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.

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.

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).

A beacon in the dark: COVID-19 course in CVID patients from two European countries: Different approaches, similar outcomes

Background

CVID patients present an increased risk of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infection and re-infection and a higher COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality compared to the general population. Since 2021, different therapeutic and prophylactic strategies have been employed in vulnerable groups (vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies and antivirals). The impact of treatments over the last 2 years has not been explored in international studies considering the emergence of viral variants and different management between countries.

Methods

A multicenter retrospective/prospective real-life study comparing the prevalence and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection between a CVID cohort from four Italian Centers (IT-C) and one cohort from the Netherlands (NL-C), recruiting 773 patients.

Results

329 of 773 CVID patients were found positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 1^st, 2020 and September 1^st 2022. The proportion of CVID patients infected was comparable in both national sub-cohorts. During all waves, chronic lung disease, "complicated" phenotype, chronic immunosuppressive treatment and cardiovascular comorbidities impacted on hospitalization, whereas risk factors for mortality were older age, chronic lung disease, and bacterial superinfections. IT-C patients were significantly more often treated, both with antivirals and mAbs, than NL-C patients. Outpatient treatment, available only in Italy, started from the Delta wave. Despite this, no significant difference was found for COVID-19 severity between the two cohorts. However, pooling together specific SARS-CoV-2 outpatient treatments (mAbs and antivirals), we found a significant effect on the risk of hospitalization starting from Delta wave. Vaccination with ≥ 3 doses shortened RT-PCR positivity, with an additional effect only in patients receiving antivirals.

Conclusions

The two sub-cohorts had similar COVID-19 outcomes despite different treatment approaches. This points out that specific treatment should now be reserved for selected subgroups of CVID patients, based on pre-existing conditions.

Low levels of monkeypox virus-neutralizing antibodies after MVA-BN vaccination in healthy individuals

In July 2022, the ongoing monkeypox (MPX) outbreak was declared a public health emergency of international concern. Modified vaccinia Ankara-Bavarian Nordic (MVA-BN, also known as Imvamune, JYNNEOS or Imvanex) is a third-generation smallpox vaccine that is authorized and in use as a vaccine against MPX. To date, there are no data showing MPX virus (MPXV)-neutralizing antibodies in vaccinated individuals nor vaccine efficacy against MPX. Here we show that MPXV-neutralizing antibodies can be detected after MPXV infection and after historic smallpox vaccination. However, a two-shot MVA-BN immunization series in non-primed individuals yields relatively low levels of MPXV-neutralizing antibodies. Dose-sparing of an MVA-based influenza vaccine leads to lower MPXV-neutralizing antibody levels, whereas a third vaccination with the same MVA-based vaccine significantly boosts the antibody response. As the role of MPXV-neutralizing antibodies as a correlate of protection against disease and transmissibility is currently unclear, we conclude that cohort studies following vaccinated individuals are necessary to assess vaccine efficacy in at-risk populations.

[Modern methods for the development of antiviral vaccines]

Antiviral vaccines have contributed substantially to a reduction in the morbidity and mortality suffered from viral infectious diseases, especially during the second half of the 20th century. The efficacy of traditional live-attenuated and inactivated vaccine formulations, however, has been limited for some viral diseases, due to either virus-specific or host-related challenges. The application of genetic engineering technologies developed in the past decades allows for the creation of novel subunit vaccines, viral vector vaccines and nucleic acid-based vaccines. These vaccines, in some cases complemented by novel adjuvants, elicit a more finely controlled immunological response that more effectively prevents certain viral infections. They can be tailored for immunologically hyporesponsive individuals or rapidly mount protection during an outbreak. This article provides an overview of these technologies and how they have been applied in vaccines that have recently become available.