Randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines: Do adenovirus-vector vaccines have beneficial non-specific effects?

Plant-made trained immunity-based vaccines: Beyond one approach

Plant-made vaccines and trained immunity-based vaccines (TIbV or TRAIMbV) represent two strategies for enhancing immunity against diseases. Plants provide an effective and cost-efficient vaccine production platform, while TIbV induces innate immune memory that can protect against both homologous and heterologous diseases. Both strategies are generally compatible; however, they have not been explored in a transdisciplinary manner. Despite their strengths in vaccinology, each faces limitations that hinder widespread adoption and health benefits. This review revisits both strategies, discussing their fundamental knowledge alongside practical and experimental examples, ultimately highlighting their limitations and perspectives to pave the way for a unified approach to combat diseases. Future scenarios are envisioned and presented if research on plant-made trained immunity-based vaccines is adopted.

Trained immunity in chronic inflammatory diseases and cancer

A decade after the term 'trained immunity' (TRIM) was coined to reflect the long-lasting hyper-responsiveness of innate immune cells with an epigenetically imprinted 'memory' of earlier stimuli, our understanding has broadened to include the potential implications of TRIM in health and disease. Here, after summarizing the well-documented beneficial effects of TRIM against infections, we discuss emerging evidence that TRIM is also a major underlying mechanism in chronic inflammation-related disorders such as periodontitis, rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, mounting evidence indicates that the induction of TRIM by certain agonists confers protective antitumour responses. Although the mechanisms underlying TRIM require further study, the current knowledge enables the experimental development of innovative therapeutic approaches to stimulate or inhibit TRIM in a context-appropriate manner, such as the stimulation of TRIM in cancer or its inhibition in inflammatory disorders.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against severe COVID-19 among patients with cancer in Catalonia, Spain

Patients with cancer were excluded from pivotal randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccine products, and available observational evidence on vaccine effectiveness (VE) focused mostly on mild, and not severe COVID-19, which is the ultimate goal of vaccination for high-risk groups. Here, using primary care electronic health records from Catalonia, Spain (SIDIAP), we built two large cohorts of vaccinated and matched control cancer patients with a primary vaccination scheme (n = 184,744) and a booster (n = 108,534). Most patients received a mRNA-based product in primary (76.2%) and booster vaccination (99.9%). Patients had 51.8% (95% CI 40.3%-61.1%) and 58.4% (95% CI 29.3%-75.5%) protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 death respectively after full vaccination (two-doses) and 77.9% (95% CI 69.2%-84.2%) and 80.2% (95% CI 63.0%-89.4%) after booster. Compared to primary vaccination, the booster dose provided higher peak protection during follow-up. Calibration of VE estimates with negative outcomes, and sensitivity analyses with slight different population and COVID-19 outcomes definitions provided similar results. Our results confirm the role of primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination in preventing COVID-19 severe events in patients with cancer and highlight the need for the additional dose in this population.

Who is "anti-science"?

Objectives

"Anti-science" accusations are common in medicine and public health, sometimes to discredit scientists who hold opposing views. However, there is no such thing as "one science". Epistemology recognizes that any "science" is sociologically embedded, and therefore contextual and intersubjective. In this paper, we reflect on how "science" needs to adopt various perspectives to give a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of a phenomenon.

Study design

Opinion paper.

Methods

Based on a targeted literature survey, we first clarify the known limits of traditional scientific methods and then reflect on how the scientific reporting about Covid-19 mRNA vaccines has evolved.

Results

The first reports of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines randomised controlled trial results showed impressive efficacy. Nevertheless, an abundant literature has since depicted a far more nuanced picture of the effectiveness and safety of those vaccines over the medium-term. We organise them around five themes: (i) differentiating between relative and absolute reduction; (ii) taking account of time in reporting effectiveness; (iii) taking account of all outcomes, including adverse effects; (iv) stratifying effectiveness and considering other decision criteria (efficiency, equity, and acceptance); (v) changing the outcome of concern and assessing vaccines' effectiveness on mortality.

Conclusions

Science offers a wide range of perspectives on a given study object. Only the process of deliberation amongst scientists and other stakeholders can result in accepted new knowledge useful to support decision-making. Unfortunately, by trying to reduce "science" to simple messages set in stone, scientists can become the worse enemies of science.

Specific and off-target immune responses following COVID-19 vaccination with ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 vaccines-an exploratory sub-study of the BRACE trial

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the rapid development and deployment of several highly effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Recent studies suggest that these vaccines may also have off-target effects on the immune system. We sought to determine and compare the off-target effects of the adenovirus vector ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca) and modified mRNA BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccines on immune responses to unrelated pathogens.

METHODS

Prospective sub-study within the BRACE trial. Blood samples were collected from 284 healthcare workers before and 28 days after ChAdOx1-S or BNT162b2 vaccination. SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were measured using ELISA, and whole blood cytokine responses to specific (SARS-CoV-2) and unrelated pathogen stimulation were measured by multiplex bead array.

FINDINGS

Both vaccines induced robust SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody and cytokine responses. ChAdOx1-S vaccination increased cytokine responses to heat-killed (HK) Candida albicans and HK Staphylococcus aureus and decreased cytokine responses to HK Escherichia coli and BCG. BNT162b2 vaccination decreased cytokine response to HK E. coli and had variable effects on cytokine responses to BCG and resiquimod (R848). After the second vaccine dose, BNT162b2 recipients had greater specific and off-target cytokine responses than ChAdOx1-S recipients.

INTERPRETATION

ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 vaccines alter cytokine responses to unrelated pathogens, indicative of potential off-target effects. The specific and off-target effects of these vaccines differ in their magnitude and breadth. The clinical relevance of these findings is uncertain and needs further study.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Health and Medical Research Council, Swiss National Science Foundation and the Melbourne Children's. BRACE trial funding is detailed in acknowledgements.

Trained immunity-inducing vaccines: Harnessing innate memory for vaccine design and delivery

While the efficacy of many current vaccines is well-established, various factors can diminish their effectiveness, particularly in vulnerable groups. Amidst emerging pandemic threats, enhancing vaccine responses is critical. Our review synthesizes insights from immunology and epidemiology, focusing on the concept of trained immunity (TRIM) and the non-specific effects (NSEs) of vaccines that confer heterologous protection. We elucidate the mechanisms driving TRIM, emphasizing its regulation through metabolic and epigenetic reprogramming in innate immune cells. Notably, we explore the extended protective scope of vaccines like BCG and COVID-19 vaccines against unrelated infections, underscoring their role in reducing neonatal mortality and combating diseases like malaria and yellow fever. We also highlight novel strategies to boost vaccine efficacy, incorporating TRIM inducers into vaccine formulations to enhance both specific and non-specific immune responses. This approach promises significant advancements in vaccine development, aiming to improve global public health outcomes, especially for the elderly and immunocompromised populations.

Effects of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Vaccination on Reinfection: A Community-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease that is characterized by frequent reinfection. However, the factors influencing reinfection remain poorly elucidated, particularly regarding the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on preventing reinfection and its effects on symptomatology and the interval until reinfection.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examined patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus reinfection between January 2020 and February 2022. This study included patients aged >17 years who were reinfected at least 90 days between two infections with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. The main outcome measure was a reduction in symptoms during reinfection, and reinfection interval.

RESULTS

Overall, 712 patients (average age: 40.52 ± 16.41 years; 312 males) were included. The reduction rate of symptoms at reinfection than that at first infection was significantly higher in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (p < 0.001). The average reinfection interval was 265.81 days. The interval between the first and second infection was 63.47 days longer in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group. The interval was also 57.23 days, significantly longer in the asymptomatic group than in the symptomatic group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Besides its role in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection, vaccination reduces the rate of symptomatic reinfection and increases the reinfection interval; thus, it is necessary to be vaccinated even after a previous infection. The findings may inform the decision to avail COVID-19 vaccination.