↓ Skip to main content

Interim Results of a Phase 1–2a Trial of Ad26.COV2.S Covid-19 Vaccine

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, January 2021
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
990 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1199 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 Results of a Phase 1–2a Trial of Ad26.COV2.S Covid-19 Vaccine
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, January 2021
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa2034201
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jerald Sadoff, Mathieu Le Gars, Georgi Shukarev, Dirk Heerwegh, Carla Truyers, Anne M de Groot, Jeroen Stoop, Sarah Tete, Wim Van Damme, Isabel Leroux-Roels, Pieter-Jan Berghmans, Murray Kimmel, Pierre Van Damme, Jan de Hoon, William Smith, Kathryn E Stephenson, Stephen C De Rosa, Kristen W Cohen, M Juliana McElrath, Emmanuel Cormier, Gert Scheper, Dan H Barouch, Jenny Hendriks, Frank Struyf, Macaya Douoguih, Johan Van Hoof, Hanneke Schuitemaker

Abstract

Efficacious vaccines are urgently needed to contain the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). A candidate vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S, is a recombinant, replication-incompetent adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector encoding a full-length and stabilized SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. In this multicenter, placebo-controlled, phase 1-2a trial, we randomly assigned healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 55 years (cohort 1) and those 65 years of age or older (cohort 3) to receive the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine at a dose of 5×1010 viral particles (low dose) or 1×1011 viral particles (high dose) per milliliter or placebo in a single-dose or two-dose schedule. Longer-term data comparing a single-dose regimen with a two-dose regimen are being collected in cohort 2; those results are not reported here. The primary end points were the safety and reactogenicity of each dose schedule. After the administration of the first vaccine dose in 805 participants in cohorts 1 and 3 and after the second dose in cohort 1, the most frequent solicited adverse events were fatigue, headache, myalgia, and injection-site pain. The most frequent systemic adverse event was fever. Systemic adverse events were less common in cohort 3 than in cohort 1 and in those who received the low vaccine dose than in those who received the high dose. Reactogenicity was lower after the second dose. Neutralizing-antibody titers against wild-type virus were detected in 90% or more of all participants on day 29 after the first vaccine dose (geometric mean titer [GMT], 224 to 354) and reached 100% by day 57 with a further increase in titers (GMT, 288 to 488), regardless of vaccine dose or age group. Titers remained stable until at least day 71. A second dose provided an increase in the titer by a factor of 2.6 to 2.9 (GMT, 827 to 1266). Spike-binding antibody responses were similar to neutralizing-antibody responses. On day 14, CD4+ T-cell responses were detected in 76 to 83% of the participants in cohort 1 and in 60 to 67% of those in cohort 3, with a clear skewing toward type 1 helper T cells. CD8+ T-cell responses were robust overall but lower in cohort 3. The safety and immunogenicity profiles of Ad26.COV2.S support further development of this vaccine candidate. (Funded by Johnson & Johnson and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services; COV1001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04436276.).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3,628 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 1,199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1199 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 150 13%
Researcher 137 11%
Student > Master 97 8%
Other 75 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 75 6%
Other 219 18%
Unknown 446 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 249 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 120 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 62 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 55 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 3%
Other 176 15%
Unknown 497 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3761. 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 21 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,407
of 25,753,031 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#112
of 32,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87
of 533,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#10
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,753,031 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 32,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 533,610 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 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 95% of its contemporaries.