Effectiveness of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, and JNJ-78436735 COVID-19 Vaccines Among US Military Personnel Before and During the Predominance of the Delta Variant

Immunogenicity of Two Doses of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine with a ChAdOx1-S Booster Dose among Navy Personnel in Mexico

Booster doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine have been recommended to improve and prolong immunity, address waning immunity over time, and contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. A heterologous booster vaccine strategy may offer advantages over a homologous approach. To compare the immunogenicity of two doses of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with a ChAdOx1-S booster dose, immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-spike (anti-S) and anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibody titers (Ab) were compared over 1 year and post-booster vaccination. Results showed that, at 3- to 9-month assessments in vaccinated subjects, an-ti-N Ab were undetectable in participants with no history of COVID-19. In contrast, anti-S Ab measurements were lower than those with COVID-19, and a decrease was observed during the 9 months of observation. After booster vaccination, no differences were found in anti-S between participants who reported a history of COVID-19 and those who did not. Anti-S levels were higher after booster vaccination measurement vs. at 9 months in participants with COVID-19 and without COVID-19, i.e., independent of an infection history. Vaccine administration elicited a response of higher anti-S IgG levels in those infected before vaccination, although levels decreased during the first nine months. IgG anti-N titers were higher in participants with a history of declared infection and who were asymptomatic. The ChAdOx1-S booster increased anti-S Ab levels in participants regardless of whether they had been infected or not to a significantly higher value than with the first two vaccines. These findings underscore the importance of booster vaccination in eliciting a robust and sustained immune response against COVID-19, regardless of the prior infection status.

COVAX - Time to reconsider the strategy and its target

COVAX, the international initiative supporting COVID-19 vaccination campaigns globally, is budgeted to be the costliest public health initiative in low- and middle-income countries, with over 16 billion US dollars already committed. While some claim that the target of vaccinating 70% of people worldwide is justified on equity grounds, we argue that this rationale is wrong for two reasons. First, mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns do not meet standard public health requirements for clear expected benefit, based on costs, disease burden and intervention effectiveness. Second, it constitutes a diversion of resources from more cost-effective and impactful public health programmes, thus reducing health equity. We conclude that the COVAX initiative warrants urgent review.

Waning protection after vaccination and prior infection against COVID-19-related mortality over 18 months

OBJECTIVES

Evidence on waning patterns in protection from vaccine-induced, infection-induced, and hybrid immunity against death is scarce. The aim of this study is to assess the temporal trends in protection against mortality.

METHODS

Population-based case-control study nested in the total population of Scania Region, Sweden using individual-level registry data of COVID-19-related deaths (<30 days after positive SARS-CoV-2 test) between 27 December 2020 and 3 June 2022. Controls were matched for age, sex, and index date. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the preventable fraction (PF) from vaccination (PFvac corresponding to vaccine effectiveness; ≥2 vaccine doses vs. 0 doses), prior infection (PFinf), and hybrid immunity (PFhybrid). PF was calculated as one minus odds ratio. Models were adjusted for comorbidities, long-term care facility residence, prior infection (for PFvac), country of birth, socio-economic conditions, and time since last vaccination (for PFinf).

RESULTS

In total, 14 936 individuals (1440 COVID-19-related deaths and 13 496 controls) were included in the case-control analyses (45% females, median age: 84 years). PFvac was above 90% during the first month after vaccination, regardless of the number of vaccine doses. After 6 months, PFvac of two doses waned to 34% (95% CI: -30% to 66%). PFinf for people surviving a SARS-CoV-2 infection waned from 88% (-16% to 99%) 3 months after infection to 62% (34-79%) after 9 months. No differences in waning patterns in PFvac were seen between virus variants, gender, and age.

DISCUSSION

Given the waning of protection against death, continuous surveillance of population immunity status, particularly among the most vulnerable population groups, could help to further fine-tune vaccination recommendations.

Vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 for Pfizer BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca vaccines: a systematic review

The purpose of this systematic review was to report on the vaccine efficacy (VE) of three SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved by Health Canada: Pfizer BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca. Four databases were searched for primary publications on population-level VE. Ninety-two publications matched the inclusion criteria, and the extracted data were separated by vaccine type: mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) and the AstraZeneca vaccine. The median VE for PCR-positive patients and various levels of clinical disease was determined for the first and second doses of both vaccine types against multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants. The median VE for PCR-positive infections against unidentified variants from an mRNA vaccine was 64.5 and 89%, respectively, after one or two doses. The median VE for PCR-positive infections against unidentified variants from the AstraZeneca vaccine was 53.4 and 69.6%, respectively, after one or two doses. The median VE for two doses of mRNA for asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infection against unidentified variants was 85.5, 93.2, and 92.2%, respectively. The median VE for two doses of AstraZeneca for asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infection against unidentified variants was 69.7, 71, and 90.2%, respectively. Vaccine efficacy numerically increased from the first to the second dose, increased from the first 2 weeks to the second 2 weeks post-vaccination for both doses, but decreased after 4 months from the second dose. Vaccine efficacy did not differ by person's age.

A review of skin disease in military soldiers: challenges and potential solutions

Introduction: Military soldiers comprised 1,195 million United States active-duty members and 778,000 reserve members in 9/2021. Soldiers are often exposed to drastic climates, environments, and living conditions which may make them more susceptible to cutaneous diseases.Methods: A PubMed search of studies published between 1/1/2002 - 8/30/2022, using MeSH terms: ((("Military Personnel"[Majr]) OR "Military Hygiene"[Majr])) OR "Military Medicine"[Majr]) AND "Skin Diseases"[Majr]), the reference lists of select articles, and other applicable sources were reviewed to identify articles on skin conditions affecting military soldiers and treatment options.Discussion: In this article, we review skin conditions that affect military soldiers in both the deployed and non-deployed settings including infectious diseases, arthropod associated diseases, sexually transmitted infections, ultraviolet radiation related skin disease, acne, diseases of hair and hair follicles, dermatitis, onychocryptosis, and conditions caused by extreme weather conditions and occupational exposures. We also discuss treatment options and prevention methods as they relate to military settings.Conclusion: Dermatological conditions can considerably impact soldiers' wellbeing and military performance, often lead to evacuation of military personnel, and are associated with high financial costs. Cutaneous disease is one of most common reasons for soldiers to seek medical care and may cause significant morbidity. Serving in the military often impacts and limits treatment options.

SARS-CoV-2 infection risk is higher in vaccinated patients with inflammatory autoimmune diseases or liver transplantation treated with mycophenolate due to an impaired antiviral immune response: results of the extended follow up of the RIVALSA prospective cohort

Background

A relevant proportion of immunocompromised patients did not reach a detectable seroconversion after a full primary vaccination cycle against SARS-CoV-2. The effect of different immunosuppressants and the potential risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection in these subjects is largely unknown.

Methods

Patients from the Rivalsa prospective, observational cohort study with planned anti SARS-CoV-2 third dose mRNA vaccination between October and December 2021 were asked to participate to this follow-up study. Patients were asked about eventual confirmed positivity to SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 months from the third dose and to undergo a blood draw to evaluate seroconversion status after the additional vaccine shot.

Results

19 out of 114 patients taking part in the survey developed a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection; we identified mycophenolate treatment as an independent predictor of an increased risk of infection even after the third vaccine dose (OR: 5.20, 95% CI: 1.70-20.00, p=0.0053). This result is in agreement with the in vitro evidence that MMF impairs both B and T lymphocytes driven immune responses (reduction both in memory B cells producing anti-spike antibodies and in proliferating CD4+ and CD8+ T cells).

Conclusions

Immunocompromised patients need an additional vaccine administration to reach a detectable seroconversion, thus fostering a more personalized approach to their clinical management. Moreover, patients undergoing mycophenolate treatment show a specific increased infection risk, with respect to other immunosuppressants thus supporting a closer monitoring of their health status.

Real-world effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly during the Delta and Omicron variants: Systematic review

BACKGROUND

As of 31 December 2022, there were over 6.6 million coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths and over 651 million cases across 200 countries worldwide. Despite the increase in vaccinations and booster shots, COVID-19 cases and deaths continue to remain high. While the effectiveness of these vaccines has already been established by different manufacturers, the fact remains that these vaccines were created quickly for global emergency use, tested under controlled clinical conditions from voluntary subjects and age groups whose general characteristics may differ from the actual general population.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review to determine the real-world effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly during the predominance of Delta and Omicron variants in preventing COVID-19 related infection, hospital, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation, and death.

METHODS

A combination of Medical Subject Headings and non-Medical Subject Headings was carried out to identify all relevant research articles that meets the inclusion and exclusion criteria from PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases, as well as qualified research studies from pre-print servers using medRxiv and Research Square, published from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2022.

RESULTS

As per the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were evaluated from an estimated total study population of 26,535,692 using infection, hospital, ICU admission and intubation, and death as outcome measures from studies published between 2021 and 2022, conducted in New York, Finland, Canada, Costa Rica, Qatar, Greece, and Brazil. The risk of bias was evaluated using risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. While clinical trial data on Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines demonstrated 94% vaccine effectiveness in the elderly, the results in this study showed that vaccine effectiveness in real-world settings is marginally lower against infection (40%-89%), hospitalization (92%), ICU admission and intubation (98%-85%), and death (77%-87%) with an indication of diminished effectiveness of vaccine over time. Furthermore, 2 doses of mRNA vaccines are inadequate and only provides interim protection.

CONCLUSION

Because of the natural diminishing effectiveness of the vaccine, the need for booster dose to restore its efficacy is vital. From a research perspective, the use of highly heterogeneous outcome measures inhibits the comparison, contrast, and integration of the results which makes data pooling across different studies problematic. While pharmaceutical intervention like vaccination is important to fight an epidemic, utilizing common outcome measurements or carrying out studies with minimal heterogeneity in outcome measurements, is equally crucial to better understand and respond to an international health crisis.

A Review of Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccine Development in China: Focusing on Safety and Efficacy in Special Populations

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been widespread globally, and vaccination is critical for preventing further spread or resurgence of the outbreak. Inactivated vaccines made from whole inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus particles generated in Vero cells are currently the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines, with China being the largest producer of inactivated vaccines. As a result, the focus of this review is on inactivated vaccines, with a multidimensional analysis of the development process, platforms, safety, and efficacy in special populations. Overall, inactivated vaccines are a safe option, and we hope that the review will serve as a foundation for further development of COVID-19 vaccines, thus strengthening the defense against the pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2.

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 impact of vaccination and outpatient treatment on the economic burden of Covid-19 in the United States omicron era: a systematic literature review

AIMS

To identify and synthesize evidence regarding how coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) interventions, including vaccines and outpatient treatments, have impacted healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs in the United States (US) during the Omicron era.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify articles published between 1 January 2021 and 10 March 2023 that assessed the impact of vaccination and outpatient treatment on costs and HCRU outcomes associated with COVID-19. Screening was performed by two independent researchers using predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight unique studies were included in the SLR, of which all reported HCRU outcomes, and one reported costs. Overall, there was a significant reduction in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization for patients who received an original monovalent primary series vaccine plus booster dose vs. no vaccination. Moreover, receipt of a booster vaccine was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization vs. primary series vaccination. Evidence also indicated a significantly reduced risk of hospitalizations among recipients of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r), remdesivir, sotrovimab, and molnupiravir compared to non-recipients. Treated and/or vaccinated patients also experienced reductions in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay, and emergency department (ED)/urgent care clinic encounters.

LIMITATIONS

The identified studies may not represent unique patient populations as many utilized the same regional/national data sources. Synthesis of the evidence was also limited by differences in populations, outcome definitions, and varying duration of follow-up across studies. Additionally, significant gaps, including HCRU associated with long COVID and various high-risk populations and cost data, were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence gaps, findings from the SLR highlight the significant positive impact that vaccination and outpatient treatment have had on HCRU in the US, including periods of Omicron predominance. Continued research is needed to inform clinical and policy decision-making in the US as COVID-19 continues to evolve as an endemic disease.