Timing and sequence of vaccination against COVID-19 and influenza (TACTIC): a single-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

No immunological interference or concerns about safety when seasonal quadrivalent influenza vaccine is co-administered with a COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster vaccine in adults: A randomized trial

The objective of the study was to assess the safety and immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 COVID-19 booster vaccination when co-administered with an egg-based standard dose seasonal quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV). This was a phase 3, randomized, open-label study. Eligible adults aged ≥ 18 years were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive mRNA-1273 (50 µg) booster vaccination and QIV 2 weeks apart (Seq group) or concomitantly (Coad group). Primary objectives were non-inferiority of haemagglutinin inhibition (HI) and anti-Spike protein antibody responses in the Coad compared to Seq group. 497/498 participants were randomized and vaccinated in the Seq/Coad groups, respectively. The adjusted geometric mean titer/concentration ratios (95% confidence intervals) (Seq/Coad) for HI antibodies were 1.02 (0.89-1.18) for A/H1N1, 0.93 (0.82-1.05) for A/H3N2, 1.00 (0.89-1.14] for B/Victoria, and 1.04 (0.93-1.17) for B/Yamagata; and 0.98 (0.84-1.13) for anti-Spike antibodies, thus meeting the protocol-specified non-inferiority criteria. The most frequently reported adverse events in both groups were pain at the injection site and myalgia. The 2 groups were similar in terms of the overall frequency, intensity, and duration of adverse events. In conclusion, co-administration of mRNA-1273 booster vaccine with QIV in adults was immunologically non-inferior to sequential administration. Safety and reactogenicity profiles were similar in both groups (clinicaltrials.gov NCT05047770).

Concomitant administration of seasonal influenza and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines

Current clinical guidelines support the concomitant administration of seasonal influenza vaccines and COVID-19 mRNA boosters vaccine. Whether dual vaccination may impact vaccine immunogenicity due to an interference between influenza or SARS-CoV-2 antigens is unknown. We aimed to understand the impact of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered concomitantly on the immune response to influenza vaccines. For this, 128 volunteers were vaccinated during the 22-23 influenza season. Three groups of vaccination were assembled: FLU vaccine only (46, 35%) versus volunteers that received the mRNA bivalent COVID-19 vaccines concomitantly to seasonal influenza vaccines, FluCOVID vaccine in the same arm (42, 33%) or different arm (40, 31%), respectively. Sera and whole blood were obtained the day of vaccination, +7, and +28 days after for antibody and T cells response quantification. As expected, side effects were increased in individuals who received the FluCOVID vaccine as compared to FLU vaccine only based on the known reactogenicity of mRNA vaccines. In general, antibody levels were high at 4 weeks post-vaccination and differences were found only for the H3N2 virus when administered in different arms compared to the other groups at day 28 post-vaccination. Additionally, our data showed that subjects that received the FluCOVID vaccine in different arm tended to have better antibody induction than those receiving FLU vaccines for H3N2 virus in the absence of pre-existing immunity. Furthermore, no notable differences in the influenza-specific cellular immune response were found for any of the vaccination groups. Our data supports the concomitant administration of seasonal influenza and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

COVID-19 Vaccination Strategies in the Endemic Period: Lessons from Influenza

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious zoonotic respiratory disease with many similarities to influenza. Effective vaccines are available for both; however, rapid viral evolution and waning immunity make them virtually impossible to eradicate with vaccines. Thus, the practical goal of vaccination is to reduce the incidence of serious illnesses and death. Three years after the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines, the optimal vaccination strategy in the endemic period remains elusive, and health authorities worldwide have begun to adopt various approaches. Herein, we propose a COVID-19 vaccination strategy based on the data available until early 2024 and discuss aspects that require further clarification for better decision making. Drawing from comparisons between COVID-19 and influenza vaccination strategies, our proposed COVID-19 vaccination strategy prioritizes high-risk groups, emphasizes seasonal administration aligned with influenza vaccination campaigns, and advocates the co-administration with influenza vaccines to increase coverage.

Immunogenicity and safety of concomitant bivalent COVID-19 and quadrivalent influenza vaccination: implications of immune imprinting and interference

OBJECTIVES

Concomitant COVID-19 and influenza vaccination would be an efficient strategy. Although the co-administration of monovalent COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations showed acceptable immunogenicity, it remains unknown whether the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine could intensify immune interference. We aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of concomitant BA.5-based bivalent COVID-19 and influenza vaccination.

METHODS

An open-label, nonrandomized clinical trial was conducted for 154 age-matched and sex-matched healthy adults between October 2022 and December 2022. Participants received either a concomitant bivalent COVID-19 mRNA booster and quadrivalent influenza vaccination (group C) or separate vaccinations (group S) at least 4 weeks apart. Solicited and unsolicited adverse events were reported up to 6 months postvaccination. Immunogenicity was evaluated by anti-spike (S) IgG electrochemiluminescence immunoassay, focus reduction neutralization test, and hemagglutination inhibition assay.

RESULTS

Group C did not meet the noninferiority criteria for the seroconversion rates of anti-S IgG and neutralizing antibodies against the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 strain compared with group S (44.2% vs. 46.8%, difference of -2.6% [95% CI, -18 to 13.4]; 44.2% vs. 57.1%, difference of -13.0% [95% CI to -28.9 to 2.9]). However, group C showed a stronger postvaccination neutralizing antibody response against Omicron BA.5 (72.7% vs. 64.9%). Postvaccination geometric mean titers for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza strains were similar between groups, except for influenza B/Victoria. Most adverse events were mild and comparable between the study groups.

DISCUSSION

Concomitant administration of bivalent COVID-19 mRNA and quadrivalent influenza vaccines showed tolerable safety profiles and sufficient immunogenicity, particularly attenuating immune imprinting induced by previous ancestral vaccine strains.

COVID-19: On the threshold of the fifth year. The situation in Spain

Despite having emerged from pandemic status, the incidence of COVID-19 episodes has recently increased in Spain, including pediatric cases and admissions to Intensive Care Units. Several recombinant variants are circulating among us, particularly XBB arising from two Omicron BA.2 sublineages with mutations in the genes encoding the spicule proteins that could increase binding to the ACE2 receptor and be more prone to immune escape. Faced with these, 3 pharmaceutical companies have developed vaccines adapted to the XBB.1.5 sublineage that are already available for administration in our setting with risks that should not be different from those of previous mRNA vaccines and with clearly favorable benefit/risk ratios. They should be applied to patients with potential for poor COVID-19 evolution and to collectives that have a particular relationship of proximity with them. Their application should be understood not only from a perspective of individual convenience but also from that of collective responsibility. The most convenient seems to be a simultaneous immunization of COVID-19 and influenza in our environment. In the therapeutic aspect, there is little to expect right now from antisera, but the already known antiviral drugs are still available and indicated, although their efficacy will have to be reevaluated due to their impact on populations that are mostly immunized and with a better prognosis than in the past. In our opinion, it is necessary to continue to make a reasonable and timely use of masks and other non-pharmacological means of protection.

Changing epidemiology of COVID-19: potential future impact on vaccines and vaccination strategies

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 was an unprecedented challenge worldwide; however, disease epidemiology has evolved, and COVID-19 no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern. Nonetheless, COVID-19 remains a global threat and uncertainties remain, including definition of the end of the pandemic and transition to endemicity, and understanding true rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection/transmission.

AREAS COVERED

Six international experts convened (April 2023) to interpret changing COVID-19 epidemiology and public health challenges. We report the panel's recommendations and knowledge gaps in COVID-19 epidemiology, SARS-CoV-2 evolution, and future vaccination strategies, informed by peer-reviewed publications, surveillance data, health authority assessments, and clinical experience.

EXPERT OPINION

High population SARS-CoV-2 immunity indicates the likely end to the pandemic's acute phase. Continued emergence of variants/sublineages that can evade the vaccine-induced antibody response are likely, but widespread immunity reduces the risk of disease severity. Continued surveillance is required to capture transition to endemicity, seasonality, and emergence of novel variants/sublineages, to inform future vaccination strategies. COVID-19 vaccination should be integrated into routine vaccination programs throughout life. Co-circulation with other respiratory viruses should be monitored to avoid a combined peak, which could overrun healthcare systems. Effective, combined vaccines and improved education may help overcome vaccine hesitancy/booster fatigue and increase vaccination uptake.

Key Considerations during the Transition from the Acute Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Narrative Review

The COVID-19 pandemic has been met with an unprecedented response from the scientific community, leading to the development, investigation, and authorization of vaccines and antivirals, ultimately reducing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on global public health. However, SARS-CoV-2 is far from being eradicated, continues to evolve, and causes substantial health and economic burdens. In this narrative review, we posit essential points on SARS-CoV-2 and its responsible management during the transition from the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. As discussed, despite Omicron (sub)variant(s) causing clinically milder infections, SARS-CoV-2 is far from being a negligible pathogen. It requires continued genomic surveillance, particularly if one considers that its future (sub)lineages do not necessarily have to be milder. Antivirals and vaccines remain the essential elements in COVID-19 management. However, the former could benefit from further development and improvements in dosing, while the seasonal administration of the latter requires simplification to increase interest and tackle vaccine hesitancy. It is also essential to ensure the accessibility of COVID-19 pharmaceuticals and vaccines in low-income countries and improve the understanding of their use in the context of the long-term goals of SARS-CoV-2 management. Regardless of location, the primary role of COVID-19 awareness and education must be played by healthcare workers, who directly communicate with patients and serve as role models for healthy behaviors.

Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of Coadministration of COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccines

Importance

COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines were previously given separately, although their coadministration is warranted for vaccination adherence. Limited data on their coadministration have been published.

Objective

To compare the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations administered together with those of COVID-19 vaccination alone.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study included health care workers at a large tertiary medical center in Israel who received the Influvac Tetra (Abbott) influenza vaccine (2022/2023), the Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine, or both. Vaccination began in September 2022, and data were collected until January 2023. Vaccines were offered to all employees and were coadministered or given separately. Adverse reaction questionnaires were sent, and serologic samples were also collected.

Exposures

Receiving COVID-19 vaccine, influenza vaccine, or both.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes for the reactogenicity analysis were symptoms following vaccine receipt, assessed by a digital questionnaire: any local symptoms; fever; weakness or fatigue; any systemic symptoms; and their duration. The immunogenicity analysis' outcome was postvaccination anti-spike IgG titer.

Results

This study included 2 cohorts for 2 separate analyses. The reactogenicity analysis included 588 participants (of 649 questionnaire responders): 85 in the COVID-19 vaccine-alone group (median [IQR] age, 71 [58-74] years; 56 [66%] female); 357 in the influenza vaccine-alone group (median [IQR] age, 55 [40-65] years; 282 [79%] female); and 146 in the coadministration group (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-71] years; 81 [55%] female). The immunogenicity analysis included 151 participants: 74 participants in the COVID-19 vaccine group (median [IQR] age, 67 [56-73] years; 45 [61%] female) and 77 participants in the coadministration group (median [IQR] age, 60 [49-73] years; 42 [55%] female). Compared with COVID-19 vaccination alone, the risk of systemic symptoms was similar in the coadministration group (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.43-1.56). Geometric mean titers in the coadministration group were estimated to be 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69-1.04) times lower than in the COVID-19 vaccine-alone group.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of health care workers who received a COVID-19 vaccine, an influenza vaccine, or both, coadministration was not associated with substantially inferior immune response or to more frequent adverse events compared with COVID-19 vaccine administration alone, supporting the coadministration of these vaccines.

Safety and Immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 Vaccine Coadministered with Seasonal Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Adults

INTRODUCTION

Vaccination is a critical tool for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza illnesses. Coadministration of the COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b2, with seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine (SIIV) can provide substantial benefits, including streamlining vaccine delivery.

METHODS

In this phase 3 study, healthy 18- to 64-year-olds who had received three previous doses of BNT162b2 were randomized (1:1) to the coadministration group (month 0, BNT162b2 + SIIV; month 1, placebo) or the separate-administration group (month 0, placebo + SIIV; month 1, BNT162b2). The primary immunogenicity objective was to demonstrate that the immune responses elicited by BNT162b2 and SIIV [measured by full-length S-binding immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and strain-specific hemagglutination inhibition assay (HAI) titers against four influenza strains 1 month post-vaccination, respectively] when coadministered were noninferior to those elicited by either vaccine administered alone, based on a prespecified 1.5-fold noninferiority margin [lower bound 95% CI for geometric mean ratio (GMR) > 0.67]. Reactogenicity and adverse event (AE) rates were evaluated.

RESULTS

Randomized participants who received study vaccination (N = 1128; coadministration group, n = 564; separate-administration group, n = 564) had a median age of 39 years. Model-adjusted GMRs for coadministration to separate administration were 0.83 (95% CI 0.77, 0.89) for full-length S-binding IgG levels and 0.89-1.00 (lower bound of all 95% CIs > 0.67) for the four influenza strain-specific HAI titers, with all endpoints achieving the prespecified noninferiority criterion. Reactogenicity events were mostly mild or moderate when BNT162b2 was coadministered with SIIV. Serious AEs were reported in < 1% of participants within 1 month after any vaccination; none were considered vaccine-related.

CONCLUSIONS

BNT162b2 coadministered with SIIV elicited immune responses that were noninferior to those elicited by BNT162b2 alone and SIIV alone, and BNT162b2 had an acceptable safety profile when coadministered with SIIV. The results of this study support the coadministration of BNT162b2 and SIIV in adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05310084.