Abstract
Background Data from previous studies of the MVC-COV1901 vaccine, a subunit vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 based on the stable prefusion spike protein (S-2P) adjuvanted with CpG 1018 adjuvant and aluminum hydroxide, suggest that the vaccine is generally safe and elicits a good immune response in healthy adults and adolescents. By comparing with AZD1222, this study adds to the findings from previous trials and further evaluates the breadth of protection offered by MVC-COV1901.
Methods In this phase 3, parallel group, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial conducted in 2 sites in Paraguay, we assigned adults aged 18 to 91 years in a 1:1 ratio to receive intramuscular doses of MVC-COV1901 or AZD1222 administered as scheduled in the clinical trial. Serum samples were collected on the day of vaccination and 14 days after the second dose. Primary and secondary safety and immunogenicity endpoints were assessed. In addition, other outcomes investigated were cross-reactive immunity against the Omicron strain and the induction of IgG subclasses.
Results A total of 1,030 participants underwent randomization. Safety data was derived from this set while primary immunogenicity data involved a per-protocol immunogenicity (PPI) subset including 225 participants. Among the participants, 58% are seropositive at baseline. When compared against AZD1222, MVC-COV1901 exhibited superiority in terms of neutralizing antibody titers and non-inferiority in terms of seroconversion rates. Reactogenicity was generally mild and no serious adverse event was attributable to MVC-COV1901. Both vaccines have a Th1-biased response predominated by the production of IgG1 and IgG3 subclasses. Omicron-neutralizing titers were 44.5 times lower compared to wildtype-neutralizing titers among seronegative individuals at baseline. This fold-reduction was 3.0 times among the seropositive.
Conclusion Results presented here demonstrate the safe and robust immunogenicity from MVC-COV1901. Previous infection coupled with vaccination of this vaccine may offer protection against the Omicron strain though its durability is still unknown.
ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT05011526
Competing Interest Statement
M.-Y. L., C. E. L., J.A.E., L.E., H.-Y.C., and C.C. are employees of Medigen Vaccine Biologics Corporation. R.J. is an employee of Dynavax Technologies Corporation. J.T., O.C.T., L.B., L.A.G., G.E., and G.S. declared no conflict of interest. All authors have reviewed and approved of the final version of the manuscript.
Clinical Trial
NCT05011526
Funding Statement
The study was funded by Medigen Vaccine Biologics (study sponsor).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The trial protocol and informed consent form were approved by the local regulatory entity (DINAVISA) and the ethics committees at the participating sites. The main institutional review board was the National University of Asuncion. The phase 3 trial was done in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Changes made are the following: (1) revised the abstract; (2) made an update on safety results and a table in the supplemental files; and (3) updated authorship and author affiliations.
Data Availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as it is an interim analysis of data from an ongoing study.
