation, we have designed a multi-patch synthetic candidate containing dominant and persistent B cell epitopes from conserved regions of SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins associated with long-term immunity, termed CoV2-BMEP. Here we describe the characterization, immunogenicity and efficacy of CoV2-BMEP using two delivery platforms: nucleic acid DNA and attenuated modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA).

Results

In cultured cells, both vectors produced a main protein of about 37 kDa as well as heterogeneous proteins with size ranging between 25-37 kDa. In C57BL/6 mice, both homologous and heterologous prime/boost combination of vectors induced the activation of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 and CD8 T cell responses, with a more balanced CD8⁺ T cell response detected in lungs. The homologous MVA/MVA immunization regimen elicited the highest specific CD8⁺ T cell responses in spleen and detectable binding antibodies (bAbs) to S and N antigens of SARS-CoV-2. In SARS-CoV-2 susceptible k18-hACE2 Tg mice, two doses of MVA-CoV2-BMEP elicited S- and N-specific bAbs as well as cross-neutralizing antibodies against different variants of concern (VoC). After SARS-CoV-2 challenge, all animals in the control unvaccinated group succumbed to the infection while vaccinated animals with high titers of neutralizing antibodies were fully protected against mortality, correlating with a reduction of virus infection in the lungs and inhibition of the cytokine storm.

Discussion

These findings revealed a novel immunogen with the capacity to control SARS-CoV-2 infection, using a broader antigen presentation mechanism than the approved vaccines based solely on the S antigen.

Broad-spectrum pan-genus and pan-family virus vaccines

Although the development and clinical application of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated unprecedented vaccine success in a short time frame, it also revealed a limitation of current vaccines in their inability to provide broad-spectrum or universal protection against emerging variants. Broad-spectrum vaccines, therefore, remain a dream and challenge for vaccinology. This review will focus on current and future efforts in developing universal vaccines targeting different viruses at the genus and/or family levels, with a special focus on henipaviruses, influenza viruses, and coronaviruses. It is evident that strategies for developing broad-spectrum vaccines will be virus-genus or family specific, and it is almost impossible to adopt a universal approach for different viruses. On the other hand, efforts in developing broad-spectrum neutralizing monoclonal antibodies have been more successful and it is worth considering broad-spectrum antibody-mediated immunization, or "universal antibody vaccine," as an alternative approach for early intervention for future disease X outbreaks.

T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2: what if the known best is not the optimal course for the long run? Adapting to evolving targets

Humanity did surprisingly well so far, considering how unprepared it was to respond to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) threat. By blending old and ingenious new technology in the context of the accumulated knowledge on other human coronaviruses, several vaccine candidates were produced and tested in clinical trials in record time. Today, five vaccines account for the bulk of the more than 13 billion doses administered worldwide. The ability to elicit biding and neutralizing antibodies most often against the spike protein is a major component of the protection conferred by immunization but alone it is not enough to limit virus transmission. Thus, the surge in numbers of infected individuals by newer variants of concern (VOCs) was not accompanied by a proportional increase in severe disease and death rate. This is likely due to antiviral T-cell responses, whose evasion is more difficult to achieve. The present review helps navigating the very large literature on T cell immunity induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and vaccination. We examine the successes and shortcomings of the vaccinal protection in the light of the emergence of VOCs with breakthrough potential. SARS-CoV-2 and human beings will likely coexist for a long while: it will be necessary to update existing vaccines to improve T-cell responses and attain better protection against COVID-19.

Assessing the robustness of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials: systematic review and meta-analysis, January 2023

BackgroundVaccines play a crucial role in the response to COVID-19 and their efficacy is thus of great importance.AimTo assess the robustness of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (VE) trial results using the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) methodology.MethodsWe conducted a Cochrane and PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of COVID-19 VE trials published worldwide until 22 January 2023. We calculated the FI and FQ for all included studies and assessed their associations with selected trial characteristics using Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. Spearman correlation coefficients and scatter plots were used to quantify the strength of correlation of FIs and FQs with trial characteristics.ResultsOf 6,032 screened records, we included 40 trials with 54 primary outcomes, comprising 909,404 participants with a median sample size per outcome of 13,993 (interquartile range (IQR): 8,534-25,519). The median FI and FQ was 62 (IQR: 22-123) and 0.50% (IQR: 0.24-0.92), respectively. FIs were positively associated with sample size (p < 0.001), and FQs were positively associated with type of blinding (p = 0.023). The Spearman correlation coefficient for FI with sample size was moderately strong (0.607), and weakly positive for FI and FQ with VE (0.138 and 0.161, respectively).ConclusionsThis was the largest study on trial robustness to date. Robustness of COVID-19 VE trials increased with sample size and varied considerably across several other important trial characteristics. The FI and FQ are valuable complementary parameters for the interpretation of trial results and should be reported alongside established trial outcome measures.

Cross-Protection Induced by Highly Conserved Human B, CD4+, and CD8+ T Cell Epitopes-Based Coronavirus Vaccine Against Severe Infection, Disease, and Death Caused by Multiple SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern

Background

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created one of the largest global health crises in almost a century. Although the current rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections has decreased significantly; the long-term outlook of COVID-19 remains a serious cause of high death worldwide; with the mortality rate still surpassing even the worst mortality rates recorded for the influenza viruses. The continuous emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs), including multiple heavily mutated Omicron sub-variants, have prolonged the COVID-19 pandemic and outlines the urgent need for a next-generation vaccine that will protect from multiple SARS-CoV-2 VOCs.

Methods

In the present study, we designed a multi-epitope-based Coronavirus vaccine that incorporated B, CD4+, and CD8+ T cell epitopes conserved among all known SARS-CoV-2 VOCs and selectively recognized by CD8+ and CD4+ T-cells from asymptomatic COVID-19 patients irrespective of VOC infection. The safety, immunogenicity, and cross-protective immunity of this pan-Coronavirus vaccine were studied against six VOCs using an innovative triple transgenic h-ACE-2-HLA-A2/DR mouse model.

Results

The Pan-Coronavirus vaccine: (i) is safe; (ii) induces high frequencies of lung-resident functional CD8+ and CD4+ TEM and TRM cells; and (iii) provides robust protection against virus replication and COVID-19-related lung pathology and death caused by six SARS-CoV-2 VOCs: Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Gamma or P1 (B.1.1.28.1), Delta (lineage B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529).

Conclusions

A multi-epitope pan-Coronavirus vaccine bearing conserved human B and T cell epitopes from structural and non-structural SARS-CoV-2 antigens induced cross-protective immunity that cleared the virus, and reduced COVID-19-related lung pathology and death caused by multiple SARS-CoV-2 VOCs.

Efficacy and effectiveness of inactivated vaccines against symptomatic COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 clinical outcomes in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Inactivated, whole-virion vaccines have been used extensively in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Its efficacy and effectiveness across regions have not been systematically evaluated. Efficacy refers to how well a vaccine performs in a controlled environment. Effectiveness refers to how well it performs in real world settings.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed published, peer-reviewed evidence on all WHO-approved inactivated vaccines and evaluated their efficacy and effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic infection, severe clinical outcomes, and severe COVID-19. We searched Pubmed (including MEDLINE), EMBASE (via OVID), Web of Science Core Collection, Web of Science Chinese Science Citation Database, and Clinicaltrials.gov.

Findings

The final pool included 28 studies representing over 32 million individuals reporting efficacy or effectiveness estimates of complete vaccination using any approved inactivated vaccine between January 1, 2019 and June 27, 2022. Evidence was found for efficacy and effectiveness against symptomatic infection (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16-0.27, I2 = 28% and OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.64, I2 = 98%, respectively) and infection (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.49-0.57, I2 = 90% and OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.24-0.41, I2 = 0%, respectively) for early SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoCs) (Alpha, Delta), and for waning of vaccine effectiveness with more recent VoCs (Gamma, Omicron). Effectiveness remained robust against COVID-related ICU admission (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04-1.08, I2 = 99%) and death (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00-2.02, I2 = 96%), although effectiveness estimates against hospitalization (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37-0.53, I2 = 0%) were inconsistent.

Interpretation

This study showed evidence of efficacy and effectiveness of inactivated vaccines for all outcomes, although inconsistent reporting of key study parameters, high heterogeneity of observational studies, and the small number of studies of particular designs for most outcomes undermined the reliability of the findings. Findings highlight the need for additional research to address these limitations so that more definitive conclusions can be drawn to inform SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and vaccination policies.

Funding

Health and Medical Research Fund on COVID-19, Health Bureau of the Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: what do we know hitherto?

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), also known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, is a catastrophic and life-threatening reaction to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, which occurs disproportionately in response to vaccination with non-replicating adenovirus vector (AV) vaccines. The mechanism of VITT is not well defined and it has not been resolved why cases of VITT are predominated by vaccination with AV vaccines. However, virtually all VITT patients have positive platelet-activating anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibody titers. Subsequently, platelets are activated and depleted in an Fcγ-receptor IIa (FcγRIIa or CD32a)-dependent manner, but it is not clear why or how the anti-PF4 response is mounted. This review describes the pathogenesis of VITT and provides insight into possible mechanisms that prompt the formation of a PF4/polyanion complex, which drives VITT pathology, as an amalgam of current experimental data or hypotheses.

Development of a Choice-framework for Covid vaccines in India using a multi-criteria decision analysis approach

BACKGROUND

Vaccines were crucial in controlling the Covid-19 pandemic. As more vaccines receive regulatory approval, stakeholders will be faced with several options and must make an appropriate choice for themselves. We proposed a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to guide decision-makers in comparing vaccines for the Indian context.

METHODS

We adhered to the ISPOR guidance for the MCDA process. Seven vaccine options were compared under ten criteria. Through three virtual workshops, we obtained opinions and weights from citizens, private-sector hospitals, and public health organisations. Available evidence was rescaled and incorporated into the performance matrix. The final score for each vaccine was calculated for the different groups. We performed different sensitivity analyses to assess the consistency of the rank list.

RESULTS

The cost, efficacy and operational score of the vaccines had the highest weights among the stakeholders. From the six scenario groups, Janssen had the highest score in four. This was driven by the advantage of having a single dose of vaccination. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis for the overall group, Covaxin, Janssen, and Sputnik were the first three options. The participants expressed that availability, WHO approvals and safety, among others, would be crucial when considering vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

The MCDA process has not been capitalised on in healthcare decision-making in India and LMICs. Considering the available data and stakeholder preference at the time of the study, Covaxin, Janssen, and Sputnik were preferred options. The choice framework with the dynamic performance matrix is a valuable tool that could be adapted to different population groups and extended based on increasing vaccine options and emerging evidence. *ISPOR - The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.

The effect of HIV on COVID-19 vaccine responses

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Persons living with HIV (PLWH) may have a moderately increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 infection, especially if viral load is not controlled and if they are immunosuppressed. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is the most effective measure to prevent morbidity and mortality. However, individuals with HIV/AIDS may have less protection after vaccination. The purpose of this review is to summarize some of the recent studies focused on examining the safety, immunogenicity and effectiveness of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

RECENT FINDINGS

The safety of all anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines among PLWH is not different from the safety of these vaccines among HIV-negative individuals and is acceptable. PLWH with viral suppression and immune reconstitution (CD4 + cell count > 350 cells/μl) may reach almost same immunogenicity such as people without HIV albeit antibody levels and neutralization may decline more rapidly than in people without HIV. PLWH with viremia or immunosuppressed, especially AIDS, have less immunogenicity.

SUMMARY

Full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is a well tolerated and efficient way to prevent mortality and morbidity from COVID-19 among PLWH and AIDS patients. It is very important to follow recommended booster vaccination for a continuous and prompt immunogenicity.

Efficacy and Safety of a Protein-Based SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The protein-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines FINLAY-FR-2 (Soberana 02) and FINLAY-FR-1A (Soberana Plus) showed good safety and immunogenicity in phase 1 and 2 trials, but the clinical efficacy of the vaccine remains unknown.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 2-dose regimen of FINLAY-FR-2 (cohort 1) and a 3-dose regimen of FINLAY-FR-2 with FINLAY-FR-1A (cohort 2) in Iranian adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at 6 cities in cohort 1 and 2 cities in cohort 2. Participants included individuals aged 18 to 80 years without uncontrolled comorbidities, coagulation disorders, pregnancy or breastfeeding, recent immunoglobulin or immunosuppressive therapy, and clinical presentation or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 on enrollment. The study was conducted from April 26 to September 25, 2021.

Interventions

In cohort 1, 2 doses of FINLAY-FR-2 (n = 13 857) or placebo (n = 3462) were administered 28 days apart. In cohort 2, 2 doses of FINLAY-FR-2 plus 1 dose of FINLAY-FR-1A (n = 4340) or 3 placebo doses (n = 1081) were administered 28 days apart. Vaccinations were administered via intramuscular injection.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was polymerase chain reaction-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection at least 14 days after vaccination completion. Other outcomes were adverse events and severe COVID-19. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

Results

In cohort 1 a total 17 319 individuals received 2 doses and in cohort 2 5521 received 3 doses of the vaccine or placebo. Cohort 1 comprised 60.1% men in the vaccine group and 59.1% men in the placebo group; cohort 2 included 59.8% men in the vaccine group and 59.9% in the placebo group. The mean (SD) age was 39.3 (11.9) years in cohort 1 and 39.7 (12.0) years in cohort 2, with no significant difference between the vaccine and placebo groups. The median follow-up time in cohort 1 was 100 (IQR, 96-106) days and, in cohort 2, 142 (137-148) days. In cohort 1, 461 (3.2%) cases of COVID-19 occurred in the vaccine group and 221 (6.1%) in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy: 49.7%; 95% CI, 40.8%-57.3%) vs 75 (1.6%) and 51 (4.3%) in cohort 2 (vaccine efficacy: 64.9%; 95% CI, 49.7%-59.5%). The incidence of serious adverse events was lower than 0.1%, with no vaccine-related deaths.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the efficacy and safety of FINLAY-FR-2 and FINLAY-FR-1A, 2 doses of FINLAY-FR-2 plus the third dose of FINLAY-FR-1A showed acceptable vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 as well as COVID-19-related severe infections. Vaccination was generally safe and well tolerated. Therefore, Soberana may have utility as an option for mass vaccination of the population, especially in resource-limited settings, because of its storage condition and affordable price.

Trial Registration

isrctn.org Identifier: IRCT20210303050558N1.

Application of Traditional Vaccine Development Strategies to SARS-CoV-2

Over the past 150 years, vaccines have revolutionized the relationship between people and disease. During the COVID-19 pandemic, technologies such as mRNA vaccines have received attention due to their novelty and successes. However, more traditional vaccine development platforms have also yielded important tools in the worldwide fight against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A variety of approaches have been used to develop COVID-19 vaccines that are now authorized for use in countries around the world. In this review, we highlight strategies that focus on the viral capsid and outwards, rather than on the nucleic acids inside. These approaches fall into two broad categories: whole-virus vaccines and subunit vaccines. Whole-virus vaccines use the virus itself, in either an inactivated or an attenuated state. Subunit vaccines contain instead an isolated, immunogenic component of the virus. Here, we highlight vaccine candidates that apply these approaches against SARS-CoV-2 in different ways. In a companion article (H. M. Rando, R. Lordan, L. Kolla, E. Sell, et al., mSystems 8:e00928-22, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00928-22), we review the more recent and novel development of nucleic acid-based vaccine technologies. We further consider the role that these COVID-19 vaccine development programs have played in prophylaxis at the global scale. Well-established vaccine technologies have proved especially important to making vaccines accessible in low- and middle-income countries. Vaccine development programs that use established platforms have been undertaken in a much wider range of countries than those using nucleic acid-based technologies, which have been led by wealthy Western countries. Therefore, these vaccine platforms, though less novel from a biotechnological standpoint, have proven to be extremely important to the management of SARS-CoV-2. IMPORTANCE The development, production, and distribution of vaccines is imperative to saving lives, preventing illness, and reducing the economic and social burdens caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccines that use cutting-edge biotechnology have played an important role in mitigating the effects of SARS-CoV-2. However, more traditional methods of vaccine development that were refined throughout the 20th century have been especially critical to increasing vaccine access worldwide. Effective deployment is necessary to reducing the susceptibility of the world's population, which is especially important in light of emerging variants. In this review, we discuss the safety, immunogenicity, and distribution of vaccines developed using established technologies. In a separate review, we describe the vaccines developed using nucleic acid-based vaccine platforms. From the current literature, it is clear that the well-established vaccine technologies are also highly effective against SARS-CoV-2 and are being used to address the challenges of COVID-19 globally, including in low- and middle-income countries. This worldwide approach is critical for reducing the devastating impact of SARS-CoV-2.

Living with HIV and Getting Vaccinated: A Narrative Review

After 40 years of its appearance, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection remains a leading public health challenge worldwide. Since the introduction of antiretroviral treatment (ART), HIV infection has become a chronic condition, and people living with HIV could have life expectancies close to those of the general population. People with HIV often have an increased risk of infection or experience more severe morbidity following exposure to vaccine-preventable diseases. Nowadays, several vaccines are available against bacteria and viruses. However, national and international vaccination guidelines for people with HIV are heterogeneous, and not every vaccine is included. For these reasons, we aimed to perform a narrative review about the vaccinations available for adults living with HIV, reporting the most updated studies performed for each vaccine among this population. We performed a comprehensive literature search through electronic databases (Pubmed-MEDLINE and Embase) and search engines (Google Scholar). We included English peer-reviewed publications (articles and reviews) on HIV and vaccination. Despite widespread use and guideline recommendations, few vaccine trials have been conducted in people with HIV. In addition, not all vaccines are recommended for people with HIV, especially for those with low CD4 cells count. Clinicians should carefully collect the history of vaccinations and patients' acceptance and preferences and regularly check the presence of antibodies for vaccine-preventable pathogens.

SARS-CoV-2: Immunity, Challenges with Current Vaccines, and a Novel Perspective on Mucosal Vaccines

The global rollout of COVID-19 vaccines has played a critical role in reducing pandemic spread, disease severity, hospitalizations, and deaths. However, the first-generation vaccines failed to block severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and transmission, partially due to the limited induction of mucosal immunity, leading to the continuous emergence of variants of concern (VOC) and breakthrough infections. To meet the challenges from VOC, limited durability, and lack of mucosal immune response of first-generation vaccines, novel approaches are being investigated. Herein, we have discussed the current knowledge pertaining to natural and vaccine-induced immunity, and the role of the mucosal immune response in controlling SARS-CoV2 infection. We have also presented the current status of the novel approaches aimed at eliciting both mucosal and systemic immunity. Finally, we have presented a novel adjuvant-free approach to elicit effective mucosal immunity against SARS-CoV-2, which lacks the safety concerns associated with live-attenuated vaccine platforms.

Superior possibilities and upcoming horizons for nanoscience in COVID-19: noteworthy approach for effective diagnostics and management of SARS-CoV-2 outbreak

The outbreak of COVID-19 has caused great havoc and affected many parts of the world. It has imposed a great challenge to the medical and health fraternity with its ability to continue mutating and increasing the transmission rate. Some challenges include the availability of current knowledge of active drugs against the virus, mode of delivery of the medicaments, its diagnosis, which are relatively limited and do not suffice for further prognosis. One recently developed drug delivery system called nanoparticles is currently being utilized in combating COVID-19. This article highlights the existing methods for diagnosis of COVID-19 such as computed tomography scan, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, nucleic acid sequencing, immunoassay, point-of-care test, detection from breath, nanotechnology-based bio-sensors, viral antigen detection, microfluidic device, magnetic nanosensor, magnetic resonance platform and internet-of-things biosensors. The latest detection strategy based on nanotechnology, biosensor, is said to produce satisfactory results in recognizing SARS-CoV-2 virus. It also highlights the successes in the research and development of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines that are already in use. In addition, there are a number of nanovaccines and nanomedicines currently in clinical trials that have the potential to target COVID-19.

A Novel Approach to Obtain Vaccine Effectiveness Continuous Profiles. Example Case: COVID-19 in Elderly Mexicans

Population-wide vaccination is the most promising long-term COVID-19 disease management strategy. However, the protection offered by the currently available COVID-19 vaccines wanes over time, requiring boosters to be periodically given, which represents an unattainable challenge, especially if it is necessary to apply several doses per year. Therefore, it is essential to design strategies that contribute to maximizing the control of the pandemic with the available vaccines. Achieving this objective requires knowing, as precisely and accurately as possible, the changes in vaccine effectiveness over time in each population group, considering the eventual dependence on age, sex, etc. Thus, the present work proposes a novel approach to calculating realistic effectiveness profiles against symptomatic disease. In addition, this strategy can be adapted to estimate realistic effectiveness profiles against hospitalizations or deaths. All such time-dependent profiles allow the design of improved vaccination schedules, where each dose can be administrated to the population groups so that the fulfillment of the containment objectives is maximized. As a practical example for this analysis, vaccination against COVID-19 in Mexico was considered. However, this methodology can be applied to other countries' data or to characterize future vaccines with time-dependent effectiveness values. Since this strategy uses aggregated observational data collected from massive databases, assumptions about the data validity and the course of the studied epidemic could eventually be necessary.

Variants of SARS-CoV-2: Influences on the Vaccines' Effectiveness and Possible Strategies to Overcome Their Consequences

The immune response elicited by the current COVID-19 vaccinations declines with time, especially among the immunocompromised population. Furthermore, the emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly the Omicron variant, has raised serious concerns about the efficacy of currently available vaccines in protecting the most vulnerable people. Several studies have reported that vaccinated people get breakthrough infections amid COVID-19 cases. So far, five variants of concern (VOCs) have been reported, resulting in successive waves of infection. These variants have shown a variable amount of resistance towards the neutralising antibodies (nAbs) elicited either through natural infection or the vaccination. The spike (S) protein, membrane (M) protein, and envelope (E) protein on the viral surface envelope and the N-nucleocapsid protein in the core of the ribonucleoprotein are the major structural vaccine target proteins against COVID-19. Among these targets, S Protein has been extensively exploited to generate effective vaccines against COVID-19. Hence, amid the emergence of novel variants of SARS-CoV-2, we have discussed their impact on currently available vaccines. We have also discussed the potential roles of S Protein in the development of novel vaccination approaches to contain the negative consequences of the variants' emergence and acquisition of mutations in the S Protein of SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, the implications of SARS-CoV-2's structural proteins were also discussed in terms of their variable potential to elicit an effective amount of immune response.

Vaccines for the Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Older Adults

Institutionalized and community-dwelling older adults have been greatly impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with increased morbidity and mortality. The advent of vaccines and their widespread use in this population has brought about a dramatic turnaround in COVID-19 outcomes. The immunogenicity and effectiveness of the various vaccine options worldwide are discussed. Optimization of vaccine usage will still be important to maximize protection due to reduced initial immunity, development of variant strains, and fading of immunity over time. There are also lessons learned specific to older populations for future pandemics of novel pathogens.

Safety and immunogenicity of SII-NVX-CoV2373 (COVID-19 vaccine) in adults in a phase 2/3, observer-blind, randomised, controlled study

Background

NVX-CoV2373, a Covid-19 vaccine was developed in the USA with ∼90% efficacy. The same vaccine is manufactured in India after technology transfer (called as SII-NVX-CoV2373), was evaluated in this phase 2/3 immuno-bridging study.

Methods

This was an observer-blind, randomised, phase 2/3 study in 1600 adults. In phase 2, 200 participants were randomized 3:1 to SII-NVX-CoV2373 or placebo. In phase 3, 1400 participants were randomized 3:1 to SII-NVX-CoV2373 or NVX-CoV2373 (940 safety cohort and 460 immunogenicity cohort). Two doses of study products (SII-NVX-CoV2373, NVX-CoV2373 or placebo) were given 3 weeks apart. Primary objectives were to demonstrate non-inferiority of SII-NVX-CoV2373 to NVX-CoV2373 in terms of geometric mean ELISA units (GMEU) ratio of anti-S IgG antibodies 14 days after the second dose (day 36) and to determine the incidence of causally related serious adverse events (SAEs) through 180 days after the first dose. Anti-S IgG response was assessed using an Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) and neutralizing antibodies (nAb) were assessed by a microneutralization assay using wild type SARS CoV-2 in participants from the immunogenicity cohort at baseline, day 22, day 36 and day 180. Cell mediated immune (CMI) response was assessed in a subset of 28 participants from immunogenicity cohort by ELISpot assay at baseline, day 36 and day 180. The total follow-up was for 6 months. Trial registration: CTRI/2021/02/031554.

Findings

Total 1596 participants (200 in Phase 2 and 1396 in Phase 3) received the first dose. SII-NVX-CoV2373 was found non-inferior to NVX-CoV2373 (anti-S IgG antibodies GMEU ratio 0.91; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.06). At day 36, there was more than 58-fold rise in anti-S IgG and nAb titers compared to baseline in both the groups. On day 180 visit, these antibody titers declined to levels slightly lower than those after the first dose (13-22 fold-rise above baseline). Incidence of unsolicited and solicited AEs was similar between the SII-NVX-CoV2373 and NVX-CoV2373 groups. No adverse event of special interest (AESI) was reported. No causally related SAE was reported.

Interpretation

SII-NVX-CoV2373 induced a non-inferior immune response compared to NVX-CoV2373 and has acceptable safety profile.

Funding

SIIPL, Indian Council of Medical Research, Novavax.

Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the dose-response relationship with three major antibodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in preventing severe COVID-19 illness and death is uncertain due to the rarity of data in individual trials. How well the antibody concentrations can predict the efficacy is also uncertain. We aimed to assess the efficacy of these vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections of different severities and the dose-response relationship between the antibody concentrations and efficacy.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, WHO, bioRxiv, and medRxiv for papers published between Jan 1, 2020 and Sep 12, 2022. RCTs on the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. A frequentist, random-effects model was used to combine efficacy for common outcomes (ie, symptomatic and asymptomatic infections) and a Bayesian random-effects model was used for rare outcomes (ie, hospital admission, severe infection, and death). Potential sources of heterogeneity were investigated. The dose-response relationships of neutralising, spike-specific IgG and receptor binding domain-specific IgG antibody titres with efficacy in preventing SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic and severe infections were examined by meta-regression. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021287238.

FINDINGS

28 RCTs (n=286 915 in vaccination groups and n=233 236 in placebo groups; median follow-up 1-6 months after last vaccination) across 32 publications were included in this review. The combined efficacy of full vaccination was 44·5% (95% CI 27·8-57·4) for preventing asymptomatic infections, 76·5% (69·8-81·7) for preventing symptomatic infections, 95·4% (95% credible interval 88·0-98·7) for preventing hospitalisation, 90·8% (85·5-95·1) for preventing severe infection, and 85·8% (68·7-94·6) for preventing death. There was heterogeneity in the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against asymptomatic and symptomatic infections but insufficient evidence to suggest whether the efficacy could differ according to the type of vaccine, age of the vaccinated individual, and between-dose interval (p>0·05 for all). Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection waned over time after full vaccination, with an average decrease of 13·6% (95% CI 5·5-22·3; p=0·0007) per month but can be enhanced by a booster. We found a significant non-linear relationship between each type of antibody and efficacy against symptomatic and severe infections (p<0·0001 for all), but there remained considerable heterogeneity in the efficacy, which cannot be explained by antibody concentrations. The risk of bias was low in most studies.

INTERPRETATION

The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is higher for preventing severe infection and death than for preventing milder infection. Vaccine efficacy wanes over time but can be enhanced by a booster. Higher antibody titres are associated with higher estimates of efficacy but precise predictions are difficult due to large unexplained heterogeneity. These findings provide an important knowledge base for interpretation and application of future studies on these issues.

FUNDING

Shenzhen Science and Technology Programs.

SARS-CoV-2 S Glycoprotein Stabilization Strategies

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has again shown that structural biology plays an important role in understanding biological mechanisms and exploiting structural data for therapeutic interventions. Notably, previous work on SARS-related glycoproteins has paved the way for the rapid structural determination of the SARS-CoV-2 S glycoprotein, which is the main target for neutralizing antibodies. Therefore, all vaccine approaches aimed to employ S as an immunogen to induce neutralizing antibodies. Like all enveloped virus glycoproteins, SARS-CoV-2 S native prefusion trimers are in a metastable conformation, which primes the glycoprotein for the entry process via membrane fusion. S-mediated entry is associated with major conformational changes in S, which can expose many off-target epitopes that deviate vaccination approaches from the major aim of inducing neutralizing antibodies, which mainly target the native prefusion trimer conformation. Here, we review the viral glycoprotein stabilization methods developed prior to SARS-CoV-2, and applied to SARS-CoV-2 S, in order to stabilize S in the prefusion conformation. The importance of structure-based approaches is highlighted by the benefits of employing stabilized S trimers versus non-stabilized S in vaccines with respect to their protective efficacy.

Global incidence pattern and factors associated with common cutaneous reactions related to COVID-19 vaccination of 2.55 million participants in real-world settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Understanding the incidence pattern of cutaneous reactions is crucial for promoting COVID-19 vaccination. We aimed to report the global incidence pattern of, and factors associated with common cutaneous reactions related to COVID-19 vaccination in real-world settings.

Methods

We searched five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang) from inception to May 13, 2022, for studies reporting the incidence of common cutaneous reactions related to COVID-19 vaccines in real-world settings. The outcomes were the systematic skin reactions (rash and urticaria) and the local injection site reactions (pain, swelling, redness, and erythema). We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and explored associated factors using multi-step statistical analyses.

Results

We included 35 studies and assessed 2 549 968 participants from 23 countries. The pooled incidence of overall systemic skin reactions was 3.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.4%-5.5%) with short duration (about one week). Specifically, the pooled incidence rates of rash and urticaria were 3.0% (95% CI = 2.1%-3.9%) and 1.1% (95% CI = 0.7%-1.5%), respectively. For overall local injection site reactions, the pooled incidence was 72.4% (95% CI = 65.7%-78.7%) with short duration (1 to 4.5 days). Except for local pain (72.2%, 95% CI = 65.3%-78.5%), other localized reactions had low incidence, including swelling (13.3%, 95% CI = 9.5%-17.7%), redness (11.5%, 95% CI = 5.7%-19.0%), and erythema (5.8%, 95% CI = 0.7%-15.4%). Geographically, different distribution patterns were observed for these reactions. Regarding associated factors, mRNA vaccines showed lower incidence of urticaria (P < 0.001). Asia population showed higher incidence of urticaria (P < 0.001). We observed lower incidence rates of overall local injection site reactions and pain among inactivated vaccines (P < 0.001). We found no significant difference among reactions between the first and the second dose of vaccines.

Conclusions

We examined the global incidence pattern of common cutaneous reactions related to COVID-19 vaccination and found low incidence and short duration of systemic skin reactions and local injection site reactions (except for pain); discrepancies in these reactions were observed across different vaccine types. The cutaneous side effects related to COVID-19 vaccination do not seem to cause concern.

Registration

PROSPERO: CRD42021258012.

Serological response to vaccination against coronavirus disease-19 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Vaccination against coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is effective in preventing the occurrence or reduction in the severity of the infection. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are on immunomodulators, which may alter serological response to vaccination against COVID-19. Accordingly, we studied (i) the serological response to vaccination against COVID-19 in IBD patients and (ii) a comparison of serological response in IBD patients with that in healthy controls. A prospective study was undertaken during a 6-month period (July 2021 to January 2022). Seroconversion was assessed among vaccinated, unvaccinated IBD patients and vaccinated healthy controls using anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 immunoglobulin G (anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG) antibody detection enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit, and optical density (OD) was measured at 450 nm. OD is directly proportional to the antibody concentration. One hundred and thirty-two blood samples were collected from 97 IBD patients (85 [87.6%] ulcerative colitis and 12 [12.4%] Crohn's disease). Forty-one of the seventy-one (57.7%) unvaccinated and 60/61 (98.4%) vaccinated IBD patients tested positive (OD > 0.3) for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Fourteen of the sixteen (87.5%) healthy controls tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Vaccinated IBD patients had higher ODs than unvaccinated IBD patients (1.31 [1.09-1.70] vs. 0.53 [0.19-1.32], p < 0.001) and 16 vaccinated healthy controls (1.31 [1.09-1.70] vs. 0.64 [0.43-0.78], p < 0.001). Three of the seventy-one (4.2%) unvaccinated IBD patients reported having recovered from COVID-19. Most IBD patients seroconvert after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, similar to a healthy population. A large proportion of IBD patients had anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies even before vaccination, suggesting the occurrence of herd immunity.

COVID-19 Vaccines-All You Want to Know

The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has led to an unprecedented public health crisis. The collective global response has led to production of multiple safe and effective vaccines utilizing novel platforms to combat the virus that have propelled the field of vaccinology forward. Significant challenges to universal vaccine effectiveness remain, including immune evasion by SARS-CoV-2 variants, waning of immune response, inadequate knowledge of correlates of protection, and dosing in special populations. This review serves as a detailed evaluation of the development of the current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, their effectiveness, and challenges to their deployment as a preventive tool.

Delta variant (B.1.617.2) of SARS-CoV-2: current understanding of infection, transmission, immune escape, and mutational landscape

The Delta variant is one of the alarming variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that have been immensely detrimental and a significant cause of the prolonged pandemic (B.1.617.2). During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from December 2020 to October 2021, the Delta variant showed global dominance, and afterwards, the Omicron variant showed global dominance. Delta shows high infectivity rate which accounted for nearly 70% of the cases after December 2020. This review discusses the additional attributes that make the Delta variant so infectious and transmissible. The study also focuses on the significant mutations, namely the L452R and T478K present on the receptor-binding domain of spike (S)-glycoprotein, which confers specific alterations to the Delta variant. Considerably, we have also highlighted other notable factors such as the immune escape, infectivity and re-infectivity, vaccine escape, Ro number, S-glycoprotein stability, cleavage pattern, and its binding affinity with the host cell receptor protein. We have also emphasized clinical manifestations, symptomatology, morbidity, and mortality for the Delta variant compared with other significant SARS-CoV-2 variants. This review will help the researchers to get an elucidative view of the Delta variant to adopt some practical strategies to minimize the escalating spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant.

Research progress on specific and non-specific immune effects of BCG and the possibility of BCG protection against COVID-19

Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is the only approved vaccine for tuberculosis (TB) prevention worldwide. BCG has an excellent protective effect on miliary tuberculosis and tuberculous meningitis in children or infants. Interestingly, a growing number of studies have shown that BCG vaccination can induce nonspecific and specific immunity to fight against other respiratory disease pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2. The continuous emergence of variants of SARS-CoV-2 makes the protective efficiency of COVID-19-specific vaccines an unprecedented challenge. Therefore, it has been hypothesized that BCG-induced trained immunity might protect against COVID-19 infection. This study comprehensively described BCG-induced nonspecific and specific immunity and the mechanism of trained immunity. In addition, this study also reviewed the research on BCG revaccination to prevent TB, the impact of BCG on other non-tuberculous diseases, and the clinical trials of BCG to prevent COVID-19 infection. These data will provide new evidence to confirm the hypotheses mentioned above.

Systems analysis of human responses to an aluminium hydroxide-adsorbed TLR7 agonist (AS37) adjuvanted vaccine reveals a dose-dependent and specific activation of the interferon-mediated antiviral response

The candidate Adjuvant System AS37 contains a synthetic toll-like receptor agonist (TLR7a) adsorbed to alum. In a phase I study (NCT02639351), healthy adults were randomised to receive one dose of licensed alum-adjuvanted meningococcal serogroup C (MenC-CRM₁₉₇) conjugate vaccine (control) or MenC-CRM₁₉₇ conjugate vaccine adjuvanted with AS37 (TLR7a dose 12.5, 25, 50 or 100 µg). A subset of 66 participants consented to characterisation of peripheral whole blood transcriptomic responses, systemic cytokine/chemokine responses and multiple myeloid and lymphoid cell responses as exploratory study endpoints. Blood samples were collected pre-vaccination, 6 and 24 h post-vaccination, and 3, 7, 28 and 180 days post-vaccination. The gene expression profile in whole blood showed an early, AS37-specific transcriptome response that peaked at 24 h, increased with TLR7a dose up to 50 µg and generally resolved within one week. Five clusters of differentially expressed genes were identified, including those involved in the interferon-mediated antiviral response. Evaluation of 30 cytokines/chemokines by multiplex assay showed an increased level of interferon-induced chemokine CXCL10 (IP-10) at 24 h and 3 days post-vaccination in the AS37-adjuvanted vaccine groups. Increases in activated plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDC) and intermediate monocytes were detected 3 days post-vaccination in the AS37-adjuvanted vaccine groups. T follicular helper (Tfh) cells increased 7 days post-vaccination and were maintained at 28 days post-vaccination, particularly in the AS37-adjuvanted vaccine groups. Moreover, most of the subjects that received vaccine containing 25, 50 and 100 µg TLR7a showed an increased MenC-specific memory B cell responses versus baseline. These data show that the adsorption of TLR7a to alum promotes an immune signature consistent with TLR7 engagement, with up-regulation of interferon-inducible genes, cytokines and frequency of activated pDC, intermediate monocytes, MenC-specific memory B cells and Tfh cells. TLR7a 25-50 µg can be considered the optimal dose for AS37, particularly for the adjuvanted MenC-CRM₁₉₇ conjugate vaccine.

Immunity against Delta and Omicron variants elicited by homologous inactivated vaccine booster in kidney transplant recipients

Background

A third mRNA vaccine booster is recommended to improve immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). However, the immunity against SARS-CoV-2 Ancestral strain and Delta and Omicron variants elicited by the third dose of inactivated booster vaccine in KTRs remains unknown.

Methods

The blood parameters related to blood cells count, hepatic function, kidney function, heart injury and immunity were explored clinically from laboratory examinations. SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody IgG titer was detected using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Cellular immunity was analyzed using interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay.

Results

The results showed that there were no severe adverse effects and apparent changes of clinical laboratory biomarkers in KTRs and healthy volunteers (HVs) after homologous inactivated vaccine booster. A third dose of inactivated vaccine booster significantly increased anti-Ancestral-spike-trimer-IgG and anti-Ancestral-receptor binding domain (RBD)-IgG titers in KTRs and HVs compared with the second vaccination. However, the anti-Delta-RBD-IgG and anti-Omicron-RBD-IgG titers were significantly lower than anti-Ancestral-RBD-IgG titer in KTRs and HVs after the third dose. Notably, only 25.6% (10/39) and 10.3% (4/39) of KTRs had seropositivity for anti-Delta-RBD-IgG and anti-Omicron-RBD-IgG after booster, which were significantly lower than HVs (anti-Delta-RBD-IgG: 100%, anti-Omicron-RBD-IgG: 77.8%). Ancestral strain nucleocapsid protein and spike specific T cell frequency after booster was not significantly increased in KTRs compared with the second dose, significantly lower than that in HVs. Moreover, 33.3% (12/36), 14.3% (3/21) and 14.3% (3/21) of KTRs were positive for the Ancestral strain and Delta and Omicron spike-specific T cells, which were significantly lower than HVs (Ancestral: 80.8%, Delta: 53.8%, and Omicron: 57.7%).

Conclusions

A third dose of inactivated booster vaccine may significantly increase humoral immunity against the Ancestral strain in KTRs, while humoral and cellular immunity against the Delta and Omicron variants were still poor in KTRs.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

OBJECTIVE

To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022.

FINDINGS

This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.

Randomized phase II clinical trial of ruxolitinib plus simvastatin in COVID19 clinical outcome and cytokine evolution

Background

Managing the inflammatory response to SARS-Cov-2 could prevent respiratory insufficiency. Cytokine profiles could identify cases at risk of severe disease.

Methods

We designed a randomized phase II clinical trial to determine whether the combination of ruxolitinib (5 mg twice a day for 7 days followed by 10 mg BID for 7 days) plus simvastatin (40 mg once a day for 14 days), could reduce the incidence of respiratory insufficiency in COVID-19. 48 cytokines were correlated with clinical outcome.

Participants

Patients admitted due to COVID-19 infection with mild disease.

Results

Up to 92 were included. Mean age was 64 ± 17, and 28 (30%) were female. 11 (22%) patients in the control arm and 6 (12%) in the experimental arm reached an OSCI grade of 5 or higher (p = 0.29). Unsupervised analysis of cytokines detected two clusters (CL-1 and CL-2). CL-1 presented a higher risk of clinical deterioration vs CL-2 (13 [33%] vs 2 [6%] cases, p = 0.009) and death (5 [11%] vs 0 cases, p = 0.059). Supervised Machine Learning (ML) analysis led to a model that predicted patient deterioration 48h before occurrence with a 85% accuracy.

Conclusions

Ruxolitinib plus simvastatin did not impact the outcome of COVID-19. Cytokine profiling identified patients at risk of severe COVID-19 and predicted clinical deterioration.

Trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT04348695.

Evaluation of immunoprotection against coronavirus disease 2019: Novel variants, vaccine inoculation, and complications

The strikingly rapidly mutating nature of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genome has been a constant challenge during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In this study, various techniques, including reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction, antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests, and high-throughput sequencing were analyzed under different scenarios and spectra for the etiological diagnosis of COVID-19 at the population scale. This study aimed to summarize the latest research progress and provide up-to-date understanding of the methodology used for the evaluation of the immunoprotection conditions against future variants of SARS-CoV-2. Our novel work reviewed the current methods for the evaluation of the immunoprotection status of a specific population (endogenous antibodies) before and after vaccine inoculation (administered with biopharmaceutical antibody products). The present knowledge of the immunoprotection status regarding the COVID-19 complications was also discussed. Knowledge on the immunoprotection status of specific populations can help guide the design of pharmaceutical antibody products, inform practice guidelines, and develop national regulations with respect to the timing of and need for extra rounds of vaccine boosters.

Development of variant-proof severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, pan-sarbecovirus, and pan-β-coronavirus vaccines

The newly emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants with high transmission rates and striking immune evasion have posed a serious challenge to the application of current first-generation SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Other sarbecoviruses, such as SARS-CoV and SARS-related coronaviruses (SARSr-CoVs), have the potential to cause outbreaks in the future. These facts call for the development of variant-proof SARS-CoV-2, pan-sarbecovirus or pan-β-CoV vaccines. Several novel vaccine platforms have been used to develop vaccines with broad-spectrum neutralizing antibody responses and protective immunity to combat the current SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, other sarbecoviruses, as well as other β-CoVs, in the future. In this review, we discussed the major target antigens and protective efficacy of current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and summarized recent advances in broad-spectrum vaccines against sarbecoviruses and β-CoVs.

Comparative Performance Evaluation of Personal Protective Measures and Antiviral Agents Against SARS-CoV-2 Variants: A Narrative Review

Scientists identified SARS-CoV-2 in December 2019 in Wuhan city of China. Soon after its identification, Covid-19 spreads almost everywhere. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Covid-19 outbreak as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Countries are facing multiple waves due to the different variants of the coronavirus. Personal preventive measures, vaccines, and antiviral drugs are the approaches to control Covid-19. However, these approaches are being implemented in different countries at different levels because of the availability of personal protective measures and antiviral agents. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of practicing measures to fight the Covid-19 pandemic. Here we searched relevant literature from PubMed and Scopus using the keywords such as personal protective measures, antiviral agents, and vaccine effectiveness. According to the present findings, protective measures were found comparatively less effective. Nevertheless, these measures can be used to limit the spreading of Covid-19. Antiviral agents can reduce the hospitalization rate and are more effective than personal protective measures. The most effective strategy against Covid-19 is early vaccination or multiple vaccination dose. The respective authorities should ensure equal distribution of vaccines, free availability of antiviral drugs, and personal protective measure in poor and developing countries. We recommend more studies to describe the effectiveness of practicing preventive measures and antiviral agents against recent variants of the coronavirus.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in older adults

In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, vaccinations were essential in preventing COVID-19 infections and related mortality in older adults. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in older adults. We systematically searched the electronic bibliographic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Research Square, and OpenGrey, as well as other sources of gray literature, for studies published between January 1, 2020, and October 1, 2022. We retrieved 22 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a total of 3,404,696 older adults (aged over 60 years) participating, that were included in the meta-analysis. No significant publication bias was found. In the cumulative meta-analysis, we found that the COVID-19 vaccines were effective in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.23-0.65, p = 0.0004) and in reducing the number of COVID-19-related deaths (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.10-0.25, p < 0.00001) in elderly people. Antibody seroconversion (AS) and geometric mean titer (GMT) levels significantly increased in vaccinated older adults [OR = 24.42, 95% CI = 19.29-30.92; standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.64-1.20, respectively]. However, local and systemic adverse events after COVID-19 vaccine administration were found in older adults (OR = 2.57, 95% CI = 1.83-3.62, p < 0.00001). Although vaccination might induce certain adverse reactions in the elderly population, the available evidence showed that the COVID-19 vaccines are effective and tolerated, as shown by the decrease in COVID-19-related deaths in older adults. It needs to be made abundantly clear to elderly people that the advantages of vaccination far outweigh any potential risks. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccination should be considered as the recommended strategy for the control of this disease by preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and related deaths in older adults. More RCTs are needed to increase the certainty of the evidence and to verify our conclusions.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022319698, identifier CRD42022319698.

Neurological Complications Following COVID-19 Vaccination

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A variety of neurological complications have been reported following the widespread use of the COVID-19 vaccines which may lead to vaccine hesitancy and serve as a major barrier to the public health aim of achieving protective herd immunity by vaccination. In this article, we review the available evidence regarding these neurological adverse events reported, to provide clarity regarding the same so that unfounded fears maybe put to rest.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a greater than expected occurrence of severe neurological adverse events such as cortical sinus venous thrombosis, Bell's palsy, transverse myelitis, and Guillain-Barré syndromes along with other common effects such as headaches following different kinds of COVID-19 vaccination. Precipitation of new onset demyelinating brain lesions with or without detection of specific antibodies and worsening of pre-existing neurological disorders (like epilepsy, multiple sclerosis) are also a matter of great concern though no conclusive evidence implicating the vaccines is available as of now. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from being over. Till such time that a truly effective anti-viral drug is discovered, or an appropriate therapeutic strategy is developed, COVID-appropriate behavior and highly effective mass vaccination remain the only weapons in our armamentarium to fight this deadly disease. As often occurs with most therapeutic means for the treatment and prevention of any disease, vaccination against COVID-19 has its hazards. These range from the most trivial ones like fever, local pain and myalgias to several potentially serious cardiac and neurological complications. The latter group includes conditions like cerebral venous thrombosis (curiously often with thrombocytopenia), transverse myelitis and acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy amongst others. Fortunately, the number of reported patients with any of these serious complications is far too low for the total number of people vaccinated. Hence, the current evidence suggests that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risk of these events in majority of the patients. As of now, available evidence also does not recommend withholding vaccination in patients with pre-existing neurological disorders like epilepsy and MS, though adenoviral vaccines should be avoided in those with history of thrombotic events.

Steps taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic at the grassroots level of rural India: Experience of a community physician

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was first identified in Wuhan, China and then rapidly spread all over the world. The World Health Organization declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020 as a result of COVID-19. As it has caused substantial morbidity and mortality, most countries took several measures to control its spread, including India. As of now, India has witnessed three major waves of COVID-19. Several measures like nationwide lockdown, active case finding, contact tracing, home isolation, and vaccination were taken. There was involvement of multiple sectors (including private and government) and community participation. During the pandemic, I was posted at a primary health centre in a rural setting in India. A rural primary care setting has its own limitations. All the steps taken had several challenges at the grassroots level. Therefore, through this article, I highlighted the challenges faced during the implementation of steps taken to battle the pandemic and the outcome.

A review of COVID vaccines: success against a moving target

BACKGROUND

Multiple vaccine platforms against COVID-19 have been developed and found safe and efficacious at a record speed. Although most are effective, they vary in their ease of production and distribution, their potential speed of modification against new variants, and their durability of protection and safety in certain target groups.

SOURCES OF DATA

Our discussion is based on published reports of clinical trials and analyses from national and global health agencies.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

The production of neutralizing antibodies against the viral spike protein is protective, and all vaccines for which published data exist have been found to be effective against severe disease caused by the viral strain they target.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The degree to which vaccines protect against emerging variants, moderate disease and asymptomatic infection remains somewhat unclear.

GROWING POINTS

Knowledge of the duration of protection and its decay is increasing, and discussions of booster frequency and target strains are ongoing.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

The global effort to combat transmission and disease continues to rely upon intense epidemiological surveillance, whilst real-world data and clinical trials shape vaccination schedules and formulae.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines

BACKGROUND

Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Efficacy of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) Vaccination in Reducing the Incidence and Severity of COVID-19 in High-Risk Population (BRIC): a Phase III, Multi-centre, Quadruple-Blind Randomised Control Trial

INTRODUCTION

Universal coverage of vaccines alone cannot be relied upon to protect at-risk populations in lower- and middle-income countries against the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and newer variants. Live vaccines, including Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), are being studied for their effectiveness in reducing the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection.

METHODS

In this multi-centre quadruple-blind, parallel assignment randomised control trial, 495 high-risk group adults (aged 18-60 years) were randomised into BCG and placebo arms and followed up for 9 months from the date of vaccination. The primary outcome was the difference in the incidence of COVID-19 infection at the end of 9 months. Secondary outcomes included the difference in the incidence of severe COVID-19 infections, hospitalisation rates, intensive care unit stay, oxygen requirement and mortality at the end of 9 months. The primary analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis, while safety analysis was done per protocol.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the incidence rates of cartridge-based nucleic acid amplification test (CB-NAAT) positive COVID-19 infection [odds ratio (OR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-2.14] in the two groups, but the BCG arm showed a statistically significant decrease in clinically diagnosed (symptomatic) probable COVID-19 infections (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20-0.72). Compared with the BCG arm, significantly more patients developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia (CB-NAAT positive) and required hospitalisation and oxygen in the placebo arm (six versus none; p = 0.03). One patient belonging to the placebo arm required intensive care unit (ICU) stay and died. BCG had a protective efficacy of 62% (95% CI 28-80%) for likely symptomatic COVID-19 infection.

CONCLUSIONS

BCG is protective in reducing the incidence of acute respiratory illness (probable symptomatic COVID-19 infection) and severity of the disease, including hospitalisation, in patients belonging to the high-risk group of COVID-19 infection, and the antibody response persists for quite a long time. A multi-centre study with a larger sample size will help to confirm the findings in this study.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI/2020/07/026668).

Perception and Attitude Towards COVID-19 Vaccination Among the Elderly: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction COVID-19 is one of the most formidable obstacles that humanity has encountered in this century. The death rate was high among the elderly in India; therefore, getting the elderly vaccinated was one of the most important things to do. Objective We conducted this study to assess the perception and attitude about the COVID-19 vaccines among the elderly population. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted at Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi. We selected 108 participants using systematic random sampling. We used a semi-structured questionnaire to collect the data. Results Out of 108 participants, 52.8% were men. Among them, 9.3% of participants had tested positive before. The average number of days of illness among the participants was 5.3 (SD + 3.5). Males had a higher average day of illness (5.5, SD +3.7) than females (4.9, SD +3.3). Among those who had not been vaccinated, 73.3% of participants said they would receive the vaccine, 6.7% were unsure, and 20% were not willing to receive the vaccine. Conclusion COVID vaccination in an elderly population showed a relatively high vaccine acceptance rate, and the willingness to get the vaccine was also high among the unvaccinated.

Relapses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic outbreak raises the question of whether immunization is recommended for patients with CNS demyelinating diseases. On the one hand, existing studies suggested that SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations are not associated with increased risk of relapse activity. On the other hand, case reports with acute CNS demyelinating disease post vaccination were emerging and raising clinicians' attention.

METHODS

In this longitudinal observational study, we included 556 patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) and 280 patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Each vaccinated patient was matched to two unvaccinated patients according to age, gender, ARR and immunotherapy status, based on propensity score matching model (PSM). The primary outcome is the short- and medium-term risk of relapse, which were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis between groups.

RESULTS

In our cohort, 649 patients (77.6%) have not yet been vaccinated, mainly due to their concerns about relapse. After PSM, 109 vaccinated patients with NMOSD, 218 PS-matched unvaccinated patients with NMOSD, 78 vaccinated patients with RRMS, and 156 PS-matched unvaccinated patients with RRMS were included in the survival analysis to explore the safety of vaccines, with a median of 9-month follow-up. Following the first vaccination dose, 10 patients with NMOSD (9.2%) and four with RRMS (5.1%) experienced an acute relapse. Meanwhile, in the PS-matched unvaccinated group, 15 patients with NMOSD (6.9%) and 12 patients with RRMS (7.7%) presented with an acute relapse. There was no significant difference between the two curves in both NMOSD and RRMS groups over the course of the observation period. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and symptoms of relapses between the vaccinated and PS-matched unvaccinated groups. Post vaccination adverse events (ADE) were reported in 39 individuals (20.9%).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines appear safe for patients with CNS demyelinating diseases.

Self-Reported adverse events among Chinese healthcare workers immunized with COVID-19 vaccines composed of inactivated SARS-CoV-2

Mass vaccination is critical to control the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Fear of adverse events (AEs) after COVID-19 vaccination is a main factor associated with vaccination hesitancy. We aimed to analyze AEs in healthcare workers (HCWs) vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines (Aikewei or CoronaVac) composed of inactivated virus. We used a structured self-administered questionnaire to conduct two surveys on COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs in perinatal medicine and obstetrics/gynecology from April 5 to April 21, 2021. In total, 1392 HCWs who had received at least one vaccine dose were included. Of them, 1264 (90.8%) were females and 1047 (75.2%) received two doses. The overall incidence of any AEs after the first and second dose was 38.2% (532/1392) and 31.0% (325/1047) respectively (χ2 = 13.506, P = .0002). Female and HCWs aged 18-30 y were more likely to report AEs. The most common AEs were local reaction, accounting for 48.1% and 67.4% of all AEs after the first and second dose respectively. The systemic AEs were mainly neurological (9.8% and 4.8% after the first and second injection respectively) and flu-like symptoms (6.3% and 3.2%). Overall, most of AEs were mild, only 5.1% (after the first dose) and 2.8% (after the second dose) of individuals with AEs received symptomatic treatment or sick leaves, and none of them required hospitalization. Our data added more evidence that inactivated COVID-19 vaccines are highly safe. The data are valuable to overcome vaccine hesitancy associated with concerns about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Lot-to-lot consistency, immunogenicity, and safety of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) in healthy adults: A randomized, double-blind, phase IV trial

Previous phase I to III clinical trials have shown that the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine namely CoronaVac has good efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. This phase IV trial aims to evaluate the lot-to-lot consistency, immunogenicity, and safety on a commercial scale in healthy adults, which could provide data to support stable manufacturing. In this single-center, randomized, double-blind study, 1,080 healthy adults aged 26-45 years were randomly assigned into three groups to receive one of three lots of vaccines. All subjects received two doses of CoronaVac with an interval of 28 days. Serum samples were collected before the first dose and 28 days after the second dose to assess the immunogenicity. Solicited local and systemic adverse events (AEs) within 7 days and unsolicited AEs within 28 days after each dose of vaccination were recorded. A total of 1,039 participants completed the study and were included in the per-protocol set (PPS). The GMTs were 75.2 (68.5,82.6), 65.0 (59.0,71.7), and 65.3 (59.4,71.8), respectively, and the seroconversion rates of neutralizing antibody were all higher than 98%. The GMT ratios of each pair of lots were 1.16 (1.01,1.32), 1.15 (1.01, 1.32), and 0.99 (0.87, 1.14), respectively, meeting the immunological equivalence criteria. The incidence rates of adverse reactions (ARs) were 19.17%, 13.89%, and 18.33%, with no statistical difference. The ARs were all in grade 1 and grade 2, with incidences of 15.46% and 2.50%. Non-vaccine-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported. These results showed robust lot-to-lot consistency, immunogenicity, and safety. The stable production indicated that CoronaVac is suitable for large-scale use.Trial registration number: NCT04894227 (ClinicalTrials.gov).