This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
The rapid development of effective COVID-19 vaccines was enabled by the parallel assessment of multiple candidates early in the pandemic, including candidates based on the Modified Vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) vector platform. This Phase 1 trial (NCT04569383) evaluated the MVA-based vaccine candidate MVA-SARS-2-S, expressing the full-length native SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein (Wuhan-HU-1). Between October 2020 and May 2021, 30 healthy, SARS-CoV-2–naive adults received two doses of either 107 or 108 international units (IU) of MVA-SARS-2-S 28 days apart, with 6-month follow-up. A subgroup (n = 12) received two BNT162b2 booster vaccinations. Safety and reactogenicity were primary objectives; secondary and exploratory objectives included S1 seroconversion rates, S-domain-specific antibodies, SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies, and spike-specific T cell responses. MVA-SARS-2-S demonstrated a good safety profile. No severe or serious adverse events occurred. Immunogenicity was poor: S1-specific seroconversion occurred in 0/15 (107 IU group) and 3/15 (108 IU group) participants. Binding antibodies were predominantly directed against the S2 subunit, with peak median anti-S2 fold changes of 6.0 and 5.2 in the 107 IU and 108 IU groups, respectively. Neutralizing antibodies were detected in one participant (108 IU group); spike-specific T cell responses were observed in 5/15 (107 IU group) and 2/13 (108 IU group) participants. Heterologous BNT162b2 vaccination induced S1 seroconversion and detectable neutralizing antibody and T cell responses in all boosted participants, without safety concerns. In conclusion, while MVA-SARS-2-S was well tolerated and did not adversely affect subsequent BNT162b2 boosting, the vaccine candidate elicited insufficient immunogenicity, underscoring the need for optimized antigen design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fathi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: