Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a booster regimen of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine against COVID-19 (ENSEMBLE2): results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

COVID-19 vaccines: Immune correlates and clinical outcomes

Severe disease due to COVID-19 has declined dramatically as a result of widespread vaccination and natural immunity in the population. With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants that largely escape vaccine-elicited neutralizing antibody responses, the efficacy of the original vaccines has waned and has required vaccine updating and boosting. Nevertheless, hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19 have remained low. In this review, we summarize current knowledge of immune responses that contribute to population immunity and the mechanisms how vaccines attenuate COVID-19 disease severity.

Safety and immunogenicity of Ad26.COV2.S in adults: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2a dose-finding study

BACKGROUND

A single dose of Ad26.COV2.S is well-tolerated and effective in preventing moderate-to-severe disease outcomes due to COVID-19. We evaluated the impact of dose level, number of doses, and dose interval on immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and safety of Ad26.COV2.S in adults. Anamnestic responses were also explored.

METHODS

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 2a study was conducted in adults aged 18-55 years and ≥ 65 years (NCT04535453). Four dose levels (1.25 × 1010, 2.5 × 1010, 5 × 1010, and 1 × 1011 viral particles [vp], single and 2-dose schedules, and dose intervals of 56 and 84 days, were assessed. Four or 6 months post-primary vaccination, Ad26.COV2.S 1.25 × 1010 vp was given to evaluate anamnestic responses. Humoral and cell-mediated immune responses were measured. Reactogenicity and safety were assessed in all participants.

RESULTS

All Ad26.COV2.S schedules induced humoral responses with evidence of a dose response relationship. A single dose of Ad26.COV2.S (5 × 1010 vp) induced antibody and cellular immune responses that persisted for up to at least 6 months. In the 2-dose regimens, antibody responses were higher than 1-dose regimens at comparable dose levels, and the magnitude of the immune response increased when the interval between doses was increased (84 days vs 56 days). Rapid, marked immune responses were observed in all groups after vaccine antigen exposure indicating immune memory. Durable immune responses were observed in all groups for up to at least 6 months post-antigen exposure. Strong and consistent correlations between neutralising and binding antibodies were observed CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses were similar after all regimens. Reactogenicity within 7 days post-vaccination tended to be dose-related.

CONCLUSION

The study supports the primary, single dose schedule with Ad26.COV2.S at 5 × 1010 vp and homologous booster vaccination after a 6 month interval. Rapid and marked responses to vaccine antigen exposure indicate induction of immune memory by 1- and 2-dose primary vaccination.

Evaluating targeted COVID-19 vaccination strategies with agent-based modeling

We evaluate approaches to vaccine distribution using an agent-based model of human activity and COVID-19 transmission calibrated to detailed trends in cases, hospitalizations, deaths, seroprevalence, and vaccine breakthrough infections in Florida, USA. We compare the incremental effectiveness for four different distribution strategies at four different levels of vaccine supply, starting in late 2020 through early 2022. Our analysis indicates that the best strategy to reduce severe outcomes would be to actively target high disease-risk individuals. This was true in every scenario, although the advantage was greatest for the intermediate vaccine availability assumptions and relatively modest compared to a simple mass vaccination approach under high vaccine availability. Ring vaccination, while generally the most effective strategy for reducing infections, ultimately proved least effective at preventing deaths. We also consider using age group as a practical surrogate measure for actual disease-risk targeting; this approach also outperforms both simple mass distribution and ring vaccination. We find that quantitative effectiveness of a strategy depends on whether effectiveness is assessed after the alpha, delta, or omicron wave. However, these differences in absolute benefit for the strategies do not change the ranking of their performance at preventing severe outcomes across vaccine availability assumptions.

The Biodistribution of the Spike Protein after Ad26.COV2.S Vaccination Is Unlikely to Play a Role in Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia

Ad26.COV2.S vaccination can lead to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), a rare but severe adverse effect, characterized by thrombocytopenia and thrombosis. The mechanism of VITT induction is unclear and likely multifactorial, potentially including the activation of platelets and endothelial cells mediated by the vaccine-encoded spike protein (S protein). Here, we investigated the biodistribution of the S protein after Ad26.COV2.S dosing in three animal models and in human serum samples. The S protein was transiently present in draining lymph nodes of rabbits after Ad26.COV2.S dosing. The S protein was detected in the serum in all species from 1 day to 21 days after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S, but it was not detected in platelets, the endothelium lining the blood vessels, or other organs. The S protein S1 and S2 subunits were detected at different ratios and magnitudes after Ad26.COV2.S or COVID-19 mRNA vaccine immunization. However, the S1/S2 ratio did not depend on the Ad26 platform, but on mutation of the furin cleavage site, suggesting that the S1/S2 ratio is not VITT related. Overall, our data suggest that the S-protein biodistribution and kinetics after Ad26.COV2.S dosing are likely not main contributors to the development of VITT, but other S-protein-specific parameters require further investigation.

Mucosal vaccines for viral diseases: Status and prospects

Virus-associated infectious diseases are highly detrimental to human health and animal husbandry. Among all countermeasures against infectious diseases, prophylactic vaccines, which developed through traditional or novel approaches, offer potential benefits. More recently, mucosal vaccines attract attention for their extraordinary characteristics compared to conventional parenteral vaccines, particularly for mucosal-related pathogens. Representatively, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), further accelerated the research and development efforts for mucosal vaccines by thoroughly investigating existing strategies or involving novel techniques. While several vaccine candidates achieved positive progresses, thus far, part of the current COVID-19 mucosal vaccines have shown poor performance, which underline the need for next-generation mucosal vaccines and corresponding platforms. In this review, we summarized the typical mucosal vaccines approved for humans or animals and sought to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of these successful cases. In addition, mucosal vaccines against COVID-19 that are in human clinical trials were reviewed in detail since this public health event mobilized all advanced technologies for possible solutions. Finally, the gaps in developing mucosal vaccines, potential solutions and prospects were discussed. Overall, rational application of mucosal vaccines would facilitate the establishing of mucosal immunity and block the transmission of viral diseases.

Frequency and timing of adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines; A multi-country cohort event monitoring study

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, EMA set-up a large-scale cohort event monitoring (CEM) system to estimate incidence rates of patient-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of different COVID-19 vaccines across the participating countries. This study aims to give an up to date and in-depth analysis of the frequency of patient-reported ADRs after the 1st, 2nd, and booster vaccination, to identify potential predictors in developing ADRs and to describe time-to-onset (TTO) and time-to-recovery (TTR) of ADRs.

METHODS

A CEM study was rolled out in a period ranging from February 2021 to February 2023 across multiple European countries; The Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. Analysis consisted of a descriptive analyses of frequencies of COVID-19 vaccine-related ADRs for 1st, 2nd and booster vaccination, analysis of potential predictors in developing ADRs with a generalized linear mixed-effects model, analysis of TTO and TTR of ADRs and a sensitivity analysis for loss to follow-up (L2FU).

RESULTS

A total of 29,837 participants completed at least the baseline and the first follow-up questionnaire for 1st and 2nd vaccination and 7,250 participants for the booster. The percentage of participants who reported at least one ADR is 74.32% (95%CI 73.82-74.81). Solicited ADRs, including injection site reactions, are very common across vaccination moments. Potential predictors for these reactions are the brand of vaccine used, the patient's age, sex and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The percentage of serious ADRs in the study is low for 1st and 2nd vaccination (0.24%, 95%CI 0.19--0.31) and booster (0.26%, 95%CI 0.15, 0.41). The TTO was 14 h (median) for dose 1 and slightly longer for dose 2 and booster dose. TTR is generally also within a few days. The effect of L2FU on estimations of frequency is limited.

CONCLUSION

Despite some limitations due to study design and study-roll out, CEM studies can allow prompt and almost real-time observations of the safety of medications directly from a patient-centered perspective, which can play a crucial role for regulatory bodies during an emergency setting such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Safety of a second homologous Ad26.COV2.S vaccine among healthcare workers in the phase 3b implementation Sisonke study in South Africa

The Sisonke 2 study provided a homologous boost at least 6 months after administration of the priming dose of Ad26.COV2.S for healthcare workers enrolled on the Sisonke phase 3b implementation study. Safety monitoring was via five reporting sources: (i.) self-report through a web-link; (ii.) paper-based case report forms; (iii.) a toll-free telephonic reporting line; (iv.) healthcare professionals-initiated reports; and (v.) active linkage with National Disease Databases. A total of 2350 adverse events were reported by 2117 of the 240 888 (0.88%) participants enrolled; 1625 of the 2350 reported events are reactogenicity events and 28 adverse events met seriousness criteria. No cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopaenia syndrome were reported; all adverse events including thromboembolic disorders occurred at a rate below the expected population rates apart from one case of Guillain Barre Syndrome and one case of portal vein thrombosis. The Sisonke 2 study demonstrates that two doses of Ad26.COV2.S is safe and well tolerated; and provides a feasible model for national pharmacovigilance strategies for low- and middle-income settings.

In search of a pan-coronavirus vaccine: next-generation vaccine design and immune mechanisms

Members of the coronaviridae family are endemic to human populations and have caused several epidemics and pandemics in recent history. In this review, we will discuss the feasibility of and progress toward the ultimate goal of creating a pan-coronavirus vaccine that can protect against infection and disease by all members of the coronavirus family. We will detail the unmet clinical need associated with the continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2, MERS-CoV and the four seasonal coronaviruses (HCoV-OC43, NL63, HKU1 and 229E) in humans and the potential for future zoonotic coronaviruses. We will highlight how first-generation SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and natural history studies have greatly increased our understanding of effective antiviral immunity to coronaviruses and have informed next-generation vaccine design. We will then consider the ideal properties of a pan-coronavirus vaccine and propose a blueprint for the type of immunity that may offer cross-protection. Finally, we will describe a subset of the diverse technologies and novel approaches being pursued with the goal of developing broadly or universally protective vaccines for coronaviruses.

Effect of Platform Type on Clinical Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Prime Vaccination Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials

This systematic review investigated the association between platform type and the clinical efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines using the meta-regression of randomized controlled trials to compare the rates of the first appearance of symptomatic COVID-19 on the platforms. The trial search was conducted using PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register. The main selection criteria included: non-active control, immunocompetent individuals without previous vaccination, and a low risk of bias. The platform effect was summarized with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) and a 95% confidence interval for every platform category against the reference. IRR was obtained by random-effect meta-regression with adjustment for confounding by effect modifiers. The analysis was conducted in per-protocol (PP) and modified intention-to-treat (mITT) sets. Six vaccine types with 35 trials were included. Vector vaccines were a reference category. In the PP set, rates of symptomatic COVID-19 on mRNA and protein subunit vaccines were significantly lower than on the vector: IRR = 0.30 [0.19; 0.46], p = 0.001 and 0.63 [0.46; 0.86], p = 0.012, respectively. There was no difference for inactivated and virus-like particle vaccines compared to the vector: IRR = 0.98 [0.71; 1.36], p = 0.913 and 0.70 [0.41; 1.20], p = 0.197, respectively. The rate of cases on DNA vaccines was significantly higher than that on the vector: IRR = 2.58 [1.17; 5.68], p = 0.034. Results for the mITT set were consistent. Platform type is an effect modifier of the clinical efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Comparing the Efficacy and Adverse Events of Available COVID-19 Vaccines Through Randomized Controlled Trials: Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different vaccines have so far been developed and approved to cope with COVID-19 in the world. The aim of this updated network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare and rank all available vaccines in terms of efficacy and complications simultaneously. Study Design: A systematic review.

METHODS

Three major international databases, including Web of Science, Medline via PubMed, and Scopus, were searched through September 2023. The transitivity assumption was evaluated qualitatively in terms of epidemiologic effect modifiers. The exposure of interest in this study was receiving any available COVID-19 vaccine, and the primary outcome of interest was the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19. In this NMA, the relative risk of symptomatic COVID-19 was used to summarize the efficacy of vaccines in preventing COVID-19. The data were analyzed using the frequentist-based approach, and the results were reported using a random-effects model. Finally, the vaccines were ranked using a P-score.

RESULTS

In total, 34 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review and NMA out of 3682 retrieved references. Based on the results of the NMA, mRNA-1273 was the most effective vaccine in preventing COVID-19 and demonstrated the highest P-score (0.93). The relative risk (RR) for mRNA-1273 versus placebo was 0.07 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03, 0.17). The second and third-ranked vaccines were BNT-162b2 (RR=0.08; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.15; P-score=0.93) and Gam-COVID-Vac (0.09; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.25; 0.88).

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this NMA, it seems that all available vaccines were effective in COVID-19 prevention. However, the top three ranked vaccines were mRNA-1273, BNT-162b2, and Gam-COVID-Vac, respectively.

Oral delivery of a chitosan adjuvanted COVID-19 vaccine provides long-lasting and broad-spectrum protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in golden hamsters

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) seriously threatens public health safety and the global economy, which warrant effective prophylactic and therapeutic approaches. Currently, vaccination and establishment of immunity have significantly reduced the severity and mortality of COVID-19. However, in regard to COVID-19 vaccines, the broad-spectrum protective efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 variants and the blocking of virus transmission need to be further improved. In this study, an optimum oral COVID-19 vaccine candidate, rVSVΔG-Sdelta, was selected from a panel of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)-based constructs bearing spike proteins from different SARS-CoV-2 strains. After chitosan modification, rVSVΔG-Sdelta induced both local and peripheral antibody response, particularly, broad-spectrum and long-lasting neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 persisted for 1 year. Cross-protection against SARS-CoV-2 WT, Beta, Delta, BA.1, and BA.2 strains was achieved in golden hamsters, which presented as significantly reduced viral replication in the respiratory tract and alleviated pulmonary pathology post SARS-CoV-2 challenge. Overall, this study provides a convenient, oral-delivered, and effective oral mucosal vaccine against COVID-19, which would supplement pools and facilitate the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.

Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in adults in Kenya: a phase 1/2 single-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background

There are limited data on the immunogenicity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in African populations. Here we report the immunogenicity and safety of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine from a phase 1/2 single-blind, randomised, controlled trial among adults in Kenya conducted as part of the early studies assessing vaccine performance in different geographical settings to inform Emergency Use Authorisation.

Methods

We recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) 400 healthy adults aged ≥18 years in Kenya to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or control rabies vaccine, each as a two-dose schedule with a 3-month interval. The co-primary outcomes were safety, and immunogenicity assessed using total IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein 28 days after the second vaccination.

Results

Between 28 th October 2020 and 19 th August 2021, 400 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=200) or rabies vaccine (n=200). Local and systemic adverse events were self-limiting and mild or moderate in nature. Three serious adverse events were reported but these were deemed unrelated to vaccination. The geometric mean anti-spike IgG titres 28 days after second dose vaccination were higher in the ChAdOx1 group (2773 ELISA units [EU], 95% CI 2447, 3142) than in the rabies vaccine group (61 EU, 95% CI 45, 81) and persisted over the 12 months follow-up. We did not identify any symptomatic infections or hospital admissions with respiratory illness and so vaccine efficacy against clinically apparent infection could not be measured. Vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 38.4% (95% CI -26.8%, 70.1%; p=0.188).

Conclusions

The safety, immunogenicity and efficacy against asymptomatic infection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 among Kenyan adults was similar to that observed elsewhere in the world, but efficacy against symptomatic infection or severe disease could not be measured in this cohort.

Pan-African Clinical Trials Registration

PACTR202005681895696 (11/05/2020).

Homologous Ad26.COV2.S vaccination results in reduced boosting of humoral responses in hybrid immunity, but elicits antibodies of similar magnitude regardless of prior infection

The impact of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on the durability of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine-elicited responses, and the effect of homologous boosting has not been well explored. We followed a cohort of healthcare workers for 6 months after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and a further one month after they received an Ad26.COV2.S booster dose. We assessed longitudinal spike-specific antibody and T cell responses in individuals who had never had SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those who were infected with either the D614G or Beta variants prior to vaccination. Antibody and T cell responses elicited by the primary dose were durable against several variants of concern over the 6 month follow-up period, regardless of infection history. However, at 6 months after first vaccination, antibody binding, neutralization and ADCC were as much as 59-fold higher in individuals with hybrid immunity compared to those with no prior infection. Antibody cross-reactivity profiles of the previously infected groups were similar at 6 months, unlike at earlier time points, suggesting that the effect of immune imprinting diminishes by 6 months. Importantly, an Ad26.COV2.S booster dose increased the magnitude of the antibody response in individuals with no prior infection to similar levels as those with previous infection. The magnitude of spike T cell responses and proportion of T cell responders remained stable after homologous boosting, concomitant with a significant increase in long-lived early differentiated CD4 memory T cells. Thus, these data highlight that multiple antigen exposures, whether through infection and vaccination or vaccination alone, result in similar boosts after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination.

Mechanistic modeling projections of antibody persistence after homologous booster regimens of COVID-19 vaccine Ad26.COV2.S in humans

Mechanistic model-based simulations can be deployed to project the persistence of humoral immune response following vaccination. We used this approach to project the antibody persistence through 24 months from the data pooled across five clinical trials in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-seronegative participants following vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S (5 × 1010 viral particles), given either as a single-dose or a homologous booster regimen at an interval of 2, 3, or 6 months. Antibody persistence was quantified as the percentage of participants with detectable anti-spike binding and wild-type virus neutralizing antibodies. The projected overall 24-month persistence after single-dose Ad26.COV2.S was 70.5% for binding antibodies and 55.2% for neutralizing antibodies, and increased after any homologous booster regimen to greater than or equal to 89.9% for binding and greater than or equal to 80.0% for neutralizing antibodies. The estimated model parameters quantifying the rates of antibody production attributed to short-lived and long-lived plasma cells decreased with increasing age, whereas the rate of antibody production mediated by long-lived plasma cells was higher in women relative to men. Accordingly, a more pronounced waning of antibody responses was predicted in men aged greater than or equal to 60 years and was markedly attenuated following any homologous boosting regimen. The findings suggest that homologous boosting might be a viable strategy for maintaining protective effects of Ad26.COV2.S for up to 24 months following prime vaccination. The estimation of mechanistic modeling parameters identified the long-lived plasma cell pathway as a key contributor mediating antibody persistence following single-dose and homologous booster vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S in different subgroups of recipients stratified by age and sex.

Mechanistic Model Describing the Time Course of Humoral Immunity Following Ad26.COV2.S Vaccination in Non-Human Primates

Mechanistic modeling can be used to describe the time course of vaccine-induced humoral immunity and to identify key biologic drivers in antibody production. We used a six-compartment mechanistic model to describe a 20-week time course of humoral immune responses in 56 non-human primates (NHPs) elicited by vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S according to either a single-dose regimen (1 × 1011 or 5 × 1010 viral particles [vp]) or a two-dose homologous regimen (5 × 1010 vp) given in an interval of 4 or 8 weeks. Humoral immune responses were quantified by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike-specific binding antibody concentrations as determined by spike protein-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The mechanistic model adequately described the central tendency and variability of binding antibody concentrations through 20 weeks in all vaccination arms. The estimation of mechanistic modeling parameters revealed greater contribution of the antibody production mediated by short-lived cells as compared with long-lived cells in driving the peak response, especially post second dose when a more rapid peak response was observed. The antibody production mediated by long-lived cells was identified as relevant for generating the first peak and for contributing to the long-term time course of sustained antibody concentrations in all vaccination arms. The findings contribute evidence on the key biologic components responsible for the observed time course of vaccine-induced humoral immunity in NHPs and constitute a step toward defining immune biomarkers of protection against SARS-CoV-2 that might translate across species. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: We demonstrate the adequacy of a mechanistic modeling approach describing the time course of binding antibody concentrations in non-human primates (NHPs) elicited by different dose levels and regimens of Ad26.COV2.S. The findings are relevant for informing the mechanism-based accounts of vaccine-induced humoral immunity in NHPs and translational research efforts aimed at identifying immune biomarkers of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccination

BACKGROUND

While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection.

METHODS

In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7-15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures.

FINDINGS

Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05-0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01-0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease.

INTERPRETATION

Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health.

COVID-19

COVID-19, the illness caused by SARS-CoV-2, became a worldwide pandemic in 2020. Initial clinical manifestations range from asymptomatic infection to mild upper respiratory illness but may progress to pulmonary involvement with hypoxemia and, in some cases, multiorgan involvement, shock, and death. Older adults, pregnant persons, those with common comorbidities, and those with immunosuppression are at greatest risk for progression. Vaccination is effective in preventing symptomatic infection and reducing risk for severe disease, hospitalization, and death. Antiviral treatment and immunomodulators have been shown to benefit certain patients. This article summarizes current recommendations on prevention, diagnosis, management, and treatment of COVID-19.

Herpetic anterior uveitis following COVID-19 vaccines: a case series

Purpose

To report a case series of herpetic uveitis following COVID-19 vaccinations.

Methods

Demographic, clinical and treatment-related data of herpetic anterior uveitis cases was collected at five tertiary eye hospitals between January 2021 and June 2022. A retrospective database review at one of the centers comparing the number of cases of herpetic eye disease before and after the introduction of COVID-19 vaccination was performed as well.

Results

Twenty-four patients (9 female, 15 male) with a mean age of 54 years (range 28-83 years) were diagnosed with herpetic uveitis, reporting an onset of symptoms 3-42 days after the first, second or third dose of COVID-19 vaccination. Median time between vaccination and onset of herpetic eye disease was 10 days (mean 12.7 ± 10.15 days) days. The administered vaccines were BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, BBIBP-CorV and Ad26.COV2.S. The cases included 11 HSV, 10 VZV and 1 CMV anterior uveitis, 2 were not further specified. There was an equal number of first episodes (n = 12, 50%) and recurrent episodes (n = 12, 50%). Response to established regimens was generally good. The retrospective database review revealed the exact same incidence of herpetic uveitis during the pandemic and ongoing vaccination compared to prior SARS-CoV-2.

Conclusion

This report includes 24 cases of herpetic anterior uveitis in a temporal relationship to various COVID-19 vaccines. This study supports the potential risk of herpetic eye disease following COVID-19 vaccines, but proof of a direct, causal relationship is missing.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infection in the older adults: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) has recently declined, and reports about COVID-19 breakthrough infection have increased. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis on population-based studies of the prevalence and incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) breakthrough infection amongst older adults worldwide.

METHODS

Studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically screened to determine the prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in older adults from inception to November 2, 2022. Our meta-analysis included 30 studies, all published in English. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effect model through the inverse variance method. Publication bias was tested through funnel plots and Egger's regression test, and sensitivity analyses were performed to confirm the robustness of the results. This research was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty publications were included in this meta-analysis (17 on prevalence, 17 on incidence, and 4 on both). The pooled prevalence of COVID-19 breakthrough infection among older adults was 7.7 per 1,000 persons (95% confidence interval [95%CI] 4.0-15.0). At the same time, the pooled incidence was 29.1 per 1000 person-years (95%CI 15.2-55.7).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides estimates of prevalence and incidence in older adults. We concluded that the prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-19 breakthrough infection in older people was low. The prevalence and incidence of breakthrough infection admitted to hospital, severe-critical, and deathly was significantly lower. Otherwise, there was considerable heterogeneity among estimates in this study, which should be considered when interpreting the results.

Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome: A database review of clinical trial and post-marketing experience with Ad26.COV2.S

BACKGROUND

Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) is a very rare disorder described after vaccination with adenoviral vector-based COVID-19 vaccines. Co-occurring thrombosis with thrombocytopenia reported after vaccination can be a proxy for identification of TTS.

METHODS

Descriptive database review of all cases of co-occurring (within 42 days) thrombosis with thrombocytopenia in participants in Ad26.COV2.S clinical trials or recipients of Ad26.COV2.S in real-world clinical practice. Cases were retrieved from Janssens' clinical trial and Global Medical Safety databases.

RESULTS

There were 34 cases of co-occurring thrombosis with thrombocytopenia in Ad26.COV2.S recipients (46 per 100,000 person-years) and 15 after placebo (75 per 100,000 person-years) in clinical trials. Among Ad26.COV2.S recipients, mean age at the time of the event was 63 years (range 25-85), 82 % were male, mean time-to-onset 112 days (range 8-339) post-last Ad26.COV2.S dose, 26 events occurred post-dose-1, and 7 within a 28-day risk window post-vaccination. Diagnostic certainty was evaluated using Brighton Collaboration, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee case definitions. One case met the highest level of diagnostic certainty for all 3 definitions. There were 355 spontaneous reports of co-occurring thrombosis with thrombocytopenia in the Global Medical Safety database, 47 % males, 85 % within 28-days after vaccination. Twenty-seven cases met the highest level of diagnostic certainty for all definitions, 21 female, 19 with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, age-range 18-68 years. Time-to-onset was 7-14 days post-vaccination in 20 cases. There were 8 fatalities.

CONCLUSION

TTS induced by Ad26.COV2.S is very rare. Most co-occurring thrombosis with thrombocytopenia does not constitute TTS.

Modifiers of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy: Results from four COVID-19 prevention network efficacy trials

Questions remain regarding the effect of baseline host and exposure factors on vaccine efficacy (VE) across pathogens and vaccine platforms. We report placebo-controlled data from four Phase 3 COVID-19 trials during the early period of the pandemic. This was a cross-protocol analysis of four randomized, placebo-controlled efficacy trials (Moderna/mRNA1273, AstraZeneca/AZD1222, Janssen/Ad26.COV2.S, and Novavax/NVX-CoV2373) using a harmonized design. Trials were conducted in the United States and international sites in adults ≥ 18 years of age. VE was assessed for symptomatic and severe COVID-19. We analyzed 114,480 participants from both placebo and vaccine arms, enrolled July 2020 to February 2021, with follow up through July 2021. VE against symptomatic COVID-19 showed little heterogeneity across baseline socio-demographic, clinical or exposure characteristics, in either univariate or multivariate analysis, regardless of vaccine platform. Similarly, VE against severe COVID-19 in the single trial (Janssen) with sufficient endpoints for analysis showed little evidence of heterogeneity. COVID-19 VE is not influenced by baseline host or exposure characteristics across efficacy trials of different vaccine platforms and countries when well matched to circulating virus strains. This supports use of these vaccines, regardless of platform type, as effective tools in the near term for reducing symptomatic and severe COVID-19, particularly for older individuals and those with common co-morbidities during major variant shifts. Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT04470427, NCT04516746, NCT04505722, and NCT04611802.

COVID-19: Variants, Immunity, and Therapeutics for Non-Hospitalized Patients

The continuing transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains a world-wide 21st-century public health emergency of concern. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused greater than 600 million cases of COVID-19 and over 6 million deaths globally. COVID-19 continues to be a highly transmissible disease despite efforts by public health officials and healthcare providers to manage and control the disease. Variants identified in selected worldwide epicenters add to the complexity of vaccine efficacy, overage, and antibody titer maintenance and bioactivity. The identification of the SARS-CoV-2 variants is described with respect to evading protective efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and breakthrough infections. Vaccines and other therapeutics have prevented millions of SARS-CoV-2 infections and thousands of deaths in the United States. We explore aspects of the immune response in a condensed discussion to understand B and T cell lymphocyte regulatory mechanisms and antibody effectiveness and senescence. Finally, COVID-19 therapies including Paxlovid, Remdisivir, Molnupiravir and convalescent plasma in non-hospitalized patients are presented with limitations for identification, collection, and distribution to infected patients.

Broad-spectrum pan-genus and pan-family virus vaccines

Although the development and clinical application of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated unprecedented vaccine success in a short time frame, it also revealed a limitation of current vaccines in their inability to provide broad-spectrum or universal protection against emerging variants. Broad-spectrum vaccines, therefore, remain a dream and challenge for vaccinology. This review will focus on current and future efforts in developing universal vaccines targeting different viruses at the genus and/or family levels, with a special focus on henipaviruses, influenza viruses, and coronaviruses. It is evident that strategies for developing broad-spectrum vaccines will be virus-genus or family specific, and it is almost impossible to adopt a universal approach for different viruses. On the other hand, efforts in developing broad-spectrum neutralizing monoclonal antibodies have been more successful and it is worth considering broad-spectrum antibody-mediated immunization, or "universal antibody vaccine," as an alternative approach for early intervention for future disease X outbreaks.

Assessing the robustness of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials: systematic review and meta-analysis, January 2023

BackgroundVaccines play a crucial role in the response to COVID-19 and their efficacy is thus of great importance.AimTo assess the robustness of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (VE) trial results using the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) methodology.MethodsWe conducted a Cochrane and PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of COVID-19 VE trials published worldwide until 22 January 2023. We calculated the FI and FQ for all included studies and assessed their associations with selected trial characteristics using Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. Spearman correlation coefficients and scatter plots were used to quantify the strength of correlation of FIs and FQs with trial characteristics.ResultsOf 6,032 screened records, we included 40 trials with 54 primary outcomes, comprising 909,404 participants with a median sample size per outcome of 13,993 (interquartile range (IQR): 8,534-25,519). The median FI and FQ was 62 (IQR: 22-123) and 0.50% (IQR: 0.24-0.92), respectively. FIs were positively associated with sample size (p < 0.001), and FQs were positively associated with type of blinding (p = 0.023). The Spearman correlation coefficient for FI with sample size was moderately strong (0.607), and weakly positive for FI and FQ with VE (0.138 and 0.161, respectively).ConclusionsThis was the largest study on trial robustness to date. Robustness of COVID-19 VE trials increased with sample size and varied considerably across several other important trial characteristics. The FI and FQ are valuable complementary parameters for the interpretation of trial results and should be reported alongside established trial outcome measures.

Spontaneously reported adverse events following COVID-19 basic and booster immunizations in the Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

The rapid roll-out of novel COVID-19 vaccines made near real-time post-marketing safety surveillance essential to identify rare and long-term adverse events following immunization (AEFIs). In light of the ongoing booster vaccination campaigns, it is key to monitor changes in observed safety patterns post-vaccination. The effect of sequential COVID-19 vaccinations, as well as heterologous vaccination sequences, on the observed post-vaccination safety pattern, remains largely unknown.

METHODS

The primary objective of this study was to describe the profile of spontaneously reported AEFIs following COVID-19 vaccination in the Netherlands, including the primary and booster series. Reports from consumers and healthcare professionals were collected via a COVID-19 vaccine-tailored online reporting form by the National Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb (Lareb) between 6 January 2021 and 31 August 2022. The data were used to describe the most frequently reported AEFIs per vaccination moment, the consumer experienced burden per AEFI, and differences in AEFIs reported for homologous and heterologous vaccination sequences.

RESULTS

Lareb received 227,884 spontaneous reports over a period of twenty months. Overall, a high degree of similarity in local and systemic AEFIs per vaccination moment was observed, with no apparent change in the number of reports of serious adverse events after multiple COVID-19 vaccinations. No differences in the pattern of reported AEFIs per vaccination sequence was observed.

CONCLUSION

Spontaneous reported AEFIs demonstrated a similar reporting pattern for homologous and heterologous primary and booster series of COVID-19 vaccination in the Netherlands.

Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccine in Africa: Systematic Review

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic scared the whole world at the end of 2019, which is a communicable respiratory disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). In South Africa and other African countries, the COVID-19 vaccines were subsequently approved for emergency use by the respective national regulatory authorities. There is a paucity of aggregated data that revealed the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in Africa.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize the literature on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine which was given in Africa.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted on Science Direct, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and direct Google searches. Only studies written in English and published articles from 2019 to October 30, 2022, which comprise nine randomized clinical trials (RCT), and four different studies including a single-arm implementation trials, prospective study, retrospective cohort study, and test-negative designs were included.

Results

A total of 13 studies were included which contain 810,466 participants from Africa. Of these, 62.18% of the participants were female. The efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine in Africa ranges from 41.7% to 100%. Moreover, vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 variants ranges from -5.7% to 100%. In general, systemic and local adverse events following vaccination in most trials were reported with a similar pattern between the placebo and vaccine groups. Out of the total reported adverse events, most of them were mild to moderate, whereas a few were serious.

Conclusion

Almost all current COVID-19 vaccines appear to be safe for African study participants. Regarding efficacy, the protein subunit vaccine and mRNA vaccine exhibited high efficacy (100%) in this group of participants. However, Ad26. COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 COVID-19 vaccines are not effective against the delta variant and B.1.351 variant, respectively.

Psychometric evaluation of the Symptoms of Infection with Coronavirus-19 (SIC): results from a cross-sectional study and a phase 3 clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The Symptoms of Infection with Coronavirus-19 (SIC) is a 30-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure scored by body system composites to assess signs/symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In addition to cross-sectional and longitudinal psychometric evaluations, qualitative exit interviews were conducted to support the content validity of the SIC.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, adults diagnosed with COVID-19 in the United States completed the web-based SIC and additional PRO measures. A subset was invited to participate in phone-based exit interviews. Longitudinal psychometric properties were assessed in ENSEMBLE2, a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine. Psychometric properties evaluated included structure, scoring, reliability, construct validity, discriminating ability, responsiveness, and meaningful change thresholds of SIC items and composite scores.

RESULTS

In the cross-sectional study, 152 participants completed the SIC (mean age, 51.0 ± 18.6 years) and 20 completed follow-up interviews. Fatigue (77.6%), feeling unwell (65.8%), and cough (60.5%) were symptoms most frequently reported. SIC inter-item correlations were all positive and mostly moderate (r ≥ 0.3) and statistically significant. SIC items and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29) scores correlated as hypothesized (all r ≥ 0.32). Internal consistency reliabilities of all SIC composite scores were satisfactory (Cronbach's alpha, 0.69-0.91). SIC composite scores correlated moderately (r = 0.30-0.49) to strongly (r ≥ 0.50) with PROMIS-29 scores and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS) ratings (all P < 0.01). A variety of signs/symptoms were cited in exit interviews, and participants considered the SIC straightforward, comprehensive, and easy to use. From ENSEMBLE2, 183 participants with laboratory-confirmed moderate to severe/critical COVID-19 were included (51.5 ± 14.8 years). Strong test-retest reliabilities were observed for most SIC composite scores (intraclass correlations ≥ 0.60). Statistically significant differences across PGIS severity levels were found for all but 1 composite score, supporting known-groups validity. All SIC composite scores demonstrated responsiveness based on changes in PGIS.

CONCLUSIONS

The psychometric evaluations provided strong evidence for the reliability and validity of the SIC for measuring COVID-19 symptoms, supporting its use in vaccine and treatment trials. In exit interviews, participants described a broad range of signs/symptoms consistent with previous research, further supporting the content validity and format of the SIC.

Booster with Ad26.COV2.S or Omicron-adapted vaccine enhanced immunity and efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in macaques

Omicron spike (S) encoding vaccines as boosters, are a potential strategy to improve COVID-19 vaccine efficacy against Omicron. Here, macaques (mostly females) previously immunized with Ad26.COV2.S, are boosted with Ad26.COV2.S, Ad26.COV2.S.529 (encoding Omicron BA.1 S) or a 1:1 combination of both vaccines. All booster vaccinations elicit a rapid antibody titers increase against WA1/2020 and Omicron S. Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 antibody responses are most effectively boosted by vaccines including Ad26.COV2.S.529. Independent of vaccine used, mostly WA1/2020-reactive or WA1/2020-Omicron BA.1 cross-reactive B cells are detected. Ad26.COV2.S.529 containing boosters provide only slightly higher protection of the lower respiratory tract against Omicron BA.1 challenge compared with Ad26.COV2.S-only booster. Antibodies and cellular immune responses are identified as complementary correlates of protection. Overall, a booster with an Omicron-spike based vaccine provide only moderately improved immune responses and protection compared with the original Wuhan-Hu-1-spike based vaccine, which still provide robust immune responses and protection against Omicron.

Homologous Ad26.COV2.S vaccination results in reduced boosting of humoral responses in hybrid immunity, but elicits antibodies of similar magnitude regardless of prior infection

The impact of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on the durability of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine-elicited responses, and the effect of homologous boosting has not been well explored. We followed a cohort of healthcare workers for 6 months after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and a further one month after they received an Ad26.COV2.S booster dose. We assessed longitudinal spike-specific antibody and T cell responses in individuals who had never had SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those who were infected with either the D614G or Beta variants prior to vaccination. Antibody and T cell responses elicited by the primary dose were durable against several variants of concern over the 6 month follow-up period, regardless of infection history. However, at 6 months after first vaccination, antibody binding, neutralization and ADCC were as much as 33-fold higher in individuals with hybrid immunity compared to those with no prior infection. Antibody cross-reactivity profiles of the previously infected groups were similar at 6 months, unlike at earlier time points suggesting that the effect of immune imprinting diminishes by 6 months. Importantly, an Ad26.COV2.S booster dose increased the magnitude of the antibody response in individuals with no prior infection to similar levels as those with previous infection. The magnitude of spike T cell responses and proportion of T cell responders remained stable after homologous boosting, concomitant with a significant increase in long-lived early differentiated CD4 memory T cells. Thus, these data highlight that multiple antigen exposures, whether through infection and vaccination or vaccination alone, result in similar boosts after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination.

Evaluating targeted COVID-19 vaccination strategies with agent-based modeling

We evaluate approaches to vaccine distribution using an agent-based model of human activity and COVID-19 transmission calibrated to detailed trends in cases, hospitalizations, deaths, seroprevalence, and vaccine breakthrough infections in Florida, USA. We compare the incremental effectiveness for four different distribution strategies at four different levels of vaccine availability, reflecting different income settings' historical COVID-19 vaccine distribution. Our analysis indicates that the best strategy to reduce severe outcomes is to actively target high disease-risk individuals. This was true in every scenario, although the advantage was greatest for the middle-income-country availability assumptions, and relatively modest compared to a simple mass vaccination approach for rapid, high levels of vaccine availability. Ring vaccination, while generally the most effective strategy for reducing infections, ultimately proved least effective at preventing deaths. We also consider using age group as a practical, surrogate measure for actual disease-risk targeting; this approach still outperforms both simple mass distribution and ring vaccination. We also find that the magnitude of strategy effectiveness depends on when assessment occurs (e.g., after delta vs. after omicron variants). However, these differences in absolute benefit for the strategies do not change the ranking of their performance at preventing severe outcomes across vaccine availability assumptions.

Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the dose-response relationship with three major antibodies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in preventing severe COVID-19 illness and death is uncertain due to the rarity of data in individual trials. How well the antibody concentrations can predict the efficacy is also uncertain. We aimed to assess the efficacy of these vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections of different severities and the dose-response relationship between the antibody concentrations and efficacy.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, WHO, bioRxiv, and medRxiv for papers published between Jan 1, 2020 and Sep 12, 2022. RCTs on the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. A frequentist, random-effects model was used to combine efficacy for common outcomes (ie, symptomatic and asymptomatic infections) and a Bayesian random-effects model was used for rare outcomes (ie, hospital admission, severe infection, and death). Potential sources of heterogeneity were investigated. The dose-response relationships of neutralising, spike-specific IgG and receptor binding domain-specific IgG antibody titres with efficacy in preventing SARS-CoV-2 symptomatic and severe infections were examined by meta-regression. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021287238.

FINDINGS

28 RCTs (n=286 915 in vaccination groups and n=233 236 in placebo groups; median follow-up 1-6 months after last vaccination) across 32 publications were included in this review. The combined efficacy of full vaccination was 44·5% (95% CI 27·8-57·4) for preventing asymptomatic infections, 76·5% (69·8-81·7) for preventing symptomatic infections, 95·4% (95% credible interval 88·0-98·7) for preventing hospitalisation, 90·8% (85·5-95·1) for preventing severe infection, and 85·8% (68·7-94·6) for preventing death. There was heterogeneity in the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against asymptomatic and symptomatic infections but insufficient evidence to suggest whether the efficacy could differ according to the type of vaccine, age of the vaccinated individual, and between-dose interval (p>0·05 for all). Vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection waned over time after full vaccination, with an average decrease of 13·6% (95% CI 5·5-22·3; p=0·0007) per month but can be enhanced by a booster. We found a significant non-linear relationship between each type of antibody and efficacy against symptomatic and severe infections (p<0·0001 for all), but there remained considerable heterogeneity in the efficacy, which cannot be explained by antibody concentrations. The risk of bias was low in most studies.

INTERPRETATION

The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is higher for preventing severe infection and death than for preventing milder infection. Vaccine efficacy wanes over time but can be enhanced by a booster. Higher antibody titres are associated with higher estimates of efficacy but precise predictions are difficult due to large unexplained heterogeneity. These findings provide an important knowledge base for interpretation and application of future studies on these issues.

FUNDING

Shenzhen Science and Technology Programs.

Safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of Ad26.COV2.S: Results of a phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled COVID-19 vaccine trial in Japan

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a 2-month homologous booster regimen of Ad26.COV2.S in Japanese adults.

METHODS

In this multicenter, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 trial, adults (Cohort 1, aged 20-55 years, N = 125; Cohort 2, aged ≥ 65 years, N = 125) were randomized 2:2:1 to receive Ad26.COV2.S 5 × 1010 viral particles (vp), Ad26.COV2.S 1 × 1011 vp, or placebo, followed by a homologous booster 56 days later. Safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity were assessed.

RESULTS

Two hundred participants received Ad26.COV2.S and 50 received placebo. The most frequent solicited local adverse event (AE) was vaccination-site pain, and the most frequent solicited systemic AEs were fatigue, myalgia, and headache. After primary vaccination, neutralizing and binding antibody levels increased through Day 57 (post-prime) in both cohorts. Fourteen days after boosting (Day 71), neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) had almost reached their peak value in Cohort 1 (5 × 1010 vp: GMT = 1049; 1 × 1011 vp: GMT = 1470) and peaked in Cohort 2 (504; 651); at Day 85, GMTs had declined minimally in Cohort 2. For both cohorts, binding antibody levels peaked at Day 71 with minimal decline at Day 85.

CONCLUSION

A single dose and homologous Ad26.COV2.S booster increased antibody responses with an acceptable safety profile in Japanese adults (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509947).

The Coming of Age of Nucleic Acid Vaccines during COVID-19

In the 21st century, several emergent viruses have posed a global threat. Each pathogen has emphasized the value of rapid and scalable vaccine development programs. The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has made the importance of such efforts especially clear. New biotechnological advances in vaccinology allow for recent advances that provide only the nucleic acid building blocks of an antigen, eliminating many safety concerns. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these DNA and RNA vaccines have facilitated the development and deployment of vaccines at an unprecedented pace. This success was attributable at least in part to broader shifts in scientific research relative to prior epidemics; the genome of SARS-CoV-2 was available as early as January 2020, facilitating global efforts in the development of DNA and RNA vaccines within two weeks of the international community becoming aware of the new viral threat. Additionally, these technologies that were previously only theoretical are not only safe but also highly efficacious. Although historically a slow process, the rapid development of vaccines during the COVID-19 crisis reveals a major shift in vaccine technologies. Here, we provide historical context for the emergence of these paradigm-shifting vaccines. We describe several DNA and RNA vaccines and in terms of their efficacy, safety, and approval status. We also discuss patterns in worldwide distribution. The advances made since early 2020 provide an exceptional illustration of how rapidly vaccine development technology has advanced in the last two decades in particular and suggest a new era in vaccines against emerging pathogens.

COVID-19 Vaccination in Korea

Since December 2020, various coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been developed and approved. As of February 2023, mRNA vaccines including bivalent vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna), recombinant protein vaccines (Novavax, SK Bioscience), and viral vector vaccines (AstraZeneca, Janssen) have been approved in Korea. COVID-19 vaccination can effectively reduce hospitalization and deaths due to symptomatic COVID-19, especially severe and critical COVID-19. The primary series vaccination against COVID-19 is recommended for all adults aged ≥18 years in Korea. Booster vaccination with the bivalent mRNA vaccine is available for those ≥12 years who have completed the primary series vaccination, regardless of the type of vaccine previously received, and is recommended for all adults. Booster vaccination can be administered since 90 days after the last dose. Localized and systemic adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination are relatively common and more frequently documented in younger age groups. Rare but potentially serious specialized adverse reactions include anaphylaxis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, myocarditis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Previous severe allergic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, to any COVID19 vaccine or vaccine component are considered a contraindication for vaccination. The indications and schedule for COVID-19 vaccination are subject to change based on further research results and the COVID-19 pandemic.