Different dose regimens of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) in younger and older adults: A phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled trial

Vaccine delivery systems and administration routes: Advanced biotechnological techniques to improve the immunization efficacy

Since the first use of vaccine tell the last COVID-19 pandemic caused by spread of SARS-CoV-2 worldwide, the use of advanced biotechnological techniques has accelerated the development of different types and methods for immunization. The last pandemic showed that the nucleic acid-based vaccine, especially mRNA, has an advantage in terms of development time; however, it showed a very critical drawback namely, the higher costs when compared to other strategies, and its inability to protect against new variants. This showed the need of more improvement to reach a better delivery and efficacy. In this review we will describe different vaccine delivery systems including, the most used viral vector, and also variable strategies for delivering of nucleic acid-based vaccines especially lipid-based nanoparticles formulation, polymersomes, electroporation and also the new powerful tools for the delivery of mRNA, which is based on the use of cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs). Additionally, we will also discuss the main challenges associated with each system. Finlay, the efficacy and safety of the vaccines depends not only on the formulations and delivery systems, but also the dosage and route of administration are also important players, therefore we will see the different routes for the vaccine administration including traditionally routes (intramuscular, Transdermal, subcutaneous), oral inhalation or via nasal mucosa, and will describe the advantages and disadvantage of each administration route.

Boosting the immunogenicity of the CoronaVac SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccine with Huoxiang Suling Shuanghua Decoction: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Introduction

In light of the public health burden of the COVID-19 pandemic, boosting the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines is of great concern. Numerous Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) preparations have shown to beneficially modulate immunity. Based on pilot experiments in mice that showed that supplementation with Huoxiang Suling Shuanghua Decoction (HSSD) significantly enhances serum anti-RBD IgG titers after inoculation with recombinant SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD protein, we conducted this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial aimed to evaluate the potential immunogenicity boosting effect of oral HSSD after a third homologous immunization with Sinovac's CoronaVac SARS-CoV-2 (CVS) inactivated vaccine.

Methods

A total of 70 participants were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive a third dose of CVS vaccination and either oral placebo or oral HSSD for 7 days. Safety aspects were assessed by recording local and systemic adverse events, and by blood and urine biochemistry and liver and kidney function tests. Main outcomes evaluated included serum anti-RBD IgG titer, T lymphocyte subsets, serum IgG and IgM levels, complement components (C3 and C4), and serum cytokines (IL-6 and IFN-γ). In addition, metabolomics technology was used to analyze differential metabolite expression after supplementation with HSSD.

Results

Following a third CVS vaccination, significantly increased serum anti-RBD IgG titer, reduced serum IL-6 levels, increased serum IgG, IgM, and C3 and C4 levels, and improved cellular immunity, evidenced by reduce balance deviations in the distribution of lymphocyte subsets, was observed in the HSSD group compared with the placebo group. No serious adverse events were recorded in either group. Serum metabolomics results suggested that the mechanisms by which HSSD boosted the immunogenicity of the CVS vaccine are related to differential regulation of purine metabolism, vitamin B6 metabolism, folate biosynthesis, arginine and proline metabolism, and steroid hormone biosynthesis.

Conclusion

Oral HSSD boosts the immunogenicity of the CVS vaccine in young and adult individuals. This trial provides clinical reference for evaluation of TCM immunomodulators to improve the immune response to COVID-19 vaccines.

Safety and immunogenicity of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine as a booster in adults previously vaccinated with the BBIBP-CorV vaccine

This phase 3 observer-blind, randomized, controlled study was conducted in adults ≥18 years of age to assess the safety and immunogenicity of NVX-CoV2373 as a heterologous booster compared to BBIBP-CorV when utilized as a homologous booster. Approximately 1000 participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a single dose of NVX-CoV2373 or BBIBP-CorV after prior vaccination with 2 or 3 doses of BBIBP-CorV. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for 7 days after vaccination. Unsolicited AEs were collected for 28 days following the booster dose and serious adverse and adverse events of special interest (AESI) were collected throughout the study. Anti-spike IgG and neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were measured at baseline, day 14, day 28, and day 180. The study achieved its primary non-inferiority endpoint and also demonstrated statistically higher neutralization responses when NVX-CoV2373 was utilized as a heterologous booster compared with BBIBP-CorV as a homologous booster. Both vaccines had an acceptably low reactogenicity profile, and no new safety concerns were found. Heterologous boosting with NVX-CoV2373 was a highly immunogenic and safe vaccine regimen in those previously vaccinated with BBIBP-CorV.

Immunogenicity and safety of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The benefits and risks of adjuvant-associated COVID-19 vaccines (ACVs) are unclear. The study aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of ACVs compared with controls (placebo or the same vaccine without adjuvants [NACVs]).

Methods

Randomized controlled trials sourced from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically reviewed. Evaluators extracted information independently. The evidence quality was assessed using random-effects models. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results

Of the 33 studies, 27 analyzed immunogenicity (n = 9069, ACVs group; n = 3757, control), and 26 analyzed safety (n = 58669, ACVs groups; n = 30733 control). Compared with controls, full vaccination with ACVs produced significant immune responses (relative risk [RR] of seroneutralization reaction, 12.3; 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI], 6.92-21.89; standardized mean deviation of geometric mean titer 3.96, 95 % CI, 3.35-4.58). Additionally, ACVs produced significant immunoreactivity compared with NACVs only (P < 0.05). Furthermore, full vaccination with ACVs significantly increased the risk of local and systemic adverse reactions (AEs) compared with controls. However, vaccination with ACVs did not significantly increase the risk of systemic and localized AEs compared with vaccination with NACVs only (P > 0.05). It was observed that ACVs had a lower risk of all-cause mortality than controls (RR, 0.51; 95 % CI 0.30-0.87). It was further found that ACVs produced nAb response against all sublines of the Omicron variant, but the antibody titers were lower than those for the SARS-CoV-2 original strain.

Conclusions

The findings of this meta-analysis demonstrate that ACVs may have a superior effect and an acceptable safety in preventing COVID-19. Although these results suggest the potential of ACVs, further studies are required.

XBB.1.5 spike protein COVID-19 vaccine induces broadly neutralizing and cellular immune responses against EG.5.1 and emerging XBB variants

Monovalent SARS-CoV-2 Prototype (Wuhan-Hu-1) and bivalent (Prototype + BA.4/5) COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated a waning of vaccine-mediated immunity highlighted by lower neutralizing antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB sub-variants. The reduction of humoral immunity due to the rapid evolution of SARS-CoV-2 has signaled the need for an update to vaccine composition. A strain change for all authorized/approved vaccines to a monovalent composition with Omicron subvariant XBB.1.5 has been supported by the WHO, EMA, and FDA. Here, we demonstrate that immunization with a monovalent recombinant spike protein COVID-19 vaccine (Novavax, Inc.) based on the subvariant XBB.1.5 induces neutralizing antibodies against XBB.1.5, XBB.1.16, XBB.2.3, EG.5.1, and XBB.1.16.6 subvariants, promotes higher pseudovirus neutralizing antibody titers than bivalent (Prototype + XBB.1.5) vaccine, induces SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific Th1-biased CD4 + T-cell responses against XBB subvariants, and robustly boosts antibody responses in mice and nonhuman primates primed with a variety of monovalent and bivalent vaccines. Together, these data support updating the Novavax vaccine to a monovalent XBB.1.5 formulation for the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

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 Phase 3, randomized, non-inferiority study of a heterologous booster dose of SARS CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine in adults

Due to waning immunity following primary immunization with COVID-19 vaccines, booster doses may be required. The present study assessed a heterologous booster of SII-NVX-CoV2373 (spike protein vaccine) in adults primed with viral vector and inactivated vaccines. In this Phase 3, observer-blind, randomized, active controlled study, a total of 372 adults primed with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n = 186) or BBV152 (n = 186) at least six months ago, were randomized to receive a booster of SII-NVX-CoV2373 or control vaccine (homologous booster of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BBV152). Anti-S IgG and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) were assessed at days 1, 29, and 181. Non-inferiority (NI) of SII-NVX-CoV2373 to the control vaccine was assessed based on the ratio of geometric mean ELISA units (GMEU) of anti-S IgG and geometric mean titers (GMT) of nAbs (NI margin > 0.67) as well as seroresponse (≥ 2 fold-rise in titers) (NI margin -10%) at day 29. Safety was assessed throughout the study period. In both the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime and BBV152 prime cohorts, 186 participants each received the study vaccines. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime cohort, the GMEU ratio was 2.05 (95% CI 1.73, 2.43) and the GMT ratio was 1.89 (95% CI 1.55, 2.32) whereas the difference in the proportion of seroresponse was 49.32% (95% CI 36.49, 60.45) for anti-S IgG and 15% (95% CI 5.65, 25.05) for nAbs on day 29. In the BBV152 prime cohort, the GMEU ratio was 5.12 (95% CI 4.20, 6.24) and the GMT ratio was 4.80 (95% CI 3.76, 6.12) whereas the difference in the proportion of seroresponse was 74.08% (95% CI 63.24, 82.17) for anti-S IgG and 24.71% (95% CI 16.26, 34.62) for nAbs on day 29. The non-inferiority of SII-NVX-CoV2373 booster to the control vaccine for each prime cohort was met. SII-NVX-CoV2373 booster showed significantly higher immune responses than BBV152 homologous booster. On day 181, seroresponse rates were ≥ 70% in all the groups for both nAbs and anti-S IgG. Solicited adverse events reported were transient and mostly mild in severity in all the groups. No causally related SAE was reported. SII-NVX-CoV2373 as a heterologous booster induced non-inferior immune responses as compared to homologous boosters in adults primed with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BBV152. SII-NVX-CoV2373 showed a numerically higher boosting effect than homologous boosters. The vaccine was also safe and well tolerated.

Immunogenicity and safety of NVX-CoV2373 as a booster: A phase 3 randomized clinical trial in adults

BACKGROUND

To combat the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, multiple vaccines using different manufacturing platforms have been developed, including NVX-CoV2373 (an adjuvanted recombinant protein vaccine). As SARS-CoV-2 variants have emerged, some of which evade vaccine-induced immunity, introduction of vaccine booster doses has become critical. Employing different vaccine types for primary series vaccination and boosting could expand vaccine coverage and access. This study assessed whether NVX-CoV2373 would induce robust responses when used as a booster.

METHODS

The 2019nCoV-307 study was a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded trial evaluating immunogenicity and safety of NVX-CoV2373 in previously vaccinated adults aged 18-49 years in the United States (NCT05463068). Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to receive one intramuscular injection of NVX-CoV2373 from one of three different manufacturing lots. Immunogenicity was assessed by immunoglobulin G (IgG) and neutralizing antibodies (NAb). These responses were compared for the three lots, and for participants with primary series with or without a prior booster dose of the mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or NVX-CoV2373 COVID-19 vaccines.

RESULTS

A total of 911 participants were randomized between July 11 and 13, 2022, with 905 being assessed for safety and 848 for immunogenicity. Immunogenicity of NVX-CoV2373 met prespecified equivalence criteria between lots, and the booster dose was well-tolerated. NVX-CoV2373 induced robust IgG and NAb responses when used as a first or later booster dose, regardless of primary series vaccine type. Seroconversion rates were also similar across previous vaccine types. Induced antibodies were strongly reactive, even to the immune-evasive Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 variants.

CONCLUSIONS

NVX-CoV2373 showed consistent immunogenicity between lots, with no new safety signals identified. Use of NVX-CoV2373 as a booster dose (first or later) is supported.

Strong CD4+ T-Cell Responses to Ancestral and Variant Spike Proteins Are Established by NVX-CoV2373 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Primary Vaccination

BACKGROUND

NVX-CoV2373 is an efficacious coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine comprising full-length recombinant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike (rS) glycoprotein and Matrix-M adjuvant. Phase 2 of a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 trial in healthy adults (18-84 years of age) previously reported good safety/tolerability and robust humoral immunogenicity.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to placebo or 1 or 2 doses of 5-µg or 25-µg rS with 50 µg Matrix-M adjuvant 21 days apart. CD4+ T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 intact S or pooled peptide stimulation (with ancestral or variant S sequences) were measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay and intracellular cytokine staining.

RESULTS

A clearly discernable spike antigen-specific CD4+ T-cell response was induced after 1 dose, but markedly enhanced after 2 doses. Counts and fold increases in cells producing Th1 cytokines exceeded those secreting Th2 cytokines, although both phenotypes were clearly present. Interferon-γ responses to rS were detected in 93.5% of 2-dose 5-µg recipients. A polyfunctional CD4+ T-cell response was cross-reactive and of equivalent magnitude to all tested variants, including Omicron BA.1/BA.5.

CONCLUSIONS

NVX-CoV2373 elicits a moderately Th1-biased CD4+ T-cell response that is cross-reactive with ancestral and variant S proteins after 2 doses.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04368988.

Nanograms of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein delivered by exosomes induce potent neutralization of both delta and omicron variants

Exosomes are emerging as potent and safe delivery carriers for use in vaccinology and therapeutics. A better vaccine for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is needed to provide improved, broader, longer lasting neutralization of SARS-CoV-2, a more robust T cell response, enable widespread global usage, and further enhance the safety profile of vaccines given the likelihood of repeated booster vaccinations. Here, we use Capricor's StealthXTM platform to engineer exosomes to express native SARS-CoV-2 spike Delta variant (STX-S) protein on the surface for the delivery of a protein-based vaccine for immunization against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The STX-S vaccine induced a strong immunization with the production of a potent humoral immune response as demonstrated by high levels of neutralizing antibody not only against the delta SARS-CoV-2 virus but also two Omicron variants (BA.1 and BA.5), providing broader protection than current mRNA vaccines. Additionally, both CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses were increased significantly after treatment. Quantification of spike protein by ELISA showed that only nanograms of protein were needed to induce a potent immune response. This is a significantly lower dose than traditional recombinant protein vaccines with no adjuvant required, which makes the StealthXTM exosome platform ideal for the development of multivalent vaccines with a better safety profile. Importantly, our exosome platform allows novel proteins, or variants in the case of SARS-CoV-2, to be engineered onto the surface of exosomes in a matter of weeks, comparable with mRNA vaccine technology, but without the cold storage requirements necessary for mRNA vaccines. The ability to utilize exosomes for cellular delivery of proteins, as demonstrated by STX-S, has enormous potential to revolutionize vaccinology by rapidly facilitating antigen presentation at an extremely low dose resulting in a potent, broad antibody response.

Safety surveillance of the NVX-CoV2373 COVID-19 vaccine among Koreans aged 18 years and over

BACKGROUND

In the Republic of Korea (Korea), the NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination was administered to 18-year-olds and over from February 14, 2022. This study sought to assess the frequency and severity of reported adverse events following the Novavax COVID-19 vaccination in Korea.

METHODS

Adverse events based on two national vaccine safety data were analyzed; the COVID-19 vaccination management system (CVMS) and the text-message survey (TMS).

RESULTS

CVMS identified that the reporting rate of adverse events per 100,000 doses were lower after booster doses (84.0) than after dose 1 (254.6) or dose 2 (272.9); and in 65-year-olds and over (83.4) than in 18- to 64-year-olds (168.1). The TMS found that local and systemic adverse events were lower in 65-year-olds and over than in 18- to 64-year-olds (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we identified no major safety issues and fewer adverse events following the Novavax COVID-19 vaccination among 65-year-olds and over in Korea.

A Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Anti-Spike Immunoglobulin G Assay: A Robust Method for Evaluation of Vaccine Immunogenicity Using an Established Correlate of Protection

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continue to emerge. Immunogenicity evaluation of vaccines and identification of correlates of protection for vaccine effectiveness is critical to aid the development of vaccines against emerging variants. Anti-recombinant spike (rS) protein immunoglobulin G (IgG) quantitation in the systemic circulation (serum/plasma) is shown to correlate with vaccine efficacy. Thus, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based binding assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 (ancestral and variant strains) anti-rS IgG in human serum samples was developed and validated. This assay successfully met acceptance criteria for inter/intra-assay precision, specificity, selectivity, linearity, lower/upper limits of quantitation, matrix effects, and assay robustness. The analyte in serum was stable for up to 8 freeze/thaw cycles and 2 years in -80 °C storage. Similar results were observed for the Beta, Delta, and Omicron BA.1/BA.5/XBB.1.5 variant-adapted assays. Anti-rS IgG assay results correlated significantly with neutralization and receptor binding inhibition assays. In addition, usage of international reference standards allows data extrapolation to WHO international units (BAU/mL), facilitating comparison of results with other IgG assays. This anti-rS IgG assay is a robust, high-throughput method to evaluate binding IgG responses to S protein in serum, enabling rapid development of effective vaccines against emerging COVID-19 variants.

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

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

Immunogenicity and safety of a fourth homologous dose of NVX-CoV2373

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants has significantly reduced the efficacy of some approved vaccines. A fourth dose of NVX-CoV2373 (5 µg SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike [rS] protein + 50 µg Matrix-M™ adjuvant; Novavax, Gaithersburg, MD) was evaluated to determine induction of cross-reactive antibodies to variants of concern. A phase II randomized study (NCT04368988) recruited participants in Australia and the United States to assess a primary series of NVX-CoV2373 followed by two booster doses (third and fourth doses at 6-month intervals) in adults 18-84 years of age. The primary series was administered when the SARS-CoV-2 ancestral strain was prevalent and the third and fourth doses while the Alpha and Delta variants were prevalent in AUS and US. Local/systemic reactogenicity was assessed the day of vaccination and for 6 days thereafter. Unsolicited adverse events (AEs) were reported. Immunogenicity was measured before, and 14 days after, fourth dose administration, using anti-spike serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) and neutralization assays against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron sublineages. Among 1283 enrolled participants, 258 were randomized to receive the two-dose primary series, of whom 104 received a third dose, and 45 received a fourth dose of NVX-CoV2373. The incidence of local/systemic reactogenicity events increased after the first three doses of NVX-CoV2373 and leveled off after dose 4. Unsolicited AEs were reported in 9 % of participants after dose 4 (none of which were severe or serious). Anti-rS IgG levels and neutralization antibody titers increased following booster doses to a level approximately four-fold higher than that observed after the primary series, with a progressively narrowed gap in response between the ancestral strain and Omicron BA.5. A fourth dose of NVX-CoV2373 enhanced immunogenicity for ancestral and variant SARS-CoV-2 strains without increasing reactogenicity, indicating that updates to the vaccine composition may not be currently warranted.

Immunogenicity of NVX-CoV2373 in PREVENT-19: A Phase 3, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Adults in the United States and Mexico

Background

NVX-CoV2373, an adjuvanted, recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike (rS) protein vaccine, consistently demonstrated protective efficacy against COVID-19 in clinical trials and has received regulatory authorizations or approvals worldwide.

Methods

PREVENT-19 (NCT04611802) is a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial evaluating safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 in ≈30 000 participants ≥18 years in the United States and Mexico. Vaccine humoral immune response (ie, serum immunoglobulin [IgG] antibodies, hACE2 receptor binding inhibition antibodies, and neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2) (ancestral strain) was assessed in 1200 participants randomly selected and equally divided between participants 18-64 and ≥65 years.

Results

In the per protocol analysis, NVX-CoV2373 induced vigorous serum antibody responses among the 1063 analyzed participants who were SARS-CoV-2 seronegative at baseline, received both doses of study treatment, and had serology results available 2 weeks after dose 2. Geometric mean (GM) responses in both younger and older adults were higher among recipients of vaccine versus placebo for IgG (64 259 vs 121 and 37 750 vs 133 ELISA units, respectively), hACE2 receptor binding inhibition GM titers (GMTs) (222 vs 5 and 136 vs 5, respectively), and neutralizing antibody GMTs (1303 vs 11 and 900 vs 11, respectively). Humoral responses were 30-40% lower in participants ≥65 years or HIV-positive; however, seroconversion rates were high and comparable between the age cohorts, regardless of HIV serostatus.

Conclusions

NVX-CoV2373 elicited robust humoral immune responses against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus 2 weeks following the second vaccination in adult PREVENT-19 participants, consistent with previously reported high vaccine efficacy.

Safety of the NVX-CoV2373 COVID-19 vaccine in randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials

BACKGROUND

NVX-CoV2373 (Nuvaxovid™ or the Novavax COVID-19 Vaccine, Adjuvanted), the first protein-based COVID-19 vaccine, received emergency use authorization (EUA) as a primary series/booster and is available globally. NVX-CoV2373 primary series demonstrated efficacy rates of 89.7-90.4 % and an acceptable safety profile. This article summarizes safety in adult recipients (aged ≥ 18 years) of primary series NVX-CoV2373 in four randomized placebo-controlled trials.

METHODS

All participants who received NVX-CoV2373 primary series or placebo (pre-crossover) were included according to actual received treatment. The safety period was from Day 0 (first vaccination) to unblinding/receipt of EUA-approved/crossover vaccine, end of each study (EOS), or last visit date/cutoff date minus 14 days. The analysis reviewed local and systemic solicited adverse events (AEs) within 7 days after NVX-CoV2373 or placebo; unsolicited AEs from after Dose 1 to 28 days after Dose 2; serious AEs (SAEs), deaths, AEs of special interest, and vaccine-related medically attended AEs from Day 0 through end of follow-up (incidence rate per 100 person-years).

FINDINGS

Pooled data from 49,950 participants (NVX-CoV2373, n = 30,058; placebo, n = 19,892) were included. Solicited reactions after any dose were more frequent in NVX-CoV2373 recipients (local, 76 %/systemic, 70 %) than placebo recipients (local, 29 %/systemic, 47 %), and were mostly of mild-to-moderate severity. Grade 3+ reactions were infrequent, with greater frequency in NVX-CoV2373 recipients (local, 6.28 %/systemic, 11.36 %) than placebo recipients (local, 0.48 %/systemic, 3.58 %). SAEs and deaths occurred with similarly low frequency in NVX-CoV2373 (SAEs: 0.91 %, deaths: 0.07 %) and placebo recipients (SAEs: 1.0 %, deaths: 0.06 %).

INTERPRETATION

To date, NVX-CoV2373 has displayed an acceptable safety profile in healthy adults.

FUNDING

Supported by Novavax, Inc.

Safety, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of the NVX-CoV2373 COVID-19 Vaccine in Adolescents: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Greater than 20% of cases and 0.4% of deaths from COVID-19 occur in children. Following demonstration of the safety and efficacy of the adjuvanted, recombinant spike protein vaccine NVX-CoV2373 in adults, the PREVENT-19 trial immediately expanded to adolescents.

Objective

To evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 in adolescents.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was evaluated in adolescents aged 12 to 17 years in an expansion of PREVENT-19, a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial in the US. Participants were enrolled from April 26 to June 5, 2021, and the study is ongoing. A blinded crossover was implemented after 2 months of safety follow-up to offer active vaccine to all participants. Key exclusion criteria included known previous laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or known immunosuppression. Of 2304 participants assessed for eligibility, 57 were excluded and 2247 were randomized.

Interventions

Participants were randomized 2:1 to 2 intramuscular injections of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo, 21 days apart.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Serologic noninferiority of neutralizing antibody responses compared with those in young adults (aged 18-25 years) in PREVENT-19, protective efficacy against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and assessment of reactogenicity and safety.

Results

Among 2232 participants (1487 NVX-CoV2373 and 745 placebo recipients), the mean (SD) age was 13.8 (1.4) years, 1172 (52.5%) were male, 1660 (74.4%) were White individuals, and 359 (16.1%) had had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. After vaccination, the ratio of neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers in adolescents compared with those in young adults was 1.5 (95% CI, 1.3-1.7). Twenty mild COVID-19 cases occurred after a median of 64 (IQR, 57-69) days of follow-up, including 6 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients (incidence, 2.90 [95% CI, 1.31-6.46] cases per 100 person-years) and 14 among placebo recipients (incidence, 14.20 [95% CI, 8.42-23.93] cases per 100 person-years), yielding a vaccine efficacy of 79.5% (95% CI, 46.8%-92.1%). Vaccine efficacy for the Delta variant (the only viral variant identified by sequencing [n = 11]) was 82.0% (95% CI, 32.4%-95.2%). Reactogenicity was largely mild to moderate and transient, with a trend toward greater frequency after the second dose of NVX-CoV2373. Serious adverse events were rare and balanced between treatments. No adverse events led to study discontinuation.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that NVX-CoV2373 is safe, immunogenic, and efficacious in preventing COVID-19, including the predominant Delta variant, in adolescents.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04611802.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Findings

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

Interpretation

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

Funding

SIIPL, Indian Council of Medical Research, Novavax.

Safety and Efficacy of the NVX-CoV2373 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine at Completion of the Placebo-Controlled Phase of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The recombinant protein-based vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, demonstrated 89.7% efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United Kingdom. The protocol was amended to include a blinded crossover. Data to the end of the placebo-controlled phase are reported.

METHODS

Adults aged 18-84 years received 2 doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) and were monitored for virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 (onset from 7 days after second vaccination). Participants who developed immunoglobulin G (IgG) against nucleocapsid protein but did not show symptomatic COVID-19 were considered asymptomatic. Secondary outcomes included anti-spike (S) IgG responses, wild-type virus neutralization, and T-cell responses.

RESULTS

Of 15 185 participants, 13 989 remained in the per-protocol efficacy population (6989 NVX-CoV2373, 7000 placebo). At a maximum of 7.5 months (median, 4.5) postvaccination, there were 24 cases of COVID-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 134 cases among placebo recipients, a vaccine efficacy of 82.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.3%-88.8%). Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI, 17.9%-100.0%) against severe disease and 76.3% (95% CI, 57.4%-86.8%) against asymptomatic disease. High anti-S and neutralization responses to vaccination were evident, together with S-protein-specific induction of interferon-γ secretion in peripheral blood T cells. Incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A 2-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred a high level of ongoing protection against asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 through >6 months postvaccination. A gradual decrease of protection suggests that a booster may be indicated.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

EudraCT, 2020-004123-16.

A perspective on SARS-CoV-2 virus-like particles vaccines

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) first appeared in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has spread to almost all corners of the world at an alarming rate. Vaccination is important for the prevention and control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts are underway worldwide to develop an effective vaccine against COVID-19 using both traditional and innovative vaccine strategies. Compared to other vaccine platforms, SARS-CoV-2 virus-like particles （VLPs ）vaccines, as a new vaccine platform, have unique advantages: they have artificial nanostructures similar to natural SARS-CoV-2, which can stimulate good cellular and humoral immune responses in the organism; they have no viral nucleic acids, have good safety and thermal stability, and can be mass-produced and stored; their surfaces can be processed and modified, such as the adjuvant addition, etc.; they can be considered as an ideal platform for COVID-19 vaccine development. This review aims to shed light on the current knowledge and progress of VLPs vaccines against COVID-19, especially those undergoing clinical trials.

Safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant receptor-binding domain-based protein subunit vaccine (Noora vaccine™) against COVID-19 in adults: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 trial

The development of a safe and effective vaccine is essential to protect populations against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There are several vaccine candidates under investigation with different mechanisms of action. In the present study, we have evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant receptor-binding domain (RBD)-based protein subunit vaccine (Noora vaccine) against COVID-19 in adults. This Phase 1 trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the recombinant RBD-based protein subunit vaccine (Noora vaccine) against COVID-19 in healthy adults volunteers. Eligible participants were included in this study after evaluating their health status and considering the exclusion criteria. They were then randomized into three groups and received three doses of vaccine (80 µg, 120 µg, and placebo) on Days 0, 21, and 35. Primary outcomes including solicited, unsolicited, and medically attended adverse events were recorded during this study. Secondary outcomes including the humoral and cellular immunity (including anti-RBD IgG antibody and neutralizing antibody) were measured on Days 0, 21, 28, 35, 42, and 49 by using the ELISA kit and the Virus Neutralization Test (VNT) was performed on day 49. Totally 70 cases were included in this Phase 1 trial and 60 of them completed the study. Safety assessments showed no severe adverse events. Local pain at the vaccine injection site occurred in 80% of the vaccinated volunteers. Induration and redness at the injection site were the other adverse reactions of this vaccine. There was no significant difference between the studied groups regarding adverse reactions. Anti-RBD IgG antibody and neutralizing antibody assessment showed significant seroconversion in comparison to the placebo group (80%, and 100% respectively, p < 0.001). The cellular immunity panel also showed mild to moderate induction of TH1 responses and the VNT showed 78% of seroprotection. The results of this Phase 1 trial showed acceptable safety without serious adverse events and significant seroconversions in the humoral and cellular immunity panel. The dose of 80 µg is an appropriate dose for injection in the next phases of the trial.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Receptor (Human Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2) Binding Inhibition Assay: A Rapid, High-Throughput Assay Useful for Vaccine Immunogenicity Evaluation

Emerging variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) show immune evasion of vaccine-derived immunity, highlighting the need for better clinical immunogenicity biomarkers. To address this need, an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based, human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE2) binding inhibition assay was developed to measure antibodies against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2 and was validated for precision, specificity, linearity, and other parameters. This assay measures the inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein binding to the receptor, hACE2, by serum from vaccine clinical trials. Inter- and intra-assay precision, specificity, linearity, lower limit of quantitation, and assay robustness parameters successfully met the acceptance criteria. Heme and lipid matrix effects showed minimal interference on the assay. Samples were stable for testing in the assay even with 8 freeze/thaws and up to 24 months in -80 °C storage. The assay was also adapted for variants (Delta and Omicron BA.1/BA.5), with similar validation results. The hACE2 assay showed significant correlation with anti-recombinant S immunoglobulin G levels and neutralizing antibody titers. This assay provides a rapid, high-throughput option to evaluate vaccine immunogenicity. Along with other clinical biomarkers, it can provide valuable insights into immune evasion and correlates of protection and enable vaccine development against emerging COVID-19 variants.

Immune correlates analysis of the PREVENT-19 COVID-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trial

In the PREVENT-19 phase 3 trial of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (NCT04611802), anti-spike binding IgG concentration (spike IgG), anti-RBD binding IgG concentration (RBD IgG), and pseudovirus 50% neutralizing antibody titer (nAb ID50) measured two weeks post-dose two are assessed as correlates of risk and as correlates of protection against COVID-19. Analyses are conducted in the U.S. cohort of baseline SARS-CoV-2 negative per-protocol participants using a case-cohort design that measures the markers from all 12 vaccine recipient breakthrough COVID-19 cases starting 7 days post antibody measurement and from 639 vaccine recipient non-cases. All markers are inversely associated with COVID-19 risk and directly associated with vaccine efficacy. In vaccine recipients with nAb ID50 titers of 50, 100, and 7230 international units (IU50)/ml, vaccine efficacy estimates are 75.7% (49.8%, 93.2%), 81.7% (66.3%, 93.2%), and 96.8% (88.3%, 99.3%). The results support potential cross-vaccine platform applications of these markers for guiding decisions about vaccine approval and use.

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

IMPORTANCE

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

OBJECTIVE

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

EVIDENCE REVIEW

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

FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

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

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.

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.

Novel coronavirus mutations: Vaccine development and challenges

The ongoing global pandemic of novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 has a significant impact on global health and economy system. In this context, there have been some landmark advances in vaccine development. Over 100 new coronavirus vaccine candidates have been approved for clinical trials, with ten WHO-approved vaccines including four inactivated virus vaccines, two mRNA vaccines, three recombinant viral vectored vaccines and one protein subunit vaccine on the "Emergency Use Listing". Although the SARS-CoV-2 has an internal proofreading mechanism, there have been a number of mutations emerged in the pandemic affecting its transmissibility, pathogenicity and immunogenicity. Of these, mutations in the spike (S) protein and the resultant mutant variants have posed new challenges for vaccine development and application. In this review article, we present an overview of vaccine development, the prevalence of new coronavirus variants and their impact on protective efficacy of existing vaccines and possible immunization strategies coping with the viral mutation and diversity.

Nanomaterials to combat SARS-CoV-2: Strategies to prevent, diagnose and treat COVID-19

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which severely affect the respiratory system and several organs and tissues, and may lead to death, have shown how science can respond when challenged by a global emergency, offering as a response a myriad of rapid technological developments. Development of vaccines at lightning speed is one of them. SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks have stressed healthcare systems, questioning patients care by using standard non-adapted therapies and diagnostic tools. In this scenario, nanotechnology has offered new tools, techniques and opportunities for prevention, for rapid, accurate and sensitive diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19. In this review, we focus on the nanotechnological applications and nano-based materials (i.e., personal protective equipment) to combat SARS-CoV-2 transmission, infection, organ damage and for the development of new tools for virosurveillance, diagnose and immune protection by mRNA and other nano-based vaccines. All the nano-based developed tools have allowed a historical, unprecedented, real time epidemiological surveillance and diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, at community and international levels. The nano-based technology has help to predict and detect how this Sarbecovirus is mutating and the severity of the associated COVID-19 disease, thereby assisting the administration and public health services to make decisions and measures for preparedness against the emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 and severe or lethal COVID-19.

Safety and immunogenicity of an AS03-adjuvanted plant-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in Adults with and without Comorbidities

The rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to impact humanity on a global scale with rising total morbidity and mortality. Despite the development of several effective vaccines, new products are needed to supply ongoing demand and to fight variants. We report herein a pre-specified interim analysis of the phase 2 portion of a Phase 2/3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a coronavirus virus-like particle (CoVLP) vaccine candidate, produced in plants that displays the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, adjuvanted with AS03 (NCT04636697). A total of 753 participants were recruited between 25th November 2020 and 24th March 2021 into three groups: Healthy Adults (18–64 years: N = 306), Older Adults (≥65 years: N = 282) and Adults with Comorbidities (≥18 years: N = 165) and randomized 5:1 to receive two intramuscular doses of either vaccine (3.75 µg CoVLP/dose+AS03) or placebo, 21 days apart. This report presents safety, tolerability and immunogenicity data up to 6 months post-vaccination. The immune outcomes presented include neutralizing antibody (NAb) titres as measured by pseudovirion assay at days 21 and 42 as well as neutralizing antibody cross-reactivity to several variants of concern (VOCs): Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron (BA.1), up to 201 days post-immunization. Cellular (IFN-γ and IL-4 ELISpot) response data in day 21 and 42 peripheral blood are also presented. In this study, CoVLP+AS03 was well-tolerated and adverse events (AE) after each dose were generally mild to moderate and transient. Solicited AEs in Older Adults and Adults with Comorbidities were generally less frequent than in Healthy Adults and the reactogenicity was higher after the second dose. CoVLP+AS03 induced seroconversion in >35% of participants in each group after the first dose and in ~98% of participants, 21 days after the second dose. In all cohorts, 21-days after the second dose, NAb levels in sera against the vaccine strain were ~10-times those in a panel of convalescent sera. Cross-reactivity to Alpha, Beta and Delta variants was generally retained to day 201 (>80%) while cross-reactivity to the Gamma variant was reduced but still substantial at day 201 (73%). Cross-reactivity to the Omicron variant fell from 72% at day 42 to 20% at day 201. Almost all participants in all groups (>88%) had detectable cellular responses (IFN-γ, IL-4 or both) at 21 days after the second dose. A Th1-biased response was most evident after the first dose and was still present after the second dose. These data demonstrated that CoVLP+AS03 is well-tolerated and highly immunogenic, generating a durable (at least 6 months) immune response against different VOCs, in adults ≥18 years of age, with and without comorbidities.

The current status of COVID-19 vaccines. A scoping review

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a new disease that has led to a worldwide pandemic, resulting in millions of deaths and a high economic burden. Here, we analyze the current status of preventive vaccines authorized by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Published clinical trials have shown the effectiveness of mRNA (BNT162b2 and Spikevax), adenovirus vector-based (Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), and recombinant protein S (NVX-CoV2373) vaccines to be between 52.9% and 100%. The most-frequent adverse effects include local pain, fatigue, headache, or chills. Serious events are associated with Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines.

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.

COVID-19: Clinical status of vaccine development to date

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-induced COVID-19 is a complicated disease. Clinicians are continuously facing difficulties to treat infected patients using the principle of repurposing of drugs as no specific drugs are available to treat COVID-19. To minimize the severity and mortality, global vaccination is the only hope as a potential preventive measure. After a year-long global research and clinical struggle, 165 vaccine candidates have been developed and some are currently still in the pipeline. A total of 28 candidate vaccines have been approved for use and the remainder are in different phases of clinical trials. In this comprehensive report, the authors aim to demonstrate, classify and provide up-to-date clinical trial status of all the vaccines discovered to date and specifically focus on the approved candidates. Finally, the authors specifically focused on the vaccination of different types of medically distinct populations.

Safety, Immunogenicity and Efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 in Adolescents in PREVENT-19: A Randomized, Phase 3 Trial

BACKGROUND

Over 20% of cases and 0.4% of deaths from Covid-19 occur in children. Following demonstration of safety and efficacy of the adjuvanted, recombinant spike protein vaccine NVX-CoV2373 in adults, the PREVENT-19 trial enrolled adolescents.

METHODS

Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 were evaluated in adolescents aged 12 to <18 years in an expansion of PREVENT-19, a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United States. Participants were randomized 2:1 to two doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo 21 days apart, and followed for a median of 2 months after second vaccination. Primary end points were serologic non-inferiority of neutralizing antibody (NA) responses compared with young adults (18 to <26 years) in PREVENT-19, protective efficacy against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19, and assessment of reactogenicity/safety.

RESULTS

Among 2,247 participants randomized between April-June 2021, 1,491 were allocated to NVX-CoV2373 and 756 to placebo. Post-vaccination, the ratio of NA geometric mean titers in adolescents compared to young adults was 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 1.7). Twenty Covid-19 cases (all mild) occurred: 6 among NVX-CoV2373 and 14 among placebo recipients (vaccine efficacy [VE]: 79.5%, 95% CI, 46.8 to 92.1). All sequenced viral genomes (11/20) were identified as Delta variant (Delta variant VE: 82.0% [95% CI: 32.4 to 95.2]). Reactogenicity was largely mild-to-moderate, transient, and more frequent in NVX-CoV2373 recipients and after the second dose. Serious adverse events were rare and evenly distributed between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

NVX-CoV2373 was safe, immunogenic, and efficacious in the prevention of Covid-19 and those cases caused by the Delta variant in adolescents. (Funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health; PREVENT-19 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04611802 ).

SARS-CoV-2 Variants, Current Vaccines and Therapeutic Implications for COVID-19

Over the past two years, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused hundreds of millions of infections, resulting in an unprecedented pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As the virus spreads through the population, ongoing mutations and adaptations are being discovered. There is now substantial clinical evidence that demonstrates the SARS-CoV-2 variants have stronger transmissibility and higher virulence compared to the wild-type strain of SARS-CoV-2. Hence, development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants to boost individual immunity has become essential. However, current treatment options are limited for COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 variants. In this review, we describe current distribution, variation, biology, and clinical features of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 variants (including Alpha (B.1.1.7 Lineage) variant, Beta (B.1.351 Lineage) variant, Gamma (P.1 Lineage) variant, Delta (B.1.617.2 Lineage) variant, and Omicron (B.1.1.529 Lineage) variant and others. In addition, we review currently employed vaccines in clinical or preclinical phases as well as potential targeted therapies in an attempt to provide better preventive and treatment strategies for COVID-19 caused by different SARS-CoV-2 variants.

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.

Development of antibody resistance in emerging mutant strains of SARS CoV-2: Impediment for COVID-19 vaccines

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), a highly infectious agent associated with unprecedented morbidity and mortality. A failure to stop growth of COVID-19-linked morbidity rates is caused by SARS-CoV-2 mutations and the emergence of new highly virulent SARS-CoV-2 strains. Several acquired SARS-CoV-2 mutations reflect viral adaptations to host immune defence. Mutations in the virus Spike-protein were associated with the lowered effectiveness of current preventive therapies, including vaccines. Recent in vitro studies detected diminished neutralisation capacity of vaccine-induced antibodies, which are targeted to bind Spike receptor-binding and N-terminal domains in the emerging strains. Lower than expected inhibitory activity of antibodies was reported against viruses with E484K Spike mutation, including B.1.1.7 (UK), P.1 (Brazil), B.1.351 (South African), and new Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) with E484A mutation. The vaccine effectiveness is yet to be examined against new mutant strains of SARS-CoV-2 originating in Europe, Nigeria, Brazil, South Africa, and India. To prevent the loss of anti-viral protection in vivo, often defined as antibody resistance, it is required to target highly conserved viral sequences (including Spike protein) and enhance the potency of antibody cocktails. In this review, we assess the reported mutation-acquiring potential of coronaviruses and compare efficacies of current COVID-19 vaccines against 'parent' and 'mutant' strains of SARS-CoV-2 (Kappa (B.1.617.1), Delta (B.1.617.2), and Omicron (B.1.1.529)).

Safety and Immunogenicity of MVC-COV1901 Vaccine in Older Adults: Phase 2 Randomized Dose-Comparison Trial

Introduction

Older adults are subject to higher COVID-19 infection and mortality rates. Safety and immunogenicity of MVC-COV1901, a protein subunit vaccine have been demonstrated in phase 2 clinical trial for the general population, and negative correlations have been observed between immune responses and age, however, older adults were under-represented.

Methods

A double-blind, randomized, multi-center study compared safety and immunogenicity of high-dose (25 mcg) to mid-dose (15 mcg) of MVC-COV1901 administered 2 times 28 days apart in 420 participants of 65 years and older. The results have been stratified by the comorbidity status.

Results

Both high and mid-dose regimens elicited mostly mild adverse events and robust immune responses when measured as neutralizing and binding antibodies titers. High doses elicited better immune responses in the group without comorbidities.

Conclusion

Given the general population-associated safety and immunogenicity of MVC-COV1901, we recommend high dose for immunization of elder adults with MVC-COV1901. The clinical trial was registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT04822025).

COVID-19 and vaccination: myths vs science

INTRODUCTION

Several vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed since the inception of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in December 2019, at unprecedented speed. However, these rapidly developed vaccines raised many questions related to the efficacy and safety of vaccines in different communities across the globe. Various hypotheses regarding COVID-19 and its vaccines were generated, and many of them have also been answered with scientific evidence. Still, there are many myths/misinformation related to COVID-19 and its vaccines, which create hesitancy for COVID-19 vaccination, and must be addressed critically to achieve success in the battle against the pandemic.

AREA COVERED

The development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against COVID-19, their safety and efficacy, and myths/misinformation relating to COVID-19 and vaccines are presented.

EXPERT OPINION

In this pandemic we have seen a global collaborative effort of researchers, governments, and industry, supported by billions of dollars in funding, have allowed the development of vaccines far more quickly than in the past. Vaccines go through rigorous testing, analysis, and evaluations in clinical settings prior to their approval, even if they are approved for emergency use. Despite the myths, vaccination represents an important strategy to get back to normality.

Safety and immunogenicity following a homologous booster dose of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine (NVX-CoV2373): a secondary analysis of a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

Background

Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and evidence of waning vaccine efficacy present substantial obstacles towards controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Booster doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines might address these concerns by amplifying and broadening the immune responses seen with initial vaccination regimens. We aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of a homologous booster dose of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine (NVX-CoV2373).

Methods

This secondary analysis of a phase 2, randomised study assessed a single booster dose of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine with Matrix-M adjuvant (NVX-CoV2373) in healthy adults aged 18–84 years, recruited from 17 clinical centres in the USA and Australia. Eligible participants had a BMI of 17–35 kg/m² and, for women, were heterosexually inactive or using contraception. Participants who had a history of SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-2, confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, serious chronic medical conditions, or were pregnant or breastfeeding were excluded. Approximately 6 months following their primary two-dose vaccination series (administered day 0 and day 21), participants who received placebo for their primary vaccination series received a placebo booster (group A) and participants who received NVX-CoV2373 for their primary vaccination series (group B) were randomly assigned (1:1) again, via centralised interactive response technology system, to receive either placebo (group B1) or a single booster dose of NVX-CoV2373 (5 μg SARS-CoV-2 rS with 50 μg Matrix-M adjuvant; group B2) via intramuscular injection; randomisation was stratified by age and study site. Vaccinations were administered by designated site personnel who were masked to treatment assignment, and participants and other site staff were also masked. Administration personnel also assessed the outcome. The primary endpoints are safety (unsolicited adverse events) and reactogenicity (solicited local and systemic) events and immunogenicity (serum IgG antibody concentrations for the SARS-CoV-2 rS protein antigen) assessed 14 days after the primary vaccination series (day 35) and 28 days following booster (day 217). Safety was analysed in all participants in groups A, B1, and B2, according to the treatment received; immunogenicity was analysed in the per-protocol population (ie, participants in groups A, B1, and B2) who received all assigned doses and who did not test SARS-CoV-2-positive or received an authorised vaccine, analysed according to treatment assignment). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04368988.

Findings

1610 participants were screened from Aug 24, 2020, to Sept 25, 2020. 1282 participants were enrolled, of whom 173 were assigned again to placebo (group A), 106 were re-randomised to NVX-CoV2373–placebo (group B1), and 104 were re-randomised to NVX-CoV2373–NVX-CoV2373 (group B2); after accounting for exclusions and incorrect administration, 172 participants in group A, 102 in group B1, and 105 in group B2 were analysed for safety. Following the active booster, the proportion of participants with available data reporting local (80 [82%] of 97 participants had any adverse event; 13 [13%] had a grade ≥3 event) and systemic (75 [77%] of 98 participants had any adverse event; 15 [15%] had a grade ≥3 event) reactions was higher than after primary vaccination (175 [70%] of 250 participants had any local adverse event, 13 [5%] had a grade ≥3 event; 132 [53%] of 250 had any systemic adverse event, 14 [6%] had a grade ≥3 event). Local and systemic events were transient in nature (median duration 1·0–2·5 days). In the per-protocol immunogenicity population at day 217 (167 participants in group A, 101 participants in group B1, 101 participants in group B2), IgG geometric mean titres (GMT) had increased by 4·7-fold and MN₅₀ GMT by 4·1-fold for the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain compared with the day 35 titres.

Interpretation

Administration of a booster dose of NVX-CoV2373 resulted in an incremental increase in reactogenicity. For both the prototype strain and all variants evaluated, immune responses following the booster were similar to or higher than those associated with high levels of efficacy in phase 3 studies of the vaccine. These data support the use of NVX-CoV2373 in booster programmes.

Funding

Novavax and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

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.

Immunity after COVID-19 Recovery and Vaccination: Similarities and Differences

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is associated with a robust immune response. The development of systemic inflammation leads to a hyperinflammatory state due to cytokine release syndrome during severe COVID-19. The emergence of many new SARS-CoV-2 variants across the world deteriorates the protective antiviral immunity induced after infection or vaccination. The innate immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is crucial for determining the fate of COVID-19 symptomatology. T cell-mediated immunity is the main factor of the antiviral immune response; moreover, SARS-CoV-2 infection initiates a rapid B-cell response. In this paper, we present the current state of knowledge on immunity after COVID-19 infection and vaccination. We discuss the mechanisms of immune response to various types of vaccines (nucleoside-modified, adenovirus-vectored, inactivated virus vaccines and recombinant protein adjuvanted formulations). This includes specific aspects of vaccination in selected patient populations with altered immune activity (the elderly, children, pregnant women, solid organ transplant recipients, patients with systemic rheumatic diseases or malignancies). We also present diagnostic and research tools available to study the anti-SARS-CoV-2 cellular and humoral immune responses.

Immunogenicity, efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines: an update of data published by 31 December 2021

The unprecedented coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a disaster for public health in the last 2 years, without any sign of an ending. Various vaccines were developed rapidly as soon as the outbreak occurred. Clinical trials demonstrated the reactogenicity, immunogenicity and protection efficacy in humans, and some of the vaccines have been approved for clinical use. However, waves of infections such as the recently circulating Omicron variant still occur. Newly emerging variants, especially the variants of concern, and waning humoral responses pose serious challenges to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, we summarized the humoral and cellular immunity, safety profiles and protection efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines with clinical data published by 21 May 2021. In this review, we summarize and update the published clinical data of COVID-19 vaccines and candidates up to 31 December 2021.

COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer: immunogenicity, efficacy and safety

Patients with cancer have a higher risk of severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. Owing to this increased risk, patients with cancer have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination globally, for both primary and booster vaccinations. However, given that these patients were not included in the pivotal clinical trials, considerable uncertainty remains regarding vaccine efficacy, and the extent of humoral and cellular immune responses in these patients, as well as the risks of vaccine-related adverse events. In this Review, we summarize the current knowledge generated in studies conducted since COVID-19 vaccines first became available. We also highlight critical points that might affect vaccine efficacy in patients with cancer in the future.

Immunogenicity and safety of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein nanoparticle vaccine in people living with and without HIV-1 infection: a randomised, controlled, phase 2A/2B trial

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data on COVID-19 vaccines in people living with HIV-1, who could be at increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of a Matrix-M adjuvanted recombinant spike protein nanoparticle COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373; Novavax) in HIV-negative people and people living with HIV-1.

METHODS

In this randomised, observer-blinded, multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 2A/B trial in South Africa, participants aged 18-84 years, with and without underlying HIV-1, were enrolled from 16 sites and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive two intramuscular injections of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo, 21 days apart. People living with HIV-1 were on stable antiretroviral therapy and had an HIV-1 viral load of less than 1000 copies per mL. Vaccine dosage was 5 μg SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein with 50 μg Matrix-M adjuvant, whereas 0·9% saline was used as placebo injection (volume 0·5 mL each). All study staff and participants remained masked to study group assignment. We previously reported an interim analysis on the efficacy and safety of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (coprimary endpoints). In this Article, we present an expanded safety analysis for the full cohort of participants and report on the secondary objective of vaccine immunogenicity in the full cohort of people living with HIV-1 and in HIV-negative individuals overall and stratified by baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04533399, and the Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR202009726132275.

FINDINGS

Participants were enrolled between Aug 17 and Nov 25, 2020. The safety analysis set included 4164 HIV-negative participants (2089 in the intervention group and 2075 in the placebo group) and 244 people living with HIV-1 (122 in the intervention group and 122 in the placebo group). 1422 (34·1%) of 4164 HIV-negative people and 83 (34·0%) of 244 people living with HIV-1 were categorised as baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive (ie, anti-spike IgG reactive at enrolment or had a reactive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test by 14 days after the second study vaccination). In the NVX-CoV2373 group, solicited local and systemic adverse events were more common in HIV-negative participants (427 [30·6%] local and 401 [28·7%] systemic) than in people living with HIV-1 (20 [25·3%] local and 20 [25·3%] systemic) among those who were baseline SARS-CoV-2-seronegative (naive). Of the serious adverse events that occurred among HIV-negative people (of whom, two [0·1%] were baseline SARS-CoV-2-negative and four [0·6%] were baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive) and people living with HIV-1 (for whom there were no serious adverse events) in the NVX-CoV2373 group, none were assessed as related to the vaccine. Among participants who were baseline SARS-CoV-2-negative in the NVX-CoV2373 group, the anti-spike IgG geometric mean titres (GMTs) and seroconversion rates (SCRs) were lower in people living with HIV-1 (n=62) than in HIV-negative people (n=1234) following the first vaccination (GMT: 508·6 vs 1195·3 ELISA units [EU]/mL; SCR: 51·6% vs 81·3%); and similarly so 14 days after the second vaccination for GMTs (14 420·5 vs 31 631·8 EU/mL), whereas the SCR was similar at this point (100·0% vs 99·3%). In the NVX-CoV2373 group, anti-spike IgG GMTs 14 days after the second vaccination were substantially higher in those who were baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive than in those who were baseline SARS-CoV-2-seronegative for HIV-negative participants (100 666·1 vs 31 631·8 EU/mL) and for people living with HIV-1 (98 399·5 vs 14 420·5 EU/mL). This was also the case for angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor-binding antibody and neutralising antibody titres.

INTERPRETATION

The safety of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine in people living with HIV-1 was similar to that in HIV-negative participants. However, people living with HIV-1 not previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2 had attenuated humoral immune responses to NVX-CoV2373 compared with their HIV-negative vaccine counterparts, but not so if they were baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive.

FUNDING

Novavax and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; investigational vaccine manufacturing support was provided by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

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.

Safety and immunogenicity of an AS03-adjuvanted SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) in healthy adults: interim findings from a phase 2, randomised, dose-finding, multicentre study

BACKGROUND

We evaluated our SARS-CoV-2 prefusion spike recombinant protein vaccine (CoV2 preS dTM) with different adjuvants, unadjuvanted, and in a one-injection and two-injection dosing schedule in a previous phase 1-2 study. Based on interim results from that study, we selected a two-injection schedule and the AS03 adjuvant for further clinical development. However, lower than expected antibody responses, particularly in older adults, and higher than expected reactogenicity after the second vaccination were observed. In the current study, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of an optimised formulation of CoV2 preS dTM adjuvanted with AS03 to inform progression to phase 3 clinical trial.

METHODS

This phase 2, randomised, parallel-group, dose-ranging study was done in adults (≥18 years old), including those with pre-existing medical conditions, those who were immunocompromised (except those with recent organ transplant or chemotherapy) and those with a potentially increased risk for severe COVID-19, at 20 clinical research centres in the USA and Honduras. Women who were pregnant or lactating or, for those of childbearing potential, not using an effective method of contraception or abstinence, and those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine, were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive response technology system, with stratification by age (18-59 years and ≥60 years), rapid serodiagnostic test result (positive or negative), and high-risk medical conditions (yes or no), to receive two injections (day 1 and day 22) of 5 7mu;g (low dose), 10 7mu;g (medium dose), or 15 7mu;g (high dose) CoV2 preS dTM antigen with fixed AS03 content. All participants and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment; unmasked study staff involved in vaccine preparation were not involved in safety outcome assessments. All laboratory staff performing the assays were masked to treatment. The primary safety objective was to describe the safety profile in all participants, for each candidate vaccine formulation. Safety endpoints were evaluated for all randomised participants who received at least one dose of the study vaccine (safety analysis set), and are presented here for the interim study period (up to day 43). The primary immunogenicity objective was to describe the neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant 14 days after the second vaccination (day 36) in participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naive who received both injections, provided samples at day 1 and day 36, did not have protocol deviations, and did not receive an authorised COVID-19 vaccine before day 36. Neutralising antibodies were measured using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay and are presented here up to 14 days after the second dose. As a secondary immunogenicity objective, we assessed neutralising antibodies in non-naive participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04762680) and is closed to new participants for the cohort reported here.

FINDINGS

Of 722 participants enrolled and randomly assigned between Feb 24, 2021, and March 8, 2021, 721 received at least one injection (low dose=240, medium dose=239, and high dose=242). The proportion of participants reporting at least one solicited adverse reaction (injection site or systemic) in the first 7 days after any vaccination was similar between treatment groups (217 [91%] of 238 in the low-dose group, 213 [90%] of 237 in the medium-dose group, and 218 [91%] of 239 in the high-dose group); these adverse reactions were transient, were mostly mild to moderate in intensity, and occurred at a higher frequency and intensity after the second vaccination. Four participants reported immediate unsolicited adverse events; two (one each in the low-dose group and medium-dose group) were considered by the investigators to be vaccine related and two (one each in the low-dose and high-dose groups) were considered unrelated. Five participants reported seven vaccine-related medically attended adverse events (two in the low-dose group, one in the medium-dose group, and four in the high-dose group). No vaccine-related serious adverse events and no adverse events of special interest were reported. Among participants naive to SARS-CoV-2 at day 36, 158 (98%) of 162 in the low-dose group, 166 (99%) of 168 in the medium-dose group, and 163 (98%) of 166 in the high-dose group had at least a two-fold increase in neutralising antibody titres to the D614G variant from baseline. Neutralising antibody geometric mean titres (GMTs) at day 36 for participants who were naive were 2189 (95% CI 1744-2746) for the low-dose group, 2269 (1792-2873) for the medium-dose group, and 2895 (2294-3654) for the high-dose group. GMT ratios (day 36: day 1) were 107 (95% CI 85-135) in the low-dose group, 110 (87-140) in the medium-dose group, and 141 (111-179) in the high-dose group. Neutralising antibody titres in non-naive adults 21 days after one injection tended to be higher than titres after two injections in adults who were naive, with GMTs 21 days after one injection for participants who were non-naive being 3143 (95% CI 836-11 815) in the low-dose group, 2338 (593-9226) in the medium-dose group, and 7069 (1361-36 725) in the high-dose group.

INTERPRETATION

Two injections of CoV2 preS dTM-AS03 showed acceptable safety and reactogenicity, and robust immunogenicity in adults who were SARS-CoV-2 naive and non-naive. These results supported progression to phase 3 evaluation of the 10 7mu;g antigen dose for primary vaccination and a 5 7mu;g antigen dose for booster vaccination.

FUNDING

Sanofi Pasteur and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.

COVID-19 Vaccines: Current and Future Perspectives

Currently available vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are highly effective but not able to keep the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic completely under control. Alternative R&D strategies are required to induce a long-lasting immunological response and to reduce adverse events as well as to favor rapid development and large-scale production. Several technological platforms have been used to develop COVID-19 vaccines, including inactivated viruses, recombinant proteins, DNA- and RNA-based vaccines, virus-vectored vaccines, and virus-like particles. In general, mRNA vaccines, protein-based vaccines, and vectored vaccines have shown a high level of protection against COVID-19. However, the mutation-prone nature of the spike (S) protein affects long-lasting vaccine protection and its effectiveness, and vaccinated people can become infected with new variants, also showing high virus levels. In addition, adverse effects may occur, some of them related to the interaction of the S protein with the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2). Thus, there are some concerns that need to be addressed and challenges regarding logistic problems, such as strict storage at low temperatures for some vaccines. In this review, we discuss the limits of vaccines developed against COVID-19 and possible innovative approaches.

Safety and immunogenicity of NVX-CoV2373 (TAK-019) vaccine in healthy Japanese adults: Interim report of a phase I/II randomized controlled trial

Background

We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of NVX-CoV2373, a recombinant SARS-CoV-2 nanoparticle vaccine, in healthy Japanese participants.

Methods

This phase 1/2, randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in Japan (two sites), enrolled healthy Japanese adults aged ≥ 20 years with no history/risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and no prior exposure to other approved/investigational SARS-CoV-2 vaccines or treatments. Participants were stratified by age (< 65 or ≥ 65 years) and randomized to receive two doses of either NVX-CoV2373 (5 μg SARS-CoV-2 rS; 50 μg Matrix-M1) or placebo, 21 days apart. Primary outcomes were safety and immunogenicity assessed by serum IgG antibody levels against SARS-CoV-2 rS protein on day 36. Herein, we report the primary data analysis at 4 weeks after the second dose, ahead of 12-month follow-up completion (data cut-off: 8 May 2021).

Results

Between 12 February 2021 and 17 March 2021, 326 subjects were screened, and 200 participants enrolled and randomized: NVX-CoV2373, n = 150; placebo, n = 50. Solicited adverse events (AEs) through 7 days after each injection occurred in 121/150 (80.7%) and 11/50 (22.0%) participants in the NVX-CoV2373 and placebo arms, respectively. In the NVX-CoV2373 arm, tenderness and injection site pain were the most frequently reported solicited AEs after each vaccination, irrespective of age. Robust immune responses occurred with NVX-CoV2373 (n = 150) by day 36: IgG geometric mean fold rise (95% confidence interval) 259 (219, 306); seroconversion rate 100% (97.6, 100). No such response occurred with placebo (n = 49).

Conclusion

Two doses of NVX-CoV2373 given with a 21-day interval demonstrated acceptable safety and induced robust anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in healthy Japanese adults. Funding: Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited and Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04712110.

Lyotropic Liquid Crystalline Nanostructures as Drug Delivery Systems and Vaccine Platforms

Lyotropic liquid crystals result from the self-assembly process of amphiphilic molecules, such as lipids, into water, being organized in different mesophases. The non-lamellar formed mesophases, such as bicontinuous cubic (cubosomes) and inverse hexagonal (hexosomes), attract great scientific interest in the field of pharmaceutical nanotechnology. In the present review, an overview of the engineering and characterization of non-lamellar lyotropic liquid crystalline nanosystems (LLCN) is provided, focusing on their advantages as drug delivery nanocarriers and innovative vaccine platforms. It is described that non-lamellar LLCN can be utilized as drug delivery nanosystems, as well as for protein, peptide, and nucleic acid delivery. They exhibit major advantages, including stimuli-responsive properties for the “on demand” drug release delivery and the ability for controlled release by manipulating their internal conformation properties and their administration by different routes. Moreover, non-lamellar LLCN exhibit unique adjuvant properties to activate the immune system, being ideal for the development of novel vaccines. This review outlines the recent advances in lipid-based liquid crystalline technology and highlights the unique features of such systems, with a hopeful scope to contribute to the rational design of future nanosystems.