Safety and Efficacy of Single-Dose Ad26.COV2.S Vaccine against Covid-19

The End or a New Era of Development of SARS-CoV-2 Virus: Genetic Variants Responsible for Severe COVID-19 and Clinical Efficacy of the Most Commonly Used Vaccines in Clinical Practice

Although the chief of the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a global health emergency, the disease is still a global threat. To be able to manage such pandemics in the future, it is necessary to develop proper strategies and opportunities to protect human life. The data on the SARS-CoV-2 virus must be continuously analyzed, and the possibilities of mutation and the emergence of new, more infectious variants must be anticipated, as well as the options of using different preventive and therapeutic techniques. This is because the fast development of severe acute coronavirus 2 syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern have posed a significant problem for COVID-19 pandemic control using the presently available vaccinations. This review summarizes data on the SARS-CoV-2 variants that are responsible for severe COVID-19 and the clinical efficacy of the most commonly used vaccines in clinical practice. The consequences after the disease (long COVID or post-COVID conditions) continue to be the subject of studies and research, and affect social and economic life worldwide.

Broad Protection Against Clade 1 Sarbecoviruses After a Single Immunization with Cocktail Spike-Protein-Nanoparticle Vaccine

The 2002 SARS outbreak, the 2019 emergence of COVID-19, and the continuing evolution of immune-evading SARS-CoV-2 variants together highlight the need for a broadly protective vaccine against ACE2-utilizing sarbecoviruses. While updated variant-matched formulations such as Pfizer-BioNTech's bivalent vaccine are a step in the right direction, protection needs to extend beyond SARS-CoV-2 and its variants to include SARS-like viruses. Here, we introduce bivalent and trivalent vaccine formulations using our spike protein nanoparticle platform that completely protected hamsters against BA.5 and XBB.1 challenges with no detectable virus in the lungs. The trivalent cocktails elicited highly neutralizing responses against all tested Omicron variants and the bat sarbecoviruses SHC014 and WIV1. Finally, our 614D/SHC014/XBB trivalent spike formulation completely protected human ACE2-transgenic hamsters against challenges with WIV1 and SHC014 with no detectable virus in the lungs. Collectively, these results illustrate that our trivalent protein-nanoparticle cocktail can provide broad protection against SARS-CoV-2-like and SARS-CoV-1-like sarbecoviruses.

Humoral and cellular responses to repeated COVID-19 exposure in multiple sclerosis patients receiving B-cell depleting therapies: a single-center, one-year, prospective study

Multiple sclerosis patients treated with anti-CD20 therapy (aCD20-MS) are considered especially vulnerable to complications from SARS-CoV-2 infection due to severe B-cell depletion with limited viral antigen-specific immunoglobulin production. Therefore, multiple vaccine doses as part of the primary vaccination series and booster updates have been recommended for this group of immunocompromised individuals. Even though much less studied than antibody-mediated humoral responses, T-cell responses play an important role against CoV-2 infection and are induced efficiently in vaccinated aCD20-MS patients. For individuals with such decoupled adaptive immunity, an understanding of the contribution of T-cell mediated immunity is essential to better assess protection against CoV-2 infection. Here, we present results from a prospective, single-center study for the assessment of humoral and cellular immune responses induced in aCD20-MS patients (203 donors/350 samples) compared to a healthy control group (43/146) after initial exposure to CoV-2 spike antigen and subsequent re-challenges. Low rates of seroconversion and RBD-hACE2 blocking activity were observed in aCD20-MS patients, even after multiple exposures (responders after 1st exposure = 17.5%; 2nd exposure = 29.3%). Regarding cellular immunity, an increase in the number of spike-specific monofunctional IFNγ+-, IL-2+-, and polyfunctional IFNγ+/IL-2+-secreting T-cells after 2nd exposure was found most noticeably in healthy controls. Nevertheless, a persistently higher T-cell response was detected in aCD20-MS patients compared to control individuals before and after re-exposure (mean fold increase in spike-specific IFNγ+-, IL-2+-, and IFNγ+/IL-2+-T cells before re-exposure = 3.9X, 3.6X, 3.5X/P< 0.001; after = 3.2X, 1.4X, 2.2X/P = 0.002, P = 0.05, P = 0.004). Moreover, cellular responses against sublineage BA.2 of the currently circulating omicron variant were maintained, to a similar degree, in both groups (15-30% T-cell response drop compared to ancestral). Overall, these results highlight the potential for a severely impaired humoral response in aCD20-MS patients even after multiple exposures, while still generating a strong T-cell response. Evaluating both humoral and cellular responses in vaccinated or infected MS patients on B-cell depletion therapy is essential to better assess individual correlations of immune protection and has implications for the design of future vaccines and healthcare strategies.

Efficacy of Vaccine Protection Against COVID-19 Virus Infection in Patients with Chronic Liver Diseases

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 is a useful weapon to combat the virus. Patients with chronic liver diseases (CLDs), including compensated or decompensated liver cirrhosis and noncirrhotic diseases, have a decreased immunologic response to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines. At the same time, they have increased mortality if infected. Current data show a reduction in mortality when patients with chronic liver diseases are vaccinated. A suboptimal vaccine response has been observed in liver transplant recipients, especially those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, so an early booster dose is recommended to achieve a better protective effect. Currently, there are no clinical data comparing the protective efficacy of different vaccines in patients with chronic liver diseases. Patient preference, availability of the vaccine in the country or area, and adverse effect profiles are factors to consider when choosing a vaccine. There have been reports of immune-mediated hepatitis after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, and clinicians should be aware of that potential side effect. Most patients who developed hepatitis after vaccination responded well to treatment with prednisolone, but an alternative type of vaccine should be considered for subsequent booster doses. Further prospective studies are required to investigate the duration of immunity and protection against different viral variants in patients with chronic liver diseases or liver transplant recipients, as well as the effect of heterologous vaccination.

Factors associated with stroke after COVID-19 vaccination: a statewide analysis

Background

The objective of our study was to evaluate vaccine type, COVID-19 infection, and their association with stroke soon after COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

In a retrospective cohort study, we estimated the 21-day post-vaccination incidence of stroke among the recipients of the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We linked the Georgia Immunization Registry with the Georgia Coverdell Acute Stroke Registry and the Georgia State Electronic Notifiable Disease Surveillance System data to assess the relative risk of stroke by the vaccine type.

Results

Approximately 5 million adult Georgians received at least one COVID-19 vaccine between 1 December 2020 and 28 February 2022: 54% received BNT162b2, 41% received mRNA-1273, and 5% received Ad26.COV2.S. Those with concurrent COVID-19 infection within 21 days post-vaccination had an increased risk of ischemic (OR = 8.00, 95% CI: 4.18, 15.31) and hemorrhagic stroke (OR = 5.23, 95% CI: 1.11, 24.64) with no evidence for interaction between the vaccine type and concurrent COVID-19 infection. The 21-day post-vaccination incidence of ischemic stroke was 8.14, 11.14, and 10.48 per 100,000 for BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S recipients, respectively. After adjusting for age, race, gender, and COVID-19 infection status, there was a 57% higher risk (OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.42) for ischemic stroke within 21 days of vaccination associated with the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine compared to BNT162b2; there was no difference in stroke risk between mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2.

Conclusion

Concurrent COVID-19 infection had the strongest association with early ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke after the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination. Although not all determinants of stroke, particularly comorbidities, were considered in this analysis, the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine was associated with a higher risk of early post-vaccination ischemic stroke than BNT162b2.

Serological Responses after a Fourth Dose of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The humoral immune response and safety of the fourth dose of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients need to be fully elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety associated with this additional dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in the SOT recipients. A comprehensive search was conducted to identify studies on SOT patients without prior natural SARS-CoV-2 infection who received the fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Serological antibody responses following vaccination were synthesized by a meta-analysis of proportions. The proportions for each outcome were integrated by using a random-effects model. Approximately 56-92% of the SOT patients developed a humoral immune response, and the pooled seroprevalence rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62-82%) after administering the third vaccine dose. Following the fourth dose of vaccination, approximately 76-95% of the patients developed a humoral immune response. The pooled seroprevalence rate after the fourth dose was 85% (95% CI, 79-91%). Of the patients who initially tested seronegative after the second dose, approximately 22-76% of patients subsequently became seropositive after the third dose. The pooled seroconversion rate for the third dose was 47% (95% CI, 31-64%). Among the patients who were seronegative after the third dose, approximately 25-76% turned seropositive after the fourth dose. The pooled seroconversion rate after the fourth dose was 51% (95% CI, 40-63%). Safety data were reported in three studies, demonstrating that adverse effects following the fourth dose were generally mild, and patients with these adverse effects did not require hospitalization. No transplant rejection or serious adverse events were observed. A fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in SOT recipients was associated with an improved humoral immune response, and the vaccine was considered relatively safe.

Therapeutic Interventions for COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus, is currently represented a major public health concern. The high transmission rate of this virus increases the mortality rate worldwide. To date, significant efforts and restricted regulations were performed around the world to control this crisis effectively, but unfortunately, there is no specific and successful therapy for COVID-19. Many approaches have been repurposed for SARS-CoV-2 treatment such as antivirals and anti-inflammatories. Furthermore, antibody therapies are one of the main and important approaches of SARS-CoV-2 infection treatment. In recent trials, various immunotherapeutic interventions such as convalescent plasma therapy and monoclonal antibodies, as well as immunomodulatory agents are being proposed. However, the development of a vaccine that provides durable protective immunity will be the most effective therapy for controlling possible epidemics of this virus. The current review summarized all the proposed therapeutic approaches together with information on their safety and efficacy in treating COVID-19, as well as the vaccine candidates. The provided comprehensive information regarding the applied therapeutic strategies against COVID-19 might help the scientific community in any progress toward the treatment of COVID-19 infection.

Reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 primary immunisation and booster vaccination regimens: a comparative observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, recommendations regarding the vaccination have been very dynamic. Although the safety and efficacy of different vaccines have been analysed, data were scarce for vaccine regimens combining different vaccines. We therefore aimed to evaluate and compare the perceived reactogenicity and need for medical consultation after the most frequently applied homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens.

METHODS

In an observational cohort study, reactogenicity and safety were assessed within a maximum follow-up time of 124 days using web-based surveys. Reactogenicity was assessed for different vaccination regimens 2 weeks after a vaccination (short-term survey). The following surveys, long-term and follow-up surveys, focused on the utilisation of medical services, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related.

RESULTS

Data of 17,269 participants were analysed. The least local reactions were seen after a ChAdOx1 - ChAdOx1 regimen (32.6%, 95% CI [28.2, 37.2]) and the most after the first dose with mRNA-1273 (73.9%, 95% CI [70.5, 77.2]). Systemic reactions were least frequent in participants with a BNT162b2 booster after a homologous primary immunisation with ChAdOx1 (42.9%, 95% CI [32.1, 54.1]) and most frequent after a ChAdOx1 - mRNA-1273 (85.5%, 95% CI [82.9, 87.8]) and mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 regimen (85.1%, 95% CI [83.2, 87.0]). In the short-term survey, the most common consequences were medication intake and sick leave (after local reactions 0% to 9.9%; after systemic reactions 4.5% to 37.9%). In the long-term and follow-up surveys, between 8.2 and 30.9% of participants reported consulting a doctor and between 0% and 5.4% seeking hospital care. The regression analyses 124 days after the first and after the third dose showed that the odds for reporting medical consultation were comparable between the vaccination regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis revealed differences in reactogenicity between the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination regimens in Germany. The lowest reactogenicity as reported by participants was seen with BNT162b2, especially in homologous vaccination regimens. However, in all vaccination regimens reactogenicity rarely led to medical consultations. Small differences in seeking any medical consultation after 6 weeks diminished during the follow-up period. In the end, none of the vaccination regimens was associated with a higher risk for medical consultation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS DRKS00025881 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025373 ). Registered on 14 October 2021. DRKS DRKS00025373 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025881 ). Registered on 21 May 2021. Registered retrospectively.

Molecular engineering tools for the development of vaccines against infectious diseases: current status and future directions

INTRODUCTION

The escalating global changes have fostered conditions for the expansion and transmission of diverse biological factors, leading to the rise of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. Complex viral infections, such as COVID-19, influenza, HIV, and Ebola, continue to surface, necessitating the development of effective vaccine technologies.

AREAS COVERED

This review article highlights recent advancements in molecular biology, virology, and genomics that have propelled the design and development of innovative molecular tools. These tools have promoted new vaccine research platforms and directly improved vaccine efficacy. The review summarizes the cutting-edge molecular engineering tools used in creating novel vaccines and explores the rapidly expanding molecular tools landscape and potential directions for future vaccine development.

EXPERT OPINION

The strategic application of advanced molecular engineering tools can address conventional vaccine limitations, enhance the overall efficacy of vaccine products, promote diversification in vaccine platforms, and form the foundation for future vaccine development. Prioritizing safety considerations of these novel molecular tools during vaccine development is crucial.

Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia following BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Booster: A Case Report

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) is a life-threatening complication caused by platelet activation via platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies. We report a healthy 28-year-old man who developed hemoptysis, bilateral leg pain, and headaches three weeks after his third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine with the first BNT162b2 (from Pfizer-BioNTech) injection. He had previously had the first and second doses with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 without any discomfort. Serial investigations demonstrated pulmonary embolisms, cerebral sinus, and deep iliac venous thrombosis. Positive PF4 antibody assay (ELISA) confirmed the diagnosis of VITT. He had a prompt response to intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIGs) at a total dose of 2 g/kg and his symptoms are now in remission with anticoagulant. Although the definite mechanism is unknown, the VITT was most likely triggered by his COVID-19 vaccine. We report this case of VITT following BNT162b2, a mRNA-based vaccine, and suggest that VITT could still happen without the adenoviral vector vaccines.

Immunogenicity and efficacy of a novel multi-patch SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccine candidate

Introduction

While there has been considerable progress in the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, largely based on the S (spike) protein of the virus, less progress has been made with vaccines delivering different viral antigens with cross-reactive potential.

Methods

In an effort to develop an immunogen with the capacity to induce broad antigen presentation, we have designed a multi-patch synthetic candidate containing dominant and persistent B cell epitopes from conserved regions of SARS-CoV-2 structural proteins associated with long-term immunity, termed CoV2-BMEP. Here we describe the characterization, immunogenicity and efficacy of CoV2-BMEP using two delivery platforms: nucleic acid DNA and attenuated modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA).

Results

In cultured cells, both vectors produced a main protein of about 37 kDa as well as heterogeneous proteins with size ranging between 25-37 kDa. In C57BL/6 mice, both homologous and heterologous prime/boost combination of vectors induced the activation of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 and CD8 T cell responses, with a more balanced CD8⁺ T cell response detected in lungs. The homologous MVA/MVA immunization regimen elicited the highest specific CD8⁺ T cell responses in spleen and detectable binding antibodies (bAbs) to S and N antigens of SARS-CoV-2. In SARS-CoV-2 susceptible k18-hACE2 Tg mice, two doses of MVA-CoV2-BMEP elicited S- and N-specific bAbs as well as cross-neutralizing antibodies against different variants of concern (VoC). After SARS-CoV-2 challenge, all animals in the control unvaccinated group succumbed to the infection while vaccinated animals with high titers of neutralizing antibodies were fully protected against mortality, correlating with a reduction of virus infection in the lungs and inhibition of the cytokine storm.

Discussion

These findings revealed a novel immunogen with the capacity to control SARS-CoV-2 infection, using a broader antigen presentation mechanism than the approved vaccines based solely on the S antigen.

Examining protective effects of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies after vaccination or monoclonal antibody administration

While new vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are authorized based on neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer against emerging variants of concern, an analogous pathway does not exist for preventative monoclonal antibodies. In this work, nAb titers were assessed as correlates of protection against COVID-19 in the casirivimab + imdevimab monoclonal antibody (mAb) prevention trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT4452318) and in the mRNA-1273 vaccine trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT04470427). In the mAb trial, protective efficacy of 92% (95% confidence interval (CI): 84%, 98%) is associated with a nAb titer of 1000 IU50/ml, with lower efficacy at lower nAb titers. In the vaccine trial, protective efficacies of 93% [95% CI: 91%, 95%] and 97% (95% CI: 95%, 98%) are associated with nAb titers of 100 and 1000 IU50/ml, respectively. These data quantitate a nAb titer correlate of protection for mAbs benchmarked alongside vaccine induced nAb titers and support nAb titer as a surrogate endpoint for authorizing new mAbs.

Broad-spectrum pan-genus and pan-family virus vaccines

Although the development and clinical application of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated unprecedented vaccine success in a short time frame, it also revealed a limitation of current vaccines in their inability to provide broad-spectrum or universal protection against emerging variants. Broad-spectrum vaccines, therefore, remain a dream and challenge for vaccinology. This review will focus on current and future efforts in developing universal vaccines targeting different viruses at the genus and/or family levels, with a special focus on henipaviruses, influenza viruses, and coronaviruses. It is evident that strategies for developing broad-spectrum vaccines will be virus-genus or family specific, and it is almost impossible to adopt a universal approach for different viruses. On the other hand, efforts in developing broad-spectrum neutralizing monoclonal antibodies have been more successful and it is worth considering broad-spectrum antibody-mediated immunization, or "universal antibody vaccine," as an alternative approach for early intervention for future disease X outbreaks.

Barriers to COVID-19 vaccine surveillance: the issue of under-reporting adverse events

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the reporting rates of adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) to the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) and its predictors among individuals with AEFIs after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from December 2, 2021 to December 20, 2021, recruiting participants >14 days after completion of a primary COVID-19 vaccination series. Reporting rates were calculated by dividing the number of participants who reported AEFIs to the SRS by the total number of participants who experienced AEFIs. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) using multivariate logistic regression to determine factors associated with spontaneous AEFIs reporting.

RESULTS

Among 2,993 participants, 90.9% and 88.7% experienced AEFIs after the first and second vaccine doses, respectively (reporting rates, 11.6 and 12.7%). Furthermore, 3.3% and 4.2% suffered moderate to severe AEFIs, respectively (reporting rates, 50.5 and 50.0%). Spontaneous reporting was more prevalent in female (aOR, 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31 to 1.81); those with moderate to severe AEFIs (aOR, 5.47; 95% CI, 4.45 to 6.73), comorbidities (aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.57), a history of severe allergic reactions (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.47 to 2.77); and those who had received mRNA-1273 (aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.49) or ChAdOx1 (aOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.30) vaccines versus BNT162b2. Reporting was less likely in older individuals (aOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98 to 0.99 per 1-year age increment).

CONCLUSIONS

Spontaneous reporting of AEFIs after COVID-19 vaccination was associated with younger age, female sex, moderate to severe AEFIs, comorbidities, history of allergic reactions, and vaccine type. AEFIs under-reporting should be considered when delivering information to the community and in public health decision-making.

Association between distance to community health care facilities and COVID-19-related mortality across U.S. counties in the COVID-19-vaccine era

OBJECTIVE

COVID-19 has caused tremendous damage to U.S. public health, but COVID vaccines can effectively reduce the risk of COVID-19 infections and related mortality. Our study aimed to quantify the association between proximity to a community healthcare facility and COVID-19 related mortality after COVID vaccines became publicly available and explore how this association varied across racial and ethnic groups.

RESULTS

Residents living farther from a facility had higher COVID-19-related mortality across U.S. counties. This increased mortality incidence associated with longer distances was particularly pronounced in counties with higher proportions of Black and Hispanic populations.

Retrospective, Observational Studies for Estimating Vaccine Effects on the Secondary Attack Rate of SARS-CoV-2

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are highly efficacious at preventing symptomatic infection, severe disease, and death. Most of the evidence that COVID-19 vaccines also reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is based on retrospective, observational studies. Specifically, an increasing number of studies are evaluating vaccine effectiveness against the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 using data available in existing health-care databases or contact-tracing databases. Since these types of databases were designed for clinical diagnosis or management of COVID-19, they are limited in their ability to provide accurate information on infection, infection timing, and transmission events. We highlight challenges with using existing databases to identify transmission units and confirm potential SARS-CoV-2 transmission events. We discuss the impact of common diagnostic testing strategies, including event-prompted and infrequent testing, and illustrate their potential biases in estimating vaccine effectiveness against the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2. We articulate the need for prospective observational studies of vaccine effectiveness against the SARS-CoV-2 secondary attack rate, and we provide design and reporting considerations for studies using retrospective databases.

Timing and sequence of vaccination against COVID-19 and influenza (TACTIC): a single-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

Background

Novel mRNA-based vaccines have been used to protect against SARS-CoV-2, especially in vulnerable populations who also receive an annual influenza vaccination. The TACTIC study investigated potential immune interference between the mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine and the quadrivalent influenza vaccine, and determined if concurrent administration would have effects on safety or immunogenicity.

Methods

TACTIC was a single-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted at the Radboud University Medical Centre, the Netherlands. Individuals ≥60 years, fully vaccinated against COVID-19 were eligible for participation and randomized into one of four study groups: 1) 0.5 ml influenza vaccination Vaxigrip Tetra followed by 0.3 ml BNT162b2 COVID-19 booster vaccination 21 days later, (2) COVID-19 booster vaccination followed by influenza vaccination, (3) influenza vaccination concurrent with the COVID-19 booster vaccination, and (4) COVID-19 booster vaccination only (reference group). Primary outcome was the geometric mean concentration (GMC) of IgG against the spike (S)-protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, 21 days after booster vaccination. We performed a non-inferiority analysis of concurrent administration compared to booster vaccines alone with a predefined non-inferiority margin of -0.3 on the log10-scale.

Findings

154 individuals participated from October, 4, 2021, until November, 5, 2021. Anti-S IgG GMCs for the co-administration and reference group were 1684 BAU/ml and 2435 BAU/ml, respectively. Concurrent vaccination did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (estimate -0.1791, 95% CI -0.3680 to -0.009831) and antibodies showed significantly lower neutralization capacity compared to the reference group. Reported side-effects were mild and did not differ between study groups.

Interpretation

Concurrent administration of both vaccines is safe, but the quantitative and functional antibody responses were marginally lower compared to booster vaccination alone. Lower protection against COVID-19 with concurrent administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccination cannot be excluded, although additional larger studies would be required to confirm this.

Trial registration number

EudraCT: 2021-002186-17.

Funding

The study was supported by the ZonMw COVID-19 Programme.

Precision recruitment for high-risk participants in a COVID-19 cohort study

Background

Studies for developing diagnostics and treatments for infectious diseases usually require observing the onset of infection during the study period. However, when the infection base rate incidence is low, the cohort size required to measure an effect becomes large, and recruitment becomes costly and prolonged. We developed a model for reducing recruiting time and resources in a COVID-19 detection study by targeting recruitment to high-risk individuals.

Methods

We conducted an observational longitudinal cohort study at individual sites throughout the U.S., enrolling adults who were members of an online health and research platform. Through direct and longitudinal connection with research participants, we applied machine learning techniques to compute individual risk scores from individually permissioned data about socioeconomic and behavioral data, in combination with predicted local prevalence data. The modeled risk scores were then used to target candidates for enrollment in a hypothetical COVID-19 detection study. The main outcome measure was the incidence rate of COVID-19 according to the risk model compared with incidence rates in actual vaccine trials.

Results

When we used risk scores from 66,040 participants to recruit a balanced cohort of participants for a COVID-19 detection study, we obtained a 4- to 7-fold greater COVID-19 infection incidence rate compared with similar real-world study cohorts.

Conclusion

This risk model offers the possibility of reducing costs, increasing the power of analyses, and shortening study periods by targeting for recruitment participants at higher risk.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination or Infection With Bell Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Bell palsy (BP) has been reported as an adverse event following the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, but neither a causative relationship nor a higher prevalence than in the general population has been established.

Objective

To compare the incidence of BP in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine recipients vs unvaccinated individuals or placebo recipients.

Data Sources

A systematic search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from the inception of the COVID-19 report (December 2019) to August 15, 2022.

Study Selection

Articles reporting BP incidence with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline and was conducted with the random- and fixed-effect models using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The outcomes of interest were to compare BP incidence among (1) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine recipients, (2) nonrecipients in the placebo or unvaccinated cohorts, (3) different types of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and (4) SARS-CoV-2-infected vs SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated individuals.

Results

Fifty studies were included, of which 17 entered the quantitative synthesis. Pooling 4 phase 3 randomized clinical trials showed significantly higher BP in recipients of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (77 525 vaccine recipients vs 66 682 placebo recipients; odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95% CI, 1.10-8.18; I2 = 0%). There was, however, no significant increase in BP after administration of the messenger RNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in pooling 8 observational studies (13 518 026 doses vs 13 510 701 unvaccinated; OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.16; I2 = 94%). No significant difference was found in BP among 22 978 880 first-dose recipients of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine compared with 22 978 880 first-dose recipients of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.82-1.15; I2 = 0%). Bell palsy was significantly more common after SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 2 822 072) than after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations (n = 37 912 410) (relative risk, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.57-6.62; I2 = 95%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests a higher incidence of BP among SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated vs placebo groups. The occurrence of BP did not differ significantly between recipients of the Pfizer/BioNTech vs Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 infection posed a significantly greater risk for BP than SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

The effect of mixed vaccination rollout strategy: A modelling study

Vaccines have measurable efficacy obtained first from vaccine trials. However, vaccine efficacy (VE) is not a static measure and long-term population studies are needed to evaluate its performance and impact. COVID-19 vaccines have been developed in record time and the currently licensed vaccines are extremely effective against severe disease with higher VE after the full immunization schedule. To assess the impact of the initial phase of the COVID-19 vaccination rollout programmes, we used an extended Susceptible - Hospitalized - Asymptomatic/mild - Recovered (SHAR) model. Vaccination models were proposed to evaluate different vaccine types: vaccine type 1 which protects against severe disease only but fails to block disease transmission, and vaccine type 2 which protects against both severe disease and infection. VE was assumed as reported by the vaccine trials incorporating the difference in efficacy between one and two doses of vaccine administration. We described the performance of the vaccine in reducing hospitalizations during a momentary scenario in the Basque Country, Spain. With a population in a mixed vaccination setting, our results have shown that reductions in hospitalized COVID-19 cases were observed five months after the vaccination rollout started, from May to June 2021. Specifically in June, a good agreement between modelling simulation and empirical data was well pronounced.

Impact of vaccination against the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) with Sputnik V on mortality during the delta variant surge

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to study impact of vaccination against the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with Sputnik V on mortality during the period of predominance of the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of individuals with state health insurance at the Moscow Ambulatory Center. The cohorts included 41,444 persons vaccinated with Sputnik V, 15,566 survivors of COVID-19, and 71,377 non-immune persons. The deaths of patients that occurred from June 1, 2021, to August 31, 2021, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall (0.39 % vs. 1.92 %; p < 0.001), COVID-19-related (0.06 % vs. 0.83 %; p < 0.001), and non-COVID mortality (0.33 % vs. 1.09 %; p < 0.001) was lower among vaccinated individuals than among non-immune individuals. The efficacy of vaccination against death from COVID-19 was 96 % [95 % CI 91-98 %] in the general population, 100 % among those aged 18-50 years, 97 % [95 % CI 76-100 %] among those aged 51-70 years, 98 % [95 % CI 90-100 %] among those aged 71-85 years, and 88 % [95 % CI 49-97 %] among those aged > 85 years.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccination with Sputnik V is associated with a decrease in overall and COVID-19-related mortality and is not with increased non-COVID mortality.

Understanding the challenges to COVID-19 vaccines and treatment options, herd immunity and probability of reinfection

Unlike pandemics in the past, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which rapidly spread worldwide, was met with a different approach to control and measures implemented across affected countries. The lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of the outbreak continues to make COVID-19 challenging to manage for both healthcare practitioners and the scientific community. Challenges to vaccine development and evaluation, current therapeutic options, convalescent plasma therapy, herd immunity, and the emergence of reinfection and new variants remain the major obstacles to combating COVID-19. This review discusses these challenges in the management of COVID-19 at length and highlights the mechanisms needed to provide better understanding of this pandemic.

Assessing parameter sensitivity in a university campus COVID-19 model with vaccinations

From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, universities have experienced unique challenges due to their dual nature as a place of education and residence. Current research has explored non-pharmaceutical approaches to combating COVID-19, including representing in models different categories such as age groups. One key area not currently well represented in models is the effect of pharmaceutical preventative measures, specifically vaccinations, on COVID-19 spread on college campuses. There remain key questions on the sensitivity of COVID-19 infection rates on college campuses to potentially time-varying vaccine immunity. Here we introduce a compartment model that decomposes a campus population into constituent subpopulations and implements vaccinations with time-varying efficacy. We use this model to represent a campus population with both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, and we analyze this model using two metrics of interest: maximum isolation population and symptomatic infection. We demonstrate a decrease in symptomatic infections occurs for vaccinated individuals when the frequency of testing for unvaccinated individuals is increased. We find that the number of symptomatic infections is insensitive to the frequency of testing of the unvaccinated subpopulation once about 80% or more of the population is vaccinated. Through a Sobol' global sensitivity analysis, we characterize the sensitivity of modeled infection rates to these uncertain parameters. We find that in order to manage symptomatic infections and the maximum isolation population campuses must minimize contact between infected and uninfected individuals, promote high vaccine protection at the beginning of the semester, and minimize the number of individuals developing symptoms.

A spike-targeting bispecific T cell engager strategy provides dual layer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in vivo

Neutralizing antibodies exert a potent inhibitory effect on viral entry; however, they are less effective in therapeutic models than in prophylactic models, presumably because of their limited efficacy in eliminating virus-producing cells via Fc-mediated cytotoxicity. Herein, we present a SARS-CoV-2 spike-targeting bispecific T-cell engager (S-BiTE) strategy for controlling SARS-CoV-2 infection. This approach blocks the entry of free virus into permissive cells by competing with membrane receptors and eliminates virus-infected cells via powerful T cell-mediated cytotoxicity. S-BiTE is effective against both the original and Delta variant of SARS-CoV2 with similar efficacy, suggesting its potential application against immune-escaping variants. In addition, in humanized mouse model with live SARS-COV-2 infection, S-BiTE treated mice showed significantly less viral load than neutralization only treated group. The S-BiTE strategy may have broad applications in combating other coronavirus infections.

The occurrence of emerging compounds in real urban wastewater before and after the COVID-19 pandemic in Cali, Colombia

The COVID-19 pandemic is considered one of the most significant global disasters in the last years. The rapid increase in infections, deaths, treatment, and the vaccination process has resulted in the excessive use of pharmaceuticals that have entered the environment as micropollutants. Considering the prior information about the presence of pharmaceuticals found in the wastewater of Cali, Colombia, which was collected from 2015 to 2022. The data monitored after the COVID-19 pandemic showed an increase in the concentration of analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs of up to 91%. This increase was associated with the consumption of pharmaceuticals for mild symptoms, such as fever and pain. Moreover, the increase in concentration of pharmaceuticals poses a highly ecological threat, which was up to 14 times higher than that reported before of COVID-19 pandemic. These results showed that the COVID-19 had not only impacted human health but also had an effect on environmental health.

Assessing the robustness of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials: systematic review and meta-analysis, January 2023

BackgroundVaccines play a crucial role in the response to COVID-19 and their efficacy is thus of great importance.AimTo assess the robustness of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (VE) trial results using the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) methodology.MethodsWe conducted a Cochrane and PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of COVID-19 VE trials published worldwide until 22 January 2023. We calculated the FI and FQ for all included studies and assessed their associations with selected trial characteristics using Wilcoxon rank sum tests and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. Spearman correlation coefficients and scatter plots were used to quantify the strength of correlation of FIs and FQs with trial characteristics.ResultsOf 6,032 screened records, we included 40 trials with 54 primary outcomes, comprising 909,404 participants with a median sample size per outcome of 13,993 (interquartile range (IQR): 8,534-25,519). The median FI and FQ was 62 (IQR: 22-123) and 0.50% (IQR: 0.24-0.92), respectively. FIs were positively associated with sample size (p < 0.001), and FQs were positively associated with type of blinding (p = 0.023). The Spearman correlation coefficient for FI with sample size was moderately strong (0.607), and weakly positive for FI and FQ with VE (0.138 and 0.161, respectively).ConclusionsThis was the largest study on trial robustness to date. Robustness of COVID-19 VE trials increased with sample size and varied considerably across several other important trial characteristics. The FI and FQ are valuable complementary parameters for the interpretation of trial results and should be reported alongside established trial outcome measures.

COVID-19 vaccine coverage, safety, and perceptions among patients with diabetes mellitus in China: a cross-sectional study

Aims

Diabetes mellitus (DM), one of the most common chronic diseases in China, is a risk factor for SARS-COV-2 infection and poor prognosis of COVID-19. The COVID-19 vaccine is one of the key measures to control the pandemic. However, the actual coverage of COVID-19 vaccination and associated factors remain unclear among DM patients in China. We conducted this study to investigate the COVID-19 vaccine coverage, safety, and perceptions among patients with DM in China.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of a sample of 2200 DM patients from 180 tertiary hospitals in China was performed using a questionnaire developed through the Wen Juan Xing survey platform to collect information regarding their coverage, safety, and perceptions of COVID-19 vaccination. A multinomial logistic regression analysis model was performed to determine any independent relationships with COVID-19 vaccination behavior among DM patients.

Results

In total, 1929 (87.7%) DM patients have received at least one dose COVID-19 vaccine, and 271 (12.3%) DM patients were unvaccinated. In addition, 65.2% (n = 1434) were booster vaccinated against COVID-19, while 16.2% (n = 357) were only fully vaccinated and 6.3% (n = 138) were only partially vaccinated. The prevalence of adverse effects after the first dose of vaccine, the second dose of vaccine, and the third dose of vaccine were 6.0%, 6.0%, and 4.3% respectively. Multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that DM patients complicated with immune and inflammatory diseases (partially vaccinated: OR = 0.12; fully vaccinated: OR = 0.11; booster vaccinated: OR = 0.28), diabetic nephropathy (partially vaccinated: OR = 0.23; fully vaccinated: OR = 0.50; booster vaccinated: OR = 0.30), and perceptions on the safety of COVID-19 vaccine (partially vaccinated: OR = 0.44; fully vaccinated: OR = 0.48; booster vaccinated: OR = 0.45) were all associated with the three of vaccination status.

Conclusion

This study showed that higher proportion of COVID-19 vaccine coverage among patients with DM in China. The concern about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine affected the vaccine behavior in patients with DM. The COVID-19 vaccine was relatively safe for DM patients due to all side effects were self-limiting.

Profile of COVID-19 breakthrough cases and its comparison with unvaccinated COVID-19 cases among healthcare workers in a tertiary care centre in North Kerala

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) were the most vulnerable group during COVID-19 pandemic and had faced many challenges including high rate of breakthrough infections.

Aims

To study the incidence of reported breakthrough infections among HCWs in Government Medical College, Kozhikode and to compare profile of COVID-19 infection between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID-19 positive HCWs.

Settings and Design

The research was conducted as a prospective study for a duration of 78 weeks from 1st of March 2020 through 31st of August 2021 in Government Medical College, Kozhikode.

Methods and Material

The study was conducted among HCWs in a COVID-19 tertiary care institute. Real-time data were collected from 401 breakthrough cases and 390 unvaccinated COVID-19 positive HCWs through telephonic interviews.

Statistical Analysis Used

Univariate analysis was done using frequency for categorical variables and mean and standard deviation for quantitative variables. Chi-square test was used to find out statistical significance.

Results

Incidence of breakthrough infection was found to be 5.62% with 43.3% being asymptomatic. Fever was the most predominant symptom (62.5%). None of the breakthrough cases developed complication requiring intensive care (ICU). There was a reduction in incidence of acute post-COVID-19 syndrome in vaccinated group (17.45%) compared to unvaccinated group (57.2%).

Conclusions

COVID-19 vaccination plays a key role in preventing severity, complication, and ICU admissions in COVID-19 infection. Incidence of post-COVID-19 syndrome is also less among fully vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals.

Herpetic Eye Disease After SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination: A CDC-VAERS Database Analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cases of herpes simplex and zoster ophthalmicus after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and assess the clinical presentations in patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of cases reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) between December 11, 2020, and July 1, 2022. Patients diagnosed with herpes simplex ophthalmicus (HSO) and herpes zoster ophthalmicus (HZO) after vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen) were included in the study. We performed a descriptive analysis of patient demographics, history, and ophthalmic and systemic clinical presentations. The correlations between vaccine type and continuous variables were assessed by the one-way analysis of variance test. In addition, we used the Pearson χ 2 test to assess the association between 3 vaccines and categorical variables. A post hoc analysis was performed between HSO and HZO onset intervals after vaccination, dose, and vaccine type. The 30-day risk analysis was also performed for HSO and HZO onset postvaccination using the reverse Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1180 cases of HZO (983, 83.30%) and HSO (180, 15.25%) were reported. The mean age of patients with HZO and HSO was 59.02 ± 19.05 and 52.68 ± 17.83 years, respectively. Most of the cases of HZO (795, 80.87%) and HSO (131, 72.78%) were reported in patients who received BNT162b2. In the cohort, 63.28% and 65.56% diagnosed with HZO and HSO were women. About one third of HZO (36.52%) and HSO (35.56%) cases were reported after the first dose. More than half of the cases of HZO (61.34%) and HSO (64.45%) were reported within the first 2 weeks after vaccination. The estimated crude reporting rate (per million doses) in the United States was 0.25, 0.22, and 0.47 for BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S, respectively. The onset interval for HZO was significantly shorter in patients who received BNT162b2 (20.51 ± 56.20 days, P = 0.030) compared with patients who received mRNA-1273 (36.56 ± 108.67 days) and Ad26.COV2.S (39.66 ± 60.15 days) vaccines. The 30-day risk analysis showed a significantly higher risk of HZO after BNT162b2 than the other 2 vaccines ( P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

The low crude reporting rate suggests that HZO and HSO after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination occur rarely. This study provides insights into the possible temporal association between reported HSO and HZO after SARS-CoV-2 vaccines; however, further investigations are required to delineate the possible underlying immunological mechanisms.

Post -acute sequalae of COVID-19 and cardiac outcomes in U. S. military members

Post -acute sequalae of COVID-19 (PASC) among U.S. military members remains unexplored. A cohort study of U. S. military members who had a COVID-19 test result, with the specimen collected between March 1, 2020 and November 30, 2021 was conducted. Demographic, inpatient and outpatient data including cardiac event diagnoses were extracted from electronic medical records and compared COVID-19 test-positive and COVID-19 test-negative service members. We used univariate and multivariable logistic regression methods to determine the effect PASC on select cardiac events. Among 997,785 service members, 15,779 (1.6%) were diagnosed with a cardiac event. In fully adjusted models, PASC was significantly associated with increased odds of any cardiac event [OR =1.64 (95% CI: 1.57, 1.71]. PASC was associated with increased odds of myocarditis [OR = 5.86 (95% CI: 4.22, 8.15)], pericarditis [OR =3.08 (95% CI: 2.31, 4.11)], syncope [OR =1.52 (95% CI: 1.41, 1.63)], tachycardia [OR =1.72 (95% CI: 1.56, 1.89)], heart failure [OR =2.15 (95% CI: 1.76, 2.63)], bradycardia [OR =1.71 (95% CI: 1.50, 1.96)], and atrial fibrillation [OR =1.33(95% CI: 1.02, 1.74)] in fully adjusted models. In a sensitivity analysis of military members with no history of cardiac events, PASC was still significantly associated with increased odds of any cardiac event [OR =1.75 (95% CI: 1.67, 1.84)]. In conclusion, we observed a significant association between PASC and cardiac outcomes including; myocarditis, pericarditis, and heart failure. These associations were observed in a relatively young and healthy population and among those without pre-existing cardiac diagnoses.

Quantifying how single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine efficacy depends on Spike sequence features

It is of interest to pinpoint SARS-CoV-2 sequence features defining vaccine resistance. In the ENSEMBLE randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, estimated single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine efficacy (VE) was 56% against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 Spike sequences were measured from 484 vaccine and 1,067 placebo recipients who acquired COVID-19 during the trial. In Latin America, where Spike diversity was greatest, VE was significantly lower against Lambda than against Reference and against all non-Lambda variants [family-wise error rate (FWER) p < 0.05]. VE also differed by residue match vs. mismatch to the vaccine-strain residue at 16 amino acid positions (4 FWER p < 0.05; 12 q-value ≤ 0.20). VE significantly decreased with physicochemical-weighted Hamming distance to the vaccine-strain sequence for Spike, receptor-binding domain, N-terminal domain, and S1 (FWER p < 0.001); differed (FWER ≤ 0.05) by distance to the vaccine strain measured by 9 different antibody-epitope escape scores and by 4 NTD neutralization-impacting features; and decreased (p = 0.011) with neutralization resistance level to vaccine recipient sera. VE against severe-critical COVID-19 was stable across most sequence features but lower against viruses with greatest distances. These results help map antigenic specificity of in vivo vaccine protection.

Evaluation of Antibody Kinetics Following COVID-19 Vaccination in Greek SARS-CoV-2 Infected and Naïve Healthcare Workers

We investigated the antibody kinetics after vaccination against COVID-19 in healthcare workers of a Greek tertiary hospital. Eight hundred and three subjects were included, of whom 758 (94.4%) received the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech), eight (1%) mRNA-1273 (Moderna), 14 (1.7%) ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) and 23 (2.9%) Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen). Before the second dose, at 2, 6 and 9 months after the second dose and at 2 and 6 months after the third dose, anti-spike IgG were quantified by the chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay method. One hundred subjects were infected before vaccination (group A), 335 were infected after receiving at least one vaccine dose (group B), while 368 had never been infected (group C). Group A presented a greater number of hospitalizations and reinfections compared to group B (p < 0.05). By multivariate analysis, younger age was associated with an increased risk of reinfection (odds ratio: 0.956, p = 0.004). All subjects showed the highest antibody titers at 2 months after the second and third dose. Group A showed higher antibody titers pre-second dose, which remained elevated 6 months post-second dose compared to groups B and C (p < 0.05). Pre-vaccine infection leads to rapid development of high antibody titer and a slower decline. Vaccination is associated with fewer hospitalizations and fewer reinfections.

Recent Developments and Future Perspectives of Vaccines and Therapeutic Agents against SARS-CoV2 Using the BCOV_S1_CTD of the S Protein

Since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the virus kept developing and mutating into different variants over time, which also gained increased transmissibility and spread in populations at a higher pace, culminating in successive waves of COVID-19 cases. The scientific community has developed vaccines and antiviral agents against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease. Realizing that growing SARS-CoV-2 variations significantly impact the efficacy of antiviral therapies and vaccines, we summarize the appearance and attributes of SARS-CoV-2 variants for future perspectives in drug design, providing up-to-date insights for developing therapeutic agents targeting the variants. The Omicron variant is among the most mutated form; its strong transmissibility and immune resistance capacity have prompted international worry. Most mutation sites currently being studied are in the BCOV_S1_CTD of the S protein. Despite this, several hurdles remain, such as developing vaccination and pharmacological treatment efficacies for emerging mutants of SARS-CoV-2 strains. In this review, we present an updated viewpoint on the current issues faced by the emergence of various SARS-CoV-2 variants. Furthermore, we discuss the clinical studies conducted to assist the development and dissemination of vaccines, small molecule therapeutics, and therapeutic antibodies having broad-spectrum action against SARS-CoV-2 strains.

Frequency and Predictors of Relapses following SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: Interim Results from a Longitudinal Observational Study

Despite protection from severe COVID-19 courses through vaccinations, some people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) are vaccination-hesitant due to fear of post-vaccination side effects/increased disease activity. The aim was to reveal the frequency and predictors of post-SARS-CoV-2-vaccination relapses in PwMS. This prospective, observational study was conducted as a longitudinal Germany-wide online survey (baseline survey and two follow-ups). Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, MS diagnosis, and ≥1 SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Patient-reported data included socio-demographics, MS-related data, and post-vaccination phenomena. Annualized relapse rates (ARRs) of the study cohort and reference cohorts from the German MS Registry were compared pre- and post-vaccination. Post-vaccination relapses were reported by 9.3% PwMS (247/2661). The study cohort's post-vaccination ARR was 0.189 (95% CI: 0.167-0.213). The ARR of a matched unvaccinated reference group from 2020 was 0.147 (0.129-0.167). Another reference cohort of vaccinated PwMS showed no indication of increased post-vaccination relapse activity (0.116; 0.088-0.151) compared to pre-vaccination (0.109; 0.084-0.138). Predictors of post-vaccination relapses (study cohort) were missing immunotherapy (OR = 2.09; 1.55-2.79; p < 0.001) and shorter time from the last pre-vaccination relapse to the first vaccination (OR = 0.87; 0.83-0.91; p < 0.001). Data on disease activity of the study cohort in the temporal context are expected for the third follow-up.

The Role of Perceived Risk in the Relationship Between Disgust Sensitivity and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy

Background

Despite widespread availability of COVID vaccines and evidence of their efficacy, vaccine hesitancy remains prevalent. Several studies have examined the relationship between disgust sensitivity and vaccine hesitancy. Although results from studies using data collected prior to the COVID pandemic indicate that higher disgust sensitivity is related to greater vaccine hesitancy, results from studies using data collected during the COVID pandemic are equivocal. The present study examined whether perceived risk of contracting COVID moderated the relationship between disgust sensitivity and vaccine hesitancy.

Methods

Participants (n = 152) completed self-report measures of disgust sensitivity, perceived risk of contracting COVID, and COVID vaccine hesitancy (defined as both vaccine confidence and vaccine complacency).

Results

Perceived risk of contracting COVID significantly moderated the relationship between disgust sensitivity and vaccine complacency, with the association strengthened at low levels of perceived risk. Perceived risk of contracting COVID also marginally moderated the relationship between disgust sensitivity and vaccine confidence, with the association strengthened at low and average levels of perceived risk.

Conclusions

Results suggest that individuals with elevated disgust sensitivity who also report low levels of perceived risk of contracting COVID are more likely to express vaccine hesitancy. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10608-023-10391-8.

Outcomes of Patients with Active Cancers and Pre-Existing Cardiovascular Diseases Infected with SARS-CoV-2

Objective To determine the impact of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection on patient with concomitant active cancer and CVD. Methods The researchers extracted and analyzed data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database between January 1, 2020, and July 22, 2022. They included only patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as a positive test by PCR 21 days before and 5 days after the day of index hospitalization. Active cancers were defined as last cancer drug administered within 30 days of index admission. The "Cardioonc" group consisted of patients with CVD and active cancers. The cohort was divided into four groups: (1) CVD (-), (2) CVD (+), (3) Cardioonc (-), and (4) Cardioonc (+), where (-) or (+) denotes acute SARS-CoV-2 infection status. The primary outcome of the study was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including acute stroke, acute heart failure, myocardial infarction, or all-cause mortality. The researchers analyzed the outcomes by different phases of the pandemic and performed competing-risk analysis for other MACE components and death as a competing event. Results The study analyzed 418,306 patients, of which 74%, 10%, 15.7%, and 0.3% had CVD (-), CVD (+), Cardioonc (-), and Cardioonc (+), respectively. The Cardioonc (+) group had the highest MACE events in all four phases of the pandemic. Compared to CVD (-), the Cardioonc (+) group had an odds ratio of 1.66 for MACE. However, during the Omicron era, there was a statistically significant increased risk for MACE in the Cardioonc (+) group compared to CVD (-). Competing risk analysis showed that all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the Cardioonc (+) group and limited other MACE events from occurring. When the researchers identified specific cancer types, patients with colon cancer had higher MACE. Conclusion In conclusion, the study found that patients with both CVD and active cancer suffered relatively worse outcomes when they had acute SARS-CoV-2 infection during early and alpha surges in the United States. These findings highlight the need for improved management strategies and further research to better understand the impact of the virus on vulnerable populations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 vaccination in adults with inflammatory bowel disease

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are not at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the general population, and most are not at increased risk for severe disease. COVID-19 is nonetheless common, and vaccination is critical. Four safe and efficacious vaccines are now available for the prevention of COVID-19, with most data available for mRNA vaccines. Patients with IBD have a robust humoral response to vaccination with rates of seroconversion exceeding 95% following a two-dose mRNA vaccine series and 99% following a three-dose mRNA series, although those on certain therapies including anti-tumor necrosis factor α agents may have lower antibody concentrations and waning of antibodies over time. Additionally, rates of cell-mediated immune response, even in those patients with IBD who did not have evidence of humoral immunity, are high. Vaccines are safe and have not been associated with flares in disease activity. Gastroenterology providers should take an active role in ensuring patients with IBD are appropriately vaccinated against COVID-19.

The efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines around the world: a mini-review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis evaluated the Efficacy and Effectiveness of several COVID-19 vaccines, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, Bharat, and Johnson & Johnson, to better estimate their immunogenicity, benefits, or side effects.

METHODS

Studies reporting the Efficacy and Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines from November 2020 to April 2022 were included. The pooled Effectiveness/Efficacy with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) with Metaprop order was calculated. The results were presented in forest plots. Predefined subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of twenty articles were included in this meta-analysis. After the first dose of the vaccine, the total effectiveness of all COVID-19 vaccines in our study was 71% (95% CI 0.65, 0.78). The total effectiveness of vaccines after the second dose was 91% (95% CI 0.88, 0.94)). The total efficacy of vaccines after the first and second doses was 81% (95% CI 0.70, 0.91) and 71% (95% CI 0.62, 0.79), respectively. The effectiveness of the Moderna vaccine after the first and second dose was the highest among other studied vaccines ((74% (95% CI, 0.65, 0.83) and 93% (95% CI, 0.89, 0.97), respectively). The highest first dose overall effectiveness of the studied vaccines was against the Gamma variant (74% (95% CI, 0.73, 0.75)), and the highest effectiveness after the second dose was observed against the Beta variant (96% (95% CI, 0.96, 0.96)). The Efficacy for AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines after the first dose was 78% (95% CI, 0.62, 0.95) and 84% (95% CI, 0.77, 0.92), respectively. The second dose Efficacy for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Bharat was 67% (95% CI, 0.54, 0.80), 93% (95% CI, 0.85, 1.00), and 71% (95% CI, 0.61, 0.82), respectively. The overall efficacy of first and second dose vaccination against the Alfa variant was 84% (95% CI, 0.84, 0.84) and 77% (95% CI, 0.57, 0.97), respectively, the highest among other variants.

CONCLUSION

mRNA-based vaccines against COVID-19 showed the highest total efficacy and effectiveness than other vaccines. In general, administering the second dose produced a more reliable response and higher effectiveness than a single dose.

Randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines: Do adenovirus-vector vaccines have beneficial non-specific effects?

We examined the possible non-specific effects of novel mRNA- and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines by reviewing the randomized control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines. We calculated mortality risk ratios (RRs) for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines vs. placebo recipients and compared them with the RR for adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccine recipients vs. controls. The RR for overall mortality of mRNA vaccines vs. placebo was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-1.71). In the adenovirus-vector vaccine RCTs, the RR for overall mortality was 0.37 (0.19-0.70). The two vaccine types differed significantly with respect to impact on overall mortality (p = 0.015). The RCTs of COVID-19 vaccines were unblinded rapidly, and controls were vaccinated. The results may therefore not be representative of the long-term effects. However, the data argue for performing RCTs of mRNA and adenovirus-vector vaccines head-to-head comparing long-term effects on overall mortality.

Short- and Long-Interval Prime-Boost Vaccination with the Candidate Vaccines MVA-SARS-2-ST and MVA-SARS-2-S Induces Comparable Humoral and Cell-Mediated Immunity in Mice

The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant human health and economic consequences. Due to the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to spread rapidly and to cause severe disease and mortality in certain population groups, vaccines are essential for controlling the pandemic in the future. Several licensed vaccines have shown improved protection against SARS-CoV-2 after extended-interval prime-boost immunizations in humans. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to compare the immunogenicity of our two Modified Vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) based COVID-19 candidate vaccines MVA-SARS-2-S and MVA-SARS-2-ST after short- and long-interval prime-boost immunization schedules in mice. We immunized BALB/c mice using 21-day (short-interval) or 56-day (long-interval) prime-boost vaccination protocols and analyzed spike (S)-specific CD8 T cell immunity and humoral immunity. The two schedules induced robust CD8 T cell responses with no significant differences in their magnitude. Furthermore, both candidate vaccines induced comparable levels of total S, and S2-specific IgG binding antibodies. However, MVA-SARS-2-ST consistently elicited higher amounts of S1-, S receptor binding domain (RBD), and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in both vaccination protocols. Overall, we found very comparable immune responses following short- or long-interval immunization. Thus, our results suggest that the chosen time intervals may not be suitable to observe potential differences in antigen-specific immunity when testing different prime-boost intervals with our candidate vaccines in the mouse model. Despite this, our data clearly showed that MVA-SARS-2-ST induced superior humoral immune responses relative to MVA-SARS-2-S after both immunization schedules.

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia: what do we know hitherto?

Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), also known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, is a catastrophic and life-threatening reaction to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, which occurs disproportionately in response to vaccination with non-replicating adenovirus vector (AV) vaccines. The mechanism of VITT is not well defined and it has not been resolved why cases of VITT are predominated by vaccination with AV vaccines. However, virtually all VITT patients have positive platelet-activating anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibody titers. Subsequently, platelets are activated and depleted in an Fcγ-receptor IIa (FcγRIIa or CD32a)-dependent manner, but it is not clear why or how the anti-PF4 response is mounted. This review describes the pathogenesis of VITT and provides insight into possible mechanisms that prompt the formation of a PF4/polyanion complex, which drives VITT pathology, as an amalgam of current experimental data or hypotheses.

Hybrid immunity expands the functional humoral footprint of both mRNA and vector-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

Despite the successes of current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, waning immunity, the emergence of variants of concern, and breakthrough infections among vaccinees have begun to highlight opportunities to improve vaccine platforms. Real-world vaccine efficacy studies have highlighted the reduced risk of breakthrough infections and diseases among individuals infected and vaccinated, referred to as hybrid immunity. Thus, we sought to define whether hybrid immunity shapes the humoral immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) following Pfizer/BNT162b2, Moderna mRNA-1273, ChadOx1/AZD1222, and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. Each vaccine exhibits a unique functional humoral profile in vaccination only or hybrid immunity. However, hybrid immunity shows a unique augmentation of S2-domain-specific functional immunity that was poorly induced for the vaccination only. These data highlight the importance of natural infection in breaking the immunodominance away from the evolutionarily unstable S1 domain and potentially affording enhanced cross-variant protection by targeting the more highly conserved S2 domain of SARS-CoV-2.

Intranasal COVID-19 vaccine induces respiratory memory T cells and protects K18-hACE mice against SARS-CoV-2 infection

Current COVID-19 vaccines prevent severe disease, but do not induce mucosal immunity or prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2, especially with recent variants. Furthermore, serum antibody responses wane soon after immunization. We assessed the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of an experimental COVID-19 vaccine based on the SARS-CoV-2 Spike trimer formulated with a novel adjuvant LP-GMP, comprising TLR2 and STING agonists. We demonstrated that immunization of mice twice by the intranasal (i.n.) route or by heterologous intramuscular (i.m.) prime and i.n. boost with the Spike-LP-GMP vaccine generated potent Spike-specific IgG, IgA and tissue-resident memory (TRM) T cells in the lungs and nasal mucosa that persisted for at least 3 months. Furthermore, Spike-LP-GMP vaccine delivered by i.n./i.n., i.m./i.n., or i.m./i.m. routes protected human ACE-2 transgenic mice against respiratory infection and COVID-19-like disease following lethal challenge with ancestral or Delta strains of SARS-CoV-2. Our findings underscore the potential for nasal vaccines in preventing infection with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogen.

Development of a Choice-framework for Covid vaccines in India using a multi-criteria decision analysis approach

BACKGROUND

Vaccines were crucial in controlling the Covid-19 pandemic. As more vaccines receive regulatory approval, stakeholders will be faced with several options and must make an appropriate choice for themselves. We proposed a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to guide decision-makers in comparing vaccines for the Indian context.

METHODS

We adhered to the ISPOR guidance for the MCDA process. Seven vaccine options were compared under ten criteria. Through three virtual workshops, we obtained opinions and weights from citizens, private-sector hospitals, and public health organisations. Available evidence was rescaled and incorporated into the performance matrix. The final score for each vaccine was calculated for the different groups. We performed different sensitivity analyses to assess the consistency of the rank list.

RESULTS

The cost, efficacy and operational score of the vaccines had the highest weights among the stakeholders. From the six scenario groups, Janssen had the highest score in four. This was driven by the advantage of having a single dose of vaccination. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis for the overall group, Covaxin, Janssen, and Sputnik were the first three options. The participants expressed that availability, WHO approvals and safety, among others, would be crucial when considering vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

The MCDA process has not been capitalised on in healthcare decision-making in India and LMICs. Considering the available data and stakeholder preference at the time of the study, Covaxin, Janssen, and Sputnik were preferred options. The choice framework with the dynamic performance matrix is a valuable tool that could be adapted to different population groups and extended based on increasing vaccine options and emerging evidence. *ISPOR - The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research.

Serological Response to SARS-CoV-2 after COVID-19 Vaccination in Lung Cancer Patients: Short Review

In comparison to the general population, lung cancer patients are more likely to suffer from severe Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and associated mortality. Considering this increased risk, and in order to prevent symptoms and severe disease, patients with lung cancer have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination primary and booster doses. Despite this, the pivotal clinical trials did not include these patients, which leaves open questions regarding vaccine efficacy and humoral immune response. This review outlines the findings of recent investigations into the humoral responses of lung cancer patients to COVID-19 vaccination, particularly the primary doses and first boost.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination during June-October 2021: A multi-site prospective study

INTRODUCTION

Vaccine hesitancy presents a challenge to COVID-19 control efforts. To identify beliefs associated with delayed vaccine uptake, we developed and implemented a vaccine hesitancy survey for the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership.

METHODS

In June 2021, we assessed attitudes and beliefs associated with COVID-19 vaccination using an online survey. Self-reported vaccination data were requested daily through October 2021. We compared responses between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents using absolute standardized mean differences (ASMD). We assessed validity and reliability using exploratory factor analysis and identified latent factors associated with a subset of survey items. Cox proportional hazards models and mediation analyses assessed predictors of subsequent vaccination among those initially unvaccinated.

RESULTS

In June 2021, 29,522 vaccinated and 1,272 unvaccinated participants completed surveys. Among those unvaccinated in June 2021, 559 (43.9 %) became vaccinated by October 31, 2021. In June, unvaccinated participants were less likely to feel "very concerned" about getting COVID-19 than vaccinated participants (10.6 % vs. 43.3 %, ASMD 0.792). Among those initially unvaccinated, greater intent to become vaccinated was associated with getting vaccinated and shorter time to vaccination. However, even among participants who reported no intention to become vaccinated, 28.5 % reported vaccination before study end. Two latent factors predicted subsequent vaccination-being 'more receptive' was derived from motivation to protect one's own or others' health and resume usual activities; being 'less receptive' was derived from concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. In a Cox model, both factors were partially mediated by vaccination intention.

CONCLUSION

This study characterizes vaccine hesitant individuals and identifies predictors of eventual COVID-19 vaccination through October 31, 2021. Even individuals with no intention to be vaccinated can shift to vaccine uptake. Our data suggest factors of perceived severity of COVID-19 disease, vaccine safety, and trust in the vaccine development process are predictive of vaccination and may be important opportunities for ongoing interventions.

Predictors of long-term neutralizing antibody titers following COVID-19 vaccination by three vaccine types: the BOOST study

As concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic continue, it is critical to understand the impact of vaccination type on neutralizing antibody response durability as well as to identify individual difference factors related to decline in neutralization. This was a head-to-head comparison study following 498 healthy, community volunteers who received the BNT162b2 (n = 287), mRNA-1273 (n = 149), and Ad26.COV2.S (n = 62). Participants completed questionnaires and underwent blood draws prior to vaccination, 1 month, and 6 months after the vaccination series, and neutralizing antibody (nAB) titers at 1- and 6-months post vaccination were quantified using a high-throughput pseudovirus assay. Over 6 months of follow-up, nABs declined in recipients of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, while nABs in recipients of Ad26.COV2.S showed a significant increase. At the 6-month time point, nABs to Ad26.COV2.S were significantly higher than nABs to BNT162b2 and equivalent to mRNA-1273. Irrespective of follow-up timing, being older was associated with lower nAB for participants who received BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S but not for those who received mRNA-1273. A higher baseline BMI was associated with a lower nAB for Ad26.COV2.S recipients but not for recipients of other vaccines. Women and non-smokers showed higher nAB compared to men and current smokers, respectively. The durability of neutralizing antibody responses differed by vaccine type and several sociodemographic factors that predicted response. These findings may inform booster recommendations in the future.

The risk of miscarriage following COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

What is the risk of miscarriage among pregnant women who received any of the COVID-19 vaccines?

SUMMARY ANSWER

There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are associated with an increased risk of miscarriage.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the mass roll-out of vaccines helped to boost herd immunity and reduced hospital admissions, morbidity, and mortality. Still, many were concerned about the safety of vaccines for pregnancy, which may have limited their uptake among pregnant women and those planning a pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception until June 2022 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We included observational and interventional studies that enrolled pregnant women and evaluated any of the available COVID-19 vaccines compared to placebo or no vaccination. We primarily reported on miscarriage in addition to ongoing pregnancy and/or live birth.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We included data from 21 studies (5 randomized trials and 16 observational studies) reporting on 149 685 women. The pooled rate of miscarriage among women who received a COVID-19 vaccine was 9% (n = 14 749/123 185, 95% CI 0.05-0.14). Compared to those who received a placebo or no vaccination, women who received a COVID-19 vaccine did not have a higher risk of miscarriage (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.89-1.28, I2 35.8%) and had comparable rates for ongoing pregnancy or live birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.03, I2 10.72%).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our analysis was limited to observational evidence with varied reporting, high heterogeneity and risk of bias across included studies, which may limit the generalizability and confidence in our findings.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

COVID-19 vaccines are not associated with an increase in the risk of miscarriage or reduced rates of ongoing pregnancy or live birth among women of reproductive age. The current evidence remains limited and larger population studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No direct funding was provided to support this work. M.P.R. was funded by the Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health Grant No: MR/N022556/1. B.H.A.W. hold a personal development award from the National Institute of Health Research in the UK. All authors declare no conflict of interest.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021289098.

Microneedle technology for potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine delivery

INTRODUCTION

Microneedle fabrication was conceptualised in the 1970s as devices for painless transdermal drug delivery. The last two decades have seen considerable research and financial investment in this area with SARS-CoV-2 and other vaccines catalysing their application to in vivo intradermal vaccine delivery. Microneedle arrays have been fabricated in different shapes, geometries, formats, and out of different materials.

AREAS COVERED

The recent pandemic has offered microneedle platforms the opportunity to be employed as a vehicle for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine administration. The various modes of vaccination delivery and the potential of microneedle arrays-based vaccines will be presented, with a specific focus placed on recent SARS-CoV-2 research. The advantages of microneedle-based vaccine administration, in addition to the major hurdles to their en masse implementation, will be examined.

EXPERT OPINION

Considering the widely acknowledged disadvantages of current vaccine delivery, such as anxiety, pain, and the requirement for professional administration, a large shift in this research sphere is imminent. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has catalysed the development of alternate vaccination platforms, working to avoid the requirement for mass vaccination centres. As microneedle vaccine patches are transitioning through clinical study phases, research will be required to ready this technology for a more mass production environment.

Hybrid Immunity Provides Protective Advantage Over Vaccination or Prior Remote Coronavirus Disease 2019 Alone

Background

The protective efficacy of prior coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with or without vaccination remains unknown. This study sought to understand if 2 or more messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine doses provide additional protection in patients with prior infection, or if infection alone provides comparable protection.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the risk of COVID-19 from 16 December 2020 through 15 March 2022, among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients of all ages with and without prior infection. A Simon-Makuch hazard plot illustrated the incidence of COVID-19 between groups. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the association of demographics, prior infection, and vaccination status with new infection.

Results

Among 101 941 individuals with at least 1 COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction test prior to 15 March 2022, 72 361 (71.0%) received mRNA vaccination and 5957 (5.8%) were previously infected. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was substantially higher throughout the study period for those previously uninfected and unvaccinated, and lowest for those previously infected and vaccinated. After accounting for age, sex, and the interaction between vaccination and prior infection, a reduction in reinfection risk was noted during the Omicron and pre-Omicron phases of 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8%-41%; P = .0065) to 36% (95% CI, 10%-54%; P = .0108), respectively, among previously infected and vaccinated individuals, compared to previously infected subjects without vaccination.

Conclusions

Vaccination was associated with lower risk of COVID-19, including in those with prior infection. Vaccination should be encouraged for all including those with prior infection, especially as new variants emerge and variant-specific booster vaccines become available.