21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of reactogenicity, immunogenicity and efficacy of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          As SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are deployed worldwide, a comparative evaluation is important to underpin decision-making. We here report a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of Phase I/II/III human trials and non-human primates (NHP) studies, comparing reactogenicity, immunogenicity and efficacy across different vaccine platforms for comparative evaluation (updated to March 22, 2021). Twenty-three NHP and 32 human studies are included. Vaccines result in mostly mild, self-limiting adverse events. Highest spike neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses are identified for the mRNA-1273-SARS-CoV and adjuvanted NVX-CoV2373-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. ChAdOx-SARS-CoV-2 produces the highest T cell ELISpot responses. Pre-existing nAb against vaccine viral vector are identified following AdH-5-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, halving immunogenicity. The mRNA vaccines depend on boosting to achieve optimal immunogenicity especially in the elderly. BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 achieve >94%, rAd26/5 > 91% and ChAdOx-SARS-CoV-2 > 66.7% efficacy. Across different vaccine platforms there are trade-offs between antibody binding, functional nAb titers, T cell frequency, reactogenicity and efficacy. Emergence of variants makes rapid mass rollout of high efficacy vaccines essential to reduce any selective advantage.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Safety and Immunogenicity of Two RNA-Based Covid-19 Vaccine Candidates

            Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and the resulting disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), have spread to millions of persons worldwide. Multiple vaccine candidates are under development, but no vaccine is currently available. Interim safety and immunogenicity data about the vaccine candidate BNT162b1 in younger adults have been reported previously from trials in Germany and the United States. Methods In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial conducted in the United States, we randomly assigned healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age and those 65 to 85 years of age to receive either placebo or one of two lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine candidates: BNT162b1, which encodes a secreted trimerized SARS-CoV-2 receptor–binding domain; or BNT162b2, which encodes a membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike, stabilized in the prefusion conformation. The primary outcome was safety (e.g., local and systemic reactions and adverse events); immunogenicity was a secondary outcome. Trial groups were defined according to vaccine candidate, age of the participants, and vaccine dose level (10 μg, 20 μg, 30 μg, and 100 μg). In all groups but one, participants received two doses, with a 21-day interval between doses; in one group (100 μg of BNT162b1), participants received one dose. Results A total of 195 participants underwent randomization. In each of 13 groups of 15 participants, 12 participants received vaccine and 3 received placebo. BNT162b2 was associated with a lower incidence and severity of systemic reactions than BNT162b1, particularly in older adults. In both younger and older adults, the two vaccine candidates elicited similar dose-dependent SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing geometric mean titers, which were similar to or higher than the geometric mean titer of a panel of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent serum samples. Conclusions The safety and immunogenicity data from this U.S. phase 1 trial of two vaccine candidates in younger and older adults, added to earlier interim safety and immunogenicity data regarding BNT162b1 in younger adults from trials in Germany and the United States, support the selection of BNT162b2 for advancement to a pivotal phase 2–3 safety and efficacy evaluation. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              SARS and MERS: recent insights into emerging coronaviruses

              Key Points Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) are zoonotic pathogens that can cause severe respiratory disease in humans. Although disease progression is fairly similar for SARS and MERS, the case fatality rate of MERS is much higher than that of SARS. Comorbidities have an important role in SARS and MERS. Several risk factors are associated with progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in SARS and MERS cases, especially advanced age and male sex. For MERS, additional risk factors that are associated with severe disease include chronic conditions such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cancer, renal and lung disease, and co-infections. Although the ancestors of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV probably circulate in bats, zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV required an incidental amplifying host. Dromedary camels are the MERS-CoV reservoir from which zoonotic transmission occurs; serological evidence indicates that MERS-CoV-like viruses have been circulating in dromedary camels for at least three decades. Human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV occurs mainly in health care settings. Patients do not shed large amounts of virus until well after the onset of symptoms, when patients are most probably already seeking medical care. Analysis of hospital surfaces after the treatment of patients with MERS showed the ubiquitous presence of infectious virus. Our understanding of the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV is still incomplete, but the combination of viral replication in the lower respiratory tract and an aberrant immune response is thought to have a crucial role in the severity of both syndromes. The severity of the diseases that are caused by emerging coronaviruses highlights the need to develop effective therapeutic measures against these viruses. Although several treatments for SARS and MERS (based on inhibition of viral replication with drugs or neutralizing antibodies, or on dampening the host response) have been identified in animal models and in vitro studies, efficacy data from human clinical trials are urgently required. Supplementary information The online version of this article (doi:10.1038/nrmicro.2016.81) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                d.altmann@imperial.ac.uk
                r.boyton@imperial.ac.uk
                Journal
                NPJ Vaccines
                NPJ Vaccines
                NPJ Vaccines
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2059-0105
                13 May 2021
                13 May 2021
                2021
                : 6
                : 74
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.7445.2, ISNI 0000 0001 2113 8111, Department of Infectious Disease, Faculty of Medicine, , Imperial College London, ; London, UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.7445.2, ISNI 0000 0001 2113 8111, Department of Immunology and Inflammation, Faculty of Medicine, , Imperial College London, ; London, UK
                [3 ]Lung Division, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, London, UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5990-5854
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5608-0797
                Article
                336
                10.1038/s41541-021-00336-1
                8116645
                33986272
                6b7f8bb4-2d0c-4883-9312-d2073f97c374
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 25 February 2021
                : 15 April 2021
                Categories
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                vaccines,adaptive immunity,infectious diseases
                vaccines, adaptive immunity, infectious diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article