Safety and Efficacy of the NVX-CoV2373 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine at Completion of the Placebo-Controlled Phase of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract
Abstract Background The recombinant protein-based vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, demonstrated 89.7% efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United Kingdom. The protocol was amended to include a blinded crossover. Data to the end of the placebo-controlled phase are reported. Methods Adults aged 18–84 years received 2 doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) and were monitored for virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 (onset from 7 days after second vaccination). Participants who developed immunoglobulin G (IgG) against nucleocapsid protein but did not show symptomatic COVID-19 were considered asymptomatic. Secondary outcomes included anti-spike (S) IgG responses, wild-type virus neutralization, and T-cell responses. Results Of 15 185 participants, 13 989 remained in the per-protocol efficacy population (6989 NVX-CoV2373, 7000 placebo). At a maximum of 7.5 months (median, 4.5) postvaccination, there were 24 cases of COVID-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 134 cases among placebo recipients, a vaccine efficacy of 82.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73.3%–88.8%). Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI, 17.9%–100.0%) against severe disease and 76.3% (95% CI, 57.4%–86.8%) against asymptomatic disease. High anti-S and neutralization responses to vaccination were evident, together with S-protein–specific induction of interferon-γ secretion in peripheral blood T cells. Incidence of serious…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, 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: 15 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.