MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4395051412 · doi:10.1101/2024.04.22.24306197

Efficacy and Safety of an Inactivated Whole-Virion SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine (CoronaVac) in Brazilian Healthcare Professionals: The PROFISCOV Trial

2024· preprint· en· W4395051412 sur OpenAlexaff
José Moreira, Elizabeth González Patiño, Patricia Emília Braga, Pedro Pacheco, Caroline Curimbaba, Chris Gast, Ricardo Palácios, Mauro Teixeira, Fabiano Ramos, Gustavo Adolfo Sierra Romero, Fábio E. Leal, Luiz Octávio de Lima Camargo, Francisco Hideo Aoki, Eduardo Antônio Ferraz Coelho, André M. Siqueira, Sônia Mara Raboni, Danise Oliveira, Paulo de Tarso, Cor Jésus Fernandes Fontes, Ana Luiza Ceolin Lyrio, Maurício Lacerda Nogueira, Fernanda Boulos, Esper G. Kallás

Notice bibliographique

RevuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Établissements canadiensPrograms for Assessment of Technology in Health Research Institute
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésVirologySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Health professionalsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health careVaccine trialVaccine safetyMedicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakVaccinationImmunologyOutbreakPolitical scienceImmunizationInternal medicineAntigenDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

SUMMARY Background CoronaVac, an inactivated COVID-19 vaccine, underwent evaluation for its efficacy and safety during the PROFISCOV study conducted in Brazil. Methods Between July 21, 2020, and July 29, 2021, 13,166 participants provided informed consent, with 12,688 randomized for the trial. Participants were allocated between vaccine and placebo arms (1:1) and monitored for symptomatic COVID-19 cases, severity of disease, and adverse reactions after two doses given 14 days apart. Findings The primary efficacy analysis revealed a vaccine efficacy of 50□39% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35·26% to 61·98%; p= 0·0049) in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, leading to the issuance of Emergency Use Authorization for CoronaVac in January 2021. Upon completion of follow-up, vaccine efficacy was 44□58% [95% CI, 34·89% to 52·83%; p= 0·0023] in preventing COVID-19 and 82□14% (95% CI, 64·93% to 90·90%; p< 0·0001) in preventing severe COVID-19. Safety data indicated that adverse reactions were more frequent in the vaccine arm, primarily mild to moderate, with pain at the injection site and headache being the most common. Interpretation CoronaVac demonstrated moderate efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and high efficacy against severe disease. While reactions were slightly more common in the vaccine group, they were generally mild and manageable. Funding Fundação Butantan, Instituto Butantan, and São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP; Grants 2020/10127-1 and 2020/06409-1). Research in Context Evidence before this study At the time of the studýs design in 2020, the world was grappling with the COVID- 19 pandemic, with no licensed vaccine available. A global race to develop a safe and effective vaccine was underway, leading to the exploration of several vaccine candidates based on various technologies and mechanisms of action. Among these candidates was CoronaVac, an inactivated vaccine developed by Sinovac Life Sciences. PubMed was searched for pre-clinical and clinical trials using terms “COVID-19”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “Vaccine”, “Vaccine Efficacy”, without language or data restrictions. Additionally, information on clinical trials was sought from the ClinicialTrials.gov database and regulatory agencies. The focus was on late-stage clinical trials evaluating the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of CoronaVac. Positive safety and immunogenicity results from phase I/II clinical trials in younger and older adults, coupled with expanding pandemic, motivated the design and implementation of this phase III trial in healthcare professionals directly caring for or likely to be in close contact with COVID-19 patients in Brazil. No previous phase III study focusing on the efficacy and safety of CoronaVac in this high-risk population was identified. Added value of this study Between July 21, 2020, and July 29, 2021, 12,688 participants were randomized to receive either CoronaVac or placebo. We evaluated symptomatic COVID-19 cases, disease severity, and adverse reactions after two doses given 14 days apart. We found that CoronaVac met the predefined efficacy criteria, providing a moderate efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 of 50□39% (95% CI: 35·26-61·98) in the primary analysis. Notably, CoronaVac demonstrated high effective against severe disease, with a vaccine efficacy of 82□14% (64·93-90·90) in the final analysis. Regarding safety, CoronaVac was shown to be safe, with most reactions being mild and manageable, albeit more commonly reported in the CoronaVac group. The inclusion of a high-risk study population comprising healthcare workers directly involved in the care of COVID-19 patients in Brazil is a key differentiator of our trial, as other studies of CoronaVac in China, Indonesia, Chile and Turkey at that time were not restricted to healthcare workers. Implications of all the available evidence. The primary efficacy analysis data from this study supported the Emergency Use Authorization issued for CoronaVac in Brazil in January 2021. Subsequently, a national vaccination campaign was initiated, with CoronaVac being the first vaccine to be incorporated in the COVID-19 vaccination program in Brazil. Since then, more than 100 million doses of CoronaVac have been administered in Brazil through the National Health System. The efficacy and safety of two doses of CoronaVac were demonstrated in the final analysis of the study. CoronaVac’s ability to prevent severe disease is a crucial attribute that has had a positive impact on pandemic control and public health. It represents a promising option for COVID-19 vaccination, especially in low- or middle-income countries, given its moderate efficacy against symptomatic disease and favorable safety profile, in addition to its lower cost and ease of manufacturing compared to other vaccines available early in the pandemic. The impact on the immunogenicity and safety profile of XBB-updated versions of the vaccine used as a booster vaccination needs to be investigated in future studies.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,021

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,067
Tête enseignante GPT0,416
Écart entre enseignants0,349 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuemedRxiv→Même sujetSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→Travaux en français237 207→