Phase II randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, clinical trial of safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine FAKHRAVAC in adults aged 18-70 years.

BACKGROUND: The FAKHRAVAC®, an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, was assessed for safety and immunogenicity in a phase II trial. METHODS: We did a phase II, single-centered, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the FAKHRAVAC inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on adults aged 18 to 70. The two parallel groups received two intramuscular injections of either a 10-µg vaccine or a placebo at 2-week intervals. The participants' immunogenicity responses and the occurrence of solicited and unsolicited adverse events were compared over the study period of up to 6 months. Immunogenicity outcomes include serum neutralizing antibody activity and specific IgG antibody levels. RESULTS: Five hundred eligible participants were randomly (1:1) assigned to vaccine or placebo groups. The median age of the participants was 36 years, and 75% were male. The most frequent local adverse reaction was tenderness (21.29% after the first dose and 8.52% after the second dose), and the most frequent systemic adverse reaction was headache (11.24% after the first dose and 8.94% after the second dose). Neutralizing antibody titers two and four weeks after the second injection in the vaccine group showed about 3 and 6 times increase compared to the placebo group (GMR = 2.69, 95% CI 2.32-3.12, N:309) and (GMR = 5.51, 95% CI 3.94-8.35, N:285). A four-fold increase in the neutralizing antibody titer was seen in 69.6% and 73.4% of the participants in the vaccine group two and four weeks after the second dose, respectively. Specific ELIZA antibody response against a combination of S1 and RBD antigens 4 weeks after the second injection increased more than three times in the vaccine compared to the placebo group (GMR = 3.34, 95% CI 2.5-4.47, N:142). CONCLUSIONS: FAKHRAVAC® is safe and induces a significant humoral immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus at 10-µg antigen dose in adults aged 18-70. A phase III trial is needed to assess the clinical efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registry Number: Ref., IRCT20210206050259N2 ( http://irct.ir ; registered on 08/06/2021).

The efficacy of corticosteroids therapy in patients with moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: We performed a multicenter, randomized open-label trial in patients with moderate to severe Covid-19 treated with a range of possible treatment regimens. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimen groups at a ratio of 1:1:1. The primary outcome of this study was admission to the intensive care unit. Secondary outcomes were intubation, in-hospital mortality, time to clinical recovery, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Between April 13 and August 9, 2020, a total of 336 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the 3 treatment regimens including group I (hydroxychloroquine stat, prednisolone, azithromycin and naproxen; 120 patients), group II (hydroxychloroquine stat, azithromycin and naproxen; 116 patients), and group III (hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir (116 patients). The mean LOS in patients receiving prednisolone was 5.5 in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population and 4.4 days in the per-protocol (PP) population compared with 6.4 days (mITT population) and 5.8 days (PP population) in patients treated with Lopinavir/Ritonavir. RESULTS: The mean LOS was significantly lower in the mITT and PP populations who received prednisolone compared with populations treated with Lopinavir/Ritonavir (p = 0.028; p = 0.0007). We observed no significant differences in the number of deaths, ICU admission, and need for mechanical ventilation between the Modified ITT and per-protocol populations treated with prednisolone and Lopinavir/Ritonavir, although these outcomes were better in the arm treated with prednisolone. The time to clinical recovery was similar in the modified ITT and per-protocol populations treated with prednisolone, lopinavir/ritonavir, and azithromycin (P = 0.335; P = 0.055; p = 0.291; p = 0.098). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study show that therapeutic regimen (regimen I) with low dose prednisolone was superior to other regimens in shortening the length of hospital stay in patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. The steroid sparing effect may be utilized to increase the effectiveness of corticosteroids in the management of diabetic patients by decreasing the dosage.

Safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: We examined the safety and efficacy of a treatment protocol containing Favipiravir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We did a multicenter randomized open-labeled clinical trial on moderate to severe cases infections of SARS-CoV-2. Patients with typical ground glass appearance on chest computerized tomography scan (CT scan) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) of less than 93% were enrolled. They were randomly allocated into Favipiravir (1.6 gr loading, 1.8 gr daily) and Lopinavir/Ritonavir (800/200 mg daily) treatment regimens in addition to standard care. In-hospital mortality, ICU admission, intubation, time to clinical recovery, changes in daily SpO2 after 5 min discontinuation of supplemental oxygen, and length of hospital stay were quantified and compared in the two groups. RESULTS: 380 patients were randomly allocated into Favipiravir (193) and Lopinavir/Ritonavir (187) groups in 13 centers. The number of deaths, intubations, and ICU admissions were not significantly different (26, 27, 31 and 21, 17, 25 respectively). Mean hospital stay was also not different (7.9 days [SD = 6] in the Favipiravir and 8.1 [SD = 6.5] days in Lopinavir/Ritonavir groups) (p = 0.61). Time to clinical recovery in the Favipiravir group was similar to Lopinavir/Ritonavir group (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 - 1.17) and likewise the changes in the daily SpO2 after discontinuation of supplemental oxygen (p = 0.46) CONCLUSION: Adding Favipiravir to the treatment protocol did not reduce the number of ICU admissions or intubations or In-hospital mortality compared to Lopinavir/Ritonavir regimen. It also did not shorten time to clinical recovery and length of hospital stay.