Effect of COVID-19 vaccination on mortality by COVID-19 and on mortality by other causes, the Netherlands, January 2021-January 2022

Review: N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ): Friend or foe of cancer?

Due to the health emergency created by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease, the rapid implementation of a new vaccine technology was necessary. mRNA vaccines, being one of the cutting-edge new technologies, attracted significant interest and offered a lot of hope. The potential of these vaccines in preventing admission to hospitals and serious illness in people with comorbidities has recently been called into question due to the vaccines' rapidly waning immunity. Mounting evidence indicates that these vaccines, like many others, do not generate sterilizing immunity, leaving people vulnerable to recurrent infections. Additionally, it has been discovered that the mRNA vaccines inhibit essential immunological pathways, thus impairing early interferon signaling. Within the framework of COVID-19 vaccination, this inhibition ensures an appropriate spike protein synthesis and a reduced immune activation. Evidence is provided that adding 100 % of N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) to the mRNA vaccine in a melanoma model stimulated cancer growth and metastasis, while non-modified mRNA vaccines induced opposite results, thus suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development. Based on this compelling evidence, we suggest that future clinical trials for cancers or infectious diseases should not use mRNA vaccines with a 100 % m1Ψ modification, but rather ones with the lower percentage of m1Ψ modification to avoid immune suppression.

Early COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness of XBB.1.5 vaccine against hospitalisation and admission to intensive care, the Netherlands, 9 October to 5 December 2023

We present early vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates of the 2023 seasonal COVID-19 XBB.1.5 vaccine against COVID-19 hospitalisation and admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) in previously vaccinated adults ≥ 60 years in the Netherlands. We compared vaccination status of 2,050 hospitalisations including 92 ICU admissions with age group-, sex-, region- and date-specific population vaccination coverage between 9 October and 5 December 2023. VE against hospitalisation was 70.7% (95% CI: 66.6-74.3), VE against ICU admission was 73.3% (95% CI: 42.2-87.6).

Performance of a Point-of-Care Fluorescence Immunoassay Test to Measure the Anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 Spike, Receptor Binding Domain Antibody Level

Quantitative determination of anti-SARS-CoV2-S-RBD is necessary for the evaluation of vaccination effectiveness. The surrogate viral neutralization test (SVNT) is approved for measuring anti-SARS-CoV2-S-RBD, but a point-of-care platform is needed to simplify anti-SARS-CoV-2-S-RBD measurement. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a rapid fluorescent immunoassay-based kit, FastBio-RBDTM, compared to the SVNT. During April-September 2021, we enrolled two groups of subjects, convalescent subjects and subjects without a COVID-19 history. The subjects were tested for the anti-SARS-CoV2-S-RBD antibody using FastBio-RBDTM and the GenScript-cPASSTM SVNT. We measured the correlation coefficient and conducted an ROC analysis to determine the best cut-off value of anti-SARS-CoV2-S-RBD against the SVNT percent inhibition levels of 30% and 60%. We included 109 subjects. Anti-SARS-CoV-2-S-RBD strongly correlated to SVNT % inhibition with an R value of 0.866 (p < 0.0001). The ROC analysis showed that the anti-SARS-CoV-2-S-RBD of 6.71 AU/mL had 95.7% sensitivity and 87.5% specificity to detect a percentage inhibition of 30%. The anti-SARS-CoV-2-S-RBD of 59.76 AU/mL had a sensitivity of 88.1% and specificity of 97.0% to detect a percentage inhibition of 60%. FastBio-RBDTM could determine the presence and level of anti-SARS-CoV-2-S-RBD with good sensitivity and specificity. It has the potential to be deployed in health facilities with limited resources.

Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake in The Netherlands: A Nationwide Registry-Based Study

By September 2022, the uptake of at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine in the Dutch adult population was 84%. Ecological studies have indicated a lower uptake in certain population groups. We aimed to investigate determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in the Netherlands at individual level to evaluate and optimize implementation of the vaccination program and generate hypotheses for research on drivers of, and barriers to, vaccination. A retrospective database study was performed including the entire Dutch population ≥ 18. Vaccination data (5 January 2021-18 November 2021) were at individual levels linked to sociodemographic data. Random forest analyses ranked sociodemographic determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. The most important determinant was age; uptake increased until the age of 80 (67% in 18-35 years, 92% in 67-79 years, and 88% in those > 80). Personal income and socioeconomic position ranked second and third, followed by migration status. Uptake was lower among individuals in the lowest income group (69%), those receiving social benefits (56%), and individuals with two parents born abroad (59%). Our finding that age is the most important determinant for uptake likely reflects the prioritisation of elderly in the programme and the general understanding of their increased vulnerability. However, our findings also reveal important other disparities in vaccine uptake. How to best address this inequity in future vaccination campaigns requires further research.

Questionable robustness in the findings of a meta-analysis

Marchand and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis examining COVID vaccine effects on all-cause and cardiac-related mortality. Findings aligned with previous research, showing no association with all-cause mortality. However, cardiac-related mortality exhibited a 6% increase post-vaccination. Concerns arise from reliance on a non-peer-reviewed study (Ladapo, 2022) influencing results significantly. Sensitivity analyses were lacking, undermining result robustness, particularly in gender-specific outcomes. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines for transparency and thoroughness could strengthen conclusions. This study underscores vaccine safety scrutiny, yet the influence of biased sources and absence of sensitivity testing warrant careful consideration.