Explore the vast range of titles available.

In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) 1 , a pandemic. With rapidly accumulating numbers of cases and deaths reported globally 2 , a vaccine is urgently needed. Here we report the available safety, tolerability and immunogenicity data from an ongoing placebo-controlled, observer-blinded dose-escalation study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04368728) among 45 healthy adults (18–55 years of age), who were randomized to receive 2 doses—separated by 21 days—of 10 μg, 30 μg or 100 μg of BNT162b1. BNT162b1 is a lipid-nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine that encodes the trimerized receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2. Local reactions and systemic events were dose-dependent, generally mild to moderate, and transient. A second vaccination with 100 μg was not administered because of the increased reactogenicity and a lack of meaningfully increased immunogenicity after a single dose compared with the 30-μg dose. RBD-binding IgG concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titres in sera increased with dose level and after a second dose. Geometric mean neutralizing titres reached 1.9–4.6-fold that of a panel of COVID-19 convalescent human sera, which were obtained at least 14 days after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR. These results support further evaluation of this mRNA vaccine candidate. In a dose-escalation study of the COVID-19 RNA vaccine BNT162b1 in 45 healthy adults, RBD-binding IgG concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titres in sera increased with dose level and after a second vaccine dose.

Wuhan was the epicentre of the COVID-19 outbreak in China. We aimed to determine the seroprevalence and kinetics of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at population level in Wuhan to inform the development of vaccination strategies. In this longitudinal cross-sectional study, we used a multistage, population-stratified, cluster random sampling method to systematically select 100 communities from the 13 districts of Wuhan. Households were systematically selected from each community and all family members were invited to community health-care centres to participate. Eligible individuals were those who had lived in Wuhan for at least 14 days since Dec 1, 2019. All eligible participants who consented to participate completed a standardised electronic questionnaire of demographic and clinical questions and self-reported any symptoms associated with COVID-19 or previous diagnosis of COVID-19. A venous blood sample was taken for immunological testing on April 14–15, 2020. Blood samples were tested for the presence of pan-immunoglobulins, IgM, IgA, and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein and neutralising antibodies were assessed. We did two successive follow-ups between June 11 and June 13, and between Oct 9 and Dec 5, 2020, at which blood samples were taken. Of 4600 households randomly selected, 3599 families (78·2%) with 9702 individuals attended the baseline visit. 9542 individuals from 3556 families had sufficient samples for analyses. 532 (5·6%) of 9542 participants were positive for pan-immunoglobulins against SARS-CoV-2, with a baseline adjusted seroprevalence of 6·92% (95% CI 6·41–7·43) in the population. 437 (82·1%) of 532 participants who were positive for pan-immunoglobulins were asymptomatic. 69 (13·0%) of 532 individuals were positive for IgM antibodies, 84 (15·8%) were positive for IgA antibodies, 532 (100%) were positive for IgG antibodies, and 212 (39·8%) were positive for neutralising antibodies at baseline. The proportion of individuals who were positive for pan-immunoglobulins who had neutralising antibodies in April remained stable for the two follow-up visits (162 [44·6%] of 363 in June, 2020, and 187 [41·2%] of 454 in October–December, 2020). On the basis of data from 335 individuals who attended all three follow-up visits and who were positive for pan-immunoglobulins, neutralising antibody levels did not significantly decrease over the study period (median 1/5·6 [IQR 1/2·0 to 1/14·0] at baseline vs 1/5·6 [1/4·0 to 1/11·2] at first follow-up [p=1·0] and 1/6·3 [1/2·0 to 1/12·6] at second follow-up [p=0·29]). However, neutralising antibody titres were lower in asymptomatic individuals than in confirmed cases and symptomatic individuals. Although titres of IgG decreased over time, the proportion of individuals who had IgG antibodies did not decrease substantially (from 30 [100%] of 30 at baseline to 26 [89·7%] of 29 at second follow-up among confirmed cases, 65 [100%] of 65 at baseline to 58 [92·1%] of 63 at second follow-up among symptomatic individuals, and 437 [100%] of 437 at baseline to 329 [90·9%] of 362 at second follow-up among asymptomatic individuals). 6·92% of a cross-sectional sample of the population of Wuhan developed antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, with 39·8% of this population seroconverting to have neutralising antibodies. Our durability data on humoral responses indicate that mass vaccination is needed to effect herd protection to prevent the resurgence of the epidemic. Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, National Natural Science Foundation, and Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology. For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

A recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein nanoparticle vaccine delivered in the deltoid muscle on days 0 and 21 was found to be immunogenic at both 5 μg and 25 μg doses. When given with a saponin-based adjuvant, both doses were equally immunogenic, with little or no reactogenicity, and elicited neutralizing antibody titers higher than those in convalescent serum.

Respiratory syncytial virus is a major cause of illness in infants. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the safety and immunogenicity of a bivalent RSV prefusion F protein–based vaccine was assessed in pregnant women and their infants. Anti-RSV antibodies were elicited with efficient transplacental transfer.

In a randomized clinical trial of 86 hospitalized COVID-19 patients comparing standard care to treatment with 300mL convalescent plasma containing high titers of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, no overall clinical benefit was observed. Using a comprehensive translational approach, we unravel the virological and immunological responses following treatment to disentangle which COVID-19 patients may benefit and should be the focus of future studies. Convalescent plasma is safe, does not improve survival, has no effect on the disease course, nor does plasma enhance viral clearance in the respiratory tract, influence SARS-CoV-2 antibody development or serum proinflammatory cytokines levels. Here, we show that the vast majority of patients already had potent neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at hospital admission and with comparable titers to carefully selected plasma donors. This resulted in the decision to terminate the trial prematurely. Treatment with convalescent plasma should be studied early in the disease course or at least preceding autologous humoral response development. There are currently no drugs available to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection. A promising alternative treatment for COVID-19 patients is convalescent plasma. Here, Gharbharan et al. collect covalescent plasma and report no overall clinical benefit for 86 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and treated with 300 mL convalescent plasma.

A combination of adenovirus 26 and protein vaccines was used to deliver a prefusion stabilized RSV protein. RSV-related lower respiratory tract illness developed in fewer vaccine recipients than placebo recipients.

In part 1 of a phase 2–3 trial, a 50-μg dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine was safe and immunogenic. In part 2, nearly 4000 6-to-11-year-olds received two doses of vaccine or placebo and were followed for a median of 82 days. The vaccine had mainly mild adverse effects and was immunogenic in 99%, similar to the results in 18-to-25-year-olds. Vaccine efficacy during a delta-variant period was 88%.

The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine. Safety was assessed as solicited local and systemic adverse events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events occurring in the first 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events occurring up to each participant's last study visit. Secondary outcomes were to assess Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second vaccine in a per-protocol set of participants (ie, those who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in stage 1 participants who had received the booster dose. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Between Sept 30, 2015, and Oct 19, 2016, 443 participants (43 in stage 1 and 400 in stage 2) were enrolled; 341 participants assigned to receive the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo regimen and 102 participants assigned to receive the MenACWY and placebo regimen received at least one dose of study vaccine. Both regimens were well tolerated with no safety concerns. In stage 1, solicited local adverse events (mostly mild or moderate injection-site pain) were reported in 12 (28%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in six (14%) participants after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited local adverse events were reported in 51 (17%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 58 (24%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 17 (17%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in eight (9%) of 86 after placebo injection. In stage 1, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 18 (42%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in 17 (40%) after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 161 (54%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 107 (43%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 51 (50%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in 39 (45%) of 86 after placebo injection. Solicited systemic adverse events in both stage 1 and 2 participants included mostly mild or moderate headache, myalgia, fatigue, and arthralgia. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first dose was headache in stage 1 and malaria in stage 2. Malaria was the most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the second dose in both stage 1 and 2. No serious adverse event was considered related to the study vaccine, and no immediate reportable events were observed. In stage 1, the safety profile after the booster vaccination was not notably different to that observed after the first dose. Vaccine-induced humoral immune responses were observed in 41 (98%) of 42 stage 1 participants (geometric mean binding antibody concentration 4784 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 3736–6125]) and in 176 (98%) of 179 stage 2 participants (3810 EU/mL [3312–4383]) at 21 days after the second vaccination. The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen was well tolerated and immunogenic, with persistent humoral immune responses. These data support the use of this vaccine regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in adults. Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking and Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV.

To address the unmet medical need for an effective prophylactic vaccine against Ebola virus we assessed the safety and immunogenicity of three different two-dose heterologous vaccination regimens with a replication-deficient adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine (Ad26.ZEBOV), expressing Zaire Ebola virus glycoprotein, and a non-replicating, recombinant, modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA) vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Zaire Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus. This randomised, observer-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was done at seven hospitals in France and two research centres in the UK. Healthy adults (aged 18–65 years) with no history of Ebola vaccination were enrolled into four cohorts. Participants in cohorts I–III were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using computer-generated randomisation codes into three parallel groups (randomisation for cohorts II and III was stratified by country and age), in which participants were to receive an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV on day 1, followed by intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo at either 28 days (28-day interval group), 56 days (56-day interval group), or 84 days (84-day interval group) after the first vaccine. Within these three groups, participants in cohort II (14:1) and cohort III (10:3) were further randomly assigned to receive either Ad26.ZEBOV or placebo on day 1, followed by either MVA-BN-Filo or placebo on days 28, 56, or 84. Participants in cohort IV were randomly assigned (5:1) to receive one dose of either Ad26.ZEBOV or placebo on day 1 for vector shedding assessments. For cohorts II and III, study site personnel, sponsor personnel, and participants were masked to vaccine allocation until all participants in these cohorts had completed the post-MVA-BN-Filo vaccination visit at 6 months or had discontinued the trial, whereas cohort I was open-label. For cohort IV, study site personnel and participants were masked to vaccine allocation until all participants in this cohort had completed the post-vaccination visit at 28 days or had discontinued the trial. The primary outcome, analysed in all participants who had received at least one dose of vaccine or placebo (full analysis set), was the safety and tolerability of the three vaccination regimens, as assessed by participant-reported solicited local and systemic adverse events within 7 days of receiving both vaccines, unsolicited adverse events within 42 days of receiving the MVA-BN-Filo vaccine, and serious adverse events over 365 days of follow-up. The secondary outcome was humoral immunogenicity, as measured by the concentration of Ebola virus glycoprotein-binding antibodies at 21 days after receiving the MVA-BN-Filo vaccine. The secondary outcome was assessed in the per-protocol analysis set. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02416453, and EudraCT, 2015-000596-27. Between June 23, 2015, and April 27, 2016, 423 participants were enrolled: 408 in cohorts I–III were randomly assigned to the 28-day interval group (123 to receive Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo, and 13 to receive placebo), the 56-day interval group (124 to receive Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo, and 13 to receive placebo), and the 84-day interval group (117 to receive Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo, and 18 to receive placebo), and 15 participants in cohort IV were assigned to receive Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo (n=13) or to receive placebo (n=2). 421 (99·5%) participants received at least one dose of vaccine or placebo. The trial was temporarily suspended after two serious neurological adverse events were reported, one of which was considered as possibly related to vaccination, and per-protocol vaccination was disrupted for some participants. Vaccinations were generally well tolerated. Mild or moderate local adverse events (mostly pain) were reported after 206 (62%) of 332 Ad26.ZEBOV vaccinations, 136 (58%) of 236 MVA-BN-Filo vaccinations, and 11 (15%) of 72 placebo injections. Systemic adverse events were reported after 255 (77%) Ad26.ZEBOV vaccinations, 116 (49%) MVA-BN-Filo vaccinations, and 33 (46%) placebo injections, and included mostly mild or moderate fatigue, headache, or myalgia. Unsolicited adverse events occurred after 115 (35%) of 332 Ad26.ZEBOV vaccinations, 81 (34%) of 236 MVA-BN-Filo vaccinations, and 24 (33%) of 72 placebo injections. At 21 days after receiving the MVA-BN-Filo vaccine, geometric mean concentrations of Ebola virus glycoprotein-binding antibodies were 4627 ELISA units (EU)/mL (95% CI 3649–5867) in the 28-day interval group, 10 131 EU/mL (8554–11 999) in the 56-day interval group, and 11 312 mL (9072–14106) in the 84-day interval group, with antibody concentrations persisting at 1149–1205 EU/mL up to day 365. The two-dose heterologous regimen with Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo was safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic, with humoral and cellular immune responses persisting for 1 year after vaccination. Taken together, these data support the intended prophylactic indication for the vaccine regimen. Innovative Medicines Initiative and Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV. For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Here we conducted a multicenter open-label, randomized phase 2 and 3 study to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron-specific (BA.1/B.1.1.529), monovalent, thermostable, self-amplifying mRNA vaccine, GEMCOVAC-OM, when administered intradermally as a booster in healthy adults who had received two doses of BBV152 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. GEMCOVAC-OM was well tolerated with no related serious adverse events in both phase 2 and phase 3. In phase 2, the safety and immunogenicity of GEMCOVAC-OM was compared with our prototype mRNA vaccine GEMCOVAC-19 (D614G variant-specific) in 140 participants. At day 29 after vaccination, there was a significant rise in anti-spike (BA.1) IgG antibodies with GEMCOVAC-OM ( P  < 0.0001) and GEMCOVAC-19 ( P  < 0.0001). However, the IgG titers (primary endpoint) and seroconversion were higher with GEMCOVAC-OM ( P  < 0.0001). In phase 3, GEMCOVAC-OM was compared with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in 3,140 participants (safety cohort), which included an immunogenicity cohort of 420 participants. At day 29, neutralizing antibody titers against the BA.1 variant of SARS-CoV-2 were significantly higher than baseline in the GEMCOVAC-OM arm ( P  < 0.0001), but not in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 arm ( P  = 0.1490). GEMCOVAC-OM was noninferior (primary endpoint) and superior to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in terms of neutralizing antibody titers and seroconversion rate (lower bound 95% confidence interval of least square geometric mean ratio >1 and difference in seroconversion >0% for superiority). At day 29, anti-spike IgG antibodies and seroconversion (secondary endpoints) were significantly higher with GEMCOVAC-OM ( P  < 0.0001). These results demonstrate that GEMCOVAC-OM is safe and boosts immune responses against the B.1.1.529 variant. Clinical Trial Registry India identifier: CTRI/2022/10/046475 . A self-amplifying mRNA vaccine shows promise in this new modality by eliciting neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) variant in a phase 2/3 trial.