ABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak started in Wuhan, China when people started with the symptoms of respiratory disorder. The onset of this disease have symptoms like fever, dry cough, fatigue, and difficulty in breathing. The nature of SARS-CoV-2 seems highly contagious as it also can be spread with asymptomatically infected individuals. It has been more than a year which this outbreak have been announced as a pandemic by World Health Organization (WHO) due to major public health crisis and uncontrollable around the globe. Some countries have taken initiatives in inventing vaccines and step up in the clinical trial process since a vaccine is an all-powerful tool which it always been a saviour in fighting infectious disease. In searching for the vaccine, researchers had studied the previously published article of SARS-CoV or MERS as in the beginning, in light, there will be a suitable vaccine to fight this pandemic situation. Recent research on the vaccine has been tested to seek the right vaccine for COVID-19. This study is to focus on the current vaccine development against COVID-19 and to explore the potential vaccines' characteristics that have been studied by the previous proven research findings. This review was done based on the research articles and reviews published until the end of April 2021 through established scientific search engines and related scientific platforms based on the inclusion criteria with its related keywords like coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccine, clinical trials, and COVID-19 vaccine development. This review summarized a few vaccine candidates that have entered clinical trials and some supported evidence from Phase I until Phase III clinical trial studies that have been published and reported. In this review, 12 vaccine candidates have the potential to against SARS-CoV-2. Thus, their vaccine platform, characteristic as well as its efficacy studies have been discussed.Copyright © RJPT All right reserved.
ABSTRACT
Background: Currently, the present world is facing a new deadly challenge from a pandemic disease called COVID-19, which is caused by a coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2. To date, no drug or vaccine can treat COVID-19 completely, but some drugs have been used primarily, and they are in different stages of clinical trials. This review article discussed and compared those drugs which are running ahead in COVID-19 treatments. Method(s): We have explored PUBMED, SCOPUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, as well as press releases of WHO, NIH and FDA for articles related to COVID-19 and reviewed them. Result(s): Drugs like favipiravir, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin, corticosteroids and interferons have been found effective to some extent, and partially approved by FDA and WHO to treat COVID-19 at different levels. However, some of these drugs have been disapproved later, although clinical trials are going on. In parallel, plasma therapy has been found fruitful to some extent too, and a number of vaccine trials are going on. Conclusion(s): This review article discussed the epidemiologic and mechanistic characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, and how drugs could act on this virus with the comparative discussion on progress and drawbacks of major drugs used till date, which might be beneficial for choosing therapies against COVID-19 in different countries.Copyright © 2022 Bentham Science Publishers.
ABSTRACT
Severe acute respiratory corona virus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a newly recognized pathogen and may cause severe respiratory illness among virus-infected people. The virus in the open market of Wuhan city, China was identified. The virus causative agent for the COVID-19 disease and became pandemic in December 2019 to now with no proper disease management protocols. So, the authors felt a need to bring awareness to the disease and its causative agent among worldwide.The current review article is trying to bringglance information on SARS-CoV-2 on various aspects of disease condition as Common characteristics, history, and mode of transmissions of the virus. The virus can be detected through investigations, Identified clinical manifestations for the virus, and available management used to treat the virus-infected patient. Here discussed possible preventive measures for SARS-CoV-2;to control the spread of the disease among the communities. This article information maybea help people to have an awareness of the disease.Health professional are trying hard for providing effective care to the virus affected people with minimal disease preventive protocols. People should understand the effectiveness of the vaccine and undergoing vaccination process which helps the spread of virus among the healthy people. Every individual should take initiation for the control of the disease spreads by following controlling measures.Copyright © RJPT All right reserved.
ABSTRACT
Background. DNA vaccines are safe, tolerable, elicit humoral and cellular responses, allow for repeated dosing over time, are thermostable at room temperature, and are easy to manufacture. We present a compilation of Phase 1 and Phase 2 data of Inovio's US COVID-19 DNA Vaccine (INO-4800) targeting the full-length Spike antigen of SARS-CoV-2. A South Korean Phase 2 study is ongoing. Methods. Participants in the open-label Phase 1 trial received 0.5 mg, 1.0 mg or 2.0 mg intradermally (ID) followed by electroporation (EP) at Days 0 and 28. An optional booster dose was administered >6 months post-dose 2. The Phase 2 further compared the 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg doses against placebo in a total of 401 participants randomized at a 3:3:1:1 ratio. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT04336410 and NCT04642638 Results. The majority of adverse events (AEs) related to INO-4800 across both trials were mild in severity and did not increase in frequency with age and subsequent doses. In Phase 1, 78% (14/18) and 84% (16/19) of subjects generated neutralizing antibody responses with geometric mean titers (GMTs) of 17.4 (95%CI 8.3, 36.5) and 62.3 (95% CI 36.4, 106.7) in the 1.0 and 2.0 groups, respectively (Figure 1). By week 8, 74% (14/19) and 100% (19/19) subjects generated T cell responses by Th1- associated IFNγ ELISPOT assay . Following a booster dose, neutralizing GMTs rose to 82.2 (95% CI 38.2, 176.9) and 124.7 (95% CI 62.8, 247.7) in the 1.0 mg and 2.0 mg groups, respectively, demonstrating the ability of INO-4800 to boost (Figure 2). In Phase 2, neutralizing antibody responses demonstrated GMTs of 93.6 (95%CI 77.3, 113.4) in the 1.0 mg dose group and 150.6 (95%CI 123.8, 183.1) in the 2.0 mg dose group (Figure 3). Conclusion. INO-4800 appears safe and tolerable as a primary series and as a booster with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses. In addition to eliciting neutralizing antibodies, INO-4800 also induced T cell immune responses as demonstrated by IFNγ ELISpot. Finally, as a homologous booster, INO-4800, when administered 6-10.5 months following the primary series, resulted in an increased immune response without increase in reactogenicity. The 2.0 mg dose was selected for Phase 3 evaluation.
ABSTRACT
Background. Global surveillance has identified emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) associated with increased transmissibility, disease severity, and resistance to neutralization by current vaccines under emergency use authorization (EUA). Here we assessed cross-immune responses of INO-4800 vaccinated subjects against SARS-CoV-2 VOCs. Methods. We used a SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA and a pseudo neutralization assay to assess humoral responses, and an IFNγ ELISpot to measure cellular responses against SARS-CoV-2 VOC in subjects immunized with the DNA vaccine, INO-4800. Results. IgG binding titers were not impacted between wild-type (WT) and B.1.1.7 or B.1.351 variants. An average 1.9-fold reduction was observed for the P.1 variant in subjects tested at week 8 after receiving two doses of INO-4800 (Figure 1a). We performed a SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus neutralization assay using sera collected from 13 subjects two weeks after administration of a third dose of either 0.5 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg of INO-4800. Neutralization was detected against WT and the emerging variants in all samples tested. The mean ID50 titers for the WT, B.1.1.7, B.1.351 and P.1. were 643 (range: 70-729), 295 (range: 46-886), 105 (range: 25-309), and 664 (range: 25-2087), respectively. Compared to WT, there was a 2.1 and 6.9-fold reduction for B.1.1.7 and B.1.351, respectively, while there was no difference between WT and the P.1 variant (Figure 1b). Next, we compared cellular immune responses to WT and SARS-CoV-2 Spike variants elicited by INO-4800 vaccination. We observed similar cellular responses to WT (median = 82.2 IQR = 58.9-205.3), B.1.1.7 (79.4, IQR = 38.9- 179.7), B.1.351 (80, IQR = 40.0-208.6) and P.1 (78.3, IQR = 53.1-177.8) Spike peptides (Figure 2). Conclusion. INO-4800 vaccination induced neutralizing antibodies against all variants tested, with reduced levels detected against B.1.351. IFNγ T cell responses were fully maintained against all variants tested.