Safety and immunogenicity of a hybrid-type vaccine booster in BBIBP-CorV recipients in a randomized phase 2 trial

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

NVSI-06-08 is a potential broad-spectrum recombinant COVID-19 vaccine that integrates the antigens from multiple SARS-CoV-2 strains into a single immunogen. Here, we evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of NVSI-06-08 as a heterologous booster dose in BBIBP-CorV recipients in a randomized, double-blind, controlled, phase 2 trial conducted in the United Arab Emirates (NCT05069129). Three groups of healthy adults over 18 years of age (600 participants per group) who have administered two doses of BBIBP-CorV 4-6-month, 7-9-month and >9-month earlier, respectively, are randomized 1:1 to receive either a homologous booster of BBIBP-CorV or a heterologous booster of NVSI-06-08. The incidence of adverse reactions is low, and the overall safety profile is quite similar between two booster regimens. Both Neutralizing and IgG antibodies elicited by NVSI-06-08 booster are significantly higher than those by BBIBP-CorV booster against not only SARS-CoV-2 prototype strain but also multiple variants of concerns (VOCs). Especially, the neutralizing antibody GMT against Omicron variant induced by heterologous NVSI-06-08 booster reaches 367.67, which is substantially greater than that boosted by BBIBP-CorV (GMT: 45.03). In summary, NVSI-06-08 is safe and immunogenic as a booster dose following two doses of BBIBP-CorV, which is immunogenically superior to the homologous boost with another dose of BBIBP-CorV.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.08.22272062: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Trial oversight: The trial protocol was reviewed and approved by Abu Dhabi Health Research and Technology Ethics Committee.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationTrial design and participants: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled phase 2 trial to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of NVSI-06-08 (Sinopharm) as a booster dose following a primary series of BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm).
    BlindingBoth RBD-binding IgG detection and live-virus neutralization assays were carried out in a blinded manner.
    Power AnalysisAssuming that the 4-fold rise rate after booster vaccination achieve 85%, 208 participants in each arm will be required to have 80% power to conclude non-inferiority with margin of -10% and one-sided significance level of 2.5% using Miettinen and Nurminen method.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Study outcomes: The primary immunogenicity outcome was the neutralizing response on 15 days and 30 days after booster vaccination, by evaluation of the geometric mean titers (GMTs) of neutralizing antibodies and the corresponding 4-fold rise rate (i.e., post-/pre-boost ≥4).
    ≥4
    suggested: None
    Laboratory analyses: Spike receptor-binding domain (RBD)-specific IgG antibodies against the prototype SARS-CoV-2 strain was measured using a commercially available magnetic particle-based chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay kit purchased from Bioscience (Chongqing) Biotechnology Co. (approved by the China National Medical Products Administration; approval numbers 20203400183).
    RBD)-specific IgG
    suggested: None
    6 In brief, serum samples were heat-inactivated at 56 °C for 30 min, and then serially diluted by 2 fold starting from 1:4 (in detection of neutralizing antibodies against prototype SARS-CoV-2 strain) or 1:10 (in detection of neutralizing antibodies against VOCs) dilution.
    antibodies against prototype SARS-CoV-2 strain
    suggested: None
    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    After that, the Vero cell suspension with a density of 1.5-2×105 cells per mL was added into the serum-virus mixture, and then the plates were incubated at 37 °C for 3 to 5 days.
    Vero
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This trial has several limitations. Firstly, among participants, the proportion of elderly persons aged ≥60 years was low, and the immune response of the BBIBP-CorV/NVSI-06-08 booster strategy in older population should be further assessed in the future. Secondary, the number of male participants were much larger than female, and the data may not well reflect the effect in women. In summary, heterologous prime-boosting vaccination with BBIBP-CorV plus NVSI-06-08 was well tolerated and immunogenic against not only SARS-CoV-2 prototype strain but also the VOCs including Omicron. It was immunogenically superior to the booster with a third dose of BBIBP-CorV. Our study provides a preferred strategy to top up the immunity in BBIBP recipients against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants. The findings also implied that hybrid-type vaccine could induce potent and broad immune activities, which may provide an effective strategy for broad-spectrum vaccine developments.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT05069129RecruitingClinical Trial on Sequential Immunization of Recombinant COV…


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.