Vaccine-induced CD8+ T cells are key to protection from SARS-CoV-2

Persistent differences in the immunogenicity of the two COVID-19 primary vaccines series, modulated by booster mRNA vaccination and breakthrough infection

INTRODUCTION

The long-term impact of initial immunogenicity induced by different primary COVID-19 vaccine series remains unclear.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted at 10 tertiary hospitals in Korea from March 2021 to September 2022. Immunogenicity assessments included anti-spike protein antibody (Sab), SARS-CoV-2-specific interferon-gamma releasing assay (IGRA), and multiplex cytokine assays for spike protein-stimulated plasma. Spike proteins derived from wild-type SARS-CoV-2 and alpha variant (Spike1) and beta and gamma variant (Spike2) were utilized.

RESULTS

A total of 235 healthcare workers who had received a two-dose primary vaccine series of either ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2, followed by a third booster dose of BNT162b2 (166 in the ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1/BNT162b2 (CCB) group and 69 in the BNT162b2/BNT162b2/BNT162b2 (BBB) group, based on the vaccine series) were included. Following the primary vaccine series, the BBB group exhibited significantly higher increases in Sab levels, IGRA responses, and multiple cytokines (CCL2/MCP-1, CCL3/MIP-1α, CCL4/MIP-1β, interleukin (IL)-1ra, IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-4, and IL-10) compared to the CCB group (all P < 0.05). One month after the third BNT162b2 booster, the CCB group showed Sab levels comparable to those of the BBB group, and both groups exhibited lower levels after six months without breakthrough infections (BIs). However, among those who experienced BA.1/2 BIs after the third booster, Sab levels increased significantly more in the BBB group than in the CCB group (P < 0.001). IGRA responses to both Spike1 and Spike2 proteins were significantly stronger in the BBB group than the CCB group after the third booster, while only the Spike2 response were higher after BIs (P = 0.007). The BBB group exhibited stronger enhancement of T-cell cytokines (IL-2, IL-4, and IL-17A) after BIs than in the CCB group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Differences in immunogenicity induced by the two primary vaccine series persisted, modulated by subsequent booster vaccinations and BIs.

An Omicron-specific, self-amplifying mRNA booster vaccine for COVID-19: a phase 2/3 randomized trial

Here we conducted a multicenter open-label, randomized phase 2 and 3 study to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron-specific (BA.1/B.1.1.529), monovalent, thermostable, self-amplifying mRNA vaccine, GEMCOVAC-OM, when administered intradermally as a booster in healthy adults who had received two doses of BBV152 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. GEMCOVAC-OM was well tolerated with no related serious adverse events in both phase 2 and phase 3. In phase 2, the safety and immunogenicity of GEMCOVAC-OM was compared with our prototype mRNA vaccine GEMCOVAC-19 (D614G variant-specific) in 140 participants. At day 29 after vaccination, there was a significant rise in anti-spike (BA.1) IgG antibodies with GEMCOVAC-OM (P < 0.0001) and GEMCOVAC-19 (P < 0.0001). However, the IgG titers (primary endpoint) and seroconversion were higher with GEMCOVAC-OM (P < 0.0001). In phase 3, GEMCOVAC-OM was compared with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in 3,140 participants (safety cohort), which included an immunogenicity cohort of 420 participants. At day 29, neutralizing antibody titers against the BA.1 variant of SARS-CoV-2 were significantly higher than baseline in the GEMCOVAC-OM arm (P < 0.0001), but not in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 arm (P = 0.1490). GEMCOVAC-OM was noninferior (primary endpoint) and superior to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in terms of neutralizing antibody titers and seroconversion rate (lower bound 95% confidence interval of least square geometric mean ratio >1 and difference in seroconversion >0% for superiority). At day 29, anti-spike IgG antibodies and seroconversion (secondary endpoints) were significantly higher with GEMCOVAC-OM (P < 0.0001). These results demonstrate that GEMCOVAC-OM is safe and boosts immune responses against the B.1.1.529 variant. Clinical Trial Registry India identifier: CTRI/2022/10/046475 .

Developing CAR-immune cell therapy against SARS-CoV-2: Current status, challenges and prospects

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-immune cell therapy has revolutionized the anti-tumor field, achieving efficient and precise tumor clearance by directly guiding immune cell activity to target tumors. In addition, the use of CAR-immune cells to influence the composition and function of the immune system and ultimately achieve virus clearance and immune system homeostasis has attracted the interest of researchers. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) triggered a global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To date, the rapidly mutating SARS-CoV-2 continues to challenge existing therapies and has raised public concerns regarding reinfection. In patients with COVID-19, the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system influences the course of the disease, and the coexistence of over-activated immune system components, such as macrophages, and severely compromised immune system components, such as natural killer cells, reveals a dysregulated immune system. Dysregulated immune-induced inflammation may impair viral clearance and T-cell responses, causing cytokine storms and ultimately leading to patient death. Here, we summarize the research progress on the use of CAR-immune cells against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, we discuss the feasibility, challenges and prospect of CAR-immune cells as a new immune candidate therapy against SARS-CoV-2.

3-year outcomes of discharged survivors of COVID-19 following the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) wave in 2022 in China: a longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data on the natural trajectory of outcomes in survivors of COVID-19 beyond 2 years after symptom onset, and no evidence exists on the effect of re-infection in people with long COVID symptoms. We aimed to investigate the 3-year health outcomes of COVID-19 survivors and the effect of omicron re-infection.

METHODS

In this single-centre, longitudinal cohort study, we recruited participants with confirmed COVID-19 who were discharged from the Jin Yin-tan hospital in Wuhan, China, between Jan 7 and May 29, 2020. Participants completed three follow-up visits at 6 months (June 16 to Sept 13, 2020), 1 year (Dec 16, 2020, to Feb 7, 2021), and 2 years (Nov 16, 2021, to Jan 10, 2022) since symptom onset (reported previously). At 1-year follow-up, community controls without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited from two communities in Wuhan and at 2 years were matched (1:1) with survivors of COVID-19 who underwent pulmonary function tests. We did a 3-year follow-up from Feb 23, 2023, to April 20, 2023, after the omicron (B.1.1.529) wave in winter, 2022. All eligible survivors of COVID-19 and community controls matched at 2-year follow-up were invited to the outpatient clinic at the hospital to complete several face-to-face questionnaires, a 6-min walking test (6MWT), and laboratory tests. A subgroup of survivors of COVID-19 identified by stratified sampling on the basis of disease severity scale score during hospitalisation and community controls underwent pulmonary function tests. Survivors of COVID-19 who received high-resolution CT and showed abnormal lung images at 2-year follow-up were invited for another assessment. We identified participants with and without long COVID at 2 years. The primary outcomes were sequelae symptoms, omicron infection, lung function, and chest imaging at the 3-year follow-up.

FINDINGS

Of 1359 COVID-19 survivors who completed 2-year and 3-year follow-up, 728 (54%) had at least one sequelae symptom at 3 years after symptom onset and before omicron infection, mainly mild to moderate severity. During the omicron wave, participants with long COVID at 2 years had a significantly higher proportion of re-infection (573 [76%] of 753 vs 409 [67%] of 606 without long COVID; p=0·0004), pneumonia (27 [5%] of 568 vs seven [2%] of 403; p=0·012). 3 months after omicron infection, 126 (62%) of 204 survivors with long COVID at 2 years had newly occurring or worse symptoms, which was significantly higher than the proportion in the non-long COVID group (85 [41%] of 205; p<0·0001) and community controls (81 [40%] of 205; p<0·0001), and not significantly different between COVID-19 survivors without long COVID and matched community controls (85 [41%] of 205 vs 81 [39%] of 206; p=0·66). Re-infection was a risk factor for dyspnoea (odds ratio 1·36 [95% CI 1·04 to 1·77]; p=0·023), anxiety or depression (OR 1·65 [1·24 to 2·20]; p=0·0007), EuroQol visual analogue scale score (β -4·51 [-6·08 to -2·95]; p<0·0001), but not for reduced daily activity (0·72 [0·38 to 1·37]; p=0·32) at 3 years. Lung function of survivors at 3 years was similar to that of matched community controls. We found irregular line, traction bronchiectasis, subpleural lines and ground glass opacity at 3 years, but the volume ratio of lung lesion to total lung was only 0·2-0·3%.

INTERPRETATION

Most long COVID symptoms at 3 years were mild to moderate, with lung function recovering to levels of matched controls. Survivors with long COVID had a higher proportion of participants with re-infection and newly occurring or worse symptoms 3 months after omicron infection than those without long COVID. Re-infection had increased symptom occurrence but not increased reduced daily activity. Although the organ function of survivors of COVID-19 recovered over time, those with severe long COVID symptoms, abnormal organ function, or limited mobility require urgent attention in future clinical practice and research.

FUNDING

Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Immunity Induced by Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine: Breadth, Durability, Potency, and Specificity in a Healthcare Worker Cohort

Vaccination has proven to be highly effective against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but the long-term immunogenicity and the functional preserved immune responses of vaccines are needed to inform evolving evidence-based guidelines for boosting schedules. We enrolled 205 healthcare workers into a cohort study; all had received three doses of BBIBP-CorV (China Sinopharm Bio-Beijing Company, Beijing, China) inactivated vaccine. We assessed SARS-CoV-2 specific binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, and peripheral T and B cell responses. We demonstrated that more robust antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 were elicited by booster immunization compared with primary vaccination. Neutralizing antibody titers to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 were also efficiently elevated post-homologous vaccine booster despite being in a lower titer compared with the prototype stain. In addition to S-specific humoral and cellular immunity, BBIBP-CorV also induced N-specific antibody and effector T cell responses. The third-dose vaccination led to further expansion of critical polyfunctional T cell responses, likely an essential element for vaccine protection. In particular, a functional role for Tfh cell subsets in immunity was suggested by the correlation between both CD4+ Tfh and CD8+ Tfh with total antibody, IgG, B cell responses, and neutralizing antibodies. Our study details the humoral and cellular responses generated by the BBIBP-CorV booster vaccination in a seven-month follow-up study. There is a clear immunologic boosting value of homologous inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosters, a consideration for future vaccine strategies.