Effectiveness of bivalent mRNA vaccines against medically attended symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospital admission among SARS-CoV-2-naive and previously infected individuals: a retrospective cohort study

Effectiveness of the fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccines against severe COVID-19 among adults 40 years or older in Brazil: a population-based cohort study

Background

The emergence of COVID-19 variants with immune scape and the waning of primary vaccine schemes effectiveness have prompted many countries to indicate first and second booster COVID-19 vaccine doses to prevent severe COVID-19. However, current available evidence on second booster dose effectiveness are mostly limited to high-income countries, older adults, and mRNA-based vaccination schemes scenarios. We aimed to investigate the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of the fourth dose compared to three doses for severe COVID-19 outcomes in Brazil; and compare the rVE of a fourth dose with an mRNA vaccine compared to adenovirus-based product in the same settings.

Methods

We performed a target emulated trial using a population-based cohort of individuals aged 40 years or older who have received a homologous primary scheme of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, or BNT162b2, and any third dose product and were eligible for the fourth dose in Brazil. The primary outcome was COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death. We built Cohort A matching individuals vaccinated with a fourth dose to individuals who received three doses to estimate the rVE of the fourth dose. We built Cohort B, a subset of Cohort A, matching mRNA-based (mRNA) to adenovirus-based fourth dose vaccinated individuals to compare their relative hazards for severe COVID-19.

Findings

46,693,484 individuals were included in Cohort A and 6,763,016 in Cohort B. 45% of them were aged between 40 and 60 years old, and 48% between 60 and 79 years old. In Cohort A, the most common previous series was a ChAdOx1 two-dose followed by BNT162b2 (44%), and a CoronaVac two-dose followed by a BNT162b2 (36%). Among those fourth dose vaccinated, 36.9% received ChAdOx1, 32.7% Ad26.COV2.S, 25.8% BNT162b2, and 4.7% CoronaVac. In Cohort B, among those who received an adenovirus fourth dose, 53.7% received ChAdOx1 and 46.3% received Ad26.COV2.S. The estimated rVE for the primary outcome of four doses compared to three doses was 44.1% (95% CI 42.3-46.0), with some waning during follow-up (rVE 7-60 days 46.8% [95% CI 44.4-49.1], rVE after 120 days 33.8% [95% CI 18.0-46.6]). Among fourth dose vaccinated individuals, mRNA-based vaccinated individuals had lower hazards for hospitalization or death compared to adenovirus-vaccinated individuals (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.87). After 120 days, no difference in hazards between groups was observed (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93-1.97). Similar findings were observed for hospitalization and death separately, except no evidence for differences between fourth dose brands for death in Cohort B.

Interpretation

In a heterogeneous scenario of primary and first booster vaccination combinations, a fourth dose provided meaningful and durable protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to adenovirus-based booster, a fourth dose wild-type mRNA vaccine was associated with immediate lower hazards of hospitalization or death unsustained after 120 days.

Funding

None.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of bivalent mRNA booster vaccines against Omicron variants

BACKGROUND

A global shift to bivalent mRNA vaccines is ongoing to counterbalance the diminishing effectiveness of the original monovalent vaccines due to the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants, yet substantial variation in the bivalent vaccine effectiveness (VE) exists across studies and a complete picture is lacking.

METHODS

We searched papers evaluating absolute or relative effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 type or BA.4/5 type bivalent mRNA vaccines on eight publication databases published from September 1st, 2022, to November 8th, 2023. Pooled VE against Omicron-associated infection and severe events (hospitalization and/or death) was estimated in reference to unvaccinated, ≥2 original monovalent doses, and ≥ 3 original monovalent doses.

RESULTS

From 630 citations identified, 28 studies were included, involving 55,393,303 individuals. Bivalent boosters demonstrated higher effectiveness against symptomatic or any infection for all ages combined, with an absolute VE of 53.5 % (95 % CI: -22.2-82.3 %) when compared to unvaccinated and relative VE of 30.8 % (95 % CI: 22.5-38.2 %) and 28.4 % (95 % CI: 10.2-42.9 %) when compared to ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 original monovalent doses, respectively. The corresponding VE estimates for adults ≥ 60 years old were 22.5 % (95 % CI: 16.8-39.8 %), 31.4 % (95 % CI: 27.7-35.0 %), and 30.6 % (95 % CI: -13.2-57.5 %). Pooled bivalent VE estimates against severe events were higher, 72.9 % (95 % CI: 60.5-82.4 %), 57.6 % (95 % CI: 42.4-68.8 %), and 62.1 % (95 % CI: 54.6-68.3 %) for all ages, and 72.0 % (95 % CI: 51.4-83.9 %), 63.4 % (95 % CI: 41.0-77.3 %), and 60.7 % (95 % CI: 52.4-67.6 %) for adults ≥ 60 years old, compared to unvaccinated, ≥2 original monovalent doses, and ≥ 3 original monovalent doses, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The bivalent boosters demonstrated superior protection against severe outcomes than the original monovalent boosters across age groups, highlighting the critical need for improving vaccine coverage, especially among the vulnerable older subpopulation.

Protection Conferred by COVID-19 Vaccination, Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection, or Hybrid Immunity Against Omicron-Associated Severe Outcomes Among Community-Dwelling Adults

INTRODUCTION

We assessed protection from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and/or prior severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection against Omicron-associated severe outcomes during successive sublineage-predominant periods.

METHODS

We used a test-negative design to estimate protection by vaccines and/or prior infection against hospitalization/death among community-dwelling, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-tested adults aged ≥50 years in Ontario, Canada, between 2 January 2022 and 30 June 2023. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the relative change in the odds of hospitalization/death with each vaccine dose (2-5) and/or prior PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (compared with unvaccinated, uninfected subjects) up to 15 months since the last vaccination or infection.

RESULTS

We included 18 526 cases with Omicron-associated severe outcomes and 90 778 test-negative controls. Vaccine protection was high during BA.1/BA.2 predominance but was generally <50% during periods of BA.4/BA.5 and BQ/XBB predominance without boosters. A third/fourth dose transiently increased protection during BA.4/BA.5 predominance (third-dose, 6-month: 68%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 63%-72%; fourth-dose, 6-month: 80%, 95% CI 77%-83%) but was lower and waned quickly during BQ/XBB predominance (third-dose, 6-month: 59%, 95% CI 48%-67%; 12-month: 49%, 95% CI 41%-56%; fourth-dose, 6-month: 62%, 95% CI 56%-68%, 12-months: 51%, 95% CI 41%-56%). Hybrid immunity conferred nearly 90% protection throughout BA.1/BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 predominance but was reduced during BQ/XBB predominance (third-dose, 6-month: 60%, 95% CI 36%-75%; fourth-dose, 6-month: 63%, 95% CI 42%-76%). Protection was restored with a fifth dose (bivalent; 6-month: 91%, 95% CI 79%-96%). Prior infection alone did not confer lasting protection.

CONCLUSIONS

Protection from COVID-19 vaccines and/or prior SARS-CoV-2 infections against severe outcomes is reduced when immune-evasive variants/subvariants emerge and may also wane over time. Our findings support a variant-adapted booster vaccination strategy with periodic review.

What rheumatologists need to know about mRNA vaccines: current status and future of mRNA vaccines in autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases

Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines as a novel vaccine platform offer new tools to effectively combat both emerging and existing pathogens which were previously not possible. The 'plug and play' feature of mRNA vaccines enables swift design and production of vaccines targeting complex antigens and rapid incorporation of new vaccine constituents as needed. This feature makes them likely to be adopted for widespread clinical use in the future.Currently approved mRNA vaccines include only those against SARS-CoV-2 virus. These vaccines demonstrate robust immunogenicity and offer substantial protection against severe disease. Numerous mRNA vaccines against viral pathogens are in the early to late phase of development. Several mRNA vaccines for influenza are tested in clinical trials, with some already in phase 3 studies. Other vaccines in the early and late phases of development include those targeting Cytomegalovirus, varicella zoster virus, respiratory syncytial virus and Epstein-Barr virus. Many of these vaccines will likely be indicated for immunosuppressed populations including those with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD). This review focuses on the mechanism, safety and efficacy of mRNA in general and summarises the status of mRNA vaccines in development for common infectious diseases of particular interest for patients with AIIRD.

Neutralization of EG.5, EG.5.1, BA.2.86, and JN.1 by antisera from dimeric receptor-binding domain subunit vaccines and 41 human monoclonal antibodies

BACKGROUND

The recently circulating Omicron variants BA.2.86 and JN.1 were identified with more than 30 amino acid changes on the spike protein compared to BA.2 or XBB.1.5. This study aimed to comprehensively assess the immune escape potential of BA.2.86, JN.1, EG.5, and EG.5.1.

METHODS

We collected human and murine sera to evaluate serological neutralization activities. The participants received three doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines or a booster dose of the ZF2022-A vaccine (Delta-BA.5 receptor-binding domain [RBD]-heterodimer immunogen) or experienced a breakthrough infection (BTI). The ZF2202-A vaccine is under clinical trial study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05850507). BALB/c mice were vaccinated with a panel of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RBD-dimer proteins. The antibody evasion properties of these variants were analyzed with 41 representative human monoclonal antibodies targeting the eight RBD epitopes.

FINDINGS

We found that BA.2.86 had less neutralization evasion than EG.5 and EG.5.1 in humans. The ZF2202-A booster induced significantly higher neutralizing titers than BTI. Furthermore, BA.2.86 and JN.1 exhibited stronger antibody evasion than EG.5 and EG.5.1 on RBD-4 and RBD-5 epitopes. Compared to BA.2.86, JN.1 further lost the ability to bind to several RBD-1 monoclonal antibodies and displayed further immune escape.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed that the currently dominating sub-variant, JN.1, showed increased immune evasion compared to BA.2.86 and EG.5.1, which is highly concerning. This study provides a timely risk assessment of the interested sub-variants and the basis for updating COVID-19 vaccines.

FUNDING

This work was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Life Science Academy, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Postdoctoral Fellowship Program of China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (CPSF).

Immunological imprinting shapes the specificity of human antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants

The spike glycoprotein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to accumulate substitutions, leading to breakthrough infections of vaccinated individuals. It remains unclear if exposures to antigenically distant SARS-CoV-2 variants can overcome memory B cell biases established by initial SARS-CoV-2 encounters. We determined the specificity and functionality of antibody and B cell responses following exposure to BA.5 and XBB variants in individuals who received ancestral SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. BA.5 exposures elicited antibody responses that targeted epitopes conserved between the BA.5 and ancestral spike. XBB exposures also elicited antibody responses that primarily targeted epitopes conserved between the XBB.1.5 and ancestral spike. However, unlike BA.5, a single XBB exposure elicited low frequencies of XBB.1.5-specific antibodies and B cells in some individuals. Pre-existing cross-reactive B cells and antibodies were correlated with stronger overall responses to XBB but weaker XBB-specific responses, suggesting that baseline immunity influences the activation of variant-specific SARS-CoV-2 responses.

Bivalent mRNA COVID vaccines elicit predominantly cross-reactive CD4+ T cell clonotypes

Bivalent COVID vaccines containing mRNA for ancestral and Omicron BA.5 spike proteins do not induce stronger T cell responses to Omicron BA.5 spike proteins than monovalent vaccines that contain only ancestral spike mRNA. The reasons for this finding have not been elucidated. Here, we show that healthy donors (HDs) and people living with HIV (PLWH) on antiretroviral therapy mostly target T cell epitopes that are not affected by BA.5 mutations. We use the functional expansion of specific T cells (FEST) assay to determine the percentage of CD4+ T cells that cross-recognize both spike proteins and those that are monoreactive for each protein. We show a predominance of cross-reactive CD4+ T cells; less than 10% percent of spike-specific CD4+ T cell receptors were BA.5 monoreactive in most HDs and PLWH. Our data suggest that the current bivalent vaccines do not induce robust BA.5-monoreactive T cell responses.

Effectiveness of a fourth SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose in previously infected individuals from Austria

INTRODUCTION

Evidence is limited on the effectiveness of a fourth vaccine dose against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in populations with prior severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. We estimated the risk of COVID-19 deaths and SARS-CoV-2 infections according to vaccination status in previously infected individuals in Austria.

METHODS

This is a nationwide retrospective observational study. We calculated age and gender adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) of COVID-19 deaths (primary outcome) and SARS-CoV-2 infections (secondary outcome) from 1 November to 31 December 2022, primarily comparing individuals with four versus three vaccine doses. Relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) was calculated as (1-HR) X 100.

RESULTS

Among 3,986,312 previously infected individuals, 281,291 (7,1%) had four and 1,545,242 (38.8%) had three vaccinations at baseline. We recorded 69 COVID-19 deaths and 89,056 SARS-CoV-2 infections. rVE for four versus three vaccine doses was -24% (95% CI: -120 to 30) against COVID-19 deaths, and 17% (95% CI: 14-19) against SARS-CoV-2 infections. This latter effect rapidly diminished over time and infection risk with four vaccinations was higher compared to less vaccinated individuals during extended follow-up until June 2023. Adjusted HR (95% CI) for all-cause mortality for four versus three vaccinations was 0.79 (0.74-0.85).

DISCUSSION

In previously infected individuals, a fourth vaccination was not associated with COVID-19 death risk, but with transiently reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections and reversal of this effect in longer follow-up. All-cause mortality data suggest healthy vaccinee bias.

A polyvalent RNA vaccine reduces the immune imprinting phenotype in mice and induces neutralizing antibodies against omicron SARS-CoV-2

Immune imprinting is now evident in COVID-19 vaccinated people. This phenomenon may impair the development of effective neutralizing antibodies against variants of concern (VoCs), mainly Omicron and its subvariants. Consequently, the boost doses with bivalent vaccines have not shown a significant gain of function regarding the neutralization of Omicron. The approach to design COVID-19 vaccines must be revised to improve the effectiveness against VoCs. Here, we took advantage of the self-amplifying characteristic of RepRNA and developed a polyvalent formulation composed of mRNA from five VoCs. LION/RepRNA Polyvalent induced neutralizing antibodies in mice previously immunized with LION/RepRNA D614G and reduced the imprinted phenotype associated with low neutralization capacity of Omicron B.1.1.529 pseudoviruses. The polyvalent vaccine can be a strategy to handle the low neutralization of Omicron VoC, despite booster doses with either monovalent or bivalent vaccines.

Relative effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The rapid development of COVID-19 bivalent vaccines (BVs) has encompassed both the original virus strains and the variant strain. However, the effectiveness of BVs is largely unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of BVs.

Methods

Literature research was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science up until November 4, 2023. Both randomized control trials and observational studies were considered for inclusion. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in cohort and case-control studies.

Results

A total of 1,174 articles were reviewed and 22 eligible studies were included. All included studies were observational (15 cohort studies, 7 case-control studies). The total number of participants was 39,673,160, and the number of people vaccinated with BVs as an intervention group was 11,585,182. Two mRNA BVs were mainly involved, including the ancestral strain and the BA.1 or BA.4-5 variants. Meta-analysis results showed, compared with the monovalent vaccines (MVs), the relative effectiveness (rVE) of the BVs in COVID-19-associated infections/symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths was 30.90% [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.43-53.37], 39.83% (95% CI, 27.34-52.32), 59.70% (95% CI, 44.08-75.32), and 72.23% (95% CI, 62.08-82.38), respectively. For those aged 50 years and older, BVs provided an additional 49.69% (95% CI, 41.44-57.94) effective protection compared with MVs. During the dominance period of the omicron XBB variant strain, BVs provided an additional 47.63% (95% CI, 27.45-67.82) effective protection compared with MVs.

Conclusion

Our findings show that the rVE of BVs in preventing COVID-19-associated infections, symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths is higher compared to MVs. Particularly for people over 50 years of age and during the Omicron variant XBB dominance phase, BVs provided superior protection. Therefore, BVs may have a broader application in the prevention and control of coronaviruses variant.

Effectiveness of Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children and Adolescents Aged 5 to 17 Years

Importance

Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were recommended in the US for children and adolescents aged 12 years or older on September 1, 2022, and for children aged 5 to 11 years on October 12, 2022; however, data demonstrating the effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines are limited.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 among children and adolescents.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Data for the period September 4, 2022, to January 31, 2023, were combined from 3 prospective US cohort studies (6 sites total) and used to estimate COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. A total of 2959 participants completed periodic surveys (demographics, household characteristics, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (irrespective of symptoms); participants submitted additional nasal swabs at the onset of any symptoms.

Exposure

Vaccination status was captured from the periodic surveys and supplemented with data from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records.

Main Outcome and Measures

Respiratory swabs were tested for the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as a positive test regardless of symptoms. Symptomatic COVID-19 was defined as a positive test and 2 or more COVID-19 symptoms within 7 days of specimen collection. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19 among participants who received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose vs participants who received no vaccine or monovalent vaccine doses only. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, underlying health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status, geographic site, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence.

Results

Of the 2959 participants (47.8% were female; median age, 10.6 years [IQR, 8.0-13.2 years]; 64.6% were non-Hispanic White) included in this analysis, 25.4% received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose. During the study period, 426 participants (14.4%) had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among these 426 participants, 184 (43.2%) had symptomatic COVID-19, 383 (89.9%) were not vaccinated or had received only monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses (1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections per 1000 person-days), and 43 (10.1%) had received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose (0.84 SARS-CoV-2 infections per 1000 person-days). Bivalent vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 54.0% (95% CI, 36.6%-69.1%) and vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 was 49.4% (95% CI, 22.2%-70.7%). The median observation time after vaccination was 276 days (IQR, 142-350 days) for participants who received only monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses vs 50 days (IQR, 27-74 days) for those who received a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose.

Conclusion and Relevance

The bivalent COVID-19 vaccines protected children and adolescents against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19. These data demonstrate the benefit of COVID-19 vaccine in children and adolescents. All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations.

Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes after autumn 2022 COVID-19 booster vaccinations: a pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies involving 7.4 million adults in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

Background

UK COVID-19 vaccination policy has evolved to offering COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at increased risk of severe Illness from COVID-19. Building on our analyses of vaccine effectiveness of first, second and initial booster doses, we aimed to identify individuals at increased risk of severe outcomes (i.e., COVID-19 related hospitalisation or death) post the autumn 2022 booster dose.

Methods

We undertook a national population-based cohort analysis across all four UK nations through linked primary care, vaccination, hospitalisation and mortality data. We included individuals who received autumn 2022 booster doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) or mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) during the period September 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 to investigate the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between demographic and clinical factors and severe COVID-19 outcomes after the autumn booster dose. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), deprivation, urban/rural areas and comorbidities. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then conducted a fixed-effect meta-analysis to combine results across the four UK nations.

Findings

Between September 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022, 7,451,890 individuals ≥18 years received an autumn booster dose. 3500 had severe COVID-19 outcomes (2.9 events per 1000 person-years). Being male (male vs female, aHR 1.41 (1.32-1.51)), older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; 10.43 (8.06-13.50)), underweight (BMI <18.5 vs BMI 25.0-29.9; 2.94 (2.51-3.44)), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9.45 (8.15-10.96)) had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death after the autumn booster dose. Those with a larger household size (≥11 people within household vs 2 people; 1.56 (1.23-1.98)) and from more deprived areas (most deprived vs least deprived quintile; 1.35 (1.21-1.51)) had modestly higher risks. We also observed at least a two-fold increase in risk for those with various chronic neurological conditions, including Down's syndrome, immunodeficiency, chronic kidney disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, or cardiovascular disease.

Interpretation

Males, older individuals, underweight individuals, those with an increasing number of comorbidities, from a larger household or more deprived areas, and those with specific underlying health conditions remained at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the autumn 2022 vaccine booster dose. There is now a need to focus on these risk groups for investigating immunogenicity and efficacy of further booster doses or therapeutics.

Funding

National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

Immunological imprinting shapes the specificity of human antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants

The spike glycoprotein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to accumulate substitutions, leading to breakthrough infections of vaccinated individuals and prompting the development of updated booster vaccines. Here, we determined the specificity and functionality of antibody and B cell responses following exposure to BA.5 and XBB variants in individuals who received ancestral SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. BA.5 exposures elicited antibody responses that primarily targeted epitopes conserved between the BA.5 and ancestral spike, with poor reactivity to the XBB.1.5 variant. XBB exposures also elicited antibody responses that targeted epitopes conserved between the XBB.1.5 and ancestral spike. However, unlike BA.5, a single XBB exposure elicited low levels of XBB.1.5-specific antibodies and B cells in some individuals. Pre-existing cross-reactive B cells and antibodies were correlated with stronger overall responses to XBB but weaker XBB-specific responses, suggesting that baseline immunity influences the activation of variant-specific SARS-CoV-2 responses.

Modelling the Potential Public Health Impact of Different COVID-19 Vaccination Strategies with an Adapted Vaccine in Singapore

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing COVID-19 has been a dynamically changing virus, requiring the development of adapted vaccines. This study estimated the potential public health impact alternative vaccination strategies for COVID-19 in Singapore.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The outcomes of alternative vaccination strategies with a future adapted vaccine were estimated using a combined Markov decision tree model. The population was stratified by high- and standard-risk. Using age-specific inputs informed by local surveillance data and published sources, the model estimated health (case numbers, hospitalizations, and deaths) and economic (medical costs and productivity losses) outcomes in different age and risk subpopulations.

RESULTS

Booster vaccination in only the elderly and high-risk subpopulation was estimated to avert 278,614 cases 21,558 hospitalizations, 239 deaths, Singapore dollars (SGD) 277 million in direct medical costs, and SGD 684 million in indirect medical costs. These benefits increased as vaccination was expanded to other subpopulations. Increasing the booster vaccination coverage to 75% of the standard-risk population averted more deaths (3%), hospitalizations (29%), infections (145%), direct costs (90%), and indirect costs (192%) compared to the base case.

CONCLUSIONS

Broader vaccination strategies using an adapted booster vaccine could have substantial public health and economic impact in Singapore.

Effectiveness of Adapted COVID-19 Vaccines and Ability to Establish Herd Immunity against Omicron BA.1 and BA4-5 Variants of SARS-CoV-2

The emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants has raised concerns about the ability of COVID-19 vaccination programs to establish adequate herd immunity levels in the population. This study assessed the effectiveness of adapted vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the ability of the adapted vaccines to establish herd immunity against emerging Omicron variants. A systematic literature review was conducted to estimate the absolute vaccine effectiveness (aVE) in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection using adapted vaccines targeting Omicron variants. The ability of the adapted vaccines to establish herd immunity was assessed by taking into account the following factors: aVE, Ro values of SARS-CoV-2 and the use of non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs). This study found meta-analysis-based aVEs in preventing severe disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection of 56-60% and 36-39%, respectively. Adapted vaccines could not establish herd immunity against the Omicron BA.1 and BA.4-5 variants without using non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs). The adapted vaccines could establish herd immunity only by achieving >80% vaccination coverage, using NPIs with greater effectiveness and when 20-30% of individuals were already protected against SARS-CoV-2 in the population. New adapted COVID-19 vaccines with greater effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection must be developed to increase herd immunity levels against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants in the population.

Development of an Oral IgA Response against SARS-CoV-2 Following Immunization with Different COVID-19 Vaccines

The mucosal immune response is recognized to be important in the early control of infection sustained by viruses with mucosal tissues as the primary site of entry and replication, such as SARS-CoV-2. Mucosal IgA has been consistently reported in the mouth and eye of SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects, where it correlated inversely with COVID-19 symptom severity. Yet, there is still scarce information on the comparative ability of the diverse SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to induce local IgA responses at the virus entry site. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA in the saliva of 95 subjects vaccinated with a booster dose and different combinations of vaccines, including mRNA-1273 (Moderna), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), and Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca). The results showed the presence of a mucosal response in 93.7% of vaccinated subjects, with a mean IgA titer of 351.5 ± 31.77 U/mL, strongly correlating with the serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences emerged between the vaccine types, although the salivary IgA titer appeared slightly higher after receiving a booster dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna) following two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), compared to the other vaccine combinations. These data confirm what was previously reported at the eye level and suggest that monitoring salivary IgA may be a useful tool for driving forward vaccine design and surveillance strategies, potentially leading to novel routes of vaccine administration and boosting.

Immunogenicity of Co-Administered Omicron BA.4/BA.5 Bivalent COVID-19 and Quadrivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccines in Israel during the 2022-2023 Winter Season

Vaccination against COVID-19 and influenza provides the best defense against morbidity and mortality. Administering both vaccines concurrently may increase vaccination rates and reduce the burden on the healthcare system. This study evaluated the immunogenicity of healthcare workers in Israel who were co-administered with the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and the 2022-2023 quadrivalent influenza vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers were measured via microneutralization while influenza antibody titers were measured via hemagglutination inhibition. No immunogenic interference was observed by either vaccine when co-administered. Antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 variants increased significantly in the cohort receiving the COVID-19 vaccine alone and in combination with the influenza vaccine. Antibody titers against the A/H1N1 influenza strain increased significantly in the cohort receiving the influenza vaccine alone and in combination with the COVID-19 vaccine. Antibody titers against B/Victoria increased significantly in the cohort that received both vaccines. This study has important public health implications for the 2023-2024 winter season, and supports co-administration of both vaccines as a viable immunization strategy.

Bivalent Vaccine Effectiveness Among Adults Aged ≥65 Years During the BA.5-Predominant Period in Japan: The VENUS Study

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron BA.5 became prevalent in July 2022 in Japan. Bivalent messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines were approved as booster doses for individuals who received the primary series or booster dose by monovalent vaccines. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of bivalent vaccines in Japanese adults aged ≥65 years.

Methods

We conducted a population-based cohort study using data collected from January 2019 to February 2023 in Japan. We included individuals aged ≥65 years in a municipality who received the first or second booster dose of monovalent mRNA vaccines. We estimated the effectiveness of the second or third booster dose of bivalent mRNA vaccines during the Omicron BA.5-predominant period (July-December 2022), compared with ≥90 days after the booster dose of monovalent vaccines. We used a Cox proportional hazard regression model with vaccination status as a time-dependent covariate.

Results

A total of 81 977 individuals aged ≥65 years (mean [standard deviation] age, 78.3 [7.4] years; 33 487 male [40.8%]) were included in the study cohort. Among them, 57 396 were vaccinated with the second or third dose of bivalent vaccines (BA.1 or BA.4/5). The effectiveness against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was estimated to be 57.9% (95% confidence interval, 52.7%-62.5%) for ≥14 days after the second or third bivalent booster dose, compared with 90 days after the first or second monovalent booster dose.

Conclusions

The study showed that the bivalent mRNA vaccines as the second and third doses would provide protection against COVID-19 among adults ≥65 years in Japan.