Efficacy and Safety of a Booster Vaccination with Two Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines on Symptomatic COVID-19 Infection in Adults: Results of a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial in Abu Dhabi.

IMPORTANCE: The protective efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations has declined over time such that booster doses are required. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of booster doses of two inactivated COVID-19 vaccines. DESIGN: This is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial aiming to evaluate the protective efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Vero cells) after inoculation with booster doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. SETTING: Healthy volunteers were recruited in an earlier phase 3 trial of two doses of inactivated vaccine. The participants in Abu Dhabi maintained the blind state of the trial and received a booster dose of vaccine or placebo at least six months after the primary immunization. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 and older with no history of SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2, or Middle East respiratory syndrome infection (via onsite inquiry) were screened for eligibility. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 9370 volunteers were screened and randomly allocated, of which 61 voluntarily withdrew from the screening stage without booster inoculation; 9309 received the booster vaccination, with 3083 in the WIV04 group, 3150 in the HB02 group, and 3076 in the alum-only group. Further, 5µg and 4µg of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virion was adsorbed into aluminum hydroxide in a 0.5 mL aqueous suspension for WIV04 and HB02 vaccines. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcome was the prevention of PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 from 14 days after the booster vaccine in the per-protocol population. A safety analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Symptomatic COVID-19 was identified in 36 participants in the WIV04 group (9.9 [95% CI, 7.2-13.8] per 1000 person-years), 28 in the HB02 group (7.6 [95% CI, 5.2-11.0] per 1000 person-years), and 193 in the alum-only group (55.2 [95% CI, 47.9-63.5] per 1000 person-years), resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 82.0% (95% CI, 74.2-87.8%) for WIV04 and 86.3% (95% CI, 79.6-91.1%) for HB02. One severe case of COVID-19 occurred in the alum-only group, and none occurred in the vaccine groups. Adverse reactions within seven days after vaccination occurred in 29.4% to 34.3% of participants in the three groups. Serious adverse events were rare and not related to vaccines (WIV04: 17 [0.5%]; HB02: 11 [0.4%]; alum only: 40 [1.3%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study evaluated the safety of the booster dose, which was well tolerated by participants. Booster doses given over six months after the completion of primary immunization can help to provide more-effective protection against COVID-19 in healthy people 18 years of age or older. At the same time, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies produced by the two groups of experimental vaccines exhibited extensive cross-neutralization against representative SARS-CoV-2 variants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04510207).

Safety and immunogenicity of a mosaic vaccine booster against Omicron and other SARS-CoV-2 variants: a randomized phase 2 trial.

An ongoing randomized, double-blind, controlled phase 2 trial was conducted to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of a mosaic-type recombinant vaccine candidate, named NVSI-06-09, as a booster dose in subjects aged 18 years and older from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), who had administered two or three doses of inactivated vaccine BBIBP-CorV at least 6 months prior to enrollment. The participants were randomly assigned with 1:1 to receive a booster dose of NVSI-06-09 or BBIBP-CorV. The primary outcomes were immunogenicity and safety against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant, and the exploratory outcome was cross-immunogenicity against other circulating strains. Between May 25 and 30, 2022, 516 adults received booster vaccination with 260 in NVSI-06-09 group and 256 in BBIBP-CorV group. Interim results showed a similar safety profile between two booster groups, with low incidence of adverse reactions of grade 1 or 2. For immunogenicity, by day 14 post-booster, the fold rises in neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) from baseline elicited by NVSI-06-09 were remarkably higher than those by BBIBP-CorV against the prototype strain (19.67 vs 4.47-fold), Omicron BA.1.1 (42.35 vs 3.78-fold), BA.2 (25.09 vs 2.91-fold), BA.4 (22.42 vs 2.69-fold), and BA.5 variants (27.06 vs 4.73-fold). Similarly, the neutralizing GMTs boosted by NVSI-06-09 against Beta and Delta variants were also 6.60-fold and 7.17-fold higher than those by BBIBP-CorV. Our findings indicated that a booster dose of NVSI-06-09 was well-tolerated and elicited broad-spectrum neutralizing responses against divergent SARS-CoV-2 variants, including Omicron and its sub-lineages.

Durability of antibodies post vaccination with two doses of inactivated BBIBP-CorV vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Breakthrough infections post-COVID-19 vaccination occur with the emerging variants of the SARS-CoV virus which might be either due to the newer variants escaping immune response or the waning of antibodies over time. However, there is lack of long-term follow-up evidence on the waning of immune response following inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: A retrospective, observational study was conducted on serum samples of individuals who had received two doses of BBIBP-CorV vaccine. Individual's antibody responses were evaluated based on IgG anti-S and neutralizing antibodies measurements. Antibody samples were categorized into four groups, defined by the time interval from the individual's receipt of the BBIBP-CorV vaccine: <30 days, 30-90 days, 91-180 days and >180 days. RESULTS: A total of 6668 serum samples from inactivated BBIBP-CorV vaccine recipients were analyzed for IgG anti-S and neutralizing antibodies. 571 (8.6%) samples were tested during the first 29 days interval post vaccination, 3642 (54.6%) were tested during 30-90 days interval, 2173 (32.6%) samples were tested during 91 to 180 days interval and 282(4.2%) were tested at >180 days interval post vaccination. We found that more than 50% of the individuals had antibody titers below the average cut-off range at the 91-180 days interval post vaccination. Older age (>60 years), male gender, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, immunodeficiencies and increased interval post vaccination emerged as independent risk factors associated with lower immune response. CONCLUSION: Inactivated BBIBP-CorV vaccine recipients, based on age, gender and associated comorbid conditions might need booster doses at an earlier interval than the currently followed six months interval.

Effectiveness of BBIBP-CorV vaccine against severe outcomes of COVID-19 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

The effectiveness of the inactivated BBIBP-CorV vaccine against severe COVID-19 outcomes (hospitalization, critical care admission and death due to COVID-19) and its long-term effectiveness have not been well characterized among the general population. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records of 3,147,869 adults, of which 1,099,886 vaccinated individuals were matched, in a 1:1 ratio to 1,099,886 unvaccinated persons. A Cox-proportional hazard model with time varying coefficients was used to assess the vaccine effectiveness adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity, ethnicity, and the calendar month of entry into the study. Our analysis showed that the effectiveness was 79.6% (95% CI, 77.7 to 81.3) against hospitalization, 86% (95% CI, 82.2 to 89.0) against critical care admission, and 84.1% (95% CI, 70.8 to 91.3) against death due to COVID-19. The effectiveness against these severe outcomes declined over time indicating the need for booster doses to increase protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Safety and immunogenicity of a hybrid-type vaccine booster in BBIBP-CorV recipients in a randomized phase 2 trial.

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 evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of NVSI-06-08 as a heterologous booster dose in BBIBP-CorV recipients 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 have administered two doses of BBIBP-CorV 4-6-month, 7-9-month and >9-month earlier, respectively, are randomized 1:1 to receive either a homologous booster of BBIBP-CorV or a heterologous booster of NVSI-06-08. The incidence of adverse reactions is low, and the overall safety profile is quite similar between two booster regimens. Both Neutralizing and IgG antibodies elicited by NVSI-06-08 booster are significantly higher than those by BBIBP-CorV booster against not only SARS-CoV-2 prototype strain but also multiple variants of concerns (VOCs). Especially, the neutralizing antibody GMT against Omicron variant induced by heterologous NVSI-06-08 booster reaches 367.67, which is substantially greater than that boosted by BBIBP-CorV (GMT: 45.03). In summary, NVSI-06-08 is safe and immunogenic as a booster dose following two doses of BBIBP-CorV, which is immunogenically superior to the homologous boost with another dose of BBIBP-CorV.

Clinical prediction system of complications among patients with COVID-19: A development and validation retrospective multicentre study during first wave of the pandemic.

Clinical evidence suggests that some patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience a variety of complications associated with significant morbidity, especially in severe cases during the initial spread of the pandemic. To support early interventions, we propose a machine learning system that predicts the risk of developing multiple complications. We processed data collected from 3,352 patient encounters admitted to 18 facilities between April 1 and April 30, 2020, in Abu Dhabi (AD), United Arab Emirates. Using data collected during the first 24 h of admission, we trained machine learning models to predict the risk of developing any of three complications after 24 h of admission. The complications include Secondary Bacterial Infection (SBI), Acute Kidney Injury (AKI), and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). The hospitals were grouped based on geographical proximity to assess the proposed system's learning generalizability, AD Middle region and AD Western & Eastern regions, A and B, respectively. The overall system includes a data filtering criterion, hyperparameter tuning, and model selection. In test set A, consisting of 587 patient encounters (mean age: 45.5), the system achieved a good area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for the prediction of SBI (0.902 AUROC), AKI (0.906 AUROC), and ARDS (0.854 AUROC). Similarly, in test set B, consisting of 225 patient encounters (mean age: 42.7), the system performed well for the prediction of SBI (0.859 AUROC), AKI (0.891 AUROC), and ARDS (0.827 AUROC). The performance results and feature importance analysis highlight the system's generalizability and interpretability. The findings illustrate how machine learning models can achieve a strong performance even when using a limited set of routine input variables. Since our proposed system is data-driven, we believe it can be easily repurposed for different outcomes considering the changes in COVID-19 variants over time.

Immunogenicity and safety of NVSI-06-07 as a heterologous booster after priming with BBIBP-CorV: a phase 2 trial.

The increased coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) breakthrough cases pose the need of booster vaccination. We conducted a randomised, double-blinded, controlled, phase 2 trial to assess the immunogenicity and safety of the heterologous prime-boost vaccination with an inactivated COVID-19 vaccine (BBIBP-CorV) followed by a recombinant protein-based vaccine (NVSI-06-07), using homologous boost with BBIBP-CorV as control. Three groups of healthy adults (600 individuals per group) who had completed two-dose BBIBP-CorV vaccinations 1-3 months, 4-6 months and ≥6 months earlier, respectively, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either NVSI-06-07 or BBIBP-CorV boost. Immunogenicity assays showed that in NVSI-06-07 groups, neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (GMTs) against the prototype SARS-CoV-2 increased by 21.01-63.85 folds on day 28 after vaccination, whereas only 4.20-16.78 folds of increases were observed in control groups. For Omicron variant, the neutralizing antibody GMT elicited by homologous boost was 37.91 on day 14, however, a significantly higher neutralizing GMT of 292.53 was induced by heterologous booster. Similar results were obtained for other SARS-CoV-2 variants of concerns (VOCs), including Alpha, Beta and Delta. Both heterologous and homologous boosters have a good safety profile. Local and systemic adverse reactions were absent, mild or moderate in most participants, and the overall safety was quite similar between two booster schemes. Our findings indicated that NVSI-06-07 is safe and immunogenic as a heterologous booster in BBIBP-CorV recipients and was immunogenically superior to the homologous booster against not only SARS-CoV-2 prototype strain but also VOCs, including Omicron.

Vaccine Side Effects Following COVID-19 Vaccination Among the Residents of the UAE-An Observational Study.

COVID-19 vaccines have proven to be very safe in the clinical trials, however, there is less evidence comparing the safety of these vaccines in real-world settings. Therefore, we aim to investigate the nature and severity of the adverse effects reported and the differences based on the type of vaccine received. A survey was conducted among 1,878 adult (≥18 years) COVID-19 vaccine recipients through online survey platforms and telephonic interviews during March to September 2021. The factors potentially associated with the reported side effects like age, gender, ethnicity, comorbidities, and previous COVID-19 infection were analyzed based on the type of vaccine received. Differences in adverse events and the severity were compared between inactivated and mRNA vaccine recipients. The major adverse effects reported by the COVID-19 vaccine recipients were pain at the site of injection, fatigue and drowsiness, and headache followed by joint/muscle pain. The adverse effects were more common among recipients of mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than among recipients of inactive Sinopharm vaccine with the odds ratio of 1.39 (95% CI 1.14-1.68). The average number of adverse effects reported between individuals who had received Sinopharm and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was 1.61 ± 2.08 and 2.20 ± 2.58, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (p <0.001). Severe adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccinations were rare and 95% of the adverse effects reported after either an inactivated or mRNA vaccine were mild requiring no or home-based treatment. The study found that individuals less than 55 years of age, female gender, with history of one or more comorbid conditions, who had received mRNA Pfizer- BioNTech vaccine, and with history of COVID-19 infections are at higher odds of developing an adverse effect post COVID-19 vaccination compared to the others.

The incidence of COVID-19 infection following emergency use authorization of BBIBP-CORV inactivated vaccine in frontline workers in the United Arab Emirates.

Based on the findings from the Phase III clinical trials of inactivated SARS COV-2 Vaccine, (BBIBP-CORV) emergency use authorization (EUA) was granted for the vaccine to frontline workers in the UAE. A prospective cohort study was conducted among frontline workers to estimate the incidence rate and risk of symptomatic COVID-19 infection 14 days after the second dose of inoculation with BBIBP-CORV inactivated vaccine. Those who received two doses of the BBIBP-CORV vaccine in the period from 14th of September 2020 (first dose) to 21st of December 2020 (second dose) were followed up for COVID-19 infections. 11,322 individuals who received the two-dose BBIBP-CORV vaccine were included and were followed up post the second dose plus fourteen days. The incidence rate of symptomatic infection was 0.08 per 1000-person days (95% CI 0.07, 0.10). The estimated absolute risk of developing symptomatic infection was 0.97% (95% CI 0.77%, 1.17%). The confirmed seroconversion rate was 92.8%. There were no serious adverse events reported and no individuals suffered from severe disease. Our findings show that vaccinated individuals are likely to remain protected against symptomatic infection or becoming PCR positive for SARS COV 2 following the second dose of the vaccination.

Immune response of booster doses of BBIBP-CORV vaccines against the variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Booster doses for COVID-19 vaccinations are currently recommended and approved in many countries. However, we need more evidence on the immune response of individuals to booster doses of inactivated vaccines and the neutralizing effect against the variants of concerns of SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: To compare the fold reduction in antibody titers against the variants of concerns of SARS-CoV-2 between the primary doses and booster dose vaccine cohorts of inactivated BBIBP-CorV vaccine. STUDY DESIGN: In this observational study Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT) assay was done on pooled serum samples of the recipients of primary two doses of inactivated BBIBP-CorV and on the pooled serum samples of recipients of a booster dose of inactive BBIBP-CorV. The neutralizing antibody titers against the wild (Wuhan) strain and the variants of concern (alpha, beta and delta) were compared. RESULTS: The serum sample pool from the booster cohort had high neutralizing antibody titers against the SARS-CoV-2 variants compared to the pooled serum samples of the recipients of primary two doses of inactivated BBIBP-CorV and the difference was statistically significant. The observed fold reduction in antibody titers from the serum pool of recipients of two doses of BBIBP-CorV vaccine were 3.7-fold, 14.6-fold and 10.4-fold compared to 1.8 -fold, 6.5-fold and 3.8-fold reduction against the alpha, beta and delta lineages respectively in the serum pool of recipient of a booster dose (three doses of BBIBP-CorV). CONCLUSION: Booster doses of inactive BBIBP-CORV offered better protection against the variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2.

Impact of the Sinopharm's BBIBP-CorV vaccine in preventing hospital admissions and death in infected vaccinees: Results from a retrospective study in the emirate of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

BACKGROUND: This is a community-based, retrospective, observational study conducted to determine effectiveness of the BBIBP-CorV inactivated vaccine in the real-world setting against hospital admissions and death. STUDY DESIGN: Study participants were selected from 214,940 PCR-positive cases of COVID-19 reported to the Department of Health, Abu Dhabi Emirate, United Arab Emirates (UAE) between September 01, 2020 and May 1, 2021. Of these, 176,640 individuals were included in the study who were aged ≥ 15 years with confirmed COVID-19 positive status who had records linked to their vaccination status. Those with incomplete or missing records were excluded (n = 38,300). Study participants were divided into three groups depending upon their vaccination status: fully vaccinated (two doses), partially vaccinated (single dose), and non-vaccinated. Study outcomes included COVID-19-related admissions to hospital general and critical care wards and death. Vaccine effectiveness for each outcome was based on the incidence density per 1000 person-years. RESULTS: The fully-, partially- and non-vaccinated groups included 62,931, 21,768 and 91,941 individuals, respectively. Based on the incidence rate ratios, the vaccine effectiveness in fully vaccinated individuals was 80%, 92%, and 97% in preventing COVID-19-related hospital admissions, critical care admissions, and death, respectively, when compared to the non-vaccinated group. No protection was observed for critical and non-critical care hospital admissions for the partially vaccinated group, while some protection against death was apparent, although statistically insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: In a COVID-19 pandemic, use of the Sinopharm BBIBP-CorV inactivated vaccine is effective in preventing severe disease and death in a two-dose regimen. Lack of protection with the single dose may be explained by insufficient seroconversion and/or neutralizing antibody responses, behavioral factors (i.e., false sense of protection), and/or other biological factors (emergence of variants, possibility of reinfection, duration of vaccine protection, etc.).

COVID-19 Crisis Management: Lessons From the United Arab Emirates Leaders.

This study analyses the UAE leadership's approach in response to the COVID-19 crisis through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's Strategic Crisis Management Framework. This framework analyzes the crisis management in three phases: the preparedness, the response to mitigate damage and the feedback mechanism after the crisis. The analysis showed that the key components of the UAE's crisis management included efficient and able governance, integrated utilization of public-private partnerships and a global workforce of excellence. As a result, the UAE now ranks among the top 10 countries worldwide for its leadership and proactive approach during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Global Response to Infectious Diseases Index. The SWOT analysis on the response toward COVID-19 crisis management helped in critically analyzing and understanding the UAE's unified and systematic response to the pandemic, which provides developing and developed countries alike a new high standard for leadership and effective public health management.

An analysis of antibody responses and clinical sequalae of the Sinopharm HB02 COVID19 vaccine in dialysis patients in the United Arab Emirates.

AIM: To establish the responses to the Sinopharm HB02 COVID-19 vaccination in the dialysis population, which are not well established. We examined the humoral responses to the Sinopharm COVID vaccine in haemodialysis patients. METHODS: Standard vaccinations (two doses at interval of ~21 days) were given to all consenting haemodialysis patients on dialysis (n = 1296). We measured the antibody responses at 14-21 days after the second vaccine to define the development of anti-spike antibodies >15 AU/ml after vaccination and observed the clinical effects of vaccination. RESULTS: Vaccination was very well tolerated with few side-effects. In those who consented to antibody measurements, (n = 446) baseline sampling showed 77 had positive antibodies, yet received full vaccination without any apparent adverse events. Positive anti-spike antibodies developed in 50% of the 270 baseline negative patients who had full sampling, compared with 78.1% in the general population. COVID infection continues to occur in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, but in the whole group vaccination appears to have been associated with a reduction in the case fatality rate. CONCLUSION: The humoral immune responses to standard HB02 vaccination schedules are attenuated in a haemodialysis cohort, but likely the vaccine saves lives. We suggest that an enhanced HB02 vaccination course or antibody checking may be prudent to protect this vulnerable group of patients. We suggest a booster dose of this vaccine at 3 months should be given to all dialysis patients, on the grounds that it is well tolerated even in those with good antibody levels and there may be a survival advantage.

Serological Assays for Assessing Postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response.

Serological assays for measuring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies have crucial applications in the control and surveillance of the current COVID-19 pandemic. A large number of such assays have been developed and are now commercially available. However, there are limited studies evaluating the performance of these tests. We evaluated the performances of the following six commercially available serological assays for detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: (i) Genscript cPass surrogate virus neutralization test (Genscript cPass), (ii) Diasorin-SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG detection (Diasorin-S1/S2 IgG), (iii) Alinity SARS-CoV-2 IgG II (Alinity IgG II), (iv) Diasorin-SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG (Diasorin-TrimericS IgG), (v) Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2-cobas (Roche Elecsys), and (vi) AESKU enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (AESKULISA). The results of these tests were compared against the gold standard plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). Roche Elecsys had the highest sensitivity, and the Genscript cPass had the highest specificity. Diasorin-TrimericS IgG had the best overall performance with the highest agreement with the PRNT results. Parallel testing of Genscript cPass with Diasorin-TrimericS IgG and Diasorin-S1/S2 IgG had the optimum performance. Based on the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, lowering the cutoff from 30% to 20% in the Genscript cPass significantly increased the sensitivity and the overall agreement with the PRNT results. Commercially available serological assays are good alternatives to the standard PRNT. However, further studies on larger sample numbers are required for optimization of the assay cutoff values and for evaluation of cost effectiveness. IMPORTANCE Commercial serological assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are now widely available. This study adds new knowledge regarding the optimization of these assays for evaluating postvaccination antibodies status. It highlights the positive and negative aspects of each assay in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values, compared to the gold standard neutralization test. When using serological assays to assess postvaccine immune status, a balance of all parameters needs to be considered and not simply the high specificity. This balance is particularly relevant in the current situation where countries are aiming to mass vaccinate their populations and bring this pandemic under control. Assays with good sensitivity will have a lower percentage of false negatives and thus provide confidence for vaccination. Understanding the strengths and limitations of commercially available serological assays is important, not only for better application of these tests but also to understand the immune response and the duration of protection postvaccination.

Understanding perception and acceptance of Sinopharm vaccine and vaccination against COVID-19 in the UAE.

BACKGROUND: In the current COVID-19 pandemic, the world has reached an important milestone where vaccinations are discovered and are proven to be effective against SARS-COV-2 infections. Though vaccines against COVID-19 are now available, around the globe there is some hesitancy in getting the vaccine. This hesitancy to get vaccinated against COVID-19 is a complex phenomenon with various factors playing a role. This study aims at understanding the perception and expectations of the people about COVID-19 vaccine and the factors influencing the vaccine acceptance. This information is crucial to challenge vaccine hesitancy and to win the combat against the COVID-19 Pandemic through voluntary vaccine efforts. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey among the residents of the UAE to understand the expectations and perception on vaccination against COVID-19. The survey was conducted online, and the survey design included participant samples to be representative of UAE's demographics. The results of the survey were analysed with various demographical variables of interest. RESULTS: The survey showed that people were more likely to get vaccinated when vaccines are (i) endorsed by trusted government health authorities, (ii) recommended by physicians and family doctors, and (iii) the merits are effectively communicated through government websites and trusted news channels. Availability of vaccines at multiple sites and providing vaccines free of charges are likely to improve the rate of vaccination. The perceptions, expectations and the motivational factors needed for people to get vaccinated differed with age, gender, marital status, income level, and employment status. CONCLUSION: To attain herd immunity against COVID-19, a large proportion of the population needs to be vaccinated and to achieve this the vaccination campaigns should target on specific expectations and motivational factors pertaining to each target group to successfully overcome the challenge of vaccine hesitancy.

Evaluation of six different rapid methods for nucleic acid detection of SARS-COV-2 virus.

In the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic there is a mass screening of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) happening around the world due to the extensive spread of the infections. There is a high demand for rapid diagnostic tests to expedite the identification of cases and to facilitate early isolation and control spread. Hence this study evaluates six different rapid nucleic acid detection assays that are commercially available for SARS-CoV-2 virus detection. Nasopharyngeal samples were collected from 4981 participants and were tested for the SARS-CoV-2 virus by the gold standard real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method and with one of these six rapid methods of detection. Evaluation of the rapid nucleic acid detection assays was done by comparing the results of these rapid methods with the gold standard RT-qPCR results for SARS-COV-2 detection. AQ-TOP had the highest sensitivity (98%) and a strong kappa value of 0.943 followed by Genechecker and Abbot ID NOW. The POCKIT (ii RT-PCR) assay had the highest test accuracy of 99.29% followed by Genechecker and Cobas Liat. Atila iAMP showed the highest percentage of invalid reports (35.5%) followed by AQ-TOP with 6% and POCKIT with 3.7% of invalid reports. Genechecker system, Abbott ID NOW, and Cobas Liat were found to have the best performance and agreement when compared with the standard RT-PCR for COVID-19 detection. With further research, these rapid tests have the potential to be employed in large-scale screening of COVID-19.

Effect of 2 Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines on Symptomatic COVID-19 Infection in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although effective vaccines against COVID-19 have been developed, additional vaccines are still needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of 2 inactivated COVID-19 vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified interim analysis of an ongoing randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain among adults 18 years and older without known history of COVID-19. Study enrollment began on July 16, 2020. Data sets used for the interim analysis of efficacy and adverse events were locked on December 20, 2020, and December 31, 2020, respectively. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive 1 of 2 inactivated vaccines developed from SARS-CoV-2 WIV04 (5 µg/dose; n = 13 459) and HB02 (4 µg/dose; n = 13 465) strains or an aluminum hydroxide (alum)-only control (n = 13 458); they received 2 intramuscular injections 21 days apart. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was efficacy against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 14 days following a second vaccine dose among participants who had no virologic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at randomization. The secondary outcome was efficacy against severe COVID-19. Incidence of adverse events and reactions was collected among participants who received at least 1 dose. Results: Among 40 382 participants randomized to receive at least 1 dose of the 2 vaccines or alum-only control (mean age, 36.1 years; 32 261 [84.4%] men), 38 206 (94.6%) who received 2 doses, contributed at least 1 follow-up measure after day 14 following the second dose, and had negative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test results at enrollment were included in the primary efficacy analysis. During a median (range) follow-up duration of 77 (1-121) days, symptomatic COVID-19 was identified in 26 participants in the WIV04 group (12.1 [95% CI, 8.3-17.8] per 1000 person-years), 21 in the HB02 group (9.8 [95% CI, 6.4-15.0] per 1000 person-years), and 95 in the alum-only group (44.7 [95% CI, 36.6-54.6] per 1000 person-years), resulting in a vaccine efficacy, compared with alum-only, of 72.8% (95% CI, 58.1%-82.4%) for WIV04 and 78.1% (95% CI, 64.8%-86.3%) for HB02 (P < .001 for both). Two severe cases of COVID-19 occurred in the alum-only group and none occurred in the vaccine groups. Adverse reactions 7 days after each injection occurred in 41.7% to 46.5% of participants in the 3 groups; serious adverse events were rare and similar in the 3 groups (WIV04: 64 [0.5%]; HB02: 59 [0.4%]; alum-only: 78 [0.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prespecified interim analysis of a randomized clinical trial, treatment of adults with either of 2 inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines significantly reduced the risk of symptomatic COVID-19, and serious adverse events were rare. Data collection for final analysis is pending. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04510207; Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000034780.

Genomic epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in the UAE reveals novel virus mutation, patterns of co-infection and tissue specific host immune response.

To unravel the source of SARS-CoV-2 introduction and the pattern of its spreading and evolution in the United Arab Emirates, we conducted meta-transcriptome sequencing of 1067 nasopharyngeal swab samples collected between May 9th and Jun 29th, 2020 during the first peak of the local COVID-19 epidemic. We identified global clade distribution and eleven novel genetic variants that were almost absent in the rest of the world and that defined five subclades specific to the UAE viral population. Cross-settlement human-to-human transmission was related to the local business activity. Perhaps surprisingly, at least 5% of the population were co-infected by SARS-CoV-2 of multiple clades within the same host. We also discovered an enrichment of cytosine-to-uracil mutation among the viral population collected from the nasopharynx, that is different from the adenosine-to-inosine change previously reported in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples and a previously unidentified upregulation of APOBEC4 expression in nasopharynx among infected patients, indicating the innate immune host response mediated by ADAR and APOBEC gene families could be tissue-specific. The genomic epidemiological and molecular biological knowledge reported here provides new insights for the SARS-CoV-2 evolution and transmission and points out future direction on host-pathogen interaction investigation.

Evaluation of pooling of samples for testing SARS-CoV- 2 for mass screening of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The current pandemic of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, widely known as COVID-19, has affected millions of people around the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended vigorous testing to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 from other respiratory infections to aid in guiding appropriate care and management. Situations like this have demanded robust testing strategies and pooled testing of samples for SARS-CoV-2 virus has provided the solution to mass screening of people for COVID-19. A pooled testing strategy can be very effective in testing when resources are limited, yet it comes with its own limitations. These benefits and limitations need critical consideration when it comes to testing highly infectious diseases like COVID-19. METHODS: This study evaluated the pooled testing of nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-COV-2 by comparing the sensitivity of individual sample testing with 4-and 8-pool sample testing. Median cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared, and the precision of pooled testing was assessed through an inter- and intra-assay of pooled samples. Coefficient of variance was calculated for inter- and intra-assay variability. RESULTS: The sensitivity becomes considerably lower when the samples are pooled. There is a high percentage of false negative reports with larger sample pool size and when the patient viral load is low or weak positive samples. High variability was seen in the intra- and inter-assay, especially among weak positive samples and when more number of samples are pooled together. CONCLUSION: As COVID - 19 infection numbers and need for testing remain high, we must meticulously evaluate the testing strategy for each country depending on its testing capacity, infrastructure, economic strength, and need to determine the optimal balance on the cost-effective strategy of resource saving and risk/ cost of missing positive patients.