Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
medrxiv; 2022.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2022.03.08.22272062


The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants with immune escape ability raises the urgent need for developing cross-neutralizing vaccines against the virus. NVSI-06-08 is a potential broad-spectrum recombinant COVID-19 vaccine that integrates the antigens from multiple SARS-CoV-2 strains into a single immunogen. Here, we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of NVSI-06-08 as a heterologous booster dose in adults previously vaccinated with the inactivated vaccine BBIBP-CorV in a randomized, double-blind, controlled, phase 2 trial conducted in the United Arab Emirates (NCT05069129). Three groups of healthy adults over 18 years of age (600 participants per group) who had administered two doses of BBIBP-CorV 4-6-month, 7-9-month and >9-month earlier, respectively, were vaccinated with either a homologous booster of BBIBP-CorV or a heterologous booster of NVSI-06-08. The primary outcome was immunogenicity and safety of booster vaccinations. The exploratory outcome was cross-reactive immunogenicity against multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants of concerns (VOCs). The incidence of adverse reactions was low in both booster vaccinations, and the overall safety profile of heterologous boost was quite similar to that of homologous boost. Heterologous NVSI-06-08 booster was immunogenically superior to homologous booster of BBIBP-CorV. Both Neutralizing and IgG antibodies elicited by NVSI-06-08 booster were significantly higher than by the booster of BBIBP-CorV against not only SARS-CoV-2 prototype strain but also multiple VOCs. Especially, the neutralizing activity induced by NVSI-06-08 booster against the immune-evasive Beta variant was no less than that against the prototype strain, and a considerable level of neutralizing antibodies against Omicron (GMT: 367.67; 95%CI, 295.50-457.47) was induced by heterologous booster, which was substantially higher than that boosted by BBIBP-CorV (GMT: 45.03; 95%CI, 36.37-55.74). Our findings showed that NVSI-06-08 was safe and immunogenic as a booster dose following two doses of BBIBP-CorV, which was immunogenically superior to homologous boost with another dose of BBIBP-CorV. Our study also indicated that the design of hybrid antigen may provide an effective strategy for broad-spectrum vaccine developments.

medrxiv; 2022.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2021.12.29.21268499


Background: The increased coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) breakthrough cases pose the need of booster vaccinations. In this study, we reported the safety and immunogenicity of a heterologous boost with a recombinant COVID-19 vaccine (CHO cells), named NVSI-06-07, as a third dose in participants who have previously received two doses of the inactivated vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) at pre-specified time intervals. Using homologous boost with BBIBP-CorV as control, the safety and immunogenicity of the heterologous boost with NVSI-06-07 against various SARS-CoV-2 strains, including Omicron, were characterized. Methods: This study is a single-center, randomised, double-blinded, controlled phase 2 trial for heterologous boost of NVSI-06-07 in BBIBP-CorV recipients from the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Healthy adults (aged [≥]18 years) were enrolled and grouped by the specified prior vaccination interval of BBIBP-CorV, i.e., 1-3 months, 4-6 months or [≥]6 months, respectively, with 600 individuals per group. For each group, participants were randomly assigned at 1:1 ratio to receive either a heterologous boost of NVSI-06-07 or a homologous booster dose of BBIBP-CorV. The primary outcome was to comparatively assess the immunogenicity between heterologous and homologous boosts at 14 and 28 days post-boosting immunization, by evaluation of the geometric mean titers (GMTs) of IgG and neutralizing antibodies as well as the corresponding seroconversion rate ([≥]4-fold rise in antibody titers). The secondary outcomes were the safety profile of the boosting strategies within 30 days post vaccination. The exploratory outcome was the immune efficacy against Omicron and other variants of concern (VOCs) of SARS-CoV-2. This trial is registered with, NCT05033847. Findings: A total of 1800 individuals who have received two doses of BBIBP-CorV were enrolled, of which 899 participants received a heterologous boost of NVSI-06-07 and 901 received a homologous boost for comparison. No vaccine-related serious adverse event (SAE) and no adverse events of special interest (AESI) were reported. 184 (20.47%) participants in the heterologous boost groups and 177 (19.64%) in the homologous boost groups reported at least one adverse reaction within 30 days. Most of the local and systemic adverse reactions reported were grades 1 (mild) or 2 (moderate), and there was no significant difference in the overall safety between heterologous and homologous boosts. Immunogenicity assays showed that the seroconversion rates in neutralizing antibodies against prototype SARS-CoV-2 elicited by heterologous boost were 89.96% - 97.52% on day 28 post-boosting vaccination, which was much higher than what was induced by homologous boost (36.80% - 81.75%). Similarly, in heterologous NVSI-06-07 booster groups, the neutralizing geometric mean titers (GMTs) against the prototype strain increased by 21.01 - 63.85 folds from baseline to 28 days post-boosting vaccination, whereas only 4.20 - 16.78 folds of increases were observed in homologous BBIBP-CorV booster group. For Omicron variant, the neutralizing antibody GMT elicited by the homologous boost of BBIBP-CorV was 37.91 (95%CI, 30.35-47.35), however, a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibodies with GMT 292.53 (95%CI, 222.81-384.07) was induced by the heterologous boost of NVSI-06-07, suggesting that it may serve as an effective boosting strategy combating the pandemic of Omicron. The similar results were obtained for other VOCs, including Alpha, Beta and Delta, in which the neutralizing response elicited by the heterologous boost was also significantly greater than that of the homologous boost. In the participants primed with BBIBP-CorV over 6 months, the largest increase in the neutralizing GMTs was obtained both in the heterologous and homologous boost groups, and thus the booster vaccination with over 6 months intervals was optimal. Interpretation: Our findings indicated that the heterologous boost with NVSI-06-07 was safe, well-tolerated and immunogenic in adults primed with a full regimen of BBIBP-CorV. Compared to homologous boost with a third dose of BBIBP-CorV, incremental increases in immune responses were achieved by the heterologous boost with NVSI-06-07 against SARS-CoV-2 prototype strain, Omicron variant, and other VOCs. The heterologous BBIBP-CorV/NVSI-06-07 prime-boosting vaccination may be valuable in preventing the pandemic of Omicron. The optimal booster strategy was the heterologous boost with NVSI-06-07 over 6 months after a priming with two doses of BBIBP-CorV.

ssrn; 2021.
Preprint in English | PREPRINT-SSRN | ID: ppzbmed-10.2139.ssrn.3820545


Background: The COVID-19 vaccine for children and adolescents, who are indispensable populations to curb the pandemic, would protect this population against rare severe COVID-19 and infectious conditions. Here we aimed to assess the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of a candidate COVID-19 vaccine, CoronaVac, containing inactivated SARS-CoV-2, in children and adolescents aged 3-17 years old. Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1/2 clinical trial of CoronaVac in healthy children and adolescents aged 3-17 years old in Zanhuang (Hebei, China). Vaccine (in 0 ·5ml aluminum hydroxide adjuvant) or placebo (adjuvant only) was given by intramuscular injection in two doses (day 0 and day 28). We conducted phase 1 trial in 71 participants with an age de-escalation in tree groups and dose-escalation in two blocks (1.5ug or 3ug per injection). Within each block, participants were randomly assigned (3:1) using block randomisation to receive CoronaVac or placebo. In phase 2, participants were randomly assigned (2:2:1) using block randomisation to receive either CoronaVac at 1.5ug or 3ug per dose, or placebo. The primary safety endpoint was adverse reactions within 28 days after each injection in all participants who received at least one dose. The primary immunogenicity endpoint was seroconversion rate at 28 days after the second injection and its GMT as the secondary endpoint. This study is ongoing and is registered with (NCT04551547).Findings: Between October 31 and December 2, 2020, 72 participants were enrolled in phase 1, and between December 12 and December 30, 2020, 480 participants were enrolled in phase 2. 500 participants received at least one dose of vaccine or placebo (n=71 for phase 1 and n=479 for phase 2; safety population). In the combined safety profile of phase 1 and phase 2, any adverse reactions within 28 days after injection occurred in 56 (26%) of 219 participants in the 1·5ug group, 63 (29%) of 217 in the 3ug group and 27 (24%) of 114 in the placebo group, without significant difference. Most adverse reactions were mild and moderate in severity and injection site pain (73[13%]) of 550 participants was the most frequently reported event. As of March 12, 2021, only one serious adverse event has been reported, which was considered unrelated to vaccination. In phase 1, seroconversion after the second dose was observed in 27 of 27 participants (100·0% [95%CI 87·3-100·0]) in the 1·5ug groups and 26 of 26 participants (100·0% [86·8-100·0]) in the 3ug group, with the geometric mean titers of 55·0 (95%CI 38·9-77·9) and 117·4 (87·8-157·0). In phase 2, seroconversion was seen in 180 of 186 participants (96·8% [93·1-98·8]) in the 1·5ug group and 180 of 180 participants (100·0% [98·0-100·0]) in the 3ug group, with the geometric mean titers of 86·4 (73·9-101·0) and 142·2 (124·7-162·1). There were no detectable antibody responses in the placebo groups. Interpretation: CoronaVac was well tolerated and induced strong neutralising antibody responses in children and adolescents aged 3-17 years. The study has provided solid safety and immunogenicity data to support the further study and use of CoronaVac in children and adolescents.Trial Registration: NCT04551547Funding Statement: Chinese National Key Research and Development Program and Beijing Science and Technology Program.Declaration of Interests: QG and XL are employees of Sinovac Life Sciences Co., Ltd. YS, WY and LW are employees of Sinovac Biotech Ltd. All other authors declare no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: The clinical trial protocol and informed consent form were approved by the Ethics Committee of Hebei CDC (IRB2020-005).

researchsquare; 2021.


Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) emerged in China in December 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic hindered dental education and schools had to be closed. Online dental teaching provided an alternative teaching tool for dental education. However, it is not clear whether online dental teaching is efficient and what students preferred.Aim To investigate the effect of online dental teaching practices during the COVID-19 pandemic in China.Methods A total of 104 undergraduate dental students and 57 standardized resident physician training students from Zhejiang University were investigated. A 12-item survey was conducted. This investigation included teaching method, frequency of classes, degree of satisfaction, preferred teaching method, whether to participate in a course about COVID-19 prevention, and the effects of teaching. The percentage of the items were then calculated and evaluated.Results A total of 161 students participated in this survey. All students had online dental classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lecture-based learning (LBL), case-based learning (CBL), problem-based learning (PBL), and research-based learning (RBL) were selected as classroom subjects. Students were more satisfied with LBL and CBL than PBL and RBL. The majority of students had more than 4 classes per week. The most selected protective measures were hand washing, wearing masks, and wearing gloves. A total of 46.6% students had courses on COVID-19. After training, the students consciously chose to wear face masks and protective clothing.Conclusions Online dental teaching practices were effective during the COVID-19 pandemic. Students preferred LBL and CBL and were satisfied with the classes. Courses on COVID-19 helped students understand how to prevent COVID-19 in dental clinics.