Immunogenicity and safety of a recombinant fusion protein vaccine (V-01) against coronavirus disease 2019 in healthy adults: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial

The Assessment of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Different Vaccine Platforms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trial Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic spread rapidly throughout the world and caused millions of deaths globally. Several vaccines have been developed to control the COVID-19 pandemic and reduce the burden it placed on public health. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of different vaccine platforms in inducing potent antibody responses. Moreover, the seroconversion rate and common side effects of vaccine platforms were evaluated.

METHODS

This meta-analysis included clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines that met the eligibility criteria. Electronic databases (including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) and Google Scholar search engine were searched for eligible studies. Regarding the methodological heterogeneity between the included studies, we selected a random-effects model. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) was chosen as the effect size for this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 1838 records identified through screening and after removing duplicate records, the full texts of 1076 records were assessed for eligibility. After the full-text assessment, 56 records were eligible and included in the study. Overall, vaccinated participants had a 150.8-fold increased rate of anti-spike IgG titres compared with the placebo group (GMR = 150.8; 95% CI, 95.9-237.1; I2 = 100%). Moreover, vaccinated participants had a 37.3-fold increased rate of neutralising antibody titres compared with the placebo group (GMR = 37.3; 95% CI, 28.5-48.7; I2 = 99%). The mRNA platform showed a higher rate of anti-spike IgG (GMR = 1263.5; 95% CI, 431.1-3702.8; I2 = 99%), while neutralising antibody titres were higher in the subunit platform (GMR = 53.4; 95% CI, 32.8-87.1; I2 = 99%) than in other platforms. Different vaccine platforms showed different rates of both anti-spike IgG and neutralising antibody titres with interesting results. The seroconversion rate of anti-spike IgG and neutralising antibody titres was more than 98% in the vaccinated participants.

CONCLUSION

Inactivated and subunit vaccines produced a high percentage of neutralising antibodies and had a low common adverse reaction rate compared to other platforms. In this regard, subunit and inactivated vaccines can still be used as the main vaccine platforms for effectively controlling infections with high transmission rates.

Integrated machine learning and multimodal data fusion for patho-phenotypic feature recognition in iPSC models of dilated cardiomyopathy

Integration of multiple data sources presents a challenge for accurate prediction of molecular patho-phenotypic features in automated analysis of data from human model systems. Here, we applied a machine learning-based data integration to distinguish patho-phenotypic features at the subcellular level for dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). We employed a human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocyte (iPSC-CM) model of a DCM mutation in the sarcomere protein troponin T (TnT), TnT-R141W, compared to isogenic healthy (WT) control iPSC-CMs. We established a multimodal data fusion (MDF)-based analysis to integrate source datasets for Ca2+ transients, force measurements, and contractility recordings. Data were acquired for three additional layer types, single cells, cell monolayers, and 3D spheroid iPSC-CM models. For data analysis, numerical conversion as well as fusion of data from Ca2+ transients, force measurements, and contractility recordings, a non-negative blind deconvolution (NNBD)-based method was applied. Using an XGBoost algorithm, we found a high prediction accuracy for fused single cell, monolayer, and 3D spheroid iPSC-CM models (≥92 ± 0.08 %), as well as for fused Ca2+ transient, beating force, and contractility models (>96 ± 0.04 %). Integrating MDF and XGBoost provides a highly effective analysis tool for prediction of patho-phenotypic features in complex human disease models such as DCM iPSC-CMs.

Protein subunit vaccines: Promising frontiers against COVID-19

The emergence of COVID-19 has posed an unprecedented global health crisis, challenging the healthcare systems worldwide. Amidst the rapid development of several vaccine formulations, protein subunit vaccines have emerged as a promising approach. This article provides an in-depth evaluation of the role of protein subunit vaccines in the management of COVID-19. Leveraging viral protein fragments, particularly the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2, these vaccines elicit a targeted immune response without the risk of inducing disease. Notably, the robust safety profile of protein subunit vaccines makes them a compelling candidate in the management of COVID-19. Various innovative approaches, including reverse vaccinology, virus like particles, and recombinant modifications are incorporated to develop protein subunit vaccines. In addition, the utilization of advanced manufacturing techniques facilitates large-scale production, ensuring widespread distribution. Despite these advancements, challenges persist, such as the requirement for cold-chain storage and the necessity for booster doses. This article evaluates the formulation and applications of protein subunit vaccines, providing a comprehensive overview of their clinical development and approvals in the context of COVID-19. By addressing the current status and challenges, this review aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on optimizing protein subunit vaccines for effective pandemic control.

An overview of protein-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

SARS-CoV-2 resulted in the COVID-19 pandemic which, to date, has resulted in an estimated loss of over 15 million human lives globally and continues to have negative social, and economic implications worldwide. Vaccine platforms that can be quickly updated to counter newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants are critical in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Messenger RNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines can be easily updated and have shown superior efficacy over other vaccine types, yet their high cost, reactogenicity, and stringent need for ultracold storage limit their accessibility. Global access to economic, safe, and effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is a critical step toward reducing COVID-19-associated mortality and ending the pandemic. Several protein-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines targeting the spike protein (or its receptor-binding domain) have demonstrated safety and efficacy in clinical studies. Moreover, protein-based vaccines can be updated to immunize against new virus variants. Protein-based vaccines do not contain live viruses and are safe to use in immunocompromised and elderly populations, and can be optimized to improve the immune outcome in these poorly immunoresponsive individuals by using adjuvants. SARS-CoV-2 shows high genetic variability, similar to other RNA viruses, and protein-based vaccines are an economically feasible vaccine platform that can be used to design new vaccines with durable protective immunity, in addition to expanding the vaccine coverage.

A self-binding immune complex vaccine elicits strong neutralizing responses against herpes simplex virus in mice

Introduction

It has been known for over half a century that mixing an antigen with its cognate antibody in an immune complex (IC) can enhance antigen immunogenicity. However, many ICs produce inconsistent immune responses, and the use of ICs in the development new vaccines has been limited despite the otherwise widespread success of antibody-based therapeutics. To address this problem, we designed a self-binding recombinant immune complex (RIC) vaccine which mimics the larger ICs generated during natural infection.

Materials and methods

In this study, we created two novel vaccine candidates: 1) a traditional IC targeting herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2) by mixing glycoprotein D (gD) with a neutralizing antibody (gD-IC); and 2) an RIC consisting of gD fused to an immunoglobulin heavy chain and then tagged with its own binding site, allowing self-binding (gD-RIC). We characterized the complex size and immune receptor binding characteristics in vitro for each preparation. Then, the in vivo immunogenicity and virus neutralization of each vaccine were compared in mice.

Results

gD-RIC formed larger complexes which enhanced C1q receptor binding 25-fold compared to gD-IC. After immunization of mice, gD-RIC elicited up to 1,000-fold higher gD-specific antibody titers compared to traditional IC, reaching endpoint titers of 1:500,000 after two doses without adjuvant. The RIC construct also elicited stronger virus-specific neutralization against HSV-2, as well as stronger cross-neutralization against HSV-1, although the proportion of neutralizing antibodies to total antibodies was somewhat reduced in the RIC group.

Discussion

This work demonstrates that the RIC system overcomes many of the pitfalls of traditional IC, providing potent immune responses against HSV-2 gD. Based on these findings, further improvements to the RIC system are discussed. RIC have now been shown to be capable of inducing potent immune responses to a variety of viral antigens, underscoring their broad potential as a vaccine platform.

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.

The Bivalent COVID-19 Booster Immunization after Three Doses of Inactivated Vaccine Augments the Neutralizing Antibody Response against Circulating Omicron Sublineages

A fourth dose of a COVID-19 vaccine has been recommended by a number of authorities due to waning immunity over time and the emergence of immune-escaping variants. Here, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of the bivalent BV-01-B5 or V-01D-351 or the prototype V-01 for heterologous boosting in three-dose inactivated COVID-19 vaccine (ICV) recipients, in comparison with ICV homologous boosting. One pilot study (NCT05583357) included 20 participants randomized at 1:1, either receiving V-01D-351 or CoronaVac. The other one (NCT05585567) recruited 36 participants randomized at 2:1, either receiving BV-01-B5 or V-01, respectively. BV-01-B5, V-01D-351, and V-01 were safe and well-tolerated as heterologous booster shots after three doses of ICV, with adverse reactions predominantly being mild and moderate in severity, similar to the safety profile of ICV boosters. The bivalent V-01D-351 and BV-01-B5 and prototype V-01 booster demonstrated remarkable cross-reactive immunogenicity against the prototype and multiple emerging variants of concern (VOCs), with the geometric mean ratio (versus CoronaVac) in particular being 31.3 (500 vs. 16), 12.0 (192 vs. 16) and 8.5 (136 vs.16) against BA.4/5 14 days after the booster, respectively. Taken together, the modified bivalent-formulation V-01 boosters induced robust neutralizing responses against multiple Omicron sublineages, better than V-01 and remarkably superior to ICV booster, without compromising the safety and tolerability.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: To analyze the differences in efficacy and safety of different types of novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) vaccines in different age groups (young adults and elderly). Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 vaccine in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library were searched by computer, and eight eligible studies were analyzed. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 and RevMan5.4 software. Results: The mean geometric titer (GMT) of the virus in the elderly was significantly higher than that in the placebo group (SMD = 0.91, 95% CI (0.68, 1.15), p < 0.01), presenting no obvious difference compared with the young adults (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI (0.38, 0.01), p = 0.06). Meanwhile, the effect of multiple vaccinations was better than that of single vaccination (SMD = 0.83, 95% CI (0.33, 1.34), p < 0.01). However, the number of adverse events (AEs) in the elderly was lower than that in the young adults (OR = 0.35, 95% CI (0.29, 0.42), p < 0.01). Conclusions: The immunization effect of COVID-19 vaccine in the elderly is obvious, especially after multiple vaccinations, and the incidence of AEs in the elderly is low, which proves that the vaccination of the elderly is safe and effective.

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.

Immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose fractionation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dose fractionation of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine could effectively accelerate global vaccine coverage, while supporting evidence of efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety are unavailable, especially with emerging variants.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed clinical trials that reported dose-finding results and estimated the dose-response relationship of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) of COVID-19 vaccines using a generalized additive model. We predicted the vaccine efficacy against both ancestral and variants, using previously reported correlates of protection and cross-reactivity. We also reviewed and compared seroconversion to nAbs, T cell responses, and safety profiles between fractional and standard dose groups.

RESULTS

We found that dose fractionation of mRNA and protein subunit vaccines could induce SARS-CoV-2-specific nAbs and T cells that confer a reasonable level of protection (i.e., vaccine efficacy > 50%) against ancestral strains and variants up to Omicron. Safety profiles of fractional doses were non-inferior to the standard dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose fractionation of mRNA and protein subunit vaccines may be safe and effective, which would also vary depending on the characteristics of emerging variants and updated vaccine formulations.

Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Older adults are more susceptible to severe health outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Universal vaccination has become a trend, but there are still doubts and research gaps regarding the COVID-19 vaccination in the elderly. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older people aged ≥ 55 years and their influencing factors.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials from inception to April 9, 2022, were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We estimated summary relative risk (RR), rates, or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects meta-analysis. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314456).

Results

Of the 32 eligible studies, 9, 21, and 25 were analyzed for efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively. In older adults, vaccination was efficacious against COVID-19 (79.49%, 95% CI: 60.55−89.34), with excellent seroconversion rate (92.64%, 95% CI: 86.77−96.91) and geometric mean titer (GMT) (SMD 3.56, 95% CI: 2.80−4.31) of neutralizing antibodies, and provided a significant protection rate against severe disease (87.01%, 50.80−96.57). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses consistently found vaccine types and the number of doses to be primary influencing factors for efficacy and immunogenicity. Specifically, mRNA vaccines showed the best efficacy (90.72%, 95% CI: 86.82−93.46), consistent with its highest seroconversion rate (98.52%, 95% CI: 93.45−99.98) and GMT (SMD 6.20, 95% CI: 2.02−10.39). Compared to the control groups, vaccination significantly increased the incidence of total adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.59, 95% CI: 1.38−1.83), including most local and systemic AEs, such as pain, fever, chill, etc. For inactivated and DNA vaccines, the incidence of any AEs was similar between vaccination and control groups (p &gt; 0.1), while mRNA vaccines had the highest risk of most AEs (RR range from 1.74 to 7.22).

Conclusion

COVID-19 vaccines showed acceptable efficacy, immunogenicity and safety in older people, especially providing a high protection rate against severe disease. The mRNA vaccine was the most efficacious, but it is worth surveillance for some AEs it caused. Increased booster coverage in older adults is warranted, and additional studies are urgently required for longer follow-up periods and variant strains.

Duration of immunity following full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review

Background

As vaccine roll-out continues across the globe as part of the efforts to protect humanity against SARS-CoV-2, concerns are increasingly shifting to the duration of vaccine-induced immunity. Responses to these concerns are critical in determining if, when, and who will need booster doses following full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. However, synthesised studies about the durability of vaccine-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2 are scarce. This systematic review synthesised available global evidence on the duration of immunity following full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

We searched through Psych Info, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, PubMed, and WHO COVID-19 databases for relevant studies published before December 2021. Five eligibility criteria were used in scrutinising studies for inclusion. The quality of the included studies was assessed based on Joana Briggs Institute’s (JBI) Critical Appraisal tool and Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool—version 2 (RoB 2), while the reporting of the results was guided by the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines.

Results

Twenty-seven out of the 666 identified studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings showed that vaccine-induced protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections builds rapidly after the first dose of vaccines and peaks within 4 to 42 days after the second dose, before waning begins in subsequent months, typically from 3 to 24 weeks. Vaccine-induced antibody response levels varied across different demographic and population characteristics and were higher in people who reported no underlying health conditions compared to those with immunosuppressed conditions.

Conclusions

Waning of immunity against SARS-CoV-2 begins as early as the first month after full vaccination and this decline continues till the sixth month when the level of immunity may not be able to provide adequate protection against SARS-CoV-2. While the evidence synthesised in this review could effectively inform and shape vaccine policies regarding the administration of booster doses, more evidence, especially clinical trials, are still needed to ascertain, with greater precision, the exact duration of immunity offered by different vaccine types, across diverse population characteristics, and in different vulnerability parameters.

Registration

The protocol for this review was pre-registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] (Registration ID: CRD420212818).

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several vaccines showed a good safety profile and significant efficacy against COVID-19. Moreover, in the absence of direct head to head comparison between COVID-19 vaccines, a network meta-analysis that indirectly compares between them is needed.

METHODS

Databases PubMed, CENTRAL, medRxiv, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Studies were included if they were placebo-controlled clinical trials and reported the safety profile and/or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for nonrandomized trials.

RESULTS

Forty-nine clinical trials that included 421,173 participants and assessed 28 vaccines were included in this network meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that Pfizer is the most effective in preventing COVID-19 infection whereas the Sputnik Vaccine was the most effective in preventing severe COVID-19 infection. In terms of the local and systemic side, the Sinopharm and V-01 vaccines were the safest.

CONCLUSION

We found that almost all of the vaccines included in this study crossed the threshold of 50% efficacy. However, some of them did not reach the previously mentioned threshold against the B.1.351 variant while the remainder have not yet investigated vaccine efficacy against this variant. Since each vaccine has its own strong and weak points, we strongly advocate continued vaccination efforts in individualized manner that recommend the best vaccine for each group in the community which is abundantly required to save lives and to avert the emergence of future variants.

A Heterologous V-01 or Variant-Matched Bivalent V-01D-351 Booster following Primary Series of Inactivated Vaccine Enhances the Neutralizing Capacity against SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron Strains

Immune escape of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) and waning immunity over time following the primary series suggest the importance and necessity of booster shot of COVID-19 vaccines. With the aim to preliminarily evaluate the potential of heterologous boosting, we conducted two pilot studies to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the V-01 or a bivalent V-01D-351 (targeting Delta and Beta strain) booster after 5-7 months of the primary series of inactivated COVID-9 vaccine (ICV). A total of 77 participants were enrolled, with 20 participants in the V-01D-351 booster study, and 27, 30 participants in the age stratified participants of V-01 booster study. The safety results showed that V-01 or V-01D-351 was safe and well-tolerated as a heterologous booster shot, with overall adverse reactions predominantly being absent or mild in severity. The immunogenicity results showed that the heterologous prime-boost immunization with V-01 or bivalent V-01D-351 booster induced stronger humoral immune response as compared with the homologous booster with ICV. In particular, V-01D-351 booster showed the highest pseudovirus neutralizing antibody titers against prototype SARS-CoV-2, Delta and Omicron BA.1 strains at day 14 post boosting, with GMTs 22.7, 18.3, 14.3 times higher than ICV booster, 6.2, 6.1, 3.8 times higher than V-01 booster (10 μg), and 5.2, 3.8, 3.5 times higher than V-01 booster (25 μg), respectively. The heterologous V-01 booster also achieved a favorable safety and immunogenicity profile in older participants. Our study has provided evidence for a flexible roll-out of heterologous boosters and referential approaches for variant-specific vaccine boosters, with rationally conserved but diversified epitopes relative to primary series, to build herd immunity against the ongoing pandemic.

Comparing Reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

A number of vaccines have now been developed against COVID-19. Differences in reactogenicity and safety profiles according to the vaccine technologies employed are becoming apparent from clinical trials.

METHODS

Five databases (Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine COVID-19 vaccine tracker) were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials between 1 January 2020 and 12 January 2022 according to predetermined criteria with no language limitations.

RESULTS

Forty-two datasets were identified, with 20 vaccines using four different technologies (viral vector, inactivated, mRNA and protein sub-unit). Adults and adolescents over 12 years were included. Control groups used saline placebos, adjuvants, and comparator vaccines. The most consistently reported solicited adverse events were fever, fatigue, headache, pain at injection site, redness, and swelling. Both doses of mRNA vaccines, the second dose of protein subunit and the first dose of adenovirus vectored vaccines were the most reactogenic, while the inactivated vaccines were the least reactogenic.

CONCLUSIONS

The different COVID-19 vaccines currently available appear to have distinct reactogenicity profiles, dependent on the vaccine technology employed. Awareness of these differences may allow targeted recommendations for specific populations. Greater standardization of methods for adverse event reporting will aid future research in this field.

Safety and Efficacy of Combined Intramuscular/Intranasal RAZI-COV PARS Vaccine Candidate Against SARS-CoV-2: A Preclinical Study in Several Animal Models

Several vaccine candidates for COVID-19 have been developed, and few vaccines received emergency approval with an acceptable level of efficacy and safety. We herein report the development of the first recombinant protein-based vaccine in Iran based on the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in its monomeric (encompassing amino acid 1-674 for S1 and 685-1211 for S2 subunits) and trimer form (S-Trimer) formulated in the oil-in-water adjuvant system RAS-01 (Razi Adjuvant System-01). The safety and immunity of the candidate vaccine, referred to as RAZI-COV PARS, were evaluated in Syrian hamster, BALB/c mice, Pirbright guinea pig, and New Zeeland white (NZW) rabbit. All vaccinated animals received two intramuscular (IM) and one intranasal (IN) candidate vaccine at 3-week intervals (days 0, 21, and 51). The challenge study was performed intranasally with 5×106 pfu of SARS-CoV-2 35 days post-vaccination. None of the vaccinated mice, hamsters, guinea pigs, or rabbits showed any changes in general clinical observations; body weight and food intake, clinical indicators, hematology examination, blood chemistry, and pathological examination of vital organs. Safety of vaccine after the administration of single and repeated dose was also established. Three different doses of candidate vaccine stimulated remarkable titers of neutralizing antibodies, S1, Receptor-Binding Domain (RBD), and N-terminal domain (NTD) specific IgG antibodies as well as IgA antibodies compared to placebo and control groups (P<0.01). Middle and high doses of RAZI-COV PARS vaccine significantly induced a robust and quick immune response from the third-week post-immunization. Histopathological studies on vaccinated hamsters showed that the challenge with SARS-CoV-2 did not induce any modifications in the lungs. The protection of the hamster was documented by the absence of lung pathology, the decreased virus load in the lung, rapid clearance of the virus from the lung, and strong humoral and cellular immune response. These findings confirm the immunogenicity and efficacy of the RAZI-COV PARS vaccine. Of the three tested vaccine regimens, the middle dose of the vaccine showed the best protective immune parameters. This vaccine with heterologous prime-boost vaccination method can be a good candidate to control the viral infection and its spread by stimulating central and mucosal immunity.

An overview of current drugs and prophylactic vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Designing and producing an effective vaccine is the best possible way to reduce the burden and spread of a disease. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies invested a great deal of time and money in trying to control and combat the disease. In this regard, due to the urgent need, many vaccines are now available earlier than scheduled. Based on their manufacturing technology, the vaccines available for COVID-19 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SAR-CoV2)) infection can be classified into four platforms: RNA vaccines, adenovirus vector vaccines, subunit (protein-based) vaccines, and inactivated virus vaccines. Moreover, various drugs have been deemed to negatively affect the progression of the infection via various actions. However, adaptive variants of the SARS-CoV-2 genome can alter the pathogenic potential of the virus and increase the difficulty of both drug and vaccine development. In this review, along with drugs used in COVID-19 treatment, currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines as well as variants of the virus are described and evaluated, considering all platforms.

Recent developments in SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: A systematic review of the current studies

Designing and manufacturing efficient vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major objective. In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the most important vaccines under construction worldwide, their efficiencies and clinical results in healthy individuals and in those with specific underlying diseases. We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Sciences by 1 December 2021 to identify published research studies. The inclusion criteria were publications that evaluated the immune responses and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in healthy individuals and in those with pre-existing diseases. We also searched the VAERS database to estimate the incidence of adverse events of special interest (AESI) post COVID-19 vaccination. Almost all investigated vaccines were well tolerated and developed good levels of both humoural and cellular responses. A protective and efficient humoural immune response develops after the second or third dose of vaccine and a longer interval (about 28 days) between the first and second injections of vaccine could induce higher antibody responses. The vaccines were less immunogenic in immunocompromised patients, particularly those with haematological malignancies. In addition, we found that venous and arterial thrombotic events, Bell's palsy, and myocarditis/pericarditis were the most common AESI. The results showed the potency of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to protect subjects against disease. The provision of further effective and safe vaccines is necessary in order to reach a high coverage of immunisation programs across the globe and to provide protection against infection itself.

Headache onset after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Background

Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are used to reduce the risk of developing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite the significant benefits in terms of reduced risk of hospitalization and death, different adverse events may present after vaccination: among them, headache is one of the most common, but nowadays there is no summary presentation of its incidence and no description of its main features.

Methods

We searched PubMed and EMBASE covering the period between January 1^st 2020 and August 6^th, 2021, looking for record in English and with an abstract and using three main search terms (with specific variations): COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2; Vaccination; headache/adverse events. We selected manuscript including information on subjects developing headache after injection, and such information had to be derived from a structured form (i.e. no free reporting). Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Analyses were carried out by vaccine vs. placebo, by first vs. second dose, and by mRNA-based vs. “traditional” vaccines; finally, we addressed the impact of age and gender on post-vaccine headache onset.

Results

Out of 9338 records, 84 papers were included in the review, accounting for 1.57 million participants, 94% of whom received BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Headache was generally the third most common AE: it was detected in 22% (95% CI 18–27%) of subjects after the first dose of vaccine and in 29% (95% CI 23–35%) after the second, with an extreme heterogeneity. Those receiving placebo reported headache in 10–12% of cases. No differences were detected across different vaccines or by mRNA-based vs. “traditional” ones. None of the studies reported information on headache features. A lower prevalence of headache after the first injection of BNT162b2 among older participants was shown.

Conclusions

Our results show that vaccines are associated to a two-fold risk of developing headache within 7 days from injection, and the lack of difference between vaccine types enable to hypothesize that headache is secondary to systemic immunological reaction than to a vaccine-type specific reaction. Some descriptions report onset within the first 24 h and that in around one-third of the cases, headache has migraine-like features with pulsating quality, phono and photophobia; in 40–60% of the cases aggravation with activity is observed. The majority of patients used some medication to treat headache, the one perceived as the most effective being acetylsalicylic acid.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01400-4.

Adverse Events Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of COVID-19 Vaccine Using the CONSORT Criteria for Reporting Harms: A Systematic Review

Background: Assessing the quality of evidence from vaccine clinical trials is essential to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and further enhance public acceptance. This study aims to summarize and critically evaluate the quality of harm reporting on randomized controlled trials for the COVID-19 vaccine and determine the factors associated with reporting quality. Methods: We systematically searched the literature using PRISMA guidelines for randomized controlled trials (RCT) on COVID-19 Vaccine until 30 December 2021. Published articles were searched from electronic databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Bibliovid. Bias analysis was performed using RoB-2 tools. The quality of reporting was assessed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension modified into 21 items. Results: A total of 61 RCT studies (402,014 patients) were analyzed. Over half the studies demonstrated adequate reporting (59.02%), and 21 studies (34.4%) reported a low risk of bias. All studies reported death and serious adverse events (AEs), but only six studies mentioned how to handle the recurrent AEs. Reporting of AEs in subgroup analysis was also poor (25%). Conclusion: The RCTs on the COVID-19 vaccine were less biased with good quality on reporting harm based on the modified CONSORT harm extension. However, study quality must be considered, especially for a balance of information between effectivity and safety.

An Update on the Status of Vaccine Development for SARS-CoV-2 Including Variants. Practical Considerations for COVID-19 Special Populations

The progress in the development of various vaccine platforms against SARS-CoV-2 have been rather remarkable owing to advancement in molecular and biologic sciences. Most of the current vaccines and those in development focus on targeting the viral spike proteins by generating antibodies of varying spectrum. These vaccines represent a variety of platforms including whole virus vaccines, viral vector vaccines, nucleic acid vaccines representing RNA, DNA, and their hybrid forms.The therapeutic efficacy of these vaccines varies owing to their pharmacodynamic individualities. COVID-19 variants are capable of inducing different pathologic responses and some of which may be resistant to antibodies generated by current vaccines. The current clinical use of these vaccines has been through emergency use authorization until recently. Moreover, the efficacy and safety of these vaccines have been tested in substantial numbers of individuals but studies in special populations that better reflect the global population are pending results. These specialized populations include young children, immunocompromised patients, pregnant individuals, and other specialized groups. Combination approaches, molecularly modified vaccination approaches, and vaccines conferring longer periods of immunity are being currently being investigated, as well as pharmacovigilance studies.The continual transformation of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants are of concern along with the breakthrough infections. These considerations pose new challenges for the development of vaccination platforms. For this purpose, booster doses, combination vaccine approaches, and other modalities are being discussed. This review provides an updated account of currently available vaccines and those in advanced development with reference to their composition and mechanisms of action.A discussion on the use of vaccines in special populations including immunocompromised patients, pregnant women and other specialized populations are also included.