Safety and immunogenicity of multivalent SARS-CoV-2 protein vaccines: a randomized phase 3 trial.

Background: COVID-19 vaccines that offer broad-spectrum protection are needed. We aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of multivalent vaccines, SCTV01E and SCTV01C, and compare them with an inactivated vaccine. Methods: In the phase 3 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05323461), adult participants previously vaccinated with Sinopharm's inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BBBIP-CorV) were assigned to receive one booster dose of BBBIP-CorV, 20 µg SCTV01C, or 30 µg SCTV01E. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the geometric mean titers (GMT) of neutralizing antibody (nAb) against the Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants on day 28 after injection. Additional endpoints included GMTs of nAb against Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron BA.1 variants on day 180, GMTs against BA.5 on day 28, as well as solicited adverse events (AEs) within seven days, unsolicited AEs within 28 days, and serious AEs, AEs of special interest within 180 days after vaccination. Findings: Between May 30, 2022 and October 28, 2022, a total of 1351 participants were randomized to BBBIP-CorV, SCTV01C, or SCTV01E in a 1:1:1 ratio, with immunogenicity assessments performed on the first 300 participants. For BBBIP-CorV, SCTV01C, and SCTV01E groups, the day 28 GMTs of neutralizing antibody against Omicron BA.1 were a 2.38-, 19.37-, and 28.06-fold increase from baseline; the GMTs against Omicron BA.5 were 2.07-, 15.89- and 21.11-fold increases; the GMTs against Delta variants were 1.97-, 12.76-, and 15.88-fold increases, respectively. The day 28 geometric mean ratio (GMR) of SCTV01C/BBIBP-CorV for Omicron BA.1 was 6.49 (95% CI: 4.75, 8.88), while the GMR of SCTV01E/BBIBP-CorV was 9.56 (95% CI: 6.85, 13.33). For the Delta variant, the day 28 GMR of SCTV01C/BBIBP-CorV was 6.26 (95% CI: 4.78, 8.19), and the day 28 GMR of SCTV01E/BBIBP-CorV was 7.26 (95% CI: 5.51, 9.56). On Day 180, the GMTs against Omicron BA.1 were 2.80-, 9.51-, and 15.56-fold increase from baseline, while those against Delta were 1.58-, 5.49-, and 6.63-fold for BBBIP-CorV, SCTV01C, and SCTV01E groups, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that SCTV01C and SCTV01E induced uniformly high GMTs against both BA.1 and BA.5, demonstrating its superiority over BBIBP-CorV, regardless of baseline GMT levels. Safety and reactogenicity were similar among the three vaccines. Most AEs were Grade 1 or 2. There were 15 ≥Grade 3 AEs: 6 in the BBIBP-CorV group, 4 in the SCTV01C group and 5 in the SCTV01E group. No SAE was reported and one grade 1 AESI (Bell's palsy) was observed in SCTV01C group. Interpretation: A booster dose of the tetravalent vaccine SCTV01E consistently induced high neutralizing antibody responses against Omicron BA.1, BA.5, and Delta variants, demonstrating superiority over inactivated vaccine. There is evidence to suggest that SCTV01E may have GMT superiority over bivalent vaccine SCTV01C against Delta, BA.1 and BA.5 variants. Funding: This study was sponsored by Sinocelltech Ltd., and funded by the Beijing Science and Technology Planning Project [Z221100007922012] and the National Key Research and Development Program of China [2022YFC0870600].

Safety and immunogenicity of a tetravalent and bivalent SARS-CoV-2 protein booster vaccine in men.

The safety and immunogenicity of a protein-based tetravalent vaccine SCTV01E that contains spike protein ectodomain (S-ECD) of Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron BA.1 are assessed and compared with bivalent protein vaccine SCTV01C (Alpha and Beta variants) and monovalent mRNA vaccine (NCT05323461). The primary endpoints are the geometric mean titers (GMT) of live virus neutralizing antibodies (nAb) to Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron BA.1 at day 28 post-injection. The secondary endpoints include the safety, day 180 GMTs against Delta and Omicron BA.1, day 28 GMTs to BA.5, and seroresponse rates of neutralizing antibodies and T cell responses at day 28 post-injection. 450 participants, comprising of 449 males and 1 female, with a median age (range) of 27 (18-62) years, are assigned to receive one booster dose of BNT162b2, 20 µg SCTV01C or 30 µg SCTV01E and completed 4-week follow-up. All SCTV01E related adverse events (AEs) are mild or moderate and no Grade ≥3 AE, serious AE or new safety concerns are identified. Day 28 GMT of live virus neutralizing antibodies and seroresponse against Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 with SCTV01E are significantly higher than those with SCTV01C and BNT162b2. These data indicate an overall neutralization superiority with tetravalent booster immunization in men.

Safety and immunogenicity of a bivalent SARS-CoV-2 protein booster vaccine, SCTV01C, in adults previously vaccinated with mRNA vaccine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1/2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Booster vaccination is an efficient way to address the waning protection of vaccines and immune escape of SARS-CoV-2 variants. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of SCTV01C, a novel bivalent protein vaccine as a booster for people who previously received two doses of mRNA vaccine. METHODS: In this randomized, phase 1/2 trial, adults fully vaccinated with mRNA vaccines 3-24 month earlier were enrolled. Participants received SCTV01C at 20 µg, 40 µg or placebo. The primary endpoints were adverse reactions within 7 days and immunogenicity on Day 28 after vaccination. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05043311). FINDINGS: Between January 27 and April 28, 2022, 234 adults were randomly assigned to receive SCTV01C or placebo. The most common solicited adverse events (AEs) were Grade 1 injection-site pain (10.7%) and pyrexia (6.3%). There were no reports of Grade 3 or above solicited AE, serious AEs or AEs of special interests. On Day 28 post the booster, the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of the specific binding IgG antibodies to spike protein for placebo, 20 µg and 40 µg SCTV01C were 1649, 4153 and 5354 BAU/mL, with fold of increase from baseline of 1.0, 2.8 and 3.4-fold, respectively. GMTs of neutralizing antibodies against live Delta variant were 1280, 3542, and 4112, with fold of increase of 1.1, 3.9 and 4.1-fold, respectively; GMTs of neutralizing antibodies against live Omicron variant were 218, 640, and 1083, with fold of increase of 1.1, 4.4 and 5.1-fold, respectively. Participants with low neutralizing antibody titers at baseline (below the lower limit of quantitation) had 64.0 and 49.4-fold of increase in GMTs for Delta and Omicron, respectively. INTERPRETATION: The heterologous booster of SCTV01C was safe, and induced uniformly high cross-neutralization antibody responses against Delta and Omicron variants. FUNDING: Beijing Science and Technology Plan Project (Z221100007922012) and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFC0870600) supported this study.

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.

Evaluation of RNA Extraction-Free Method for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Salivary Samples for Mass Screening for COVID-19.

In this COVID-19 pandemic, there is a dire need for cost-effective and less time-consuming alternatives for SARS-CoV-2 testing. The RNA extraction-free method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in saliva is a promising option. This study found that it has high sensitivity (85.34%), specificity (95.04%), and was comparable to the gold standard nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) sample tests. The method showed good agreement between salivary and NPS samples, with a kappa coefficient of 0.797. However, there are variations in the sensitivity and specificity based on the RT-PCR kit used. The Thermo Fisher Applied Biosystems showed high sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) but also showed a higher percentage of invalid reports. On the other hand, the BGI kit showed high specificity, better agreement (kappa coefficient) between the results of saliva and NPS samples, and higher correlation between the Ct values of saliva and NPS samples. Thus, the RNA extraction-free method for salivary sample serves as an effective alternative screening method for COVID-19.

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.

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.