An Immunogenicity Report for the Comparison between Heterologous and Homologous Prime-Boost Schedules with ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 Vaccines

Understanding the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Venezuela

BACKGROUND

Despite nearly a quarter of Venezuelans remaining unvaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy in the country have not been thoroughly investigated.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted from October 15th to 30th, 2022, using a knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) survey to identify factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

RESULTS

The study analyzed data from 1,930 participants from all 24 states of Venezuela. The majority (93.4%) were vaccinated. The mean age was 40 years, predominantly female (67.3%), and held a university degree (70.6%). The mean KAP score was significantly higher among vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated ones (7.79 vs. 3.94 points for knowledge, 40 vs. 24 points for attitudes, and 16 vs. 10 points for practices, all p < 0.001). Increases in the scores for KAP were associated with increased odds of being vaccinated (84.6%, 25.6%, and 33% respectively for each one-point increase, all p < 0.001). Certain demographic factors such as marital status, occupation, religious beliefs, monthly income, and location influence COVID-19 vaccine knowledge. Higher income and certain occupations decrease the odds of low knowledge, while residing in specific states increases it. Attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine are influenced by age, health status, vaccination status, and location. Higher income and absence of certain health conditions decrease the odds of negative attitudes. Lastly, age, occupation, monthly income, and location affect vaccine practices. Advanced age and higher income decrease the odds of inappropriate practices, while residing in La Guaira state increases them.

CONCLUSION

Factors such as age, education level, occupation, monthly income, and location were found to be associated with knowledge and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccine among the surveyed Venezuelans.

Performance comparison between heterologous and homologous COVID19 vaccine schedules on Omicron variant incidence: A real-world retrospective cohort study in Southern Italy

As the COVID19 pandemic progresses, there is an increasing need to evaluate the performance of vaccine strategies. This study investigated the vaccine schedule performance of heterologous vaccination compared to homologous vaccination in preventing Omicron SARS-CoV2 infection in the adult population. This retrospective cohort study utilized data from the Infections Regional Information System and the Apulia Regional Vaccine Registry to identify individuals who received a booster dose of one of 14 different COVID19 vaccination schedules between September 2021 and August 2022 in the province of Lecce, Southern Italy. The standardized cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV2 infection after the booster dose was assessed and the risk of infection between subgroups of heterologous and homologous vaccination schedules was compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. A total of 469,069 subjects were included in the study. The standardized incidence of SARS-CoV2 infection varied greatly among different vaccine schedules, with the highest and lowest being AZ-AZ-BNT (34.7 %) and MOD-MOD-BNT (18.9 %), respectively, and some heterologous schedules performing better than homologous ones. The risk of SARS-CoV2 infection was significantly lower in individuals who received specific heterologous vaccination schedules compared to homologous vaccination schedules, the best performing being MOD-MOD-BNT with a common odd ratio of 0.661 (IC. 95 % [0.620-0.704]). This study provides evidence that heterologous vaccination schedules may be more effective in preventing Omicron SARS-CoV2 infection compared to homologous vaccination schedules, highlighting how the vaccine product, rather than the platform, is involved in the different protection provided by heterologous vaccination.

Determinants of Anti-S Immune Response at 9 Months after COVID-19 Vaccination in a Multicentric European Cohort of Healthcare Workers-ORCHESTRA Project

Background: The persistence of antibody levels after COVID-19 vaccination has public health relevance. We analyzed the determinants of quantitative serology at 9 months after vaccination in a multicenter cohort. Methods: We analyzed data on anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody levels at 9 months from the first dose of vaccinated HCW from eight centers in Italy, Germany, Spain, Romania and Slovakia. Serological levels were log-transformed to account for the skewness of the distribution and normalized by dividing them by center-specific standard errors. We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models to estimate the cohort-specific relative risks (RR) of an increase of one standard deviation of log antibody level and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and combined them in random-effects meta-analyses. Finally, we conducted a trend analysis of 1 to 7 months' serology within one cohort. Results: We included 20,216 HCW with up to two vaccine doses and showed that high antibody levels were associated with female sex (p = 0.01), age (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.86-0.88 per 10-year increase), 10-day increase in time since last vaccine (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.97-0.98), previous infection (3.03, 95% CI = 2.92-3.13), two vaccine doses (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.09-1.36), use of Spikevax (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.39-1.64), Vaxzevria (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.44-0.73) or heterologous vaccination (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.12-1.57), compared to Comirnaty. The trend in the Bologna cohort, based on 3979 measurements, showed a decrease in mean standardized antibody level from 8.17 to 7.06 (1-7 months, p for trend 0.005). Conclusions: Our findings corroborate current knowledge on the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and declining trend with time.

Determinants of anti-S immune response at 6 months after COVID-19 vaccination in a multicentric European cohort of healthcare workers – ORCHESTRA project

Background

The duration of immune response to COVID-19 vaccination is of major interest. Our aim was to analyze the determinants of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer at 6 months after 2-dose vaccination in an international cohort of vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs).

Methods

We analyzed data on levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of 6,327 vaccinated HCWs from 8 centers from Germany, Italy, Romania and Slovakia. Time between 1st dose and serology ranged 150-210 days. Serological levels were log-transformed to account for the skewness of the distribution and normalized by dividing them by center-specific standard errors, obtaining standardized values. We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models to estimate the cohort-specific relative risks (RR) of an increase of 1 standard deviation of log antibody level and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and finally combined them in random-effects meta-analyses.

Results

A 6-month serological response was detected in 99.6% of HCWs. Female sex (RR 1.10, 95%CI 1.00-1.21), past infection (RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.73-2.95) and two vaccine doses (RR 1.50, 95%CI 1.22-1.84) predicted higher IgG titer, contrary to interval since last dose (RR for 10-day increase 0.94, 95%CI 0.91-0.97) and age (RR for 10-year increase 0.87, 95%CI 0.83-0.92). M-RNA-based vaccines (p&lt;0.001) and heterologous vaccination (RR 2.46, 95%CI 1.87-3.24, one cohort) were associated with increased antibody levels.

Conclusions

Female gender, young age, past infection, two vaccine doses, and m-RNA and heterologous vaccination predicted higher antibody level at 6 months. These results corroborate previous findings and offer valuable data for comparison with trends observed with longer follow-ups.

Vaccination COVID-19 : technologies vaccinales, efficacité en vie réelle et spécificités

Le développement et l’évaluation accélérés de vaccins efficaces contre le SARS-CoV-2 ont permis de contrôler en partie la pandémie de covid-19, responsable d'une crise sanitaire sans précédent. En juin 2022, six vaccins ont été autorisés en Europe, onze ont été reconnus par l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS), et plus de 160 candidats vaccins sont en développement clinique. La remarquable efficacité de ces vaccins, démontrée lors des études pivots, a été confirmée dans les essais en vie réelle. Les données d'efficacité contre le variant Omicron montrent une protection limitée de la primovaccination vis-à-vis des formes symptomatiques, mais qui reste élevée contre les formes graves. L'efficacité n'est qu'en partie restaurée par l'administration d'une ou deux doses de rappel. Les données d'immunogénicité et de sécurité des schémas hétérologues et la possible interchangeabilité entre les vaccins à ARNm sont autant d'outils précieux pour faciliter l'intensification des campagnes de vaccination et envisager de nouvelles stratégies vaccinales.

Safety of heterologous primary and booster schedules with ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines: nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of adverse events associated with heterologous primary (two dose) and booster (three dose) vaccine schedules for covid-19 with Oxford-AstraZeneca's ChAdOx1-S priming followed by mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech's BNT162b2 or Moderna's mRNA-1273) as compared with homologous mRNA vaccine schedules for covid-19.

DESIGN

Nationwide cohort study.

SETTING

Denmark, 1 January 2021 to 26 March 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 18-65 years who received a heterologous vaccine schedule of priming with ChAdOx1-S and one or two mRNA booster doses (with either the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine) were compared with adults who received a homologous BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccine schedule (ie, two dose v two dose, and three dose v three dose schedule).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The incidence of hospital contacts for a range of adverse cardiovascular and haemostatic events within 28 days after the second or third vaccine dose, comparing heterologous versus homologous vaccine schedules. Secondary outcomes included additional prioritised adverse events of special interest. Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios with adjustment for selected covariates.

RESULTS

Individuals who had had a heterologous primary vaccine (n=137 495) or a homologous vaccine (n=2 688 142) were identified, in addition to those who had had a heterologous booster (n=129 770) or a homologous booster (n=2 197 213). Adjusted incidence rate ratios of adverse cardiovascular and haemostatic events within 28 days for the heterologous primary and booster vaccine schedules in comparison with the homologous mRNA vaccine schedules were 1.22 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.91) and 1.00 (0.58 to 1.72) for ischaemic cardiac events, 0.74 (0.40 to 1.34) and 0.72 (0.37 to 1.42) for cerebrovascular events, 1.12 (0.13 to 9.58) and 4.74 (0.94 to 24.01) for arterial thromboembolisms, 0.79 (0.45 to 1.38) and 1.09 (0.60 to 1.98) for venous thromboembolisms, 0.84 (0.18 to 3.96) and 1.04 (0.60 to 4.55) for myocarditis or pericarditis, 0.97 (0.45 to 2.10) and 0.89 (0.21 to 3.77) for thrombocytopenia and coagulative disorders, and 1.39 (1.01 to 1.91) and 1.02 (0.70 to 1.47) for other bleeding events, respectively. No associations with any of the outcomes were found when restricting to serious adverse events defined as stay in hospital for more than 24 h.

CONCLUSION

Heterologous primary and booster covid-19 vaccine schedules of ChAdOx1-S priming and mRNA booster doses as both second and third doses were not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events compared with homologous mRNA vaccine schedules. These results are reassuring but given the rarity of some of the adverse events, associations cannot be excluded.

Heterologous prime-boost strategies for COVID-19 vaccines

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Heterologous prime-boost doses of COVID-19 vaccines ('mix-and-match' approach) are being studied to test for the effectiveness of Oxford (AZD1222), Pfizer (BNT162b2), Moderna (mRNA-1273) and Novavax (NVX-CoV2373) vaccines for COVID in 'Com-Cov2 trial' in UK, and that of Oxford and Pfizer vaccines in 'CombivacS trial' in Spain. Later, other heterologous combinations of CoronaVac (DB15806), Janssen (JNJ-78436735), CanSino (AD5-nCOV) and other were also being trialled to explore their effectiveness. Previously, such a strategy was deployed for HIV, Ebola virus, malaria, tuberculosis, influenza and hepatitis B to develop the artificial acquired active immunity. The present review explores the science behind such an approach for candidate COVID-19 vaccines developed using 11 different platforms approved by the World Health Organization.

METHODS

The candidate vaccines' pharmaceutical parameters (e.g. platforms, number needed to vaccinate and intervals, adjuvanted status, excipients and preservatives added, efficacy and effectiveness, vaccine adverse events, and boosters), and clinical aspects must be analysed for the mix-and-match approach. Results prime-boost trials showed safety, effectiveness, higher systemic reactogenicity, well tolerability with improved immunogenicity, and flexibility profiles for future vaccinations, especially during acute and global shortages, compared to the homologous counterparts.

CONCLUSION

Still, large controlled trials are warranted to address challenging variants of concerns including Omicron and other, and to generalize the effectiveness of the approach in regular as well as emergency use during vaccine scarcity.

Immunogenicity and Safety of Homologous and Heterologous Prime-Boost Immunization with COVID-19 Vaccine: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A prime-boost strategy of COVID-19 vaccines brings hope to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2, while the immunogenicity of the vaccines is waning over time. Whether a booster dose of vaccine is needed has become a widely controversial issue. However, no published meta-analysis has focused on the issue. Therefore, this study assessed the immunogenicity and safety of the different combinations of prime-boost vaccinations. Electronic databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, medRxiv, Wanfang and CNKI were used to retrieve the original studies. A total of 28 studies, 9 combinations of prime-boost vaccinations and 5870 subjects were included in the meta-analysis, and random effect models were used to estimate pooled immunogenicity and safety. The immunity against COVID-19 after the prime vaccination waned over time, especially in the populations primed with inactivated vaccines, in which the seropositive rate of antibodies was only 28% (95% CI: 17-40%). Booster vaccination could significantly increase the antibody responses, and heterologous immunization was more effective than homologous immunization (neutralization titers: 1.65 vs. 1.27; anti-RBD IgG: 1.85 vs. 1.15); in particular, the combination of inactivated-mRNA vaccines had the highest antibody responses (neutralization titers: MRAW = 3.64, 95% CI: 3.54-3.74; anti-RBD IgG: 3.73, 95% CI: 3.59-3.87). Moreover, compared with the initial two doses of vaccines, a booster dose did not induce additional or severe adverse events. The administration of the booster dose effectively recalled specific immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 and increased antibody levels, especially in heterologous immunization. Considering the long-term immunogenicity and vaccine equity, we suggest that now, only individuals primed with inactivated vaccines require a booster dose.

Immunogenicity and safety of heterologous versus homologous prime-boost schedules with an adenoviral vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Heterologous prime-boost with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vector vaccine (ChAd) and a messenger RNA vaccine (BNT or mRNA-1273) has been widely facilitating mass coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) immunisation. This review aimed to synthesize immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous immunisations with ChAd and BNT (mRNA-1273) vaccine compared with homologous ChAd or BNT (mRNA-1273) immunisation.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched from inception to March 7, 2022. Immunogenicity involving serum antibodies against different SAS-CoV-2 fragments, neutralizing antibody, or spike-specific T cells response were compared. Any, local and systemic reactions were pooled by meta-analysis for comparison.

RESULTS

Of 14,571 records identified, 13 studies (3024 participants) were included for analysis. Compared with homologous BNT/BNT vaccination, heterologous ChAd/BNT schedule probably induced noninferior anti-spike protein while higher neutralizing antibody and better T cells response. Heterologous ChAd/BNT (mRNA-1273) immunisation induced superior anti-spike protein and higher neutralizing antibody and better T cells response compared with homologous ChAd/ChAd vaccination. Heterologous ChAd/BNT (mRNA-1273) had similar risk of any reaction (RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.86-1.96) while higher risk of local reactions (RR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.27-2.15) and systemic reactions (RR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.17-1.90) compared with homologous ChAd/ChAd vaccination. There was a higher risk of local reactions (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.03-1.31) in heterologous ChAd/BNT (mRNA-1273) vaccination compare with homologous BNT/BNT but a similar risk of any reaction (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.79-1.34) and systemic reactions (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.60-1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Heterologous ChAd/BNT schedule induced at least comparable immunogenicity compared with homologous BNT/BNT and better immunogenicity compared with homologous ChAd/ChAd vaccination. The synthetical evidence supported the general application of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines.

Reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous prime-boost immunization with COVID-19 vaccine

BACKGROUND

The objective of the present work was to assess the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens in clinical trials and observational studies.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, MedRxiv, BioRxiv databases were searched in September 29, 2021. The PRISMA instruction for systemic review was followed. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. The quality of studies was evaluated using the New Castle-Ottawa and Cochrane risk of instrument. The characteristics and study outcome (e.g., adverse events, immune response, and variant of concern) were extracted.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included in the final data synthesis with 5 clinical trials and 14 observational studies. Heterologous vaccine administration showed a trend toward more frequent systemic reactions. However, the total reactogenicity was tolerable and manageable. Importantly, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination regimens provided higher immunogenic effect either vector/ mRNA-based vaccine or vector/ inactivated vaccine in both humoral and cellular immune response. Notably, the heterologous regimens induced the potential protection against the variant of concern, even to the Delta variant.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings provided evidence about the higher induction of robust immunogenicity and tolerated reactogenicity of heterologous vaccination regimens (vector-based/mRNA vaccine or vector-based/inactivated vaccine). Also, this study supports the application of heterologous regimens against COVID-19 which may provide more opportunities to speed up the global vaccination campaign and maximize the capacity to control the pandemic.

Duration of SARS-CoV-2 Immune Responses Up to Six Months Following Homologous or Heterologous Primary Immunization with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccines

Heterologous primary immunization against SARS-CoV-2 is part of applied recommendations. However, little is known about duration of immune responses after heterologous vaccine regimens. To evaluate duration of immune responses after primary vaccination with homologous adeno-vectored ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (ChAd) or heterologous ChAd/BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine (BNT), anti-spike-IgG and SARS-CoV-2 VOC-neutralizing antibody responses were measured in 354 healthcare workers (HCW) at 2 weeks, 3 months, 5 months and 6 months after the second vaccine dose. T-cell responses were investigated using a whole blood interferon gamma (IFN-γ) release assay 2 weeks and 3 months post second vaccine dose. Two hundred and ten HCW immunized with homologous BNT were enrolled for comparison of antibody responses. In study participants naïve to SARS-CoV-2 prior to vaccination, heterologous ChAd/BNT resulted in 6-fold higher peak anti-spike IgG antibody titers compared to homologous ChAd vaccination. The half-life of antibody titers was 3.1 months (95% CI 2.8–3.6) following homologous ChAd vaccination and 1.9 months (95% CI 1.7–2.1) after heterologous vaccination, reducing the GMT difference between the groups to 3-fold 6 months post vaccination. Peak T-cell responses were stronger in ChAd/BNT vaccinees, but no significant difference was observed 3 months post vaccination. SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination resulted in substantially higher peak GMTs and IFN-γ levels and enhanced SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody and T cell responses over time. Heterologous primary SARS-CoV-2 immunization with ChAd and BNT elicits a stronger initial immune response compared to homologous vaccination with ChAd. However, although the differences in humoral responses remain over 6 months, the difference in SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell responses are no longer significant three months after vaccination.

Booster vaccination strategy: Necessity, Immunization Objectives, Immunization Strategy and Safety

At present, the global COVID-19 epidemic has not been completely controlled, and epidemic prevention and control still face severe challenges. As there is no specific treatment for COVID-19, promoting roll-out vaccinations and building herd immunity are still the most effective and economic measures to control the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the neutralizing antibody level in the recipients decreases with time, and the vaccine's protective efficacy gradually weakens. It is still inconclusive whether it is necessary to carry out booster vaccination to strengthen the immune barrier to infection. In this paper, we combined the existing data on the effectiveness and persistence of COVID-19 vaccines. We found that it is necessary to carry out a booster vaccination strategy. However, not all subjects need to receive one more dose of vaccine six months after the initial immunization. Priority should be given to the high-risk groups, such as the elderly and people with immunodeficiency. A heterologous booster can induce higher immune responses and enhance immune protection than homologous vaccinations. However, more scientific data and clinical studies are needed to verify the safety of heterologous vaccination strategies. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Immunogenicity, safety, and reactogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 primary vaccination incorporating mRNA, viral-vector, and protein-adjuvant vaccines in the UK (Com-COV2): a single-blind, randomised, phase 2, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Given the importance of flexible use of different COVID-19 vaccines within the same schedule to facilitate rapid deployment, we studied mixed priming schedules incorporating an adenoviral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [ChAd], AstraZeneca), two mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [BNT], Pfizer-BioNTech, and mRNA-1273 [m1273], Moderna) and a nanoparticle vaccine containing SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and Matrix-M adjuvant (NVX-CoV2373 [NVX], Novavax).

METHODS

Com-COV2 is a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial in which adults aged 50 years and older, previously immunised with a single dose of ChAd or BNT in the community, were randomly assigned (in random blocks of three and six) within these cohorts in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a second dose intramuscularly (8-12 weeks after the first dose) with the homologous vaccine, m1273, or NVX. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations measured by ELISA in heterologous versus homologous schedules at 28 days after the second dose, with a non-inferiority criterion of the GMR above 0·63 for the one-sided 98·75% CI. The primary analysis was on the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done for all participants who received a dose of study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 27841311.

FINDINGS

Between April 19 and May 14, 2021, 1072 participants were enrolled at a median of 9·4 weeks after receipt of a single dose of ChAd (n=540, 47% female) or BNT (n=532, 40% female). In ChAd-primed participants, geometric mean concentration (GMC) 28 days after a boost of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in recipients of ChAd/m1273 (20 114 ELISA laboratory units [ELU]/mL [95% CI 18 160 to 22 279]) and ChAd/NVX (5597 ELU/mL [4756 to 6586]) was non-inferior to that of ChAd/ChAd recipients (1971 ELU/mL [1718 to 2262]) with a GMR of 10·2 (one-sided 98·75% CI 8·4 to ∞) for ChAd/m1273 and 2·8 (2·2 to ∞) for ChAd/NVX, compared with ChAd/ChAd. In BNT-primed participants, non-inferiority was shown for BNT/m1273 (GMC 22 978 ELU/mL [95% CI 20 597 to 25 636]) but not for BNT/NVX (8874 ELU/mL [7391 to 10 654]), compared with BNT/BNT (16 929 ELU/mL [15 025 to 19 075]) with a GMR of 1·3 (one-sided 98·75% CI 1·1 to ∞) for BNT/m1273 and 0·5 (0·4 to ∞) for BNT/NVX, compared with BNT/BNT; however, NVX still induced an 18-fold rise in GMC 28 days after vaccination. There were 15 serious adverse events, none considered related to immunisation.

INTERPRETATION

Heterologous second dosing with m1273, but not NVX, increased transient systemic reactogenicity compared with homologous schedules. Multiple vaccines are appropriate to complete primary immunisation following priming with BNT or ChAd, facilitating rapid vaccine deployment globally and supporting recognition of such schedules for vaccine certification.

FUNDING

UK Vaccine Task Force, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and National Institute for Health Research. NVX vaccine was supplied for use in the trial by Novavax.

Safety & effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: A narrative review

There are currently eight vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 that have received Emergency Use Authorization by the WHO that can offer some protection to the world's population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Though research is being published all over the world, public health officials, policymakers and governments are collecting evidence-based information to establish the public health policies. Unfortunately, continued international travel, violations of lockdowns and social distancing, the lack of mask use, the emergence of mutant strains of the virus and lower adherence by a sector of the global population that remains sceptical of the protection offered by vaccines, or about any risks associated with vaccines, hamper these efforts. Here we examine the literature on the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, with an emphasis on select categories of individuals and against new SARS-CoV-2 strains. The literature shows that these eight vaccines are highly effective in protecting the population from severe disease and death, but there are some issues concerning safety and adverse effects. Further, booster shots and variant-specific vaccines would also be required.

A Systematic Review on COVID-19 Vaccine Strategies, Their Effectiveness, and Issues

COVID-19 vaccines are indispensable, with the number of cases and mortality still rising, and currently no medicines are routinely available for reducing morbidity and mortality, apart from dexamethasone, although others are being trialed and launched. To date, only a limited number of vaccines have been given emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. There is a need to systematically review the existing vaccine candidates and investigate their safety, efficacy, immunogenicity, unwanted events, and limitations. The review was undertaken by searching online databases, i.e., Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect, with finally 59 studies selected. Our findings showed several types of vaccine candidates with different strategies against SARS-CoV-2, including inactivated, mRNA-based, recombinant, and nanoparticle-based vaccines, are being developed and launched. We have compared these vaccines in terms of their efficacy, side effects, and seroconversion based on data reported in the literature. We found mRNA vaccines appeared to have better efficacy, and inactivated ones had fewer side effects and similar seroconversion in all types of vaccines. Overall, global variant surveillance and systematic tweaking of vaccines, coupled with the evaluation and administering vaccines with the same or different technology in successive doses along with homologous and heterologous prime-booster strategy, have become essential to impede the pandemic. Their effectiveness appreciably outweighs any concerns with any adverse events.