Original SARS-CoV-2 monovalent and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: phase 2/3 trial interim results

Immune imprinting: The persisting influence of the first antigenic encounter with rapidly evolving viruses

Immune imprinting is a phenomenon that stems from the fundamentals of immunological memory. Upon recurrent exposures to an evolving pathogen, the immune system must weigh the benefits of rapidly recalling established antibody repertoires with greater affinity to the initial variant or invest additional time and energy in producing de novo responses specific to the emerging variant. In this review, we delve into the mechanistic complexities of immune imprinting and its role in shaping subsequent immune responses, both de novo and recall, against rapidly evolving respiratory viruses such as influenza and coronaviruses. By exploring the duality of immune imprinting, we examine its potential to both enhance or hinder immune protection against disease, while emphasizing the role of host and viral factors. Finally, we explore how different vaccine platforms may affect immune imprinting and comment on vaccine strategies that can favor de novo variant-specific antibody responses.

Interim Report of the Reactogenicity and Immunogenicity of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 XBB-Containing Vaccines

BACKGROUND

Monovalent Omicron XBB.1.5-containing vaccines were approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) 2023-2024 immunizations.

METHODS

This ongoing, open-label, phase 2/3 study evaluated messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273.815 monovalent (50-µg Omicron XBB.1.5 spike mRNA) and mRNA-1273.231 bivalent (25-µg each Omicron XBB.1.5 and BA.4/BA.5 spike mRNAs) vaccines, administered as fifth doses to adults who previously received primary series, third doses of an original mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and fourth doses of an Omicron BA.4/BA.5 bivalent vaccine. Interim safety and immunogenicity 29 days after vaccination are reported.

RESULTS

Participants (randomized 1:1) received 50-µg of mRNA-1273.815 (n = 50) or mRNA-1273.231 (n = 51); median intervals (interquartile range) from prior BA.4/BA.5 bivalent doses were 8.2 (8.1-8.3) and 8.3 (8.1-8.4) months, respectively. Fold increases in neutralizing antibody (nAb) against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants from prebooster nAb levels were numerically higher against XBB.1.5, XBB.1.16, EG.5.1, BA.2.86, and JN.1 than BA.4/BA.5, BQ.1.1, or D614G on day 29. Monovalent vaccine also cross-neutralized FL.1.5.1, EG.5.1, BA.2.86, HK.3.1, HV.1, and JN.1 variants in a participant subset (n = 20) 15 days after vaccination. Reactogenicity was similar to that of mRNA-1273 vaccines.

CONCLUSIONS

XBB.1.5-containing mRNA-1273 vaccines elicit robust, diverse nAb responses against more recent SARS-CoV-2 variants, including JN.1, supporting the XBB.1.5-spike update for COVID-19 vaccines.

Analysis of B-cell receptor repertoire to evaluate immunogenicity of monovalent Omicron XBB.1.5 mRNA vaccines

Monovalent Omicron XBB.1.5 mRNA vaccines were newly developed and approved by the FDA in Autumn 2023 for preventing COVID-19. However, clinical efficacy for these vaccines is currently lacking. We previously established the quantification of antigen-specific antibody sequence (QASAS) method to assess the response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination at the mRNA level using B-cell receptor (BCR) repertoire assay and the coronavirus antibody database (CoV-AbDab). Here, we used this method to evaluate the immunogenicity of monovalent XBB.1.5 vaccines. We analyzed repeated blood samples of healthy volunteers before and after monovalent XBB.1.5 vaccination (BNT162b2 XBB.1.5 or mRNA-1273.815) for the BCR repertoire to assess BCR/antibody sequences that matched SARS-CoV-2-specific sequences in the database. The number of matched unique sequences and their total reads quickly increased 1 week after vaccination. Matched sequences included those bound to the Omicron strain and Omicron XBB sublineage. The antibody sequences that can bind to the Omicron strain and XBB sublineage revealed that the monovalent XBB.1.5 vaccines showed a stronger response than previous vaccines or SARS-CoV-2 infection before the emergence of XBB sublineage. The QASAS method was able to demonstrate the immunogenic effect of monovalent XBB.1.5 vaccines for the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

Interim safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 omicron BA.1 variant-containing vaccine in children in the USA: an open-label non-randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Variant-containing mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 to broaden protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants are recommended based on findings in adults. We report interim safety and immunogenicity of an omicron BA.1 variant-containing (mRNA-1273.214) primary vaccination series and booster dose in paediatric populations.

METHODS

This open-label, two-part, non-randomised phase 3 trial enrolled participants aged 6 months to 5 years at 24 US study sites. Eligible participants were generally healthy or had stable chronic conditions, without known SARS-CoV-2 infection in the previous 90 days. Individuals who were acutely ill or febrile 1 day before or at the screening visit or those who previously received other COVID-19 vaccines (except mRNA-1273 for part 2) were excluded. In part 1, SARS-CoV-2-vaccine-naive participants received two-dose mRNA-1273.214 (25 μg; omicron BA.1 and ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 mRNA) primary series. In part 2, participants who previously completed the two-dose mRNA-1273 (25 μg) primary series in KidCOVE (NCT04796896) received a mRNA-1273.214 (10 μg) booster dose. Primary study outcomes were safety and reactogenicity of the mRNA-1273.214 primary series (part 1) or booster dose (part 2) as well as the inferred effectiveness of mRNA-1273.214 based on immune responses against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) and omicron BA.1 variant at 28 days post-primary series (part 1) or post-booster dose (part 2). The safety set included participants who received at least one dose of the study vaccine; the immunogenicity set included those who provided immunogenicity samples. Interim safety and immunogenicity are summarised in this analysis as of the data cutoff date (Dec 5, 2022). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05436834.

FINDINGS

Between June 21, 2022, and Dec 5, 2022, 179 participants received one or more doses of mRNA-1273.214 primary series (part 1) and 539 received a mRNA-1273.214 booster dose (part 2). The safety profile within 28 days after either dose of the mRNA-1273.214 primary series and the booster dose was consistent with that of the mRNA-1273 primary series in this age group, with no new safety concerns or vaccine-related serious adverse events observed. At 28 days after primary series dose 2 and the booster dose, both mRNA-1273.214 primary series (day 57, including all participants with or without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline) and booster (day 29, including participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline) elicited responses that were superior against omicron-BA.1 (geometric mean ratio part 1: 25·4 [95% CI 20·1-32·1] and part 2: 12·5 [11·0-14·3]) and non-inferior against D614G (part 1: 0·8 [0·7-1·0] and part 2: 3·1 [2·8-3·5]), compared with neutralising antibody responses induced by the mRNA-1273 primary series (in a historical comparator group).

INTERPRETATION

mRNA-1273.214 was immunogenic against BA.1 and D614G in children aged 6 months to 5 years, with a comparable safety profile to mRNA-1273, when given as a two-dose primary series or a booster dose. These results are aligned with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations for the use of variant-containing vaccines for continued protection against the emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2.

FUNDING

Moderna.

A Bivalent Omicron-BA.4/BA.5-Adapted BNT162b2 Booster in ≥12-Year-Olds

BACKGROUND

Protection against contemporary severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants requires sequence-adapted vaccines.

METHODS

In this ongoing phase 2/3 trial, 12-17-year-olds (n = 108), 18-55-year-olds (n = 313), and >55-year-olds (n = 306) who previously received 3 original BNT162b2 30-µg doses, received a fourth dose (second booster) of 30-µg bivalent original/Omicron-BA.4/BA.5-adapted BNT162b2 (BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5). For comparisons with original BNT162b2, participants were selected from another phase 3 trial. Immunologic superiority 1 month after vaccination, with respect to 50% neutralizing titers (lower bound [LB] of 2-sided 95% confidence interval [CI] for geometric mean ratio [GMR], >1), and noninferiority with respect to seroresponse rates (LB of 2-sided 95% CI for rate difference, greater than -5%), for Omicron BA.4/BA.5 were assessed in >55-year-olds versus original BNT162b2 as a second booster. Noninferiority with respect to neutralizing titer level (LB of 2-sided 95% CI for GMR, > 0.67) and seroresponse rate (LB of 2-sided 95% CI for rate difference, greater than -10%) of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 immune response for BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 in 18-55 versus >55-year-olds was assessed.

RESULTS

One month after vaccination in >55-year-olds, the model-adjusted GMR of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 neutralizing titers for the BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 versus BNT162b2 groups (2.91 [95% CI, 2.45-3.44]) demonstrated the superiority of BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5. Adjusted difference in the percentages of >55-year-olds with seroresponse (26.77% [95% CI, 19.59-33.95]) showed noninferiority of BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 to BNT162b2. Noninferiority of BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 in 18-55-year-olds compared with >55-year-olds was met for model-adjusted GMR and seroresponse. Geometric mean titers in 12-17-year-olds increased from baseline to 1 month after vaccination. The BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 safety profile was similar to the profiles for booster doses of bivalent Omicron BA.1-modified BNT162b2 and original BNT162b2 reported in previous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on immunogenicity and safety data up to 1 month after vaccination in participants who previously received 3 original BNT162b2 doses, a BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 30-µg booster has a favorable benefit-risk profile.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT05472038.

Immunogenicity phase II study evaluating booster capacity of nonadjuvanted AKS-452 SARS-Cov-2 RBD Fc vaccine

AKS-452, a subunit vaccine comprising an Fc fusion of the ancestral wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein receptor binding domain (SP/RBD), was evaluated without adjuvant in a single cohort, non-randomized, open-labelled phase II study (NCT05124483) at a single site in The Netherlands for safety and immunogenicity. A single 90 µg subcutaneous booster dose of AKS-452 was administered to 71 adults previously primed with a registered mRNA- or adenovirus-based vaccine and evaluated for 273 days. All AEs were mild and no SAEs were attributable to AKS-452. While all subjects showed pre-existing SP/RBD binding and ACE2-inhibitory IgG titers, 60-68% responded to AKS-452 via ≥2-fold increase from days 28 to 90 and progressively decreased back to baseline by day 180 (days 28 and 90 mean fold-increases, 14.7 ± 6.3 and 8.0 ± 2.2). Similar response kinetics against RBD mutant proteins (including omicrons) were observed but with slightly reduced titers relative to WT. There was an expected strong inverse correlation between day-0 titers and the fold-increase in titers at day 28. AKS-452 enhanced neutralization potency against live virus, consistent with IgG titers. Nucleocapsid protein (Np) titers suggested infection occurred in 66% (46 of 70) of subjects, in which only 20 reported mild symptomatic COVID-19. These favorable safety and immunogenicity profiles support booster evaluation in a planned phase III universal booster study of this room-temperature stable vaccine that can be rapidly and inexpensively manufactured to serve vaccination at a global scale without the need of a complex distribution or cold chain.

Omicron-specific and bivalent omicron-containing vaccine candidates elicit potent virus neutralisation in the animal model

Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) is able to escape from naturally acquired and vaccine-induced immunity, which mandates updating the current COVID-19 vaccines. Here, we investigated and compared the neutralising antibody induction of the ancestral variant-based BIV1-CovIran vaccine, the Omicron variant-based BIV1-CovIran Plus vaccine, and the novel bivalent vaccine candidate, BBIV1-CovIran, against the Omicron and ancestral Wuhan variants on the rat model. After inactivating the viral particles, the viruses were purified and formulated. Bivalent vaccines were a composition of 2.5 µg (5 µg total) or 5 µg (10 µg total) doses of each ansectral-based and Omicron-based monovalent vaccine. Subsequently, the potency of the monovalent and bivalent vaccines was investigated using the virus neutralisation test (VNT). The group that received three doses of the Omicron-specific vaccine demonstrated neutralisation activity against the Omicron variant with a geometric mean titer of 337.8. However, three doses of the Wuhan variant-specific vaccine could neutralise the Omicron variant at a maximum of 1/32 serum dilution. The neutralisation activity of the Omicron-specific vaccine, when administered as the booster dose after two doses of the Wuhan variant-specific vaccine, was 100% against the Omicron variant and the Wuhan variant at 1/64 and 1/128 serum dilution, respectively. Three doses of 5 µg bivalent vaccine could effectively neutralise both variants at the minimum of 1/128 serum dilution. The 10 µg bivalent vaccine at three doses showed even higher neutralisation titers: the geometric mean of 388 (95% CI 242.2-621.7) against Omicron and 445.7 (95% CI 303.3-655.0) against Wuhan. It is shown that the candidate bivalent and Omicron-specific vaccines could elicit a potent immune response against both Wuhan-Hu-1 and Omicron BA.1 variants.

Accelerate vaccine development using seamless phase 2/3 trial designs

BACKGROUND

Traditional vaccine development, often a lengthy and costly process of three separated phases. However, the swift development of COVID-19 vaccines highlighted the critical importance of accelerating the approval of vaccines. This article showcases a seamless phase 2/3 trial design to expedite the development process, particularly for multi-valent vaccines.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study utilizes simulation to compare the performance of seamless phase 2/3 design with that of conventional trial design, specifically by re-envisioning a 9-valent HPV vaccine trial. Across three cases, several key performance metrics are evaluated: overall power, type I error rate, average sample size, trial duration, the percentage of early stop, and the accuracy of dose selection.

RESULTS

On average, when the experimental vaccine was assumed to be effective, the seamless design that performed interim analyses based solely on efficacy saved 555.73 subjects, shortened trials by 10.29 months, and increased power by 3.70%. When the experimental vaccine was less effective than control, it saved an average of 887.73 subjects while maintaining the type I error rate below 0.025.

CONCLUSION

The seamless design proves to be a compelling strategy for vaccine development, given its versatility in early stopping, re-estimating sample sizes, and shortening trial durations.

Immune imprinting and next-generation coronavirus vaccines

Vaccines based on historical virus isolates provide limited protection from continuously evolving RNA viruses, such as influenza viruses or coronaviruses, which occasionally spill over between animals and humans. Despite repeated booster immunizations, population-wide declines in the neutralization of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants have occurred. This has been compared to seasonal influenza vaccinations in humans, where the breadth of immune responses induced by repeat exposures to antigenically distinct influenza viruses is confounded by pre-existing immunity-a mechanism known as imprinting. Since its emergence, SARS-CoV-2 has evolved in a population with partial immunity, acquired by infection, vaccination or both. Here we critically examine the evidence for and against immune imprinting in host humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 and its implications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccine programmes.

Safety and immunogenicity of a modified Omicron-adapted inactivated vaccine in healthy adults: a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled Phase III clinical trial

Background

Updated vaccine strategies are needed to protect against new SARS-CoV-2 variants with increased immune escape. Here, information on the safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated Omicron-adapted vaccine is presented, as compared with CoronaVac.

Methods

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase III clinical trial was conducted to compare a modified Omicron-adapted vaccine (Omicron vaccine) with the authorized prototype vaccine (CoronaVac®) as a booster dose. Healthy adults aged ≥18 years, who have previously received 2 or 3 doses of CoronaVac (2C or 3C cohort) at least 6 months before, were enrolled to get a booster dose of Omicron vaccine or CoronaVac in a ratio of 2:1 (2C/3C+1O/1C). Back-up serums after two initial doses of CoronaVac (2C+0) for adults aged 26-45 years were collected from a previous study. Immunogenicity and safety data at 28 days after vaccination were collected and analyzed. One of the primary objectives was to evaluate the superiority of immunogenicity of Omicron vaccine booster against Omicron BA.1, compared with CoronaVac booster against BA.1. Another objective was to evaluate the non-inferiority of immunogenicity of Omicron vaccine booster against BA.1, compared with two initial doses of CoronaVac against ancestral strain.

Results

Between June 1st and July 21st, 2022, a total of 1,500 healthy adults were enrolled. Results show that all pre-specified superiority criteria for BA.1 neutralizing antibody were met. Specifically, within the 3C cohort (3C+1O vs. 3C+1C), the geometric mean titers' (GMT) ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) was 1.64 (1.42, 1.89), with the lower 95%CI ≥1; a GMT ratio of 1.84 (1.57, 2.16) was observed for 2C+1O versus 3C+1C. For seroconversion rate, the lower 95%CIs of differences between immuno-comparative groups (2/3C+1O vs. 3C+1C) were all above the superiority criterion 0%. However, the non-inferiority criterion of the lower 95%CI of GMT ratio ≥2/3 was unfulfilled for 2C/3C+1O against BA.1 versus 2C+0 against ancestral strain. Safety profiles were similar between groups, with no safety concerns identified.

Conclusion

The Omicron-adapted vaccine was well-tolerated and could elicit superior immune responses as compared with CoronaVac against Omicron, while it appeared inferior to CoronaVac against ancestral strain.

Clinical trial registration

https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05381350?term=NCT05381350&draw=2&rank=1, identifier NCT05381350.