Considerations for unblinding individual study participants during vaccine trials.

Premature unblinding of individual participants is rarely reported in publications, but such unblinding can disrupt vaccine trials by causing worry and drop-out of other participants or "pseudo unblinding," in which participants or investigators over-interpret certain symptoms as being related to receiving an investigational product. This review summarizes appropriate reasons for unblinding in vaccine trials. Regulatory guidance could be improved by distinguishing guidance for vaccine trials from drug trials, with the recognition that unblinding individual participants in vaccine studies is rarely needed for management of adverse events following immunization.

Comparison of Waning Neutralizing Antibody Responses Against the Omicron Variant 6 Months After Natural SARS-CoV-2 Infection (With/Without subsequent COVID-19 Vaccination) Versus 2-dose COVID-19 Vaccination.

Following SARS-CoV-2 infection, subsequent ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induced similar neutralizing antibody levels against the original strain but significantly higher levels against the Omicron variant compared to those who were not vaccinated. Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection exhibited higher neutralization antibody titers than vaccination alone for both original strains and the Omicron variant.

Immune Responses to the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 Vaccines and to Natural Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infections Over a 3-Month Period.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data directly comparing immune responses to vaccines and to natural infections with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study assessed the immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines over a 3-month period and compared the immune responses with those to natural infections. METHOD: We enrolled healthcare workers who received BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines and patients with confirmed COVID-19 and then measured S1 immunoglobulin (Ig) G and neutralizing antibodies and T-cell responses. RESULTS: A total of 121 vaccinees and 26 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were analyzed. After the second dose, the BNT162b2 vaccine yielded S1 IgG antibody responses similar to those achieved with natural infections (mean IgG titer [standard deviation], 2241 [899] vs 2601 [5039]; P = .68) but significantly stronger than responses to the ChAdOx1 vaccine (174 [96]; P < .001). The neutralizing antibody titer generated by BNT162b2 was 6-fold higher than that generated by ChAdOx1 but lower than that by natural infection. T-cell responses persisted for 3 months with BNT162b2 and natural infection but decreased with ChAdOx1. CONCLUSIONS: Antibody responses after the second dose of BNT162b2 are higher than after the second dose of ChAdOx1 and like those occurring after natural infection. T-cell responses are maintained longer in BNT162b2 vaccinees than in ChAdOx1 vaccinees.

Correlation between Reactogenicity and Immunogenicity after the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination.

Correlation between vaccine reactogenicity and immunogenicity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is unclear. Thus, we investigated to determine whether the reactogenicity after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination is associated with antibody (Ab) titers and T cell responses. This study was prospective cohort study done with 131 healthcare workers at tertiary center in Seoul, South Korea. The degrees of the local reactions after the 1st and 2nd doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (ChAdOx1) vaccination were significantly associated with the S1-specific IgG Ab titers (p=0.003 and 0.01, respectively) and neutralizing Ab (p=0.04 and 0.10, respectively) in age- and sex-adjusted multivariate analysis, whereas those after the BNT162b2 vaccination did not show significant associations. T cell responses did not show significant associations with the degree of reactogenicity after the ChAdOx1 vaccination or the BNT162b2 vaccination. Thus, high degree of local reactogenicity after the ChAdOx1 vaccine may be used as an indicator of strong humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2.

Comparison of Antibody and T Cell Responses Induced by Single Doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 Vaccines.

There are limited data directly comparing humoral and T cell responses to the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 vaccines. We compared Ab and T cell responses after first doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vs. BNT162b2 vaccines. We enrolled healthcare workers who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine in Seoul, Korea. Anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) S1 protein-specific IgG Abs (S1-IgG), neutralizing Abs (NT Abs), and SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response were evaluated before vaccination and at 1-wk intervals for 3 wks after vaccination. A total of 76 persons, comprising 40 injected with the ChAdOx1 vaccine and 36 injected with the BNT162b2 vaccine, participated in this study. At 3 wks after vaccination, the mean levels (±SD) of S1-IgG and NT Abs in the BNT162b2 participants were significantly higher than in the ChAdOx1 participants (S1-IgG, 14.03±7.20 vs. 6.28±8.87, p<0.0001; NT Ab, 183.1±155.6 vs. 116.6±116.2, p=0.035), respectively. However, the mean values of the T cell responses in the 2 groups were comparable after 2 wks. The humoral immune response after the 1st dose of BNT162b2 developed faster and was stronger than after the 1st dose of ChAdOx1. However, the T cell responses to BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 were similar.

TMPRSS2 and RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase Are Effective Targets of Therapeutic Intervention for Treatment of COVID-19 Caused by SARS-CoV-2 Variants (B.1.1.7 and B.1.351).

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a causative agent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and the development of therapeutic interventions is urgently needed. So far, monoclonal antibodies and drug repositioning are the main methods for drug development, and this effort was partially successful. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants has been reported in many parts of the world, and the main concern is whether the current vaccines and therapeutics are still effective against these variant viruses. Viral entry and viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) are the main targets of current drug development; therefore, the inhibitory effects of transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) and RdRp inhibitors were compared among the early SARS-CoV-2 isolate (lineage A) and the two recent variants (lineage B.1.1.7 and lineage B.1.351) identified in the United Kingdom and South Africa, respectively. Our in vitro analysis of viral replication showed that the drugs targeting TMPRSS2 and RdRp are equally effective against the two variants of concern. IMPORTANCE The COVID-19 pandemic is causing unprecedented global problems in both public health and human society. While some vaccines and monoclonal antibodies were successfully developed very quickly and are currently being used, numerous variants of the causative SARS-CoV-2 are emerging and threatening the efficacy of vaccines and monoclonal antibodies. In order to respond to this challenge, we assessed antiviral efficacy of small-molecule inhibitors that are being developed for treatment of COVID-19 and found that they are still very effective against the SARS-CoV-2 variants. Since most small-molecule inhibitors target viral or host factors other than the mutated sequence of the viral spike protein, they are expected to be potent control measures against the COVID-19 pandemic.

A new Korean Research Investment for Global Health Technology (RIGHT) Fund to advance innovative neglected-disease technologies.

In 2018, the government of the Republic of Korea (ROK), South Korean life science companies, and a group of international funders led by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation launched a new and innovative funding agency to support neglected-disease research and development (R&D). The new venture is known as the Research Investment for Global Health Technology (RIGHT) Fund.

WHO International Health Regulations Emergency Committee for the COVID-19 outbreak.

To discuss whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), World Health Organization (WHO) organized the 15-member International Health Regulations Emergency Committee (EC). On January 22-23 and January 30, 2020, EC convened and discussed whether the situation in China and other countries would constitute PHEIC and issued recommendations for WHO, China and the international community. Based on the recommendations of EC, WHO declared the COVID-19 outbreak a PHEIC. One of the purposes of the declaration of PHEIC was to alarm countries with weak public health infrastructures to prepare promptly for emerging infectious diseases (EID) and provide WHO with a framework for proactively supporting those countries. On February 3, 2020, WHO proposed the 2019 COVID-19 Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan, which includes accelerating research and development (R&D) processes as one of three major strategies. On February 11-12, 2020, WHO held the Global Research and Innovation Forum: Towards a Research Roadmap for COVID-19. The fact that a COVID-19 R&D forum was the first meeting convened after the PHEIC declaration testifies to the importance of R&D in response to EID. Korea has demonstrated a remarkable capacity in its laboratory response by conducting high-throughput COVID-19 testing and utilizing innovative drive-through samplings. These measures for early detection and screening of cases should be followed by full efforts to produce research-based evidence by thoroughly analyzing epidemiological, clinical and immunological data, which will facilitate the development of vaccines and therapeutics for COVID-19. It is expected that Korea plays a global partner for COVID-19 research by actively participating in immediate and mid/long-term priorities jointly led by WHO and global partners.