Neutralization of EG.5, EG.5.1, BA.2.86, and JN.1 by antisera from dimeric receptor-binding domain subunit vaccines and 41 human monoclonal antibodies.

BACKGROUND: The recently circulating Omicron variants BA.2.86 and JN.1 were identified with more than 30 amino acid changes on the spike protein compared to BA.2 or XBB.1.5. This study aimed to comprehensively assess the immune escape potential of BA.2.86, JN.1, EG.5, and EG.5.1. METHODS: We collected human and murine sera to evaluate serological neutralization activities. The participants received three doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines or a booster dose of the ZF2022-A vaccine (Delta-BA.5 receptor-binding domain [RBD]-heterodimer immunogen) or experienced a breakthrough infection (BTI). The ZF2202-A vaccine is under clinical trial study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05850507). BALB/c mice were vaccinated with a panel of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RBD-dimer proteins. The antibody evasion properties of these variants were analyzed with 41 representative human monoclonal antibodies targeting the eight RBD epitopes. FINDINGS: We found that BA.2.86 had less neutralization evasion than EG.5 and EG.5.1 in humans. The ZF2202-A booster induced significantly higher neutralizing titers than BTI. Furthermore, BA.2.86 and JN.1 exhibited stronger antibody evasion than EG.5 and EG.5.1 on RBD-4 and RBD-5 epitopes. Compared to BA.2.86, JN.1 further lost the ability to bind to several RBD-1 monoclonal antibodies and displayed further immune escape. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that the currently dominating sub-variant, JN.1, showed increased immune evasion compared to BA.2.86 and EG.5.1, which is highly concerning. This study provides a timely risk assessment of the interested sub-variants and the basis for updating COVID-19 vaccines. FUNDING: This work was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Life Science Academy, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Postdoctoral Fellowship Program of China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (CPSF).

Efficacy and Safety of the RBD-Dimer-Based Covid-19 Vaccine ZF2001 in Adults.

BACKGROUND: The ZF2001 vaccine, which contains a dimeric form of the receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and aluminum hydroxide as an adjuvant, was shown to be safe, with an acceptable side-effect profile, and immunogenic in adults in phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to investigate the efficacy and confirm the safety of ZF2001. The trial was performed at 31 clinical centers across Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Ecuador; an additional center in China was included in the safety analysis only. Adult participants (≥18 years of age) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a total of three 25-µg doses (30 days apart) of ZF2001 or placebo. The primary end point was the occurrence of symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), as confirmed on polymerase-chain-reaction assay, at least 7 days after receipt of the third dose. A key secondary efficacy end point was the occurrence of severe-to-critical Covid-19 (including Covid-19-related death) at least 7 days after receipt of the third dose. RESULTS: Between December 12, 2020, and December 15, 2021, a total of 28,873 participants received at least one dose of ZF2001 or placebo and were included in the safety analysis; 25,193 participants who had completed the three-dose regimen, for whom there were approximately 6 months of follow-up data, were included in the updated primary efficacy analysis that was conducted at the second data cutoff date of December 15, 2021. In the updated analysis, primary end-point cases were reported in 158 of 12,625 participants in the ZF2001 group and in 580 of 12,568 participants in the placebo group, for a vaccine efficacy of 75.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71.0 to 79.8). Severe-to-critical Covid-19 occurred in 6 participants in the ZF2001 group and in 43 in the placebo group, for a vaccine efficacy of 87.6% (95% CI, 70.6 to 95.7); Covid-19-related death occurred in 2 and 12 participants, respectively, for a vaccine efficacy of 86.5% (95% CI, 38.9 to 98.5). The incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events was balanced in the two groups, and there were no vaccine-related deaths. Most adverse reactions (98.5%) were of grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of adults, the ZF2001 vaccine was shown to be safe and effective against symptomatic and severe-to-critical Covid-19 for at least 6 months after full vaccination. (Funded by the National Science and Technology Major Project and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04646590.).

Sensitivity, Specificity, and Safety of a Novel ESAT6-CFP10 Skin Test for Tuberculosis Infection in China: 2 Randomized, Self-Controlled, Parallel-Group Phase 2b Trials.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostics to identify tuberculosis infection are limited. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy and safety of ESAT6-CFP10 (EC) skin test for tuberculosis infection in Chinese adults. METHODS: We conducted 2 randomized, parallel-group clinical trials in healthy participants and tuberculosis patients. All participants were tested with the T-SPOT.TB test, then received an EC skin test and tuberculin skin test (TST). The diameter of skin indurations and/or redness at injection sites were measured at different time periods. A bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG) model was established to assess the diagnosis of tuberculosis infection using an EC skin test. RESULTS: In total, 777 healthy participants and 96 tuberculosis patients were allocated to receive EC skin test at 1.0 µg/0.1 mL or 0.5 µg/0.1 mL. The area under the curve was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], .91-.97) for the EC skin test at 1.0 µg/0.1 mL at 24-72 hours. Compared with the T-SPOT.TB test, the EC skin test demonstrated similar sensitivity (87.5, 95% CI, 77.8-97.2 vs 86.5, 95% CI, 79.5-93.4) and specificity (98.9, 95% CI, 96.0-99.9 vs 96.1, 95% CI, 93.5-97.8). Among BCG vaccinated participants, the EC skin test had high consistency with the T-SPOT.TB test (96.3, 95% CI, 92.0-100.0). No serious adverse events related to the EC skin test were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The EC skin test demonstrated both high specificity and sensitivity at a dose of 1.0 µg/0.1 mL, comparable to the T-SPOT.TB test. The diagnostic accuracy of the EC skin test was not impacted by BCG vaccination. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02389322 and NCT02336542.