MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record 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 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsPrograms for Assessment of Technology in Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirologySevere 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)

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→