75
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      COVID-19 vaccines: where we stand and challenges ahead

      review-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , , on behalf of the COVID-19 Commission of Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome
      Cell Death and Differentiation
      Nature Publishing Group UK
      Immunological disorders, Infectious diseases

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In the eleven months elapsed since the identification of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its genome, an exceptional effort by the scientific community has led to the development of over 300 vaccine projects. Over 40 are now undergoing clinical evaluation, ten of these are in Phase III clinical trials, three of them have ended Phase III with positive results. A few of these new vaccines are being approved for emergency use. Existing data suggest that new vaccine candidates may be instrumental in protecting individuals and reducing the spread of pandemic. The conceptual and technological platforms exploited are diverse, and it is likely that different vaccines will show to be better suited to distinct groups of the human population. Moreover, it remains to be elucidated whether and to what extent the capacity of vaccines under evaluation and of unrelated vaccines such as BCG can increase immunological fitness by training innate immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and pathogen-agnostic protection. Due to the short development time and the novelty of the technologies adopted, these vaccines will be deployed with several unresolved issues that only the passage of time will permit to clarify. Technical problems connected with the production of billions of doses and ethical ones connected with the availably of these vaccines also in the poorest countries, are imminent challenges facing us. It is our tenet that in the long run more than one vaccine will be needed to ensure equitable global access, protection of diverse subjects and immunity against viral variants.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor

          Summary The recent emergence of the novel, pathogenic SARS-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in China and its rapid national and international spread pose a global health emergency. Cell entry of coronaviruses depends on binding of the viral spike (S) proteins to cellular receptors and on S protein priming by host cell proteases. Unravelling which cellular factors are used by SARS-CoV-2 for entry might provide insights into viral transmission and reveal therapeutic targets. Here, we demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 uses the SARS-CoV receptor ACE2 for entry and the serine protease TMPRSS2 for S protein priming. A TMPRSS2 inhibitor approved for clinical use blocked entry and might constitute a treatment option. Finally, we show that the sera from convalescent SARS patients cross-neutralized SARS-2-S-driven entry. Our results reveal important commonalities between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV infection and identify a potential target for antiviral intervention.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 — Preliminary Report

            Abstract Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in late 2019 and spread globally, prompting an international effort to accelerate development of a vaccine. The candidate vaccine mRNA-1273 encodes the stabilized prefusion SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Methods We conducted a phase 1, dose-escalation, open-label trial including 45 healthy adults, 18 to 55 years of age, who received two vaccinations, 28 days apart, with mRNA-1273 in a dose of 25 μg, 100 μg, or 250 μg. There were 15 participants in each dose group. Results After the first vaccination, antibody responses were higher with higher dose (day 29 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay anti–S-2P antibody geometric mean titer [GMT], 40,227 in the 25-μg group, 109,209 in the 100-μg group, and 213,526 in the 250-μg group). After the second vaccination, the titers increased (day 57 GMT, 299,751, 782,719, and 1,192,154, respectively). After the second vaccination, serum-neutralizing activity was detected by two methods in all participants evaluated, with values generally similar to those in the upper half of the distribution of a panel of control convalescent serum specimens. Solicited adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site. Systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination, particularly with the highest dose, and three participants (21%) in the 250-μg dose group reported one or more severe adverse events. Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine induced anti–SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in all participants, and no trial-limiting safety concerns were identified. These findings support further development of this vaccine. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; mRNA-1273 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04283461).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial

              Summary Background The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Methods We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18–55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA50, MNA80, and MNA90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606. Findings Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493–1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96–317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360–792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R 2=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001). Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme. Funding UK Research and Innovation, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner site Gießen-Marburg-Langen.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                alberto.mantovani@humanitasresearch.it
                Journal
                Cell Death Differ
                Cell Death Differ
                Cell Death and Differentiation
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                1350-9047
                1476-5403
                21 January 2021
                : 1-14
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.466495.c, ISNI 0000 0001 2195 4282, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, ; Via della Lungara 10, 00165 Rome, Italy
                [2 ]GRID grid.452490.e, Istituto Clinico Humanitas IRCCS, , Humanitas University, ; via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090 Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
                [3 ]GRID grid.4868.2, ISNI 0000 0001 2171 1133, William Harvey Research Institute, , Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, ; London, EC1M 6BQ UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.466495.c, ISNI 0000 0001 2195 4282, The Commissione COVID-19, , Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, ; Rome, Italy
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5578-236X
                Article
                720
                10.1038/s41418-020-00720-9
                7818063
                33479399
                0aa7e17d-d0de-4159-961f-b292aba4ca94
                © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to ADMC Associazione Differenziamento e Morte Cellulare 2021

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                : 12 November 2020
                : 16 December 2020
                : 16 December 2020
                Categories
                Review Article

                Cell biology
                immunological disorders,infectious diseases
                Cell biology
                immunological disorders, infectious diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article