Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18 years or older: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 trial

Safety and Immunogenicity of the Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccine Booster in People Living with HIV in China

Current knowledge regarding the long-term humoral response of people infected with human immunodeficiency virus to the third dose of inactivated coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine is incomplete. As a result, concerns remain about the safety and efficacy of the vaccination. To improve our understanding of the safety and immunogenicity of the COVID-19 inactivated vaccine booster in people living with HIV (PLWH), a prospective study was conducted on participants who had not yet received a third dose of the COVID-19 inactivated vaccine, had no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and had received a second dose of the vaccine more than six months prior. The primary safety outcomes included the incidence of adverse reactions, changes in CD4⁺ T-cell count, viral load, blood routine examination, liver and kidney function examination, blood sugar, and blood lipid examination. The pseudovirus-neutralizing antibody responses to the D614G variant, Delta variant, and Omicron variants BA.5 and BF.7 were evaluated before vaccination, 14 days, 28 days, 3 months, and 6 months after vaccination to evaluate the immune response of PLWH to the injection of inactivated vaccine booster and the safety of the vaccine. In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccine booster shots were effective in PLWH, resulting in an increase in the number of CD4⁺ T-cells, neutralizing antibodies that lasted up to six months, and higher levels of neutralizing antibodies lasting approximately 3 months. However, the vaccine protection against the two variants of BA.5 and BF.7 was significantly lower than that of D614G and Delta.

Cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 vaccination strategy has been widely used to protect population health worldwide. This study aims to summarize the cost-effectiveness evidence of economic evaluation of COVID-19 vaccination strategies to provide evidence supporting the usage of COVID-19 vaccination, especially where the supply of COVID-19 vaccine is limited.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed by searching both English and Chinese databases, including PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, and CNKI. Articles published from January 1, 2020 to August 1, 2022 (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022355442).

RESULTS

Of the 1035 papers identified, a total of 28 English studies that met the preset criteria were included. COVID-19 vaccination and booster vaccination were cost-effective or cost-saving regardless of the vaccine type; vaccine efficacy, vaccine price, vaccine supply or prioritization, and vaccination pace were the influential factors of cost-effectiveness among different population groups. When supply is adequate, mass vaccination should be encouraged, while when supply is inadequate, prioritizing the high risk and the elderly is more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccination strategies are economically favorable in a wide range of countries and population groups, and further research on suitable strategies for booster COVID-19 vaccination is needed.

Safety, immunogenicity and immune-persistence of heterologous prime-boost immunization with BBIBP-CorV and ZF2001 against SARS-CoV-2 in healthy adults aged 18 years or older

BACKGROUND

Because SARS-CoV-2 mutations and immunity wane over time, a third dose of heterologous COVID-19 vaccine is proposed for individuals primed with inactivated COVID-19 vaccine.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a single-center, open-label trial to assess the safety, immunogenicity, and immune-persistence of a heterologous BBIBP-CorV/ZF2001 prime-boost vaccination in Chinese adults. 480 participants who had been primed with two doses of BBIBP-CorV, received a third dose of ZF2001 after an interval of 3-4, 5-6, or 7-9 months.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of adverse reactions within 30 days after vaccination was 5.83%. No serious adverse reactions were reported. The respective geometric mean titers (GMTs) of neutralizing antibodies for 3-4, 5-6, and 7-9 months groups at baseline were 2.06, 2.02, and 2.10; which increased to 55.42, 63.45, and 62.06 on day 14; then decreased to 17.53, 23.79, and 26.73 on day 30; before finally waning to 8.29, 9.24, and 9.51 on day 180. After the booster, the three groups showed no significant differences in GMTs. GMTs were lower in older participants than younger participants.

CONCLUSIONS

A heterologous BBIBP-CorV/ZF2001 prime-boost vaccination was safe and immunogenic. Prime-boost intervals did not affect the immune response. The immune response was weaker in older adults than younger adults.

CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER

NCT05205083.

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 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.

Safety and immunogenicity of a third-dose homologous BBIBP-CorV boosting vaccination: interim results from a prospective open-label study

A COVID-19 booster vaccination is being comprehensively evaluated globally due to the emerging concern of reduced protection rate of previous vaccination and circulating Variants of Concern (VOC). But the safety and immunogenicity of homologous BBIBP-CorV boosting vaccination are yet to be thoroughly evaluated. We conducted this prospective, open-label study in Huashan Hospital using a third 6.5U BBIBP-CorV administered at an interval of 4–8 months following the previous two doses in healthy adults. Safety, anti-RBD response and neutralizing titers against SARS-CoV-2 and VOCs were examined. Sixty-three and forty participants entered the booster and the control group, respectively. A significant increase in IFN-γ SFU per million PBMCs was observed on day 14 against N peptide (20 vs. 5, P < 0.001). On day 14, pVNT GMTs increased over 15 folds of the baseline levels against prototype to reach 404.54 titers and over 9–13 folds against 4 VOCs and continuously increased by day 28. sVNT GMTs increased 112.51 and 127.45 folds by days 14 and 28 compared to the baseline level. Median anti-RBD antibody and IgG level significantly increased from 11.12 to 2607.50 BAU/ml and 4.07 to 619.20 BAU/ml on day 14. On day 14, females showed a significantly higher cell-mediated immune response against S1 peptide. The 7–8 months interval group had a higher humoral response than the 4–6 months interval group. No severe adverse event was reported. A third homologous BBIBP-CorV boosting vaccination was safe and highly immunogenic for healthy adults and broadened participants’ immunity against VOCs.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of COVID-19 Sequential Vaccination Strategies in Inactivated Vaccinated Individuals in China

To effectively prevent and control the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have adopted a booster vaccination strategy. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential booster COVID-19 vaccination compared to two-dose inactivated vaccination in China from a societal perspective. A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential vaccination, including two doses of an inactivated vaccine followed by a booster shot of an inactivated vaccine, adenovirus vectored vaccine, protein subunit vaccine, or mRNA vaccine. The incremental effects of a booster shot with an inactivated vaccine, protein subunit vaccine, adenovirus vectored vaccine, and mRNA vaccine were 0.0075, 0.0110, 0.0208, and 0.0249 QALYs and saved costs of US$163.96, US$261.73, US$583.21, and US$724.49, respectively. Under the Omicron virus pandemic, the sequential vaccination among adults and the elderly (aged 60-69, 70-79, over 80) was consistently cost-saving, and a booster shot of the mRNA vaccine was more cost-saving. The results indicate that the sequential vaccination strategy is cost-effective in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, and improving vaccination coverage among the elderly is of great importance in avoiding severe cases and deaths.

The impact of CoronaVac on the neutralization breadth and magnitude of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 viruses

Although immune response enhancement has been reported after primary and booster vaccines of CoronaVac, neutralization breadth of SARS-CoV-2 variants is still unclear. In the present study, we examined the neutralization magnitude and breadth of SARS-CoV-2 variants including Beta (B.1.351), Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) in 33 convalescent COVID-19 patients and a cohort of 55 medical staff receiving primary CoronaVac vaccines and an additional homologous booster dose. Results showed that, as compared with the two-dose primary vaccination, the homologous booster dose achieved 2.24-, 3.98-, 4.58- and 2.90-fold increase in neutralization titer against wild-type, Beta, Delta, and Omicron, respectively. After booster dose, neutralization titer reduction for variants was less than that after the primary vaccine or that for convalescents. The proportion of recipients able to neutralize 2 or more variants increased from 36.36% post the primary vaccination to 87.27% after the booster. Significant increase in neutralization breadth of 1.24 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89–1.59) variants was associated with a log₁₀ increase in neutralization titer against the wild-type. In addition, anti-RBD IgG level was identified as an excellent surrogate for positive neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 and neutralization breadth of variants. These findings highlight the value of an additional homologous CoronaVac dose in broadening the cross-neutralization against SARS-CoV-2 variants, and are critical for informing the booster dose vaccination efforts.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety and Adverse Events Related to Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccines and Novavax;a Systematic Review

Introduction

Knowledge of the safety of vaccines is crucial, both to prevent and cure them and to decrease the public hesitation in receiving vaccines. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review the adverse events reported for inactivated vaccines and Novavax.

Methods

In this systematic review, the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched on September 15, 2021. Then we identified the eligible studies using a two-step title/abstract and full-text screening process. Data on the subjects, studies, and types of adverse events were extracted and entered in a word table, including serious, mild, local, and systemic adverse events as well as the timing of side effects' appearance.

Results

Adverse effects of inactivated coronavirus vaccines side effects were reported from phases 1, 2, and 3 of the vaccine trials. The most common local side effects included injection site pain and swelling, redness, and pruritus. Meanwhile, fatigue, headache, muscle pain, fever, and gastrointestinal symptoms including abdominal pain and diarrhea were among the most common systemic adverse effects.

Conclusion

This systematic review indicates that inactivated COVID-19 vaccines, including Sinovac, Sinopharm, and Bharat Biotech, as well as the protein subunit vaccines (Novavax) can be considered as safe choices due to having milder side effects and fewer severe life-threatening adverse events.

COVID-19 Vaccines' Protection Over Time and the Need for Booster Doses; a Systematic Review

Introduction

Controversies existed regarding the duration of COVID-19 vaccines' protection and whether receiving the usual vaccine doses would be sufficient for long-term immunity. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the studies regarding the COVID-19 vaccines' protection three months after getting fully vaccinated and assess the need for vaccine booster doses.

Methods

The relevant literature was searched using a combination of keywords on the online databases of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane on September 17th, 2021. The records were downloaded and the duplicates were removed. Then, the records were evaluated in a two-step process, consisting of title/abstract and full-text screening processes, and the eligible records were selected for the qualitative synthesis. We only included original studies that evaluated the efficacy and immunity of COVID-19 vaccines three months after full vaccination. This review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement to ensure the reliability of results.

Results

Out of the 797 retrieved records, 12 studies were included, 10 on mRNA-based vaccines and two on inactivated vaccines. The majority of included studies observed acceptable antibody titers in most of the participants even after 6 months; however,it appeared that the titers could also decrease in a considerable portion of people. Due to the reduction in antibody titers and vaccine protection, several studies suggested administering the booster dose, especially for older patients and those with underlying conditions, such as patients with immunodeficiencies.

Conclusion

Studies indicated that vaccine immunity decreases over time, making people more susceptible to contracting the disease. Besides, new variants are emerging, and the omicron variant is continuing to spread and escape from the immune system, indicating the importance of a booster dose.

Immunogenicity Following Two Doses of the BBIBP-CorV Vaccine and a Third Booster Dose with a Viral Vector and mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines against Delta and Omicron Variants in Prime Immunized Adults with Two Doses of the BBIBP-CorV Vaccine

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccination is being comprehensively evaluated globally due to waning immunity and the emergence of new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate antibody responses in individuals vaccinated with two doses of the BBIBP-CorV vaccine and to explore the boosting effect of the different vaccine platforms in BBIBP-CorV-primed healthy adults, including a viral vector vaccine (AZD122) and mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273). The results showed that in the BBIBP-CorV prime group, the total receptor-binding domain (RBD) immunoglobulin (Ig) and anti-RBD IgG levels waned significantly at three months after receiving the second dose. However, after the booster, RBD-specific binding antibody levels increased. Neutralizing antibody measured by a surrogate neutralization test showed inhibition over 90% against the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant but less than 70% against the omicron variant after the third dose on day 28. All booster vaccines could induce the total IFN-ɣ T-cell response. The reactogenicity was acceptable and well-tolerated without serious adverse events. This study supports the administration of the third dose with either a viral vector or mRNA vaccine for BBIBP-CorV-primed individuals to stimulate antibody and T-cell responses.

Immunogenicity and Safety of SpikoGen®, an Adjuvanted Recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein vaccine as a Homologous and Heterologous Booster Vaccination: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

SpikoGen® is a subunit recombinant spike protein vaccine combined with Advax-CpG55.2™ adjuvant. This COVID-19 vaccine was shown to be safe, immunogenic, and efficacious in previous clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of SpikoGen® vaccine as a homologous and heterologous booster vaccination. This double-blind and randomized placebo-controlled (5:1) trial was performed on 300 already vaccinated participants. SpikoGen® or saline placebo was administered as a booster dose to participants who had received a full 2-dose COVID-19 vaccination course. Immunogenicity assessments were done 14 days after the booster dose with the primary immunogenicity outcome seroconversion rate of neutralizing antibodies. Safety outcomes included the incidence of solicited adverse events up to seven days after the booster dose. SpikoGen® vaccine induced a robust humoral response both as a homologous and heterologous booster, when compared to the placebo. At day 14, seroconversion of neutralizing antibodies was 76% (95% CI; 69% to 82%) in the SpikoGen® group vs. 3% (95% CI; 0% to 13%) in the placebo group. The most common local and systemic reported adverse events were injection site pain and fatigue and no serious adverse events were reported. The SpikoGen®-booster induced cross-neutralization of other SARS-CoV-2 variants. Irrespective of the primary vaccine course received, SpikoGen® vaccine showed promising effects as both a homologous and heterologous booster dose. This vaccine had also a good safety profile with no vaccine-associated serious adverse events. On the basis of these results, SpikoGen® vaccine has recently been approved as a booster dose.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine platforms: how novel platforms can prepare us for future pandemics: a narrative review

More than 2 years after the explosion of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, extensive efforts have been made to develop safe and efficacious vaccines against infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The pandemic has opened a new era of vaccine development based on next-generation platforms, including messenger RNA (mRNA)-based technologies, and paved the way for the future of mRNA-based therapeutics to provide protection against a wide range of infectious diseases. Multiple vaccines have been developed at an unprecedented pace to protect against COVID-19 worldwide. However, important knowledge gaps remain to be addressed, especially in terms of how vaccines induce immunogenicity and efficacy in those who are elderly. Here, we discuss the various vaccine platforms that have been utilized to combat COVID-19 and emphasize how these platforms can be a powerful tool to react quickly to future pandemics.

Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike RBD protein vaccine: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1-2 clinical trial (ABDALA Study)

BACKGROUND

Multiple vaccine candidates against COVID-19 are currently being evaluated. We evaluate the safety and immunogenicity protein of a novel SARS-CoV-2 virus receptor-binding domain (RBD) vaccine.

METHODS

A phase 1-2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was carried out in "Saturnino Lora" Hospital, Santiago de Cuba, Cuba. Subjects (healthy or those with controlled chronic diseases) aged between 19 and 80 years, who gave written informed consent were eligible. Subjects were randomly assigned (1:1:1, in blocks) to three groups: placebo, 25 µg and 50 µg RBD vaccine (Abdala). The product was administered intramuscularly, 0·5 mL in the deltoid region. During the first phase, two immunization schedules were studied: 0-14-28 days (short) and 0-28-56 days (long). In phase 2, only the short schedule was evaluated. The organoleptic characteristics and presentations of vaccine and placebo were identical. All participants (subjects, clinical researchers, statisticians, laboratory technicians, and monitors) remained masked during the study period. The main endpoints were safety and the proportion of subjects with seroconversion of anti-RBD IgG antibodies, analysed by intention to treat and per protocol, respectively. The trial is registered with the Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials, RPCEC00000346.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 7, 2020, and Feb 9, 2021, 792 subjects were included; 132 (66 in each vaccination schedule, divided into 22 for each group) in phase 1, and 660 (220 in each group plus 66 from the short scheme of phase 1) in phase 2. The product was well tolerated. No severe adverse events were reported. During phase 1, the incidence of adverse events in the 25 µg, 50 µg, and placebo arms for the short schedule were 6/22 (27·3%), 6/22 (27·3%), 3/22 (13·6%), respectively, and for the long schedule were 8/22 (36·4%), 9/22 (40·9%), 4/22 (18·2%), respectively. In phase 2, adverse reactions were reported by 53/242 (21·9%), 75/242 (31·0%) and 41/242 (16·9%) participants in the 25 µg, 50 µg, and placebo group, respectively. Adverse reactions were minimal, mostly mild, and from the injection site, which resolved in the first 24-48 hours. In phase 1, seroconversion at day 56 was seen in 95·2% of the participants (20/21) in the 50 μg group, 81% (17/21) in the 25 μg group, and none in the placebo group (0/22). For the long schedule, seroconversion at day 70 was seen in 100% of the participants (21/21) in the 50 μg group, 94·7% (18/19) in the 25 μg group, and none in the placebo group (0/22). In phase 2, seroconversion of anti-RBD IgG antibodies at day 56 was seen in 89·2% of the participants in the 50 μg group (214/240; 95% CI 84·5-92·82), 77·7% in the 25 μg group (185/238; 72·0-82·9) and 4·6% in the placebo group (11/239; 2·3-8·1). Compared with the placebo arm, the differences in the proportion of participants with seroconversion were 73·1% (95% CI 66·8-79·5) and 84·6% (79·4-89·7) in the 25 μg and 50 μg groups, respectively. The seroconversion rate in the 50 μg group was significantly higher than in the 25 μg group (p=0·0012).

INTERPRETATION

The Abdala vaccine was safe, well tolerated, and induced humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2. These results, in the context of the emergency COVID-19 pandemic, support the 50 μg dose, applied in a 0-14-28 days schedule, for further clinical trials to confirm vaccine efficacy.

FUNDING

Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB), Havana, Cuba.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Supplementary Information

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

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

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

A Perspective on the Roles of Adjuvants in Developing Highly Potent COVID-19 Vaccines

Several countries have made unremitting efforts to develop an optimal vaccine in the fight against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). With the increasing occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, current vaccines show decreased neutralizing activities, especially towards the Omicron variant. In this context, adding appropriate adjuvants to COVID-19 vaccines can substantially reduce the number of required doses and improve efficacy or cross-neutralizing protection. We mainly focus on research progress and achievements associated with adjuvanted COVID-19 subunit and inactivated vaccines. We further compare the advantages and disadvantages of different adjuvant formulations in order to provide a scientific reference for designing an effective strategy for future vaccine development.

Early assessment of the safety and immunogenicity of a third dose (booster) of COVID-19 immunization in Chinese adults

Inducing durable and effective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) via vaccination is essential to combat the current pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It has been noticed that the strength of anti-COVID-19 vaccination-induced immunity fades over time, which calls for an additional vaccination regime, as known as booster immunization, to restore immunity among previously vaccinated populations. Here we report a pilot open-label trial of a third dose of BBIBP-CorV, an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Vero cell), on 136 participants aged between 18 to 63 years. Safety and immunogenicity in terms of neutralizing antibody titers and cytokine/chemokine responses were analyzed as the main endpoint until day 28. While systemic reactogenicity was either absent or mild, SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralizing antibody titers rapidly arose in all participants within 4 weeks, surpassing the peak antibody titers elicited by the initial two-dose immunization regime. Broad increases of cellular immunity-associated cytokines and chemokines were also detected in the majority of participants after the third vaccination. Furthermore, in an exploratory study, a newly developed recombinant protein vaccine, NVSI-06-08 (CHO Cells), was found to be safe and even more effective than BBIBP-CorV in eliciting humoral immune responses in BBIBP-CorV-primed individuals. Together, these results indicate that a third immunization schedule with either homologous or heterologous vaccine showed favorable safety profiles and restored potent SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity, providing support for further trials of booster vaccination in larger populations.

Advances in the design and development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

Since the end of 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread worldwide. The RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2, which is highly infectious and prone to rapid mutation, encodes both structural and nonstructural proteins. Vaccination is currently the only effective method to prevent COVID-19, and structural proteins are critical targets for vaccine development. Currently, many vaccines are in clinical trials or are already on the market. This review highlights ongoing advances in the design of prophylactic or therapeutic vaccines against COVID-19, including viral vector vaccines, DNA vaccines, RNA vaccines, live-attenuated vaccines, inactivated virus vaccines, recombinant protein vaccines and bionic nanoparticle vaccines. In addition to traditional inactivated virus vaccines, some novel vaccines based on viral vectors, nanoscience and synthetic biology also play important roles in combating COVID-19. However, many challenges persist in ongoing clinical trials.

Protective Immunity against Gamma and Zeta Variants after Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Virus Immunization

The persistent circulation of SARS-CoV-2 represents an ongoing global threat due to the emergence of new viral variants that can sometimes evade the immune system of previously exposed or vaccinated individuals. We conducted a follow-up study of adult individuals that had received an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, evaluating antibody production and neutralizing activity over a period of 6 months. In addition, we performed mice immunization with inactivated SARS-CoV-2, and evaluated the immune response and pathological outcomes against Gamma and Zeta variant infection. Vaccinated individuals produced high levels of antibodies with robust neutralizing activity, which was significantly reduced against Gamma and Zeta variants. Production of IgG anti-S antibodies and neutralizing activity robustly reduced after 6 months of vaccination. Immunized mice demonstrated cellular response against Gamma and Zeta variants, and after viral infection, reduced viral loads, IL-6 expression, and histopathological outcome in the lungs. TNF levels were unchanged in immunized or not immunized mice after infection with the Gamma variant. Furthermore, serum neutralization activity rapidly increases after infection with the Gamma and Zeta variants. Our data suggest that immunization with inactivated WT SARS-CoV-2 induces a promptly responsive cross-reactive immunity response against the Gamma and Zeta variants, reducing COVID-19 pathological outcomes.