Association of Receiving a Fourth Dose of the BNT162b Vaccine With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Health Care Workers in Israel

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of repeated intradermal mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered as a second booster dose in a Thai geriatric population

Background

Geriatric populations are at an increased risk of severe presentations, hospitalization, and loss of life from COVID-19. Few studies have explored vaccination regimens in adults >65 years old. Repeated booster vaccination is required for high-risk populations as COVID-19 vaccine efficacy is short-lived. We compared the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of second intradermal (ID) COVID-19 booster vaccination with second intramuscular (IM) vaccination in older adults.

Methods

This single-center, open-labeled, prospective, cohort study conducted at Siriraj Hospital enrolled older adults ≥65 years old who previously received a first booster (third dose) mRNA vaccine (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2) via ID or IM administration. Participants were allocated to receive a second booster of the same vaccine type and route as their first booster 16-17 weeks thereafter. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain IgG and neutralizing antibody titers against Wuhan and Omicron subvariants (BA.1, BA.2, and BA.4/5) were measured 2 weeks after vaccination.

Results

Of 91 enrolled participants, 72.5% were women, with a median age of 75 years. Forty-nine participants (53.8%) received a second ID booster, and 42 (46.2%) received a second IM booster. Two weeks after the second booster, all groups generated anamnestic IgG antibody responses that were 5.41- to 10.00-fold higher than at baseline. Overall, higher antibody GMTs against Wuhan and Omicron subvariants were observed in IM compared with ID regimens. ID mRNA-1273 induced similar GMTs to IM BNT162b2 2 weeks after the second booster against Wuhan (486.77 [321.48, 737.05] vs. 472.63 [291.24, 767.01], respectively; p = 0.072). Higher GMTs against Omicron BA.1 (GMR [95% CI], 1.71 [1.39, 2.11]; p = 0.023), BA.2 (1.34 [1.11, 1.62]; p = 0.845), and BA.4/5 (1.10 [0.92, 1.33]; p = 0.531) were seen in all groups at 2 weeks after the second booster compared with 2-4 weeks after the first booster. Both local and systemic AEs were less frequent after the second than after the first booster, regardless of administrative route and vaccine type. Local AEs were significantly more frequent in ID mRNA-1273 arms than their respective BNT162b2 arms 2 weeks after the second booster (ID-mRNA-1273 vs. ID-BNT162b2: p ≤ 0.001).

Conclusion

Repeated fractional ID vaccination may be an alternative booster vaccination strategy for geriatric populations.

Immunogenicity, clinical efficacy and safety of additional second COVID-19 booster vaccines against Omicron and its subvariants: A systematic review

The Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a new variant of concern (VOC) and an emerging subvariant that exhibits heightened infectivity, transmissibility, and immune evasion, escalating the incidence of moderate to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It resists monoclonal antibodies and diminishes vaccine efficacy. Notably, new sublineages have outpaced earlier predominant sublineages. Although the primary vaccination series and initial boosters were robust against previous VOCs, their efficacy waned against Omicron and its subvariants. In this systematic review, we assessed real-world evidence on the immunogenicity, clinical efficacy, and safety of a second booster or fourth COVID-19 vaccine dose against the Omicron VOC and its subvariants. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Medline/PubMed, Google Scholar, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, and relevant studies published between 2022 and 30 May 2023 were reviewed. We found a total of 40 relevant articles focusing on a second booster dose for COVID-19, including clinical trials and observational studies, involving 3,972,856 patients. The results consistently revealed that an additional second booster dose restored and prolonged waning immunity, activating both humoral and cellular responses against Omicron and its subvariants. A second booster treatment correlated with enduring protection against COVID-19, notably preventing substantial symptomatic disease and mortality associated with severe Omicron infection. Both monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) and nonmRNA vaccines demonstrated similar efficacy and safety, with bivalent mRNA vaccines exhibiting broader protection against emerging subvariants of Omicron. The safety profiles of second booster were favourable with only mild systemic and local symptoms reported in some recipients. In conclusion, this systematic review underscores the additional COVID-19 vaccine boosters, particularly with bivalent or multivalent mRNA vaccines, for countering the highly infectious emerging subvariants of Omicron.

Design and analysis heterogeneity in observational studies of COVID-19 booster effectiveness: A review and case study

We investigated the design and analysis of observational booster vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies by performing a scoping review of booster VE literature with a focus on study design and analytic choices. We then applied 20 different approaches, including those found in the literature, to a single dataset from Michigan Medicine. We identified 80 studies in our review, including over 150 million observations in total. We found that while protection against infection is variable and dependent on several factors including the study population and time period, both monovalent boosters and particularly the bivalent booster offer strong protection against severe COVID-19. In addition, VE analyses with a severe disease outcome (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) appear to be more robust to design and analytic choices than an infection endpoint. In terms of design choices, we found that test-negative designs and their variants may offer advantages in statistical efficiency compared to cohort designs.

Protection of the third-dose and fourth-dose mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has raised concerns regarding waning vaccine-induced immunity and durability. We evaluated protection of the third-dose and fourth-dose mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant and its sublineages.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases and other resources (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL PLUS, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, MedRxiv and bioRxiv) were searched until December 2022.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies that assessed the effectiveness of mRNA vaccine booster doses against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes caused by the subvariant.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at different time points after the third-dose and fourth-dose vaccination were extracted. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare VE of the third dose versus the primary series, no vaccination and the fourth dose at different time points. The certainty of the evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

This review included 50 studies. The third-dose VE, compared with the primary series, against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 48.86% (95% CI 44.90% to 52.82%, low certainty) at ≥14 days, and gradually decreased to 38.01% (95% CI 13.90% to 62.13%, very low certainty) at ≥90 days after the third-dose vaccination. The fourth-dose VE peaked at 14-30 days (56.70% (95% CI 50.36% to 63.04%), moderate certainty), then quickly declined at 61-90 days (22% (95% CI 6.40% to 37.60%), low certainty). Compared with no vaccination, the third-dose VE was 75.84% (95% CI 40.56% to 111.12%, low certainty) against BA.1 infection, and 70.41% (95% CI 49.94% to 90.88%, low certainty) against BA.2 infection at ≥7 days after the third-dose vaccination. The third-dose VE against hospitalisation remained stable over time and maintained 79.30% (95% CI 58.65% to 99.94%, moderate certainty) at 91-120 days. The fourth-dose VE up to 60 days was 67.54% (95% CI 59.76% to 75.33%, moderate certainty) for hospitalisation and 77.88% (95% CI 72.55% to 83.21%, moderate certainty) for death.

CONCLUSION

The boosters provided substantial protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes for at least 6 months, although the duration of protection remains uncertain, suggesting the need for a booster dose within 6 months of the third-dose or fourth-dose vaccination. However, the certainty of evidence in our VE estimates varied from very low to moderate, indicating significant heterogeneity among studies that should be considered when interpreting the findings for public health policies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023376698.

Modeling COVID-19 vaccine booster-elicited antibody response and impact of infection history

The 3-dose COVID-19 vaccine (booster vaccination) has been offered worldwide. As booster vaccinations continue, it is important to understand the antibody dynamics elicited by booster vaccination in order to evaluate and develop vaccination needs and strategies. Here, we investigated longitudinal data by monitoring IgG antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) in health care workers. We extended our previously developed mathematical model to booster vaccines and successfully fitted antibody titers over time in the absence and presence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Quantitative analysis using our mathematical model indicated that anti-RBD IgG titers increase to a comparable extent after booster vaccination, regardless of the presence or absence of infection, but infection history extends the duration of antibody response by 1.28 times. Such a mathematical modeling approach can be used to inform future vaccination strategies on the basis of an individual's immune history. Our simple quantitative approach can be extended to any kind of vaccination and therefore can form a basis for policy decisions regarding the distribution of booster vaccines to strengthen immunity in future pandemics.

Early Systemic Anti-neoplastic Treatment Post SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Patients with Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

It is unclear how soon after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection it is safe to resume systemic anti-neoplastic treatment in patients with cancer. We assessed the risk of admissions or postponed treatment cycle in vaccinated patients with breast cancer receiving early systemic anti-neoplastic treatment following SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted during Omicron SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in Israel, January-July 2022. SARS-CoV-2 cohort included 30 vaccinated patients with breast cancer with SARS-CoV-2 infection 7-14 days prior to systemic treatment. All patients had resolved symptoms and a negative antigen detection test on the day of treatment. The pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic cohort consisted of 49 matched patients with breast cancer treated with systemic anti-neoplastic agents during 2019.

RESULTS

In 30 vaccinated patients with breast cancer who received systemic anti-neoplastic treatment 7-14 days following SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with 49 matched patients treated in 2019, the rates of emergency department (ED) visits (13% versus 6%, respectively), hospitalizations (3% versus 4%), next cycle of treatment given per protocol (90% versus 88%), and death (0% versus 0%) were similar.

CONCLUSION

In a cohort of vaccinated patients with breast cancer who received systemic anti-neoplastic treatment 7-14 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection, we did not observe substantially higher rates of ED visits, hospitalizations, or deaths compared with a similar cohort of pre-COVID-19 patients with breast cancer. Most patients received the next planned cycle on time. Early resumption of systemic anti-neoplastic treatment following SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated patients with breast cancer with a negative antigen test at the day of treatment appeared to be safe. Additional data on larger cohorts and other malignancies are needed to support clinical guidelines.

Understanding factors affecting Chinese medical staff's fear of receiving the fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccine: A cross-sectional study in Taizhou

The study was conducted to assess medical staffs' fear of receiving the fourth dose of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. From December 17, 2022, to January 31, 2023, an online survey was conducted to assess the fear among medical staffs regarding the administration of the fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The participants were exclusively drawn from a tertiary grade hospital in Taizhou. Out of the 1, 832 medical staffs invited to participate in the questionnaire, a total of 613 (33.5%) provided valid responses for subsequent analysis. Among them, 81 (13.8%) expressed fear of receiving the fourth dose of COVID-19. The fear was significantly influenced by these factors: the presence of serious food/drug allergic reactions (OR = 3.84, 95% CI: 1.40-10.52), received booster COVID-19 vaccine (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.35), opinion on vaccination requirement (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11-0.35), viewpoint (OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.12-0.44) with scores ≥10, and positive attitude toward vaccination (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.13-0.35). Our study revealed that a subset of medical staffs still harbor apprehension toward receiving the fourth dose of the new COVID-19 vaccine. Factors influencing this fear encompass allergic reactions, booster COVID-19 vaccine, as well as opinion, viewpoint, and attitude toward vaccination. Educating medical staffs on these factors may help mitigate their fear.

Achievement of sufficient antibody response after a fourth dose of wild-type SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine in nursing home residents

BACKGROUND

Infection control during COVID-19 outbreaks in nursing facilities is a critical public health issue. Antibody responses before and after the fourth (second booster) dose of wild-type severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine in nursing home residents have not been fully characterized.

METHODS

This study included 112 individuals: 54 nursing home residents (mean age: 84.4 years; 35 SARS-CoV-2-naive and 19 previously infected) and 58 healthcare workers (mean age: 47.7 years; 25 SARS-CoV-2-naive and 33 previously infected). Antispike and antinucleocapsid antibody responses to messenger RNA vaccination were evaluated using serum samples collected shortly and 5 months after the third dose, and shortly after the fourth dose.

RESULTS

The median immunoglobulin G (IgG) level in SARS-CoV-2-naive residents was similar to that in SARS-CoV-2-naive healthcare workers after the fourth dose (24,026.3 vs. 30,328.6 AU/mL, p = .79), whereas after the third dose the IgG level of SARS-CoV-2-naive residents was approximately twofold lower than that in SARS-CoV-2-naive healthcare workers. In residents with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, timing of infection in relation to vaccination affected the kinetics of antibody responses. Residents infected after the third dose showed the highest IgG levels after the fourth dose among all groups (median: 64,328.8 AU/mL), in contrast to residents infected before initiating vaccination with antibody levels similar to those of SARS-CoV-2-naive residents.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced aged nursing home residents, poor responders in the initial SARS-CoV-2 vaccine series, could achieve sufficient antibody responses after the fourth (second booster) vaccination, comparable to those of younger adults.

Comparative effectiveness of bivalent BA.4-5 and BA.1 mRNA booster vaccines among adults aged ≥50 years in Nordic countries: nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effectiveness of the bivalent mRNA booster vaccines containing the original SARS-CoV-2 and omicron BA.4-5 or BA.1 subvariants as the fourth dose against severe covid-19.

DESIGN

Nationwide cohort analyses, using target trial emulation.

SETTING

Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, from 1 July 2022 to 10 April 2023.

PARTICIPANTS

People aged ≥50 years who had received at least three doses of covid-19 vaccine (that is, a primary course and a first booster).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to compare the risk of hospital admission and death related to covid-19 in people who received a bivalent Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) BA.4-5 or BA.1 mRNA booster vaccine as a fourth dose (second booster) with three dose (first booster) vaccinated people and between four dose vaccinated people.

RESULTS

A total of 1 634 199 people receiving bivalent BA.4-5 fourth dose booster and 1 042 124 receiving bivalent BA.1 fourth dose booster across the four Nordic countries were included. Receipt of a bivalent BA.4-5 booster as a fourth dose was associated with a comparative vaccine effectiveness against admission to hospital with covid-19 of 67.8% (95% confidence interval 63.1% to 72.5%) and a risk difference of -91.9 (95% confidence interval -152.4 to -31.4) per 100 000 people at three months of follow-up compared with having received three doses of vaccine (289 v 893 events). The corresponding comparative vaccine effectiveness and risk difference for bivalent BA.1 boosters (332 v 977 events) were 65.8% (59.1% to 72.4%) and -112.9 (-179.6 to -46.2) per 100 000, respectively. Comparative vaccine effectiveness and risk difference against covid-19 related death were 69.8% (52.8% to 86.8%) and -34.1 (-40.1 to -28.2) per 100 000 for bivalent BA.4-5 booster (93 v 325 events) and 70.0% (50.3% to 89.7%) and -38.7 (-65.4 to -12.0) per 100 000 for BA.1 booster (86 v 286) as a fourth dose. Comparing bivalent BA.4-5 and BA.1 boosters as a fourth dose directly resulted in a three month comparative vaccine effectiveness and corresponding risk difference of -14.9% (-62.3% to 32.4%) and 10.0 (-14.4 to 34.4) per 100 000 people for admission to hospital with covid-19 (802 v 932 unweighted events) and -40.7% (-123.4% to 42.1%) and 8.1 (-3.3 to 19.4) per 100 000 for covid-19 related death (229 v 243 unweighted events). The comparative vaccine effectiveness did not differ across sex and age (</≥70 years) and seemed to be sustained up to six months from the day of vaccination with modest waning.

CONCLUSION

Vaccination with bivalent BA.4-5 or BA.1 mRNA booster vaccines as a fourth dose was associated with reduced rates of covid-19 related hospital admission and death among adults aged ≥50 years. The protection afforded by the bivalent BA.4-5 and BA.1 boosters did not differ significantly when directly compared, and any potential difference would most likely be very small in absolute numbers.

RBD-based high affinity ACE2 antagonist limits SARS-CoV-2 replication in upper and lower airways

SARS-CoV-2 has the capacity to evolve mutations to escape vaccine-and infection-acquired immunity and antiviral drugs. A variant-agnostic therapeutic agent that protects against severe disease without putting selective pressure on the virus would thus be a valuable biomedical tool. Here, we challenged rhesus macaques with SARS-CoV-2 Delta and simultaneously treated them with aerosolized RBD-62, a protein developed through multiple rounds of in vitro evolution of SARS-CoV-2 RBD to acquire 1000-fold enhanced ACE2 binding affinity. RBD-62 treatment gave equivalent protection in upper and lower airways, a phenomenon not previously observed with clinically approved vaccines. Importantly, RBD-62 did not block the development of memory responses to Delta and did not elicit anti-drug immunity. These data provide proof-of-concept that RBD-62 can prevent severe disease from a highly virulent variant.

Immunological responses and adverse reactions of the heterologous second booster dose of BNT162b2 after two-dose CoronaVac for COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers of Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University

BACKGROUND

The first COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Thailand began in April 2020, with healthcare workers receiving two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac). However, the emergence of the delta and omicron variants raised concerns about vaccine effectiveness. The Thai Ministry of Public Health provided the first booster dose (third dose) and second booster dose (fourth dose) of the mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) for healthcare workers. This study investigated the immunity and adverse reactions elicited by a heterologous second booster dose of BNT162b2 after a two-dose CoronaVac vaccination for COVID-19 in healthcare workers of the Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University.

METHODS

IgG titres against the SARS-CoV-2-spike protein were measured four and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2 in the study participants. Adverse reactions were recorded during the first three days, four weeks and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2.

RESULTS

IgG against the SARS-CoV-2-spike protein was positive (>10 U/ml) in 246 of 247 participants (99.6 %) at both four and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2. The median specific IgG titres at four and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2 were 299 U/ml (min: 2, max: 29,161) and 104 U/ml (min: 1, max: 17,920), respectively. The median IgG level declined significantly 24 weeks after the second booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Of the 247 participants, 179 (72.5 %) experienced adverse reactions in the first three days after the second booster dose of BNT162b2. Myalgia, fever, headache, injection site pain and fatigue were the most common adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that a heterologous second booster dose of BNT162b2 after two doses of CoronaVac induced elevated IgG against the SARS-CoV-2-spike protein and caused minor adverse reactions in healthcare workers of the Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University. This study was registered as Thailand Clinical Trials No. TCTR20221112001.

Efficacy of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in patients diagnosed with COVID-19

This retrospective observational study is aimed to determine the efficacy of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and CoronaVac (Sinovac) vaccines against symptomatic or severe disease in COVID-19-diagnosed patients. The secondary aim was to define the differences between vaccinated and un-vaccinated patients in terms of age, comorbidities and course of the disease, and to determine the survival rates. Of the 1463 PCR-positive patients, 55.3 % were vaccinated, and 44.7 % were unvaccinated. While 959 patients had mild-moderate symptoms, 504 patients had severe-critical symptoms and were treated in the intensive care unit. There was a statistically significant difference in the distribution of the type and doses of vaccines between the patient groups (p = 0.021). The rate of receiving 2 doses of Biontech was 18.9 % in the mild-moderate patient group but lower in the severe patient group (12.6 %). The rate of two doses of Sinovac and two doses of Biontech vaccine (four doses of vaccine) was 5 % in the mild-moderate patient group and 1.9 % in the severe patient group. The mortality rates were statistically significantly different (p < 0.001) between the patient groups: 65.3 % in the severe patient group and 1 % in the mild-moderate patient group. The multivariate model showed that the mortality risk of the unvaccinated patients was 1.5 times higher than the vaccinated ones (p = 0.042). In addition to being unvaccinated, advanced age, coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and obesity were found to be associated with higher mortality risk. Besides, the reduction in mortality rate was more evident in individuals vaccinated with at least 2 doses of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine than in CoronaVac group.

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants: burden of disease, impact on vaccine effectiveness and need for variant-adapted vaccines

The highly transmissible Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first detected in late 2021. Initial Omicron waves were primarily made up of sub-lineages BA.1 and/or BA.2, BA.4, and BA.5 subsequently became dominant in mid-2022, and several descendants of these sub-lineages have since emerged. Omicron infections have generally caused less severe disease on average than those caused by earlier variants of concern in healthy adult populations, at least, in part, due to increased population immunity. Nevertheless, healthcare systems in many countries, particularly those with low population immunity, have been overwhelmed by unprecedented surges in disease prevalence during Omicron waves. Pediatric admissions were also higher during Omicron waves compared with waves of previous variants of concern. All Omicron sub-lineages exhibit partial escape from wild-type (Wuhan-Hu 1) spike-based vaccine-elicited neutralizing antibodies, with sub-lineages with more enhanced immuno-evasive properties emerging over time. Evaluating vaccine effectiveness (VE) against Omicron sub-lineages has become challenging against a complex background of varying vaccine coverage, vaccine platforms, prior infection rates, and hybrid immunity. Original messenger RNA vaccine booster doses substantially improved VE against BA.1 or BA.2 symptomatic disease. However, protection against symptomatic disease waned, with reductions detected from 2 months after booster administration. While original vaccine-elicited CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T-cell responses cross-recognize Omicron sub-lineages, thereby retaining protection against severe outcomes, variant-adapted vaccines are required to expand the breadth of B-cell responses and improve durability of protection. Variant-adapted vaccines were rolled out in late 2022 to increase overall protection against symptomatic and severe infections caused by Omicron sub-lineages and antigenically aligned variants with enhanced immune escape mechanisms.

Eight-Month Follow-up After the Third Dose of BNT162b2 Vaccine in Healthcare Workers: The Question of a Fourth Dose

BACKGROUND

A fourth dose of vaccination is known to help reduce the severity and mortality rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The South Korean vaccination guidelines for the fourth dose do not include healthcare workers (HCWs) as priority candidates. We investigated the necessity of the fourth dose in South Korean HCWs based on an 8-month follow-up period after the third vaccination.

METHODS

Changes in the surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) inhibition (%) score were measured at one month, four months and eight months after the third vaccination. The sVNT values were analyzed between infected and uninfected groups, and their trajectories were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 43 HCWs were enrolled in this study. In total, 28 cases (65.1%) were confirmed to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 (presumed omicron variant), and all had mild symptoms. Meanwhile, 22 cases (78.6%) were infected within four months of the third dose (median, 97.5 days). Eight months after the third dose, the SARS-CoV-2 (presumed omicron variant)-infected group showed significantly higher sVNT inhibition than that in the uninfected group (91.3% vs. 30.7%; P < 0.001). The antibody response due to hybrid immunity, provided by a combination of infection and vaccination, was maintained at sufficient levels for more than four months.

CONCLUSION

For HCWs who had coronavirus disease 2019 infection after completing a third vaccination, a sufficient antibody response was maintained until eight months after the third dose. The recommendation of the fourth dose may not be prioritized in subjects with hybrid immunity.

Humoral Response after a Fourth Dose with mRNA-1273 in Healthcare Workers with and without a History of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Previously Vaccinated with Two Doses of BBIBP-CorV Plus BNT162b2 Vaccine

There is limited information on the kinetics of the humoral response elicited by a fourth dose with a heterologous mRNA1273 booster in patients who previously received a third dose with BNT162b2 and two doses of BBIBP-CorV as the primary regimen. We conducted a prospective cohort study to assess the humoral response using Elecsys^® anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (anti-S-RBD) of 452 healthcare workers (HCWs) in a private laboratory in Lima, Peru at 21, 120, 210, and 300 days after a third dose with a BNT162b2 heterologous booster in HCW previously immunized with two doses of BBIBP-CorV, depending on whether or not they received a fourth dose with the mRNA1273 heterologous vaccine and on the history of previous SARS infection -CoV-2. Of the 452 HCWs, 204 (45.13%) were previously infected (PI) with SARS-CoV-2, and 215 (47.57%) received a fourth dose with a heterologous mRNA-1273 booster. A total of 100% of HCWs presented positive anti-S-RBD 300 days after the third dose. In HCWs receiving a fourth dose, GMTs 2.3 and 1.6 times higher than controls were observed 30 and 120 days after the fourth dose. No statistically significant differences in anti-S-RBD titers were observed in those HCWs PI and NPI during the follow-up period. We observed that HCWs who received a fourth dose with the mRNA1273 and those previously infected after the third dose with BNT162b2 (during the Omicron wave) presented higher anti-S-RBD titers (5734 and 3428 U/mL, respectively). Further studies are required to determine whether patients infected after the third dose need a fourth dose.

Persistence of Immune Response Elicited by Three Doses of mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in a Cohort of Patients with Solid Tumors: A One-Year Follow-Up

The role and durability of the immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine against severe acute respiratory virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in cancer patients one year after receiving the third dose have to be elucidated. We have prospectively evaluated the long-term immunogenicity of the third dose of the SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in 55 patients undergoing active treatment. Neutralizing antibody (NT Ab) titers against Omicron variants and total anti-trimeric S IgG levels were measured one year after the third dose. Heparinized whole-blood samples were used for the assessment of the SARS-CoV-2 interferon-γ release assay (IGRA). Thirty-seven patients (67.3%) showed positive total anti-trimeric S IgG one year after the third dose. Looking at the T-cell response against the spike protein, the frequency of responder patients did not decrease significantly between six and twelve months after the third dose. Finally, less than 20% of cancer patients showed an undetectable NT Ab titer against BA.1 and BA.5 variants of concern (VOCs). Underlying therapies seem to not affect the magnitude or frequency of the immune response. Our work underlines the persistence of humoral and cellular immune responses against BNT162b2 in a cohort of cancer patients one year after receiving the third dose, regardless of the type of underlying therapy.

The Fourth Dose of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Following 12 Different Three-Dose Regimens: Safety and Immunogenicity to Omicron BA.4/BA.5

The aim of this study is to investigate the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of the fourth dose using monovalent mRNA vaccines after different three-dose regimens and to compare the 30 µg BNT162b2 and 50 µg mRNA-1273 vaccines. This prospective cohort study was conducted between June and October 2022. The self-recorded reactogenicity was evaluated on the subsequent 7 days after a fourth dose. The binding and neutralizing activity of antibodies against the Omicron BA.4/5 variants were determined. Overall, 292 healthy adults were enrolled and received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Reactogenicity was mild to moderate and well tolerated after a few days. Sixty-five individuals were excluded. Thus, 227 eligible individuals received a fourth booster dose of BNT162b2 (n = 109) and mRNA-1273 (n = 118). Most participants, regardless of the type of previous three-dose regimens, elicited a significantly high level of binding antibodies and neutralizing activity against Omicron BA.4/5 28 days after a fourth dose. The neutralizing activity against Omicron BA.4/5 between the BNT162b2 (82.8%) and mRNA-1273 (84.2%) groups was comparable with a median ratio of 1.02. This study found that the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines can be used as a fourth booster dose for individuals who were previously immunized with any prior three-dose mix-and-match COVID-19 vaccine regimens.

Does natural and hybrid immunity obviate the need for frequent vaccine boosters against SARS-CoV-2 in the endemic phase?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has entered its endemic phase and we observe significantly declining infection fatality rates due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). On this background, it is crucial but challenging to define current and future vaccine policy in a population with a high immunity against SARS-CoV-2 conferred by previous infections and/or vaccinations. Vaccine policy must consider the magnitude of the risks conferred by new infection(s) with current and evolving SARS-CoV-2 variants, how these risks vary in different groups of individuals, how to balance these risks against the apparently small, but existent, risks of harms of vaccination, and the cost-benefit of different options. More evidence from randomized controlled trials and continuously accumulating national health data is required to inform shared decision-making with people who consider vaccination options. Vaccine policy makers should cautiously weight what vaccination schedules are needed, and refrain from urging frequent vaccine boosters unless supported by sufficient evidence.

Timing of last COVID-19 vaccine dose and SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections in fully (boosted) vaccinated healthcare personnel

AIM

To estimate the incidence, timing and severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated healthcare personnel (HCP).

METHODS

In total, 6496 fully vaccinated HCP were analysed prospectively from 15^th November 2021 to 17^th April 2022. Full coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination was defined as a complete primary vaccination series followed by a booster dose at least 6 months later.

RESULTS

Overall, 1845 SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections occurred (28.4 episodes per 100 HCP), of which 1493 (80.9%) were COVID-19 cases and 352 (19.1%) were asymptomatic infections. Of the 1493 HCP with COVID-19, four were hospitalized for 3-6 days (hospitalization rate among HCP with COVID-19: 0.3%). No intubations or deaths occurred. SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections occurred at a mean of 16.2 weeks after the last vaccine dose. Multi-variable regression analyses showed that among the 1845 HCP with a breakthrough infection, the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine dose ≥16.2 weeks before the infection was associated with increased likelihood of developing COVID-19 rather than asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection [odds ratio (OR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-2.46; P=0.045] compared with administering a vaccine dose later. The likelihood of developing COVID-19 compared with asymptomatic infection increased by 7% weekly after the last COVID-19 vaccine dose (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.11; P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections are common among fully (boosted) vaccinated HCP. However, full COVID-19 vaccination offered considerable protection against hospitalization. These findings may contribute to defining the optimal timing for booster vaccinations. More efficient COVID-19 vaccines that will also confer protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection are needed urgently.

Immunogenicity and SARS-CoV-2 Infection following the Fourth BNT162b2 Booster Dose among Health Care Workers

INTRODUCTION

The fourth SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose was found to protect against infection and more importantly against severe disease and death. It was also shown that the risk of symptomatic or severe disease was related to the antibody levels after vaccination or infection, with lower protection against the BA.4 BA.5 Omicron variants. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of the fourth dose on infection and perception of illness seriousness among healthcare workers (HCWs) at a tertiary health care campus in Haifa, Israel, and to investigate the possible protective effect of antibody levels against infection.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study among fully vaccinated HCWs and retired employees at Rambam Healthcare Campus (RHCC), a tertiary hospital in northern Israel. Participants underwent serial serological tests at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18 months following the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose. Only a part of the participants chose to receive the fourth vaccine. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to test the adjusted association between vaccination, and the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Kaplan-Meier SARS-CoV-2 free "survival" analysis was conducted to compare the waning effect of the first and second, third and fourth vaccines. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for different values of the sixth serology to identify workers at risk for disease.

RESULTS

Disease occurrence was more frequent among females, people age 40-50 years old and those with background chronic lung disease. The fourth vaccine was found to have better protection against infection, compared to the third vaccine; however, it also had a faster waning immunity compared to the third vaccine dose. Antibody titer of 955 AU/mL was found as a cutoff protecting from infection.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the fourth vaccine dose had a protective effect, but shorter than the third vaccine dose. Cutoff point of 955 AU/mL was recognized for protection from illness. The decision to vaccinate the population with a booster dose should consider other factors, including the spread of disease at the point, chronic comorbidities and age, especially during shortage of vaccine supply.

Relative effectiveness of a 2nd booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine up to four months post administration in individuals aged 80 years or more in Italy: A retrospective matched cohort study

Several countries started a 2nd booster COVID-19 vaccination campaign targeting the elderly population, but evidence around its effectiveness is still scarce. This study aims to estimate the relative effectiveness of a 2nd booster dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in the population aged ≥ 80 years in Italy, during predominant circulation of the Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 subvariants. We linked routine data from the national vaccination registry and the COVID-19 surveillance system. On each day between 11 April and 6 August 2022, we matched 1:1, according to several demographic and clinical characteristics, individuals who received the 2nd booster vaccine dose with individuals who received the 1st booster vaccine dose at least 120 days earlier. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to compare the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 (hospitalisation or death) between the two groups, calculating the relative vaccine effectiveness (RVE) as (1 - risk ratio)X100. Based on the analysis of 831,555 matched pairs, we found that a 2nd booster dose of mRNA vaccine, 14-118 days post administration, was moderately effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to a 1st booster dose administered at least 120 days earlier [14.3 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 2.2-20.2]. RVE decreased from 28.5 % (95 % CI: 24.7-32.1) in the time-interval 14-28 days to 7.6 % (95 % CI: -14.1 to 18.3) in the time-interval 56-118 days. However, RVE against severe COVID-19 was higher (34.0 %, 95 % CI: 23.4-42.7), decreasing from 43.2 % (95 % CI: 30.6-54.9) to 27.2 % (95 % CI: 8.3-42.9) over the same time span. Although RVE against SARS-CoV-2 infection was much reduced 2-4 months after a 2nd booster dose, RVE against severe COVID-19 was about 30 %, even during prevalent circulation of the Omicron BA.5 subvariant. The cost-benefit of a 3rd booster dose for the elderly people who received the 2nd booster dose at least four months earlier should be carefully evaluated.

Neutralizing antibodies to Omicron after the fourth SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose in immunocompromised patients highlight the need of additional boosters

Introduction

Immunocompromised patients have been shown to have an impaired immune response to COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

Here we compared the B-cell, T-cell and neutralizing antibody response to WT and Omicron BA.2 SARS-CoV-2 virus after the fourth dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with hematological malignancies (HM, n=71), solid tumors (ST, n=39) and immune-rheumatological (IR, n=25) diseases. The humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were analyzed by quantifying the anti-RBD antibodies, their neutralization activity and the IFN-γ released after spike specific stimulation.

Results

We show that the T-cell response is similarly boosted by the fourth dose across the different subgroups, while the antibody response is improved only in patients not receiving B-cell targeted therapies, independent on the pathology. However, 9% of patients with anti-RBD antibodies did not have neutralizing antibodies to either virus variants, while an additional 5.7% did not have neutralizing antibodies to Omicron BA.2, making these patients particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The increment of neutralizing antibodies was very similar towards Omicron BA.2 and WT virus after the third or fourth dose of vaccine, suggesting that there is no preferential skewing towards either virus variant with the booster dose. The only limited step is the amount of antibodies that are elicited after vaccination, thus increasing the probability of developing neutralizing antibodies to both variants of virus.

Discussion

These data support the recommendation of additional booster doses in frail patients to enhance the development of a B-cell response directed against Omicron and/or to enhance the T-cell response in patients treated with anti-CD20.

Pathological Roles of Pulmonary Cells in Acute Lung Injury: Lessons from Clinical Practice

Interstitial lung diseases (ILD) are relatively rare and sometimes become life threatening. In particular, rapidly progressive ILD, which frequently presents as acute lung injury (ALI) on lung histopathology, shows poor prognosis if proper and immediate treatments are not initiated. These devastating conditions include acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF), clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis (CADM), epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI)-induced lung injury, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this review, clinical information, physical findings, laboratory examinations, and findings on lung high-resolution computed tomography and lung histopathology are presented, focusing on majorly damaged cells in each disease. Furthermore, treatments that should be immediately initiated in clinical practice for each disease are illustrated to save patients with these diseases.

Panorama of Breakthrough Infection Caused by SARS-CoV-2: A Review

Since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 2019, many countries have successively developed a variety of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, with the continuous spread of SARS-CoV-2, it has evolved several variants; as a result, prevention and control of the pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 has become more important. Among these variants, the Omicron variant has higher transmissibility and immune escape ability and is the main variant causing a large number of COVID-19 breakthrough infection, thus, presenting new challenges to pandemic prevention and control. Hence, we review the biological characteristics of the Omicron variant and discuss the current status and possible mechanism of breakthrough infection caused by the Omicron variant in order to provide insights into the prevention and control of the pandemic of SARS-CoV-2.

Antibody Titer Correlates with Omicron Infection in Vaccinated Healthcare Workers

The advent of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 has drastically reduced the level of hospitalization with severe COVID-19 disease in infected individuals. However, the diffusion of variants of concern still challenge the protection conferred by vaccines raised against the wild-type form of the virus. Here, we have characterized the antibody response to the BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) mRNA vaccine in patients infected with the Omicron variant. We analyzed a population of 4354 vaccinated healthcare workers (HCW) from 7 different hospitals in Italy and monitored infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron. We correlated infection with the antibody response after vaccination. We found that a lower level of IgG, younger age, and the presence of allergies correlate with increased infection during the Omicron wave, and that infections correlate with wild-type spike protein antibody titers below 350 BAU/mL. These results support the necessity of a fourth booster dose, particularly for individuals with lower levels of antibodies.

Effect of Previous COVID-19 Vaccination on Humoral Immunity 3 Months after SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection and Booster Effect of a Fourth COVID-19 Vaccination 2 Months after SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection

In this study, we aimed to determine the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on 3-month immune response and durability after natural infection by the Omicron variant and to assess the immune response to a fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with prior natural infection with the Omicron variant. Overall, 86 patients aged ≥60 years with different vaccination histories and 39 health care workers (HCWs) vaccinated thrice before Omicron infection were enrolled. The sVNT50 titer was significantly lower in patients with incomplete vaccination before SARS-CoV-2 infection with the S clade (p < 0.001), Delta variant (p < 0.001), or Omicron variant (p = 0.003) than in those vaccinated thrice. The sVNT results against the Omicron variant did not differ significantly in patients aged ≥60 years (p = 0.49) and HCWs (p = 0.17), regardless of the recipient receiving the fourth dose 2 months after COVID-19. Incomplete COVID-19 vaccination before Omicron infection for individuals aged ≥60 years conferred limited protection against homologous and heterologous virus strains, whereas two or three doses of the vaccine provided cross-variant humoral immunity against Omicron infection for at least 3 months. However, a fourth dose 2 months after Omicron infection did not enhance immunity against the homologous strain. A future strategy using the bivalent Omicron-containing booster vaccine with appropriate timing will be crucial.

Association Between Vaccination Status and Mortality Among Intubated Patients With COVID-19-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

IMPORTANCE

Although vaccination substantially reduces the risk of severe COVID-19, it is yet unknown whether vaccinated patients who develop COVID-19 and require invasive mechanical ventilation have lower mortality than controls.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between COVID-19 vaccination status and mortality among critically ill patients who require invasive mechanical ventilation owing to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter cohort study was performed between June 7, 2021, and February 1, 2022, among 265 consecutive adult patients with COVID-19 in academic intensive care units who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation owing to ARDS.

EXPOSURES

Patients in the full vaccination group had completed the primary COVID-19 vaccination series more than 14 days but less than 5 months prior to intubation. This time threshold was chosen because guidelines from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend a booster dose beyond that time. The remaining patients (ie, those who were unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or fully vaccinated <14 days or >5 months before intubation) comprised the control group.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was time from intubation to all-cause intensive care unit mortality. A Cox proportional hazards regression model including vaccination status, age, comorbid conditions, and baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score on the day of intubation was used.

RESULTS

A total of 265 intubated patients (170 men [64.2%]; median age, 66.0 years [IQR, 58.0-76.0 years]; 26 [9.8%] in the full vaccination group) were included in the study. A total of 20 patients (76.9%) in the full vaccination group received the BNT162b2 vaccine, and the remaining 6 (23.1%) received the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. Patients in the full vaccination group were older (median age, 72.5 years [IQR, 62.8-80.0 years] vs 66.0 years [IQR, 57.0-75.0 years]) and more likely to have comorbid conditions (24 of 26 [92.3%] vs 160 of 239 [66.9%]), including malignant neoplasm (6 of 26 [23.1%] vs 18 of 239 [7.5%]), than those in the control group. Full vaccination status was significantly associated with lower mortality compared with controls (16 of 26 patients [61.5%] died in the full vaccination group vs 163 of 239 [68.2%] in the control group; hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.32-0.94]; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, full vaccination status was associated with lower mortality compared with controls, which suggests that vaccination might be beneficial even among patients who were intubated owing to COVID-19-related ARDS. These results may inform discussions with families about prognosis.

Vaccine-Induced T-Cell and Antibody Responses at 12 Months after Full Vaccination Differ with Respect to Omicron Recognition

More than a year after the first vaccines against the novel SARS-CoV-2 were approved, many questions still remain about the long-term protection conferred by each vaccine. How long the effect lasts, how effective it is against variants of concern and whether further vaccinations will confer additional benefits remain part of current and future research. For this purpose, we examined 182 health care employees-some of them with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection-12 months after different primary immunizations. To assess antibody responses, we performed an electrochemiluminescence assay (ECLIA) to determine anti-spike IgGs, followed by a surrogate virus neutralization assay against Wuhan-Hu-1 and B.1.1.529/BA.1 (Omicron). T cell response against wild-type and the Omicron variants of concern were assessed via interferon-gamma ELISpot assays and T-cell surface and intracellular cytokine staining. In summary, our results show that after the third vaccination with an mRNA vaccine, differences in antibody quantity and functionality observed after different primary immunizations were equalized. As for the T cell response, we were able to demonstrate a memory function for CD4+ and CD8+ T cells alike. Importantly, both T and antibody responses against wild-type and omicron differed significantly; however, antibody and T cell responses did not correlate with each other and, thus, may contribute differentially to immunity.