Safety and efficacy of RCP recombinant spike protein covid-19 vaccine compared to Sinopharm BBIBP: A phase III, non-inferiority trial.

Background: We conducted a phase III, non-inferiority trial comparing safety and efficacy of RCP recombinant spike protein Covid-19 vaccine to BBIBP (Sinopharm). Methods: Adult Iranian population received RCP or BBIBP in a randomized, double blind and an additional non-randomized open labeled trial arms. Eligible participants signed a written informed consent and received two intramuscular injections three weeks apart. In the randomized arm, an intranasal dose of vaccine or adjuvant-only preparation were given to the RCP and BBIBP recipients at day 51 respectively. Participants were actively followed for up to 4 months for safety and efficacy outcomes. Primary outcome was PCR + symptomatic Covid-19 disease two weeks after the second dose. The non-inferiority margin was 10% of reported BBIBP vaccine efficacy (HR = 1.36). Results: We recruited 23,110 participants (7224 in the randomized and 15,886 in the non-randomized arm). We observed 604 primary outcome events during 4 months of active follow-up including 121 and 133 in the randomized and 157 and 193 cases in the non-randomized arms among recipients of RCP and BBIBP respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios for the primary outcome in those receiving RCP compared with BBIBP interval were 0.91 (0.71-1.16) and 0.62 (0.49-0.77) in the randomized and non-randomized arms respectively. The upper boundary of 99.1% confidence interval of HR = 0.91 (0.67-1.22) remained below the margin of non-inferiority in the randomized arm after observing the early stopping rules using O'Brien Fleming method. Conclusion: Our study showed that the RCP efficacy is non-inferior and its safety profile is comparable to the BBIBP.

Immunogenicity and safety of RAZI recombinant spike protein vaccine (RCP) as a booster dose after priming with BBIBP-CorV: a parallel two groups, randomized, double blind trial.

BACKGROUND: The immunity induced by primary vaccination is effective against COVID-19; however, booster vaccines are needed to maintain vaccine-induced immunity and improve protection against emerging variants. Heterologous boosting is believed to result in more robust immune responses. This study investigated the safety and immunogenicity of the Razi Cov Pars vaccine (RCP) as a heterologous booster dose in people primed with Beijing Bio-Institute of Biological Products Coronavirus Vaccine (BBIBP-CorV). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial in adults aged 18 and over primarily vaccinated with BBIBP-CorV, an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a booster dose of RCP or BBIBP-CorV vaccines. The primary outcome was neutralizing antibody activity measured by a conventional virus neutralization test (cVNT). The secondary efficacy outcomes included specific IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1 and receptor-binding domain, RBD) antigens and cell-mediated immunity. We measured humoral antibody responses at 2 weeks (in all participants) and 3 and 6 months (a subgroup of 101 participants) after the booster dose injection. The secondary safety outcomes were solicited and unsolicited immediate, local, and systemic adverse reactions. RESULTS: We recruited 483 eligible participants between December 7, 2021, and January 13, 2022. The mean age was 51.9 years, and 68.1% were men. Neutralizing antibody titers increased about 3 (geometric mean fold increase, GMFI = 2.77, 95% CI 2.26-3.39) and 21 (GMFI = 21.51, 95% CI 16.35-28.32) times compared to the baseline in the BBIBP-CorV and the RCP vaccine groups. Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 95% CI for serum neutralizing antibody titers for RCP compared with BBIBP-CorV on days 14, 90, and 180 were 6.81 (5.32-8.72), 1.77 (1.15-2.72), and 2.37 (1.62-3.47) respectively. We observed a similar pattern for specific antibody responses against S1 and RBD. We detected a rise in gamma interferon (IFN-γ), tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α), and interleukin 2 (IL-2) following stimulation with S antigen, particularly in the RCP group, and the flow cytometry examination showed an increase in the percentage of CD3 + /CD8 + lymphocytes. RCP and BBIBP-CorV had similar safety profiles; we identified no vaccine-related or unrelated deaths. CONCLUSIONS: BBIBP-CorV and RCP vaccines as booster doses are safe and provide a strong immune response that is more robust when the RCP vaccine is used. Heterologous vaccines are preferred as booster doses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trial at www.irct.ir , IRCT20201214049709N4. Registered 29 November 2021.

Phase II, Safety and Immunogenicity of RAZI Cov Pars (RCP) SARS Cov-2 Vaccine in Adults Aged 18-70 Years; A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study explores the safety and immunogenicity of the Razi-Cov-Pars (RCP) SARS Cov-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine. METHOD: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults aged 18-70 were randomly allocated to receive selected 10 µg/200 µl vaccine strengths or placebo (adjuvant). It included two intramuscular injections at days 0 and 21, followed by an intranasal dose at day 51. Immediate and delayed solicited local and systemic adverse reactions after each dose up to a week, and specific IgG antibodies against SARS Cov-2 spike antigens two weeks after the 2nd dose were assessed as primary outcomes. Secondary safety outcomes were abnormal laboratory findings and medically attended adverse events (MAAE) over six months follow up. Secondary immunogenicity outcomes were neutralizing antibody activity and cell-mediated immune response. RESULT: Between May 27th and July 15th, 2021, 500 participants were enrolled. Participants' mean (SD) age was 37.8 (9.0), and 67.0 % were male. No immediate adverse reaction was observed following the intervention. All solicited local and systemic adverse events were moderate (Grade I-II). Specific IgG antibody response against S antigen in the vaccine group was 5.28 times (95 %CI: 4.02-6.94) the placebo group with a 75 % seroconversion rate. During six months of follow-up, 8 SAEs were reported, unrelated to the study intervention. The participants sustained their acquired humoral responses at the end of the sixth month. The vaccine predominantly resulted in T-helper 1 cell-mediated immunity, CD8+ cytotoxic T-cell increase, and no increase in inflammatory IL-6 cytokine. CONCLUSION: RCP vaccine is safe and creates strong and durable humoral and cellular immunity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (IRCT20201214049709N2).

Immunogenicity and Safety of a Combined Intramuscular/Intranasal Recombinant Spike Protein COVID-19 Vaccine (RCP) in Healthy Adults Aged 18 to 55 Years Old: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase I Trial.

Objectives: This study aimed to determine the safety and immunogenicity of a combined intramuscular/intranasal recombinant spike protein COVID-19 vaccine (RCP). Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase I trial. Three vaccine strengths were compared with an adjuvant-only preparation. It included two intramuscular and a third intranasal dose. Eligible participants were followed for adverse reactions. Specific IgG, secretory IgA, neutralizing antibodies, and cell-mediated immunity were assessed. Results: A total of 153 participants were enrolled (13 sentinels, 120 randomized, 20 non-randomized open-labeled for IgA assessment). No related serious adverse event was observed. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 95% CI for serum neutralizing antibodies compared with placebo two weeks after the second injection were 5.82 (1.46-23.13), 11.12 (2.74-45.09), and 20.70 (5.05-84.76) in 5, 10, and 20 µg vaccine groups, respectively. The GMR for anti-RBD IgA in mucosal fluid two weeks after the intranasal dose was 23.27 (21.27-25.45) in the 10 µg vaccine group. The humoral responses were sustained for up to five months. All vaccine strengths indicated a strong T-helper 1 response. Conclusion: RCP is safe and creates strong and durable humoral and cellular immunity and good mucosal immune response in its 10 µg /200 µL vaccine strengths. Trial registration: IRCT20201214049709N1.

Comparison of respiratory and hemodynamic stability in patients with traumatic brain injury ventilated by two ventilator modes: Pressure regulated volume control versus synchronized intermittent mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare pressure regulated volume control (PRVC) and synchronized intermittent mechanical ventilation (SIMV) modes of ventilation according to respiratory and hemodynamic stability in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a randomized, single-blinded, clinical trial study, 100 patients who hospitalized in ICU due to TBI were selected and randomly divided into two groups. The first and second groups were ventilated by PRVC and SIMV modes, respectively. During mechanical ventilation, arterial blood gas and respiratory and hemodynamic parameters were also recorded and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: According to the t-test, the mean rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) after the first 8 h of mechanical ventilation was significantly higher in SIMV group compared with PRVC group (107.6 ± 2.75 vs. 102.2 ± 5.2, respectively, P < 0.0001). Further, according to ANOVA with repeated measures, the trend of RSBI changes had a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.001). The trend of ratio of partial pressure arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen was different between the two groups according to Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Using PRVC mode might be more desirable than using SIMV mode in patients with TBI due to better stability of ventilation and oxygenating. To ensure for more advantages of PRVC mode, further studies with longer follow-up and more detailed measurements are recommended.