↓ Skip to main content

Interim analysis from a phase 2 randomized trial of EuCorVac-19: a recombinant protein SARS-CoV-2 RBD nanoliposome vaccine

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, November 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
23 news outlets
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interim analysis from a phase 2 randomized trial of EuCorVac-19: a recombinant protein SARS-CoV-2 RBD nanoliposome vaccine
Published in
BMC Medicine, November 2022
DOI 10.1186/s12916-022-02661-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan F. Lovell, Yeong Ok Baik, Seuk Keun Choi, Chankyu Lee, Jeong-Yoon Lee, Kazutoyo Miura, Wei-Chiao Huang, Young-Shin Park, Sun-Je Woo, Sang Hwan Seo, Jae-Ouk Kim, Manki Song, Chung-Jong Kim, Jae-Ki Choi, Jieun Kim, Eun Ju Choo, Jung-Hyun Choi

Abstract

Numerous vaccine strategies are being advanced to control SARS-CoV-2, the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic. EuCorVac-19 (ECV19) is a recombinant protein nanoparticle vaccine that displays the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) on immunogenic nanoliposomes. Initial study of a phase 2 randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the immunogenicity, safety, and tolerance of ECV19 was carried out between July and October 2021. Two hundred twenty-nine participants were enrolled at 5 hospital sites in South Korea. Healthy adults aged 19-75 without prior known exposure to COVID-19 were vaccinated intramuscularly on day 0 and day 21. Of the participants who received two vaccine doses according to protocol, 100 received high-dose ECV19 (20 μg RBD), 96 received low-dose ECV19 (10 μg RBD), and 27 received placebo. Local and systemic adverse events were monitored. Serum was assessed on days 0, 21, and 42 for immunogenicity analysis by ELISA and neutralizing antibody response by focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT). Low-grade injection site tenderness and pain were observed in most participants. Solicited systemic adverse events were less frequent, and mostly involved low-grade fatigue/malaise, myalgia, and headache. No clinical laboratory abnormalities were observed. Adverse events did not increase with the second injection and no serious adverse events were solicited by ECV19. On day 42, Spike IgG geometric mean ELISA titers were 0.8, 211, and 590 Spike binding antibody units (BAU/mL) for placebo, low-dose and high-dose ECV19, respectively (p < 0.001 between groups). Neutralizing antibodies levels of the low-dose and high-dose ECV19 groups had FRNT50 geometric mean values of 129 and 316, respectively. Boosting responses and dose responses were observed. Antibodies against the RBD correlated with antibodies against the Spike and with virus neutralization. ECV19 was generally well-tolerated and induced antibodies in a dose-dependent manner that neutralized SARS-CoV-2. The unique liposome display approach of ECV19, which lacks any immunogenic protein components besides the antigen itself, coupled with the lack of increased adverse events during boosting suggest the vaccine platform may be amenable to multiple boosting regimes in the future. Taken together, these findings motivate further investigation of ECV19 in larger scale clinical testing that is underway. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as # NCT04783311.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Other 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 16 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 18 56%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 165. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2022.
All research outputs
#239,192
of 24,954,788 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#206
of 3,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,243
of 483,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#6
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,954,788 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 483,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.