Developing Safe and Effective Covid Vaccines - Operation Warp Speed's Strategy and Approach

An Oscillatory Path to Vaccination: The Roles of Normative and Epistemic Factors in Explaining Vaccination Hesitancy in COVID-19

This study examined the roles of normative and epistemic factors in influencing individuals' reluctance to be vaccinated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Individuals' ethical orientations (IEO; teleology vs. deontology) were introduced as normative characteristics, while COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccine knowledge were addressed as issue-specific epistemic factors. We conducted two online surveys to investigate each of these three factors' influences on the level of Americans' reluctance to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Combinations of these factors that predict COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy levels were also explored to provide integrated perspectives in the specific vaccination context. Our findings demonstrated the positive association between IEO and reluctance to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Significant interactions between 1) COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy beliefs and IEO and 2) conspiracy beliefs and vaccine knowledge were also identified. Implications, limitations, and suggestions for future study were addressed.

A Hierarchy of Medical Countermeasures Against Biological Threats

INTRODUCTION

Emerging biological threats represent a serious challenge for force health protection (FHP). Against a novel biological threat, medical countermeasures are the first line of defense. However, as exposed by global pandemic conditions, there are significant complications when administering medical countermeasures against novel threats. One such limitation involved the lack of any guiding structure to discuss and deliberate upon the relative value of employing different countermeasures either alone or in tandem. For example, both personal protective equipment and prophylactic medication can provide some protection, but how are individual protections weighed against operational capabilities and FHP initiatives? The goal of this review is to provide a hierarchical organizing structure to the different medical countermeasures available in response to emerging biological threats.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review used no explicit inclusion or exclusion criteria for its literature review. References are provided for illustrative purposes to represent different components of the medical hierarchy.

DISCUSSION

The hierarchy presented here is organized around a resource-durability structure that functions as a push-pull mechanism. Specifically, lower levels of the hierarchy require more resources to sustain FHP conditions while also providing less durable protection. These countermeasures require continual reapplication, and so resources become conceived as much in time and effort to apply as in exhaustible supplies. Higher-order countermeasures require less resources investment as a single application can provide weeks, months, or years of protection. Moreover, higher-order protections are less likely to interfere with military operational capabilities, which further support their classification as superior countermeasures to sustain FHP. The five levels of the hierarchy are presented here as follows, organized from lowest to highest value as a medical countermeasure: (1) Sanitization, (2) personal protective equipment, (3) prophylaxis, (4) vaccines, and (5) optimized immune system. Rationale and descriptions identify how each higher-order countermeasure is superior to its lower-order counterparts while noting that optimizing FHP will likely require employing multiple countermeasures at different levels. The discussion concludes with an overview as to how different countermeasures were employed to various degrees during a novel global pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE USES

Identifying medical countermeasures is important to optimizing FHP. Different countermeasures have different advantages, and the hierarchy distinguishes between inferior and superior countermeasures through the push-pull style mechanism of resource-durability assessment. Future deployment and development should focus on superior countermeasures to maximize medical protections and operational readiness while understanding the relative value and complications inherent with different countermeasures.

Efficacy and Safety of NVX-CoV2373 in Adults in the United States and Mexico

BACKGROUND

NVX-CoV2373 is an adjuvanted, recombinant spike protein nanoparticle vaccine that was shown to have clinical efficacy for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in phase 2b-3 trials in the United Kingdom and South Africa, but its efficacy had not yet been tested in North America.

METHODS

We conducted a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United States and Mexico during the first half of 2021 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NVX-CoV2373 in adults (≥18 years of age) who had not had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive two doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo 21 days apart. The primary objective was to determine vaccine efficacy against reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction-confirmed Covid-19 occurring at least 7 days after the second dose. Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe disease and against different variants was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 29,949 participants who underwent randomization between December 27, 2020, and February 18, 2021, a total of 29,582 (median age, 47 years; 12.6% ≥65 years of age) received at least one dose: 19,714 received vaccine and 9868 placebo. Over a period of 3 months, 77 cases of Covid-19 were noted - 14 among vaccine recipients and 63 among placebo recipients (vaccine efficacy, 90.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 82.9 to 94.6; P<0.001). Ten moderate and 4 severe cases occurred, all in placebo recipients, yielding vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe disease of 100% (95% CI, 87.0 to 100). Most sequenced viral genomes (48 of 61, 79%) were variants of concern or interest - largely B.1.1.7 (alpha) (31 of the 35 genomes for variants of concern, 89%). Vaccine efficacy against any variant of concern or interest was 92.6% (95% CI, 83.6 to 96.7). Reactogenicity was mostly mild to moderate and transient but was more frequent among NVX-CoV2373 recipients than among placebo recipients and was more frequent after the second dose than after the first dose.

CONCLUSIONS

NVX-CoV2373 was safe and effective for the prevention of Covid-19. Most breakthrough cases were caused by contemporary variant strains. (Funded by Novavax and others; PREVENT-19 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04611802.).

Efficacy and Safety of NVX-CoV2373 in Adults in the United States and Mexico

BACKGROUND

NVX-CoV2373 is an adjuvanted, recombinant spike protein nanoparticle vaccine that was shown to have clinical efficacy for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) in phase 2b-3 trials in the United Kingdom and South Africa, but its efficacy had not yet been tested in North America.

METHODS

We conducted a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United States and Mexico during the first half of 2021 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of NVX-CoV2373 in adults (≥18 years of age) who had not had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive two doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo 21 days apart. The primary objective was to determine vaccine efficacy against reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction-confirmed Covid-19 occurring at least 7 days after the second dose. Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe disease and against different variants was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 29,949 participants who underwent randomization between December 27, 2020, and February 18, 2021, a total of 29,582 (median age, 47 years; 12.6% ≥65 years of age) received at least one dose: 19,714 received vaccine and 9868 placebo. Over a period of 3 months, 77 cases of Covid-19 were noted - 14 among vaccine recipients and 63 among placebo recipients (vaccine efficacy, 90.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 82.9 to 94.6; P<0.001). Ten moderate and 4 severe cases occurred, all in placebo recipients, yielding vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe disease of 100% (95% CI, 87.0 to 100). Most sequenced viral genomes (48 of 61, 79%) were variants of concern or interest - largely B.1.1.7 (alpha) (31 of the 35 genomes for variants of concern, 89%). Vaccine efficacy against any variant of concern or interest was 92.6% (95% CI, 83.6 to 96.7). Reactogenicity was mostly mild to moderate and transient but was more frequent among NVX-CoV2373 recipients than among placebo recipients and was more frequent after the second dose than after the first dose.

CONCLUSIONS

NVX-CoV2373 was safe and effective for the prevention of Covid-19. Most breakthrough cases were caused by contemporary variant strains. (Funded by Novavax and others; PREVENT-19 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04611802.).

COVID-19 Vaccination Clinics: Meeting Clinical Hours and Improving Nursing Students’ Skills

Background

As 2020 drew to an end and the country was looking forward to 2021, the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing was presented with the challenge of administrating large quantities of COVID-19 vaccines. As the vaccines became more readily available, staff skilled in intramuscular injections (IM) were needed at multiple locations to administer the vaccinations.

Method

The school of nursing faculty recognized this as an opportunity for nursing students to gain clinical experience by substituting one virtual clinical day with one day at the in-person vaccine clinic. A comprehensive implementation plan was developed in collaboration with leadership from across the health system.

Results

The students were able to increase confidence in IM injection skills while helping the community by administering life-saving doses of vaccine to patients and Galveston county residents.

Conclusions

Vaccination clinic participation proved to be a worthwhile experience for the nursing students and faculty.

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination Mimicking Heart Attack in a Healthy 56-Year-Old Physician

We report our experience regarding a 56-year-old physician who developed severe symptoms mimicking a heart attack a few days after receiving the second dose of the new mRNA vaccine of Pfizer-BioNTech for COVID-19 protection. The patient is a healthy individual with no comorbidities and a normal clinical and laboratory profile. Five days after receiving the second dose on his left shoulder, he manifested sudden, severe pain on the whole left arm which lasted for about one hour, gradually intensifying and migrating to the chest and presenting as severe angina or heart attack. All work-up, however, was negative, with no evidence of ischemic heart attack or myocarditis. Severe acute symptoms lasted for about 20 h and completely resolved after 36 h. Although myocarditis as a potential side effect of the vaccine with associated heart pain has been identified, chest pain mimicking heart attack with otherwise normal workup has not been reported. Physicians must consider this likely rare and self-resolving symptom in order to increase awareness and prevent themselves and their patients from increased anxiety and unnecessary laboratory investigations.

Utility of Walk Tests in the Progression of Mild COVID-19 Infection at a Tertiary Hospital in North India

INTRODUCTION

There have been 214 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide, with a total death tally of 4.4 million. The current study aims to determine the predictive value of various scores in the assessment of progression of mild COVID-19 infection at a tertiary care hospital in North India.

METHODS

The study population consisted of adults (age more than 18 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal specimens. Patients with only mild illness were enrolled. After the patients were admitted to the isolation ward, the presenting history, comorbidity status, vital signs and laboratory parameters were recorded. The 3 and 6 minutes walk test was performed daily from admission till discharge or progression of the severity of COVID- 19, and it was used to calculate Borg Dyspnoea Score (BDS) and National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) scores.

RESULTS

Our study consisted of 50 patients with 34 (68%) males, and the mean (SD) age of the patient population was 28.1 (6.4) years. The most common symptoms were fever, sore throat, and cough. All laboratory parameters were within normal ranges for all the patients. 96% recovered without progression, while only 4% of them progressed to moderate illness. Results of the 3 and 6 minutes walk tests, BDS and NEWS2 scores showed improvement over the course of the hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Although the walk tests and the scores improved over time, they failed to predict the disease progression.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Ethiopian healthcare workers

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 poses significant health and economic threat prompting international firms to rapidly develop vaccines and secure quick regulatory approval. Although COVID-19 vaccination priority is given for high-risk individuals including healthcare workers (HCWs), the success of the immunization efforts hinges on peoples' willingness to embrace these vaccines.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess HCWs intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and the reasons underlying vaccine hesitancy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among HCWs in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia from March to July 2021. Data were collected from eligible participants from 18 health facilities using a pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression was performed to explore factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. A p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 614 HCWs participated in the study, with a mean age of 30.57±6.87 years. Nearly two-thirds (60.3%) of HCWs were hesitant to use the COVID-19 vaccine. Participants under the age of 30 years were approximately five times more likely to be hesitant to be vaccinated compared to those over the age of 40 years. HCWs other than medical doctors and/or nurses (AOR = 2.1; 95%CI; 1.1, 3.8) were more likely to be hesitant for COVID-19 vaccine. Lack of believe in COVID-19 vaccine benefits (AOR = 2.5; 95%CI; 1.3, 4.6), lack of trust in the government (AOR = 1.9; 95%CI; 1.3, 3.1), lack of trust science to produce safe and effective vaccines (AOR = 2.6; 95%CI; 1.6, 4.2); and concern about vaccine safety (AOR = 3.2; 95%CI; 1.9, 5.4) were also found to be predictors of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy showed to be high among HCWs. All concerned bodies including the ministry, regional health authorities, health institutions, and HCWs themselves should work together to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and overcome the pandemic.

Analyzing the Morality of Owning and Suspending Patent Rights for COVID-19 Vaccines in the Light of Catholic Social Teaching

Using the Roman Catholic Church’s set of moral principles on social concerns called Catholic social teaching (CST) and utilizing some secondary data and scientific research literature, this article examines the morality of India and South Africa’s request to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to temporarily suspend the property rights and patents of top pharmaceutical companies to their vaccines to allow low-income countries to locally manufacture them to save the lives of the poor during this COVID-19 pandemic. Applying the theological method of “See-Judge-and-Act,” this article argues that the suspension of patents for COVID vaccines is morally justifiable in the light of CST’s principles on the universal destination of earth’s goods, the common good, and preferential option for the poor. The top pharmaceutical companies cannot claim absolute ownership to their vaccines as they do not totally own and fund the entire development and production process. Furthermore, the right to private ownership and patents has a social dimension and must serve the common good and welfare of the poor, especially in times of global emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Patent holders have a moral obligation to promote the common good and save the lives of the poor which must prevail over their capitalist quest for profit. This article recommends that Catholics and Christians must join this crusade for the suspension of patents as part of their spirituality of social transformation.

Summary: Applying the Roman Catholic Church’s set of moral principles on social concerns called CST and utilizing some secondary data and scientific research literature, this article examines the morality of India and South Africa’s request to the World Trade Organization to temporarily suspend the property rights and patents of top pharmaceutical companies to their vaccines to allow low-income countries to locally manufacture them to save the lives of the poor during the current pandemic. Applying the theological method of “See-Judge-and-Act,” this article argues that the suspension of patents for COVID vaccines is morally justifiable in the light of CST’s principles on the universal destination of earth goods, the common good, and preferential option for the poor. It recommends that Catholics and Christians must join this crusade for the suspension of patents as part of their spirituality of social transformation.

Short Summary: This article argues that patents of the top pharmaceutical companies to their COVID-19 vaccines must be suspended as requested by India and South Africa in the WTO in the light of CST’s moral principles on the universal destination of earth’s goods, the common good, and preferential option for the poor.

Exploring reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare providers in Ethiopia

INTRODUCTION

the World Health Organization has identified vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten threats to global health. The purpose of this study was to explore factors contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare providers, their perspectives regarding vaccine uptake by the public and their recommendations to improve vaccine uptake in Ethiopia.

METHODS

a phenomenological qualitative study was conducted among purposively selected healthcare providers working in the Ministry of Health (MoH), regulatory authority, public and private hospitals and health centres who hesitated to take the COVID-19 vaccine in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in June 2021. A total of twenty in-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured open-ended interview guide. Participants included nurses, physicians, pharmacists, health officers, Medical Laboratory technologists and midwives. A qualitative content analysis approach was chosen to analyse the data.

RESULTS

all the participants agreed (n=20) that lack of consistent information and inadequate evidence about COVID-19 vaccine safety, efficacy and quality were the main reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. History of perceived and confirmed COVID-19 infection history, misinformation, religious views, unknown short and long-term effects of the vaccine and undefined length of time of vaccine´s protection were also other reasons mentioned by the participants.

CONCLUSION

healthcare providers were hesitant toward COVID-19 vaccine mainly due to lack of clear evidence regarding the vaccine´s short and long-term safety, efficacy and quality profiles. Hence, the long-term safety and efficacy of the vaccine should be extensively studied and evidence dissemination and communication should be clear and transparent.

Cross-Cutting Lessons Learned During the COVID-19 Pandemic-the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research Experience

INTRODUCTION

At the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) mobilized to rapidly conduct medical research to detect, prevent, and treat the disease in order to minimize the impact of the pandemic on the health and readiness of U.S. Forces. WRAIR's major efforts included the development of the Department of Defense (DoD) COVID-19 vaccine candidate, researching novel drug therapies and monoclonal antibodies, refining and scaling-up diagnostic capabilities, evaluating the impact of viral diversity, assessing the behavioral health of Soldiers, supporting U.S. DoD operational forces overseas, and providing myriad assistance to allied nations. WRAIR personnel have also filled key roles within the whole of government response to the pandemic. WRAIR had to overcome major pandemic-related operational challenges in order to quickly execute a multimillion-dollar portfolio of COVID-19 research. Consequently, the organization learned lessons that could benefit other leaders of medical research organizations preparing for the next pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified lessons learned using a qualitative thematic analysis of 76 observation/recommendation pairs from across the organization. These lessons learned were organized under the Army's four pillars of readiness (staffing, training, equipping, and leadership development). To this framework, we added organizing and leading to best capture our experiences within the context of pandemic response.

RESULTS

The major lessons learned for organizing were: (1) the pandemic created a need to rapidly pivot to new scientific priorities; (2) necessary health and safety precautions disrupted the flow of normal science and put programs at risk of missing milestones; (3) relationships with partners and allies facilitated medical diplomacy and advancement of U.S. national military and economic goals; and (4) a successful response required interoperability within and across multiple organizations. For equipping: (1) existing infrastructure lacked sufficient capacity and technical capability to allow immediate countermeasure development; (2) critical supply chains were strained; and (3) critical information system function and capacity were suddenly insufficient under maximum remote work. For staffing and training: (1) successful telework required rapid shifts in management, engagement, and accountability methods; and (2) organizational policies and processes had to adapt quickly to support remote staffing. For leading and leadership development (1) engaged, hopeful, and empathetic leadership made a difference; and (2) the workforce benefitted from concerted leadership communication that created a shared understanding of shifting priorities as well as new processes and procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

An effective pandemic response requires comprehensive institutional preparedness that facilitates flexibility and surge capacity. The single most important action leaders of medical research organizations can take to prepare for the next pandemic is to develop a quick-reaction force that would activate under prespecified criteria to manage reprioritization of all science and support activities to address pandemic response priorities at the velocity of relevance.

Helpful Lessons and Cautionary Tales: How Should COVID-19 Drug Development and Access Inform Approaches to Non-Pandemic Diseases?

After witnessing extraordinary scientific and regulatory efforts to speed development of and access to new COVID-19 interventions, patients facing other serious diseases have begun to ask "where's our Operation Warp Speed?" and "why isn't Emergency Use Authorization an option for our health crises?" Although this pandemic bears a number of unique features, the response to COVID-19 offers translatable lessons, in both its successes and failures, for non-pandemic diseases. These include the importance of collaborating across sectors, supporting the highest-priority research efforts, adopting rigorous and innovative trial designs, and sharing reliable information quickly. In addition, the regulatory response to the pandemic demonstrates that lowering standards for marketing authorization can result in increased safety concerns, missed opportunities for research and treatment, and delays in determining what works. Accordingly, policymakers and patient advocates seeking to build on the COVID-19 experience for non-pandemic diseases with unmet treatment needs should focus their efforts on promoting robust and efficient research designs, improving access to clinical trials, and facilitating use of the Food and Drug Administration's existing Expanded Access pathway.

Comparing the COVID-19 Responses in Cuba and the United States

The purpose of this analytic essay is to contrast the COVID-19 responses in Cuba and the United States, and to understand the differences in outcomes between the 2 nations. With fundamental differences in health systems structure and organization, as well as in political philosophy and culture, it is not surprising that there are major differences in outcomes. The more coordinated, comprehensive response to COVID-19 in Cuba has resulted in significantly better outcomes compared with the United States. Through July 15, 2021, the US cumulative case rate is more than 4 times higher than Cuba's, while the death rate and excess death rate are both approximately 12 times higher in the United States. In addition to the large differences in cumulative case and death rates between United States and Cuba, the COVID-19 pandemic has unmasked serious underlying health inequities in the United States. The vaccine rollout presents its own set of challenges for both countries, and future studies can examine the comparative successes to identify effective strategies for distribution and administration. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(12):2186-2193. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306526).

The Barriers, Challenges, and Strategies of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine Acceptance: A Concurrent Mixed-Method Study in Tehran City, Iran

Acceptance and willingness to receive the vaccine are among the main factors in the success or failure of a health system in implementing the vaccination program. The present study was conducted in Tehran, the political and economic capital of Iran, to determine the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine and identify its associated factors, and explain the most important barriers and acceptance strategies for vaccination. This research was a concurrent quantitative and qualitative mixed-method study. In the quantitative part, 1200 individuals aged more than 18 years were selected from the households in 22 districts of Tehran City, with a multistage stratified cluster sampling method. Two questionnaires were used to evaluate the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine acceptance determinants. The qualitative content analysis method addressed the influencing factors, as well as challenges and strategies related to the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in four groups of Tehran inhabitants: the elderly, people with underlying diseases, healthcare workers, and the general population. The related data were simultaneously collected by applying in-depth semi-structural interviews and a data analysis process. Furthermore, we used the Graneheim and Lundman method for data analysis. We analyzed the data of 1200 people with a mean (SD) age of 46.4 (11.1) years, and approximately 58% of them were men. The vaccine acceptance was 83.6% (95% CI: 81.3-85.9). Among those who welcomed vaccination, 58% preferred the imported vaccines, 25% the Iranian ones, and 17% both. There was a significant association between the variables of age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.01-2.93), being single (AOR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.41-0.91), moderate pharmacotherapy adherence (AOR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.4-0.85), and the willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine. Qualitative study after interviewing 45 people from four study groups showed an insufficient social trust in healthcare system officials, pharmaceutical and vaccine production companies; distrust in the effectiveness of the vaccines, concerns about the vaccine adverse effects, being tracked by microchips after vaccination, traditional anti-vaccination movements, the feeling the inessentiality of vaccination, and uncertainty about the fair distribution of the vaccine. These concerns were the main challenges addressed by the study groups. A good proportion of Tehran residents reported their willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Additionally, they expressed their critical concerns, such as insufficient trust in the healthcare system, vaccine safeties, and adverse effects that were the significant barriers to vaccine acceptance. It seems that conflicts raised by the shortage of vaccines and their import due to the sanctions have led to intense desire and demand in the general population, and especially the elderly, for vaccination. Besides, vaccination phobia in some individuals requires further investigations.

Global health security as it pertains to Zika, Ebola, and COVID-19

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic this past year, we have witnessed a significant acceleration in the science, technology, and policy of global health security. This review highlights important progress made toward the mitigation of Zika, Ebola, and COVID-19 outbreaks. These epidemics and their shared features suggest a unified policy and technology agenda that could broadly improve global health security.

RECENT FINDINGS

Molecular epidemiology is not yet in widespread use, but shows promise toward informing on-the-ground decision-making during outbreaks. Point-of-care (POC) diagnostics have been achieved for each of these threats; however, deployment of Zika and Ebola diagnostics lags behind those for COVID-19. POC metagenomics offers the possibility of identifying novel viruses. Vaccines have been successfully approved for Ebola and COVID-19, due in large part to public-private partnerships and advance purchase commitments. Therapeutics trials conducted during ongoing epidemics have identified effective antibody therapeutics for Ebola, as well as steroids (both inhaled and oral) and a broad-spectrum antiviral for COVID-19.

SUMMARY

Achieving global health security remains a challenge, though headway has been made over the past years. Promising policy and technology strategies that would increase resilience across emerging viral pathogens should be pursued.

The economic burden of COVID-19 in the United States: Estimates and projections under an infection-based herd immunity approach

OBJECTIVES

To assess the economic burden of COVID-19 that would arise absent behavioral or policy responses under the herd immunity approach in the United States and compare it to the total burden that also accounts for estimates of the value of lives lost.

METHODS

We use the trajectories of age-specific human and physical capital in the production process to calculate output changes based on a human capital-augmented production function. We also calculate the total burden that results when including the value of lives lost as calculated from mortality rates of COVID-19 and estimates for the value of a statistical life in the United States based on studies assessing individual's willingness to pay to avoid risks.

RESULTS

Our results indicate that the GDP loss associated with unmitigated COVID-19 would amount to a cumulative US$1.4 trillion by 2030 assuming that 60 percent of the population is infected over three years. This is equivalent to around 7.7 percent of GDP in 2019 (in constant 2010 US$) or an average tax on yearly output of 0.6 percent. After applying the value of a statistical life to account for the value of lives lost, our analyses show that the total burden can mount to between US$17 and 94 trillion over the next decade, which is equivalent to an annual tax burden between 8 and 43 percent.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that the United States would incur a sizeable burden if it adopted a non-interventionist herd immunity approach.

FUNDING

Research reported in this paper was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Project INV-006261), and the Sino-German Center for Research Promotion (Project C-0048), which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). Preparation of this article was also supported by the Value of Vaccination Research Network (VoVRN) through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (Grant OPP1158136). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Light at the end of the tunnel: Influence of vaccine availability and vaccination intention on people's consideration of the COVID-19 vaccine

Rationale

Countries worldwide rely on the COVID-19 vaccine to contain the spread of the pandemic. However, because of the inequality in distribution, people in many demographic groups and regions still do not have access to a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine.

Objective

To aid vaccine promotion campaigns that target populations with different access to the COVID-19 vaccine, this study examined how vaccine availability and vaccination intention influence people's consideration of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Method

We conducted a two-wave longitudinal survey and choice-based conjoint experiment to examine the influence of vaccine availability and vaccination intention on perceived barriers of vaccination (e.g., safety and cost concern) and preference in different vaccine features (e.g., FDA approval status and number of doses administered).

Result

We found that low availability and intention increased attention to global behavioral barriers such as safety concern and high-level vaccine attributes such as efficacy. In contrast, high availability articulates practical considerations such as cost and logistics associated with vaccination.

Conclusion

Based on such findings, we conclude that health communicators need to strategically customize their messages based on audience access to the COVID-19 vaccine and their intention to get vaccinated. Highlighting the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine may be more effective in low-accessibility and low-intention groups, while emphasis on practical considerations such as vaccine cost and logistics may be more effective in high-accessibility and high-intention groups.

Accelerated COVID-19 vaccine development: milestones, lessons, and prospects

The development of effective vaccines to combat infectious diseases is a complex multi-year and multi-stakeholder process. To accelerate the development of vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a novel pathogen emerging in late 2019 and spreading globally by early 2020, the United States government (USG) mounted an operation bridging public and private sector expertise and infrastructure. The success of the endeavor can be seen in the rapid advanced development of multiple vaccine candidates, with several demonstrating efficacy and now being administered around the globe. Here, we review the milestones enabling the USG-led effort, the methods utilized, and ensuing outcomes. We discuss the current status of COVID-19 vaccine development and provide a perspective for how partnership and preparedness can be better utilized in response to future public-health pandemic emergencies.

SARS‑CoV-2 RBD219-N1C1: A yeast-expressed SARS-CoV-2 recombinant receptor-binding domain candidate vaccine stimulates virus neutralizing antibodies and T-cell immunity in mice

There is an urgent need for an accessible and low-cost COVID-19 vaccine suitable for low- and middle-income countries. Here, we report on the development of a SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) protein, expressed at high levels in yeast (Pichia pastoris), as a suitable vaccine candidate against COVID-19. After introducing two modifications into the wild-type RBD gene to reduce yeast-derived hyperglycosylation and improve stability during protein expression, we show that the recombinant protein, RBD219-N1C1, is equivalent to the wild-type RBD recombinant protein (RBD219-WT) in an in vitro ACE-2 binding assay. Immunogenicity studies of RBD219-N1C1 and RBD219-WT proteins formulated with Alhydrogel® were conducted in mice, and, after two doses, both the RBD219-WT and RBD219-N1C1 vaccines induced high levels of binding IgG antibodies. Using a SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, we further showed that sera obtained after a two-dose immunization schedule of the vaccines were sufficient to elicit strong neutralizing antibody titers in the 1:1,000 to 1:10,000 range, for both antigens tested. The vaccines induced IFN-γ IL-6, and IL-10 secretion, among other cytokines. Overall, these data suggest that the RBD219-N1C1 recombinant protein, produced in yeast, is suitable for further evaluation as a human COVID-19 vaccine, in particular, in an Alhydrogel® containing formulation and possibly in combination with other immunostimulants.

Efficacy and safety of potential vaccine candidates against coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review

Search for an effective and safe vaccine to prevent transmission of current pandemic is an unmet need. This study reviews and compares the available early phase clinical data of vaccine candidates which have reached phase 3 of clinical development. The latest update of “DRAFT landscape of coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 candidate vaccines (October 2, 2020)” released by the World Health Organization was accessed to identify the potential vaccine candidates. The full text articles (published and/or preprint) of data of early clinical trials of the selected vaccines were accessed from the links provided in the same document, PubMed and/or medRxiv.com. After extraction and synthesis, the data were critically evaluated for the study efficacy and safety outcomes. Of the total 193 candidate vaccines 10 were found to reach phase 3 of the clinical development. Nine of these were included in the evaluation process. In all of the included studies, immunogenicity and serious adverse events/local or systemic adverse events/laboratory parameters abnormality was considered as efficacy and safety outcomes respectively. Immunogenicity response with most of the vaccines was either higher than or similar to the respective controls except one (recombinant adenovirus type 26 COV2 [Ad26.COV2.S]) for which it was less than that in control. Overall adverse events (related and/or unrelated) were more with vaccines than those with respective control(s) in three studies, in other two, these were similar whereas in one study, the events were less in the vaccine group than in control group and in the rest, data described were descriptive only without any mention for the same for the control. In conclusion all studies showed immunogenic response to target protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 and which was higher than the respective control except for Ad26.CoV2.S. Many of the vaccines caused more adverse events than the controls, however most were mild and transient and/or manageable.

Accelerating vaccine trial conduct in a pandemic with a hot spot-based inclusion strategy using trial and epidemic simulation

Clinical development of vaccines in a pandemic situation should be rigorous but expedited to tackle the pandemic threat as fast as possible. We explored the effects of a novel vaccine trial strategy that actively identifies and enrolls subjects in local areas with high infection rates. In addition, we assessed the practical requirements needed for such a strategy. Clinical trial simulations were used to assess the effects of utilizing these so‐called “hot spot strategy” compared to a traditional vaccine field trial. We used preset parameters of a pandemic outbreak and incorporated realistic aspects of conducting a trial in a pandemic setting. Our simulations demonstrated that incorporating a hot spot strategy shortened the duration of the vaccine trial considerably, even if only one hot spot was identified during the clinical trial. The active hot spot strategy described in this paper has clear advantages compared to a “wait‐and‐see” approach that is used in traditional vaccine efficacy trials. Completion of a clinical trial can be expedited by adapting to resurgences and outbreaks that will occur in a population during a pandemic. However, this approach requires a speed of response that is unusual for a traditional phase III clinical trial. Therefore, several recommendations are made to help accomplish rapid clinical trial setup in areas identified as local outbreaks. The described model and hot spot vaccination strategy can be adjusted to disease‐specific transmission characteristics and could therefore be applied to any future pandemic threat.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, where do we stand?

Vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic, represents a major infection control strategy in the absence of effective treatment of the disease to date. Unprecedented mobilization has led to the development of a large number of projects, some of which have already been in test in humans for several months. The first efficacy and safety data are expected in the coming weeks. New vaccine technologies are being evaluated (RNA, replicating or non-replicating viral vectors), further increasing the chances of success. The criteria for evaluating vaccines-despite the exceptional speed of their development-must remain rigorous enough to ensure their acceptance by the population. Beyond their development, mass production and equitable distribution raise many questions. Finally, vaccination can only be successfully implemented if health professionals and the population are convinced of its validity, which implies particular attention to the quality of the information given and the methods of communication.

Data and Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials

To speed the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, the United States Federal Government has funded multiple phase 3 trials of candidate vaccines. A single 11-member data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) monitors all government-funded trials to ensure coordinated oversight, promote harmonized designs, and allow shared insights related to safety across trials. DSMB reviews encompass 3 domains: (1) the conduct of trials, including overall and subgroup accrual and data quality and completeness; (2) safety, including individual events of concern and comparisons by randomized group; and (3) interim analyses of efficacy when event-driven milestones are met. Challenges have included the scale and pace of the trials, the frequency of safety events related to the combined enrollment of over 100 000 participants, many of whom are older adults or have comorbid conditions that place them at independent risk of serious health events, and the politicized environment in which the trials have taken place.

Targeting COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Minority Populations in the US: Implications for Herd Immunity

There has been a continuous underrepresentation of minorities in healthcare research and vaccine trials, along with long-standing systemic racism and discrimination that have been fueling the distrust of the healthcare system among these communities for decades. The history and legacy of racial injustices and negative experiences within a culturally insensitive healthcare system have greatly contributed to vaccine hesitancy among ethnic minorities. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy will impact vaccine uptake in the US, subsequently hindering the establishment of herd immunity (75-85% of the population vaccinated) to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission. Information targeting underserved racial/ethnic minorities in the US in a culturally competent manner has been lacking. This information is crucial for educating these communities about COVID-19 vaccines and their distribution as well as dispelling misinformation regarding vaccine trials, safety, and efficacy. This lack of education has greatly contributed to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and will increase disparities in vaccine uptake. Moreover, timely vaccinations are also essential to curtailing virus transmission and the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants that may evade the immune response produced by the three existing COVID-19 vaccines.

Praktischer Umgang mit allergischen Reaktionen auf COVID-19-Impfstoffe

Hintergrund: Zur vorbeugenden Behandlung von COVID-19 (Coronaviruserkrankung 2019) wurden in einer beispiellosen weltweiten Forschungsanstrengung Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit neuer Impfstoffplattformen studiert, die noch nie zuvor am Menschen eingesetzt wurden. Weniger als ein Jahr nach der Entdeckung der SARS-CoV-2-Virussequenz (SARS-CoV-2, "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2") wurden diese in zahlreichen Ländern für den Einsatz zugelassen und es wurde mit Massenimpfungen begonnen. Die bislang in der Europäischen Union (EU) zugelassenen mRNA-Impfstoffe (mRNA, "messenger"-RNA) gegen SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 und mRNA-1273 basieren auf einer ähnlichen lipidbasierten Nanopartikelträgertechnologie; die Lipidkomponenten unterscheiden sich jedoch. Schwere allergische Reaktionen und Anaphylaxien nach COVID-19-Impfungen sind sehr seltene unerwünschte Nebenwirkungen, die aber aufgrund potenziell letaler Ausgänge viel Aufmerksamkeit erhalten und ein hohes Maß an Verunsicherung ausgelöst haben.

Methoden: Das aktuelle Wissen zu anaphylaktischen Reaktionen auf Impfstoffe und speziell zu den derzeit neuen mRNA-COVID-19-Impfstoffen wurde zusammengestellt mittels einer Literaturanalyse durch Recherchen in Medline, Pubmed sowie den nationalen und internationalen Studien- und Leitlinienregistern, der Cochrane Library und dem Internet unter besonderer Berücksichtigung offizieller Webseiten der World Health Oranization (WHO), der Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), der European Medicines Agency (EMA), des Robert-Koch-Instituts (RKI) und des Paul-Ehrlich-Instituts (PEI).

Ergebnisse: Basierend auf der internationalen Literatur und bisheriger Erfahrungen zu schweren allergischen Reaktionen im Kontext der COVID-19-Impfungen werden von einem Expertengremium Empfehlungen für Prophylaxe, Diagnostik und Therapie dieser allergischen Reaktionen gegeben.

Schlussfolgerung: Vor einer COVID-19-Impfung mit den derzeit zugelassenen Impfstoffen sind Allergietests für die allermeisten Allergiker nicht notwendig. Bei allergischer/anaphylaktischer Reaktion auf den verabreichten COVID-19-Impfstoff wird eine allergologische Abklärung empfohlen, wie auch für eine kleine potenzielle Risikopopulation vor der ersten Impfung. Die Evaluierung und Zulassung von Testverfahren sollten hierfür erfolgen.

Zitierweise: Klimek L, Bergmann K-C, Brehler R, Pfützner W, Zuberbier T, Hartmann K, Jakob T, Novak N, Ring J, Merk H; Hamelmann E, Ankermann T, Schmidt S, Untersmayr E, Hötzenecker W, Jensen-Jarolim E, Brockow K, Mahler V, Worm M. Practical Handling of Allergic Reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. A Position Paper from German and Austrian Allergy Societies AeDA, DGAKI, GPA and ÖGAI. Allergo J Int 2021;30:79-95

https: //doi.org/10.1007/s40629-021-00165-7

YouTube Videos and Informed Decision-Making About COVID-19 Vaccination: Successive Sampling Study

BACKGROUND

Social media platforms such as YouTube are used by many people to seek and share health-related information that may influence their decision-making about COVID-19 vaccination.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to improve the understanding about the sources and content of widely viewed YouTube videos on COVID-19 vaccination.

METHODS

Using the keywords "coronavirus vaccination," we searched for relevant YouTube videos, sorted them by view count, and selected two successive samples (with replacement) of the 100 most widely viewed videos in July and December 2020, respectively. Content related to COVID-19 vaccines were coded by two observers, and inter-rater reliability was demonstrated.

RESULTS

The videos observed in this study were viewed over 55 million times cumulatively. The number of videos that addressed fear increased from 6 in July to 20 in December 2020, and the cumulative views correspondingly increased from 2.6% (1,449,915 views) to 16.6% (9,553,368 views). There was also a large increase in the number of videos and cumulative views with respect to concerns about vaccine effectiveness, from 6 videos with approximately 6 million views in July to 25 videos with over 12 million views in December 2020. The number of videos and total cumulative views covering adverse reactions almost tripled, from 11 videos with approximately 6.5 million (11.7% of cumulative views) in July to 31 videos with almost 15.7 million views (27.2% of cumulative views) in December 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show the potentially inaccurate and negative influence social media can have on population-wide vaccine uptake, which should be urgently addressed by agencies of the United States Public Health Service as well as its global counterparts.

The coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine in pregnancy: risks, benefits, and recommendations

The coronavirus disease 2019 has caused over 2 million deaths worldwide, with over 412,000 deaths reported in Unites States. To date, at least 57,786 pregnant women in the United States have been infected, and 71 pregnant women have died. Although pregnant women are at higher risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019-related illness, clinical trials for the available vaccines excluded pregnant and lactating women. The safety and efficacy of the vaccines for pregnant women, the fetus, and the newborn remain unknown. A review of maternal and neonatal coronavirus disease 2019 morbidity and mortality data along with perinatal vaccine safety considerations are presented to assist providers with shared decision-making regarding vaccine administration for this group, including the healthcare worker who is pregnant, lactating, or considering pregnancy. The coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine should be offered to pregnant women after discussing the lack of safety data, with preferential administration for those at highest risk of severe infection, until safety and efficacy of these novel vaccines are validated.

How Should the World Pay for a Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccine?

The potential health and economic value of a vaccine for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is self-evident given nearly 2 million deaths, "collateral" loss of life as other conditions go untreated, and massive economic damage. Results from the first licensed products are very encouraging; however, there are important reasons why we will likely need second and third generation vaccines. Dedicated incentives and funding focused explicitly on nurturing and advancing competing second and third generation vaccines are essential. This article proposes a collaborative, market-based financing mechanism for the world to incentivize and pay for the development of, and provide equitable access to, second and third generation COVID-19 vaccines. Specifically, we propose consideration of a Benefit-Based Advance Market Commitment (BBAMC). The BBAMC uses health technology assessment to determine value-based prices to guarantee overall market revenues, not revenue for any specific product or company. The poorest countries would not pay a value-based price but a discounted "tail-price." Innovators must agree to supply them at this tail price or to facilitate technology transfer to local licensees at low or zero cost to enable them to supply at this price. We expect these purchases to be paid for in full or large part by global donors. The BBAMC therefore sets prices in relation to value, protects intellectual property rights, encourages competition, and ensures all populations get access to vaccines, subject to agreed priority allocation rules.

Rationale and design of the pragmatic randomized trial of icosapent ethyl for high cardiovascular risk adults (MITIGATE)

OBJECTIVE

The MITIGATE study aims to evaluate the real-world clinical effectiveness of pre-treatment with icosapent ethyl (IPE), compared with usual care, on laboratory-confirmed viral upper respiratory infection (URI)-related morbidity and mortality in adults with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

BACKGROUND

IPE is a highly purified and stable omega-3 fatty acid prescription medication that is approved for cardiovascular risk reduction in high-risk adults on statin therapy with elevated triglycerides. Preclinical data and clinical observations suggest that IPE may have pleiotropic effects including antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties that may prevent or reduce the downstream sequelae and cardiopulmonary consequences of viral URIs.

METHODS

MITIGATE is a virtual, electronic health record-based, open-label, randomized, pragmatic clinical trial enrolling ∼16,500 participants within Kaiser Permanente Northern California - a fully integrated and learning health care delivery system with 21 hospitals and >255 ambulatory clinics serving ∼4.5 million members. Adults ≥50 years with established ASCVD and no prior history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will be prospectively identified and pre-randomized in a 1:10 allocation ratio (∼ 1,500 IPE: ∼15,000 usual care) stratified by age and previous respiratory health status to the intervention (IPE 2 grams by mouth twice daily with meals) vs the control group (usual care) for a minimum follow-up duration of 6 months. The co-primary endpoints are moderate-to-severe laboratory-confirmed viral URI and worst clinical status due to a viral URI at any point in time.

CONCLUSION

The MITIGATE study will inform clinical practice by providing evidence on the real-world clinical effectiveness of pretreatment with IPE to prevent and/or reduce the sequelae of laboratory-confirmed viral URIs in a high-risk cohort of patients with established ASCVD.

Practical handling of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: A position paper from German and Austrian Allergy Societies AeDA, DGAKI, GPA and ÖGAI

BACKGROUND

For the preventive treatment of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) an unprecedented global research effort studied the safety and efficacy of new vaccine platforms that have not been previously used in humans. Less than one year after the discovery of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral sequence, these vaccines were approved for use in the European Union (EU) as well as in numerous other countries and mass vaccination efforts began. The so far in the EU approved mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are based on similar lipid-based nanoparticle carrier technologies; however, the lipid components differ. Severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination are very rare adverse events but have drawn attention due to potentially lethal outcomes and have triggered a high degree of uncertainty.

METHODS

Current knowledge on anaphylactic reactions to vaccines and specifically the new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was compiled using a literature search in Medline, PubMed, as well as the national and international study and guideline registries, the Cochrane Library, and the Internet, with special reference to official websites of the World Health Organization (WHO), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Robert Koch Institute (RKI), and Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI).

RESULTS

Based on the international literature and previous experience, recommendations for prophylaxis, diagnosis and therapy of these allergic reactions are given by a panel of experts.

CONCLUSION

Allergy testing is not necessary for the vast majority of allergic patients prior to COVID-19 vaccination with currently licensed vaccines. In case of allergic/anaphylactic reactions after vaccination, allergy workup is recommended, as it is for a small potential risk population prior to the first vaccination. Evaluation and approval of diagnostic tests should be done for this purpose.

Intervention Strategies for Seasonal and Emerging Respiratory Viruses with Drugs and Vaccines Targeting Viral Surface Glycoproteins

Vaccines and therapeutics targeting viral surface glycoproteins are a major component of disease prevention for respiratory viral diseases. Over the years, vaccines have proven to be the most successful intervention for preventing disease. Technological advances in vaccine platforms that focus on viral surface glycoproteins have provided solutions for current and emerging pathogens like SARS-CoV-2, and our understanding of the structural basis for antibody neutralization is guiding the selection of other vaccine targets for respiratory viruses like RSV. This review discusses the role of viral surface glycoproteins in disease intervention approaches.

Operation Warp Speed: implications for global vaccine security

Several global efforts are underway to develop COVID-19 vaccines, and interim analyses from phase 3 clinical testing have been announced by nine organisations: Pfizer, the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Sinopharm Group, Sinovac Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Novavax, and CanSino Biologics. The US programme known as Operation Warp Speed provided US$18 billion in funding for development of vaccines that were intended for US populations. Depending on safety and efficacy, vaccines can become available through mechanisms for emergency use, expanded access with informed consent, or full licensure. An important question is: how will these Operation Warp Speed vaccines be used for COVID-19 prevention in global health settings? We address some key questions that arise in the transition from US to global vaccine prevention efforts and from ethical and logistical issues to those that are relevant to global vaccine security, justice, equity, and diplomacy.

The influence of the U.S. response to COVID-19 in Global Health

The American response to the pandemic involves a prominent volume of federal resources, especially for developing and acquiring products for internal use, such as diagnostics or vaccines. Investment mechanisms and historical aspects justify this expenditure. Thus, the social construction of nationalism in American society hinders access to health technologies. The review of such aspects shows how the United States (U.S.) secured a large number of potential products, ensuring excessive local production. This unilateral foreign policy has influenced other countries or regional blocs and undermined global cooperation and solidarity, affecting the collective health of several nations.

Acceptance of a COVID-19 Vaccine in Japan during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Vaccination could be a key protective measure against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and it is important to understand the acceptability of the COVID-19 vaccine among the general public. However, there is no study on the acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine in Japan. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy situation in Japan and assess the factors associated with such issues. This was a cross-sectional study based on an internet survey completed by 2956 people. Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to get vaccinated for COVID-19. In addition, the participants responded to questions regarding sociodemographic factors, attitudes, and beliefs regarding COVID-19 infection and vaccination. The proportion of participants with a high likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccine was 62.1%. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that vaccine acceptance was lower among several sociodemographic groups, such as women, adults aged 20-49 years, and those with a low-income level. Several psychological factors, especially the perceived effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine, and willingness to protect others by getting oneself vaccinated, were associated with vaccine acceptance. Our results indicate that the perceived effectiveness of the vaccine and willingness to protect others may play an important role in the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Immunogenicity of clinically relevant SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in nonhuman primates and humans

Multiple preventive vaccines are being developed to counter the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The leading candidates have now been evaluated in nonhuman primates (NHPs) and human phase 1 and/or phase 2 clinical trials. Several vaccines have already advanced into phase 3 efficacy trials, while others will do so before the end of 2020. Here, we summarize what is known of the antibody and T cell immunogenicity of these vaccines in NHPs and humans. To the extent possible, we compare how the vaccines have performed, taking into account the use of different assays to assess immunogenicity and inconsistencies in how the resulting data are presented. We also review the outcome of challenge experiments with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in immunized macaques, while noting variations in the protocols used, including but not limited to the virus challenge doses. Press releases on the outcomes of vaccine efficacy trials are also summarized.

The race to a COVID-19 vaccine: opportunities and challenges in development and distribution

The unprecedented toll of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the virus responsible for coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19), jumpstarted the race towards the development and distribution of effective treatment and prevention options. With an urgent need to slow viral transmission, lessen disease severity, and reduce mortality, biopharmaceutical companies rapidly began investigating potential COVID-19 vaccinations. While typical vaccine development can take upwards of 10–15 years, COVID-19 vaccines were developed in less than a year after the identification of COVID-19. To accomplish this feat, clinical development, manufacturing scale-up and distribution are occurring in parallel for the four COVID-19 vaccine front-runners. This remarkable opportunity will forever change the drug development process and would not be possible without tremendous dedication from the public and private sectors, researchers, and clinical trial volunteers. However, many challenges still lie ahead. Comprehensive plans for equitable vaccine education, distribution, administration and post-marketing surveillance must be implemented successfully to overcome vaccine hesitancy, supply-chain obstacles and healthcare provider shortages in an already overburdened healthcare system. We are moving forward at a remarkable pace but worldwide immunity through vaccination will take time to achieve. Thus, current prevention efforts of masking, hand hygiene and social distancing must remain in effect for the foreseeable future. We must remain diligent and not fatigue in our efforts. Ending the COVID-19 pandemic cannot rest on the promise of vaccination alone – it will require a continued, robust and multi-faceted approach to disease treatment and prevention.

SARS-CoV-2 RBD219-N1C1: A Yeast-Expressed SARS-CoV-2 Recombinant Receptor-Binding Domain Candidate Vaccine Stimulates Virus Neutralizing Antibodies and T-cell Immunity in Mice

There is an urgent need for an accessible and low-cost COVID-19 vaccine suitable for low- and middle-income countries. Here we report on the development of a SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) protein, expressed at high levels in yeast ( Pichia pastoris ), as a suitable vaccine candidate against COVID-19. After introducing two modifications into the wild-type RBD gene to reduce yeast-derived hyperglycosylation and improve stability during protein expression, we show that the recombinant protein, RBD219-N1C1, is equivalent to the wild-type RBD recombinant protein (RBD219-WT) in an in vitro ACE-2 binding assay. Immunogenicity studies of RBD219-N1C1 and RBD219-WT proteins formulated with Alhydrogel ^® were conducted in mice, and, after two doses, both the RBD219-WT and RBD219-N1C1 vaccines induced high levels of binding IgG antibodies. Using a SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus, we further showed that sera obtained after a two-dose immunization schedule of the vaccines were sufficient to elicit strong neutralizing antibody titers in the 1:1,000 to 1:10,000 range, for both antigens tested. The vaccines induced IFN-γ, IL-6, and IL-10 secretion, among other cytokines. Overall, these data suggest that the RBD219-N1C1 recombinant protein, produced in yeast, is suitable for further evaluation as a human COVID-19 vaccine, in particular, in an Alhydrogel ^® containing formulation and possibly in combination with other immunostimulants.