Randomized trial evaluates safety and immunogenicity of a combination nanoparticle vaccine in adults, suggesting promise for dual protection.
Based on viral evolution, increases in seasonal infections, and facilitation of delivery, an annual combination vaccine simultaneously targeting influenza and SARS-CoV-2 would benefit public health. The safety and immunogenicity of a COVID-19-Influenza Combination nanoparticle vaccine (CIC) containing SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike (rS) to the ancestral strain (Wuhan) and quadrivalent influenza hemagglutinin with a Matrix-M® saponin-based adjuvant were evaluated in a phase 1/2 blinded, randomized trial. The safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a CIC two-dose series were assessed and compared with standalone quadrivalent influenza (qNIV) and monovalent COVID-19 (NVX-CoV2373) vaccines. Reactogenicity events, unsolicited adverse events (AEs), antiviral microneutralization responses, hemagglutination-inhibition antibody titers, anti-rS protein immunoglobulin G, and human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor binding inhibition antibody responses for SARS-CoV-2 were measured. All participants had been previously vaccinated against ancestral SARS-CoV-2. From September 8, 2021, to April 22, 2022, 642 participants were enrolled and randomized into the study; 637 received at least one vaccination. After each dose, CIC formulations induced antibody responses against homologous and heterologous influenza and SARS-CoV-2 strains that were comparable with the references. The CIC vaccine group had similar incidence of solicited and unsolicited AEs as the qNIV and NVX-CoV2373 reference groups. Severe unsolicited AEs only occurred in the CIC group but were infrequent and not considered related to the study vaccine. Overall, CIC formulations displayed reference-comparable safety and immunogenicity and provided data for statistical modeling analyses to optimize influenza hemagglutinin and SARS-CoV-2 rS antigen concentrations for use in phase 2 clinical trials investigating CIC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shinde et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: