Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50

Methodology of comparative studies on the relative effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to comprehensively outline the methodological approaches used in published research comparing the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on June 13, 2024, to identify comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of mRNA versus non-mRNA and monovalent versus bivalent COVID-19 vaccines. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, collecting data on publication year, country, sample size, study population composition, study design, VE estimates, outcomes, and covariates. Studies that reported relative VE (rVE) were analyzed separately from those that did not.

RESULTS

We identified 25 articles comparing rVE between mRNA and non-mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as well as between monovalent and bivalent formulations. Among the studies assessing VE by vaccine type, 126 did not provide rVE estimates. Comparative VE studies frequently employed retrospective cohort designs. Among the definitions of rVE used, the most common were hazard ratio and absolute VE, calculated as (1-odds ratio)×100. Studies were most frequently conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States, and the most common outcome was infection. Most targeted the general population and assessed the VE of mRNA vaccines using the AstraZeneca vaccine as a reference. A small proportion, 7.3% (n=11), did not adjust for any variables. Only 3 studies (2.0%) adjusted for all core confounding variables recommended by the World Health Organization.

CONCLUSION

Few comparative studies of COVID-19 vaccines have incorporated rVE methodologies. Reporting rVE and employing a consistent set of covariates can broaden our understanding of COVID-19 vaccines.

Joint analysis of vaccination effectiveness and antiviral drug effectiveness for COVID-19: a causal inference approach

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to estimate the causal effects of oral antivirals and vaccinations in the prevention of all-cause mortality and progression to severe COVID-19 in an integrative setting with both antivirals and vaccinations considered as interventions.

METHODS

We identified hospitalized adult patients (i.e. aged 18 or above) in Hong Kong with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 16, 2022, and December 31, 2022. An inverse probability-weighted (IPW) Andersen-Gill model with time-dependent predictors was used to address immortal time bias and produce causal estimates for the protection effects of oral antivirals and vaccinations against severe COVID-19.

RESULTS

Given prescription is made within 5 days of confirmed infection, nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is more effective in providing protection against all-cause mortality and development into severe COVID-19 than molnupiravir. There was no significant difference between CoronaVac and Comirnaty in the effectiveness of reducing all-cause mortality and progression to severe COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of oral antivirals and vaccinations causes lower risks of all-cause mortality and progression to severe COVID-19 for hospitalized SARS-CoV-2 patients.

Relationship between HLA genetic variations, COVID-19 vaccine antibody response, and risk of breakthrough outcomes

The rapid global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, with over a billion doses administered, has been unprecedented. However, in comparison to most identified clinical determinants, the implications of individual genetic factors on antibody responses post-COVID-19 vaccination for breakthrough outcomes remain elusive. Here, we conducted a population-based study including 357,806 vaccinated participants with high-resolution HLA genotyping data, and a subset of 175,000 with antibody serology test results. We confirmed prior findings that single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with antibody response are predominantly located in the Major Histocompatibility Complex region, with the expansive HLA-DQB1*06 gene alleles linked to improved antibody responses. However, our results did not support the claim that this mutation alone can significantly reduce COVID-19 risk in the general population. In addition, we discovered and validated six HLA alleles (A*03:01, C*16:01, DQA1*01:02, DQA1*01:01, DRB3*01:01, and DPB1*10:01) that independently influence antibody responses and demonstrated a combined effect across HLA genes on the risk of breakthrough COVID-19 outcomes. Lastly, we estimated that COVID-19 vaccine-induced antibody positivity provides approximately 20% protection against infection and 50% protection against severity. These findings have immediate implications for functional studies on HLA molecules and can inform future personalised vaccination strategies.

Modeling and predicting individual variation in COVID-19 vaccine-elicited antibody response in the general population

As we learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines are one of the most important tools in infectious disease control. To date, an unprecedentedly large volume of high-quality data on COVID-19 vaccinations have been accumulated. For preparedness in future pandemics beyond COVID-19, these valuable datasets should be analyzed to best shape an effective vaccination strategy. We are collecting longitudinal data from a community-based cohort in Fukushima, Japan, that consists of 2,407 individuals who underwent serum sampling two or three times after a two-dose vaccination with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Using the individually reconstructed time courses of the vaccine-elicited antibody response based on mathematical modeling, we first identified basic demographic and health information that contributed to the main features of the antibody dynamics, i.e., the peak, the duration, and the area under the curve. We showed that these three features of antibody dynamics were partially explained by underlying medical conditions, adverse reactions to vaccinations, and medications, consistent with the findings of previous studies. We then applied to these factors a recently proposed computational method to optimally fit an "antibody score", which resulted in an integer-based score that can be used as a basis for identifying individuals with higher or lower antibody titers from basic demographic and health information. The score can be easily calculated by individuals themselves or by medical practitioners. Although the sensitivity of this score is currently not very high, in the future, as more data become available, it has the potential to identify vulnerable populations and encourage them to get booster vaccinations. Our mathematical model 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.

Observational methods for COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness research: an empirical evaluation and target trial emulation

BACKGROUND

There are scarce data on best practices to control for confounding in observational studies assessing vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19. We compared the performance of three well-established methods [overlap weighting, inverse probability treatment weighting and propensity score (PS) matching] to minimize confounding when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Subsequently, we conducted a target trial emulation to study the ability of these methods to replicate COVID-19 vaccine trials.

METHODS

We included all individuals aged ≥75 from primary care records from the UK [Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) AURUM], who were not infected with or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as of 4 January 2021. Vaccination status was then defined based on first COVID-19 vaccine dose exposure between 4 January 2021 and 28 January 2021. Lasso regression was used to calculate PS. Location, age, prior observation time, regional vaccination rates, testing effort and COVID-19 incidence rates at index date were forced into the PS. Following PS weighting and matching, the three methods were compared for remaining covariate imbalance and residual confounding. Last, a target trial emulation comparing COVID-19 at 3 and 12 weeks after first vaccine dose vs unvaccinated was conducted.

RESULTS

Vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts comprised 583 813 and 332 315 individuals for weighting, respectively, and 459 000 individuals in the matched cohorts. Overlap weighting performed best in terms of minimizing confounding and systematic error. Overlap weighting successfully replicated estimates from clinical trials for vaccine effectiveness for ChAdOx1 (57%) and BNT162b2 (75%) at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Overlap weighting performed best in our setting. Our results based on overlap weighting replicate previous pivotal trials for the two first COVID-19 vaccines approved in Europe.

Long-term effects of coronavirus disease 2019 on diabetes complications and mortality in people with diabetes: Two cohorts in the UK and Hong Kong

AIM

To evaluate the long-term associations between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and diabetes complications and mortality, in patients with diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

People with diabetes diagnosed with COVID-19 infection (exposed group), from 16 March 2020 to 31 May 2021 from the UK Biobank (UKB cohort; n = 2456), and from 1 April 2020 to 31 May 2022 from the electronic health records in Hong Kong (HK cohort; n = 80 546), were recruited. Each patient was randomly matched with participants with diabetes but without COVID-19 (unexposed group), based on age and sex (UKB, n = 41 801; HK, n = 391 849). Patients were followed for up to 18 months until 31 August 2021 for UKB, and up to 28 months until 15 August 2022 for HK. Characteristics between cohorts were further adjusted with Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting. Long-term association of COVID-19 with multi-organ disease complications and all-cause mortality after 21 days of diagnosis was evaluated by Cox regression.

RESULTS

Compared with uninfected participants, patients with COVID-19 infection with diabetes were consistently associated with higher risks of cardiovascular diseases (coronary heart disease [CHD]: hazard ratio [HR] [UKB]: 1.6 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.0, 2.4], HR [HK]: 1.2 [95% CI: 1.0, 1.5]; and stroke: HR [UKB]: 2.0 [95% CI: 1.1, 3.6], HR [HK]: 1.5 [95% CI: 1.3, 1.8]), microvascular disease (end stage renal disease: HR [UKB]: 2.1 [95% CI: 1.1, 4.0], HR [HK]: 1.2 [95% CI: 1.1, 1.4]) and all-cause mortality (HR [UKB]: 4.6 [95% CI: 3.8, 5.5], HR [HK]: 2.6 [95% CI: 2.5, 2.8]), in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 infection is associated with long-term increased risks of diabetes complications (especially cardiovascular complications, and mortality) in people with diabetes. Monitoring for signs/symptoms of developing these long-term complications post-COVID-19 infection in the infected patient population of people with diabetes may be beneficial in minimizing their morbidity and mortality.

Superior immunogenicity of mRNA over adenoviral vectored COVID-19 vaccines reflects B cell dynamics independent of anti-vector immunity: Implications for future pandemic vaccines

Both vector and mRNA vaccines were an important part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may be required in future outbreaks and pandemics. The aim of this study was to validate whether immunogenicity differs for adenoviral vectored (AdV) versus mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, and to investigate how anti-vector immunity and B cell dynamics modulate immunogenicity. We enrolled SARS-CoV-2 infection-naïve health care workers who had received two doses of either AdV AZD1222 (n = 184) or mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (n = 274) between April and October 2021. Blood was collected at least once, 10-48 days after vaccine dose 2 for antibody and B cell analyses. Median ages were 42 and 39 years, for AdV and mRNA vaccinees, respectively. Surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and spike binding antibody titres were a median of 4.2 and 2.2 times lower, respectively, for AdV compared to mRNA vaccinees (p < 0.001). Median percentages of memory B cells that recognized fluorescent-tagged spike and RBD were 2.9 and 8.3 times lower, respectively for AdV compared to mRNA vaccinees. Titres of IgG reactive with human adenovirus type 5 hexon protein rose a median of 2.2-fold after AdV vaccination but were not correlated with anti-spike antibody titres. Together the results show that mRNA induced substantially more sVNT antibody than AdV vaccine, which reflected greater B cell expansion and targeting of the RBD rather than an attenuating effect of anti-vector antibodies. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05110911.

Comparative B cell and antibody responses induced by adenoviral vectored and mRNA vaccines against COVID-19

Both vector and mRNA vaccines were an important part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may be required in future outbreaks and pandemics. However, adenoviral vectored (AdV) vaccines may be less immunogenic than mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. We assessed anti-spike and anti-vector immunity among infection-naïve Health Care Workers (HCW) following two doses of AdV (AZD1222) versus mRNA (BNT162b2) vaccine. 183 AdV and 274 mRNA vaccinees enrolled between April and October 2021. Median ages were 42 and 39 years, respectively. Blood was collected at least once, 10-48 days after vaccine dose 2. Surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and spike binding antibody titres were a median of 4.2 and 2.2 times lower, respectively, for AdV compared to mRNA vaccinees (p<0.001). Median percentages of memory B cells that recognized fluorescent-tagged spike and RBD were 2.9 and 8.3 times lower, respectively for AdV compared to mRNA vaccinees. Titres of IgG reactive with human Adenovirus type 5 hexon protein rose a median of 2.2-fold after AdV vaccination but were not correlated with anti-spike antibody titres. Together the results show that mRNA induced substantially more sVNT antibody than AdV vaccine due to greater B cell expansion and targeting of the RBD. Pre-existing AdV vector cross-reactive antibodies were boosted following AdV vaccination but had no detectable effect on immunogenicity.

Immune Responses After Vaccination With Primary 2-Dose ChAdOx1 Plus a Booster of BNT162b2 or Vaccination With Primary 2-Dose BNT162b2 Plus a Booster of BNT162b2 and the Occurrence of Omicron Breakthrough Infection

BACKGROUND

Before the omicron era, health care workers were usually vaccinated with either the primary 2-dose ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) series plus a booster dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) (CCB group) or the primary 2-dose BNT162b2 series plus a booster dose of BNT162b2 (BBB group) in Korea.

METHODS

The two groups were compared using quantification of the surrogate virus neutralization test for wild type severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SVNT-WT), the omicron variant (SVNT-O), spike-specific IgG, and interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), as well as the omicron breakthrough infection cases.

RESULTS

There were 113 participants enrolled in the CCB group and 51 enrolled in the BBB group. Before and after booster vaccination, the median SVNT-WT and SVNT-O values were lower in the CCB (SVNT-WT [before-after]: 72.02-97.61%, SVNT-O: 15.18-42.29%) group than in the BBB group (SVNT-WT: 89.19-98.11%, SVNT-O: 23.58-68.56%; all P < 0.001). Although the median IgG concentrations were different between the CCB and BBB groups after the primary series (2.677 vs. 4.700 AU/mL, respectively, P < 0.001), they were not different between the two groups after the booster vaccination (7.246 vs. 7.979 AU/mL, respectively, P = 0.108). In addition, the median IFN-γ concentration was higher in the BBB group than in the CCB group (550.5 and 387.5 mIU/mL, respectively, P = 0.014). There was also a difference in the cumulative incidence curves over time (CCB group 50.0% vs. BBB group 41.8%; P = 0.045), indicating that breakthrough infection occurred faster in the CCB group.

CONCLUSION

The cellular and humoral immune responses were low in the CCB group so that the breakthrough infection occurred faster in the CCB group than in the BBB group.

The effects of obesity and metabolic abnormalities on severe COVID-19-related outcomes after vaccination: A population-based study

Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections of vaccinated individuals are being reported globally, resulting in an increased risk of hospitalization and death among such patients. Therefore, it is crucial to identify the modifiable risk factors that may affect the protective efficacy of vaccine use against the development of severe COVID-19 and thus to initiate early medical interventions. Here, in population-based studies using the UK Biobank database and the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), we analyzed 20,362 participants aged 50 years or older and 2,588 aged 18 years or older from both databases who tested positive for SARS-COV-2, of whom 33.1% and 67.7% received one or more doses of vaccine, respectively. In the UK Biobank, participants are followed from the vaccination date until October 18, 2021. We found that obesity and metabolic abnormalities (namely, hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension) were modifiable factors for severe COVID-19 in vaccinated patients (all p < 0.05). When metabolic abnormalities were present, regardless of obesity, the risk of severe COVID-19 was higher than that of metabolically normal individuals (all p < 0.05). Moreover, pharmacological interventions targeting such abnormalities (namely, antihypertensive [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.86; p = 0.003], glucose-lowering [aHR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.83; p = 0.004], and lipid-lowering treatments [aHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37-0.68; p < 0.001]) were significantly associated with a reduced risk for this outcome. These results show that more proactive health management of patients with obesity and metabolic abnormalities is critical to reduce the incidence of severe COVID-19 after vaccination.

Antibody binding and neutralization of live SARS-CoV-2 variants including BA.4/5 following booster vaccination of patients with B-cell malignancies

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (NHL/CLL) patients elicit inadequate antibody responses after initial SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and remain at high risk of severe COVID-19 disease. We investigated IgG, IgA, and IgM responses after booster vaccination against recent SARS-CoV-2 variants including Omicron BA.5 in 67 patients. Patients had lower fold increase and total anti-spike binding titers after booster than healthy individuals. Antibody responses negatively correlated with recent anti-CD20 therapy and low B cell numbers. Antibodies generated after booster demonstrated similar binding properties against SARS-CoV-2 variants compared to those generated by healthy controls with lower binding against Omicron variants. Importantly, 43% of patients showed anti-Omicron BA.1 neutralizing antibodies after booster and all these patients also had anti-Omicron BA.5 neutralizing antibodies. NHL/CLL patients demonstrated inferior antibody responses after booster vaccination, particularly against Omicron variants. Prioritization of prophylactic and treatment agents and vaccination of patients and close contacts with updated vaccine formulations are essential.

Fully understanding the efficacy profile of the COVID-19 vaccination and its associated factors in multiple real-world settings

We performed a review study according to recent COVID-19 vaccines' real-world data to provide comparisons between COVID-19 vaccines regarding their relative efficacy. Although most vaccine platforms showed comparable effectiveness and efficacy, we highlight critical points and recent developments generated in studies that might affect vaccine efficacy including population-dependent effects of the vaccine (transplantation, adiposity, and specific comorbidities, as well as older age, male sex, ethnicity, and prior infection), vaccine type, variants of concern (VOC), and an extended vaccine schedule. Owing to these factors, community-based trials can be of great importance in determining vaccine effectiveness in a systematic manner; thus, uncertainty remains regarding vaccine efficacy. Long immune protection of vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has been demonstrated to be up to 61 months and 5-12 months after the previous infection, and boosting infection-acquired immunity for both the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines was correlated with high and durable protection. However, large cohort and longitudinal studies are required for the evaluation of immunity dynamics and longevity in unvaccinated, vaccinated, and infected individuals, as well as vaccinated convalescent individuals in real-world settings. Regarding the likelihood of vaccine escape variants evolving, an ongoing examination of the protection conferred against an evolving virus (new variant) by an extended schedule can be crucial.

Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Older adults are more susceptible to severe health outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Universal vaccination has become a trend, but there are still doubts and research gaps regarding the COVID-19 vaccination in the elderly. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older people aged ≥ 55 years and their influencing factors.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials from inception to April 9, 2022, were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We estimated summary relative risk (RR), rates, or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects meta-analysis. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314456).

Results

Of the 32 eligible studies, 9, 21, and 25 were analyzed for efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively. In older adults, vaccination was efficacious against COVID-19 (79.49%, 95% CI: 60.55−89.34), with excellent seroconversion rate (92.64%, 95% CI: 86.77−96.91) and geometric mean titer (GMT) (SMD 3.56, 95% CI: 2.80−4.31) of neutralizing antibodies, and provided a significant protection rate against severe disease (87.01%, 50.80−96.57). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses consistently found vaccine types and the number of doses to be primary influencing factors for efficacy and immunogenicity. Specifically, mRNA vaccines showed the best efficacy (90.72%, 95% CI: 86.82−93.46), consistent with its highest seroconversion rate (98.52%, 95% CI: 93.45−99.98) and GMT (SMD 6.20, 95% CI: 2.02−10.39). Compared to the control groups, vaccination significantly increased the incidence of total adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.59, 95% CI: 1.38−1.83), including most local and systemic AEs, such as pain, fever, chill, etc. For inactivated and DNA vaccines, the incidence of any AEs was similar between vaccination and control groups (p &gt; 0.1), while mRNA vaccines had the highest risk of most AEs (RR range from 1.74 to 7.22).

Conclusion

COVID-19 vaccines showed acceptable efficacy, immunogenicity and safety in older people, especially providing a high protection rate against severe disease. The mRNA vaccine was the most efficacious, but it is worth surveillance for some AEs it caused. Increased booster coverage in older adults is warranted, and additional studies are urgently required for longer follow-up periods and variant strains.

Intensity of Humoral Immune Responses, Adverse Reactions, and Post-Vaccination Morbidity after Adenovirus Vector-Based and mRNA Anti-COVID-19 Vaccines

The aim of the study was to compare mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 with adenovirus vector- based vaccines in terms of presence of adverse reactions, immunogenicity, and protection against COVID-19. A total of 270 individuals were enrolled, of which 135 were vaccinated with adenovirus vector-based vaccines and compared with 135 age- and sex-matched participants who received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Serum sampling was performed on all participants on days 21, 42, 90, and 180 following the first dose, to evaluate anti-spike IgG and IgA responses. Antibodies were quantified by chemiluminescent microplate and ELISA assays. We demonstrate that both mRNA and adenovirus vector-based vaccines caused mild side-effects and were effective in inducing adequate antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2, although BNT162b2 was superior concerning the intensity of antibody responses and protection against severe COVID-19. Moreover, we identify that IgG and IgA responses depended primarily on both history of previous COVID-19 infection and vaccination platform used, with individuals immunized with a single-dose vaccine having lower antibody titers over time. Lastly, all vaccine platforms had limited side-effects, with the most frequent pain at the injection site. Our results provide useful information regarding antibody responses after vaccination with different vaccine platforms, which can be useful for public health vaccination strategies.