Safety and immunogenicity following a homologous booster dose of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine (NVX-CoV2373): a secondary analysis of a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial
Abstract
Background Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and evidence of waning vaccine efficacy present substantial obstacles towards controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Booster doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines might address these concerns by amplifying and broadening the immune responses seen with initial vaccination regimens. We aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of a homologous booster dose of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine (NVX-CoV2373). Methods This secondary analysis of a phase 2, randomised study assessed a single booster dose of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike protein vaccine with Matrix-M adjuvant (NVX-CoV2373) in healthy adults aged 18–84 years, recruited from 17 clinical centres in the USA and Australia. Eligible participants had a BMI of 17–35 kg/m2 and, for women, were heterosexually inactive or using contraception. Participants who had a history of SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-2, confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, serious chronic medical conditions, or were pregnant or breastfeeding were excluded. Approximately 6 months following their primary two-dose vaccination series (administered day 0 and day 21), participants who received placebo for their primary vaccination series received a placebo booster (group A) and participants who received NVX-CoV2373 for their primary vaccination series (group B) were randomly assigned (1:1) again, via centralised interactive response technology system, to receive either placebo (group B1) or a single booster dose of NVX-CoV2373 (5…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,610 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.