Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of Vaccine Boosters after Ad26.COV2.S Priming

What every intensivist should know about: The value of limitations in clinical research

Not applicable.

Intranasal Multiepitope PD-L1-siRNA-Based Nanovaccine: The Next-Gen COVID-19 Immunotherapy

The first approved vaccines for human use against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are nanotechnology-based. Although they are modular, rapidly produced, and can reduce disease severity, the currently available vaccines are restricted in preventing infection, stressing the global demand for novel preventive vaccine technologies. Bearing this in mind, we set out to develop a flexible nanovaccine platform for nasal administration to induce mucosal immunity, which is fundamental for optimal protection against respiratory virus infection. The next-generation multiepitope nanovaccines co-deliver immunogenic peptides, selected by an immunoinformatic workflow, along with adjuvants and regulators of the PD-L1 expression. As a case study, we focused on SARS-CoV-2 peptides as relevant antigens to validate the approach. This platform can evoke both local and systemic cellular- and humoral-specific responses against SARS-CoV-2. This led to the secretion of immunoglobulin A (IgA), capable of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2, including variants of concern, following a heterologous immunization strategy. Considering the limitations of the required cold chain distribution for current nanotechnology-based vaccines, it is shown that the lyophilized nanovaccine is stable for long-term at room temperature and retains its in vivo efficacy upon reconstitution. This makes it particularly relevant for developing countries and offers a modular system adaptable to future viral threats.

Safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of Ad26.COV2.S as homologous or heterologous COVID-19 booster vaccination: Results of a randomized, double-blind, phase 2 trial

COVID-19 vaccine boosters may optimize durability of protection against variants of concern (VOCs). In this randomized, double-blind, phase 2 trial, participants received 3 different dose levels of an Ad26.COV2.S booster (5 × 1010 vp [viral particles], 2.5 × 1010 vp, or 1 × 1010 vp) ≥6 months post-primary vaccination with either single-dose Ad26.COV2.S (homologous boost; n = 774) or 2-dose BNT162b2 (heterologous boost; n = 758). Primary endpoints were noninferiority of neutralizing antibody responses at Day 15 post-boost versus Day 29 post-primary vaccination. Secondary endpoints included reactogenicity/safety and neutralizing antibody responses to VOCs. All primary endpoints passed prespecified hierarchical noninferiority criteria by Day 15 post-boost. Geometric mean increases in neutralizing antibody titers against the D614G reference strain ranged from 5.5 to 6.8 at Day 15 for homologous boosting and 12.6 to 22.0 for heterologous boosting. For VOCs, heterologous boosting elicited higher neutralizing antibody responses than homologous boosting. Neutralizing antibody responses were dose-dependent and durable for ≥6 months post-boost. More solicited systemic adverse events occurred following heterologous versus homologous boosting. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04999111.

Original COVID-19 priming regimen impacts the immunogenicity of bivalent BA.1 and BA.5 boosters

Waning antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination combined with the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineage led to reduced vaccine effectiveness. As a countermeasure, bivalent mRNA-based booster vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein in combination with that of Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 were introduced. Since then, different BA.2-descendent lineages have become dominant, such as XBB.1.5, JN.1, or EG.5.1. Here, we report post-hoc analyses of data from the SWITCH-ON study, assessing how different COVID-19 priming regimens affect the immunogenicity of bivalent booster vaccinations and breakthrough infections (NCT05471440). BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent vaccines boosted neutralizing antibodies and T-cells up to 3 months after boost; however, cross-neutralization of XBB.1.5 was poor. Interestingly, different combinations of prime-boost regimens induced divergent responses: participants primed with Ad26.COV2.S developed lower binding antibody levels after bivalent boost while neutralization and T-cell responses were similar to mRNA-based primed participants. In contrast, the breadth of neutralization was higher in mRNA-primed and bivalent BA.5 boosted participants. Combined, our data further support the current use of monovalent vaccines based on circulating strains when vaccinating risk groups, as recently recommended by the WHO. We emphasize the importance of the continuous assessment of immune responses targeting circulating variants to guide future COVID-19 vaccination policies.

Immunogenicity of COVID-19 booster vaccination in IEI patients and their one year clinical follow-up after start of the COVID-19 vaccination program

Purpose

Previous studies have demonstrated that the majority of patients with an inborn error of immunity (IEI) develop a spike (S)-specific IgG antibody and T-cell response after two doses of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine, but little is known about the response to a booster vaccination. We studied the immune responses 8 weeks after booster vaccination with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines in 171 IEI patients. Moreover, we evaluated the clinical outcomes in these patients one year after the start of the Dutch COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

Methods

This study was embedded in a large prospective multicenter study investigating the immunogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA-based vaccines in IEI (VACOPID study). Blood samples were taken from 244 participants 8 weeks after booster vaccination. These participants included 171 IEI patients (X-linked agammaglobulinemia (XLA;N=11), combined immunodeficiency (CID;N=4), common variable immunodeficiency (CVID;N=45), isolated or undefined antibody deficiencies (N=108) and phagocyte defects (N=3)) and 73 controls. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG titers, neutralizing antibodies, and T-cell responses were evaluated. One year after the start of the COVID-19 vaccination program, 334 study participants (239 IEI patients and 95 controls) completed a questionnaire to supplement their clinical data focusing on SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Results

After booster vaccination, S-specific IgG titers increased in all COVID-19 naive IEI cohorts and controls, when compared to titers at 6 months after the priming regimen. The fold-increases did not differ between controls and IEI cohorts. SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell responses also increased equally in all cohorts after booster vaccination compared to 6 months after the priming regimen. Most SARS-CoV-2 infections during the study period occurred in the period when the Omicron variant had become dominant. The clinical course of these infections was mild, although IEI patients experienced more frequent fever and dyspnea compared to controls and their symptoms persisted longer.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that mRNA-based booster vaccination induces robust recall of memory B-cell and T-cell responses in most IEI patients. One-year clinical follow-up demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 infections in IEI patients were mild. Given our results, we support booster campaigns with newer variant-specific COVID-19 booster vaccines to IEI patients with milder phenotypes.

Safety and immunogenicity of booster vaccination and fractional dosing with Ad26.COV2.S or BNT162b2 in Ad26.COV2.S-vaccinated participants

We report the safety and immunogenicity of fractional and full dose Ad26.COV2.S and BNT162b2 in an open label phase 2 trial of participants previously vaccinated with a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S, with 91.4% showing evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. A total of 286 adults (with or without HIV) were enrolled >4 months after an Ad26.COV2.S prime and randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive either a full or half-dose booster of Ad26.COV2.S or BNT162b2 vaccine. B cell responses (binding, neutralization and antibody dependent cellular cytotoxicity-ADCC), and spike-specific T-cell responses were evaluated at baseline, 2, 12 and 24 weeks post-boost. Antibody and T-cell immunity targeting the Ad26 vector was also evaluated. No vaccine-associated serious adverse events were recorded. The full- and half-dose BNT162b2 boosted anti-SARS-CoV-2 binding antibody levels (3.9- and 4.5-fold, respectively) and neutralizing antibody levels (4.4- and 10-fold). Binding and neutralizing antibodies following half-dose Ad26.COV2.S were not significantly boosted. Full-dose Ad26.COV2.S did not boost binding antibodies but slightly enhanced neutralizing antibodies (2.1-fold). ADCC was marginally increased only after a full-dose BNT162b2. T-cell responses followed a similar pattern to neutralizing antibodies. Six months post-boost, antibody and T-cell responses had waned to baseline levels. While we detected strong anti-vector immunity, there was no correlation between anti-vector immunity in Ad26.COV2.S recipients and spike-specific neutralizing antibody or T-cell responses post-Ad26.COV2.S boosting. Overall, in the context of hybrid immunity, boosting with heterologous full- or half-dose BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine demonstrated superior immunogenicity 2 weeks post-vaccination compared to homologous Ad26.COV2.S, though rapid waning occurred by 12 weeks post-boost. Trial Registration: The study has been registered to the South African National Clinical Trial Registry (SANCTR): DOH-27-012022-7841. The approval letter from SANCTR has been provided in the up-loaded documents.

Safety, immunogenicity, and protective effective of inhaled COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to examine the safety, immunogenicity and protective effective of inhaled COVID-19 vaccines (ICVs). Literature research was done through EMBASE, Cochrane, PubMed, and Web of Science up to 10 March 2024. Pooled estimates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed and compared using the random effects and common effects model. Of the 15 studies, 11 analyzed safety, 13 analyzed immunogenicity, and 3 analyzed protective effective. The results showed a favorable safety profile of ICVs for primary vaccination series, however it does not always seem to produce the expected immune response and protective effective. Meta-analysis of ICVs booster vaccinations (BVs) showed that the levels of neutralizing antibody Geometric mean titer (nAb-GMT) with aerosolised Ad5-nCoV (AAd5-nCoV) were all higher than those with inactivated vaccine (INA-nCoV) (standard mean difference (SMD) = 2.32; 95% CI: 1.96-2.69) and intramuscular Ad5-nCoV (IMAd5-nCoV) (SMD = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.14-0.48) against the original strain of SARS-CoV-2. Importantly, we also observed similar results in the omicron variant. In addition, ICV in BVs has high mucosal immunity to IgA antibodies. The risk of adverse events was comparable or lower for AAd5-nCoV compared to INA-nCoV or IMAd5-nCoV. Current evidence shows that the safety profile of ICVs were well. The booster dose of AAd5-nCoV had a high immune response (including mucosal immunity) and provided protection against COVID-19 caused by the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant. Further studies are needed to investigate the long-term safety of intranasal vaccine booster protection and various types of ICVs.

Assessment of the impact of a personalised nutrition intervention in impaired glucose regulation over 26 weeks: a randomised controlled trial

Dietary interventions can reduce progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in people with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia. In this study we aimed to determine the impact of a DNA-personalised nutrition intervention in people with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia over 26 weeks. ASPIRE-DNA was a pilot study. Participants were randomised into three arms to receive either (i) Control arm: standard care (NICE guidelines) (n = 51), (ii) Intervention arm: DNA-personalised dietary advice (n = 50), or (iii) Exploratory arm: DNA-personalised dietary advice via a self-guided app and wearable device (n = 46). The primary outcome was the difference in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) between the Control and Intervention arms after 6 weeks. 180 people were recruited, of whom 148 people were randomised, mean age of 59 years (SD = 11), 69% of whom were female. There was no significant difference in the FPG change between the Control and Intervention arms at 6 weeks (- 0.13 mmol/L (95% CI [- 0.37, 0.11]), p = 0.29), however, we found that a DNA-personalised dietary intervention led to a significant reduction of FPG at 26 weeks in the Intervention arm when compared to standard care (- 0.019 (SD = 0.008), p = 0.01), as did the Exploratory arm (- 0.021 (SD = 0.008), p = 0.006). HbA1c at 26 weeks was significantly reduced in the Intervention arm when compared to standard care (- 0.038 (SD = 0.018), p = 0.04). There was some evidence suggesting prevention of progression to T2DM across the groups that received a DNA-based intervention (p = 0.06). Personalisation of dietary advice based on DNA did not result in glucose changes within the first 6 weeks but was associated with significant reduction of FPG and HbA1c at 26 weeks when compared to standard care. The DNA-based diet was effective regardless of intervention type, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low sample size. These findings suggest that DNA-based dietary guidance is an effective intervention compared to standard care, but there is still a minimum timeframe of adherence to the intervention before changes in clinical outcomes become apparent.Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov.uk Ref: NCT03702465.

Second Boost of Omicron SARS-CoV-2 S1 Subunit Vaccine Induced Broad Humoral Immune Responses in Elderly Mice

Currently approved COVID-19 vaccines prevent symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death from the disease. However, repeated homologous boosters, while considered a solution for severe forms of the disease caused by new SARS-CoV-2 variants in elderly individuals and immunocompromised patients, cannot provide complete protection against breakthrough infections. This highlights the need for alternative platforms for booster vaccines. In our previous study, we assessed the boost effect of the SARS-CoV-2 Beta S1 recombinant protein subunit vaccine (rS1Beta) in aged mice primed with an adenovirus-based vaccine expressing SARS-CoV-2-S1 (Ad5.S1) via subcutaneous injection or intranasal delivery, which induced robust humoral immune responses (1). In this follow-up study, we demonstrated that a second booster dose of a non-adjuvanted recombinant Omicron (BA.1) S1 subunit vaccine with Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) agonist RS09 (rS1RS09OM) was effective in stimulating strong S1-specific immune responses and inducing significantly high neutralizing antibodies against the Wuhan, Delta, and Omicron variants in 100-week-old mice. Importantly, the second booster dose elicits cross-reactive antibody responses, resulting in ACE2 binding inhibition against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 variants, including Omicron (BA.1) and its subvariants. Interestingly, the levels of IgG and neutralizing antibodies correlated with the level of ACE2 inhibition in the booster serum samples, although Omicron S1-specific IgG level showed a weaker correlation compared to Wuhan S1-specific IgG level. Furthermore, we compared the immunogenic properties of the rS1 subunit vaccine in young, middle-aged, and elderly mice, resulting in reduced immunogenicity with age, especially an impaired Th1-biased immune response in aged mice. Our findings demonstrate that the new variant of concern (VOC) rS1 subunit vaccine as a second booster has the potential to offer cross-neutralization against a broad range of variants and to improve vaccine effectiveness against newly emerging breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 variants in elderly individuals who were previously primed with the authorized vaccines.

Comparing reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccine boosters: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Different COVID-19 vaccines are being utilized as boosters. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines given as booster doses, according to vaccine type, dose, timing, participant characteristics and primary immunization regimen received.

METHODS

Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials between 1 January 2020 and 1 January 2023 according to predetermined criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies describing 19 vaccines of four different types (viral vector, inactivated, mRNA and protein sub-unit) were identified. BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) was selected as the control as it was most often compared with other vaccines. Fever, fatigue, headache, injection-site pain, redness, and swelling were the most frequently reported solicited events. mRNA vaccines were the most reactogenic, followed by viral vector vaccines and protein sub-unit vaccines, while inactivated vaccines were the least reactogenic. Full-dose vaccines were more reactogenic than half-dose vaccines. Heterologous BNT162b2 boosters were more reactogenic than boosters with the same vaccine used for primary immunization.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccine booster schedules have distinct reactogenicity profiles, dependent on dose and vaccine type, which may allow targeted recommendations and provide choice for specific populations. Greater standardization of adverse event reporting will aid future studies.

Emerging heterologous mRNA-based booster strategies within the COVID-19 vaccine landscape

Messenger RNA (mRNA)-based vaccine platforms used for the development of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 have provided a robust adaptable approach to offer protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, as variants of concern (VoCs), such as omicron and associated sub-variants, emerge, boosting strategies must also adapt to keep pace with the changing landscape. Heterologous vaccination regimens involving the administration of booster vaccines different than the primary vaccination series offer a practical, effective, and safe approach to continue to reduce the global burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To understand the immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety of heterologous mRNA-based vaccination strategies, relevant clinical and real-world observational studies were identified and summarized. Overall, heterologous boosting strategies with mRNA-based vaccines that are currently available and those in development will play an important global role in protecting individuals from COVID-19 caused by emerging VoCs.

Safety and Immunogenicity of Homologous Recombinant Adenovirus Type 5-Vectored COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose in Healthy Adults Aged 18-60 Years: a Single-Center, Open-Label Trial

INTRODUCTION

The waning antibody levels several months after prime vaccination and the persistent epidemics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) around the world have generated great interest in the evaluation of a booster dose. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a homologous booster dose of the recombinant adenovirus type 5-vectored coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine (Ad5-nCoV).

METHODS

In this trial, we recruited healthy adults aged 18-60 years who had received one dose of Ad5-nCoV vaccine (low, middle, or high dose) in the previous phase 1 trial approximately 6 months earlier, and then all participants received a booster dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles (low dose) intramuscularly. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse reactions within 14 days after booster vaccination. The specific binding antibodies were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and the neutralizing antibody responses were assessed with live SARS-CoV-2 and pseudovirus neutralization assay. The cellular immune responses were analyzed by enzyme-linked immunospot assay and intracellular cytokine staining.

RESULTS

From September 26 to 28, 2020, 108 volunteers were recruited and 89 eligible participants (52% male) were enrolled and received a booster dose of Ad5-nCoV vaccine: 28 (31%) had received a low prime dose, 30 (34%) a middle prime dose, and 31 (35%) a high prime dose in the previous phase 1 trial. All participants were included in the safety analysis and immunogenicity was assessed in 88 (99%) participants. Twenty-three (82%) participants in the low prime dose group, 23 (77%) participants in the middle prime dose group, and 26 (84%) participants in the high prime dose group reported at least one adverse reaction within the first 14 days post booster. Pain at the injection site and fatigue were the most common adverse reactions. Most adverse reactions were mild or moderate in all groups and no vaccine-related severe adverse event was noted within 12 months after booster vaccination. Neutralizing antibodies increased moderately at day 14 and peaked at 28 days post booster. T cell responses were also boosted at 14 days after vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

A homologous booster of Ad5-nCoV vaccine is well tolerated and immunogenic in healthy adults aged 18-60 years who had received a priming dose of Ad5-nCoV 6 months previously. The neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 peaked at day 28 and specific T cell responses were noted at day 14 after booster. Ad5-nCoV vaccine can be considered as a homologous booster 6 months after a priming dose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04568811.

Detection of pre-existing neutralizing antibodies against Ad26 in HIV-1-infected individuals not responding to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine

PURPOSE

The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine is a replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 vector encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. In a phase 1-2a trial, a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S induced SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibodies in ≥ 96% of healthy adults. To investigate vaccine immunogenicity in HIV-1-infection, we measured SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibodies in Ad26.COV2.S vaccinated HIV-1-infected patients and analyzed the presence of pre-existing Ad26 neutralizing antibodies.

METHODS

We included all Ad26.COV2.S vaccinated HIV-1-infected patients of Erlangen HIV cohort fulfilling all inclusion criteria. The study cohort consisted of 15 HIV-1-infected patients and three HIV-1-uninfected subjects who received the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between April and November 2021. Pre-vaccination sera were collected between October 2014 and June 2021, post-vaccination sera between June and December 2021. Neutralizing antibodies towards Ad26 were determined by a FACS-based inhibition assay measuring the expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike and adenoviral proteins in HEK293T cells after in-vitro transduction with Ad26.COV2.S or the control ChAdOx1-S.

RESULTS

Six out of 15 HIV-1-infected patients failed to develop SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and four patients developed weak antibody responses after vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S. Pre-vaccination sera of four of the six vaccine non-responders showed neutralizing activity towards Ad26.COV2.S but not toward the ChAdOx1-S vaccine at 1:50 dilution. After Ad26.COV2.S vaccination, 17 of the 18 subjects developed strong Ad26-neutralizing activity and only one of the 18 subjects showed neutralizing activity towards the ChAdOx1-S vaccine.

CONCLUSION

Ad26.COV2.S vaccination showed a high failure rate in HIV-1-infected patients. Pre-existing immunity against Ad26 could be an important contributor to poor vaccine efficacy in a subgroup of patients.

Safety and immunogenicity of booster vaccination and fractional dosing with Ad26.COV2.S or BNT162b2 in Ad26.COV2.S-vaccinated participants

Background

We report the safety and immunogenicity of fractional and full dose Ad26.COV2.S and BNT162b2 in an open label phase 2 trial of participants previously vaccinated with a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S, with 91.4% showing evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Methods

A total of 286 adults (with or without HIV) were enrolled >4 months after an Ad26.COV2.S prime and randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive either a full or half-dose booster of Ad26.COV2.S or BNT162b2 vaccine. B cell responses (binding, neutralization and antibody dependent cellular cytotoxicity-ADCC), and spike-specific T-cell responses were evaluated at baseline, 2, 12 and 24 weeks post-boost. Antibody and T-cell immunity targeting the Ad26 vector was also evaluated.

Results

No vaccine-associated serious adverse events were recorded. The full- and half-dose BNT162b2 boosted anti-SARS-CoV-2 binding antibody levels (3.9- and 4.5-fold, respectively) and neutralizing antibody levels (4.4- and 10-fold). Binding and neutralizing antibodies following half-dose Ad26.COV2.S were not significantly boosted. Full-dose Ad26.COV2.S did not boost binding antibodies but slightly enhanced neutralizing antibodies (2.1-fold). ADCC was marginally increased only after a full-dose BNT162b2. T-cell responses followed a similar pattern to neutralizing antibodies. Six months post-boost, antibody and T-cell responses had waned to baseline levels. While we detected strong anti-vector immunity, there was no correlation between anti-vector immunity in Ad26.COV2.S recipients and spike-specific neutralizing antibody or T-cell responses post-Ad26.COV2.S boosting.

Conclusion

In the context of hybrid immunity, boosting with heterologous full- or half-dose BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine demonstrated superior immunogenicity 2 weeks post-vaccination compared to homologous Ad26.COV2.S, though rapid waning occurred by 12 weeks post-boost.

Trial Registration

South African National Clinical Trial Registry (SANCR): DOH-27-012022-7841.

Funding

South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) and South African Department of Health (SA DoH).

Homologous Ad26.COV2.S vaccination results in reduced boosting of humoral responses in hybrid immunity, but elicits antibodies of similar magnitude regardless of prior infection

The impact of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on the durability of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine-elicited responses, and the effect of homologous boosting has not been well explored. We followed a cohort of healthcare workers for 6 months after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and a further one month after they received an Ad26.COV2.S booster dose. We assessed longitudinal spike-specific antibody and T cell responses in individuals who had never had SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those who were infected with either the D614G or Beta variants prior to vaccination. Antibody and T cell responses elicited by the primary dose were durable against several variants of concern over the 6 month follow-up period, regardless of infection history. However, at 6 months after first vaccination, antibody binding, neutralization and ADCC were as much as 59-fold higher in individuals with hybrid immunity compared to those with no prior infection. Antibody cross-reactivity profiles of the previously infected groups were similar at 6 months, unlike at earlier time points, suggesting that the effect of immune imprinting diminishes by 6 months. Importantly, an Ad26.COV2.S booster dose increased the magnitude of the antibody response in individuals with no prior infection to similar levels as those with previous infection. The magnitude of spike T cell responses and proportion of T cell responders remained stable after homologous boosting, concomitant with a significant increase in long-lived early differentiated CD4 memory T cells. Thus, these data highlight that multiple antigen exposures, whether through infection and vaccination or vaccination alone, result in similar boosts after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination.

Correlation between specific antibody response to wild-type BNT162b2 booster and the risk of breakthrough infection with omicron variants: Impact of household exposure in hospital healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

The emergence of omicron variants exhibiting antigenic changes has led to an increase in breakthrough infection among individuals with a wild-type SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster. The correlation between post-booster spike-specific antibodies and omicron infection risk remains unclear.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included SARS-CoV-2-naive healthcare workers with three-dose BNT162b2. Post-booster spike-specific IgG and interferon-γ levels were measured. Breakthrough infection was documented during a 10-month omicron-predominant period. Household and healthcare contacts were followed to identify subsequent infections. The IgG titers were additionally measured at the end of follow-up, and the titers at exposure were estimated from the two-point titers.

RESULTS

Of 333 participants, 89 developed infection, of whom 37 (41.6 %) were household contacts. Kaplan-Meier curves indicated that higher IgG titers were significantly correlated with lower cumulative infection incidence (p = 0.029), whereas the interferon-γ levels were not (p = 0.926). Multivariate Cox analysis showed that increasing IgG titers were associated with a reduced hazard ratio (HR) of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.12-0.55). Household exposure posed a greater infection risk than healthcare exposure (HRs, 11.24 [6.88-18.40] vs. 2.82 [1.37-5.44]). The difference in geometric mean IgG titers of infected and uninfected participants was significant among household contacts (20,244 AU/mL vs. 13,842 AU/mL, p = 0.031). Estimation of IgG titers at exposure showed a significantly higher infection incidence in those exposed with titers of <3,000 AU/mL than in those with higher titers (79.2 % vs. 32.3 %, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Spike-specific antibodies induced by a wild-type SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster are suggested to be effective in protecting against omicron infection. Household exposure would be a significant source of infection for hospital healthcare workers.

Boosting with an aerosolized Ad5-nCoV elicited robust immune responses in inactivated COVID-19 vaccines recipients

Introduction

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has become the dominant SARS-CoV-2 variant and exhibits immune escape to current COVID-19 vaccines, the further boosting strategies are required.

Methods

We have conducted a non-randomized, open-label and parallel-controlled phase 4 trial to evaluate the magnitude and longevity of immune responses to booster vaccination with intramuscular adenovirus vectored vaccine (Ad5-nCoV), aerosolized Ad5-nCoV, a recombinant protein subunit vaccine (ZF2001) or homologous inactivated vaccine (CoronaVac) in those who received two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines.

Results

The aerosolized Ad5-nCoV induced the most robust and long-lasting neutralizing activity against Omicron variant and IFNg T-cell response among all the boosters, with a distinct mucosal immune response. SARS-CoV-2-specific mucosal IgA response was substantially generated in subjects boosted with the aerosolized Ad5-nCoV at day 14 post-vaccination. At month 6, participants boosted with the aerosolized Ad5-nCoV had remarkably higher median titer and seroconversion of the Omicron BA.4/5-specific neutralizing antibody than those who received other boosters.

Discussion

Our findings suggest that aerosolized Ad5-nCoV may provide an efficient alternative in response to the spread of the Omicron BA.4/5 variant.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=152729, identifier ChiCTR2200057278.

Mechanistic modeling projections of antibody persistence after homologous booster regimens of COVID-19 vaccine Ad26.COV2.S in humans

Mechanistic model-based simulations can be deployed to project the persistence of humoral immune response following vaccination. We used this approach to project the antibody persistence through 24 months from the data pooled across five clinical trials in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-seronegative participants following vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S (5 × 1010 viral particles), given either as a single-dose or a homologous booster regimen at an interval of 2, 3, or 6 months. Antibody persistence was quantified as the percentage of participants with detectable anti-spike binding and wild-type virus neutralizing antibodies. The projected overall 24-month persistence after single-dose Ad26.COV2.S was 70.5% for binding antibodies and 55.2% for neutralizing antibodies, and increased after any homologous booster regimen to greater than or equal to 89.9% for binding and greater than or equal to 80.0% for neutralizing antibodies. The estimated model parameters quantifying the rates of antibody production attributed to short-lived and long-lived plasma cells decreased with increasing age, whereas the rate of antibody production mediated by long-lived plasma cells was higher in women relative to men. Accordingly, a more pronounced waning of antibody responses was predicted in men aged greater than or equal to 60 years and was markedly attenuated following any homologous boosting regimen. The findings suggest that homologous boosting might be a viable strategy for maintaining protective effects of Ad26.COV2.S for up to 24 months following prime vaccination. The estimation of mechanistic modeling parameters identified the long-lived plasma cell pathway as a key contributor mediating antibody persistence following single-dose and homologous booster vaccination with Ad26.COV2.S in different subgroups of recipients stratified by age and sex.

Atypical B cells and impaired SARS-CoV-2 neutralization following heterologous vaccination in the elderly

Suboptimal responses to a primary vaccination course have been reported in the elderly, but there is little information regarding the impact of age on responses to booster third doses. Here, we show that individuals 70 years or older (median age 73, range 70-75) who received a primary two-dose schedule with AZD1222 and booster third dose with mRNA vaccine achieve significantly lower neutralizing antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 spike pseudotyped virus compared with those younger than 70 (median age 66, range 54-69) at 1 month post booster. Impaired neutralization potency and breadth post third dose in the elderly is associated with circulating "atypical" spike-specific B cells expressing CD11c and FCRL5. However, when considering individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine, we did not observe differences in neutralization or enrichment in atypical B cells. This work highlights the finding that AdV and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine formats differentially instruct the memory B cell response.

Effectiveness of homologous or heterologous immunization regimens against SARS-CoV-2 after two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine: A systematic review and meta-analysis

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness or efficacy of heterologous or homologous COVID-19 vaccine regimens against COVID-19-related outcomes after primary immunization with two doses of CoronaVac or Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccines. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 31 October 2022. The primary measure was vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection with homologous or heterologous booster. The results showed heterologous and homologous booster significantly improved effectiveness against COVID-19 infection compared to primary immunization. The effectiveness against COVID-19 infection was 89.19% (95%CI 78.49, 99.89) for heterologous mRNA vaccine booster, 87.00% (95%CI 82.14, 91.85) for non-replicating vector vaccine booster, 69.99% (95%CI 52.16, 87.82) for homologous booster, and 51.48% (95%CI 41.75, 61.21) for two doses of inactivated vaccine. Homologous and heterologous regimens were also effective against SARS-CoV-2 variants, and more evidence is still needed to confirm our findings.

The Importance of Measuring SARS-CoV-2-Specific T-Cell Responses in an Ongoing Pandemic

Neutralizing antibodies are considered a correlate of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19, although they are not the only contributing factor to immunity: T-cell responses are considered important in protecting against severe COVID-19 and contributing to the success of vaccination effort. T-cell responses after vaccination largely mirror those of natural infection in magnitude and functional capacity, but not in breadth, as T-cells induced by vaccination exclusively target the surface spike glycoprotein. T-cell responses offer a long-lived line of defense and, unlike humoral responses, largely retain reactivity against the SARS-CoV-2 variants. Given the increasingly recognized role of T-cell responses in protection against severe COVID-19, the circulation of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and the potential implementation of novel vaccines, it becomes imperative to continuously monitor T-cell responses. In addition to "classical" T-cell assays requiring the isolation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells, simple whole-blood-based interferon-γ release assays have a potential role in routine T-cell response monitoring. These assays could be particularly useful for immunocompromised people and other clinically vulnerable populations, where interactions between cellular and humoral immunity are complex. As we continue to live alongside COVID-19, the importance of considering immunity as a whole, incorporating both humoral and cellular responses, is crucial.

SARS-CoV-2 S1 Subunit Booster Vaccination Elicits Robust Humoral Immune Responses in Aged Mice

The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants has raised concerns about reduced vaccine effectiveness and the increased risk of infection, and while repeated homologous booster shots are recommended for elderly and immunocompromised individuals, they cannot completely protect against breakthrough infections. In our previous study, we assessed the immunogenicity of an adenovirus-based vaccine expressing SARS-CoV-2 S1 (Ad5.S1) in mice, which induced robust humoral and cellular immune responses (E. Kim, F. J. Weisel, S. C. Balmert, M. S. Khan, et al., Eur J Immunol 51:1774-1784, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/eji.202149167). In this follow-up study, we found that the mice had high titers of anti-S1 antibodies 1 year after vaccination, and one booster dose of the nonadjuvanted rS1Beta (recombinant S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 Beta [B.1.351]) subunit vaccine was effective at stimulating strong long-lived S1-specific immune responses and inducing significantly high neutralizing antibodies against Wuhan, Beta, and Delta strains, with 3.6- to 19.5-fold increases. Importantly, the booster dose also elicited cross-reactive antibodies, resulting in angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) binding inhibition against spikes of SARS-CoV-2, including Omicron variants, persisting for >28 weeks after booster vaccination. Interestingly, the levels of neutralizing antibodies were correlated not only with the level of S1 binding IgG but also with ACE2 inhibition. Our findings suggest that the rS1Beta subunit vaccine candidate as a booster has the potential to offer cross-neutralization against broad variants and has important implications for the vaccine control of newly emerging breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 variants in elderly individuals primed with adenovirus-based vaccines like AZD1222 and Ad26.COV2.S. IMPORTANCE Vaccines have significantly reduced the incidences of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and deaths. However, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants has raised concerns about their increased transmissibility and ability to evade neutralizing antibodies, especially among elderly individuals who are at higher risks of mortality and reductions of vaccine effectiveness. To address this, a heterologous booster vaccination strategy has been considered as a solution to protect the elderly population against breakthrough infections caused by emerging variants. This study evaluated the booster effect of an S1 subunit vaccine in aged mice that had been previously primed with adenoviral vaccines, providing valuable preclinical evidence for elderly people vaccinated with the currently approved COVID-19 vaccines. This study confirms the potential for using the S1 subunit vaccine as a booster to enhance cross-neutralizing antibodies against emerging variants of concern.

Impact of timing and combination of different BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 basic and booster vaccinations on humoral immunogenicity and reactogenicity in adults

In this single-center observational study with 1,206 participants, we prospectively evaluated SARS-CoV-2-antibodies (anti-S RBD) and vaccine-related adverse drug reactions (ADR) after basic and booster immunization with BNT162b2- and ChAdOx1-S-vaccines in four vaccination protocols: Homologous BNT162b2-schedule with second vaccination at either three or six weeks, homologous ChAdOx1-S-vaccination or heterologous ChAdOx1-S/BNT162b2-schedule, each at 12 weeks. All participants received a BNT162b2 booster. Blood samples for anti-S RBD analysis were obtained multiple times over a period of four weeks to six months after basic vaccination, immediately before, and up to three months after booster vaccination. After basic vaccination, the homologous ChAdOx1-S-group showed the lowest anti-S RBD levels over six months, while the heterologous BNT162b2-ChAdOx1-S-group demonstrated the highest anti-S levels, but failed to reach level of significance compared with the homologous BNT162b2-groups. Antibody levels were higher after an extended vaccination interval with BNT162b2. A BNT162b2 booster increased anti-S-levels 11- to 91-fold in all groups, with the homologous ChAdOx1-S-cohort demonstrated the highest increase in antibody levels. No severe or serious ADR were observed. The findings suggest that a heterologous vaccination schedule or prolonged vaccination interval induces robust humoral immunogenicity with good tolerability. Extending the time to boost-immunization is key to both improving antibody induction and reducing ADR rate.

Immune Responses 6 Months After mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccination and the Effect of a Third Vaccination in Patients with Inborn Errors of Immunity

PURPOSE

Patients with inborn errors of immunity (IEI) are at increased risk of severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Effective long-term protection against COVID-19 is therefore of great importance in these patients, but little is known about the decay of the immune response after primary vaccination. We studied the immune responses 6 months after two mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines in 473 IEI patients and subsequently the response to a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in 50 patients with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID).

METHODS

In a prospective multicenter study, 473 IEI patients (including X-linked agammaglobulinemia (XLA) (N = 18), combined immunodeficiency (CID) (N = 22), CVID (N = 203), isolated or undefined antibody deficiencies (N = 204), and phagocyte defects (N = 16)), and 179 controls were included and followed up to 6 months after two doses of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine. Additionally, samples were collected from 50 CVID patients who received a third vaccine 6 months after primary vaccination through the national vaccination program. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG titers, neutralizing antibodies, and T cell responses were assessed.

RESULTS

At 6 months after vaccination, the geometric mean antibody titers (GMT) declined in both IEI patients and healthy controls, when compared to GMT 28 days after vaccination. The trajectory of this decline did not differ between controls and most IEI cohorts; however, antibody titers in CID, CVID, and isolated antibody deficiency patients more often dropped to below the responder cut-off compared to controls. Specific T cell responses were still detectable in 77% of controls and 68% of IEI patients at 6 months post vaccination. A third mRNA vaccine resulted in an antibody response in only two out of 30 CVID patients that did not seroconvert after two mRNA vaccines.

CONCLUSION

A similar decline in IgG titers and T cell responses was observed in patients with IEI when compared to healthy controls 6 months after mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccination. The limited beneficial benefit of a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in previous non-responder CVID patients implicates that other protective strategies are needed for these vulnerable patients.

Relative Effectiveness of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination and Booster Dose Combinations Among 18.9 Million Vaccinated Adults During the Early Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Omicron Period-United States, 1 January 2022 to 31 March 2022

BACKGROUND

Small sample sizes have limited prior studies' ability to capture severe COVID-19 outcomes, especially among Ad26.COV2.S vaccine recipients. This study of 18.9 million adults aged ≥18 years assessed relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) in three recipient cohorts: (1) primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and Ad26.COV2.S booster (2 Ad26.COV2.S), (2) primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and mRNA booster (Ad26.COV2.S+mRNA), (3) two doses of primary mRNA vaccine and mRNA booster (3 mRNA).

METHODS

We analyzed two de-identified datasets linked using privacy-preserving record linkage (PPRL): insurance claims and retail pharmacy COVID-19 vaccination data. We assessed the presence of COVID-19 diagnosis during January 1-March 31, 2022 in: (1) any claim, (2) outpatient claim, (3) emergency department (ED) claim, (4) inpatient claim, and (5) inpatient claim with intensive care unit (ICU) admission. rVE for each outcome comparing three recipient cohorts (reference: two Ad26.COV2.S doses) was estimated from adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Compared with two Ad26.COV2.S doses, Ad26.COV2.S+mRNA and three mRNA doses were more effective against all COVID-19 outcomes, including 57% (95% CI: 52-62) and 62% (95% CI: 58-65) rVE against an ED visit; 44% (95% CI: 34-52) and 54% (95% CI: 48-59) rVE against hospitalization; and 48% (95% CI: 22-66) and 66% (95% CI: 53-75) rVE against ICU admission, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that Ad26.COV2.S + mRNA doses were as good as three doses of mRNA, and better than two doses of Ad26.COV2.S. Vaccination continues to be an important preventive measure for reducing the public health impact of COVID-19.

Protection against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/5 variant following booster vaccination or breakthrough infection in the UK

Following primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, whether boosters or breakthrough infections provide greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection is incompletely understood. Here we investigated SARS-CoV-2 antibody correlates of protection against new Omicron BA.4/5 (re-)infections and anti-spike IgG antibody trajectories after a third/booster vaccination or breakthrough infection following second vaccination in 154,149 adults ≥18 y from the United Kingdom general population. Higher antibody levels were associated with increased protection against Omicron BA.4/5 infection and breakthrough infections were associated with higher levels of protection at any given antibody level than boosters. Breakthrough infections generated similar antibody levels to boosters, and the subsequent antibody declines were slightly slower than after boosters. Together our findings show breakthrough infection provides longer-lasting protection against further infections than booster vaccinations. Our findings, considered alongside the risks of severe infection and long-term consequences of infection, have important implications for vaccine policy.

Serological Response to SARS-CoV-2 after COVID-19 Vaccination in Lung Cancer Patients: Short Review

In comparison to the general population, lung cancer patients are more likely to suffer from severe Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and associated mortality. Considering this increased risk, and in order to prevent symptoms and severe disease, patients with lung cancer have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination primary and booster doses. Despite this, the pivotal clinical trials did not include these patients, which leaves open questions regarding vaccine efficacy and humoral immune response. This review outlines the findings of recent investigations into the humoral responses of lung cancer patients to COVID-19 vaccination, particularly the primary doses and first boost.

Effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines on preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and hospitalizations in Southwestern Alaska, January-December 2021

The population in rural southwest Alaska has been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. To assess the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, we analyzed data from the regional health system. We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) during January 16-December 3, 2021, against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection after a primary series or booster dose, and overall VE against hospitalization. VE of a primary series against symptomatic infection among adult residents was 91.3% (95% CI: 85.7, 95.2) during January 16-May 7, 2021, 50.3% (95% CI, 41.1%-58.8%) during July 17-September 24, and 37.0% (95% CI, 27.8-45.0) during September 25-December 3, 2021; VE of a booster dose during September 25-December 3, 2021, was 92.1% (95% CI: 87.2-95.2). During the overall study period, VE against hospitalization was 91.9% (95% CI: 85.4-95.5). COVID-19 vaccination offered strong protection against hospitalization and a booster dose restored protection against symptomatic infection.

Challenges in the Vaccination of the Elderly and Strategies for Improvement

In recent years, the elderly has become a rapidly growing proportion of the world's population as life expectancy is extending. Immunosenescence and inflammaging contribute to the increased risk of chronic non-communicable and acute infectious diseases. Frailty is highly prevalent in the elderly and is associated with an impaired immune response, a higher propensity to infection, and a lower response to vaccines. Additionally, the presence of uncontrolled comorbid diseases in the elderly also contributes to sarcopenia and frailty. Vaccine-preventable diseases that threaten the elderly include influenza, pneumococcal infection, herpes zoster, and COVID-19, which contribute to significant disability-adjusted life years lost. Previous studies had shown that conventional vaccines only yielded suboptimal protection that wanes rapidly in a shorter time. This article reviews published papers on several vaccination strategies that were developed for the elderly to solve these problems: more immunogenic vaccine formulations using larger doses of antigen, stronger vaccine adjuvants, recombinant subunit or protein conjugated vaccines, newly developed mRNA vaccines, giving booster shots, and exploring alternative routes of administration. Included also are several publications on senolytic medications under investigation to boost the immune system and vaccine response in the elderly. With all those in regard, the currently recommended vaccines for the elderly are presented.

Immunogenicity of bivalent omicron (BA.1) booster vaccination after different priming regimens in health-care workers in the Netherlands (SWITCH ON): results from the direct boost group of an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Bivalent mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines encoding the ancestral and omicron spike (S) protein were developed as a countermeasure against antigenically distinct SARS-CoV-2 variants. We aimed to assess the (variant-specific) immunogenicity and reactogenicity of mRNA-based bivalent omicron (BA.1) vaccines in individuals who were primed with adenovirus-based or mRNA-based vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein.

METHODS

We analysed results of the direct boost group of the SWITCH ON study, an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Health-care workers from four academic hospitals in the Netherlands aged 18-65 years who had completed a primary COVID-19 vaccination regimen and received one booster of an mRNA-based vaccine, given no later than 3 months previously, were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using computer software in block sizes of 16 and 24 to receive an omicron BA.1 bivalent booster straight away (direct boost group) or a bivalent omicron BA.5 booster, postponed for 90 days (postponed boost group), stratified by priming regimen. The BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 boost was given to participants younger than 45 years, and the mRNA-1273.214 boost was given to participants 45 years or older, as per Dutch guidelines. The direct boost group, whose results are presented here, were divided into four subgroups for analysis: (1) Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) prime and BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 (BioNTech-Pfizer) boost (Ad/P), (2) mRNA-based prime and BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 boost (mRNA/P), (3) Ad26.COV2.S prime and mRNA-1273.214 (Moderna) boost (Ad/M), and (4) mRNA-based prime and mRNA-1273.214 boost (mRNA/M). The primary outcome was fold change in S protein S1 subunit-specific IgG antibodies before and 28 days after booster vaccination. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in all participants except those who withdrew, had a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection, or had a missing blood sample at day 0 or day 28. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05471440.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 2 and Oct 4, 2022, 219 (50%) of 434 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the direct boost group; 187 participants were included in the primary analyses; exclusions were mainly due to SARS-CoV-2 infection between days 0 and 28. From the 187 included participants, 138 (74%) were female and 49 (26%) were male. 42 (22%) of 187 participants received Ad/P and 44 (24%) mRNA/P (those aged <45 years), and 45 (24%) had received Ad/M and 56 (30%) mRNA/M (those aged ≥45 years). S1-specific binding antibody concentrations increased 7 days after bivalent booster vaccination and remained stable over 28 days in all four subgroups (geometric mean ratio [GMR] between day 0 and day 28 was 1·15 [95% CI 1·12-1·19] for the Ad/P group, 1·17 [1·14-1·20] for the mRNA/P group, 1·20 [1·17-1·23] for the Ad/M group, and 1·16 [1·13-1·19] for the mRNA/M group). We observed no significant difference in the GMR between the Ad/P and mRNA/P groups (p=0·51). The GMR appeared to be higher in the Ad/M group than in the mRNA/M group, but was not significant (p=0·073). Most side-effects were mild to moderate in severity and resolved within 48 h in most individuals.

INTERPRETATION

Booster vaccination with mRNA-1273.214 or BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 in adult healthcare workers resulted in a rapid recall of humoral and cellular immune responses independent of the priming regimen. Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 immunity at the population level, and simultaneously antigenic drift at the virus level, remains crucial to assess the necessity and timing of COVID-19 variant-specific booster vaccinations.

FUNDING

The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).

Efficacy and safety of booster vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in dialysis and renal transplant patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Patients under renal replacement therapy are at an increased risk of severe infection with SARS-CoV-2, and have been known to have impaired response to standard vaccination. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims at evaluating the efficacy of booster dose vaccination in this population.

METHODS

A systematic review has been conducted to find trials on the booster dose vaccination in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) or patients under dialysis. Data of seroconversion rates at different timepoints, especially 1 month prior and post-booster dose vaccination have been collected and analyzed. Effects of different factors including type of renal replacement therapy (RRT), vaccine type and brands, magnitude of response to the standard vaccination, and immunosuppression drugs on the response rates have been investigated. Meta-analyses were performed using software Stata v.17.

RESULTS

Overall 58 studies were included. Both RRT patient subgroups represented significant seroconversion, post- (versus pre-) booster dose vaccination, but only in KTRs the booster dose seroconversion surpassed that of the standard protocol. T-cell response was also significantly augmented after booster vaccination, with no difference between the RRT subgroups. mRNA and vector vaccine types had comparable immunogenicity when employed as boosters, both significantly higher than the inactivated virus vaccine, with no significant disparity regarding the vaccine brands. Patients with poor response to standard vaccination had a significant response to booster dose, with dialysis patients having stronger response. The differential effects of vaccine types and brands in the poor responders was similar to that of the overall RRT population. No rejection episodes or graft failure post-booster vaccination was reported.

CONCLUSION

In patients under RRT, booster dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is safe and efficacious determined by significant seroconversion, and therefore, it should be considered to be implemented in all these patients. Since in the KTR patients, the third dose vaccination significantly increased the seroconversion rates even beyond that of the standard protocol, three dose vaccine doses is recommended to be recognized as the standard vaccination protocol in this population. The same recommendation could be considered for dialysis patients, due to their augmented risk of breakthrough infection.

Homologous Ad26.COV2.S vaccination results in reduced boosting of humoral responses in hybrid immunity, but elicits antibodies of similar magnitude regardless of prior infection

The impact of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on the durability of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine-elicited responses, and the effect of homologous boosting has not been well explored. We followed a cohort of healthcare workers for 6 months after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and a further one month after they received an Ad26.COV2.S booster dose. We assessed longitudinal spike-specific antibody and T cell responses in individuals who had never had SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those who were infected with either the D614G or Beta variants prior to vaccination. Antibody and T cell responses elicited by the primary dose were durable against several variants of concern over the 6 month follow-up period, regardless of infection history. However, at 6 months after first vaccination, antibody binding, neutralization and ADCC were as much as 33-fold higher in individuals with hybrid immunity compared to those with no prior infection. Antibody cross-reactivity profiles of the previously infected groups were similar at 6 months, unlike at earlier time points suggesting that the effect of immune imprinting diminishes by 6 months. Importantly, an Ad26.COV2.S booster dose increased the magnitude of the antibody response in individuals with no prior infection to similar levels as those with previous infection. The magnitude of spike T cell responses and proportion of T cell responders remained stable after homologous boosting, concomitant with a significant increase in long-lived early differentiated CD4 memory T cells. Thus, these data highlight that multiple antigen exposures, whether through infection and vaccination or vaccination alone, result in similar boosts after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination.

Meeting vaccine formulation challenges in an emergency setting: Towards the development of accessible vaccines

Vaccination is considered one of the most successful strategies to prevent infectious diseases. In the event of a pandemic or epidemic, the rapid development and distribution of the vaccine to the population is essential to reduce mortality, morbidity and transmission. As seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, the production and distribution of vaccines has been challenging, in particular for resource-constrained settings, essentially slowing down the process of achieving global coverage. Pricing, storage, transportation and delivery requirements of several vaccines developed in high-income countries resulted in limited access for low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). The capacity to manufacture vaccines locally would greatly improve global vaccine access. In particular, for the development of classical subunit vaccines, the access to vaccine adjuvants is a pre-requisite for more equitable access to vaccines. Vaccine adjuvants are agents required to augment or potentiate, and possibly target the specific immune response to such type of vaccine antigens. Openly accessible or locally produced vaccine adjuvants may allow for faster immunization of the global population. For local research and development of adjuvanted vaccines to expand, knowledge on vaccine formulation is of paramount importance. In this review, we aim to discuss the optimal characteristics of a vaccine developed in an emergency setting by focusing on the importance of vaccine formulation, appropriate use of adjuvants and how this may help overcome barriers for vaccine development and production in LMICs, achieve improved vaccine regimens, delivery and storage requirements.

Effectiveness and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients with Malignant Disease

A novel virus named SARS-CoV-2 has caused a worldwide pandemic, resulting in a disastrous impact to the public health since 2019. The disease is much more lethal among patients with malignant disease. Vaccination plays an important role in the prevention of infection and subsequent severe COVID-19. However, the efficacy and safety of vaccines for cancer patients needs further investigation. Encouragingly, there have been important findings deduced from research so far. In this review, an overview of the immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safeness of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer to date is to be shown. We also highlight important questions to consider and directions that could be followed in future research.

Cross-Reactivity of Antibodies in Intravenous Immunoglobulin Preparation for Protection against SARS-CoV-2

Severe cases of COVID-19 continue to put pressure on medical operations by prolonging hospitalization, occupying intensive care beds, and forcing medical personnel to undergo harsh labor. The eradication of SARS-CoV-2 through vaccine development has yet to be achieved, mainly due to the appearance of multiple mutant-incorporating strains. The present study explored the utility of human intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) preparations in suppressing the aggravation of any COVID-19 infection using a SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus assay. Our study revealed the existence of IgG antibodies in human IVIG preparations, which recognized the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Remarkably, the pretreatment of ACE2/TMPRSS2-expressing host cells (HEK293T cells) with IVIG preparations (10 mg/mL) inhibited approximately 40% entry of SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus even at extremely low concentrations of IgG (0.16-1.25 mg/mL). In contrast, the antibody-dependent enhancement of viral entry was confirmed when SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus was treated with some products at an IgG concentration of 10 mg/mL. Our data suggest that IVIG may contribute to therapy for COVID-19, including for cases caused by SARS-CoV-2 variants, since IVIG binds not only to the spike proteins of the virus, but also to human ACE2/TMPRSS2. An even better preventive effect can be expected with blood collected after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prior vaccination enhances immune responses during SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection with early activation of memory T cells followed by production of potent neutralizing antibodies

SARS-CoV-2 infection of vaccinated individuals is increasingly common but rarely results in severe disease, likely due to the enhanced potency and accelerated kinetics of memory immune responses. However, there have been few opportunities to rigorously study early recall responses during human viral infection. To better understand human immune memory and identify potential mediators of lasting vaccine efficacy, we used high-dimensional flow cytometry and SARS-CoV-2 antigen probes to examine immune responses in longitudinal samples from vaccinated individuals infected during the Omicron wave. These studies revealed heightened Spike-specific responses during infection of vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals. Spike-specific CD4 T cells and plasmablasts expanded and CD8 T cells were robustly activated during the first week. In contrast, memory B cell activation, neutralizing antibody production, and primary responses to non-Spike antigens occurred during the second week. Collectively, these data demonstrate the functionality of vaccine-primed immune memory and highlight memory T cells as rapid responders during SARS-CoV-2 infection.

COVID-19 Vaccines-All You Want to Know

The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has led to an unprecedented public health crisis. The collective global response has led to production of multiple safe and effective vaccines utilizing novel platforms to combat the virus that have propelled the field of vaccinology forward. Significant challenges to universal vaccine effectiveness remain, including immune evasion by SARS-CoV-2 variants, waning of immune response, inadequate knowledge of correlates of protection, and dosing in special populations. This review serves as a detailed evaluation of the development of the current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, their effectiveness, and challenges to their deployment as a preventive tool.

Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses against SARS-CoV-2 after Third Dose BNT162b2 following Double-Dose Vaccination with BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1 in Patients with Cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with cancer display reduced humoral responses after double-dose COVID-19 vaccination, whereas their cellular response is more comparable with that in healthy individuals. Recent studies demonstrated that a third vaccination dose boosts these immune responses, both in healthy people and patients with cancer. Because of the availability of many different COVID-19 vaccines, many people have been boosted with a different vaccine from the one used for double-dose vaccination. Data on such alternative vaccination schedules are scarce. This prospective study compares a third dose of BNT162b2 after double-dose BNT162b2 (homologous) versus ChAdOx1 (heterologous) vaccination in patients with cancer.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A total of 442 subjects (315 patients and 127 healthy) received a third dose of BNT162b2 (230 homologous vs. 212 heterologous). Vaccine-induced adverse events (AE) were captured up to 7 days after vaccination. Humoral immunity was assessed by SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 IgG antibody levels and SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralization titers (NT50) against Wuhan and BA.1 Omicron strains. Cellular immunity was examined by analyzing CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2-specific S1 and S2 peptides.

RESULTS

Local AEs were more common after heterologous boosting. SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 IgG antibody levels did not differ significantly between homologous and heterologous boosted subjects [GMT 1,755.90 BAU/mL (95% CI, 1,276.95-2,414.48) vs. 1,495.82 BAU/mL (95% CI, 1,131.48-1,977.46)]. However, homologous-boosted subjects show significantly higher NT50 values against BA.1 Omicron. Subjects receiving heterologous boosting demonstrated increased spike-specific CD8+ T cells, including higher IFNγ and TNFα levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cancer who received double-dose ChAdOx1, a third heterologous dose of BNT162b2 was able to close the gap in antibody response.

Trivalent SARS-CoV-2 S1 Subunit Protein Vaccination Induces Broad Humoral Responses in BALB/c Mice

This paper presents a novel approach for improving the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines against emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants. We have evaluated the immunogenicity of unadjuvanted wild-type (WU S1-RS09cg) and variant-specific (Delta S1-RS09cg and OM S1-RS09cg) S1 subunit protein vaccines delivered either as a monovalent or a trivalent antigen in BALB/c mice. Our results show that a trivalent approach induced a broader humoral response with more coverage against antigenically distinct variants, especially when compared to monovalent Omicron-specific S1. This trivalent approach was also found to have increased or equivalent ACE2 binding inhibition, and increased S1 IgG endpoint titer at early timepoints, against SARS-CoV-2 spike variants when compared monovalent Wuhan, Delta, or Omicron S1. Our results demonstrate the utility of protein subunit vaccines against COVID-19 and provide insights into the impact of variant-specific COVID-19 vaccine approaches on the immune response in the current SARS-CoV-2 variant landscape. Particularly, our study provides insight into effects of further increasing valency of currently approved SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, a promising approach for improving protection to curtail emerging viral variants.

Immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous booster vaccination of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (COVISHIELD™) and BBV152 (COVAXIN®): a non-inferiority phase 4, participant and observer-blinded, randomised study

Background

Primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has been shown to wane with time and provide lower protection from disease with new viral variants, prompting the WHO to recommend the administration of booster doses. We determined the safety and immunogenicity of homologous or heterologous boosters with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (COVISHIELD™) or BBV152 (COVAXIN®), the two vaccines used widely for primary immunization in India, in participants who had already received two primary doses of these vaccines.

Methods

Participants primed with two doses each of COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® 12-36 weeks previously, were randomised to receive either COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® booster in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was day 28 post-booster anti-spike IgG seropositivity and secondary outcomes were anti-spike IgG levels and assessment of safety and reactogenicity. The results of 90 days intention-to-treat analysis are presented. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (CTRI/2021/08/035648).

Findings

In the COVISHIELD™ primed group with 200 participants, the seropositivity 28 days post booster in the heterologous COVAXIN® arm was 99% and non-inferior to the homologous COVISHIELD™ arm, which was also 99% (difference 0%; 95% CI: -2.8% to 2.7%). The geometric mean concentration (GMC) of anti-spike antibodies following heterologous COVAXIN® boost on day 28 was 36,190.78 AU/mL (95% CI: 30,526.64-42,905.88) while the GMC following homologous COVISHIELD™ boost was 97,445.09 AU/mL (82,626.97-114,920.7). In the COVAXIN® primed group with 204 participants, the seropositivity 28 days post booster in the heterologous COVISHIELD™ arm was 100% and non inferior to the homologous COVAXIN® arm which was 96% (difference 4%, 95% CI: 0.2%-7.8%). The GMC following heterologous COVISHIELD™ boost was 241,681.6 AU/mL (95% CI: 201,380.2-290,048.3) compared to homologous COVAXIN® boost, which was 48,473.94 AU/mL (95% CI: 38,529.56-60,984.95). The day 28 geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the anti-spike IgG between the heterologous and homologous boosted arms was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.34-0.52) in the COVISHIELD™ primed group and 5.11 (95% CI: 3.83-6.81) in the COVAXIN® primed group. There were no related serious adverse events reported in any group.

Interpretation

Homologous and heterologous boosting with COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® in COVISHIELD™ or COVAXIN® primed individuals are immunogenic and safe. A heterologous boost with COVISHIELD™ after COVAXIN® prime offers the best immune response among the four combinations evaluated.

Funding

Azim Premji Foundation and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Associations of Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity After Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 mRNA-1273 Vaccine in the COVE and TeenCOVE Trials

BACKGROUND

The reactogenicity and immunogenicity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are well studied. Little is known regarding the relationship between immunogenicity and reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS

This study assessed the association between immunogenicity and reactogenicity after 2 mRNA-1273 (100 µg) injections in 1671 total adolescent and adult participants (≥12 years) from the primary immunogenicity sets of the blinded periods of the Coronavirus Efficacy (COVE) and TeenCOVE trials. Associations between immunogenicity through day 57 and solicited adverse reactions (ARs) after the first and second injections of mRNA-1273 were evaluated among participants with and without solicited ARs using linear mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

mRNA-1273 reactogenicity in this combined analysis set was similar to that reported for these trials. The vaccine elicited high neutralizing antibody (nAb) geometric mean titers (GMTs) in evaluable participants. GMTs at day 57 were significantly higher in participants who experienced solicited systemic ARs after the second injection (1227.2 [1164.4-1293.5]) than those who did not (980.1 [886.8-1083.2], P = .001) and were associated with fever, chills, headache, fatigue, myalgia, and arthralgia. Significant associations with local ARs were not found.

CONCLUSIONS

These data show an association of systemic ARs with increased nAb titers following a second mRNA-1273 injection. While these data indicate systemic ARs are associated with increased antibody titers, high nAb titers were observed in participants after both injections, consistent with the immunogenicity and efficacy in these trials. These results add to the body of evidence regarding the relationship of immunogenicity and reactogenicity and can contribute toward the design of future mRNA vaccines.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous immunization schedules with COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Data on the immunogenicity and safety of heterologous immunization schedules are inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous immunization schedules.

METHODS

Multiple databases with relevant studies were searched with an end date of October 31, 2021, and a website including a series of Coronavirus disease 2019 studies was examined for studies before March 31, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different heterologous and homologous regimens among adults that reported immunogenicity and safety outcomes were reviewed. Primary outcomes included neutralizing antibodies against the original strain and serious adverse events (SAEs). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

In all, 11 RCTs were included in the systematic review, and nine were ultimately included in the NMA. Among participants who received two doses of CoronaVac, another dose of mRNA or a non-replicating viral vector vaccine resulted in a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibody than a third CoronaVac 600 sino unit (SU); a dose of BNT162b2 induced the highest geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 15.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.53-24.39. Following one dose of BNT162b2 vaccination, a dose of mRNA-1273 generated a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibody than BNT162b2 alone (GMR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.06-1.64), NVX-CoV2373 (GMR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.16-2.21), or ChAdOx1 (GMR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.25-2.59). Following one dose of ChAdOx1, a dose of mRNA-1273 was also more effective for improving antibody levels than ChAdOx1 (GMR = 11.09; 95% CI: 8.36-14.71) or NVX-CoV2373 (GMR = 2.87; 95% CI: 1.08-3.91). No significant difference in the risk for SAEs was found in any comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to vaccination with two doses of CoronaVac, a dose of BNT162b2 as a booster substantially enhances immunogenicity reactions and has a relatively acceptable risk for SAEs relative to other vaccines. For primary vaccination, schedules including mRNA vaccines induce a greater immune response. However, the comparatively higher risk for local and systemic adverse events introduced by mRNA vaccines should be noted.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; No. CRD42021278149.

Comparison of Preprint Postings of Randomized Clinical Trials on COVID-19 and Corresponding Published Journal Articles: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.

OBJECTIVE

To assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022.

FINDINGS

This study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.

Axes of social inequities in COVID-19 clinical trials: A systematic review

Objective

The representativeness of participants is crucial to ensure external validity of clinical trials. We focused on the randomized clinical trials which assessed COVID-19 vaccines to assess the reporting of age, sex, gender identity, race, ethnicity, obesity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status in the results (description of the participants' characteristics, loss of follow-up, stratification of efficacy and safety results).

Methods

We searched the following databases for randomized clinical trials published before 1st February 2022: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Excerpta Medica. We included peer-reviewed articles written in English or Spanish. Four researchers used the Rayyan platform to filter citations, first reading the title and abstract, and then accessing the full text. Articles were excluded if both reviewers agreed, or if a third reviewer decided to discard them.

Results

Sixty three articles were included, which assessed 20 different vaccines, mainly in phase 2 or 3. When describing the participants' characteristics, all the studies reported sex or gender, 73.0% race, ethnicity, 68.9% age groups, and 22.2% obesity. Only one article described the age of participants lost to follow-up. Efficacy results were stratified by age in 61.9%, sex or gender in 26.9%, race and/or, ethnicity in 9.5%, and obesity in 4.8% of the articles. Safety results were stratified by age in 41.0%, and by sex or gender in 7.9% of the analysis. Reporting of gender identity, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status of participants was rare. Parity was reached in 49.2% of the studies, and sex-specific outcomes were mentioned in 22.9% of the analysis, most of the latter were related to females' health.

Conclusions

Axes of social inequity other than age and sex were hardly reported in randomized clinical trials that assessed COVID-19 vaccines. This undermines their representativeness and external validity and sustains health inequities.

Humoral and cellular immunogenicity of homologous and heterologous booster vaccination in Ad26.COV2.S-primed individuals: Comparison by breakthrough infection

Background

Whether or not a single-dose Ad26.COV2.S prime and boost vaccination induces sufficient immunity is unclear. Concerns about the increased risk of breakthrough infections in the Ad26.COV2.S-primed population have also been raised.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was conducted. Participants included healthy adults who were Ad26.COV2.S primed and scheduled to receive a booster vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or Ad26.COV2.S. The IgG anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody titers, neutralizing antibody (NAb) titers (against wild type [WT] and Omicron [BA.1 and BA.5]), and Spike-specific interferon-γ responses of the participants were estimated at baseline, 3-4 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after booster vaccination.

Results

A total of 89 participants were recruited (26 boosted with BNT162b2, 57 with mRNA-1273, and 7 with Ad26.COV2.S). The IgG anti-RBD antibody titers of all participants were significantly higher at 6 months post-vaccination than at baseline. The NAb titers against WT at 3 months post-vaccination were 359, 258, and 166 in the participants from the BNT162b2-, mRNA-1273-, and Ad26.COV2.S-boosted groups, respectively. Compared with those against WT, the NAb titers against BA.1/BA.5 were lower by 23.9/10.9-, 16.6/7.4-, and 13.8/7.2-fold in the participants from the BNT162b2-, mRNA-1273-, and Ad26.COV2.S-boosted groups, respectively, at 3 months post-vaccination. Notably, the NAb titers against BA.1 were not boosted after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. Breakthrough infections occurred in 53.8%, 62.5%, and 42.9% of the participants from the BNT162b2-, mRNA-1273-, and Ad26.COV2.S-boosted groups, respectively. No significant difference in humoral and cellular immunity was found between individuals with and without SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections.

Conclusion

Booster vaccination elicited acceptable humoral and cellular immune responses in Ad26.COV2.S-primed individuals. However, the neutralizing activities against Omicron subvariants were negligible, and breakthrough infection rates were remarkably high at 3 months post-booster vaccination, irrespective of the vaccine type. A booster dose of a vaccine containing the Omicron variant antigen would be required.

Humoral immunity and B-cell memory in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination

Natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces a robust circulating memory B cell (Bmem) population, which remains stable in number at least 8 months post-infection despite the contraction of antibody levels after 1 month. Multiple vaccines have been developed to combat the virus. These include two new formulations, mRNA and adenoviral vector vaccines, which have varying efficacy rates, potentially related to their distinct capacities to induce humoral immune responses. The mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) elicit significantly higher serum IgG and neutralizing antibody levels than the adenoviral vector ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) and Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen) vaccines. However, all vaccines induce Spike- and RBD-specific Bmem, which are vital in providing long-lasting protection in the form of rapid recall responses to subsequent infections. Past and current SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC) have shown the capacity to escape antibody neutralization to varying degrees. A booster dose with an mRNA vaccine following primary vaccination restores antibody levels and improves the capacity of these antibodies and Bmem to bind viral variants, including the current VoC Omicron. Future experimental research will be essential to evaluate the durability of protection against VoC provided by each vaccine and to identify immune markers of protection to enable prognostication of people who are at risk of severe complications from COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines

BACKGROUND

Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Ad26.COV2.S priming provided a solid immunological base for mRNA-based COVID-19 booster vaccination

The emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants led to the recommendation of booster vaccinations after Ad26.COV2.S priming. It was previously shown that heterologous booster vaccination induces high antibody levels, but how heterologous boosters affect other functional aspects of the immune response remained unknown. Here, we performed immunological profiling of Ad26.COV2.S-primed individuals before and after homologous or heterologous (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2) booster. Booster vaccinations increased functional antibodies targeting ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and emerging variants. Especially heterologous booster vaccinations induced high levels of functional antibodies. In contrast, T-cell responses were similar in magnitude following homologous or heterologous booster vaccination and retained cross-reactivity towards variants. Booster vaccination led to a minimal expansion of SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell clones and no increase in the breadth of the T-cell repertoire. In conclusion, we show that Ad26.COV2.S priming vaccination provided a solid immunological base for heterologous boosting, increasing humoral and cellular responses targeting emerging variants of concern.

Titers and breadth of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants after heterologous booster vaccination in health care workers primed with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19: A single-blinded, randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a single-blinded, randomized trial to evaluate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of heterologous booster vaccination in health care workers (HCW) who had received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19.

METHODS

HCW who had at least 90 days after the second dose were enrolled to receive one of the four vaccines: BNT162b2 (30 μg), half-dose mRNA-1273 (50 μg), mRNA-1273 (100 μg), and MVC-COV1901 (15 μg). The primary outcomes were humoral and cellular immunogenicity and secondary outcomes assessed safety and reactogenicity at 28 days post-booster.

RESULTS

MVC-COV1901 Three hundred and forty HCW were enrolled: 83 received BNT162b2 (2 excluded), 85 half-dose mRNA-1273, 85 mRNA-1273, and 85 MVC-COV1901. mRNA vaccines had more reactogenicity than protein vaccine. The fold-rise of anti-spike IgG geometric mean titer was 8.4 (95% CI 6.8-10.4) for MVC-COV1901, 32.2 (27.2-38.1) for BNT162b2, 47.6 (40.8-55.6) for half-dose mRNA-1273 and 63.2 (53.6-74.6) for mRNA-1273. The live virus microneutralization assays (LVMNA) against the wild type, alpha and delta variants were consistent with anti-spike IgG for all booster vaccines. The LVMNA in the four groups against omicron BA.1 variant were 6.4 to 13.5 times lower than those against the wild type. All booster vaccines induced a comparable T cell response.

CONCLUSIONS

Third dose booster not only increases neutralizing antibody titer but also enhances antibody breadth against SARS-CoV-2 variants. mRNA vaccines are preferred booster vaccines for those who received primary series of ChAdOx1 nCov-19.