4.6 Review

Lead SARS-CoV-2 Candidate Vaccines: Expectations from Phase III Trials and Recommendations Post-Vaccine Approval

Journal

VIRUSES-BASEL
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v13010054

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2 vaccines; clinical trials

Categories

Funding

  1. School of Veterinary Medicine at Texas Tech University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

SARS-CoV-2 candidate vaccines targeting the spike protein are showing promising results in phase I/II trials, with some already granted emergency use authorization. Expectations are high for phase III trials and recommendations for post-approval phase IV studies.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted primarily through respiratory droplets/aerosols and it causes COVID-19. The virus infects epithelial cells by using the spike protein on its surface to bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor on the cells. Thus, candidate vaccines targeting the spike protein are currently being developed to prevent against infections. Approximately 44 SARS-CoV-2 candidate vaccines are in clinical trials (phase I-III) and an additional 164 candidates are in preclinical stages. The efficacy data from phase I/II trials of lead candidate vaccines look very promising with virus-neutralizing geometric mean antibody titers in the range of 16.6-3906. Most recently, two SARS-CoV-2 candidate vaccines, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, have been granted the first emergency use authorization (EUA) in the U.S.; BNT162b2 has also been granted an EUA in the United Kingdom, Canada, and in the European Union. This review assesses whether SARS-CoV-2 candidate vaccines (with approved EUA or in phase III trials) meet the criteria for an ideal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The review concludes with expectations from phase III trials and recommendations for phase IV studies (post-vaccine approval).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available