Safety and immunogenicity of multivalent SARS-CoV-2 protein vaccines: a randomized phase 3 trial

Efficacy of the tetravalent protein COVID-19 vaccine, SCTV01E: a phase 3 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants emphasizes the need for multivalent vaccines capable of simultaneously targeting multiple strains. SCTV01E is a tetravalent COVID-19 vaccine derived from the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 variants Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron BA.1. In this double-blinded placebo-controlled pivotal efficacy trial (NCT05308576), the primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy (VE) against COVID-19 seven days post-vaccination in individuals without recent infection. Other endpoints included evaluating safety, immunogenicity, and the VE against all SARS-CoV-2 infections in individuals meeting the study criteria. Between December 26, 2022, and January 15, 2023, 9,223 individuals were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive SCTV01E or a placebo. SCTV01E showed a VE of 69.4% (95% CI: 50.6, 81.0) 7 days post-vaccination, with 75 cases in the placebo group and 23 in the SCTV01E group for the primary endpoint. VEs were 79.7% (95% CI: 51.0, 91.6) and 82.4% (95% CI: 57.9, 92.6), respectively, for preventing symptomatic infection and all SARS-CoV-2 infections 14 days post-vaccination. SCTV01E elicited a 25.0-fold higher neutralizing antibody response against Omicron BA.5 28 days post-vaccination compared to placebo. Reactogenicity was generally mild and transient, with no reported vaccine-related SAE, adverse events of special interest (AESI), or deaths. The trial aligned with the shift from dominant variants BA.5 and BF.7 to XBB, suggesting SCTV01E as a potential vaccine alternative effective against present and future variants.

Vaccine adjuvants for infectious disease in the clinic

Adjuvants, materials added to vaccines to enhance the resulting immune response, are important components of vaccination that are many times overlooked. While vaccines always include an antigen to tell the body what to vaccinate to, of equal importance the adjuvant provides the how, a significant factor in producing a complete response. The adjuvant space has been slow to develop with the first use of an adjuvant in a licensed vaccine occurring in the 1930s, and remaining the only adjuvant in licensed vaccines for the next 80 years. However, with vaccination at the forefront of protection against new and complex pathogens, it is important to consider all components when designing an effective vaccine. Here we summarize the adjuvant space in licensed vaccines as well as the novel adjuvant space in clinical trials with a specific focus on the materials utilized and their resulting impact on the immune response. We discuss five major categories of adjuvant materials: aluminum salts, nanoparticles, viral vectors, TLR agonists, and emulsions. For each category, we delve into the current clinical trials space, the impact of these materials on vaccination, as well as some of the ways in which they could be improved. Adjuvants present an exciting opportunity to improve vaccine responses and stability, this review will help inform about the current progress of this space.

Translational impact statement

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines for infectious diseases have come into the spotlight. While antigens have always been an important focus of vaccine design, the adjuvant is a significant tool for enhancing the immune response to the vaccine that has been largely underdeveloped. This article provides a broad review of the history of adjuvants and, the current vaccine adjuvant space, and the progress seen in adjuvants in clinical trials. There is specific emphasis on the material landscape for adjuvants and their resulting mechanism of action. Looking ahead, while the novel vaccine adjuvant space features exciting new technologies and materials, there is still a need for more to meet the protective needs of new and complex pathogens.

Heterologous versus homologous COVID-19 booster vaccinations for adults: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of three or four heterologous versus homologous booster regimens.

METHODS

From November 3 2022 to December 21, 2023, we searched five databases for randomised clinical trials (RCT). Reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed bias risks independently with the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. We conducted meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) on our primary (all-cause mortality; laboratory confirmed symptomatic and severe COVID-19; serious adverse events [SAE]) and secondary outcomes (quality of life [QoL]; adverse events [AE] considered non-serious). We assessed the evidence with the GRADE approach. Subgroup analyses were stratified for trials before and after 2023, three or four boosters, immunocompromised status, follow-up, risk of bias, heterologous booster vaccine platforms, and valency of booster.

RESULTS

We included 29 RCTs with 43 comparisons (12,538 participants). Heterologous booster regimens may not reduce the relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality (11 trials; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.26; I2 0%; very low certainty evidence); laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 (14 trials; RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; I2 0%; very low certainty); or severe COVID-19 (10 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.33; I2 0%; very low certainty). For safety outcomes, heterologous booster regimens may have no effect on SAE (27 trials; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.95; I2 0%; very low certainty) but may raise AE considered non-serious (20 trials; RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32; I2 64.4%; very low certainty). No data on QoL was available. Our TSAs showed that the cumulative Z curves did not reach futility for any outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

With our current sample sizes, we were not able to infer differences of effects for any outcomes, but heterologous booster regimens seem to cause more non-serious AE. Furthermore, more robust data are instrumental to update this review.

A Review of Protein-Based COVID-19 Vaccines: From Monovalent to Multivalent Formulations

The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), resulting in the COVID-19 pandemic, has profoundly impacted global healthcare systems and the trajectory of economic advancement. As nations grapple with the far-reaching consequences of this unprecedented health crisis, the administration of COVID-19 vaccines has proven to be a pivotal strategy in managing this crisis. Protein-based vaccines have garnered significant attention owing to their commendable safety profile and precise immune targeting advantages. Nonetheless, the unpredictable mutations and widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 have posed challenges for vaccine developers and governments worldwide. Monovalent and multivalent vaccines represent two strategies in COVID-19 vaccine development, with ongoing controversy surrounding their efficacy. This review concentrates on the development of protein-based COVID-19 vaccines, specifically addressing the transition from monovalent to multivalent formulations, and synthesizes data on vaccine manufacturers, antigen composition, pivotal clinical study findings, and other features that shape their distinct profiles and overall effectiveness. Our hypothesis is that multivalent vaccine strategies for COVID-19 could offer enhanced capability with broad-spectrum protection.

Autoimmune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

The complicated relationships between autoimmunity, COVID-19, and COVID-19 vaccinations are described, giving insight into their intricacies. Antinuclear antibodies (ANA), anti-Ro/SSA, rheumatoid factor, lupus anticoagulant, and antibodies against interferon (IFN)-I have all been consistently found in COVID-19 patients, indicating a high prevalence of autoimmune reactions following viral exposure. Furthermore, the discovery of human proteins with structural similarities to SARS-CoV-2 peptides as possible autoantigens highlights the complex interplay between the virus and the immune system in initiating autoimmunity. An updated summary of the current status of COVID-19 vaccines is presented. We present probable pathways underpinning the genesis of COVID-19 autoimmunity, such as bystander activation caused by hyperinflammatory conditions, viral persistence, and the creation of neutrophil extracellular traps. These pathways provide important insights into the development of autoimmune-related symptoms ranging from organ-specific to systemic autoimmune and inflammatory illnesses, demonstrating the wide influence of COVID-19 on the immune system.

Immunogenicity of Tetravalent Protein Vaccine SCTV01E-2 against SARS-CoV-2 EG.5 Subvaraint: A Phase 2 Trial

The Omicron EG.5 lineage of SARS-CoV-2 is currently on a trajectory to become the dominant strain. This phase 2 study aims to evaluate the immunogenicity of SCTV01E-2, a tetravalent protein vaccine, with a specific emphasis on its immunogenicity against Omicron EG.5, comparing it with its progenitor vaccine, SCTV01E (NCT05933512). As of 12 September 2023, 429 participants aged ≥18 years were randomized into the groups SCTV01E (N = 215) and SCTV01E-2 (N = 214). Both vaccines showed increases in neutralizing antibody (nAb) against Omicron EG.5, with a 5.7-fold increase and a 9.0-fold increase in the SCTV01E and SCTV01E-2 groups 14 days post-vaccination, respectively. The predetermined statistical endpoints were achieved, showing that the geometric mean titer (GMT) of nAb and the seroresponse rate (SRR) against Omicron EG.5 were significantly higher in the SCTV01E-2 group than in the SCTV01E group. Additionally, SCTV01E and SCTV01E-2 induced a 5.5-fold and a 5.9-fold increase in nAb against XBB.1, respectively. Reactogenicity was generally mild and transient. No vaccine-related serious adverse events (SAEs), adverse events of special interest (AESIs), or deaths were reported. In summary, SCTV01E-2 elicited robust neutralizing responses against Omicron EG.5 and XBB.1 without raising safety concerns, highlighting its potential as a versatile COVID-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 variants.

COVID-19 Vaccines: Where Did We Stand at the End of 2023?

Vaccine development against SARS-CoV-2 has been highly successful in slowing down the COVID-19 pandemic. A wide spectrum of approaches including vaccines based on whole viruses, protein subunits and peptides, viral vectors, and nucleic acids has been developed in parallel. For all types of COVID-19 vaccines, good safety and efficacy have been obtained in both preclinical animal studies and in clinical trials in humans. Moreover, emergency use authorization has been granted for the major types of COVID-19 vaccines. Although high safety has been demonstrated, rare cases of severe adverse events have been detected after global mass vaccinations. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants possessing enhanced infectivity have affected vaccine protection efficacy requiring re-design and re-engineering of novel COVID-19 vaccine candidates. Furthermore, insight is given into preparedness against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Enhanced neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 variant BA.2.86 and XBB sub-lineages by a tetravalent COVID-19 vaccine booster

Emerging SARS-CoV-2 sub-lineages like XBB.1.5, XBB.1.16, EG.5, HK.3 (FLip), and XBB.2.3 and the variant BA.2.86 have recently been identified. Understanding the efficacy of current vaccines on these emerging variants is critical. We evaluate the serum neutralization activities of participants who received COVID-19 inactivated vaccine (CoronaVac), those who received the recently approved tetravalent protein vaccine (SCTV01E), or those who had contracted a breakthrough infection with BA.5/BF.7/XBB virus. Neutralization profiles against a broad panel of 30 sub-lineages reveal that BQ.1.1, CH.1.1, and all the XBB sub-lineages exhibit heightened resistance to neutralization compared to previous variants. However, despite their extra mutations, BA.2.86 and the emerging XBB sub-lineages do not demonstrate significantly increased resistance to neutralization over XBB.1.5. Encouragingly, the SCTV01E booster consistently induces higher neutralizing titers against all these variants than breakthrough infection does. Cellular immunity assays also show that the SCTV01E booster elicits a higher frequency of virus-specific memory B cells. Our findings support the development of multivalent vaccines to combat future variants.