Antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants induced by four different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in health care workers in the Netherlands: A prospective cohort study

BackgroundEmerging and future SARS-CoV-2 variants may jeopardize the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns. Therefore, it is important to know how the different vaccines perform against diverse SARS-CoV-2 variants.Methods and findingsIn a prospective cohort of 165 SARS-CoV-2 naive health care workers in the Netherlands, vaccinated with either one of four vaccines (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222 or Ad26.COV2.S), we performed a head-to-head comparison of the ability of sera to recognize and neutralize SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs; Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Omicron). Repeated serum sampling was performed 5 times during a year (from January 2021 till January 2022), including before and after booster vaccination with BNT162b2. Four weeks after completing the initial vaccination series, SARS-CoV-2 wild-type neutralizing antibody titers were highest in recipients of mRNA-1273, followed by recipients of BNT162b2 (geometric mean titers (GMT) of 358 [95% CI 231–556] and 214 [95% CI 153–299], respectively; p<0.05), and substantially lower in those vaccinated with the adenovirus vector-based vaccines AZD1222 and Ad26.COV2.S (GMT of 18 [95% CI 11–30] and 14 [95% CI 8–25] IU/ml, respectively; p<0.001). VOCs neutralization was reduced in all vaccine groups, with the greatest reduction in neutralization GMT observed against the Omicron variant (fold change 0.03 [95% CI 0.02–0.04], p<0.001). The booster BNT162b2 vaccination increased neutralizing antibody titers for all groups with substantial improvement against the VOCs including the Omicron variant. We used linear regression and linear mixed model analysis. All results were adjusted for possible confounding of age and sex. Study limitations include the lack of cellular immunity data.ConclusionsOverall, this study shows that the mRNA vaccines appear superior to adenovirus vector-based vaccines in inducing neutralizing antibodies against VOCs four weeks after initial vaccination and after booster vaccination, which implies the use of mRNA vaccines for both initial and booster vaccination.

Marit J. van Gils and colleagues investigate antibody responses against diverse emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants induced by four different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in health care workers in the Netherlands.     

Neutralization of five SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern by convalescent and BBIBP-CorV vaccinee serum

The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) is still escalating throughout the world. However, the level of neutralization of the inactivated viral vaccine recipients’ sera and convalescent sera against all VOCs, including B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.351 (Beta), P.1 (Gamma), B.1.617.2 (Delta), and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) remains to be lack of comparative analysis. Therefore, we constructed pseudoviruses of five VOCs using a lentiviral-based system and analyzed their viral infectivity and neutralization resistance to convalescent and BBIBP-CorV vaccinee serum at different times. Our results show that, compared with the wild-type strain (WT), five VOC pseudoviruses showed higher infection, of which B.1.617.2 and B.1.1.529 variant pseudoviruses exhibited higher infection rates than wild-type or other VOC strains, respectively. Sera from 10 vaccinated individuals at the 1, 3 and 5-month post second dose or from 10 convalescent at 14 and 200 days after discharge retained neutralizing activity against all strains but exhibited decreased neutralization activity significantly against the five VOC variant pseudoviruses over time compared to WT. Notably, 100% (30/30) of the vaccinee serum samples showed more than a 2.5-fold reduction in neutralizing activity against B.1.1.529, and 90% (18/20) of the convalescent serum samples showed more than 2.5-fold reduction in neutralization against B.1.1.529. These findings demonstrate the reduced protection against the VOCs in vaccinated and convalescent individuals over time, indicating that it is necessary to have a booster shot and develop new vaccines capable of eliciting broad neutralization antibodies.     

Relative deficiency in interferon-γ-secreting CD4+ T cells is strongly associated with poorer COVID-19 vaccination responses in older adults

Although the two-dose mRNA vaccination regime provides protection against SARS-CoV-2, older adults have been shown to exhibit poorer vaccination responses. In addition, the role of vaccine-induced T-cell responses is not well characterised. We aim to assess the impact of age on immune responses after two doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, focussing on antigen-specific T-cells. A prospective 3-month study was conducted on 15 young (median age 31 years, interquartile range (IQR) 25–35 years) and 14 older adults (median age 72 years, IQR 70–73 years). We assessed functional, neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants using ACE-2 inhibition assays, and changes in B and T-cell subsets by high-dimensional flow cytometry. Antigen-specific T-cell responses were also quantified by intracellular cytokine staining and flow cytometry. Older adults had attenuated T-helper (Th) response to vaccination, which was associated with weaker antibody responses and decreased SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation. Antigen-specific interferon-γ (IFNγ)-secreting CD4+ T-cells to wild-type and Omicron antigens increased in young adults, which was strongly positively correlated with their neutralising antibody responses. Conversely, this relationship was negative in older adults. Hence, older adults' relative IFNγ-secreting CD4+ T cell deficiency might explain their poorer COVID-19 vaccination responses. Further exploration into the aetiology is needed and would be integral in developing novel vaccination strategies and improving infection outcomes in older adults.     

Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection,hospitalization, and death when combining a first dose ChAdOx1 vaccine with a subsequent mRNA vaccine in Denmark: A nationwide population-based cohort study

BackgroundThe recommendations in several countries to stop using the ChAdOx1 vaccine has led to vaccine programs combining different Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine types, which necessitates knowledge on vaccine effectiveness (VE) of heterologous vaccine schedules. The aim of this Danish nationwide population-based cohort study was therefore to estimate the VE against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19–related hospitalization and death following the first dose of the ChAdOx1 vaccine and the combination of the ChAdOx1/mRNA vaccines.Methods and findingsAll individuals alive in or immigrating to Denmark from 9 February 2021 to 23 June 2021 were identified in the Danish Civil Registration System. Information on exposure, outcomes, and covariates was obtained from Danish national registries. Poisson and Cox regression models were used to calculate crude and adjusted VE, respectively, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19–related hospitalization or death comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals. The VE estimates were adjusted for calendar time as underlying time and for sex, age, comorbidity, country of origin, and hospital admission. The analyses included 5,542,079 individuals (97.6% of the total Danish population). A total of 144,360 individuals were vaccinated with the ChAdOx1 vaccine as the first dose, and of these, 136,551 individuals received an mRNA vaccine as the second dose. A total of 1,691,464 person-years and 83,034 SARS-CoV-2 infections were included. The individuals vaccinated with the first dose of the ChAdOx1 vaccine dose had a median age of 45 years. The study population was characterized by an equal distribution of males and females; 6.7% and 9.2% originated from high-income and other countries, respectively. The VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection when combining the ChAdOx1 and an mRNA vaccine was 88% (95% CI: 83; 92) 14 days after the second dose and onwards. There were no COVID-19–related hospitalizations or deaths among the individuals vaccinated with the combined vaccine schedule during the study period. Study limitations including unmeasured confounders such as risk behavior and increasing overall vaccine coverage in the general population creating herd immunity are important to take into consideration when interpreting the results.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed a large reduction in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection when combining the ChAdOx1 and an mRNA vaccine, compared with unvaccinated individuals.

Mie Agermose Gram and co-workers study the effectiveness of heterologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccine combinations in the Danish population.     

Variations within the Glycan Shield of SARS-CoV-2 Impact Viral Spike Dynamics

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants alters the efficacy of existing immunity, whether arisen naturally or through vaccination. Understanding the structure of the viral spike assists in determining the impact of mutations on the antigenic surface. One class of mutation impacts glycosylation attachment sites, which have the capacity to influence the antigenic structure beyond the immediate site of attachment. Here, we compare the site-specific glycosylation of recombinant viral spike mimetics of B.1.351 (Beta), P.1 (Gamma), B.1.617.2 (Delta), B.1.1.529 (Omicron). The P.1 strain exhibits two additional N-linked glycan sites compared to the other variants analyzed and we investigate the impact of these glycans by molecular dynamics. The acquired N188 site is shown to exhibit very limited glycan maturation, consistent with limited enzyme accessibility. Structural modeling and molecular dynamics reveal that N188 is located within a cavity by the receptor binding domain, which influences the dynamics of these attachment domains. These observations suggest a mechanism whereby mutations affecting viral glycosylation sites have a structural impact across the protein surface.     

Cross-variant protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in hamsters immunized with monovalent and bivalent inactivated vaccines

Rapid development and successful use of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 might hold the key to curb the ongoing pandemic of COVID-19. Emergence of vaccine-evasive SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) has posed a new challenge to vaccine design and development. One urgent need is to determine what types of variant-specific and bivalent vaccines should be developed. Here, we compared homotypic and heterotypic protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection of hamsters with monovalent and bivalent whole-virion inactivated vaccines derived from representative VOCs. In addition to the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan strain, Delta (B.1.617.2; δ) and Theta (P.3; θ) variants were used in vaccine preparation. Additional VOCs including Omicron (B.1.1.529) and Alpha (B.1.1.7) variants were employed in the challenge experiment. Consistent with previous findings, Omicron variant exhibited the highest degree of immune evasion, rendering all different forms of inactivated vaccines substantially less efficacious. Notably, monovalent and bivalent Delta variant-specific inactivated vaccines provided optimal protection against challenge with Delta variant. Yet, some cross-variant protection against Omicron and Alpha variants was seen with all monovalent and bivalent inactivated vaccines tested. Taken together, our findings support the notion that an optimal next-generation inactivated vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 should contain the predominant VOC in circulation. Further investigations are underway to test whether a bivalent vaccine for Delta and Omicron variants can serve this purpose.     

First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: A pooled self-controlled case series study of 11.6 million individuals in England,Scotland, and Wales

BackgroundSeveral countries restricted the administration of ChAdOx1 to older age groups in 2021 over safety concerns following case reports and observed versus expected analyses suggesting a possible association with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Large datasets are required to precisely estimate the association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and CVST due to the extreme rarity of this event. We aimed to accomplish this by combining national data from England, Scotland, and Wales.Methods and findingsWe created data platforms consisting of linked primary care, secondary care, mortality, and virological testing data in each of England, Scotland, and Wales, with a combined cohort of 11,637,157 people and 6,808,293 person years of follow-up. The cohort start date was December 8, 2020, and the end date was June 30, 2021. The outcome measure we examined was incident CVST events recorded in either primary or secondary care records. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis of this outcome following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2. The observation period consisted of an initial 90-day reference period, followed by a 2-week prerisk period directly prior to vaccination, and a 4-week risk period following vaccination. Counts of CVST cases from each country were tallied, then expanded into a full dataset with 1 row for each individual and observation time period. There was a combined total of 201 incident CVST events in the cohorts (29.5 per million person years). There were 81 CVST events in the observation period among those who a received first dose of ChAdOx1 (approximately 16.34 per million doses) and 40 for those who received a first dose of BNT162b2 (approximately 12.60 per million doses). We fitted conditional Poisson models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Vaccination with ChAdOx1 was associated with an elevated risk of incident CVST events in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.11). We did not find an association between BNT162b2 and CVST in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.77). Our study had some limitations. The SCCS study design implicitly controls for variables that are constant over the observation period, but also assumes that outcome events are independent of exposure. This assumption may not be satisfied in the case of CVST, firstly because it is a serious adverse event, and secondly because the vaccination programme in the United Kingdom prioritised the clinically extremely vulnerable and those with underlying health conditions, which may have caused a selection effect for individuals more prone to CVST. Although we pooled data from several large datasets, there was still a low number of events, which may have caused imprecision in our estimates.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed a small elevated risk of CVST events following vaccination with ChAdOx1, but not BNT162b2. Our analysis pooled information from large datasets from England, Scotland, and Wales. This evidence may be useful in risk–benefit analyses of vaccine policies and in providing quantification of risks associated with vaccination to the general public.

In a pooled self-controlled case series study, Steven Kerr and colleagues assess the association between first dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in England, Scotland and Wales.     

Postmarketing active surveillance of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in persons aged 12 to 39 years in Italy: A multi-database,self-controlled case series study

BackgroundMyocarditis and pericarditis following the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines administration have been reported, but their frequency is still uncertain in the younger population. This study investigated the association between Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccines, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 and myocarditis/pericarditis in the population of vaccinated persons aged 12 to 39 years in Italy.Methods and findingsWe conducted a self-controlled case series study (SCCS) using national data on COVID-19 vaccination linked to emergency care/hospital discharge databases. The outcome was the first diagnosis of myocarditis/pericarditis between 27 December 2020 and 30 September 2021. Exposure risk period (0 to 21 days from the vaccination day, subdivided in 3 equal intervals) for first and second dose was compared with baseline period. The SCCS model, adapted to event-dependent exposures, was fitted using unbiased estimating equations to estimate relative incidences (RIs) and excess of cases (EC) per 100,000 vaccinated by dose, age, sex, and vaccine product. Calendar period was included as time-varying confounder in the model. During the study period 2,861,809 persons aged 12 to 39 years received mRNA vaccines (2,405,759 BNT162b2; 456,050 mRNA-1273); 441 participants developed myocarditis/pericarditis (346 BNT162b2; 95 mRNA-1273). Within the 21-day risk interval, 114 myocarditis/pericarditis events occurred, the RI was 1.99 (1.30 to 3.05) after second dose of BNT162b2 and 2.22 (1.00 to 4.91) and 2.63 (1.21 to 5.71) after first and second dose of mRNA-1273. During the [0 to 7) days risk period, an increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was observed after first dose of mRNA-1273, with RI of 6.55 (2.73 to 15.72), and after second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, with RIs of 3.39 (2.02 to 5.68) and 7.59 (3.26 to 17.65). The number of EC for second dose of mRNA-1273 was 5.5 per 100,000 vaccinated (3.0 to 7.9). The highest risk was observed in males, at [0 to 7) days after first and second dose of mRNA-1273 with RI of 12.28 (4.09 to 36.83) and RI of 11.91 (3.88 to 36.53); the number of EC after the second dose of mRNA-1273 was 8.8 (4.9 to 12.9). Among those aged 12 to 17 years, the RI was of 5.74 (1.52 to 21.72) after second dose of BNT162b2; for this age group, the number of events was insufficient for estimating RIs after mRNA-1273. Among those aged 18 to 29 years, the RIs were 7.58 (2.62 to 21.94) after first dose of mRNA-1273 and 4.02 (1.81 to 8.91) and 9.58 (3.32 to 27.58) after second dose of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273; the numbers of EC were 3.4 (1.1 to 6.0) and 8.6 (4.4 to 12.6) after first and second dose of mRNA-1273. The main study limitations were that the outcome was not validated through review of clinical records, and there was an absence of information on the length of hospitalization and, thus, the severity of the outcome.ConclusionsThis population-based study of about 3 millions of residents in Italy suggested that mRNA vaccines were associated with myocarditis/pericarditis in the population younger than 40 years. According to our results, increased risk of myocarditis/pericarditis was associated with the second dose of BNT162b2 and both doses of mRNA-1273. The highest risks were observed in males of 12 to 39 years and in males and females 18 to 29 years vaccinated with mRNA-1273. The public health implication of these findings should be considered in the light of the proven mRNA vaccine effectiveness in preventing serious COVID-19 disease and death.

Marco Massari and colleagues investigate the association between myocarditis/pericarditis and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in individuals aged 12-39 years in Italy.     

Adverse events of special interest and mortality following vaccination with mRNA (BNT162b2) and inactivated (CoronaVac) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in Hong Kong: A retrospective study

BackgroundSafety monitoring of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is crucial during mass vaccination rollout to inform the choice of vaccines and reduce vaccine hesitancy. Considering the scant evidence directly comparing the safety profiles of mRNA and inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, this territory-wide cohort study aims to compare the incidence of various adverse events of special interest (AESIs) and all-cause mortality between CoronaVac (inactivated vaccine) and BNT162b2 (mRNA-based vaccine). Our results can help vaccine recipients make an informed choice.Methods and findingsA retrospective, population-based cohort of individuals who had received at least 1 dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac from 23 February to 9 September 2021 in Hong Kong, and had data linkage to the electronic medical records of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority, were included. Those who had received mixed doses were excluded. Individuals were observed from the date of vaccination (first or second dose) until mortality, second dose vaccination (for first dose analysis), 21 days after vaccination, or 30 September 2021, whichever came first. Baseline characteristics of vaccinated individuals were balanced between groups using propensity score weighting. Outcome events were AESIs and all-cause mortality recorded during 21 days of post-vaccination follow-up after each dose, except anaphylaxis, for which the observation period was restricted to 2 days after each dose. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of AESIs and mortality comparing between CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients were estimated after each dose using Poisson regression models. Among 2,333,379 vaccinated individuals aged 18 years or above, the first dose analysis included 1,308,820 BNT162b2 and 955,859 CoronaVac recipients, while the second dose analysis included 1,116,677 and 821,560 individuals, respectively. The most frequently reported AESI among CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients was thromboembolism (first dose: 431 and 290 per 100,000 person-years; second dose: 385 and 266 per 100,000 person-years). After the first dose, incidence rates of overall AESIs (IRR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.89–1.08, p = 0.703) and mortality (IRR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.63–1.48, p = 0.868) associated with CoronaVac were generally comparable to those for BNT162b2, except for Bell palsy (IRR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.12–3.41, p = 0.018), anaphylaxis (IRR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.14–0.79, p = 0.012), and sleeping disturbance or disorder (IRR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.49–0.89, p = 0.006). After the second dose, incidence rates of overall AESIs (IRR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.87–1.08, p = 0.545) and mortality (IRR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.51–1.40, p = 0.516) were comparable between CoronaVac and BNT162b2 recipients, with no significant differences observed for specific AESIs. The main limitations of this study include residual confounding due to its observational nature, and the possibility of its being underpowered for some AESIs with very low observed incidences.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that the incidences of AESIs (cumulative incidence rate of 0.06%–0.09%) and mortality following the first and second doses of CoronaVac and BNT162b2 vaccination were very low. The safety profiles of the vaccines were generally comparable, except for a significantly higher incidence rate of Bell palsy, but lower incidence rates of anaphylaxis and sleeping disturbance or disorder, following first dose CoronaVac versus BNT162b2 vaccination. Our results could help inform the choice of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines, mainly administered in low- and middle-income countries with large populations, in comparison to the safety of mRNA vaccines. Long-term surveillance on the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines should continue.

In a retrospective study, Carlos King Ho Wong, Kristy Tsz Kwan Lau, and colleagues study adverse events reported following COVID-19 vaccination in Hong Kong.     

Nasal delivery of broadly neutralizing antibodies protects mice from lethal challenge with SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants

Multiple new variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have constantly emerged, as the delta and omicron variants, which have developed resistance to currently gained neutralizing antibodies. This highlights a critical need to discover new therapeutic agents to overcome the variants mutations. Despite the availability of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the use of broadly neutralizing antibodies has been considered as an alternative way for the prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 variants infection. Here, we show that the nasal delivery of two previously characterized broadly neutralizing antibodies (F61 and H121) protected K18-hACE2 mice against lethal challenge with SARS-CoV-2 variants. The broadly protective efficacy of the F61 or F61/F121 cocktail antibodies was evaluated by lethal challenge with the wild strain (WIV04) and multiple variants, including beta (B.1.351), delta (B.1.617.2), and omicron (B.1.1.529) at 200 or 1000 TCID50, and the minimum antibody administration doses (5-1.25 mg/kg body weight) were also evaluated with delta and omicron challenge. Fully prophylactic protections were found in all challenged groups with both F61 and F61/H121 combination at the administration dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, and corresponding mice lung viral RNA showed negative, with almost all alveolar septa and cavities remaining normal. Furthermore, low-dose antibody treatment induced significant prophylactic protection against lethal challenge with delta and omicron variants, whereas the F61/H121 combination showed excellent results against omicron infection. Our findings indicated the potential use of broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies as prophylactic and therapeutic agent for protection of current emerged SARS-CoV-2 variants infection.     

SARS-CoV-2重组S1和S蛋白疫苗诱导保护性免疫的研究*

目的:评价新型冠状病毒(SARS-CoV-2)重组S1蛋白和S蛋白疫苗对SARS-CoV-2的免疫保护效果。方法:将SARS-CoV-2重组S1蛋白和S蛋白分别联合氢氧化铝佐剂以0.1 μg/只、1 μg/只、5 μg/只、10 μg/只不同剂量接种6~8周BALB/c纯系健康雌性小鼠。第二次免疫后采血通过酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)检测血清中IgG抗体效价,通过假病毒中和试验比较免疫小鼠血清对SARS-CoV-2野生型株(WT)、英国株(B.1.1.7)、巴西株(P.1)、印度株(B.1.617.2)、Mu毒株(B.1.621)和南非株(501Y.V2-1)六种假病毒毒株中和活性效价,取脾细胞通过酶联免疫斑点技术(ELISpot)检测免疫小鼠的细胞免疫水平。结果:SARS-CoV-2重组S和S1蛋白都能诱导小鼠产生较强的IgG抗体水平。免疫S1蛋白的小鼠血清对SARS-CoV-2野生型株、英国株、巴西株有明显的中和活性,免疫S蛋白的小鼠血清除了对SARS-CoV-2野生型株、英国株、巴西株有明显中和活性之外,对印度株也有明显的中和活性,两种蛋白质免疫的小鼠血清均对野生型株中和效果最强。S蛋白免疫的小鼠脾细胞能够显著诱导出γ干扰素(IFN-γ)和白介素-4(IL-4)的产生。S蛋白诱导产生的IgG抗体、中和抗体、细胞免疫水平均高于S1。结论:SARS-CoV-2重组S蛋白疫苗能够诱导产生较强的保护性免疫应答。     

Immunogenicity,effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccine in older adults living in nursing homes: A real-life study

IntroductionBNT162b2 (BioNTech and Pfizer) is a nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine that provides protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and is generally well tolerated. However, data about its efficacy, immunogenicity and safety in people of old age or with underlying chronic conditions are scarce.PurposeTo describe BNT162b2 (BioNTech and Pfizer) COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity, effectiveness and reactogenicity after complete vaccination (two doses), and immunogenicity and reactogenicity after one booster, in elders residing in nursing homes (NH) and healthy NH workers in real-life conditions.MethodsObservational, ambispective, multicenter study. Older adults and health workers were recruited from three nursing homes of a private hospital corporation located in three Spanish cities. The primary vaccination was carried out between January and March 2021. The follow-up was 13 months. Humoral immunity, adverse events, SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations and deaths were evaluated. Cellular immunity was assessed in a participant subset.ResultsA total of 181 residents (mean age 84.1 years; 89.9% females, Charlson index ≥2: 45%) and 148 members of staff (mean age 45.2 years; 70.2% females) were surveyed (n:329). After primary vaccination of 327 participants, vaccine response in both groups was similar; ≈70% of participants, regardless of the group, had an antibody titer above the cut-off considered currently protective (260 BAU/ml). This proportion increased significantly to ≈ 98% after the booster (p < 0.0001 in both groups). Immunogenicity was largely determined by a prior history of COVID-19 infection. Twenty residents and 3 workers were tested for cellular immunity. There was evidence of cellular immunity after primary vaccination and after booster. During the study, one resident was hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2. No SARS-CoV-2-related deaths were reported and most adverse events were mild.ConclusionsOur results suggest that the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is immunogenic, effective and safe in elderly NH residents with underlying chronic conditions.     

Differences in mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity among patients undergoing dialysis

Background:Differences in immunogenicity between mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have not been well characterized in patients undergoing dialysis. We compared the serologic response in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna).Methods:We conducted a prospective observational cohort study at 2 academic centres in Toronto, Canada, from Feb. 2, 2021, to July 20, 2021, which included 129 and 95 patients who received the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, respectively. We measured SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies to the spike protein (anti-spike), receptor binding domain (anti-RBD) and nucleocapsid protein (anti-NP) at 6–7 and 12 weeks after the second dose of vaccine and compared those levels with the median convalescent serum antibody levels from 211 controls who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.Results:At 6–7 weeks after 2-dose vaccination, we found that 51 of 70 patients (73%) who received BNT162b2 and 83 of 87 (95%) who received mRNA-1273 attained convalescent levels of anti-spike antibody (p < 0.001). In those who received BNT162b2, 35 of 70 (50%) reached the convalescent level for anti-RBD compared with 69 of 87 (79%) who received mRNA-1273 (p < 0.001). At 12 weeks after the second dose, anti-spike and anti-RBD levels were significantly lower in patients who received BNT162b2 than in those who received mRNA-1273. For anti-spike, 70 of 122 patients (57.4%) who received BNT162b2 maintained the convalescent level versus 68 of 71 (96%) of those who received mRNA-1273 (p < 0.001). For anti-RBD, 47 of 122 patients (38.5%) who received BNT162b2 maintained the anti-RBD convalescent level versus 45 of 71 (63%) of those who received mRNA-1273 (p = 0.002).Interpretation:In patients undergoing hemodialysis, mRNA-1273 elicited a stronger humoral response than BNT162b2. Given the rapid decline in immunogenicity at 12 weeks in patients who received BNT162b2, a third dose is recommended in patients undergoing dialysis as a primary series, similar to recommendations for other vulnerable populations.

Patients with end-stage kidney disease who are receiving maintenance hemodialysis (HD) are at increased risk for severe COVID-19, with mortality rates ranging from 9% to 28%.^1,2 Highly effective vaccines have been developed against SARS-CoV-2, with 94.1%–95% efficacy in reducing the risk of severe COVID-19 (D614G strain) as confirmed by 2 large randomized controlled trials; however, these studies included limited numbers of patients with kidney disease.^3,4 Humoral response to vaccination appears to be heterogeneous in dialysis patients in comparison with the general population, and a review of 35 studies involving dialysis patients found that in the 1-month period after 2-dose vaccination, seroconversion rates ranged from 70% to 96%.⁵The BNT162b2 (Pfizer BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are both lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated, nucleoside-modified mRNA encoding for the full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein stabilized in its prefusion conformation. The BNT162b2 vaccine is administered as a 30 μg dose 21 days apart and mRNA-1273 is administered as a 100 μg dose 28 days apart.^3,4 The spike protein and its receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 are antigens that are targeted by the currently available vaccines and are used as measures of humoral response to vaccination or natural infection. An antibody response to the amount of nucleocapsid protein (NP), which is not targeted by mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, may be used as a marker of natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2.Recognition of the high morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 and reduced immunogenicity to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients undergoing HD has resulted in the prioritization of vaccination of this population in many jurisdictions.^1,6 However, differences in immunogenicity among SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have not been well characterized in this vulnerable population. Therefore, we conducted a prospective observational study in a cohort of patients undergoing dialysis who received either the mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccine to evaluate humoral response through comparison of spike and receptor-binding domain antibodies in response to 2-dose vaccination.     

Characteristics of replication and pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 Alpha and Delta isolates

The continuously arising of SARS-CoV-2 variants has been posting a great threat to public health safety globally, from B.1.17 (Alpha), B.1.351 (Beta), P.1 (Gamma), B.1.617.2 (Delta) to B.1.1.529 (Omicron). The emerging or reemerging of the SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern is calling for the constant monitoring of their epidemics, pathogenicity and immune escape. In this study, we aimed to characterize replication and pathogenicity of the Alpha and Delta variant strains isolated from patients infected in Laos. The amino acid mutations within the spike fragment of the isolates were determined via sequencing. The more efficient replication of the Alpha and Delta isolates was documented than the prototyped SARS-CoV-2 in Calu-3 and Caco-2 cells, while such features were not observed in Huh-7, Vero E6 and HPA-3 cells. We utilized both animal models of human ACE2 (hACE2) transgenic mice and hamsters to evaluate the pathogenesis of the isolates. The Alpha and Delta can replicate well in multiple organs and cause moderate to severe lung pathology in these animals. In conclusion, the spike protein of the isolated Alpha and Delta variant strains was characterized, and the replication and pathogenicity of the strains in the cells and animal models were also evaluated.     

Vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern protects mice from challenge with wild-type virus

Vaccines against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been highly efficient in protecting against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the emergence of viral variants that are more transmissible and, in some cases, escape from neutralizing antibody responses has raised concerns. Here, we evaluated recombinant protein spike antigens derived from wild-type SARS-CoV-2 and from variants B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 for their immunogenicity and protective effect in vivo against challenge with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 in the mouse model. All proteins induced high neutralizing antibodies against the respective viruses but also induced high cross-neutralizing antibody responses. The decline in neutralizing titers between variants was moderate, with B.1.1.7-vaccinated animals having a maximum fold reduction of 4.8 against B.1.351 virus. P.1 induced the most cross-reactive antibody responses but was also the least immunogenic in terms of homologous neutralization titers. However, all antigens protected from challenge with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 in a mouse model.

This study explores the immune response induced by wild type and variant SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, and the protection that these immune responses provide against challenge with wild type virus in the mouse model.     

Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 hospitalization with the Alpha,Delta, or Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant: A nationwide Danish cohort study

BackgroundThe continued occurrence of more contagious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and waning immunity over time require ongoing reevaluation of the vaccine effectiveness (VE). This study aimed to estimate the effectiveness in 2 age groups (12 to 59 and 60 years or above) of 2 or 3 vaccine doses (BNT162b2 mRNA or mRNA-1273) by time since vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization in an Alpha-, Delta-, or Omicron-dominated period.Methods and findingsA Danish nationwide cohort study design was used to estimate VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalization with the Alpha, Delta, or Omicron variant. Information was obtained from nationwide registries and linked using a unique personal identification number. The study included all previously uninfected residents in Denmark aged 12 years or above (18 years or above for the analysis of 3 doses) in the Alpha (February 20 to June 15, 2021), Delta (July 4 to November 20, 2021), and Omicron (December 21, 2021 to January 31, 2022) dominated periods. VE estimates including 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated (1-hazard ratio∙100) using Cox proportional hazard regression models with underlying calendar time and adjustments for age, sex, comorbidity, and geographical region. Vaccination status was included as a time-varying exposure. In the oldest age group, VE against infection after 2 doses was 90.7% (95% CI: 88.2; 92.7) for the Alpha variant, 82.3% (95% CI: 75.5; 87.2) for the Delta variant, and 39.9% (95% CI: 26.3; 50.9) for the Omicron variant 14 to 30 days since vaccination. The VE waned over time and was 73.2% (Alpha, 95% CI: 57.1; 83.3), 50.0% (Delta, 95% CI: 46.7; 53.0), and 4.4% (Omicron, 95% CI: −0.1; 8.7) >120 days since vaccination. Higher estimates were observed after the third dose with VE estimates against infection of 86.1% (Delta, 95% CI: 83.3; 88.4) and 57.7% (Omicron, 95% CI: 55.9; 59.5) 14 to 30 days since vaccination. Among both age groups, VE against COVID-19 hospitalization 14 to 30 days since vaccination with 2 or 3 doses was 98.1% or above for the Alpha and Delta variants. Among both age groups, VE against COVID-19 hospitalization 14 to 30 days since vaccination with 2 or 3 doses was 95.5% or above for the Omicron variant. The main limitation of this study is the nonrandomized study design including potential differences between the unvaccinated (reference group) and vaccinated individuals.ConclusionsTwo vaccine doses provided high protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalization with the Alpha and Delta variants with protection, notably against infection, waning over time. Two vaccine doses provided only limited and short-lived protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection with Omicron. However, the protection against COVID-19 hospitalization following Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher. The third vaccine dose substantially increased the level and duration of protection against infection with the Omicron variant and provided a high level of sustained protection against COVID-19 hospitalization among the +60-year-olds.

Mie Agermose Gram and colleagues estimate vaccine effectiveness against infection and COVID-19 hospitalization with the Alpha, Delta or Omicron variant in Denmark.     

Spatio-temporal dynamics of intra-host variability in SARS-CoV-2 genomes

During the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, large-scale genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 has been useful in tracking its spread and in identifying variants of concern (VOC). Viral and host factors could contribute to variability within a host that can be captured in next-generation sequencing reads as intra-host single nucleotide variations (iSNVs). Analysing 1347 samples collected till June 2020, we recorded 16 410 iSNV sites throughout the SARS-CoV-2 genome. We found ∼42% of the iSNV sites to be reported as SNVs by 30 September 2020 in consensus sequences submitted to GISAID, which increased to ∼80% by 30th June 2021. Following this, analysis of another set of 1774 samples sequenced in India between November 2020 and May 2021 revealed that majority of the Delta (B.1.617.2) and Kappa (B.1.617.1) lineage-defining variations appeared as iSNVs before getting fixed in the population. Besides, mutations in RdRp as well as RNA-editing by APOBEC and ADAR deaminases seem to contribute to the differential prevalence of iSNVs in hosts. We also observe hyper-variability at functionally critical residues in Spike protein that could alter the antigenicity and may contribute to immune escape. Thus, tracking and functional annotation of iSNVs in ongoing genome surveillance programs could be important for early identification of potential variants of concern and actionable interventions.     

Association of COVID-19 vaccines ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 with major venous,arterial, or thrombocytopenic events: A population-based cohort study of 46 million adults in England

BackgroundThromboses in unusual locations after the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine ChAdOx1-S have been reported, although their frequency with vaccines of different types is uncertain at a population level. The aim of this study was to estimate the population-level risks of hospitalised thrombocytopenia and major arterial and venous thromboses after COVID-19 vaccination.Methods and findingsIn this whole-population cohort study, we analysed linked electronic health records from adults living in England, from 8 December 2020 to 18 March 2021. We estimated incidence rates and hazard ratios (HRs) for major arterial, venous, and thrombocytopenic outcomes 1 to 28 and >28 days after first vaccination dose for ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 vaccines. Analyses were performed separately for ages <70 and ≥70 years and adjusted for age, age², sex, ethnicity, and deprivation. We also prespecified adjustment for anticoagulant medication, combined oral contraceptive medication, hormone replacement therapy medication, history of pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis, and history of coronavirus infection in analyses of venous thrombosis; and diabetes, hypertension, smoking, antiplatelet medication, blood pressure lowering medication, lipid lowering medication, anticoagulant medication, history of stroke, and history of myocardial infarction in analyses of arterial thromboses. We selected further covariates with backward selection.Of 46 million adults, 23 million (51%) were women; 39 million (84%) were <70; and 3.7 million (8.1%) Asian or Asian British, 1.6 million (3.5%) Black or Black British, 36 million (79%) White, 0.7 million (1.5%) mixed ethnicity, and 1.5 million (3.2%) were of another ethnicity. Approximately 21 million (46%) adults had their first vaccination between 8 December 2020 and 18 March 2021.The crude incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) of all venous events were as follows: prevaccination, 140 [95% confidence interval (CI): 138 to 142]; ≤28 days post-ChAdOx1-S, 294 (281 to 307); >28 days post-ChAdOx1-S, 359 (338 to 382), ≤28 days post-BNT162b2-S, 241 (229 to 253); >28 days post-BNT162b2-S 277 (263 to 291). The crude incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years) of all arterial events were as follows: prevaccination, 546 (95% CI: 541 to 555); ≤28 days post-ChAdOx1-S, 1,211 (1,185 to 1,237); >28 days post-ChAdOx1-S, 1678 (1,630 to 1,726), ≤28 days post-BNT162b2-S, 1,242 (1,214 to 1,269); >28 days post-BNT162b2-S, 1,539 (1,507 to 1,572).Adjusted HRs (aHRs) 1 to 28 days after ChAdOx1-S, compared with unvaccinated rates, at ages <70 and ≥70 years, respectively, were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.90 to 1.05) and 0.58 (0.53 to 0.63) for venous thromboses, and 0.90 (0.86 to 0.95) and 0.76 (0.73 to 0.79) for arterial thromboses. Corresponding aHRs for BNT162b2 were 0.81 (0.74 to 0.88) and 0.57 (0.53 to 0.62) for venous thromboses, and 0.94 (0.90 to 0.99) and 0.72 (0.70 to 0.75) for arterial thromboses. aHRs for thrombotic events were higher at younger ages for venous thromboses after ChAdOx1-S, and for arterial thromboses after both vaccines.Rates of intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT) and of thrombocytopenia in adults aged <70 years were higher 1 to 28 days after ChAdOx1-S (aHRs 2.27, 95% CI: 1.33 to 3.88 and 1.71, 1.35 to 2.16, respectively), but not after BNT162b2 (0.59, 0.24 to 1.45 and 1.00, 0.75 to 1.34) compared with unvaccinated. The corresponding absolute excess risks of ICVT 1 to 28 days after ChAdOx1-S were 0.9 to 3 per million, varying by age and sex.The main limitations of the study are as follows: (i) it relies on the accuracy of coded healthcare data to identify exposures, covariates, and outcomes; (ii) the use of primary reason for hospital admission to measure outcome, which improves the positive predictive value but may lead to an underestimation of incidence; and (iii) potential unmeasured confounding.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed increases in rates of ICVT and thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1-S vaccination in adults aged <70 years that were small compared with its effect in reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, although more precise estimates for adults aged <40 years are needed. For people aged ≥70 years, rates of arterial or venous thrombotic events were generally lower after either vaccine compared with unvaccinated, suggesting that either vaccine is suitable in this age group.

In a population-based cohort study, William Whiteley and colleagues investigate the association of COVID-19 vaccines ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 with major venous, arterial, or thrombocytopenic events in England.     

Short-term antibody response after 1 dose of BNT162b2 vaccine in patients receiving hemodialysis

BACKGROUND:Patients receiving in-centre hemodialysis are at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and death if infected. One dose of the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is efficacious in the general population, but responses in patients receiving hemodialysis are uncertain.METHODS:We obtained serial plasma from patients receiving hemodialysis and health care worker controls before and after vaccination with 1 dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, as well as convalescent plasma from patients receiving hemodialysis who survived COVID-19. We measured anti–receptor binding domain (RBD) immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and stratified groups by evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.RESULTS:Our study included 154 patients receiving hemodialysis (135 without and 19 with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection), 40 controls (20 without and 20 with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection) and convalescent plasma from 16 patients. Among those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, anti-RBD IgG was undetectable at 4 weeks in 75 of 131 (57%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 47% to 65%) patients receiving hemodialysis, compared with 1 of 20 (5%, 95% CI 1% to 23%) controls (p < 0.001). No patient with nondetectable levels at 4 weeks developed anti-RBD IgG by 8 weeks. Results were similar in non-immunosuppressed and younger individuals. Three patients receiving hemodialysis developed severe COVID-19 after vaccination. Among those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, median anti-RBD IgG levels at 8 weeks in patients receiving hemodialysis were similar to controls at 3 weeks (p = 0.3) and to convalescent plasma (p = 0.8).INTERPRETATION:A single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine failed to elicit a humoral immune response in most patients receiving hemodialysis without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, even after prolonged observation. In those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, the antibody response was delayed. We advise that patients receiving hemodialysis be prioritized for a second BNT162b2 dose at the recommended 3-week interval.

Patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving incentre hemodialysis have been uniquely vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. For these patients, unlike for most other people, self-isolation to avoid exposure to SARS-CoV-2 is impossible. Most patients receiving hemodialysis must leave their homes 3 times weekly to receive their life-saving treatments, often in shared spaces for hours at a time. COVID-19 case fatality rates are 20%–30% for patients receiving hemodialysis —10 times higher than in the general population.^1,2 Advanced age, multiple comorbidities and blunted immune response likely all contribute to the high COVID-19 death rates in this population. Some hemodialysis centres have thus prioritized these patients for vaccination.To facilitate wider vaccine distribution during current shortages, ³ the National Advisory Committee on Immunization of Canada has recommended delaying the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine from 3 to 16 weeks.⁴ In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), the clinical efficacy of the BNT162b2 was reported to be greater than 80% at 3 weeks after the first dose.⁵ However, no patients receiving hemodialysis were enrolled in this trial.⁵ Patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis often have impairments in both humoral and cellular immune responses⁶ and are noted to have lower antibody responses to other vaccines.⁷ Whether patients receiving hemodialysis develop robust immune responses after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 remains uncertain.⁸ Data are required to better inform Canadian public health policy on whether second doses of vaccine can be safely delayed in this population.Usually, once clinical trials are completed, antibody levels can be used as surrogate measures of vaccine efficacy, such as with hepatitis B⁹ and influenza.¹⁰ With respect to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, although there is increasing understanding of the antibodies that best correlate with viral neutralization and T-cell responses,^11,12 assays vary from laboratory to laboratory and as yet there are no internationally accepted standards defining what antibody levels constitute immunity.¹³ The only way to evaluate vaccine efficacy using antibody levels, therefore, is through direct experimental comparison with controls who are known to reliably develop immunity after vaccination (i.e., healthy individuals similar to those enrolled in the RCT showing vaccine efficacy⁵) or who have developed immunity after natural infection (i.e., survivors of COVID-19).We sought to determine whether short-term antibody responses after a single dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine are comparable between patients receiving hemodialysis and healthy individuals, and how this compares with antibody responses in patients receiving hemodialysis who survived natural infection with SARS-CoV-2.