Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36075233›Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2022

Immunogenicity and safety of an inactivated whole-virus COVID-19 vaccine (VLA2001) compared with the adenoviral vector vaccine ChAdOx1-S in adults in the UK (COV-COMPARE): interim analysis of a randomised, controlled, phase 3, immunobridging trial.

Rajeka Lazarus, Benedicte Querton, Irena Corbic Ramljak, Shailesh Dewasthaly, Juan Carlos Jaramillo, Katrin Dubischar, Michael Krammer, Petronela Weisova, Romana Hochreiter, Susanne Eder-Lingelbach and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. A non-transmissible live attenuated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Rajeka LazarusUniversity Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Benedicte QuertonValneva Austria, Vienna, Austria.
Irena Corbic RamljakValneva Austria, Vienna, Austria.
Shailesh DewasthalyValneva Austria, Vienna, Austria.
Juan Carlos JaramilloValneva Austria, Vienna, Austria.
Katrin DubischarValneva Austria, Vienna, Austria.
Michael KrammerValneva Austria, Vienna, Austria.
Petronela WeisovaValneva Austria, Vienna, Austria.
Romana HochreiterValneva Austria, Vienna, Austria.
Susanne Eder-LingelbachValneva Austria, Vienna, Austria.
Christian TaucherValneva Austria, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: christian.taucher@valneva.com.
Adam FinnUniversity Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK; School of Population Health Sciences and School of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Valneva phase 3 trial group

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Valneva COVID-19 vaccine (VLA2001; Valneva Austria, Vienna, Austria) is an inactivated whole-virus, adjuvanted SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of primary vaccination with VLA2001 versus the ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca) adenoviral-vectored vaccine.

methodsIn this immunobridging phase 3 trial (COV-COMPARE), participants aged 18 years and older who were medically stable (as determined by an investigator) were enrolled at 26 sites in the UK. In the double-blind, randomised, controlled arm of the trial, participants aged 30 years and older were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive two doses of VLA2001 (0·5 mL; with 33 antigen units [AU] per dose) or ChAdOx1-S (0·5 mL; with 2·5 × 10

findingsBetween April 28 and June 3, 2021, 4181 individuals were screened and 4017 enrolled, of whom 2975 (74%) were aged 30 years or older and randomly assigned to receive VLA2001 (n=1978) or ChAdOx1-S (n=997), and 1042 (26%) were aged 18-29 years (all received open-label VLA2001). 4012 participants received at least one dose of vaccine (1040 in the open-label VLA2001 group, 1977 in the randomised VLA2001 group, and 995 in the ChAdOx1-S group). The immunogenicity population comprised 492 participants in the randomised VLA2001 group and 498 in the ChAdOx1-S group; three participants in the VLA2001 group were excluded from the per-protocol population. VLA2001 induced higher neutralising GMTs than did ChAdOx1-S (803·5 [95% CI 748·5-862·6] vs 576·6 [543·6-611·7]; GMT ratio 1·39 [95% CI 1·25-1·56]; p<0·0001), and non-inferior seroconversion rates (444 [97·4%] of 456 participants vs 444 [98·9%] of 449; difference -1·5% [95% CI -3·3 to 0·2]. Any adverse event was reported in 963 (92·6%) participants in the open-label VLA2001 group, 1755 (88·8%) in the randomised VLA2001 group, and 976 (98·1%) in the ChAdOx1-S group. Most adverse events reported were mild or moderate in severity.

interpretationVLA2001 has a favourable tolerability profile and met superiority criteria for neutralising antibodies and non-inferiority criterion for seroconversion rates compared with ChAdOx1-S. The data presented here formed the basis of successful marketing approval for use of VLA2001 in primary vaccination in the EU, the UK, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates.

fundingUK Department of Health and Social Care and Valneva Austria.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesViral VaccinesAdenoviridaeAdultAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralDouble-Blind MethodHumansImmunogenicity, VaccineSARS-CoV-2United KingdomAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19 VaccinesViral Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID36075233
PMCPMC9444237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.