Novavax COVID-19 vaccine shows efficacy against South African SARS-CoV-2 variant

Researchers in the United States and South Africa report that the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine from Novavax has proved effective at preventing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the B.1.351 variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that has recently emerged in South Africa.

In a phase 2a/b trial involving more than 4,000 participants in South Africa, a two-dose regimen of the vaccine was 60.1% effective at preventing COVID-19 predominantly caused by the B.1.351 variant among individuals who had not previously been infected with a previous strain of SARS-CoV-2.

Preliminary safety data also indicated an acceptable safety and reactogenicity profile. Local and systemic reactions were mainly mild to moderate and generally lasted less than 3 days.

However, among control participants who received placebo, evidence of prior infection with the presumptive original SARS-CoV-2 strain was not associated with protection against disease caused by the B.1.351 variant.

“This is the first report to provide evidence, in the setting of a controlled vaccine trial, that prior infection with first-wave prototype-like, pre-B.1.351 viruses did not reduce the risk of COVID-19 due to re-infection with B.1.351 variants among placebo recipients,” write the researchers.

The team – from Novavax, Inc., in Gaithersburg, Maryland and various institutions in South Africa – says the findings have significant public health implications for pandemic control strategies and the development and deployment of vaccines.

Vivek Shinde and colleagues advise that although the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine clearly induced cross-protection at clinically significant levels, these findings support the rapid development of vaccine formulations containing the B.1.351 variant.

A pre-print version of the research paper is available on the medRxiv* server, while the article undergoes peer review.

This news article was a review of a preliminary scientific report that had not undergone peer-review at the time of publication. Since its initial publication, the scientific report has now been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in a Scientific Journal. Links to the preliminary and peer-reviewed reports are available in the Sources section at the bottom of this article. View Sources

Recently merged variants threaten progress made with vaccination

The recent emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants poses a threat to the progress made towards controlling the COVID-19 pandemic through vaccination.

In an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 trial of healthy adults, a two-dose regimen of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine administered 21 days apart was associated with neutralizing antibody responses four times higher than those induced by convalescent sera from moderate-to-severe COVID-19 cases.

However, recent reports on the SARS-C0V-2 variants that have recently emerged in the UK (B.1.1.7), Brazil (P.1), and South Africa (B.1.351) have shown that mutations in key antigenic sites of the virus may render naturally acquired or vaccine-derived immunity to the original strain less protective against variant strains.

What did the current study involve?

Shinde and colleagues have described the preliminary findings of a phase 2a/b trial involving 4,406 participants (mean age 32 years) who were randomly assigned to receive a two dose-regimen (administered 21 days apart) of either the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine or placebo.

Participants included healthy HIV-negative individuals and medically stable people living with HIV (PLWH). All of them lived in South Africa, while the predominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 strain was the B.1.351 variant.

The primary endpoints were safety and vaccine efficacy at 7 days or more following the second dose (after day 28) against symptomatic COVID-19 in previously uninfected participants (seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline).

A total of 4,387 participants received at least one injection of NVXACoV2373 (n=2,199) or placebo (n=2,188), with 4,332 participants receiving both injections.

What did the study find?

Approximately 30% of participants were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline.

Among 2,684 participants who were seronegative at baseline (94% HIV-negative; 6% PLWH), 15 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 were observed in the vaccinated group after day 28, compared with 29 cases in the placebo group, corresponding to a vaccine efficacy of 49.4%.

All cases of the disease were mild to moderate, except for one severe case in the placebo group.

Among the HIV-negative participants, 11 cases of symptomatic COVID-19 were observed in the vaccinated group, compared with 27 in the placebo group, corresponding to a vaccine efficacy of 60.1%. Vaccine efficacy was unaffected by baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus in this group. The study was not powered to detect efficacy in the small PLWH cohort.

Of the 44 cases who met the primary efficacy endpoint criterion, whole genome sequence data were available for 41 (samples from 3 cases in the placebo group could not be sequenced). Of these cases, 38 (92.7%) were found to be caused by the B.1.351 variant.

In a post-hoc analysis, vaccine efficacy against the variant was 51.0% in HIV-negative, baseline seronegative participants and 43.0% in the combined HIV-negative and PLWH baseline seronegative population.

Interestingly, the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 cases among placebo recipients was similar between baseline seronegative and baseline seropositive participants during the first 60 days of follow-up, at 5.3% versus 5.2%.

Evidence of cross-protection against an escape variant

“Although these findings require further confirmation, our observations suggest that vaccination with prototype-sequenced NVX-CoV2373 conferred cross-protection against an immunological escape variant, in stark contrast to naturally acquired immunity,” writes Shinde and colleagues.

The researchers say wild-type and pseudo-virus neutralization assays assessing the impact of the B.1.351 variant on the neutralizing capacity of NVX-CoV2373 vaccine-elicited antibodies are in progress.

“Nevertheless, this is the first study to provide definitive clinical evidence of cross-protection against antigenically drifted viruses,” they add.

“Although cross-protection was clearly present at clinically meaningful levels, our observations support the rapid development of vaccine formulations containing the B.1.351 variant,” concludes the team.

This news article was a review of a preliminary scientific report that had not undergone peer-review at the time of publication. Since its initial publication, the scientific report has now been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in a Scientific Journal. Links to the preliminary and peer-reviewed reports are available in the Sources section at the bottom of this article. View Sources

Journal references:

Article Revisions

  • Apr 5 2023 - The preprint preliminary research paper that this article was based upon was accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed Scientific Journal. This article was edited accordingly to include a link to the final peer-reviewed paper, now shown in the sources section.
Sally Robertson

Written by

Sally Robertson

Sally first developed an interest in medical communications when she took on the role of Journal Development Editor for BioMed Central (BMC), after having graduated with a degree in biomedical science from Greenwich University.

Citations

Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

  • APA

    Robertson, Sally. (2023, April 05). Novavax COVID-19 vaccine shows efficacy against South African SARS-CoV-2 variant. News-Medical. Retrieved on December 18, 2024 from https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210304/Novavax-COVID-19-vaccine-shows-efficacy-against-South-African-SARS-CoV-2-variant.aspx.

  • MLA

    Robertson, Sally. "Novavax COVID-19 vaccine shows efficacy against South African SARS-CoV-2 variant". News-Medical. 18 December 2024. <https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210304/Novavax-COVID-19-vaccine-shows-efficacy-against-South-African-SARS-CoV-2-variant.aspx>.

  • Chicago

    Robertson, Sally. "Novavax COVID-19 vaccine shows efficacy against South African SARS-CoV-2 variant". News-Medical. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210304/Novavax-COVID-19-vaccine-shows-efficacy-against-South-African-SARS-CoV-2-variant.aspx. (accessed December 18, 2024).

  • Harvard

    Robertson, Sally. 2023. Novavax COVID-19 vaccine shows efficacy against South African SARS-CoV-2 variant. News-Medical, viewed 18 December 2024, https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210304/Novavax-COVID-19-vaccine-shows-efficacy-against-South-African-SARS-CoV-2-variant.aspx.

Comments

  1. Lisa Michelson Lisa Michelson United States says:

    Sally - You need to correct your article.  Novavax was 60% effective (SIXTY PERCENT) against the South African strain.  You incorrectly stated 49.4% which is the efficacy for only those in the study that have HIV (i.e. are immune compromised).  This is a big difference and you should report it correctly.

    • Kelly Robbins Kelly Robbins South Africa says:

      The article is 100% accurate insofar as it refers to the Novavax study itself. The relevant extract reads: "The clinical trial also achieved its primary efficacy endpoint in the overall trial population, including HIV-positive and HIV-negative subjects (efficacy of 49.4%; 95% CI: 6.1 – 72.8)."

      (Source: ir.novavax.com/.../novavax-covid-19-vaccine-demonstrates-893-efficacy-uk-phase-3)

      "Overall efficacy was 49.4% in this trial, but the figure rose to 60% among the 94% of trial participants who were HIV-negative."

      (Source: www.livemint.com/.../...riant-11611878690393.html)

      See also: www.businessinsider.co.za/novavax-vaccine-trial-results-in-uk-and-south-africa-2021-1

      With regard to your comment, being HIV-positive does not automatically render you immunocompromised. Medical science has advanced to such a point that the correct treatment, properly administered, can let you live a normal life with an undetectable viral load - which, although you are not cured, allows you to live a normal life to the extent where you would even be incredibly unlikely to infect a partner with the virus via sexual intercourse. Whilst I can't speak for those in the Novavax study, it was clearly stated that all HIV-positive participants were regarded as "medically stable" and there is consequently no reason to regard them as immunocompromised.

      Unlike Novavax, J&J is a "live" vaccine, and it would not be recommended to immunocompromised people. The following article highlights its performance, but it has since expanded to include over 100,000 frontline healthcare and other essential workers: www.businessinsider.co.za/jj-single-dose-covid-19-vaccine-full-study-results-2021-2

      This one is straight from the horse's mouth: South Africa's health minister has put J&J at the top of his first tier of vaccines that would be recommended for immediate use in SA, bearing in mind that the other two candidates (Pfizer and Moderna) have only received in-vitro testing against the SA variant. Novavax, along with AstraZeneca, is included in the bottom tier, below Sputnik, Sinovac, and Sinopharm, about which SA has thus far raised only queries (www.reuters.com/.../...rus-safrica-idUSKBN2AN1H1).

      J&J's "57%" unquestionably beats Novavax's doubtful "60%" in the real world.

      The only big difference - one that is not explained - is the underlying reason for the deviation from 60% in HIV- participants to 49.4% for the entire sample? What is the efficacy for HIV+ participants and why is it bad enough to reduce to overall efficacy rate when they constituted only 6% of the total sample? Perhaps direct your indignance regarding the "big difference" to Novavax, who are seemingly unwilling to devote more to it than a mere bracketed paragraph.

  2. Angela Livingston Angela Livingston United States says:

    Thank you Sally for posting this article up to date, even if with a bit of error, it served me and my accounting partners well for our study of Novavax and presentation for Thursday. Keep writing good ones!

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
CHOP study shows safety of rotavirus vaccine in neonatal intensive care unit