Dataset Information

Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of the Two-Dose Schedules of TURKOVAC versus CoronaVac in Healthy Subjects: A Randomized, Observer-Blinded, Non-Inferiority Phase III Trial.

ABSTRACT: We present the interim results of the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the two-dose schedules of TURKOVAC versus CoronaVac. This was a randomized, observer-blinded, non-inferiority trial (NCT04942405). Volunteers were 18-55 years old and randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either TURKOVAC or CoronaVac at Day 0 and Day 28, both of which are 3 μg/0.5 mL of inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) adsorbed to aluminum hydroxide. The primary efficacy outcome was the prevention of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at least 14 days after the second dose in the modified per-protocol (mPP) group. Safety analyses were performed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) group. Between 22 June 2021 and 7 January 2022, 1290 participants were randomized. The mITT group consisted of 915 participants, and the mPP group consisted of 732 participants. During a median follow-up of 90 (IQR 86-90) days, the relative risk reduction with TURKOVAC compared to CoronaVac was 41.03% (95% CI 12.95-60.06) for preventing PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19. The incidences of adverse events (AEs) overall were 58.8% in TURKOVAC and 49.7% in CoronaVac arms (p = 0.006), with no fatalities or grade four AEs. TURKOVAC was non-inferior to CoronaVac in terms of efficacy and demonstrated a good safety and tolerability profile.

SUBMITTER: Tanriover MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9698857 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of the Two-Dose Schedules of TURKOVAC versus CoronaVac in Healthy Subjects: A Randomized, Observer-Blinded, Non-Inferiority Phase III Trial.

Tanriover Mine Durusu MD Aydin Ozlem Altuntas OA Guner Rahmet R Yildiz Orhan O Celik Ilhami I Doganay Hamdi Levent HL Kose Sukran S Akhan Sila S Akalin Emin Halis EH Sezer Zafer Z Ozdarendeli Aykut A Unal Serhat S On Behalf Of The Turkovac Study Group

Vaccines 20221104 11

We present the interim results of the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the two-dose schedules of TURKOVAC versus CoronaVac. This was a randomized, observer-blinded, non-inferiority trial (NCT04942405). Volunteers were 18-55 years old and randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either TURKOVAC or CoronaVac at Day 0 and Day 28, both of which are 3 μg/0.5 mL of inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) adsorbed to aluminum hydroxide. The primary efficacy outcome w ...[more]

PMID: 36366373

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeople over 60 have been found to develop less protection after two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines than younger people. Heterologous immunisation could potentially induce more robust immune responses compared to homologous immunisation. We aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of a heterologous immunisation with an adenovirus type 5-vectored vaccine (Ad5-nCOV, Convidecia) among elderly who were primed with an inactivated vaccine (CoronaVac) previously.MethodsWe did a randomised, observer-blinded, non-inferiority trial in healthy adults aged 60 years and older in Lianshui County (Jiangsu, China) between August 26, 2021 and May 15, 2022. 199 eligible participants who had received two doses of CoronaVac in the past 3-6 months were randomised (1:1) to receive a third dose of Convidecia (group A, n = 99) or CoronaVac (group B, n = 100), while 100 participants primed with one dose of CoronaVac in the past 1-2 months were randomised equally to receive a second dose of Convidecia (group C, n = 50) or CoronaVac (group D, n = 50). Participants and investigators were masked to the vaccine received. Primary outcomes were the geometric mean titers (GMTs) of neutralising antibodies against live SARS-CoV-2 virus 14 days after boosting and 28-day adverse reactions. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.govNCT04952727.FindingsA heterologous third dose of Convidecia resulted in a 6.2-fold (GMTs: 286.4 vs 48.2), 6.3-fold (45.9 vs 7.3) and 7.5-fold (32.9 vs 4.4) increase in neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (BA.1.1) 14 days post boosting, respectively, compared with the homologous boost. The heterologous booster with Convidecia induced significantly higher neutralsing activities, with up to 91% inhibition in binding of Spike to ACE2 for BA.4 and BA.5 variants, compared with 35% inhibition induced by three doses of CoronaVac. For participants primed with one dose of CoronaVac, a heterologous dose of Convidecia induced higher neutralising antibodies against wild-type than two doses of CoronaVac (GMTs: 70.9 vs 9.3, p < 0.0001), but not for that against variants of concern (GMTs against delta: 5.0 vs 4.0, p = 0.4876; GMTs against omicron: 4.8 vs 3.7, p = 0.4707). Adverse reactions were reported by 8 (8.1%) participants in group A and 4 (4.0%) in group B (p ＞ 0.05), and 8 (16.0%) in group C and 1 (2.0%) in group D (p = 0.031).InterpretationIn elderly individuals primed with two doses of CoronaVac, the heterologous immunisation with Convidecia induced strong antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 wildtype and variants of concern, which could be an alternative regimen for enhancing protection in this vulnerable population.FundingNational Natural Science Foundation of China, Jiangsu Provincial Key Research and Development Program, and Jiangsu Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars Program.

Project description:Background Antimicrobial coatings of implants are of interest to reduce infection rate in orthopedic surgery. Demonstration of clinical effectiveness of such coated implants to obtain market approval is challenging. The objective of this article is to define a design for a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a silver-coating for locking plates for fracture treatment. Methods The study design has to respect different criteria, such as feasibility, focus on overall complications, such as functional impairment, fracture healing, and particularly on infection rates. Distal tibia fractures were chosen due to the high prevalence of infections in this type of injuries, which warrants a particular benefit of antimicrobial prophylaxis and thus might allow to see a statistical trend in favor of the coated product. The study design was defined as a randomized, controlled, subject and observer-blinded, multi-center study in subjects with fractures of the distal tibia with a total of 226 patients. A number of 113 patients are planned for each of the two treatment arms with treatment of the fracture with a silver-coated device (first arm) or with an uncoated device (second arm). Inclusion criteria are closed fractures of the distal tibia according to the Tscherne-Oestern classification or open fractures of the distal tibia according to the Gustilo-Anderson classification in subjects older than 18 years. Primary outcome parameter is the Anticipated Adverse Device Effects (AADE) including all typical complications of this type of injury, such as functional impairment of the affected limb, non-union, and infections based on a non-inferiority study design. Also, silver-typical complications, such as argyria, are included. Secondary parameters are infection rates and fracture healing. Follow-up of patients includes five visits with clinical and X-ray evaluations with a follow-up time of 12 months. Discussion Demonstration of clinical effectiveness of antimicrobial coatings of fracture fixation devices remains a challenge. Definition of a prospective randomized pre-market trial design and recruitment of clinical sites for such a study is possible. A confirmative proof of the expected clinical benefit in terms of reduction of device-related infections will be addressed with a prospective post-market clinical follow-up study in a second step due to the large sample size required. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05260463. Registered on 02 March 2022.

Project description:BackgroundInhibition of interleukin (IL)-13, a Type 2 inflammatory mediator in asthma, improves lung function and reduces exacerbations; however, more effective therapies are needed. A subset of asthma patients also exhibits elevated IL-17, which is associated with greater disease severity, neutrophilic inflammation, and steroid resistance. BITS7201A is a novel, humanized bispecific antibody that binds and neutralizes both IL-13 and IL-17.MethodsSafety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of BITS7201A were evaluated in a phase 1 study. Part A was a single ascending-dose design with 5 cohorts: 30-, 90-, and 300-mg subcutaneous (SC), and 300- and 750-mg intravenous (IV). Part B was a multiple ascending-dose design with 3 cohorts: 150-, 300-, and 600-mg SC every 4 weeks × 3 doses. Both parts enrolled approximately 8 healthy volunteers into each cohort (6 active: 2 placebo). Part B included an additional cohort of patients with mild asthma (600-mg SC).ResultsForty-one subjects (31 active, 10 placebo) and 26 subjects (20 active, 6 placebo) were enrolled into Parts A and B, respectively. The cohort with mild asthma patients was terminated after enrollment of a single patient. No deaths, serious adverse events, or dose-limiting adverse events occurred. In Part A, 12 active (39%) and 5 placebo subjects (50%), and in Part B, 6 active (30%) and 3 placebo subjects (50%) experienced at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common AEs were fatigue (n = 3) and influenza-like illness (n = 2). One injection-site reaction was reported. Two subjects with elevated blood eosinophil counts at baseline had transient elevations in blood eosinophils (≥Grade 2, > 1500 cells/μL). In Parts A and B, 16 of 30 (53%) and 16 of 17 (94%) active subjects, respectively, tested positive for anti-drug antibodies (ADAs). No anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity events occurred. BITS7201A exhibited single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetic characteristics consistent with an IgG monoclonal antibody; exposure generally increased dose-proportionally. Postdose elevations of the serum pharmacodynamic biomarkers, IL-17AA and IL-17FF, occurred, confirming target engagement.ConclusionsBITS7201A was well tolerated, but was associated with a high incidence of ADA formation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02748642; registered April 6, 2016 (retrospectively registered).

Project description:BackgroundPrimary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has been shown to wane with time and provide lower protection from disease with new viral variants, prompting the WHO to recommend the administration of booster doses. We determined the safety and immunogenicity of homologous or heterologous boosters with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (COVISHIELD™) or BBV152 (COVAXIN®), the two vaccines used widely for primary immunization in India, in participants who had already received two primary doses of these vaccines.MethodsParticipants primed with two doses each of COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® 12-36 weeks previously, were randomised to receive either COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® booster in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was day 28 post-booster anti-spike IgG seropositivity and secondary outcomes were anti-spike IgG levels and assessment of safety and reactogenicity. The results of 90 days intention-to-treat analysis are presented. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (CTRI/2021/08/035648).FindingsIn the COVISHIELD™ primed group with 200 participants, the seropositivity 28 days post booster in the heterologous COVAXIN® arm was 99% and non-inferior to the homologous COVISHIELD™ arm, which was also 99% (difference 0%; 95% CI: -2.8% to 2.7%). The geometric mean concentration (GMC) of anti-spike antibodies following heterologous COVAXIN® boost on day 28 was 36,190.78 AU/mL (95% CI: 30,526.64-42,905.88) while the GMC following homologous COVISHIELD™ boost was 97,445.09 AU/mL (82,626.97-114,920.7). In the COVAXIN® primed group with 204 participants, the seropositivity 28 days post booster in the heterologous COVISHIELD™ arm was 100% and non inferior to the homologous COVAXIN® arm which was 96% (difference 4%, 95% CI: 0.2%-7.8%). The GMC following heterologous COVISHIELD™ boost was 241,681.6 AU/mL (95% CI: 201,380.2-290,048.3) compared to homologous COVAXIN® boost, which was 48,473.94 AU/mL (95% CI: 38,529.56-60,984.95). The day 28 geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the anti-spike IgG between the heterologous and homologous boosted arms was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.34-0.52) in the COVISHIELD™ primed group and 5.11 (95% CI: 3.83-6.81) in the COVAXIN® primed group. There were no related serious adverse events reported in any group.InterpretationHomologous and heterologous boosting with COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® in COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® primed individuals are immunogenic and safe. A heterologous boost with COVISHIELD™ after COVAXIN® prime offers the best immune response among the four combinations evaluated.FundingAzim Premji Foundation and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dataset Information

Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of the Two-Dose Schedules of TURKOVAC versus CoronaVac in Healthy Subjects: A Randomized, Observer-Blinded, Non-Inferiority Phase III Trial.

Publications

Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of the Two-Dose Schedules of TURKOVAC versus CoronaVac in Healthy Subjects: A Randomized, Observer-Blinded, Non-Inferiority Phase III Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets