Search

Owing to the globalization of vaccine clinical trials, as well as advances in technologies, improved research accountability, and robust regulatory and ethical scrutiny, the choice to perform human challenge trials has become evident, and one of the most significant applications of human challenge trials is the assessment of vaccine efficacy. While human challenge trials have largely been conducted in high-income countries, the concept is relatively new in many low- and middle-income countries. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify the critical success factors for conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development in low- and middle-income countries.Using a two-step methodology, we first carried out a systematic literature review that was centered on identifying low- and middle-income countries that are either establishing a framework for, have conducted, or are conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development; secondly, we conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey using a standardized semi-structured online questionnaire administered to eligible stakeholders, to identify the critical success factors for conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development in low- and middle-income countries. Seventeen low- and middle-income countries were identified and included in the survey.The most cited critical success factors for conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development in low- and middle-income countries were Informed Consent, Risk Compensation and/or Reimbursement, Participant Safety and/or Public Protection, Community Engagement, Infrastructural Capacity, and Ethical and Regulatory Frameworks.From an empirical perspective, this study provides a list of critical success factors that form the basic structure to guide the design and implementation of further human challenge trials in low- and middle-income countries. Further studies are needed to establish a standardized conceptual framework to aid in the review, approval and overall conduct of human challenge trials in low- and middle-income countries.

Introduction The inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac, Sinovac) has been widely used in a two-dose schedule. We assessed whether a third dose of the homologous or a different vaccine could boost immune responses. Methods RHH-001 is a phase 4, participant masked, two centre, safety and immunogenicity study of Brazilian adults (18 years and older) in São Paulo or Salvador who had received two doses of CoronaVac 6 months previously. The third heterologous dose was of either a recombinant adenoviral vectored vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S, Janssen), an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer–BioNTech), or a recombinant adenoviral-vectored ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222, AstraZeneca), compared with a third homologous dose of CoronaVac. Participants were randomly assigned (5:6:5:5) by a RedCAP computer randomisation system stratified by site, age group (18–60 years or 61 years and over), and day of randomisation, with a block size of 42. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of anti-spike IgG antibodies 28 days after the booster dose in the heterologous boost groups compared with homologous regimen, using a non-inferiority margin for the geometric mean ratio (heterologous vs homologous) of 0·67. Secondary outcomes included neutralising antibody titres at day 28, local and systemic reactogenicity profiles, adverse events, and serious adverse events. This study was registered with Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos, number RBR–9nn3scw. Findings Between Aug 16, and Sept 1, 2021, 1240 participants were randomly assigned to one of the four groups, of whom 1239 were vaccinated and 1205 were eligible for inclusion in the primary analysis. Antibody concentrations were low before administration of a booster dose with detectable neutralising antibodies of 20·4% (95% CI 12·8–30·1) in adults aged 18–60 years and 8·9% (4·2–16·2) in adults 61 years or older. From baseline to day 28 after the booster vaccine, all groups had a substantial rise in IgG antibody concentrations: the geometric fold-rise was 77 (95% CI 67–88) for Ad26.COV2-S, 152 (134–173) for BNT162b2, 90 (77–104) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 12 (11–14) for CoronaVac. All heterologous regimens had anti-spike IgG responses at day 28 that were superior to homologous booster responses: geometric mean ratios (heterologous vs homologous) were 6·7 (95% CI 5·8–7·7) for Ad26.COV2-S, 13·4 (11·6–15·3) for BNT162b2, and 7·0 (6·1–8·1) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. All heterologous boost regimens induced high concentrations of pseudovirus neutralising antibodies. At day 28, all groups except for the homologous boost in the older adults reached 100% seropositivity: geometric mean ratios (heterologous vs homologous) were 8·7 (95% CI 5·9–12·9) for Ad26.COV2-S vaccine, 21·5 (14·5–31·9) for BNT162b2, and 10·6 (7·2–15·6) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Live virus neutralising antibodies were also boosted against delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron variants (B.1.1.529). There were five serious adverse events. Three of which were considered possibly related to the vaccine received: one in the BNT162b2 group and two in the Ad26.COV2-S group. All participants recovered and were discharged home. Interpretation Antibody concentrations were low at 6 months after previous immunisation with two doses of CoronaVac. However, all four vaccines administered as a third dose induced a significant increase in binding and neutralising antibodies, which could improve protection against infection. Heterologous boosting resulted in more robust immune responses than homologous boosting and might enhance protection. Funding Ministry of Health, Brazil.

Universal varicella vaccination has proven to be cost-effective (CE) in countries where implemented. However, this has not been evaluated for Mexico.The yearly disease burden (varicella cases/deaths, outpatient visits, and hospitalizations) was derived from Mexican seroprevalence data adjusted to the 2020 population. The yearly economic burden was calculated by combining disease with Mexican unit cost data from both health care and societal perspectives. Four different vaccination strategies were evaluated: (1) 1 dose of varicella vaccine at 1 year old; (2) 2 doses at 1 and 6 years; (3) 1 dose of varicella vaccine at 1 year, and quadrivalent measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine at 6 years; (4) 2 doses of measles-mumps-rubella-varicella vaccine at 1 and 6 years. We developed an economic model for each vaccination strategy where 20 consecutive birth cohorts were simulated. Vaccination impact (number of avoided cases/deaths) was evaluated for a 20-year follow-up period based on vaccine effectiveness (87% and 97.4% for 1 and 2 doses), and assuming a 95% coverage. We estimated annual costs saved, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and costs per life year gained.Avoided cases during the 20-year follow-up with 1, and 2 doses were 20,570,722 and 23,029,751, respectively. Strategies 1 and 2 were found to be cost saving, and strategy 3 to be CE. Strategy 4 was not CE. Strategies 1 and 2 would allow saving annually $53.16 and $34.41 million USD, respectively, to the Mexican society.Universal varicella vaccination, using 1 dose or 2 doses, would result in a cost-beneficial and CE public health intervention in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe learnings from past pandemics and to suggest a framework for vaccine development as part of epi/pandemic readiness. SOURCE OF DATA: Articles/ reviews/letters on pandemic preparedness/ vaccines published between 2005 and 2022 in PubMed, MEDLINE, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, Research Square, Gates Open Research; who.int, cepi.net, visualcapitalist.com, airfinity.com, ted.com websites; press releases. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Disease pandemics caused by emerging pathogens impacted the social development, health and wealth of most societies in human history. In an outbreak, the first months determine its course. To block an exponential spread and the development of an epi/ pandemic early, vaccine availability in sufficient quantities is of paramount importance. It is inevitable that new human viruses will emerge. Any future pandemic will come likely from RNA viruses through zoonotic or vector transmission, but we cannot predict when or where “Disease X” will strike. Public health, scientific and societal readiness plans need to include: continuous identification of new viruses in common mammalian reservoir hosts; continuous epidemiological surveillance, including wastewater sampling; establishment of prototype vaccine libraries against various virus families sharing functional and structural properties; testing of various and innovative vaccine platforms including mRNA, vector, nasal or oral vaccines for suitability by virus family; functional clinical trial sites and laboratory networks in various geographies; more efficient phasing of preclinical and clinical activities; global harmonization and streamlining of regulatory requirements including pre-established protocols; and societal preparedness including combating any pandemic of misinformation. CONCLUSIONS: “Outbreaks are unavoidable, pandemics are optional”.

BackgroundThe global COVID-19 pandemic has peaked but some countries such as China are reporting serious infectious outbreaks due to SARS-CoV-2 variants. Waning vaccine-derived immunogenicity and mutations in variants allowing vaccine evasion require new booster immunization approaches. We compared homologous and heterologous boosting in adults previously fully primed with a whole-virus inactivated COVID-19 vaccine.MethodsAt multiple sites in the Philippines we enrolled 430 adults (18-72 years) immunized with two doses of CoronaVac at least 3 months previously and randomly assigned them to receive homologous (CoronaVac, n = 216) or heterologous (recombinant protein vaccine, SCB-2019, n = 214) booster doses. Non-inferiority/superiority of the neutralizing antibody (NAb) response 15 days after boosting was measured by microneutralization against prototype SARS-CoV-2, and Delta and Omicron variants in subsets (50 per arm). Participants recorded solicited local and systemic adverse events for 7 days, unsolicited AEs until Day 29, and serious adverse events until Day 60.ResultsNAb geometric mean titers (GMT) against prototype on Day 15 were 744 (95% CI: 669-828) and 164 (143-189) in heterologous and homologous groups, respectively, with a heterologous/homologous GMT ratio of 4.63 (3.95-5.41), meeting both pre-defined non-inferiority and superiority criteria. Similarly, geometric mean-fold rises for NAb against Delta and Omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.4 and BA.5 variants were superior after heterologous SCB-2019 (range 3.01-4.66) than homologous CoronaVac (range 0.85-1.6) in an exploratory analysis. Reactogenicity and safety measures were evenly balanced between groups; the most frequent local reaction was mild or moderate injection site pain; mild or moderate headache and fatigue were the most frequent systemic adverse events. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionHeterologous boosting of CoronaVac-immunized adults with SCB-2019 was well tolerated with superior immunogenicity than homologous boosting, particularly for newly emerged variants, supporting use of SCB-2019 for booster vaccination.

A significant correlation has been shown between the binding antibody responses against original severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein and vaccine efficacy of 4 approved coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines. We therefore assessed the immune response against original SARS-CoV-2 elicited by the adjuvanted S-Trimer vaccine, SCB-2019 + CpG/alum, in the same assay and laboratory. Responses to SCB-2019 were comparable or superior for antibody to original and Alpha variant when compared with 4 approved vaccines. The comparison accurately predicted success of the recently reported efficacy trial of SCB-2019 vaccine. Immunogenicity comparisons to original strain and variants of concern should be considered as a basis for authorization of vaccines., The antibody-binding responses to the adjuvanted S-Trimer vaccine, SCB-2019 + CpG/alum, were compared with approved vaccines and accurately predicted success of the recently reported efficacy trial of SCB-2019 vaccine. Immunogenicity comparisons should be considered as a basis for authorization of vaccines.

Type 2 circulating vaccine-derived polioviruses (cVDPV2) from Sabin oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) are the leading cause of poliomyelitis. A novel type 2 OPV (nOPV2) has been developed to be more genetically stable with similar tolerability and immunogenicity to that of Sabin type 2 vaccines to mitigate the risk of cVDPV2. We aimed to assess these aspects of nOPV2 in poliovirus vaccine-naive newborn infants.In this randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 2 trial we enrolled newborn infants at the Matlab Health Research Centre, Chandpur, Bangladesh. We included infants who were healthy and were a single birth after at least 37 weeks' gestation. Infants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either two doses of nOPV2 or placebo, administered at age 0-3 days and at 4 weeks. Exclusion criteria included receipt of rotavirus or any other poliovirus vaccine, any infection or illness at the time of enrolment (vomiting, diarrhoea, or intolerance to liquids), diagnosis or suspicion of any immunodeficiency disorder in the infant or a close family member, or any contraindication for venipuncture. The primary safety outcome was safety and tolerability after one and two doses of nOPV2, given 4 weeks apart in poliovirus vaccine-naive newborn infants and the primary immunogenicity outcome was the seroconversion rate for neutralising antibodies against type 2 poliovirus, measured 28 days after the first and second vaccinations with nOPV2. Study staff recorded solicited and unsolicited adverse events after each dose during daily home visits for 7 days. Poliovirus neutralising antibody responses were measured in sera drawn at birth and at age 4 weeks and 8 weeks. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04693286.Between Sept 21, 2020, and Aug 16, 2021, we screened 334 newborn infants, of whom three (1%) were found to be ineligible and one (1%) was withdrawn by the parents; the remaining 330 (99%) infants were assigned to receive nOPV2 (n=220 [67%]) or placebo (n=110 [33%]). nOPV2 was well tolerated; 154 (70%) of 220 newborn infants in the nOPV2 group and 78 (71%) of 110 in the placebo group had solicited adverse events, which were all mild or moderate in severity. Severe unsolicited adverse events in 11 (5%) vaccine recipients and five (5%) placebo recipients were considered unrelated to vaccination. 306 (93%) of 330 infants had seroprotective maternal antibodies against type 2 poliovirus at birth, decreasing to 58 (56%) of 104 in the placebo group at 8 weeks. In the nOPV2 group 196 (90%) of 217 infants seroconverted by week 8 after two doses, when 214 (99%) had seroprotective antibodies.nOPV2 was well tolerated and immunogenic in newborn infants, with two doses, at birth and 4 weeks, resulting in almost 99% of infants having protective neutralising antibodies.BillMelinda Gates Foundation.

BackgroundAn exploratory household transmission study was nested in SPECTRA, the phase 2/3 efficacy study of the adjuvanted recombinant protein-based COVID-19 vaccine SCB-2019. We compared occurrence of confirmed COVID-19 infections between households and household contacts of infected SPECTRA participants who were either placebo or SCB-2019 recipients.MethodsSPECTRA trial participants at eight study sites in the Philippines who developed rRT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 were contacted by a study team blinded to assignment of index cases to vaccine or placebo groups to enroll in this household transmission study. Enrolled households and household contacts were monitored for three weeks using rRT-PCR and rapid antigen testing to detect new COVID-19 infections.ResultsObservation of the households of 154 eligible COVID-19 index cases, 130 symptomatic and 24 asymptomatic at diagnosis, revealed household secondary attack rates for any COVID-19 infection of SCB-2019 index cases of 0.76% (90% CI: 0.15–3.90) compared with 5.88% (90% CI: 3.20–10.8) in placebo index case households, a relative risk reduction of 79% (90% CI: -28–97). The relative risk reduction of symptomatic COVID-19 was 84% (90% CI: 28–97) for household contacts of all COVID-19 infected index cases, and 80% (90% CI: 7–96) for household contacts of index cases with symptomatic COVID-19.ConclusionsIn this prospective household contact study vaccination with SCB-2019 reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission in households, so decreasing infections of household contacts, compared with placebo.

An exploratory household transmission study was nested in SPECTRA, the phase 2/3 efficacy study of the adjuvanted recombinant protein-based COVID-19 vaccine SCB-2019. We compared occurrence of confirmed COVID-19 infections between households and household contacts of infected SPECTRA placebo or SCB-2019 recipients.SPECTRA participants at eight study sites in the Philippines who developed rRT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 were contacted by a study team blinded to assignment of index cases to vaccine or placebo groups to enroll in this household transmission study. Enrolled households and household contacts were monitored for three weeks using rRT-PCR and anti-SARS-CoV-2 N-antigen IgG/IgM testing to detect new COVID-19 infections.154 eligible COVID-19 index cases (51 vaccinees, 103 placebo) were included. The secondary attack rate per household for symptomatic COVID-19 infection was 0.76% (90% CI: 0.15-3.90) if the index case was a SCB-2019 vaccinee compared with 5.88% (90% CI: 3.20-10.8) for placebo index cases, a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 79% (90% CI: -28-97). The RRR of symptomatic COVID-19 per household member was similar: 84% (90% CI: 28-97). Impact on attack rates in household members if index cases were symptomatic (n = 130; RRR = 80%; 90% CI: 7-96) or asymptomatic (n = 24; RRR = 100%; 90% CI: -76-100) was measurable but the low numbers undermine the clinical significance.In this prospective household contact study vaccination with SCB-2019 reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission compared with placebo in households and in household members independently of whether index cases were symptomatic or not.

Background Ongoing outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are driven by waning immunity following primary immunizations and emergence of new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants that escape vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies. It has been suggested that heterologous boosters could enhance and potentially maintain population immunity. Methods We assessed the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of booster doses of different formulations of aluminium hydroxide–adjuvanted SCB-2019 vaccine (9 μg of SCB-2019, with or without CpG-1018 adjuvant, or 30 μg of SCB-2019 with CpG-1018) in Brazilian adults primed with ChAdOx1-S vector vaccine. S-protein antibodies and ACE2-binding inhibition were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) on days 1, 15, and 29. Participants self-reported solicited adverse events and reactions. Results All SCB-2019 formulations increased S-protein ELISA antibodies and ACE2 binding inhibition to a greater extent than ChAdOx1-S. After 30 μg of SCB-2019 + CpG + aluminium hydroxide, titers against wild-type S-protein were significantly higher than after ChAdOx1-S on days 15 and 29, as were titers of neutralizing antibodies against the wild-type strain and Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants. Boosting with SCB-2019 or ChAdOx1-S was well tolerated, with no vaccine-related serious or severe adverse events. Conclusions Boosting ChAdOx1-S-primed adults with SCB-2019 induced higher levels of antibodies against a wild-type strain and SARS-CoV-2 variants than a homologous ChAdOx1-S booster, with the highest responses being with the 30-μg SCB-2019 + CpG + aluminium hydroxide formulation. Clinical Trials Registration NCT05087368

BackgroundOngoing outbreaks of COVID-19 are driven by waning immunity following primary immunizations and emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants which escape vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies. It has been suggested that heterologous boosters could enhance and potentially maintain population immunity.MethodsWe assessed immunogenicity and reactogenicity of booster doses of different formulations of alum-adjuvanted SCB-2019 vaccine (9 μg SCB-2019 with or without CpG-1018 adjuvant, or 30 μg SCB-2019 with CpG-1018) in Brazilian adults primed with ChAdOx1-S vector vaccine. S-protein antibodies and ACE2-binding inhibition were measured by ELISA on Days 1, 15 and 29. Participants self-reported solicited adverse events and reactions.ResultsAll SCB-2019 formulations increased S-protein ELISA antibodies and ACE2 binding inhibition to a greater extent than ChAdOx1-S. After 30 μg SCB-2019+CpG+alum titers against wild-type S-protein were significantly higher than after ChAdOx1-S on Days 15 and 29, as were titers of neutralizing antibodies against wild-type strain and Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants. Boosting with SCB-2019 or ChAdOx1-S was well tolerated with no vaccine-related serious or severe adverse events.ConclusionsBoosting ChAdOx1-S-primed adults with SCB-2019 induced higher levels of antibodies against a wild-type strain and SARS-CoV-2 variants than a homologous ChAdOx1-S booster, highest responses being with the 30 μg SCB-2019+CpG+alum formulation.

Summary Background Following the global eradication of wild poliovirus, countries using live attenuated oral poliovirus vaccines will transition to exclusive use of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) or fractional doses of IPV (f-IPV; a f-IPV dose is one-fifth of a normal IPV dose), but IPV supply and cost constraints will necessitate dose-sparing strategies. We compared immunisation schedules of f-IPV and IPV to inform the choice of optimal post-eradication schedule. Methods This randomised open-label, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial was done at two centres in Panama and one in the Dominican Republic. Eligible participants were healthy 6-week-old infants with no signs of febrile illness or known allergy to vaccine components. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1, 1:1:1:2, 2:1:1:1), using computer-generated blocks of four or five until the groups were full, to one of four groups and received: two doses of intradermal f-IPV (administered at 14 and 36 weeks; two f-IPV group); or three doses of intradermal f-IPV (administered at 10, 14, and 36 weeks; three f-IPV group); or two doses of intramuscular IPV (administered at 14 and 36 weeks; two IPV group); or three doses of intramuscular IPV (administered at 10, 14, and 36 weeks; three IPV group). The primary outcome was seroconversion rates based on neutralising antibodies for poliovirus type 1 and type 2 at baseline and at 40 weeks (4 weeks after the second or third vaccinations) in the per-protocol population to allow non-inferiority and eventually superiority comparisons between vaccines and regimens. Three co-primary outcomes concerning poliovirus types 1 and 2 were to determine if seroconversion rates at 40 weeks of age after a two-dose regimen (administered at weeks 14 and 36) of intradermally administered f-IPV were non-inferior to a corresponding two-dose regimen of intramuscular IPV; if seroconversion rates at 40 weeks of age after a two-dose IPV regimen (weeks 14 and 36) were non-inferior to those after a three-dose IPV regimen (weeks 10, 14, and 36); and if seroconversion rates after a two-dose f-IPV regimen (weeks 14 and 36) were non-inferior to those after a three-dose f-IPV regimen (weeks 10, 14, and 36). The non-inferiority boundary was set at −10% for the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the seroconversion rate difference.. Safety was assessed as serious adverse events and important medical events. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03239496. Findings From Oct 23, 2017, to Nov 13, 2018, we enrolled 773 infants (372 [48%] girls) in Panama and the Dominican Republic (two f-IPV group n=217, three f-IPV group n=178, two IPV group n=178, and three IPV group n=200). 686 infants received all scheduled vaccine doses and were included in the per-protocol analysis. We observed non-inferiority for poliovirus type 1 seroconversion rate at 40 weeks for the two f-IPV dose schedule (95·9% [95% CI 92·0–98·2]) versus the two IPV dose schedule (98·7% [95·4–99·8]), and for the three f-IPV dose schedule (98·8% [95·6–99·8]) versus the three IPV dose schedule (100% [97·9–100]). Similarly, poliovirus type 2 seroconversion rate at 40 weeks for the two f-IPV dose schedule (97·9% [94·8–99·4]) versus the two IPV dose schedule (99·4% [96·4–100]), and for the three f-IPV dose schedule (100% [97·7–100]) versus the three IPV dose schedule (100% [97·9–100]) were non-inferior. Seroconversion rate for the two f-IPV regimen was statistically superior 4 weeks after the last vaccine dose in the 14 and 36 week schedule (95·9% [92·0–98·2]) compared with the 10 and 14 week schedule (83·2% [76·5–88·6]; p=0·0062) for poliovirus type 1. Statistical superiority of the 14 and 36 week schedule was also found for poliovirus type 2 (14 and 36 week schedule 97·9% [94·8–99·4] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 83·9% [77·2–89·2]; p=0·0062), and poliovirus type 3 (14 and 36 week schedule 84·5% [78·7–89·3] vs 10 and 14 week schedule 73·3% [65·8–79·9]; p=0·0062). For IPV, a two dose regimen administered at 14 and 36 weeks (99·4% [96·4–100]) was superior a 10 and 14 week schedule (88·9% [83·4–93·1]; p

Background The respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been established as a leading cause of acute lower respiratory illness (ALRI) in infants and children. In 2015, the global disease burden (GBD) study estimated that the overall RSV-ALRI mortality could be as high as 118,200, with most death occurring in low- and middle-incomes countries (LMIC). This study aimed to assess the burden of RSV infection among children less than 2 years with acute respiratory infections (ARI) in the Littoral region of Cameroon. Methods We carried out a cross-sectional study in seven health centres in the Littoral region of Cameroon. Venous blood was collected using serum separation tubes from eligible children who visited these health centres with acute respiratory infections. ELISA (Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) testing was used to assess the seroprevalence of anti-IgM RSV for the total population and by selected demographic and health parameters and potential risk factors. Results The overall RSV-associated ARI seroprevalence was 33% (95%CI:23.6–42.3; 33/100 children). The only demographic factor significantly associated with RSV acquisition was age of 6 months and below (odds ratio: 7.54 (2.62, 23.36); p = 0.000). Children who were clinically diagnosed to be concomitantly infected with malaria had a lower risk of RSV infection (odds ratio: 0.38 (0.14, 0.95; P = 0.03). Conclusions The RSV burden is high among children less than 2 years with ARI in the Littoral region of Cameroon. There is a need for an effective public health RSV surveillance system with standard laboratory techniques and equipment to better understand the RSV disease age-specific incidence, seasonality, risk factors and RSV burden among patients in communities in Cameroon.

Summary Background Continued emergence and spread of circulating vaccine-derived type 2 polioviruses and vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis from Sabin oral poliovirus vaccines (OPVs) has stimulated development of two novel type 2 OPV candidates (OPV2-c1 and OPV2-c2) designed to have similar immunogenicity, improved genetic stability, and less potential to reacquire neurovirulence. We aimed to assess safety and immunogenicity of the two novel OPV candidates compared with a monovalent Sabin OPV in children and infants. Methods We did two single-centre, multi-site, partly-masked, randomised trials in healthy cohorts of children (aged 1–4 years) and infants (aged 18–22 weeks) in Panama: a control phase 4 study with monovalent Sabin OPV2 before global cessation of monovalent OPV2 use, and a phase 2 study with low and high doses of two novel OPV2 candidates. All participants received one OPV2 vaccination and subsets received two doses 28 days apart. Parents reported solicited and unsolicited adverse events. Type 2 poliovirus neutralising antibodies were measured at days 0, 7, 28, and 56, and stool viral shedding was assessed up to 28 days post-vaccination. Primary objectives were to assess safety in all participants and non-inferiority of novel OPV2 day 28 seroprotection versus monovalent OPV2 in infants (non-inferiority margin 10%). These studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02521974 and NCT03554798. Findings The control study took place between Oct 23, 2015, and April 29, 2016, and the subsequent phase 2 study between Sept 19, 2018, and Sept 30, 2019. 150 children (50 in the control study and 100 of 129 assessed for eligibility in the novel OPV2 study) and 684 infants (110 of 114 assessed for eligibility in the control study and 574 of 684 assessed for eligibility in the novel OPV2 study) were enrolled and received at least one study vaccination. Vaccinations were safe and well tolerated with no causally associated serious adverse events or important medical events in any group. Solicited and unsolicited adverse events were overwhelmingly mild or moderate irrespective of vaccine or dose. Nearly all children were seroprotected at baseline, indicating high baseline immunity. In children, the seroprotection rate 28 days after one dose was 100% for monovalent OPV2 and both novel OPV2 candidates. In infants at day 28, 91 (94% [95% CI 87–98]) of 97 were seroprotected after receiving monovalent OPV2, 134 (94% [88–97]) of 143 after high-dose novel OPV2-c1, 122 (93% [87–97]) of 131 after low-dose novel OPV2-c1, 138 (95% [90–98]) of 146 after high-dose novel OPV2-c2, and 115 (91% [84–95]) of 127 after low-dose novel OPV2-c2. Non-inferiority was shown for low-dose and high-dose novel OPV2-c1 and high-dose novel OPV2-c2 despite monovalent OPV2 recipients having higher baseline immunity. Interpretation Both novel OPV2 candidates were safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic in children and infants. Novel OPV2 could be an important addition to our resources against poliovirus given the current epidemiological situation. Funding Fighting Infectious Diseases in Emerging Countries and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The Omicron variant of SARS-COV-2 (GISAID GRA clade [B.1.1.529, BA.1 and BA.2]) is now the single dominant Variant of Concern (VOC). The high number of mutations in the Omicron Spike (S) protein promotes humoral immunological escape. Although a third homologous boost with S, derived from the ancestral strain, was able to increase neutralizing antibody titers and breadth including to Omicron, the magnitude of virus neutralization could benefit from further optimization. Moreover, combining SARS-COV-2 strains as additional valences may address the current antigenicity range occupied by VOCs.Using Trimer-Tag™ platform we have previously demonstrated phase 3 efficacy and safety of a prototypic vaccine SCB-2019 in the SPECTRA trial and have submitted applications for licensure. Here, we successfully generated a bivalent vaccine candidate including both Ancestor and Omicron variant S-proteins. Preclinical studies demonstrate this SARS-CoV-2 bivalent S-Trimer subunit vaccine elicits high titers of neutralizing antibodies against all VOCs, with markedly enhanced Omicron specific neutralizing antibody responses.

Introduction Brazil has been at the core of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the second-highest death toll worldwide. A mass vaccination campaign was initiated on May 16th, 2021, in Botucatu, Brazil, where two doses of ChadOx1-nCoV19 were offered 12 weeks apart to all 18–60- year-olds. This context offers a unique opportunity to study the vaccine safety during a mass campaign. Methods The first and second doses of the vaccine were administered in May and August 2021, respectively. Emergency room (ER) and hospitalization records were obtained from the Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu for six weeks before and six weeks after the first and second doses, from 4 April to 19 September 2021. Diagnoses with COVID-19-related ICD codes were excluded to distinguish any trends resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. ER and hospital visits during the two time periods were compared, including an ICD code comparison, to identify any changes in disease distributions. Data were scanned for a defined list of Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESIs), as presented by the Safety Platform for Emergency Vaccines. Results and discussion A total of 77,683 and 74,051 subjects received dose 1 and dose 2 of ChadOx1-nCoV19, respectively. Vaccination was well tolerated and not associated with any major safety concerns. Increases in ER visits 1 week following both doses were primarily seen in ICD codes related to non-serious side effects of the vaccine, including vaccination site pain and other local events. The neurological AESIs identified (2 of 3 cases of multiple sclerosis) were relapses of a pre-existing condition. One potentially serious hospitalization event for Bell’s palsy had onset before vaccination with dose 1, in a patient who also had a viral infection of the central nervous system. There was no myocarditis, pericarditis cases, or vaccine-related increases in thromboembolic events.

We previously reported the efficacy of the adjuvanted-protein COVID-19 vaccine candidate S-Trimer (SCB-2019) in adults who showed no evidence of previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we aimed to investigate the extent of protection afforded by previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 on subsequent COVID-19 infection, as well as the efficacy, safety, and reactogenicity of SCB-2019 in participants who were enrolled in the Study evaluating Protective-Efficacy and safety of Clover's Trimeric Recombinant protein-based and Adjuvanted COVID-19 vaccine (SPECTRA) trial who had already been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 before vaccination.In a phase 2 and 3 multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial (SPECTRA) done at 31 sites in five countries, participants were randomly assigned 1:1 using the Cenduit Interactive Response Technology system (IQVIA, Durham, NC, USA), with a block size of six, to receive two doses of either SCB-2019 or placebo 21 days apart. The primary outcomes of the SPECTRA trial were vaccine efficacy, measured by real-time PCR (rtPCR)-confirmed COVID-19 of any severity, with onset from 14 days after the second vaccine dose, as well as the safety and solicited local and systemic adverse events in the phase 2 subset. Here, we present secondary analyses to calculate the protective efficacy due to previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 against reinfection with COVID-19 according to severity in SPECTRA participants who had evidence of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at baseline, including efficacy against identified viral variants, as well as efficacy of SCB-2019 vaccination in this population.We enrolled 30 174 participants between March 24, 2021, and Aug 10, 2021. In the 14 670 participants who were randomly assigned to receive placebo, there were 418 (2·8%) confirmed cases of COVID-19; 65 (0·9%) of 7339 SARS-CoV-2-exposed participants, and 353 (4·8%) of 7331 SARS-CoV-2-naive participants (attack rates of 5·5 cases per 100 person-years for SARS-CoV-2-exposed participants and 32·4 cases per 100 person-years for SARS-CoV-2-naive participants). Protective efficacy due to previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was 83·2% (95% CI 78·0-87·3) against any COVID-19, 92·5% (82·9-97·3) against moderate-to-severe COVID-19, and 100% (59·3-100) against severe COVID-19; no SARS-CoV-2-exposed participants had hospitalisation associated with COVID-19. Protective efficacy against variants were 100% for alpha (B.1.1.7) and lambda (C.37) variants, 88·6% (14·9-99·7) for B.1.623, 93·6% (80·1-98·7) for gamma (P.1), and 92·4% (81·2-97·6) for mu (B.1.621) variants, and lowest against beta (B.1.351; 72·2% [33·1-89·9]) and delta (B.1.617.2; 77·2% [61·3-87·2]) variants. In addition, one dose of SCB-2019 had 49·9% (1·5-75·6) efficacy against any symptomatic COVID-19, and two doses had 64·2% (26·5-83·8) efficacy. SCB-2019 was well tolerated in SARS-CoV-2-exposed participants, but was associated with higher rates of injection site pain (89 [33·8%] of 263 participants) than placebo (16 [6·7%] of 239 participants). Rates of solicited systemic adverse events, severe adverse events, and serious adverse events were similar between vaccine and placebo groups, and with rates in SARS-CoV-2-naive vaccine recipients.Previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 decreased the risk and severity of subsequent COVID-19 infection, even against newly emerging variants. Protection is further enhanced by one or two doses of SCB-2019.Clover Biopharmaceuticals, The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI).

A range of safe and effective vaccines against SARS CoV 2 are needed to address the COVID 19 pandemic. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine SCB-2019.This ongoing phase 2 and 3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done in adults aged 18 years and older who were in good health or with a stable chronic health condition, at 31 sites in five countries (Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Philippines, and South Africa). The participants were randomly assigned 1:1 using a centralised internet randomisation system to receive two 0·5 mL intramuscular doses of SCB-2019 (30 μg, adjuvanted with 1·50 mg CpG-1018 and 0·75 mg alum) or placebo (0·9% sodium chloride for injection supplied in 10 mL ampoules) 21 days apart. All study staff and participants were masked, but vaccine administrators were not. Primary endpoints were vaccine efficacy, measured by RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 of any severity with onset from 14 days after the second dose in baseline SARS-CoV-2 seronegative participants (the per-protocol population), and the safety and solicited local and systemic adverse events in the phase 2 subset. This study is registered on EudraCT (2020-004272-17) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04672395).30 174 participants were enrolled from March 24, 2021, until the cutoff date of Aug 10, 2021, of whom 30 128 received their first assigned vaccine (n=15 064) or a placebo injection (n=15 064). The per-protocol population consisted of 12 355 baseline SARS-CoV-2-naive participants (6251 vaccinees and 6104 placebo recipients). Most exclusions (13 389 [44·4%]) were because of seropositivity at baseline. There were 207 confirmed per-protocol cases of COVID-19 at 14 days after the second dose, 52 vaccinees versus 155 placebo recipients, and an overall vaccine efficacy against any severity COVID-19 of 67·2% (95·72% CI 54·3-76·8), 83·7% (97·86% CI 55·9-95·4) against moderate-to-severe COVID-19, and 100% (97·86% CI 25·3-100·0) against severe COVID-19. All COVID-19 cases were due to virus variants; vaccine efficacy against any severity COVID-19 due to the three predominant variants was 78·7% (95% CI 57·3-90·4) for delta, 91·8% (44·9-99·8) for gamma, and 58·6% (13·3-81·5) for mu. No safety issues emerged in the follow-up period for the efficacy analysis (median of 82 days [IQR 63-103]). The vaccine elicited higher rates of mainly mild-to-moderate injection site pain than the placebo after the first (35·7% [287 of 803] vs 10·3% [81 of 786]) and second (26·9% [189 of 702] vs 7·4% [52 of 699]) doses, but the rates of other solicited local and systemic adverse events were similar between the groups.Two doses of SCB-2019 vaccine plus CpG and alum provides notable protection against the entire severity spectrum of COVID-19 caused by circulating SAR-CoV-2 viruses, including the predominating delta variant.Clover Biopharmaceuticals and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Background: Global immunization is critical to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and the public's willingness to be vaccinated will determine the success of elimination efforts. We measured the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine and views in Sierra Leone.Method: We used a multi-method study including an online cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews to assess the acceptance of and perceptions about COVID-19 vaccination among 2146 Sierra Leoneans aged 18 years and above. Results: Most survey respondents (80.1%, n = 1719) would accept COVID-19 vaccination for themselves and close family,but 19.9% (n = 427) would reject vaccination. If vaccination was mandatory the acceptance rate would increase to 85.0%, (n = 1,823), while 15.0% (n = 318) of responders would still reject. COVID-19 vaccine awareness was high among respondents (yes: 75.2% n = 1613, no: 24.8%, n = 533).Safety, immunity, and trust in vaccines were the main reasons for vaccine acceptance. Distrust, uncertainties about vaccine safety and effectivenessand lack of belief in the COVID-19 pandemic triggered through media reports were the mainreasons for rejecting the COVID-19 vaccination. With respect to vaccine,a small majority would prefer a less reactogenic vaccine even at the cost of a lower efficacy over a more effective but more reactogenic vaccine (55.7%, n = 1195 vs 41.5%, n = 890) while2.8% (n = 61) of respondents said they would reject any vaccine.Country of origin had an important role in vaccine acceptance: 32.4% (n = 1121) would accept a vaccine from any country if licensed locally, but15.1%(n = 511) would rejectvaccines even if licensed from China,12.6% (n = 437), India11.4% (n = 393), USA 8.0% (n = 276), Germany7.8% (n = 271), Russia 7.7% (n = 267), UKand 5.0% (n = 173)from Belgium.Conclusion: Sensitizing the public about the COVID-19 infection risk, vaccine development processesand ensuring vaccine safety through continuous communication and community engagement, with community leaders leading by example as well as the independent role of regulatory authorities in safety and efficacy evaluation, would improve COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.

A significant correlation has been shown between the binding antibody responses against original SARS-CoV-2-S-protein all performed in one laboratory and vaccine efficacy of four approved COVID-19 vaccines. We therefore assessed the immune response against original SARS-CoV-2 elicited by the adjuvanted S-Trimer vaccine, SCB-2019 + CpG/alum, in the same assay and laboratory. When compared with four approved vaccines immune responses to SCB-2019 predicted 81% − 94% efficacy against the original strain and 75–94% against the Alpha variant (B.1.1.7). Immunogenicity comparisons to original strain and variants of concern (VOC) should be considered as a basis for authorization of vaccines because efficacy studies now have predominantly VOC cases.

Background We have previously reported the safety and immunogenicity 4 weeks after 2 doses of the Clover coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine candidate, SCB-2019, a stabilized prefusion form of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein (S-trimer). We now report persistence of antibodies up to 6 months after vaccination, and cross-neutralization titers against 3 variants of concern (VoCs). Methods In a phase 1 study, adult (18–54 years of age) and elderly (55–75 years of age) volunteers received 2 vaccinations 21 days apart with placebo or 3-, 9-, or 30-µg. We measured immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against SCB-2019, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) competitive binding antibodies, and neutralizing antibodies against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (Wuhan-Hu-1) at days 101 and 184, and neutralizing antibodies against 3 VoCs, Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), and Gamma (P.1), in day 36 sera. Results Titers waned from their peak at days 36–50, but SCB-2019 IgG antibodies, ACE2 competitive binding antibodies, and neutralizing antibodies against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 persisted at 25%–35% of their observed peak levels at day 184. Day 36 sera also demonstrated dose-dependent increases in neutralizing titers against the 3 VoCs. Conclusions SCB-2019 dose-dependently induced immune responses against wild-type SARS-CoV-2, which persisted up to day 184. Neutralizing antibodies were cross-reactive against 3 of the most prevalent VoCs., Immune responses to the SCB-2019 COVID-19 vaccine adjuvanted with CpG-1018/alum had waned but were still measurable 180 days after the first vaccination. Early responses showed some cross-protection against variants of concern.

Background Primary intestinal immunity through viral replication of live oral vaccine is key to interrupt poliovirus transmission. We assessed viral fecal shedding from infants administered Sabin monovalent poliovirus type 2 vaccine (mOPV2) or low and high doses of 2 novel OPV2 (nOPV2) vaccine candidates. Methods In 2 randomized clinical trials in Panama, a control mOPV2 study (October 2015 to April 2016) and nOPV2 study (September 2018 to October 2019), 18-week-old infants vaccinated with bivalent oral poliovirus vaccine/inactivated poliovirus vaccine received 1 or 2 study vaccinations 28 days apart. Stools were assessed for poliovirus RNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and live virus by culture for 28 days postvaccination. Results Shedding data were available from 621 initially reverse-transcription PCR–negative infants (91 mOPV2, 265 nOPV2-c1, 265 nOPV2-c2 recipients). Seven days after dose 1, 64.3% of mOPV2 recipients and 31.3%–48.5% of nOPV2 recipients across groups shed infectious type 2 virus. Respective rates 7 days after dose 2 decreased to 33.3% and 12.9%–22.7%, showing induction of intestinal immunity. Shedding of both nOPV2 candidates ceased at similar or faster rates than mOPV2. Conclusions Viral shedding of either nOPV candidate was similar or decreased relative to mOPV2, and all vaccines showed indications that the vaccine virus was replicating sufficiently to induce primary intestinal mucosal immunity.

Background Use of oral live-attenuated polio vaccines (OPV), and injected inactivated polio vaccines (IPV) has almost achieved global eradication of wild polio viruses. To address the goals of achieving and maintaining global eradication and minimising the risk of outbreaks of vaccine-derived polioviruses, we tested novel monovalent oral type-2 poliovirus (OPV2) vaccine candidates that are genetically more stable than existing OPVs, with a lower risk of reversion to neurovirulence. Our study represents the first in-human testing of these two novel OPV2 candidates. We aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of these vaccines, the presence and extent of faecal shedding, and the neurovirulence of shed virus. Methods In this double-blind, single-centre phase 1 trial, we isolated participants in a purpose-built containment facility at the University of Antwerp Hospital (Antwerp, Belgium), to minimise the risk of environmental release of the novel OPV2 candidates. Participants, who were recruited by local advertising, were adults (aged 18-50 years) in good health who had previously been vaccinated with IPV, and who would not have any contact with immunosuppressed or unvaccinated people for the duration of faecal shedding at the end of the study. The first participant randomly chose an envelope containing the name of a vaccine candidate, and this determined their allocation; the next 14 participants to be enrolled in the study were sequentially allocated to this group and received the same vaccine. The subsequent 15 participants enrolled after this group were allocated to receive the other vaccine. Participants and the study staff were masked to vaccine groups until the end of the study period. Participants each received a single dose of one vaccine candidate (candidate 1, S2/cre5/S15domV/rec1/hifi3; or candidate 2, S2/S15domV/CpG40), and they were monitored for adverse events, immune responses, and faecal shedding of the vaccine virus for 28 days. Shed virus isolates were tested for the genetic stability of attenuation. The primary outcomes were the incidence and type of serious and severe adverse events, the proportion of participants showing viral shedding in their stools, the time to cessation of viral shedding, the cell culture infective dose of shed virus in virus-positive stools, and a combined index of the prevalence, duration, and quantity of viral shedding in all participants. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2017-000908-21 and ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT03430349. Findings Between May 22 and Aug 22, 2017, 48 volunteers were screened, of whom 15 (31%) volunteers were excluded for reasons relating to the inclusion or exclusion criteria, three (6%) volunteers were not treated because of restrictions to the number of participants in each group, and 30 (63%) volunteers were sequentially allocated to groups (15 participants per group). Both novel OPV2 candidates were immunogenic and increased the median blood titre of serum neutralising antibodies; all participants were seroprotected after vaccination. Both candidates had acceptable tolerability, and no serious adverse events occurred during the study. However, severe events were reported in six (40%) participants receiving candidate 1 (eight events) and nine (60%) participants receiving candidate 2 (12 events); most of these events were increased blood creatinine phosphokinase but were not accompanied by clinical signs or symptoms. Vaccine virus was detected in the stools of 15 (100%) participants receiving vaccine candidate 1 and 13 (87%) participants receiving vaccine candidate 2. Vaccine poliovirus shedding stopped at a median of 23 days (IQR 15-36) after candidate 1 administration and 12 days (1-23) after candidate 2 administration. Total shedding, described by the estimated median shedding index (50% cell culture infective dose/g), was observed to be greater with candidate 1 than candidate 2 across all participants (2.8 [95% CI 1.8-3.5] vs 1.0 [0.7-1.6]). Reversion to neurovirulence, assessed as paralysis of transgenic mice, was low in isolates from those vaccinated with both candidates, and sequencing of shed virus indicated that there was no loss of attenuation in domain V of the 5 '-untranslated region, the primary site of reversion in Sabin OPV. Interpretation We found that the novel OPV2 candidates were safe and immunogenic in IPV-immunised adults, and our data support the further development of these vaccines to potentially be used for maintaining global eradication of neurovirulent type-2 polioviruses. Copyright (c) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Beginning in late 2020, the emergence and spread of multiple variant SARS-CoV-2 strains harboring mutations which may enable immune escape necessitates the rapid evaluation of second generation COVID-19 vaccines, with the goal of inducing optimized immune responses that are broadly protective. Here we demonstrate in a mouse immunogenicity study that two doses of a modified B.1.351 spike (S)-Trimer vaccine (B.1.351 S-Trimer) candidate can induce strong humoral immune responses that can broadly neutralize both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain (Wuhan-Hu-1) and Variants of Concern (VOCs), including the UK variant (B.1.1.7), South African variant (B.1.351) and Brazil variant (P.1). Furthermore, while immunization with two doses (prime-boost) of Prototype S-Trimer vaccine (based on the original SARS-CoV-2 strain) induced lower levels of cross-reactive neutralization against the B.1.351 variant, a third dose (booster) administered with either Prototype S-Trimer or B.1.351 S-Trimer was able to increase neutralizing antibody titers against B.1.351 to levels comparable to neutralizing antibody titers against the original strain elicited by two doses of Prototype S-Trimer.

Summary Background As part of the accelerated development of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), we report a dose-finding and adjuvant justification study of SCB-2019, a protein subunit vaccine candidate containing a stabilised trimeric form of the spike (S)-protein (S-Trimer) combined with two different adjuvants. Methods Our study is a phase 1, randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial at a specialised clinical trials centre in Australia. We enrolled healthy adult volunteers in two age groups: younger adults (aged 18–54 years) and older adults (aged 55–75 years). Participants were randomly allocated either vaccine or placebo using a list prepared by the study funder. Participants were to receive two doses of SCB-2019 (either 3 μg, 9 μg, or 30 μg) or a placebo (0·9% NaCl) 21 days apart. SCB-2019 either had no adjuvant (S-Trimer protein alone) or was adjuvanted with AS03 or CpG/Alum. The assigned treatment was administered in opaque syringes to maintain masking of assignments. Reactogenicity was assessed for 7 days after each vaccination. Humoral responses were measured as SCB-2019 binding IgG antibodies and ACE2-competitive blocking IgG antibodies by ELISA and as neutralising antibodies by wild-type SARS-CoV-2 microneutralisation assay. Cellular responses to pooled S-protein peptides were measured by flow-cytometric intracellular cytokine staining. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04405908; this is an interim analysis and the study is continuing. Findings Between June 19 and Sept 23, 2020, 151 volunteers were enrolled; three people withdrew, two for personal reasons and one with an unrelated serious adverse event (pituitary adenoma). 148 participants had at least 4 weeks of follow-up after dose two and were included in this analysis (database lock, Oct 23, 2020). Vaccination was well tolerated, with two grade 3 solicited adverse events (pain in 9 μg AS03-adjuvanted and 9 μg CpG/Alum-adjuvanted groups). Most local adverse events were mild injection-site pain, and local events were more frequent with SCB-2019 formulations containing AS03 adjuvant (44–69%) than with those containing CpG/Alum adjuvant (6–44%) or no adjuvant (3–13%). Systemic adverse events were more frequent in younger adults (38%) than in older adults (17%) after the first dose but increased to similar levels in both age groups after the second dose (30% in older and 34% in younger adults). SCB-2019 with no adjuvant elicited minimal immune responses (three seroconversions by day 50), but SCB-2019 with fixed doses of either AS03 or CpG/Alum adjuvants induced high titres and seroconversion rates of binding and neutralising antibodies in both younger and older adults (anti-SCB-2019 IgG antibody geometric mean titres at day 36 were 1567–4452 with AS03 and 174–2440 with CpG/Alum). Titres in all AS03 dose groups and the CpG/Alum 30 μg group were higher than were those recorded in a panel of convalescent serum samples from patients with COVID-19. Both adjuvanted SCB-2019 formulations elicited T-helper-1-biased CD4+ T-cell responses. Interpretation The SCB-2019 vaccine, comprising S-Trimer protein formulated with either AS03 or CpG/Alum adjuvants, elicited robust humoral and cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2, with high viral neutralising activity. Both adjuvanted vaccine formulations were well tolerated and are suitable for further clinical development. Funding Clover Biopharmaceuticals and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Background Two novel type 2 oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV2) candidates, novel OPV2-c1 and novel OPV2-c2, designed to be more genetically stable than the licensed Sabin monovalent OPV2, have been developed to respond to ongoing polio outbreaks due to circulating vaccine-derived type 2 polioviruses. Methods We did two randomised studies at two centres in Belgium. The first was a phase 4 historical control study of monovalent OPV2 in Antwerp, done before global withdrawal of OPV2, and the second was a phase 2 study in Antwerp and Ghent with novel OPV2-c1 and novel OPV2-c2. Eligible participants were healthy adults aged 18-50 years with documented history of at least three polio vaccinations, including OPV in the phase 4 study and either OPV or inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in the novel OPV2 phase 2 study, with no dose within 12 months of study start. In the historical control trial, participants were randomly assigned to either one dose or two doses of monovalent OPV2. In the novel OPV2 trial, participants with previous OPV vaccinations were randomly assigned to either one or two doses of novel OPV2-c1 or to one or two doses of novel OPV2-c2. IPV-vaccinated participants were randomly assigned to receive two doses of either novel OPV2-c1, novel OPV2-c2, or placebo. Vaccine administrators were unmasked to treatment; medical staff performing safety and reactogenicity assessments or blood draws for immunogenicity assessments were masked. Participants received the first vaccine dose on day 0, and a second dose on day 28 if assigned to receive a second dose. Primary objectives were assessments and comparisons of safety up to 28 days after each dose, including solicited adverse events and serious adverse events, and immunogenicity (seroprotection rates on day 28 after the first vaccine dose) between monovalent OPV2 and the two novel OPV2 candidates. Primary immunogenicity analyses were done in the per-protocol population. Safety was assessed in the total vaccinated population-ie, all participants who received at least one dose of their assigned vaccine. The phase 4 control study is registered with EudraCT (2015-003325-33) and the phase 2 novel OPV2 study is registered with EudraCT (2018-001684-22) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04544787). Findings In the historical control study, between Jan 25 and March 18, 2016, 100 volunteers were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive one or two doses of monovalent OPV2 (n= 50 in each group). In the novel OPV2 study, between Oct 15, 2018, and Feb 27, 2019, 200 previously OPV-vaccinated volunteers were assigned to the four groups to receive one or two doses of novel OPV2-c1 or novel OPV2-c2 (n=50 per group); a further 50 participants, previously vaccinated with IPV, were assigned to novel OPV2-c1 (n=17), novel OPV2-c2 (n=16), or placebo (n=17). All participants received the first dose of assigned vaccine or placebo and were included in the total vaccinated population. All vaccines appeared safe; no definitely vaccine-related withdrawals or serious adverse events were reported. After first doses in previously OPV-vaccinated participants, 62 (62%) of 100 monovalent OPV2 recipients, 71 (71%) of 100 recipients of novel OPV2-c1, and 74 (74%) of 100 recipients of novel OPV2-c2 reported solicited systemic adverse events, four (monovalent OPV2), three (novel OPV2-c1), and two (novel OPV2-c2) of which were considered severe. In IPV-vaccinated participants, solicited adverse events occurred in 16 (94%) of 17 who received novel OPV2-c1 (including one severe) and 13 (81%) of 16 who received novel OPV2-c2 (including one severe), compared with 15 (88%) of 17 placebo recipients (including two severe). In previously OPV-vaccinated participants, 286 (97%) of 296 were seropositive at baseline; after one dose, 100% of novel OPV2 vaccinees and 97 (97%) of monovalent OPV2 vaccinees were seropositive. Interpretation Novel OPV2 candidates were as safe, well tolerated, and immunogenic as monovalent OPV2 in previously OPV-vaccinated and IPV-vaccinated adults. These data supported the further assessment of the vaccine candidates in children and infants.