To aspirate or not to aspirate? Considerations for the COVID-19 vaccines

COVID-19, post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS, "long COVID") and post-COVID-19 vaccination syndrome (PCVS, "post-COVIDvac-syndrome"): Similarities and differences

Worldwide there have been over 760 million confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, and over 13 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered as of April 2023, according to the World Health Organization. An infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can lead to an acute disease, i.e. COVID-19, but also to a post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS, "long COVID"). Currently, the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines are increasingly being noted and studied. Here, we summarise the currently available indications and discuss our conclusions that (i) these side effects have specific similarities and differences to acute COVID-19 and PACS, that (ii) a new term should be used to refer to these side effects (post-COVID-19 vaccination syndrome, PCVS, colloquially "post-COVIDvac-syndrome"), and that (iii) there is a need to distinguish between acute COVID-19 vaccination syndrome (ACVS) and post-acute COVID-19 vaccination syndrome (PACVS) - in analogy to acute COVID-19 and PACS ("long COVID"). Moreover, we address mixed forms of disease caused by natural SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination. We explain why it is important for medical diagnosis, care and research to use the new terms (PCVS, ACVS and PACVS) in order to avoid confusion and misinterpretation of the underlying causes of disease and to enable optimal medical therapy. We do not recommend to use the term "Post-Vac-Syndrome" as it is imprecise. The article also serves to address the current problem of "medical gaslighting" in relation to PACS and PCVS by raising awareness among the medical professionals and supplying appropriate terminology for disease.

Guillain-Barré syndrome and COVID-19 vaccines: focus on adenoviral vectors

COVID-19 vaccination is a life-saving intervention. However, it does not come up without a risk of rare adverse events, which frequency varies between vaccines developed using different technological platforms. The increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) has been reported for selected adenoviral vector vaccines but not for other vaccine types, including more widely used mRNA preparations. Therefore, it is unlikely that GBS results from the cross-reactivity of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein generated after the COVID-19 vaccination. This paper outlines two hypotheses according to which increased risk of GBS following adenoviral vaccination is due to (1) generation of anti-vector antibodies that may cross-react with proteins involved in biological processes related to myelin and axons, or (2) neuroinvasion of selected adenovirus vectors to the peripheral nervous system, infection of neurons and subsequent inflammation and neuropathies. The rationale behind these hypotheses is outlined, advocating further epidemiological and experimental research to verify them. This is particularly important given the ongoing interest in using adenoviruses in developing vaccines against various infectious diseases and cancer immunotherapeutics.

mRNA vaccines: The future of prevention of viral infections?

Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against COVID-19 are the first authorized biological preparations developed using this platform. During the pandemic, their administration has been proven to be a life-saving intervention. Here, we review the main advantages of using mRNA vaccines, identify further technological challenges to be met during the development of the mRNA platform, and provide an update on the clinical progress on leading mRNA vaccine candidates against different viruses that include influenza viruses, human immunodeficiency virus 1, respiratory syncytial virus, Nipah virus, Zika virus, human cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus. The prospects and challenges of manufacturing mRNA vaccines in low-income countries are also discussed. The ongoing interest and research in mRNA technology are likely to overcome some existing challenges for this technology (e.g., related to storage conditions and immunogenicity of some components of lipid nanoparticles) and enhance the portfolio of vaccines against diseases for which classical formulations are already authorized. It may also open novel pathways of protection against infections and their consequences for which no safe and efficient immunization methods are currently available.

Establishing the Pharmacokinetics of Genetic Vaccines is Essential for Maximising their Safety and Efficacy

In a typical course of drug development, thorough pharmacokinetic (PK) studies are essential for the determination of drug biodistribution, dosage and efficacy without toxicity. For vaccines, however, unless a new formulation component is used, most regulatory agencies rule out the need for studying the biodistribution of the vaccine antigenic material per se, and only dose-immunogenicity studies are performed. This is because traditional vaccines are meant to directly induce immunogenicity by locally recruiting immunocytes that will carry on with the pursuing immunogenic processes. Thus, the clinical outcome from traditional vaccines is determined mainly by an immunological response phase. Yet, the case is significantly different for the emergent genetic vaccines (vectorised DNA or mRNA vaccines), where the clinical outcome is dependent on a combination of two major response phases: a pharmacological phase that involves biodistribution, assimilation, gene translation and epitope(s) presentation, followed by an immunological phase, which is similar to that of traditional vaccines. From a mathematical perspective, processes involved in drug administration are typically subject to inter- and intra-patient statistical distributions like most physiological processes. Therefore, the clinical outcome after administering genetic vaccines obeys a statistical probability distribution combined of the sum of two major response probability distributions, pharmacological and immunological. This implies that the variance coefficient of the summed response probability distributions has a larger value than the variance of each underlying distribution. In other words, due to the multi-phased mode of action of genetic vaccines, their clinical outcome has more variability than that of traditional vaccines. This observation points toward the necessity for regulating genetic vaccines in a similar manner to bio-therapeutics to ensure better efficacy and safety. A structural PK model is provided to predict the sources of variability, biodistribution and dose optimisation.

Oral antiviral treatments for COVID-19: opportunities and challenges

The use of antiviral COVID-19 medications can successfully inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication and prevent disease progression to a more severe form. However, the timing of antiviral treatment plays a crucial role in this regard. Oral antiviral drugs provide an opportunity to manage SARS-CoV-2 infection without a need for hospital admission, easing the general burden that COVID-19 can have on the healthcare system. This review paper (i) presents the potential pharmaceutical antiviral targets, including various host-based targets and viral-based targets, (ii) characterizes the first-generation anti-SARS-CoV-2 oral drugs (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir), (iii) summarizes the clinical progress of other oral antivirals for use in COVID-19, (iv) discusses ethical issues in such clinical trials and (v) presents challenges associated with the use of oral antivirals in clinical practice. Oral COVID-19 antivirals represent a part of the strategy to adapt to long-term co-existence with SARS-CoV-2 in a manner that prevents healthcare from being overwhelmed. It is pivotal to ensure equal and fair global access to the currently available oral antivirals and those authorized in the future.