An Evaluation of the Safety and Immunogenicity of MVC-COV1901: Results of an interim analysis of a phase III, parallel group, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study

BackgroundData from previous studies of the MVC-COV1901 vaccine, a subunit vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 based on the stable prefusion spike protein (S-2P) adjuvanted with CpG 1018 adjuvant and aluminum hydroxide, suggest that the vaccine is generally safe and elicits a good immune response in healthy adults and adolescents. By comparing with AZD1222, this study adds to the findings from previous trials and further evaluates the breadth of protection offered by MVC-COV1901. MethodsIn this phase 3, parallel group, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial conducted in 2 sites in Paraguay, we assigned adults aged 18 to 91 years in a 1:1 ratio to receive intramuscular doses of MVC-COV1901 or AZD1222 administered as scheduled in the clinical trial. Serum samples were collected on the day of vaccination and 14 days after the second dose. Primary and secondary safety and immunogenicity endpoints were assessed. In addition, other outcomes investigated were cross-reactive immunity against the Omicron strain and the induction of IgG subclasses. ResultsA total of 1,030 participants underwent randomization. Safety data was derived from this set while primary immunogenicity data involved a per-protocol immunogenicity (PPI) subset including 225 participants. Among the participants, 58% are seropositive at baseline. When compared against AZD1222, MVC-COV1901 exhibited superiority in terms of neutralizing antibody titers and non-inferiority in terms of seroconversion rates. Reactogenicity was generally mild and no serious adverse event was attributable to MVC-COV1901. Both vaccines have a Th1-biased response predominated by the production of IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses. Omicron-neutralizing titers were 44.5 times lower compared to wildtype-neutralizing titers among seronegative individuals at baseline. This fold-reduction was 3.0 times among the seropositive. ConclusionResults presented here demonstrate the safe and robust immunogenicity from MVC-COV1901. Previous infection coupled with vaccination of this vaccine may offer protection against the Omicron strain though its durability is still unknown. ClinicalTrials.gov registrationNCT05011526

Safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine MVC-COV1901 in adolescents in Taiwan: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial

BackgroundMVC-COV1901 is a subunit SARS-CoV-2 vaccine based on the prefusion spike protein S-2P and adjuvanted with CpG 1018 and aluminum hydroxide. Although MVC-COV1901 has been licensed for emergency use for adults in Taiwan, the safety and immunogenicity of MVC-COV1901 in adolescents remained unknown. As young people play an important role in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and epidemiology, a vaccine approved for adolescents and eventually, children, will be important in mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsThis study is a prospective, double-blind, multi-center phase 2 trial evaluating the safety, tolerability and immunogenicity of two doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine MVC-COV1901 in adolescents. Healthy adolescents from age of 12 to 17 years were recruited and randomly assigned (6:1) to receive two intramuscular doses of either MVC-COV1901 or placebo at 28 days apart. The primary outcomes were safety and immunogenicity from the day of first vaccination (Day 1) to 28 days after the second vaccination (Day 57), and immunogenicity of MVC COV1901 in adolescents as compared to young adult vaccinees in terms of neutralizing antibody titers and seroconversion rate. The secondary outcomes were safety and immunogenicity of MVC-COV1901 as compared to placebo in adolescents in terms of immunoglobulin titers and neutralizing antibody titers over the study period. ResultsBetween July 21, 2021 and December 22, 2021, a total of 399 adolescent participants were included for safety evaluation after enrollment to receive at least one dose of either MVC-COV1901 (N=341) or placebo (N=58). Of these, 334 and 46 participants went on to receive two doses of either MVC-COV1901 or placebo, respectively, and were included in the per protocol set (PPS) for immunogenicity analysis. Adverse events were mostly mild and were similar in MVC-COV1901 and placebo groups. The most commonly reported adverse events were pain/tenderness and malaise/fatigue. All immunogenicity endpoints in the adolescent group were non-inferior to the endpoints seen in the young adult and placebo groups. ConclusionsThe safety and immunogenicity data presented here showed that MVC-COV1901 has similar safety profile and non-inferior immunogenicity in adolescents compared to young adults. ClinicalTrials.gov registrationNCT04951388.

The reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a booster dose after the second dose of a protein subunit vaccine MVC-COV1901.

The waning antibody levels after immunization and the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC) negatively impact the vaccine-induced neutralization of SARS-CoV-2. In this extension to the phase 1 clinical study, we report the antibody durability until 180 days after the second dose of MVC-COV1901, and examined the reactogenicity and immunogenicity followed by a booster shot MVC-COV1901 administered to 45 healthy adults from 20 to 49 years of age on day 209. Adverse reactions after the booster dose were mostly mild and comparable to that of the first two doses. Neutralizing antibodies remained detectable on day 209 at 59.4, 79.4, and 113.2 (IU/mL) for low dose (LD), middle dose (MD), and high dose (HD) groups, respectively. At four weeks after the booster dose, neutralizing titers increased to 1719.6, 818.3, and 1345.6 for LD, MD, and HD groups, respectively. Our data also showed that three doses of MVC-COV1901-induced antibodies were still effective, albeit lowered neutralizing titers, against the Omicron variant.

The timing of COVID-19 transmission

The timing of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is a critical factor to understand the epidemic trajectory and the impact of isolation, contact tracing and other non-pharmaceutical interventions on the spread of COVID-19 epidemics. We examined the distribution of transmission events with respect to exposure and onset of symptoms. We show that for symptomatic individuals, the timing of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is more strongly linked to the onset of clinical symptoms of COVID-19 than to the time since infection. We found that it was approximately centered and symmetric around the onset of symptoms, with three quarters of events occurring in the window from 2-3 days before to 2-3 days after. However, we caution against overinterpretation of the right tail of the distribution, due to its dependence on behavioural factors and interventions. We also found that the pre-symptomatic infectious period extended further back in time for individuals with longer incubation periods. This strongly suggests that information about when a case was infected should be collected where possible, in order to assess how far into the past their contacts should be traced. Overall, the fraction of transmission from strictly pre-symptomatic infections was high (41%; 95%CI 31-50%), which limits the efficacy of symptom-based interventions, and the large fraction of transmissions (35%; 95%CI 26-45%) that occur on the same day or the day after onset of symptoms underlines the critical importance of individuals distancing themselves from others as soon as they notice any symptoms, even if they are mild. Rapid or at-home testing and contextual risk information would greatly facilitate efficient early isolation.

Effects of case- and population-based COVID-19 interventions in Taiwan

In the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, broad usage of non-pharmaceutical interventions played a crucial role in controlling epidemics1-6. However, the substantial economic and societal costs of continuous use of border controls, travel restrictions, and physical distancing measures suggest that these measures may not be sustainable and that policymakers have to seek strategies to lift the restrictions. Taiwan was one of the few countries that demonstrated initial success in eliminating the COVID-19 outbreak without strict lockdown or school closure. To understand the key contributors to the successful control, we applied a stochastic branching model to empirical case data to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of more targeted case-based (including contact tracing and quarantine) and less targeted population-based interventions (including social distancing and face mask use) in Taiwan. We found that case-based interventions alone would not be sufficient to contain the epidemic, even in a setting where a highly efficient contact tracing program was in place. The voluntary population-based interventions have reduced the reproduction numbers by more than 60% and have likely played a critical role at the early stage of the outbreak. Our analysis of Taiwans success highlights that coordinated efforts from both the government and the citizens are indispensable in the fight against COVID-19 pandemic.

High transmissibility of COVID-19 near symptom onset

BackgroundThe dynamics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmissibility after symptom onset remains unknown. MethodsWe conducted a prospective case-ascertained study on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases and their contacts. Secondary clinical attack rate (considering symptomatic cases only) was analyzed for different exposure windows after symptom onset of index cases and for different exposure settings. ResultsThirty-two confirmed patients were enrolled and 12 paired data (index-secondary cases) were identified among the 1,043 contacts. The secondary clinical attack rate was 0.9% (95% CI 0.5-1.7%). The attack rate was higher among those whose exposure to index cases started within five days of symptom onset (2.4%, 95% CI 1.1-4.5%) than those who were exposed later (zero case from 605 close contacts, 95% CI 0-0.61%). The attack rate was also higher among household contacts (13.6%, 95% CI 4.7-29.5%) and non- household family contacts (8.5%, 95% CI 2.4-20.3%) than that in healthcare or other settings. The higher secondary clinical attack rate for contacts near symptom onset remained when the analysis was restricted to household and family contacts. There was a trend of increasing attack rate with the age of contacts (p for trend < 0.001). ConclusionsHigh transmissibility of COVID-19 near symptom onset suggests that finding and isolating symptomatic patients alone may not suffice to contain the epidemic, and more generalized social distancing measures are required. Rapid reduction of transmissibility over time implies that prolonged hospitalization of mild cases might not be necessary in large epidemics.