Dataset Information

Safety and immunogenicity of the inactivated whole-virus adjuvanted vaccine VLA2001: A randomized, dose escalation, double-blind phase 1/2 clinical trial in healthy adults.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the safety and optimal dose of a novel inactivated whole-virus adjuvanted vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: VLA2001.

Methods

We conducted an open-label, dose-escalation study followed by a double-blind randomized trial using low, medium and high doses of VLA2001 (1:1:1). The primary safety outcome was the frequency and severity of solicited local and systemic reactions within 7 days after vaccination. The primary immunogenicity outcome was the geometric mean titre (GMT) of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 two weeks after the second vaccination. The study is registered as NCT04671017.

Results

Between December 16, 2020, and June 3, 2021, 153 healthy adults aged 18-55 years were recruited in the UK. Overall, 81.7% of the participants reported a solicited AE, with injection site tenderness (58.2%) and headache (46.4%) being the most frequent. Only 2 participants reported a severe solicited event. Up to day 106, 131 (85.6%) participants had reported any AE. All observed incidents were transient and non-life threatening in nature. Immunogenicity measured at 2 weeks after completion of the two-dose priming schedule, showed significantly higher GMTs of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titres in the highest dose group (GMT 545.6; 95% CI: 428.1, 695.4) which were similar to a panel of convalescent sera (GMT 526.9; 95% CI: 336.47, 825.06). Seroconversion rates of neutralizing antibodies were also significantly higher in the high-dose group (>90%) compared to the other dose groups. In the high dose group, antigen-specific interferon-γ expressing T-cells reactive against the S, M and N proteins were observed in 76, 36 and 49%, respectively.

Conclusions

VLA2001 was well tolerated in all tested dose groups, and no safety signal of concern was identified. The highest dose group showed statistically significantly stronger immunogenicity with similar tolerability and safety, and was selected for phase 3 clinical development.

SUBMITTER: Lazarus R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9212764 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDevelopment of safe and effective vaccine options is crucial to the success of fight against COVID-19 pandemic. Herein, we report interim safety and immunogenicity findings of the phase 1&2 trials of ERUCoV-VAC, an inactivated whole virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.MethodsDouble-blind, randomised, single centre, phase 1 and 2 trials included SARS-CoV-2 seronegative healthy adults aged 18-55 years (18-64 in phase 2). All participants, except the first 4 in phase 1 who received ERUCoV-VAC 3 μg or 6 μg unblinded and monitored for 7 days for safety purposes, were assigned to receive two intramuscular doses of ERUCoV-VAC 3 μg or 6 μg (an inactivated vaccine containing alhydrogel as adjuvant) or placebo 21 days apart (28 days in phase 2) according to computer-generated randomisation schemes. Both trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (phase 1, NCT04691947 and phase 2, NCT04824391).ResultsForty-four participants (3 μg [n:17], 6 μg [n:17], placebo [n:10]) in phase 1 and 250 (3 μg [n:100], 6 μg [n:100], placebo [n:50]) in phase 2 received ≥1 dose. In phase 1 trial, 25 adverse events AEs (80 % mild) occured in 15 participants (34.1 %) until day 43. There was no dose-response relationship noted in safety events in ERUCoV-VAC recipients (p = 0.4905). Pain at injection site was the most common AE (9/44;20.5 %). Both doses of ERUCoV-VAC 3 μg and 6 μg groups were comparable in inducing SARS-CoV-2 wild-type neutralising antibody (MNT50): GMTs (95 %CI) were 8.3 (6.4-10.3) vs. 8.6 (7.0-10.2) at day 43 (p = 0.7357) and 9.7 (6.0-13.4) vs. 10.8 (8.8-12.8) at day 60 (p = 0.8644), respectively. FRNT50 confirmed MNT50 results: SARS-CoV-2 wild-type neutralising antibody GMTs (95 %CI) were 8.4 (6.3-10.5) vs. 9.0 (7.2-10.8) at day 43 (p = 0.5393) and 11.0 (7.0-14.9) vs. 12.3 (10.3-14.5) at day 60 (p = 0.8578). Neutralising antibody seroconversion rates (95 %CI) were 86.7 % (59.5-98.3) vs 94.1 % (71.3-99.8) at day 43 (p = 0.8727) and 92.8 % (66.1-99.8) vs. 100 % (79.4-100.0) at day 60 (p = 0.8873), in ERUCoV-VAC 3 μg and 6 μg groups, respectively. In phase 2 trial, 268 AEs, (67.2 % moderate in severity) occured in 153 (61.2 %) participants. The most common local and systemic AEs were pain at injection site (23 events in 21 [8.4 %] subjects) and headache (56 events in 47 [18.8 %] subjects), respectively. Pain at injection site was the only AE with a significantly higher frequency in the ERUCoV-VAC groups than in the placebo arm in the phase 2 study (p = 0.0322). ERUCoV-VAC groups were comparable in frequency of AEs (p = 0.4587). ERUCoV-VAC 3 μg and 6 μg groups were comparable neutralising antibody (MNT50): GMTs (95 %CI) were 30.0 (37.9-22.0) vs. 34.9 (47.6-22.1) at day 43 (p = 0.0666) and 34.2 (23.8-44.5) and 39.6 (22.7-58.0) at day 60, (p = 0.2166), respectively. FRNT50 confirmed MNT50 results: SARS-CoV-2 wildtype neutralising antibody GMTs were 28.9 (20.0-37.7) and 30.1 (18.5-41.6) at day 43 (p = 0.3366) and 34.2 (23.8-44.5) and 39.6 (22.7-58.0) at day 60 (p = 0.8777). Neutralising antibody seroconversion rates (95 %CI) were 95.7 % (91.4-99.8) vs. 98.9 % (96.9-100.0) at day 43 (p = 0.8710) and 96.6 % (92.8-100.0) vs 98.9 % (96.7-100.0) at day 60 (p = 0.9129) in ERUCoV-VAC 3 μg and 6 μg groups, respectively.ConclusionsTwo-dose regimens of ERUCoV-VAC 3 μg and 6 μg 28 days both had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and elicited comparable neutralising antibody responses and seroconversion rates exceeding 95 % at day 43 and 60 after the first vaccination. Data availability Data will be made available on request.

Project description:BackgroundUpdated vaccine strategies are needed to protect against new SARS-CoV-2 variants with increased immune escape. Here, information on the safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated Omicron-adapted vaccine is presented, as compared with CoronaVac.MethodsA randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase III clinical trial was conducted to compare a modified Omicron-adapted vaccine (Omicron vaccine) with the authorized prototype vaccine (CoronaVac®) as a booster dose. Healthy adults aged ≥18 years, who have previously received 2 or 3 doses of CoronaVac (2C or 3C cohort) at least 6 months before, were enrolled to get a booster dose of Omicron vaccine or CoronaVac in a ratio of 2:1 (2C/3C+1O/1C). Back-up serums after two initial doses of CoronaVac (2C+0) for adults aged 26-45 years were collected from a previous study. Immunogenicity and safety data at 28 days after vaccination were collected and analyzed. One of the primary objectives was to evaluate the superiority of immunogenicity of Omicron vaccine booster against Omicron BA.1, compared with CoronaVac booster against BA.1. Another objective was to evaluate the non-inferiority of immunogenicity of Omicron vaccine booster against BA.1, compared with two initial doses of CoronaVac against ancestral strain.ResultsBetween June 1st and July 21st, 2022, a total of 1,500 healthy adults were enrolled. Results show that all pre-specified superiority criteria for BA.1 neutralizing antibody were met. Specifically, within the 3C cohort (3C+1O vs. 3C+1C), the geometric mean titers' (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) was 1.64 (1.42, 1.89), with the lower 95%CI ≥1; a GMT ratio of 1.84 (1.57, 2.16) was observed for 2C+1O versus 3C+1C. For seroconversion rate, the lower 95%CIs of differences between immuno-comparative groups (2/3C+1O vs. 3C+1C) were all above the superiority criterion 0%. However, the non-inferiority criterion of the lower 95%CI of GMT ratio ≥2/3 was unfulfilled for 2C/3C+1O against BA.1 versus 2C+0 against ancestral strain. Safety profiles were similar between groups, with no safety concerns identified.ConclusionThe Omicron-adapted vaccine was well-tolerated and could elicit superior immune responses as compared with CoronaVac against Omicron, while it appeared inferior to CoronaVac against ancestral strain.Clinical trial registrationhttps://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05381350?term=NCT05381350&draw=2&rank=1, identifier NCT05381350.

Project description:BackgroundDasiglucagon is a novel glucagon analog that is stable in aqueous formulation and approved for use in severe hypoglycemia. Concentration QTc analyses are critical for assessing risk of drug-induced QTc prolongation and potential for fatal cardiac arrhythmias such as torsades de pointes.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine whether dasiglucagon treatment resulted in any clinically relevant effect on cardiac repolarization in healthy volunteers.MethodsThis double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation Phase I trial was conducted at a single center in Germany between November 2018 and June 2019. Sixty healthy volunteers aged 18 to 45 years were randomized within dose cohorts to receive intravenous dasiglucagon, intravenous placebo, or subcutaneous dasiglucagon. In the intravenous administration cohorts, doses ranged from 0.03 mg to 1.5 mg. The subcutaneous administration cohort received the approved 0.6 mg dose. In the intravenous administration cohorts, serial electrocardiograms were extracted from continuous Holter monitors at prespecified time points beginning the day before dosing and through 24 hours postdose. Heart rate, PR interval, and QRS duration were evaluated. Concentration-QT analyses corrected by Fridericia's formula (QTcF) were performed using both a linear mixed-effects and a maximum estimated effect (Emax) model.ResultsAt the doses studied, dasiglucagon did not have any clinically relevant effect on heart rate, PR interval, or QRS duration. A minor prolongation of the QTcF interval was observed without any clear dose or concentration dependency. Both the linear and Emax models predicted mean and 90% CIs of placebo-corrected change in QTcF remained below 10 ms (the threshold of regulatory concern), although the linear model did not fit the data well at low dasiglucagon plasma concentrations. In the Emax model, the Emax of dasiglucagon was 3.6 ms (90% CI, 1.23-5.95 ms), and the amount to produce half the effect of Emax) was 426.0 pmol/L (90% CI, -48.8 to 900.71 pmol/L). The treatment effect-specific intercept was -0.44 ms (90% CI, -2.37 to 1.49 ms). The most frequently observed treatment-emergent adverse events reported in the trial were gastrointestinal disorders such as nausea and vomiting.ConclusionsDasiglucagon does not cause clinically relevant QTc prolongation in concentrations up to ≈30,000 pmol/L, a level 5-fold higher than the highest observed plasma concentrations in clinical trials investigating use of the approved 0.6 mg SC dose. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03735225; EudraCT identifier: 2018-002025-32. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2022; 83:XXX-XXX).

Project description:BackgroundTo mitigate the effects of COVID-19, a vaccine is urgently needed. BBV152 is a whole-virion inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine formulated with a toll-like receptor 7/8 agonist molecule adsorbed to alum (Algel-IMDG) or alum (Algel).MethodsWe did a double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled phase 1 trial to assess the safety and immunogenicity of BBV152 at 11 hospitals across India. Healthy adults aged 18-55 years who were deemed healthy by the investigator were eligible. Individuals with positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid and/or serology tests were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either one of three vaccine formulations (3 μg with Algel-IMDG, 6 μg with Algel-IMDG, or 6 μg with Algel) or an Algel only control vaccine group. Block randomisation was done with a web response platform. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment group allocation. Two intramuscular doses of vaccines were administered on day 0 (the day of randomisation) and day 14. Primary outcomes were solicited local and systemic reactogenicity events at 2 h and 7 days after vaccination and throughout the full study duration, including serious adverse events. Secondary outcome was seroconversion (at least four-fold increase from baseline) based on wild-type virus neutralisation. Cell-mediated responses were evaluated by intracellular staining and ELISpot. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04471519).FindingsBetween July 13 and 30, 2020, 827 participants were screened, of whom 375 were enrolled. Among the enrolled participants, 100 each were randomly assigned to the three vaccine groups, and 75 were randomly assigned to the control group (Algel only). After both doses, solicited local and systemic adverse reactions were reported by 17 (17%; 95% CI 10·5-26·1) participants in the 3 μg with Algel-IMDG group, 21 (21%; 13·8-30·5) in the 6 μg with Algel-IMDG group, 14 (14%; 8·1-22·7) in the 6 μg with Algel group, and ten (10%; 6·9-23·6) in the Algel-only group. The most common solicited adverse events were injection site pain (17 [5%] of 375 participants), headache (13 [3%]), fatigue (11 [3%]), fever (nine [2%]), and nausea or vomiting (seven [2%]). All solicited adverse events were mild (43 [69%] of 62) or moderate (19 [31%]) and were more frequent after the first dose. One serious adverse event of viral pneumonitis was reported in the 6 μg with Algel group, unrelated to the vaccine. Seroconversion rates (%) were 87·9, 91·9, and 82·8 in the 3 μg with Algel-IMDG, 6 μg with Algel-IMDG, and 6 μg with Algel groups, respectively. CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were detected in a subset of 16 participants from both Algel-IMDG groups.InterpretationBBV152 led to tolerable safety outcomes and enhanced immune responses. Both Algel-IMDG formulations were selected for phase 2 immunogenicity trials. Further efficacy trials are warranted.FundingBharat Biotech International.