A randomized, double-blind phase I clinical trial of two recombinant dimeric RBD COVID-19 vaccine candidates: Safety, reactogenicity and immunogenicity

Abstract

Background: The Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is the target for many COVID-19 vaccines. Here we report results for phase I clinical trial of two COVID-19 vaccine candidates based on recombinant dimeric RBD (d-RBD).

Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind, phase I clinical trial in the National Centre of Toxicology in Havana. Sixty Cuban volunteers aged 19-59 years were randomized into three groups (20 subjects each): 1) FINLAY-FR-1 (50 µg d-RBD plus outer membrane vesicles from N. meningitidis); 2) FINLAY-FR-1A-50 (50 µg d-RBD, three doses); 3) FINLAY-FR-1A-25 (25 µg d-RDB, three doses). The FINLAY-FR-1 group was randomly divided to receive a third dose of the same vaccine candidate (homologous schedule) or FINLAY-FR-1A-50 (heterologous schedule). The primary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity. The secondary outcome was vaccine immunogenicity. Humoral response at baseline and following each vaccination was evaluated using live-virus neutralization test, anti-RBD IgG ELISA and in-vitro neutralization test of RBD:hACE2 interaction.

Results: Most adverse events were of mild intensity (63.5%), solicited (58.8%), and local (61.8%); 69.4% with causal association with vaccination. Serious adverse events were not found. The FINLAY-FR-1 group reported more subjects with adverse events than the other two groups. After the third dose, anti-RBD seroconversion was 100%, 94.4% and 90% for the FINLAY-FR-1, FINLAY-FR-1A-50 and FINLAY-FR-1A-25 respectively. The in-vitro inhibition of RBD:hACE2 interaction increased after the second dose in all formulations. The geometric mean neutralizing titres after the third dose rose significantly in the group vaccinated with FINLAY-FR-1 with respect to the other formulations and the COVID-19 Convalescent Serum Panel. No differences were found between FINLAY-FR-1 homologous or heterologous schedules.

Conclusions: Vaccine candidates were safe and immunogenic, and induced live-virus neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The highest values were obtained when outer membrane vesicles were used as adjuvant.

Trial registry: https://rpcec.sld.cu/en/trials/RPCEC00000338-En.

Keywords: Adjuvants; COVID-19; Coronavirus infection; Immunization schedule; Immunopotentiator; Neutralizing antibodies; SARS-CoV-2; Vaccines.

Fig. 1

Disposition of subjects. Trial profile. FINLAY-FR-1 = dimeric-Receptor Binding Domain (d-RBD, 50 µg) and outer membrane vesicles of Neisseria meningitidis group B (20 µg) in aluminium hydroxide gel. FINLAY-FR-1-50 = d-RBD (50 µg) in aluminium hydroxide gel. FINLAY-FR-1-25 = d-RBD (25 µg) in aluminium hydroxide gel.

Fig. 2

Conventional live-virus neutralization titres (cVNT) after second and third doses with the dimeric-Receptor Binding Domain (d-RBD) vaccine candidates: FINLAY-FR-1 = dimeric-Receptor Binding Domain (d-RBD, 50 µg) and outer membrane vesicles of Neisseria meningitidis group B (20 µg) in aluminium hydroxide gel. FINLAY-FR-1A–50 = d-RBD (50 µg) in aluminium hydroxide gel. FINLAY-FR-1A–25 = d-RBD (25 µg) in aluminium hydroxide gel. FINLAY-FR-1 post-third dose = blue circles represent subjects with homologous schedules; green squares represent subjects with heterologous schedules. CCSP = Cuban convalescent serum panel. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)