Effectiveness of BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent mRNA vaccine against a range of COVID-19 outcomes in a large health system in the USA: a test-negative case-control study

Estimated Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 XBB Vaccine Against COVID-19

Importance

Data describing the early additional protection afforded by the recently recommended BNT162b2 XBB vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech; 2023-2024 formulation) are limited.

Objective

To estimate the association between receipt of the BNT162b2 XBB vaccine and medically attended COVID-19 outcomes among US adults 18 years and older.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This test-negative case-control study was performed to estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 XBB vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters among adults in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California health system between October 10, 2023, and December 10, 2023. Cases were those presenting with an acute respiratory illness and who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test; controls had an acute respiratory illness but tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Exposure

The primary exposure was receipt of the BNT162b2 XBB vaccine compared with not receiving an XBB vaccine of any kind, regardless of prior COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection history. Receipt of prior (non-XBB) versions of COVID-19 vaccines was also compared with being unvaccinated to estimate remaining protection from older vaccines.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Analyses for cases and controls were conducted separately for COVID-19 hospital admissions and ED/UC encounters. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% CIs were estimated from multivariable logistic regression models that were adjusted for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. Estimation of vaccine effectiveness was calculated as 1 - odds ratio × 100%.

Results

Among 2854 cases and 15 345 controls (median [IQR] age, 56 [37-72] years; 10 658 [58.6%] female), adjusted estimation of effectiveness of the BNT162b2 XBB vaccine received a median of 34 days prior vs not having received an XBB vaccine of any kind was 62% (95% CI, 32%-79%) against COVID-19 hospitalization and 58% (95% CI, 48%-67%) for ED/UC visits. Compared with being unvaccinated, those who had received only older versions of COVID-19 vaccines did not show statistically significant reduced risk of COVID-19 outcomes, including hospital admission.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings of this case-control study reaffirm current recommendations for broad age-based use of annually updated COVID-19 vaccines given that (1) the BNT162b2 XBB vaccine provided statistically significant additional protection against a range of COVID-19 outcomes and (2) older versions of COVID-19 vaccines offered little, if any, long-term protection, including against hospital admission, regardless of the number or type of prior doses received.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the 2023 autumnal campaigns in Europe: Results from the VEBIS primary care test-negative design study, September 2023-January 2024

In autumn 2023, European vaccination campaigns predominantly administered XBB.1.5 vaccine. In a European multicentre study, we estimated 2023 COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic infection at primary care level between September 2023 and January 2024. Using a test-negative case-control design, we estimated VE in the target group for COVID-19 vaccination overall and by time since vaccination. We included 1057 cases and 4397 controls. Vaccine effectiveness was 40 % (95 % CI: 26-53 %) overall, 48 % (95 % CI: 31-61 %) among those vaccinated < 6 weeks of onset and 29 % (95 % CI: 3-49 %) at 6-14 weeks. Our results suggest that COVID-19 vaccines administered to target groups during the autumn 2023 campaigns showed clinically significant effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed, medically attended symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in the 3 months following vaccination. A longer study period will allow for further variant-specific COVID-19 VE estimates, better understanding decline in VE and informing booster administration policies.

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.

Vaccine Effectiveness against GP-Attended Symptomatic COVID-19 and Hybrid Immunity among Adults in Hungary during the 2022-2023 Respiratory Season Dominated by Different SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Subvariants

Hungary provides the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in a setting where naturally acquired immunity and hybrid immunity are likely to play a greater role due to suboptimal vaccination coverage.

METHODS

A test-negative study was conducted during the 2022-2023 respiratory season at the primary care level to determine the effectiveness of at least one COVID-19 booster dose in preventing medically attended symptomatic RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults. Unvaccinated patients were used as a reference group.

RESULTS

A total of 247 cases and 1073 controls were included in the analysis. CVE was 56.8% (95% CI: 11.9-78.8%) in the population aged 60 years and older and 2.3% (95% CI: -50.0-36.3%) in the younger adults against COVID-19 caused by Omicron subvariants, mainly BA.5, BQ.1, and XBB.1. Self-reported COVID-19 in the 60-365 days prior to the current illness did not confer protection against reinfection without vaccination, but together with booster vaccination, it reduced the risk of COVID-19 by 63.0% (95% CI: -28.0-89.3%) and 87.6% (95% CI: 26.4-97.9%) among the 18-59 and 60+ age groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

CVE against COVID-19 was moderately high in the 60+ age groups. Because of the benefit of hybrid immunity, persons with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection should still be considered for vaccination campaigns.

Long-term humoral and cellular immunity against vaccine strains and Omicron subvariants (BQ.1.1, BN.1, XBB.1, and EG.5) after bivalent COVID-19 vaccination

Background

The assessment of long-term humoral and cellular immunity post-vaccination is crucial for establishing an optimal vaccination strategy.

Methods

This prospective cohort study evaluated adults (≥18 years) who received a BA.4/5 bivalent vaccine. We measured the anti-receptor binding domain immunoglobulin G antibody and neutralizing antibodies (NAb) against wild-type and Omicron subvariants (BA.5, BQ.1.1, BN.1, XBB.1 and EG.5) up to 9 months post-vaccination. T-cell immune responses were measured before and 4 weeks after vaccination.

Results

A total of 108 (28 SARS-CoV-2-naïve and 80 previously infected) participants were enrolled. Anti-receptor binding domain immunoglobulin G (U/mL) levels were higher at 9 months post-vaccination than baseline in SAR-CoV-2-naïve individuals (8,339 vs. 1,834, p<0.001). NAb titers against BQ.1.1, BN.1, and XBB.1 were significantly higher at 9 months post-vaccination than baseline in both groups, whereas NAb against EG.5 was negligible at all time points. The T-cell immune response (median spot forming unit/106 cells) was highly cross-reactive at both baseline (wild-type/BA.5/XBB.1.5, 38.3/52.5/45.0 in SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals; 51.6/54.9/54.9 in SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals) and 4 weeks post-vaccination, with insignificant boosting post-vaccination.

Conclusion

Remarkable cross-reactive neutralization was observed against BQ.1.1, BN.1, and XBB.1 up to 9 months after BA.4/5 bivalent vaccination, but not against EG.5. The T-cell immune response was highly cross-reactive.

Assembling the RNA therapeutics toolbox

From the approval of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to the 2023 Nobel Prize awarded for nucleoside base modifications, RNA therapeutics have entered the spotlight and are transforming drug development. While the term "RNA therapeutics" has been used in various contexts, this review focuses on treatments that utilize RNA as a component or target RNA for therapeutic effects. We summarize the latest advances in RNA-targeting tools and RNA-based technologies, including but not limited to mRNA, antisense oligos, siRNAs, small molecules and RNA editors. We focus on the mechanisms of current FDA-approved therapeutics but also provide a discussion on the upcoming workforces. The clinical utility of RNA-based therapeutics is enabled not only by the advances in RNA technologies but in conjunction with the significant improvements in chemical modifications and delivery platforms, which are also briefly discussed in the review. We summarize the latest RNA therapeutics based on their mechanisms and therapeutic effects, which include expressing proteins for vaccination and protein replacement therapies, degrading deleterious RNA, modulating transcription and translation efficiency, targeting noncoding RNAs, binding and modulating protein activity and editing RNA sequences and modifications. This review emphasizes the concept of an RNA therapeutic toolbox, pinpointing the readers to all the tools available for their desired research and clinical goals. As the field advances, the catalog of RNA therapeutic tools continues to grow, further allowing researchers to combine appropriate RNA technologies with suitable chemical modifications and delivery platforms to develop therapeutics tailored to their specific clinical challenges.

Ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2 drives escape from mRNA vaccine-induced humoral immunity

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, viral sequencing has documented 131 individual mutations in the viral spike protein across 48 named variants. To determine the ability of vaccine-mediated humoral immunity to keep pace with continued SARS-CoV-2 evolution, we assessed the neutralization potency of sera from 76 vaccine recipients collected after 2 to 6 immunizations against a comprehensive panel of mutations observed during the pandemic. Remarkably, while many individual mutations that emerged between 2020 and 2022 exhibit escape from sera following primary vaccination, few escape boosted sera. However, progressive loss of neutralization was observed across newer variants, irrespective of vaccine doses. Importantly, an updated XBB.1.5 booster significantly increased titers against newer variants but not JN.1. These findings demonstrate that seasonal boosters improve titers against contemporaneous strains, but novel variants continue to evade updated mRNA vaccines, demonstrating the need for novel approaches to adequately control SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 BA.4/5 Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine against Long COVID Symptoms: A US Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Long COVID has become a central public health concern. This study characterized the effectiveness of BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (bivalent) against long COVID symptoms.

METHODS

Symptomatic US adult outpatients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were recruited between 2 March and 18 May 2023. Symptoms were assessed longitudinally using a CDC-based symptom questionnaire at Week 4, Month 3, and Month 6 following infection. The odds ratio (OR) of long COVID between vaccination groups was assessed by using mixed-effects logistic models, adjusting for multiple covariates.

RESULTS

At Week 4, among 505 participants, 260 (51%) were vaccinated with bivalent and 245 (49%) were unvaccinated. Mean age was 46.3 years, 70.7% were female, 25.1% had ≥1 comorbidity, 43.0% prior infection, 23.0% reported Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir use. At Month 6, the bivalent cohort had 41% lower risk of long COVID with ≥3 symptoms (OR: 0.59, 95% CI, 0.36-0.96, p = 0.034) and 37% lower risk of ≥2 symptoms (OR: 0.63, 95% CI, 0.41-0.96, p = 0.030). The bivalent cohort reported fewer and less durable symptoms throughout the six-month follow-up, driven by neurologic and general symptoms, especially fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with unvaccinated participants, participants vaccinated with the bivalent were associated with approximately 40% lower risk of long COVID and less symptom burden over the six-month study duration.

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.

Systematic Genomic Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 at Xiamen International Airport and the Port of Xiamen Reveals the Importance of Incoming Travelers in Lineage Diversity

Sever Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is still a threat to human health globally despite the World Health Organization (WHO) announcing the end of the COVID-19 pandemic. Continued surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 at national borders would be helpful in understanding the epidemics of novel imported variants and updating local strategies for disease prevention and treatment. This study focuses on the surveillance of imported SARS-CoV-2 variants among travelers entering Xiamen International Airport and the Port of Xiamen from February to August 2023. A total of 97 imported SARS-CoV-2 sequences among travelers from 223 cases collected from 12 different countries and regions were identified by real-time RT-PCR. Next-generation sequencing was used to generate high-quality complete sequences for phylogenetic and population dynamic analysis. The study revealed a dominant shift in variant distribution, in which the XBB subvariant (XBB.1.5, XBB.1.16, XBB.1.9, XBB.2.3, and EG.5.1) accounted for approximately 88.8% of the sequenced samples. In detail, clades 23D and 23E accounted for 26.2% and 21.4% of the sequenced samples, respectively, while clades 23B (13.6%) and 23F (10.7%) took the third and fourth spots in the order of imported sequences, respectively. Additionally, the XBB.2.3 variants were first identified in imported cases from the mainland of Xiamen, China on 27 February 2023. The spatiotemporal analyses of recent viral genome sequences from a limited number of travelers into Xiamen provide valuable insights into the situation surrounding SARS-CoV-2 and highlight the importance of sentinel surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 variants in the national border screening of incoming travelers, which serves as an early warning system for the presence of highly transmissible circulating SARS-CoV-2 lineages.