Comparative effectiveness of bivalent BA.4-5 and BA.1 mRNA booster vaccines among adults aged ≥50 years in Nordic countries: nationwide cohort study

Methodological challenges using routine clinical care data for real-world evidence: a rapid review utilizing a systematic literature search and focus group discussion

BACKGROUND

The integration of real-world evidence (RWE) from real-world data (RWD) in clinical research is crucial for bridging the gap between clinical trial results and real-world outcomes. Analyzing routinely collected data to generate clinical evidence faces methodological concerns like confounding and bias, similar to prospectively documented observational studies. This study focuses on additional limitations frequently reported in the literature, providing an overview of the challenges and biases inherent to analyzing routine clinical care data, including health claims data (hereafter: routine data).

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on routine data studies in four high-impact journals based on the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) category "Medicine, General & Internal" as of 2022 and three oncology journals, covering articles published from January 2018 to October 2023. Articles were screened and categorized into three scenarios based on their potential to provide meaningful RWE: (1) Burden of Disease, (2) Safety and Risk Group Analysis, and (3) Treatment Comparison. Limitations of this type of data cited in the discussion sections were extracted and classified according to different bias types: main bias categories in non-randomized studies (information bias, reporting bias, selection bias, confounding) and additional routine data-specific challenges (i.e., operationalization, coding, follow-up, missing data, validation, and data quality). These classifications were then ranked by relevance in a focus group meeting of methodological experts. The search was pre-specified and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023477616).

RESULTS

In October 2023, 227 articles were identified, 69 were assessed for eligibility, and 39 were included in the review: 11 on the burden of disease, 17 on safety and risk group analysis, and 11 on treatment comparison. Besides typical biases in observational studies, we identified additional challenges specific to RWE frequently mentioned in the discussion sections. The focus group had varied opinions on the limitations of Safety and Risk Group Analysis and Treatment Comparison but agreed on the essential limitations for the Burden of Disease category.

CONCLUSION

This review provides a comprehensive overview of potential limitations and biases in analyzing routine data reported in recent high-impact journals. We highlighted key challenges that have high potential to impact analysis results, emphasizing the need for thorough consideration and discussion for meaningful inferences.

COVID-19 Vaccination Recommendations for 2024-2025 in Korea

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases has been regularly publishing guidelines for adult immunization since 2007. Following the release of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination recommendations in 2023, significant changes have occurred due to the emergence of new variant strains and the waning immunity from previous vaccinations. This article provides a comprehensive update as of November 2024, incorporating the latest evidence and guidelines. Focusing on the 2024-2025 season, this article reviews vaccines currently authorized in Korea and assesses their effectiveness against the predominant JN.1 lineage variants. The updated recommendations prioritize high-risk groups, including adults aged 65 and older, individuals with underlying medical conditions, residents of facilities vulnerable to infection, pregnant women, and healthcare workers, for vaccination with updated vaccines targeting the JN.1 strain. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccination is available for all individuals aged 6 months and older. For most adults, a single-dose strategy is emphasized, while tailored schedules may be recommended for immunocompromised individuals. This update aims to optimize vaccination strategies in Korea to ensure comprehensive protection for high-risk populations.

Comparative effectiveness of monovalent XBB.1.5 containing covid-19 mRNA vaccines in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden: target trial emulation based on registry data

ABSTRACT

Objective

To estimate the effectiveness of vaccination with a monovalent covid-19 mRNA vaccine containing the omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant against severe covid-19 disease in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden.

Design

Target trial emulation based on registry data.

Setting

Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, 1 October 2023 to 21 April 2024.

Participants

Source population of 3 898 264 individuals eligible for vaccination with the XBB.1.5 containing covid-19 mRNA vaccine at the start of the study on 1 October 2023. Study cohort comprised 1 876 282 recipients of an XBB.1.5 containing vaccine during the study period matched with 1 876 282 non-recipients. Individuals were aged ≥65 years (mean age 75.4 years, standard deviation 7.4 years) and had received at least four doses of a previous covid-19 vaccine.

Main outcome measures

Cumulative incidences of hospital admissions and deaths related to covid-19 in a follow-up period of 24 weeks after immunisation (defined as one week after vaccination) in recipients of an XBB.1.5 containing covid-19 mRNA vaccine and matched non-recipients. Cumulative incidences were used to calculate comparative vaccine effectiveness (1-risk ratio) and risk differences.

Results

The associated comparative vaccine effectiveness was 57.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 49.9% to 65.8%) against hospital admission for covid-19 (1085 v 2635 events) and 75.2% (70.6% to 79.9%) against deaths related to covid-19 disease (348 v 1458 events) after 24 weeks of follow-up. This result corresponded to 154.7 (95% CI 78.3 to 231.0) hospital admissions for covid-19 and 120.3 (110.5 to 130.2) deaths prevented per 100 000 individuals who were vaccinated with an XBB.1.5 containing vaccine. The associated comparative vaccine effectiveness was similar irrespective of sex, age group (65-74 v ≥75 years), number of doses of previous covid-19 vaccines, subgroup of co-administered seasonal influenza vaccines, and period of when either the omicron XBB or BA.2.86 sublineage was predominant. Although the observed reduction in risk was highest during the first weeks after vaccination, comparative vaccine effectiveness was well maintained after 24 weeks of follow-up.

Conclusions

In this study, in adults aged ≥65 years, vaccination with a monovalent XBB.1.5 containing covid-19 mRNA vaccine was associated with reduced rates of hospital admissions for covid-19 and deaths related to covid-19, during the autumn and winter of 2023-24 in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden.

Effectiveness of Original Monovalent and Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccines Against COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization and Severe In-Hospital Outcomes Among Adults in the United States, September 2022-August 2023

BACKGROUND

Assessments of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness are needed to monitor the protection provided by updated vaccines against severe COVID-19. We evaluated the effectiveness of original monovalent and bivalent (ancestral strain and Omicron BA.4/5) COVID-19 vaccination against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and severe in-hospital outcomes.

METHODS

During September 8, 2022 to August 31, 2023, adults aged ≥ 18 years hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness were enrolled at 26 hospitals in 20 US states. Using a test-negative case-control design, we estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) with multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, admission date, and geographic region.

RESULTS

Among 7028 patients, 2924 (41.6%) were COVID-19 case patients, and 4104 (58.4%) were control patients. Compared to unvaccinated patients, absolute VE against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 6% (-7%-17%) for original monovalent doses only (median time since last dose [IQR] = 421 days [304-571]), 52% (39%-61%) for a bivalent dose received 7-89 days earlier, and 13% (-10%-31%) for a bivalent dose received 90-179 days earlier. Absolute VE against COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation or death was 51% (34%-63%) for original monovalent doses only, 61% (35%-77%) for a bivalent dose received 7-89 days earlier, and 50% (11%-71%) for a bivalent dose received 90-179 days earlier.

CONCLUSION

Bivalent vaccination provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization and severe in-hospital outcomes within 3 months of receipt, followed by a decline in protection to a level similar to that remaining from previous original monovalent vaccination by 3-6 months. These results underscore the benefit of remaining up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccines.

Biases in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies using cohort design

Observational studies on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) have provided critical real-world data, informing public health policy globally. These studies, primarily using pre-existing data sources, have been indispensable in assessing VE across diverse populations and developing sustainable vaccination strategies. Cohort design is frequently employed in VE research. The rapid implementation of vaccination campaigns during the COVID-19 pandemic introduced differential vaccination influenced by sociodemographic disparities, public policies, perceived risks, health-promoting behaviors, and health status, potentially resulting in biases such as healthy user bias, healthy vaccinee effect, frailty bias, differential depletion of susceptibility bias, and confounding by indication. The overwhelming burden on healthcare systems has escalated the risk of data inaccuracies, leading to outcome misclassifications. Additionally, the extensive array of diagnostic tests used during the pandemic has also contributed to misclassification biases. The urgency to publish quickly may have further influenced these biases or led to their oversight, affecting the validity of the findings. These biases in studies vary considerably depending on the setting, data sources, and analytical methods and are likely more pronounced in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings due to inadequate data infrastructure. Addressing and mitigating these biases is essential for accurate VE estimates, guiding public health strategies, and sustaining public trust in vaccination programs. Transparent communication about these biases and rigorous improvement in the design of future observational studies are essential.

Scientific and Regulatory Lessons Learnt on Building a Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) Package for COVID-19 Variant Vaccine Updates in the EU-A Regulator's Perspective

During the COVID-19 pandemic, eight COVID-19 vaccines were authorised in the European Union (EU); as a result of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and waning immunity, some of these have been adapted to broaden the immunity against circulating variants. The pace at which variants emerge challenges the technical feasibility to make adapted vaccines available in a suitable timeframe and in sufficient quantities. Despite the current absence of a clear-cut seasonal spread for COVID-19, the EU regulatory approach thus far is a pragmatic approach following a pathway similar to that of seasonal influenza. This approach currently requires chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC-the design, development and consistent manufacture of a specified medicinal product of good quality) and non-clinical data (from product laboratory and animal studies), as well as demonstrating that updated vaccines induce an immune response that can predict clinical efficacy and safety in humans. For CMC data, COVID-19 mRNA vaccine adaptations generally made use of the same formulation, control strategy, manufacturing process, and inclusion of registered manufacturing sites for the drug product; therefore assessment was generally streamlined. The experience gained from the vaccine adaptations, combined with a continuous early regulator-developer scientific discussion, permits increasingly greater predictability for timing and positive regulatory outcomes. Here, we review key aspects of the quality control and manufacture of updating COVID-19 vaccines to protect against new variants. Although most experience has been gained with mRNA vaccines, we note that investment in the streamlining of manufacturing processes for recombinant protein vaccines would facilitate future strain updates/adaptations thereby safeguarding availability of different COVID-19 vaccine types, which is considered of value for public health. We also reflect on the challenges and opportunities in establishing more predictable regulatory mechanisms for future COVID-19 vaccine adaptions and more widely for future vaccines containing rapidly evolving pathogens with the potential to cause health threats.

COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity and safety surrounding fourth and subsequent vaccine doses in patients with hematologic malignancies

BACKGROUND

Immune response to COVID-19 vaccine is diminished in patients with hematologic malignancy. There is limited data regarding response to vaccine doses in these patients.

PURPOSE

To quantify the humoral immune response engendered by 4th and subsequent doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination as measured by anti-Spike (anti-S) antibody levels, based on dried blood spot (DBS) testing, in patients with hematologic malignancies. Anti-S binds to the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and is indicative of vaccine immunogenicity.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of hematologic malignancies between August 2021 and January 2023 at 12 sites across Canada. Participants were followed longitudinally and submitted finger-prick DBS cards at set intervals associated with vaccination. Samples were processed via high throughput ELISA assay to detect serum antibodies against nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S) proteins.

RESULTS

We obtained 3071 samples on 790 unique patients. Of these, 372 unique participants with 1840 samples had anti-S results available post-4th, 5th or 6th COVID-19 vaccine dose and were included for analysis. Three hundred thirty-three patients of the 372 participants submitted a DBS sample post 4th dose. Of these, 257 patients (77.2%) had a positive anti-S antibody. A total of 198 patients had paired samples pre- and post-dose 4, of which 59 (29.7%) had a negative anti-S antibody pre-dose 4. Of these, 20 (33.4%) developed positive anti-S antibody post-dose 4. One hundred forty-nine patients submitted a DBS sample post-dose 5. Of these, 135 patients (90.6%) had positive anti-S antibody. A total of 52 had paired samples pre- and post-dose 5. Six (8.7%) had a negative anti-S antibody pre-dose 5, of which two (33.3%) developed positive anti-S antibody post-dose 5. Of these 372 patients, 123 (34%) reported COVID-19 infection and 4 (1%) had a COVID-19 related hospitalization. There were no reported deaths from COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective cohort study showed that humoral immune response improved with subsequent doses of COVID-19 vaccines.

Safety and antibody responses of Omicron BA.4/5 bivalent booster vaccine among hybrid immunity with diverse vaccination histories: A cohort study

This cohort study, conducted between July and August 2023, evaluated the adverse events (AEs) and immune response to a bivalent mRNA-1273.222 (containing sequences of the original Wuhan-H1 strain and the Omicron BA.4/5 variant) booster vaccine in 122 participants. The study included individuals with diverse vaccination histories, and their responses were assessed based on anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG levels and neutralizing antibodies against the wild-type, Omicron BA.5, and XBB.1.16 variants. Following administration of the BA.4/5 bivalent vaccine, AEs were generally mild to moderate and well-tolerated within a few days. There were no reports of vomiting and no serious AEs or death. The findings demonstrated robust immune responses, with significant increases in anti-RBD IgG levels, particularly in groups that had received 3 -6 doses before the booster dose. The BA.4/5 bivalent booster effectively induced neutralizing antibodies against the vaccine strains, providing robust neutralization, including the XBB.1.16 strain. The study also highlighted that individuals with hybrid immunity, especially those assumed infected with the BA.5 strain or who had been infected twice, showed higher levels of robust neutralizing activity against Omicron XBB.1.16. Overall, these results indicate that the BA.4/5 bivalent booster vaccines can induce potent and good antibody responses in emerging Omicron subvariants, supporting its efficacy as a booster in individuals with diverse vaccination histories.

Predicting COVID-19 booster immunogenicity against future SARS-CoV-2 variants and the benefits of vaccine updates

The ongoing evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has led to a move to update vaccine antigens in 2022 and 2023. These updated antigens were chosen and approved based largely on in vitro neutralisation titres against recent SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, unavoidable delays in vaccine manufacture and distribution meant that the updated booster vaccine was no longer well-matched to the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant by the time of its deployment. Understanding whether the updating of booster vaccine antigens improves immune responses to subsequent SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants is a major priority in justifying future vaccine updates. Here we analyse all available data on the immunogenicity of variants containing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and their ability to neutralise later circulating SARS-CoV-2 variants. We find that updated booster antigens give a 1.4-fold [95% CI: 1.07-1.82] greater increase in neutralising antibody levels when compared with a historical vaccine immunogen. We then use this to predict the relative protection that can be expected from an updated vaccine even when the circulating variant has evolved away from the updated vaccine immunogen. These findings help inform the rollout of future booster vaccination programmes.

Evaluating the direct effect of vaccination and non-pharmaceutical interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe

BACKGROUND

Across Europe, countries have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccination. Evaluating the effectiveness of such interventions is of particular relevance to policy-makers.

METHODS

We leverage almost three years of available data across 38 European countries to evaluate the effectiveness of governmental responses in controlling the pandemic. We developed a Bayesian hierarchical model that flexibly relates daily COVID-19 incidence to past levels of vaccination and non-pharmaceutical interventions as summarised in the Stringency Index. Specifically, we use a distributed lag approach to temporally weight past intervention values, a tensor-product smooth to capture non-linearities and interactions between both types of interventions, and a hierarchical approach to parsimoniously address heterogeneity across countries.

RESULTS

We identify a pronounced negative association between daily incidence and the strength of non-pharmaceutical interventions, along with substantial heterogeneity in effectiveness among European countries. Similarly, we observe a strong but more consistent negative association with vaccination levels. Our results show that non-linear interactions shape the effectiveness of interventions, with non-pharmaceutical interventions becoming less effective under high vaccination levels. Finally, our results indicate that the effects of interventions on daily incidence are most pronounced at a lag of 14 days after being in place.

CONCLUSIONS

Our Bayesian hierarchical modelling approach reveals clear negative and lagged effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions and vaccination on confirmed COVID-19 cases across European countries.

Comprehensive Review of COVID-19: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, Advancement in Diagnostic and Detection Techniques, and Post-Pandemic Treatment Strategies

At present, COVID-19 remains a public health concern due to the ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and its prevalence in particular countries. This paper provides an updated overview of the epidemiology and pathogenesis of COVID-19, with a focus on the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and the phenomenon known as 'long COVID'. Meanwhile, diagnostic and detection advances will be mentioned. Though many inventions have been made to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, some outstanding ones include multiplex RT-PCR, which can be used for accurate diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. ELISA-based antigen tests also appear to be potential diagnostic tools to be available in the future. This paper also discusses current treatments, vaccination strategies, as well as emerging cell-based therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection. The ongoing evolution of SARS-CoV-2 underscores the necessity for us to continuously update scientific understanding and treatments for it.

Effectiveness of the fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccines against severe COVID-19 among adults 40 years or older in Brazil: a population-based cohort study

Background

The emergence of COVID-19 variants with immune scape and the waning of primary vaccine schemes effectiveness have prompted many countries to indicate first and second booster COVID-19 vaccine doses to prevent severe COVID-19. However, current available evidence on second booster dose effectiveness are mostly limited to high-income countries, older adults, and mRNA-based vaccination schemes scenarios. We aimed to investigate the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of the fourth dose compared to three doses for severe COVID-19 outcomes in Brazil; and compare the rVE of a fourth dose with an mRNA vaccine compared to adenovirus-based product in the same settings.

Methods

We performed a target emulated trial using a population-based cohort of individuals aged 40 years or older who have received a homologous primary scheme of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, or BNT162b2, and any third dose product and were eligible for the fourth dose in Brazil. The primary outcome was COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death. We built Cohort A matching individuals vaccinated with a fourth dose to individuals who received three doses to estimate the rVE of the fourth dose. We built Cohort B, a subset of Cohort A, matching mRNA-based (mRNA) to adenovirus-based fourth dose vaccinated individuals to compare their relative hazards for severe COVID-19.

Findings

46,693,484 individuals were included in Cohort A and 6,763,016 in Cohort B. 45% of them were aged between 40 and 60 years old, and 48% between 60 and 79 years old. In Cohort A, the most common previous series was a ChAdOx1 two-dose followed by BNT162b2 (44%), and a CoronaVac two-dose followed by a BNT162b2 (36%). Among those fourth dose vaccinated, 36.9% received ChAdOx1, 32.7% Ad26.COV2.S, 25.8% BNT162b2, and 4.7% CoronaVac. In Cohort B, among those who received an adenovirus fourth dose, 53.7% received ChAdOx1 and 46.3% received Ad26.COV2.S. The estimated rVE for the primary outcome of four doses compared to three doses was 44.1% (95% CI 42.3-46.0), with some waning during follow-up (rVE 7-60 days 46.8% [95% CI 44.4-49.1], rVE after 120 days 33.8% [95% CI 18.0-46.6]). Among fourth dose vaccinated individuals, mRNA-based vaccinated individuals had lower hazards for hospitalization or death compared to adenovirus-vaccinated individuals (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.87). After 120 days, no difference in hazards between groups was observed (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93-1.97). Similar findings were observed for hospitalization and death separately, except no evidence for differences between fourth dose brands for death in Cohort B.

Interpretation

In a heterogeneous scenario of primary and first booster vaccination combinations, a fourth dose provided meaningful and durable protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to adenovirus-based booster, a fourth dose wild-type mRNA vaccine was associated with immediate lower hazards of hospitalization or death unsustained after 120 days.

Funding

None.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of bivalent mRNA booster vaccines against Omicron variants

BACKGROUND

A global shift to bivalent mRNA vaccines is ongoing to counterbalance the diminishing effectiveness of the original monovalent vaccines due to the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants, yet substantial variation in the bivalent vaccine effectiveness (VE) exists across studies and a complete picture is lacking.

METHODS

We searched papers evaluating absolute or relative effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 type or BA.4/5 type bivalent mRNA vaccines on eight publication databases published from September 1st, 2022, to November 8th, 2023. Pooled VE against Omicron-associated infection and severe events (hospitalization and/or death) was estimated in reference to unvaccinated, ≥2 original monovalent doses, and ≥ 3 original monovalent doses.

RESULTS

From 630 citations identified, 28 studies were included, involving 55,393,303 individuals. Bivalent boosters demonstrated higher effectiveness against symptomatic or any infection for all ages combined, with an absolute VE of 53.5 % (95 % CI: -22.2-82.3 %) when compared to unvaccinated and relative VE of 30.8 % (95 % CI: 22.5-38.2 %) and 28.4 % (95 % CI: 10.2-42.9 %) when compared to ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 original monovalent doses, respectively. The corresponding VE estimates for adults ≥ 60 years old were 22.5 % (95 % CI: 16.8-39.8 %), 31.4 % (95 % CI: 27.7-35.0 %), and 30.6 % (95 % CI: -13.2-57.5 %). Pooled bivalent VE estimates against severe events were higher, 72.9 % (95 % CI: 60.5-82.4 %), 57.6 % (95 % CI: 42.4-68.8 %), and 62.1 % (95 % CI: 54.6-68.3 %) for all ages, and 72.0 % (95 % CI: 51.4-83.9 %), 63.4 % (95 % CI: 41.0-77.3 %), and 60.7 % (95 % CI: 52.4-67.6 %) for adults ≥ 60 years old, compared to unvaccinated, ≥2 original monovalent doses, and ≥ 3 original monovalent doses, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The bivalent boosters demonstrated superior protection against severe outcomes than the original monovalent boosters across age groups, highlighting the critical need for improving vaccine coverage, especially among the vulnerable older subpopulation.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT05472038.

Effectiveness of XBB.1.5 Monovalent COVID-19 Vaccines During a Period of XBB.1.5 Dominance in EU/EEA Countries, October to November 2023: A VEBIS-EHR Network Study

Using a common protocol across seven countries in the European Union/European Economic Area, we estimated XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalisation and death in booster-eligible ≥ 65-year-olds, during October-November 2023. We linked electronic records to construct retrospective cohorts and used Cox models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios and derive VE. VE for COVID-19 hospitalisation and death was, respectively, 67% (95%CI: 58-74) and 67% (95%CI: 42-81) in 65- to 79-year-olds and 66% (95%CI: 57-73) and 72% (95%CI: 51-85) in ≥ 80-year-olds. Results indicate that periodic vaccination of individuals ≥ 65 years has an ongoing benefit and support current vaccination strategies in the EU/EEA.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 BA.4/5 Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Against Symptomatic COVID-19 Among Immunocompetent Individuals Testing at a Large US Retail Pharmacy

BACKGROUND

Data on the effectiveness of BA.4/5 bivalent vaccine stratified by age and prior infection are lacking.

METHODS

This test-negative study used data from individuals ≥5 years of age testing for SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms (15 September 2022 to 31 January 2023) at a large national retail pharmacy chain. The exposure was receipt of 2-4 wild-type doses and a BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent vaccine (>2 months since last wild-type dose). The outcome was a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Absolute (vs unvaccinated) and relative (vs 2-4 wild-type doses) vaccine effectiveness (VE) were calculated as (1 - adjusted odds ratio from logistic regression) × 100. VE was stratified by age and self-reported prior infection.

RESULTS

Overall, 307 885 SARS-CoV-2 tests were included (7916 aged 5-11, 16 329 aged 12-17, and 283 640 aged ≥18 years). SARS-CoV-2 positivity was 39%; 21% were unvaccinated, 70% received 2-4 wild-type doses with no bivalent vaccine, and 9% received a BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent dose. At a median of 1-2 months after BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent vaccination, depending on age group, absolute VE was 22%-60% and was significantly higher among those reporting prior infection (range, 55%-79%) than not (range, no protection to 50%). Relative VE was 31%-64%.

CONCLUSIONS

BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent showed early additional protection against Omicron-related symptomatic COVID-19, with hybrid immunity offering greater protection.

Effectiveness of Vaccines and Monoclonal Antibodies Against Respiratory Syncytial Virus: Generic Protocol for Register-Based Cohort Study

Several immunization products are currently being developed against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) for children, pregnant females, and older adults, and some products have already received authorization. Therefore, studies to monitor the effectiveness of these products are needed in the following years. To assist researchers to conduct postmarketing studies, we developed a generic protocol for register-based cohort studies to evaluate immunization product effectiveness against RSV-specific and nonspecific outcomes. To conduct a study on the basis of this generic protocol, the researchers can use any relevant databases or healthcare registers that are available at the study site.

Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Monovalent and Bivalent Vaccine Booster Doses Against Omicron Severe Outcomes Among Adults Aged ≥50 Years in Ontario, Canada: A Canadian Immunization Research Network Study

We estimated the effectiveness of booster doses of monovalent and bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron-associated severe outcomes among adults aged ≥50 years in Ontario, Canada. Monovalent and bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster doses provided similar strong initial protection against severe outcomes. Uncertainty remains around waning of protection from these vaccines.

Relative effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The rapid development of COVID-19 bivalent vaccines (BVs) has encompassed both the original virus strains and the variant strain. However, the effectiveness of BVs is largely unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of BVs.

Methods

Literature research was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science up until November 4, 2023. Both randomized control trials and observational studies were considered for inclusion. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in cohort and case-control studies.

Results

A total of 1,174 articles were reviewed and 22 eligible studies were included. All included studies were observational (15 cohort studies, 7 case-control studies). The total number of participants was 39,673,160, and the number of people vaccinated with BVs as an intervention group was 11,585,182. Two mRNA BVs were mainly involved, including the ancestral strain and the BA.1 or BA.4-5 variants. Meta-analysis results showed, compared with the monovalent vaccines (MVs), the relative effectiveness (rVE) of the BVs in COVID-19-associated infections/symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths was 30.90% [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.43-53.37], 39.83% (95% CI, 27.34-52.32), 59.70% (95% CI, 44.08-75.32), and 72.23% (95% CI, 62.08-82.38), respectively. For those aged 50 years and older, BVs provided an additional 49.69% (95% CI, 41.44-57.94) effective protection compared with MVs. During the dominance period of the omicron XBB variant strain, BVs provided an additional 47.63% (95% CI, 27.45-67.82) effective protection compared with MVs.

Conclusion

Our findings show that the rVE of BVs in preventing COVID-19-associated infections, symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths is higher compared to MVs. Particularly for people over 50 years of age and during the Omicron variant XBB dominance phase, BVs provided superior protection. Therefore, BVs may have a broader application in the prevention and control of coronaviruses variant.

COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Among Adolescents

BACKGROUND

For adolescents, data on the long-term effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines against severe COVID-19 outcomes are scarce. Additionally, only a few studies have evaluated vaccine effectiveness (VE) for mRNA-1273 or heterologous mRNA vaccine schedules (ie, mixing BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273).

METHODS

Nationwide register-based 1-to-1 matched cohort analyses were conducted in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden between May 28, 2021, and April 30, 2023, to estimate VE for primary COVID-19 vaccine (2-dose) schedules among adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. Cumulative incidences of COVID-19-related hospitalization (primary outcome) and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (secondary outcome) were compared for vaccinated and unvaccinated at 6 months of follow-up using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Country-specific VE (1-risk ratio) and risk differences (RD) were combined by random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The study included 526 966 primary schedule vaccinated adolescents. VE against COVID-19-related hospitalization was 72.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62.5-82.7) and RD was -2.8 (95% CI, -4.5 to -1.0) per 10 000 vaccinated for BNT162b2 at 6 months of follow-up compared with unvaccinated. The corresponding VE and RD were 86.0% (95% CI, 56.8-100.0) and -2.1 (95% CI, -4.0 to -0.2) per 10 000 vaccinated for mRNA-1273 and 80.7% (95% CI, 58.0-100.0) and -5.5 (95% CI, -15.5 to 4.6) per 10 000 vaccinated for heterologous mRNA vaccine schedules. Estimates were comparable when restricting to a period of omicron predominance and extending follow-up to 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Across 4 Nordic countries, severe COVID-19 in adolescents was a rare event. Compared with unvaccinated, BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and heterologous mRNA vaccination schedules provided high protection against COVID-19-related hospitalization, including hospitalizations during the omicron period.

The Role of COVID-19 Vaccination for Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in the Upcoming Endemic Era

COVID-19 vaccination has played a pivotal role in coping with the COVID-19 pandemic by providing a powerful tool to curb the spread of the virus, reduce severe illness and hospitalizations, and ultimately save lives and facilitate a return to normal daily routines. As COVID-19 vaccination has become more widespread and more individuals have recovered from the infection, COVID-19 has entered an endemic disease phase. This phase is characterized by a less severe and more stable pattern of infection within certain regions, similar to the predictability of seasonal influenza. In this endemic era, COVID-19 vaccines may appear to be less important, and many people are reluctant to receive COVID-19 vaccination for various reasons, including the fear of adverse events. However, COVID-19 remains a major public health problem, in that the incidence rate of new COVID-19 infections is still high and the morbidity and mortality in high-risk populations are substantial. Therefore, the role of COVID-19 vaccines in protecting high-risk individuals is crucial, and ongoing research and surveillance are imperative to refine vaccination recommendations in the ever-changing landscape of the COVID-19 endemic era. This review explores the role of COVID-19 vaccination in the upcoming COVID-19 endemic era.

Assessing the effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on the risk of household transmission during delta variant circulation: a population-based data linkage cohort study

Background

Data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness to reduce transmission of infection in household settings are limited. We examined the effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on Delta variant transmission within households in an infection-naïve population.

Methods

This was a population-based data linkage cohort study in the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Area, New South Wales, Australia based on cases observed in June-November 2021. In households with ≥1 confirmed COVID-19 case, we calculated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) for the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, by vaccination status (unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated, or waning) and type of vaccines (mRNA or vector-based) received by both index cases and household contacts.

Findings

In 20,651 households with a single index case, 18,542 of 72,768 (25%) household contacts tested PCR-positive ≤14 days after their respective index case. Household contacts with partial, full, or waning mRNA vaccination had aORs of 0.46 (95% CI 0.40-0.52), 0.36 (95% CI 0.32-0.41) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.51-0.80) compared to unvaccinated contacts, while for vector vaccines the corresponding aORs were 0.77 (95% CI 0.67-0.89), 0.65 (95% CI 0.55-0.76), and 0.64 (95% CI 0.39-1.05). Full mRNA-vaccination in index cases compared to non-vaccination was associated with aORs between 0.09 and 0.21 depending on the vaccination status of household contacts.

Interpretation

Full vaccination of household contacts reduced the odds to acquire infection with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in household settings by two thirds for mRNA vaccines and by one third for vector vaccines. For index cases, being fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine reduced the odds of onwards transmission by four-fifths compared to unvaccinated index cases. Full vaccination offered stronger protection than partial vaccination, particularly for mRNA vaccines, but with reduced effects when the last vaccination preceded exposure by ≥3 months.

Funding

New South Wales Ministry of Health.

Predictors of Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 Infection after Vaccination

The initial two-dose vaccine series and subsequent booster vaccine doses have been effective in modulating SARS-CoV-2 disease severity and death but do not completely prevent infection. The correlates of infection despite vaccination continue to be under investigation. In this prospective decentralized study (n = 1286) comparing antibody responses in an older- (≥70 years) to a younger-aged cohort (aged 30-50 years), we explored the correlates of breakthrough infection in 983 eligible subjects. Participants self-reported data on initial vaccine series, subsequent booster doses and COVID-19 infections in an online portal and provided self-collected dried blood spots for antibody testing by ELISA. Multivariable survival analysis explored the correlates of breakthrough infection. An association between higher antibody levels and protection from breakthrough infection observed during the Delta and Omicron BA.1/2 waves of infection no longer existed during the Omicron BA.4/5 wave. The older-aged cohort was less likely to have a breakthrough infection at all time-points. Receipt of an original/Omicron vaccine and the presence of hybrid immunity were associated with protection of infection during the later Omicron BA.4/5 and XBB waves. We were unable to determine a threshold antibody to define protection from infection or to guide vaccine booster schedules.

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Program on Presenteeism and Absenteeism among Healthcare Workers in Poland

BACKGROUND

There is sufficient scientific literature on the effectiveness of registered vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, but research on the impact of the COVID-19 vaccination program on social and economic aspects is lacking. In connection with the above, this study aimed to assess the impact of vaccinations on presenteeism and absenteeism among healthcare professionals in the workplace caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A post-marketing, cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out on a sample of 736 actively employed healthcare professionals. Among them, 215 individuals (29.21%) were unvaccinated (control group). The study group consisted of 521 vaccinated respondents, with 52.97% being women and 47.03% men. A self-administered questionnaire was developed and delivered online to the target population group of healthcare workers.

RESULTS

A significant association (p < 0.01) was observed between the number of doses of the COVID-19 vaccine received and presenteeism among the respondents. Among the unvaccinated respondents (2.30 ± 1.19) or those vaccinated with only one dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (2.16 ± 1.11), the COVID-19 pandemic had a significantly higher impact on work performance compared to individuals vaccinated with three doses of the vaccine (1.19 ± 1.11). Moreover, a significant association was found (p = 0.0265) between the number of workdays missed (over the last twelve months) due to COVID-19-related sick leave and the number of doses of the COVID-19 vaccine received. The number of workdays missed due to COVID-19 sick leave was lowest in the group vaccinated with three doses (2.00 ± 6.75) and highest in the unvaccinated group (5.32 ± 16.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results clearly show that the widely implemented national COVID-19 vaccination program brings tangible benefits both in medical and economic terms. The extent of reducing absenteeism and presenteeism caused by the coronavirus disease depended on the number of vaccine doses administered.

Risk of hospital admission and death from first-ever SARS-CoV-2 infection by age group during the Delta and Omicron periods in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND

Population-based cross-sectional serosurveys within the Lower Mainland, British Columbia, Canada, showed about 10%, 40% and 60% of residents were infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the sixth (September 2021), seventh (March 2022) and eighth (July 2022) serosurveys. We conducted the ninth (December 2022) and tenth (July 2023) serosurveys and sought to assess risk of severe outcomes from a first-ever SARS-CoV-2 infection during intersurvey periods.

METHODS

Using increments in cumulative infection-induced seroprevalence, population census, discharge abstract and vital statistics data sets, we estimated infection hospitalization and fatality ratios (IHRs and IFRs) by age and sex for the sixth to seventh (Delta/Omicron-BA.1), seventh to eighth (Omicron-BA.2/BA.5) and eighth to ninth (Omicron-BA.5/BQ.1) intersurvey periods. As derived, IHR and IFR estimates represent the risk of severe outcome from a first-ever SARS-CoV-2 infection acquired during the specified intersurvey period.

RESULTS

The cumulative infection-induced seroprevalence was 74% by December 2022 and 79% by July 2023, exceeding 80% among adults younger than 50 years but remaining less than 60% among those aged 80 years and older. Period-specific IHR and IFR estimates were consistently less than 0.3% and 0.1% overall. By age group, IHR and IFR estimates were less than 1.0% and up to 0.1%, respectively, except among adults aged 70-79 years during the sixth to seventh intersurvey period (IHR 3.3% and IFR 1.0%) and among those aged 80 years and older during all periods (IHR 4.7%, 2.2% and 3.5%; IFR 3.3%, 0.6% and 1.3% during the sixth to seventh, seventh to eighth and eighth to ninth periods, respectively). The risk of severe outcome followed a J-shaped age pattern. During the eighth to ninth period, we estimated about 1 hospital admission for COVID-19 per 300 newly infected children younger than 5 years versus about 1 per 30 newly infected adults aged 80 years and older, with no deaths from COVID-19 among children but about 1 death per 80 newly infected adults aged 80 years and older during that period.

INTERPRETATION

By July 2023, we estimated about 80% of residents in the Lower Mainland, BC, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 overall, with low risk of hospital admission or death; about 40% of the oldest adults, however, remained uninfected and at highest risk of a severe outcome. First infections among older adults may still contribute substantial burden from COVID-19, reinforcing the need to continue to prioritize this age group for vaccination and to consider them in health care system planning.

mRNA-1273 bivalent (original and Omicron) COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 outcomes in the United States

The bivalent (original and Omicron BA.4/BA.5) mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine was authorized to offer broader protection against COVID-19. We conducted a matched cohort study to evaluate the effectiveness of the bivalent vaccine in preventing hospitalization for COVID-19 (primary outcome) and medically attended SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospital death (secondary outcomes). Compared to individuals who did not receive bivalent mRNA vaccination but received ≥2 doses of any monovalent mRNA vaccine, the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) against hospitalization for COVID-19 was 70.3% (95% confidence interval, 64.0%-75.4%). rVE was consistent across subgroups and not modified by time since last monovalent dose or number of monovalent doses received. Protection was durable ≥3 months after the bivalent booster. rVE against SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring emergency department/urgent care and against COVID-19 hospital death was 55.0% (50.8%-58.8%) and 82.7% (63.7%-91.7%), respectively. The mRNA-1273 bivalent booster provides additional protection against hospitalization for COVID-19, medically attended SARS-CoV-2 infection, and COVID-19 hospital death.

Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results From the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial

In a randomized clinical trial, we compare early neutralizing antibody responses after boosting with bivalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines based on either BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 Omicron spike protein combined with wild-type spike. Responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants exhibited the greatest reduction in titers against currently circulating Omicron subvariants for both bivalent vaccines.