Effectiveness of an inactivated Covid-19 vaccine with homologous and heterologous boosters against Omicron in Brazil

Effectiveness of the fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccines against severe COVID-19 among adults 40 years or older in Brazil: a population-based cohort study

Background

The emergence of COVID-19 variants with immune scape and the waning of primary vaccine schemes effectiveness have prompted many countries to indicate first and second booster COVID-19 vaccine doses to prevent severe COVID-19. However, current available evidence on second booster dose effectiveness are mostly limited to high-income countries, older adults, and mRNA-based vaccination schemes scenarios. We aimed to investigate the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of the fourth dose compared to three doses for severe COVID-19 outcomes in Brazil; and compare the rVE of a fourth dose with an mRNA vaccine compared to adenovirus-based product in the same settings.

Methods

We performed a target emulated trial using a population-based cohort of individuals aged 40 years or older who have received a homologous primary scheme of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, or BNT162b2, and any third dose product and were eligible for the fourth dose in Brazil. The primary outcome was COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death. We built Cohort A matching individuals vaccinated with a fourth dose to individuals who received three doses to estimate the rVE of the fourth dose. We built Cohort B, a subset of Cohort A, matching mRNA-based (mRNA) to adenovirus-based fourth dose vaccinated individuals to compare their relative hazards for severe COVID-19.

Findings

46,693,484 individuals were included in Cohort A and 6,763,016 in Cohort B. 45% of them were aged between 40 and 60 years old, and 48% between 60 and 79 years old. In Cohort A, the most common previous series was a ChAdOx1 two-dose followed by BNT162b2 (44%), and a CoronaVac two-dose followed by a BNT162b2 (36%). Among those fourth dose vaccinated, 36.9% received ChAdOx1, 32.7% Ad26.COV2.S, 25.8% BNT162b2, and 4.7% CoronaVac. In Cohort B, among those who received an adenovirus fourth dose, 53.7% received ChAdOx1 and 46.3% received Ad26.COV2.S. The estimated rVE for the primary outcome of four doses compared to three doses was 44.1% (95% CI 42.3-46.0), with some waning during follow-up (rVE 7-60 days 46.8% [95% CI 44.4-49.1], rVE after 120 days 33.8% [95% CI 18.0-46.6]). Among fourth dose vaccinated individuals, mRNA-based vaccinated individuals had lower hazards for hospitalization or death compared to adenovirus-vaccinated individuals (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.87). After 120 days, no difference in hazards between groups was observed (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93-1.97). Similar findings were observed for hospitalization and death separately, except no evidence for differences between fourth dose brands for death in Cohort B.

Interpretation

In a heterogeneous scenario of primary and first booster vaccination combinations, a fourth dose provided meaningful and durable protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes. Compared to adenovirus-based booster, a fourth dose wild-type mRNA vaccine was associated with immediate lower hazards of hospitalization or death unsustained after 120 days.

Funding

None.

Third vaccine boosters and anti-S-IgG levels: A comparison of homologous and heterologous responses and poor immunogenicity in hepatocellular carcinoma

The immune response of patients with chronic liver disease tends to be lower after receiving their second coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine dose, but the effect of a third vaccine dose on their immune response is currently unknown. We recruited 722 patients without previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from three hospitals. The patients received homologous (MMM) and heterologous (AZAZBNT, AZAZM) boosters, where AZ, BNT, and M denoted the AZD1222, BNT162b2, and mRNA-1273 vaccines, respectively. Serum IgG spike antibody levels were measured at a mean 1.5 ± 0.7 (visit 1) and 5.0 ± 0.5 (visit 2) months after the third vaccine booster. A threshold of 4160 AU/mL was considered significant antibody activity. In both visits, the patients who received the MMM booster had higher anti-S-IgG levels than those who received the AZAZBNT and AZAZM boosters. Patients with active hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) had lower anti-S-IgG levels than the control group (761.6 vs. 1498.2 BAU/mL; p = 0.019) at visit 1. The anti-S-IgG levels decreased significantly at visit 2. The patients with significant antibody activity had a lower rate of liver cirrhosis with decompensation (0.7% decompensation vs. 8.0% non-decompensation and 91.3% non-liver cirrhosis, p = 0.015), and active HCC (1.5% active HCC vs. 3.7% non-active HCC and 94.7% non-HCC, p < 0.001). Receiving the MMM booster regimen (OR = 10.67, 95% CI 5.20-21.91, p < 0.001) increased the odds of having significant antibody activity compared with the AZAZBNT booster regimen. Patients with active HCC had a reduced immune response to the third COVID-19 vaccine booster. These findings underscore the importance of booster vaccinations, especially in immunocompromised patients, with superior efficacy observed with the homologous mRNA-1273 regimen.

How has research on the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccination been evaluated: a scope review with emphasis on CoronaVac

Introduction

The control of the COVID-19 epidemic has been focused on the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. All developed vaccines have reported safety and efficacy results in preventing infection and its consequences, although the quality of evidence varies depending on the vaccine considered. Different methodological designs have been used for their evaluation, which can influence our understanding of the effects of these interventions. CoronaVac is an inactivated vaccine, and it has been assessed in various studies, including clinical trials and observational studies. Given these differences, our objective was to explore the published information to answer the question: how has the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of CoronaVac been evaluated in different studies? This is to identify potential gaps and challenges to be addressed in understanding its effect.

Methods

A scoping review was carried out following the methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute, which included studies carried out in humans as of 2020, corresponding to systematic reviews, clinical trials, analytical or descriptive observational studies, in which the effectiveness and/or safety of vaccines for COVID19 were evaluated or described. There were no age restrictions for the study participants.

Results

The efficacy/effectiveness and safety of this vaccine was assessed through 113 studies. Nineteen corresponded to experimental studies, 7 of Phase II, 5 of Phase IV, and 4 were clinical trials with random assignment. Although some clinical trials with random assignment have been carried out, these have limitations in terms of feasibility, follow-up times, and with this, the possibility of evaluating safety outcomes that occur with low frequencies. Not all studies have used homogeneous methods of analysis. Both the prevention of infection, and the prevention of outcomes such as hospitalization or death, have been valued through similar outcomes, but some through multivariate analysis of dependencies, and others through analysis that try to infer causally through different control methods of confounding.

Conclusion

Published information on the evaluation of the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of the CoronaVac is abundant. However, there are differences in terms of vaccine application schedules, population definition, outcomes evaluated, follow-up times, and safety assessment, as well as non-standardization in the reporting of results, which may hinder the generalizability of the findings. It is important to generate meetings and consensus strategies for the methods and reporting of this type of studies, which will allow to reduce the heterogeneity in their presentation and a better understanding of the effect of these vaccines.

Current Progress, Challenges and Prospects in the Development of COVID-19 Vaccines

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in over 772 million confirmed cases, including nearly 7 million deaths, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Leveraging rapid development, accelerated vaccine approval processes, and large-scale production of various COVID-19 vaccines using different technical platforms, the WHO declared an end to the global health emergency of COVID-19 on May 5, 2023. Current COVID-19 vaccines encompass inactivated, live attenuated, viral vector, protein subunit, nucleic acid (DNA and RNA), and virus-like particle (VLP) vaccines. However, the efficacy of these vaccines is diminishing due to the constant mutation of SARS-CoV-2 and the heightened immune evasion abilities of emerging variants. This review examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the biological characteristics of the virus, and its diverse variants. Moreover, the review underscores the effectiveness, advantages, and disadvantages of authorized COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, it analyzes the challenges, strategies, and future prospects of developing a safe, broad-spectrum vaccine that confers sufficient and sustainable immune protection against new variants of SARS-CoV-2. These discussions not only offer insight for the development of next-generation COVID-19 vaccines but also summarize experiences for combating future emerging viruses.

Dynamic Profiling and Prediction of Antibody Response to SARS-CoV-2 Booster-Inactivated Vaccines by Microsample-Driven Biosensor and Machine Learning

Knowledge of the antibody response to the third dose of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is crucial because it is the subject of one of the largest global vaccination programs. This study integrated microsampling with optical biosensors to profile neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in fifteen vaccinated healthy donors, followed by the application of machine learning to predict antibody response at given timepoints. Over a nine-month duration, microsampling and venipuncture were conducted at seven individual timepoints. A refined iteration of a fiber optic biolayer interferometry (FO-BLI) biosensor was designed, enabling rapid multiplexed biosensing of the NAbs of both wild-type and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants in minutes. Findings revealed a strong correlation (Pearson r of 0.919, specificity of 100%) between wild-type variant NAb levels in microsamples and sera. Following the third dose, sera NAb levels of the wild-type variant increased 2.9-fold after seven days and 3.3-fold within a month, subsequently waning and becoming undetectable after three months. Considerable but incomplete evasion of the latest Omicron subvariants from booster vaccine-elicited NAbs was confirmed, although a higher number of binding antibodies (BAbs) was identified by another rapid FO-BLI biosensor in minutes. Significantly, FO-BLI highly correlated with a pseudovirus neutralization assay in identifying neutralizing capacities (Pearson r of 0.983). Additionally, machine learning demonstrated exceptional accuracy in predicting antibody levels, with an error level of <5% for both NAbs and BAbs across multiple timepoints. Microsample-driven biosensing enables individuals to access their results within hours of self-collection, while precise models could guide personalized vaccination strategies. The technology's innate adaptability means it has the potential for effective translation in disease prevention and vaccine development.

Immunogenicity and safety of RAZI recombinant spike protein vaccine (RCP) as a booster dose after priming with BBIBP-CorV: a parallel two groups, randomized, double blind trial

BACKGROUND

The immunity induced by primary vaccination is effective against COVID-19; however, booster vaccines are needed to maintain vaccine-induced immunity and improve protection against emerging variants. Heterologous boosting is believed to result in more robust immune responses. This study investigated the safety and immunogenicity of the Razi Cov Pars vaccine (RCP) as a heterologous booster dose in people primed with Beijing Bio-Institute of Biological Products Coronavirus Vaccine (BBIBP-CorV).

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial in adults aged 18 and over primarily vaccinated with BBIBP-CorV, an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a booster dose of RCP or BBIBP-CorV vaccines. The primary outcome was neutralizing antibody activity measured by a conventional virus neutralization test (cVNT). The secondary efficacy outcomes included specific IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1 and receptor-binding domain, RBD) antigens and cell-mediated immunity. We measured humoral antibody responses at 2 weeks (in all participants) and 3 and 6 months (a subgroup of 101 participants) after the booster dose injection. The secondary safety outcomes were solicited and unsolicited immediate, local, and systemic adverse reactions.

RESULTS

We recruited 483 eligible participants between December 7, 2021, and January 13, 2022. The mean age was 51.9 years, and 68.1% were men. Neutralizing antibody titers increased about 3 (geometric mean fold increase, GMFI = 2.77, 95% CI 2.26-3.39) and 21 (GMFI = 21.51, 95% CI 16.35-28.32) times compared to the baseline in the BBIBP-CorV and the RCP vaccine groups. Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 95% CI for serum neutralizing antibody titers for RCP compared with BBIBP-CorV on days 14, 90, and 180 were 6.81 (5.32-8.72), 1.77 (1.15-2.72), and 2.37 (1.62-3.47) respectively. We observed a similar pattern for specific antibody responses against S1 and RBD. We detected a rise in gamma interferon (IFN-γ), tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α), and interleukin 2 (IL-2) following stimulation with S antigen, particularly in the RCP group, and the flow cytometry examination showed an increase in the percentage of CD3 + /CD8 + lymphocytes. RCP and BBIBP-CorV had similar safety profiles; we identified no vaccine-related or unrelated deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

BBIBP-CorV and RCP vaccines as booster doses are safe and provide a strong immune response that is more robust when the RCP vaccine is used. Heterologous vaccines are preferred as booster doses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trial at www.irct.ir , IRCT20201214049709N4. Registered 29 November 2021.

Viral coinfection in hospitalized patients during the COVID-19 pandemic in Southern Brazil: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Since the worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2, different strategies have been followed to combat the pandemic and limit virus transmission. In the meantime, other respiratory viruses continued to circulate, though at decreased rates.

METHODS

This study was conducted between June and July 2022, in a hospital in the metropolitan region of Rio Grande do Sul state, in the southernmost state of Brazil. The 337 hospitalized patients included those with respiratory symptoms without delimitation of age. Reverse transcription-quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction detected 15 different respiratory viruses and confirmed coinfections in the samples. Different statistical tests were applied to evaluate the association between associations of clinical characteristics and coinfection.

RESULTS

Sampling corresponds to 337 selected and 330 patients analyzed. The principal clinical outcome found was hospital discharge in 309 (94%) cases, while 21 (6%) resulted in death. The principal viral agents related to coinfections were Human rhinovirus, Human enterovirus, and Respiratory syncytial virus. The most frequent viral agent detected was SARS-CoV-2, with 60 (18%) infections, followed by 51 (15%) cases of Respiratory syncytial virus B (15%) and 44 (13%) cases of Human rhinovirus 1. Coinfection was mainly observed in children, while adults and the elderly were more affected by a single infection. Analyzing COVID-19 vaccination, 175 (53%) were unvaccinated while the remainder had at least one dose of the vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents information to update the understanding of viral circulation in the region. Furthermore, the findings clarify the behavior of viral infections and possible coinfections in hospitalized patients, considering different ages and clinical profiles. In addition, this knowledge can help to monitor the population's clinical manifestations and prevent future outbreaks of respiratory viruses.

Real-world effectiveness of the inactivated COVID-19 vaccines against variant of concerns: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has killed over 6 million people worldwide, making it the worst global health disaster since the 1918 influenza pandemic. Experts have worked to establish the source, track and analyse the disease, and produce treatment and preventative guidelines. Inactivated vaccines have little evidence of efficacy compared to mRNA and adenoviral vector vaccines; however, three doses of both mRNA and inactivated vaccines appear to provide significant and lasting protection against severe disease and mortality. This study examines inactivated vaccine effectiveness data by disease status, age, gender, primary immunisation, booster doses, and SARS-CoV2 virus types.

METHODS

We conducted a quantitative epidemiological meta-analysis study to assess the vaccine effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines. Data extraction was performed on the selected studies, and data analysis was conducted using a random-effects model to determine consolidated assessments of vaccine effectiveness. Subgroup analyses were conducted for gender, age, disease level, and vaccine status, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The overall effect size of inactivated COVID-19 vaccinations was statistically significant (p-value<0.05), suggesting that complete vaccination should be the primary method of vaccination. Partial vaccination was associated with lower levels of vaccine effectiveness (70.18 95% CI 57.33-83.02) than complete vaccination (79.52 95% CI 67.88-91.71)) and booster vaccination (84.22 95% CI 74.34-94.10), suggesting that it is essential to finish the recommended vaccine series and receive booster doses. Fig.-3: Partially vaccinated individuals showed a vaccine effect size of 70.18 (95% CI 57.33-83.02), indicating that the vaccine was moderately effective in preventing COVID-19 among this group. Fully vaccinated individuals showed a vaccine effect size of 79.52 (95% CI 67.88-91.71), indicating a higher level of vaccine effectiveness. Finally, booster-vaccinated individuals showed a vaccine effect size of 84.22 (95% CI 74.34-94.10), indicating the highest level of vaccine effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Inactivated COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in preventing COVID-19, and complete vaccination and booster vaccination are associated with higher levels of vaccine effectiveness compared to partial vaccination. These findings highlight the importance of completing the recommended vaccine series and receiving booster doses to provide greater protection against COVID-19.

Dynamic clade transitions and the influence of vaccine rollout on the spatiotemporal circulation of SARS-CoV-2 variants in São Paulo, Brazil

Since 2021, the emergence of variants of concern (VOC) has led Brazil to experience record numbers of in COVID-19 cases and deaths. The expanded spread of the SARS-CoV-2 combined with a low vaccination rate has contributed to the emergence of new mutations that may enhance viral fitness, leading to the persistence of the disease. Due to limitations in the real-time genomic monitoring of new variants in some Brazilian states, we aimed to investigate whether genomic surveillance, coupled with epidemiological data and SARS-CoV-2 variants spatiotemporal spread in a smaller region, can reflect the pandemic progression at a national level. Our findings revealed three SARS-CoV-2 variant replacements from 2021 to early 2022, corresponding to the introduction and increase in the frequency of Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants, as indicated by peaks of the Effective Reproductive Number (Reff). These distinct clade replacements triggered two waves of COVID-19 cases, influenced by the increasing vaccine uptake over time. Our results indicated that the effectiveness of vaccination in preventing new cases during the Delta and Omicron circulations was six and eleven times higher, respectively, than during the period when Gamma was predominant, and it was highly efficient in reducing the number of deaths. Furthermore, we demonstrated that genomic monitoring at a local level can reflect the national trends in the spread and evolution of SARS-CoV-2.

Immunogenicity and durability against Omicron BA.1, BA.2 and BA.4/5 variants at 3-4 months after a heterologous COVID-19 booster vaccine in healthy adults with a two-doses CoronaVac vaccination

Background

Several countries have authorized a booster vaccine campaign to combat the spread of COVID-19. Data on persistence of booster vaccine-induced immunity against new Omicron subvariants are still limited. Therefore, our study aimed to determine the serological immune response of COVID-19 booster after CoronaVac-priming.

Methods

A total of 187 CoronaVac-primed participants were enrolled and received an inactivated (BBIBP), viral vector (AZD1222) or mRNA vaccine (full-/half-dose BNT162B2, full-/half-dose mRNA-1273) as a booster dose. The persistence of humoral immunity both binding and neutralizing antibodies against wild-type and Omicron was determined on day 90-120 after booster.

Results

A waning of total RBD immunoglobulin (Ig) levels, anti-RBD IgG, and neutralizing antibodies against Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.4/5 variants was observed 90-120 days after booster vaccination. Participants who received mRNA-1273 had the highest persistence of the immunogenicity response, followed by BNT162b2, AZD1222, and BBIBP-CorV. The responses between full and half doses of mRNA-1273 were comparable. The percentage reduction of binding antibody ranged from 50 % to 75 % among all booster vaccine.

Conclusions

The antibody response substantially waned after 90-120 days post-booster dose. The heterologous mRNA and the viral vector booster demonstrated higher detectable rate of humoral immune responses against the Omicron variant compared to the inactivated BBIBP booster. Nevertheless, an additional fourth dose is recommended to maintain immune response against infection.

Immunogenicity and safety of boosting with a recombinant two-component SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: two randomized, parallel-controlled, phase 2 studies

BACKGROUND

Recombinant protein vaccines are vital for broad protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants. This study assessed ReCOV as a booster in two Phase 2 trials.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Study-1 involved subjects were randomized (1:1:1) to receive 20 μg ReCOV, 40 μg ReCOV, or an inactivated vaccine (COVILO®) in the United Arab Emirates. Study-2 participating individuals were randomized (1:1:1) to receive 20 μg ReCOV (pilot batch, ReCOV HA), 20 μg ReCOV (commercial batch, ReCOV TC), or 30 μg BNT162b2 (COMIRNATY®) in the Philippines. The primary immunogenicity objectives was to compare the geometric mean titer (GMT) and seroconversion rate (SCR) of neutralizing antibodies induced by one ReCOV booster dose with those of inactivated vaccine and BNT162b2, respectively, at 14 days post-booster.

RESULTS

Heterologous ReCOV booster doses were safe and induced comparable immune responses to inactivated vaccines and BNT162b2 against Omicron variants and the prototype. They showed significant advantages in cross-neutralization against multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants, surpassing inactivated vaccines and BNT162b2, with good immune persistence.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterologous ReCOV boosting was safe and effective, showing promise in combating COVID-19. The study highlights ReCOV's potential for enhanced protection, supported by strong cross-neutralization and immune persistence.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Study-1, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT05323435; Study-2, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT05084989.

Safety and immunogenicity of a heterologous booster with an RBD virus-like particle vaccine following two- or three-dose inactivated COVID-19 vaccine

LYB001 is an innovative recombinant SARS-CoV-2 vaccine that displays a repetitive array of the spike glycoprotein's receptor-binding domain (RBD) on a virus-like particle (VLP) vector to boost the immune system, produced using Covalink plug-and-display protein binding technology. LYB001's safety and immunogenicity were assessed in 119 participants receiving a booster with (1) 30 μg LYB001 (I-I-30 L) or CoronaVac (I-I-C), (2) 60 μg LYB001 (I-I-60 L) or CoronaVac in a ratio of 2:1 after two-dose primary series of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine, and (3) 30 μg LYB001 (I-I-I-30 L) after three-dose inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. A well-tolerated reactogenicity profile was observed for LYB001 as a heterologous booster, with adverse reactions being predominantly mild in severity and transient. LYB001 elicited a substantial increase in terms of the neutralizing antibody response against prototype SARS-CoV-2 28 days after booster, with GMT (95%CI) of 1237.8 (747.2, 2050.6), 554.3 (374.6, 820.2), 181.9 (107.6, 307.6), and 1200.2 (831.5, 1732.3) in the I-I-30 L, I-I-60 L, I-I-C, and I-I-I-30 L groups, respectively. LYB001 also elicited a cross-neutralizing antibody response against the BA.4/5 strain, dominant during the study period, with GMT of 201.1 (102.7, 393.7), 63.0 (35.1, 113.1), 29.2 (16.9, 50.3), and 115.3 (63.9, 208.1) in the I-I-30 L, I-I-60 L, I-I-C, and I-I-I-30 L groups, respectively, at 28 days after booster. Additionally, RBD-specific IFN-γ, IL-2, IL-4 secreting T cells dramatically increased at 14 days after a single LYB001 booster. Our data confirmed the favorable safety and immunogenicity profile of LYB001 and supported the continued clinical development of this promising candidate that utilizes the VLP platform to provide protection against COVID-19.

Protection of homologous and heterologous boosters after primary schemes of rAd26-rAd5, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BBIBP-CorV during the omicron outbreak in adults of 50 years and older in Argentina: a test-negative case-control study

Background

After primary vaccination schemes with rAd26-rAd5 (Sputnik V), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, BBIBP-CorV or heterologous combinations, the effectiveness of homologous or heterologous boosters (Sputnik V, ChAdOx, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) against SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalisations and deaths has been scarcely studied.

Methods

Test-negative, case-control study, conducted in Argentina during omicron BA.1 predominance, in adults ≥50 years old tested for SARS-CoV-2 who had received two or three doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Outcomes were COVID-associated infections, hospitalisations and deaths after administering mRNA and vectored boosters, < or ≥60 days from the last dose.

Findings

Of 422,124 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2, 221,993 (52.5%) tested positive; 190,884 (45.2%) and 231,260 (54.8%) had received 2-dose and 3-dose vaccination schemes, respectively. The 3-dose scheme reduced infections, hospitalisations and death (OR 0.81 [0.80-0.83]; 0.28 [0.25-0.32] and 0.25 [0.22-0.28] respectively), but protection dropped after 60 days to 1.04 [1.01-1.06]; 0.52 [0.44-0.61] and 0.38 [0.33-0.45]). Compared with 2-dose-schemes, homologous boosters after primary schemes with vectored-vaccines provided lower protection against infections < and ≥60 days (0.94 [0.92-0.97] and 1.05 [1.01-1.09], respectively) but protected against hospitalisations (0.30 [0.26-0.35]) and deaths (0.29 [0.25-0.33]), decreasing after 60 days (0.59 [0.47-0.74] and 0.51 [0.41-0.64], respectively). Heterologous boosters protected against infections (0.70 [0.68-0.71]) but decreased after 60 days (1.01 [0.98-1.04]) and against hospitalisations and deaths (0.26 [0.22-0.31] and 0.22 [0.18-0.25], respectively), which also decreased after 60 days (0.43 [0.35-0.53] and 0.33 [0.26-0.41], respectively). Heterologous boosters protected against infections when applied <60 days (0.70 [0.68-0.71], p < 0.001), against hospitalisations when applied ≥60 days (0.43 [0.35-0.53], p < 0.01), and against deaths < and ≥60 days (0.22 [0.18-0.25], p < 0.01 and 0.33 [0.26-0.41], p < 0.001).

Interpretation

During omicron predominance, heterologous boosters such as viral vectored and mRNA vaccines, following Sputnik V, ChAdOx1, Sinopharm or heterologous primary schemes might provide better protection against death; this effect might last longer in individuals aged ≥50 than homologous boosters.

Funding

None.

COVID-19 vaccine booster doses provide increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with previously vaccinated individuals: Interim findings from the REFORCO-Brazil real-world effectiveness study during Delta and Omicron

BACKGROUND

Although COVID-19 booster vaccination is widely recommended, there is limited long-term, population-level, real-world evidence on the magnitude of improved protection against severe COVID-19 conferred by boosting with monovalent COVID-19 vaccines developed against ancestral SARS-CoV-2, especially in low- or middle-income countries. We present interim results from the first large-scale assessment of the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of first and second booster doses against severe COVID-19 in a low-/middle-income country.

METHODS

REFORCO-Brazil is an ongoing, test-negative case-control study (NCT05697705) utilizing Brazil national severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) surveillance and vaccination data. In SARS hospitalizations from August 1, 2021 to July 31, 2022, we matched test-positive (via SARS-CoV-2 antigen/reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]) cases and test-negative case-controls (via RT-PCR) based on admission date, preceding vaccinations, and age. We evaluated the rVEs of four monovalent COVID-19 vaccines (AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, CoronaVac, and BNT162b2) as second boosters compared with any first boosters received ≥4 months previously, and as first boosters compared with primary-series vaccinations completed ≥4 months previously.

RESULTS

The overall rVE of second boosters, from 5668 (2238 test-positive) evaluated hospitalizations, was 24.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 12.6-35.1); the overall rVE of first boosters, from 30,272 (12,063 test-positive) hospitalizations, was 46.8 % (95 % CI: 43.3-50.0). The rVEs of AZD1222 and BNT162b2 were similar: 29.4 % (95 % CI: 8.6-45.5) and 25.5 % (95 % CI: 4.2-42.2), respectively, for second boosters; and 42.5 % (95 % CI: 28.0-54.0) and 50.8 % (95 % CI: 47.5-54.0), respectively, for first boosters. In general, rVEs were higher in elderly (≥80 years) and immunocompromised/high-risk individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the use of AZD1222 and other adenoviral/mRNA vaccine boosters to maintain protection against COVID-19 hospitalization from Omicron subvariants, including in elderly and immunocompromised individuals at increased risk of accelerated waning or severe outcomes.

Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Booster Against Omicron Infection Among Quarantined Close Contacts

Importance

Assessment of additional protection of a booster dose with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is key to developing vaccination strategies for billions of people worldwide who have received the primary 2-dose regimen.

Objective

To estimate the relative effectiveness of a booster dose of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine against Omicron infection.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted among primary close contacts without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection identified in Shenzhen, China, between February and October 2022. Multiple strict nucleic acid testing and symptom surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 infection were regularly conducted during the 7-day centralized plus 7-day home-based quarantine.

Exposure

A booster with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine vs no booster after receipt of the primary 2-dose inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine regimen.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were overall, symptomatic, and asymptomatic infections. Secondary outcomes were length of incubation and level of cycle threshold values. All the outcomes were assessed during the quarantine period.

Results

Among 119 438 eligible participants (mean [SD] age, 37.6 [12.0] years; 66 201 men [55.4%]), 86 251 (72.2%) received a booster dose of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and 33 187 (27.8%) did not. A total of 671 cases infected with Omicron BA.2 were confirmed (464 symptomatic and 207 asymptomatic), and no severe infection or death events were observed. At a median (IQR) duration of 111 (75 to 134) days after booster vaccination, the relative effectiveness of a booster was 32.2% (95% CI, 11.3% to 48.2%) for overall infection, 23.8% (95% CI, -8.2% to 46.4%) for symptomatic infection, and 43.3% (95% CI, 12.3% to 63.3%) for asymptomatic infection. The effectiveness against overall infection changed nonlinearly over time following booster vaccination: 44.9% (95% CI, 4.9% to 68.1%) within 60 days, 50.4% (95% CI, 23.7% to 67.7%) at 61 to 120 days, 29.1% (95% CI, -4.8% to 52.1%) at 121 to 180 days, and 19.4% (95% CI, -14.4% to 43.2%) after 180 days (nonlinear P = .03). The effectiveness did not vary significantly according to the interval between booster vaccination and completion of primary vaccination. There was no association of booster vaccination with incubation or cycle threshold values.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, a booster dose of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine provided additional moderate protection against mild infection for 120 days after receipt, but more research is needed to determine the optimal timing of a booster and its effectiveness in preventing severe infection for a longer duration.

The effectiveness of primary series CoronaVac vaccine in preventing COVID-19 illness: A prospective cohort study among healthcare workers in Azerbaijan, May-November 2021

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have suffered considerable morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Few studies have evaluated the CoronaVac vaccine effectiveness (VE), particularly in Eastern Europe, where the vaccine has been widely used.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study among HCWs in seven hospitals in Baku, Azerbaijan between May 17 and November 30, 2021, to evaluate primary series (two-dose) CoronaVac VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants completed weekly symptom questionnaires, provided nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing when symptomatic, and provided serology samples at enrollment that were tested for anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. We estimated VE as (1 - hazard ratio)*100 using a Cox proportional hazards model with vaccination status as a time-varying exposure, adjusting for hospital and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status.

Results

We enrolled 1582 HCWs. At enrollment, 1040 (66%) had received two doses of CoronaVac; 421 (27%) were unvaccinated. During the study period, 72 PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred; 36/39 (92%) sequenced samples were classified as Delta variants. Primary series VE against COVID-19 illness was 29% (95% CI: -51%; 67%) for the entire analysis period. For the Delta-only period (July 1-November 30, 2021), primary series VE was 19% (95% CI: -81%; 64%). For the entire analysis period, primary series VE was 39% (95% CI: -40%; 73%) for HCWs vaccinated within 14-149 days and 19% (95% CI: -81%; 63%) for those vaccinated ≥150 days.

Conclusions

During a period in Azerbaijan characterized by mostly Delta circulation, VE point estimates suggested that primary series CoronaVac protected nearly 1 in 3 HCWs against COVID-19, but 95% confidence intervals were wide, with lower bounds that crossed zero, reflecting the limited precision of our VE estimates. Our findings underscore the need to consider booster doses for individuals who have received the primary series of CoronaVac.

Pre-infection antibody levels of vaccinated healthcare workers with SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection: A nested case-control study

AIM

To evaluate anti-RBD IgG antibody levels and neutralizing antibody titers between the health care workers (HCWs) with breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection and controls.

METHODS

In this nested case-case control study, we followed 548 vaccinated HCWs with homologous (only with inactivated vaccine) or heterologous (both with inactivated and BNT162b2 vaccine) vaccination for 11 months, prospectively. We obtained blood samples from the participants for quantitative anti-RBD IgG and surrogate neutralization test. The participants with SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity (at least 14 days after the last vaccination) were considered breakthrough infection. We chose 1:2 matched controls from the cohort, according to age, sex and vaccination status. We used R version 4.0.2 for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-five cases and 130 controls were included in the study. The number of the breakthrough infections in HCWs were correlated with the pandemic waves in Türkiye and peaked during Omicron outbreak. The median age of the cases was 39 and 78.5% were female. The cases had more comorbidities than controls, significantly (p = 0.021). All cases experienced no or mild symptoms and recovered completely. Both pre-infection anti-RBD antibody and neutralizing antibody titers did not differ between cases and matched controls (p = 0.767, p = 0.628).

CONCLUSION

In this study, we showed that there was no comparable difference in humoral response after homologous or heterologous vaccination between the cases of breakthrough infection and matched controls. Compliance with infection control measures should be ensured, in combination with vaccination.

Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (RQ3013) given as the fourth booster following three doses of inactivated vaccines: a double-blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3b trial

Background

Heterologous vaccine schedules have been recommended to provide superior immunity and protection against emergent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. We aimed to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine RQ3013 compared with adenoviral vectored vaccine Ad5-nCoV and protein subunit vaccine ZF2001 as the fourth dose in adults primed with three doses of inactivated vaccines in China.

Methods

We conducted a double-blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 3b trial among healthy Chinese adults at Lancang County, Yunnan, China. Adults who had received three doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines at least 6 months prior were randomly allocated (3:1:1) to receive heterologous boosters with RQ3013, Ad5-nCoV, or ZF2001. We assessed safety within 28 days post boost and the serum geometric mean titres (GMTs) of neutralising antibodies (NAbs) against the live SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant BA.5 on day 14 post-boost. We used Poisson regression to assess the vaccine efficacy against the first episode of virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 occurring at least 7 days post boost. Subgroup analyses categorized by age and sex were also performed for safety and immunogenicity outcomes. This trial has been registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200065281) and is now complete.

Findings

Between December 12 and December 18, 2022, a total of 1382 adults were screened, and 1250 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive one dose of RQ3013 (n = 750), Ad5-nCoV (n = 250), or ZF2001 (n = 250). Although solicited adverse reactions within 28 days post boost were more frequent in the RQ3013 group (175 [23.3%]) compared to the control groups (24 [9.6%] in both the Ad5-nCOV and ZF2001 groups, P < 0.05), incidences of Grade 3 events were low (9 [0.7%]) and comparable across three groups (P > 0.05). On day 14 post-boost, RQ3013 (GMT 69.14, 95% CI 47.90-99.81) elicited 4.8-fold and 5.6-fold higher concentrations of NAbs against BA.5 than did Ad5-nCoV (14.37, 7.78-26.56) and ZF2001 (12.21, 5.13-29.06), respectively. On day 28 post-boost, RQ3013 demonstrated a relative efficacy of 62.2% (95% CI 13.7-83.1, P = 0.02) compared to Ad5-nCoV, and of 69.0% (33.5-85.7, P = 0.002) compared to ZF2001.

Interpretation

The administrations of all the three heterologous boosters were well tolerated. The heterologous prime-boost regimen with RQ3013 elicited superior immune responses and demonstrated better protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections compared with Ad5-nCoV or ZF2001, supporting the use of RQ3013 as a booster vaccination in adults.

Funding

Yunnan Province Science and Technology Department (grant no.202302AA310047).

Hybrid Immunity Results in Enhanced and More Sustained Antibody Responses after the Second Sinovac-CoronaVac Dose in a Brazilian Cohort: DETECTCoV-19 Cohort

We measured anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses before and after CoronaVac (inactivated) vaccination in a case-control study performed in CoronaVac-immunized individuals participating in a longitudinal prospective study of adults in Manaus (DETECTCoV-19). Antibody responses were measured by standard serological immunoassays. Peak anti-S-RBD and neutralizing RBD-ACE2 blocking antibody responses after two doses of CoronaVac vaccine were similar in vaccine breakthrough cases (n = 9) and matched controls (n = 45). Individuals with hybrid immunity resulting from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection followed by vaccination (n = 22) had elevated levels of anti-N, anti-S-RBD and RBD-ACE2 blocking antibodies after the second vaccine dose compared to infection-naïve individuals (n = 48). Post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses rapidly waned in infection-naïve individuals. Antibody responses wane after vaccination, making individuals susceptible to infection by SARS-CoV-2 variants. These findings support the need for booster doses after primary vaccination. Population antibody serosurveys provide critical information toward implementing optimal timing of booster doses.

Effectiveness of homologous or heterologous immunization regimens against SARS-CoV-2 after two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine: A systematic review and meta-analysis

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness or efficacy of heterologous or homologous COVID-19 vaccine regimens against COVID-19-related outcomes after primary immunization with two doses of CoronaVac or Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccines. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 31 October 2022. The primary measure was vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection with homologous or heterologous booster. The results showed heterologous and homologous booster significantly improved effectiveness against COVID-19 infection compared to primary immunization. The effectiveness against COVID-19 infection was 89.19% (95%CI 78.49, 99.89) for heterologous mRNA vaccine booster, 87.00% (95%CI 82.14, 91.85) for non-replicating vector vaccine booster, 69.99% (95%CI 52.16, 87.82) for homologous booster, and 51.48% (95%CI 41.75, 61.21) for two doses of inactivated vaccine. Homologous and heterologous regimens were also effective against SARS-CoV-2 variants, and more evidence is still needed to confirm our findings.

Effectiveness of first and second boost COVID-19 vaccination in healthy adults during BA.5.2/BF.7 surge in China

With the development of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there have been doubts about the necessity of vaccine boosters for healthy adults. However, due to the lack of relevant evidence, current research is unable to provide reliable medical advice for COVID-19 boost in healthy adults. We conducted a retrospective observational study to evaluate the effectiveness of different COVID-19 vaccination regimens by investigating the SARS-CoV-2 infection status of healthy donors in Southeast China. From December 2022 to February 2023, 737 healthy adult blood donors were analyzed. Results showed that any COVID-19 vaccine boosts reduced the risk of Omicron BA.5.2/BF.7 infection compared to only receiving prime vaccination (rVE = 16%, 95%CI = 4, 27%). The second boost further enhanced vaccine effectiveness compared to the received first booster (rVE = 39%, 95%CI = 16, 55%). Through retrospective observation of healthy adults during the BA.5.2/BF.7 surge in China, we found that boost vaccinations significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease. Findings show healthy adults benefit from boost vaccinations, even if not at high-risk for severe COVID-19.

Comparative effectiveness of heterologous third dose vaccine schedules against severe covid-19 during omicron predominance in Nordic countries: population based cohort analyses

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the comparative vaccine effectiveness of heterologous booster schedules (ie, three vaccine doses) compared with primary schedules (two vaccine doses) and with homologous mRNA vaccine booster schedules (three vaccine doses) during a period of omicron predominance.

DESIGN

Population based cohort analyses.

SETTING

Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 27 December 2020 to 31 December 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

All adults aged ≥18 years who had received at least a primary vaccination schedule of AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) or monovalent SARS-CoV-2 wild type (ancestral) strain based mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna), in any combination.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measure was country combined risks of covid-19 related hospital admission and death with covid-19 and additional outcomes of covid-19 related admission to an intensive care unit and SARS-CoV-2 infection. During a period of omicron predominance, these outcomes were compared in those who received a heterologous booster versus primary schedule (matched analyses) and versus those who received a homologous mRNA vaccine booster (weighted analyses). Follow-up was for 75 days from day 14 after the booster dose; comparative vaccine effectiveness was calculated as 1-risk ratio.

RESULTS

Across the four Nordic countries, 1 086 418 participants had received a heterologous booster schedule of AZD1222+BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 and 2 505 093 had received a heterologous booster schedule of BNT162b2+mRNA-1273. Compared with the primary schedule only (two doses), the vaccine effectiveness of heterologous booster schedules comprising AZD1222+BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2+mRNA-1273 was 82.7% (95% confidence interval 77.1% to 88.2%) and 81.5% (78.9% to 84.2%) for covid-19 related hospital admission and 95.9% (91.6% to 100.0%) and 87.5% (82.5% to 92.6%) for death with covid-19, respectively. Homologous mRNA booster schedules were similarly associated with increased protection against covid-19 related hospital admission (≥76.5%) and death with covid-19 (≥84.1%) compared with previous primary course vaccination only. When a heterologous booster schedule was compared with the homologous booster schedule, vaccine effectiveness was 27.2% (3.7% to 50.6%) for AZD1222+BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 and 23.3% (15.8% to 30.8%) for BNT162b2+mRNA-1273 schedules against covid-19 related hospital admission and 21.7% (-8.3% to 51.7%) and 18.4% (-15.7% to 52.5%) against death with covid-19, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Heterologous booster schedules are associated with increased protection against severe, omicron related covid-19 outcomes compared with primary course schedules and homologous booster schedules.

Comparison of vaccination and booster rates and their impact on excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic in European countries

Aim

To evaluate the effect of vaccination/booster administration dynamics on the reduction of excess mortality during COVID-19 infection waves in European countries.

Methods

We selected twenty-nine countries from the OurWorldInData project database according to their population size of more than one million and the availability of information on dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants during COVID-19 infection waves. After selection, we categorized countries according to their "faster" or "slower" vaccination rates. The first category included countries that reached 60% of vaccinated residents by October 2021 and 70% by January 2022. The second or "slower" category included all other countries. In the first or "faster" category, two groups, "boosters faster'' and "boosters slower" were created. Pearson correlation analysis, linear regression, and chi-square test for categorical data were used to identify the association between vaccination rate and excess mortality. We chose time intervals corresponding to the dominance of viral variants: Wuhan, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1/2.

Results and discussion

The "faster" countries, as opposed to the "slower" ones, did better in protecting their residents from mortality during all periods of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and even before vaccination. Perhaps higher GDP per capita contributed to their better performance throughout the pandemic. During mass vaccination, when the Delta variant prevailed, the contrast in mortality rates between the "faster" and "slower" categories was strongest. The average excess mortality in the "slower" countries was nearly 5 times higher than in the "faster" countries, and the odds ratio (OR) was 4.9 (95% CI 4.4 to 5.4). Slower booster rates were associated with significantly higher mortality during periods dominated by Omicron BA.1 and BA.2, with an OR of 2.6 (CI 95%. 2.1 to 3.3). Among the European countries we analyzed, Denmark, Norway, and Ireland did best, with a pandemic mortality rate of 0.1% of the population or less. By comparison, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Russia had a much higher mortality rate of up to 1% of the population.

Conclusion

Thus, slow vaccination and booster administration was a major factor contributing to an order of magnitude higher excess mortality in "slower" European countries compared to more rapidly immunized countries.

Vaccine coverage and effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic and severe Covid-19 in indigenous people in Brazil: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Indigenous people have historically suffered devastating impacts from epidemics and continue to have lower access to healthcare and be especially vulnerable to respiratory infections. We estimated the coverage and effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 cases among indigenous people in Brazil.

METHODS

We linked nationwide Covid-19 vaccination data with flu-like surveillance records and studied a cohort of vaccinated indigenous people aged ≥ 5 years between 18th January 2021 and 1st March 2022. We considered individuals unexposed from the date they received the first dose of vaccine until the 13th day of vaccination, partially vaccinated from the 14th day after the first dose until the 13th day after receiving the second dose, and fully vaccinated onwards. We estimated the Covid-19 vaccination coverage and used Poisson regression to calculate the relative risks (RR) and vaccine effectiveness (VE) of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1, and BNT162b2 against Covid-19 laboratory-confirmed cases incidence, mortality, hospitalisation, and hospital-progression to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) or death. VE was estimated as (1-RR)*100, comparing unexposed to partially or fully vaccinated.

RESULTS

By 1st March 2022, 48.7% (35.0-62.3) of eligible indigenous people vs. 74.8% (57.9-91.8) overall Brazilians had been fully vaccinated for Covid-19. Among fully vaccinated indigenous people, we found a lower risk of symptomatic cases (RR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.40-0.56) and mortality (RR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.14-1.56) after the 14th day of the second dose. VE for the three Covid-19 vaccines combined was 53% (95%CI:44-60%) for symptomatic cases, 53% (95%CI:-56-86%) for mortality and 41% (95%CI:-35-75%) for hospitalisation. In our sample, we found that vaccination did not reduce Covid-19 related hospitalisation. However, among hospitalised patients, we found a lower risk of progression to ICU (RR: 0.14, 95%CI: 0.02-0.81; VE: 87%, 95%CI:27-98%) and Covid-19 death (RR: 0.04, 95%CI:0.01-0.10; VE: 96%, 95%CI: 90-99%) after the 14th day of the second dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower coverage but similar Covid-19 VE among indigenous people than overall Brazilians suggest the need to expand access, timely vaccination, and urgently offer booster doses to achieve a great level of protection among this group.

Effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infections among healthcare personnel in Pakistan: a test-negative case-control study

OBJECTIVE

During the COVID-19 pandemic, several vaccines that were efficacious in randomised controlled trials were authorised for mass vaccination. In developing countries, inactivated vaccines were widely administered. While inactivated vaccines have been deemed effective in reducing disease severity, for healthcare personnel (HCP), effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections is essential to reduce the risk to vulnerable patients and ensure a stable healthcare workforce. There are limited studies examining inactivated vaccines' effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) in real-world settings. We estimated the effectiveness of inactivated vaccines (BBIBP-CorV and CoronaVac) against reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCP in the setting of emerging SARS-CoV-2 VOCs in Pakistan.

DESIGN

A retrospective matched, test-negative case-control analysis using existing data from an Employee Health database on HCP at a large, private healthcare system in Pakistan.

PARTICIPANTS

4599 HCP were tested between 1 April and 30 September 2021. Each case (PCR positive) was matched to two to six controls (PCR negative) by the date of the RT-PCR test (±7 days) to reduce bias.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The secondary outcome was VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Per cent VE was calculated using (1-OR)*100, with the OR of getting a PCR-confirmed SARS-COV-2 infection estimated using conditional logistic regression, after adjusting for age, gender, work area and history of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

Inactivated vaccines were ineffective against SARS-CoV-2 infections after receiving the first dose (VE 17%, 95% CI -10, 39; p=0.261). They showed modest effectiveness ≥14 days after the second dose against SARS-CoV-2 infections (VE 30%, 95% CI 7, 48; p=0.015) and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections (VE 33%, 95% CI 6, 52; p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Inactivated vaccines show modest effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections in the setting of emerging VOCs. This builds a strong case for boosters and/or additional vaccination.

Longer-term effectiveness of a heterologous coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine booster in healthcare workers in Brazil

Objective

To compare the long-term vaccine effectiveness between those receiving viral vector [Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1)] or inactivated viral (CoronaVac) primary series (2 doses) and those who received an mRNA booster (Pfizer/BioNTech) (the third dose) among healthcare workers (HCWs).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) in Brazil from January 2021 to July 2022. To assess the variation in the effectiveness of booster dose over time, we estimated the effectiveness rate by taking the log risk ratio as a function of time.

Results

Of 14,532 HCWs, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was confirmed in 56.3% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 23.2% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001), and 37.1% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 22.7% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). The highest vaccine effectiveness with mRNA booster was observed 30 days after vaccination: 91% for the CoronaVac vaccine group and 97% for the ChAdOx1 vaccine group. Vacine effectiveness declined to 55% and 67%, respectively, at 180 days. Of 430 samples screened for mutations, 49.5% were SARS-CoV-2 delta variants and 34.2% were SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants.

Conclusions

Heterologous COVID-19 vaccines were effective for up to 180 days in preventing COVID-19 in the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant eras, which suggests the need for a second booster.

Immunogenicity and safety of heterologous immunisation with Ad5-nCOV in healthy adults aged 60 years and older primed with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac): a phase 4, randomised, observer-blind, non-inferiority trial

Background

People over 60 have been found to develop less protection after two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines than younger people. Heterologous immunisation could potentially induce more robust immune responses compared to homologous immunisation. We aimed to assess the immunogenicity and safety of a heterologous immunisation with an adenovirus type 5-vectored vaccine (Ad5-nCOV, Convidecia) among elderly who were primed with an inactivated vaccine (CoronaVac) previously.

Methods

We did a randomised, observer-blinded, non-inferiority trial in healthy adults aged 60 years and older in Lianshui County (Jiangsu, China) between August 26, 2021 and May 15, 2022. 199 eligible participants who had received two doses of CoronaVac in the past 3-6 months were randomised (1:1) to receive a third dose of Convidecia (group A, n = 99) or CoronaVac (group B, n = 100), while 100 participants primed with one dose of CoronaVac in the past 1-2 months were randomised equally to receive a second dose of Convidecia (group C, n = 50) or CoronaVac (group D, n = 50). Participants and investigators were masked to the vaccine received. Primary outcomes were the geometric mean titers (GMTs) of neutralising antibodies against live SARS-CoV-2 virus 14 days after boosting and 28-day adverse reactions. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.govNCT04952727.

Findings

A heterologous third dose of Convidecia resulted in a 6.2-fold (GMTs: 286.4 vs 48.2), 6.3-fold (45.9 vs 7.3) and 7.5-fold (32.9 vs 4.4) increase in neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (BA.1.1) 14 days post boosting, respectively, compared with the homologous boost. The heterologous booster with Convidecia induced significantly higher neutralsing activities, with up to 91% inhibition in binding of Spike to ACE2 for BA.4 and BA.5 variants, compared with 35% inhibition induced by three doses of CoronaVac. For participants primed with one dose of CoronaVac, a heterologous dose of Convidecia induced higher neutralising antibodies against wild-type than two doses of CoronaVac (GMTs: 70.9 vs 9.3, p < 0.0001), but not for that against variants of concern (GMTs against delta: 5.0 vs 4.0, p = 0.4876; GMTs against omicron: 4.8 vs 3.7, p = 0.4707). Adverse reactions were reported by 8 (8.1%) participants in group A and 4 (4.0%) in group B (p ＞ 0.05), and 8 (16.0%) in group C and 1 (2.0%) in group D (p = 0.031).

Interpretation

In elderly individuals primed with two doses of CoronaVac, the heterologous immunisation with Convidecia induced strong antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 wildtype and variants of concern, which could be an alternative regimen for enhancing protection in this vulnerable population.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China, Jiangsu Provincial Key Research and Development Program, and Jiangsu Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars Program.

T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2: what if the known best is not the optimal course for the long run? Adapting to evolving targets

Humanity did surprisingly well so far, considering how unprepared it was to respond to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) threat. By blending old and ingenious new technology in the context of the accumulated knowledge on other human coronaviruses, several vaccine candidates were produced and tested in clinical trials in record time. Today, five vaccines account for the bulk of the more than 13 billion doses administered worldwide. The ability to elicit biding and neutralizing antibodies most often against the spike protein is a major component of the protection conferred by immunization but alone it is not enough to limit virus transmission. Thus, the surge in numbers of infected individuals by newer variants of concern (VOCs) was not accompanied by a proportional increase in severe disease and death rate. This is likely due to antiviral T-cell responses, whose evasion is more difficult to achieve. The present review helps navigating the very large literature on T cell immunity induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and vaccination. We examine the successes and shortcomings of the vaccinal protection in the light of the emergence of VOCs with breakthrough potential. SARS-CoV-2 and human beings will likely coexist for a long while: it will be necessary to update existing vaccines to improve T-cell responses and attain better protection against COVID-19.

Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against Omicron infection and severe events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of test-negative design studies

Background

A rapidly growing body was observed of literature evaluating the vaccine effectiveness (VE) against Omicron in test-negative design studies.

Methods

We systematically searched papers that evaluated VE of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, Scopus, bioRxiv, and medRxiv published from November 26th, 2021, to June 27th, 2022 (full doses and the first booster), and to January 8th, 2023 (the second booster). The pooled VE against Omicron-associated infection and severe events were estimated.

Results

From 2,552 citations identified, 42 articles were included. The first booster provided stronger protection against Omicron than full doses alone, shown by VE estimates of 53.1% (95% CI: 48.0-57.8) vs. 28.6% (95% CI: 18.5-37.4) against infection and 82.5% (95% CI: 77.8-86.2) vs. 57.3% (95% CI: 48.5-64.7) against severe events. The second booster offered strong protection among adults within 60 days of vaccination against infection (VE=53.1%, 95% CI: 48.0-57.8) and severe events (VE=87.3% (95% CI: 75.5-93.4), comparable to the first booster with corresponding VE estimates of 59.9% against infection and 84.8% against severe events. The VE estimates of booster doses against severe events among adults sustained beyond 60 days, 77.6% (95% CI: 69.4-83.6) for first and 85.9% (95% CI: 80.3-89.9) for the second booster. The VE estimates against infection were less sustainable regardless of dose type. Pure mRNA vaccines provided comparable protection to partial mRNA vaccines, but both provided higher protection than non-mRNA vaccines.

Conclusions

One or two SARS-CoV-2 booster doses provide considerable protection against Omicron infection and substantial and sustainable protection against Omicron-induced severe clinical outcomes.

Waning vaccine response to severe COVID-19 outcomes during omicron predominance in Thailand

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has evolved quickly, with different variants of concern resulting in the need to offer continued protection through booster vaccinations. The duration of enhanced protection with booster doses against severe COVID-19 is still unclear. Understanding this is critical to recommendations on the frequency of future booster doses.

METHODS

Utilising a Hospital Information System for COVID-19 established in Chiang Mai, Thailand, we conducted a cohort study by linking patient-level data of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases to the national immunization records, during the omicron predominant period (1 February- 31 July 2022).

RESULTS

Out of 261,103 adults with COVID-19 included in the study, there were 333 (0.13%) severe COVID-19 cases and 190 (0.07%) deaths. Protection against severe COVID-19 was highest with boosters received >14-60 days prior to positive test (93%) and persisted at >60-120 days (91%) but started to wane at >120-180 days (77%) and further at >180 days (68%). The rate of waning differed with age. Those ≥70 years showed faster waning of booster vaccine responses as compared to those aged 18-49 years, who retained good responses up to 180 days. Equivalent risk reduction against severe COVID-19 was seen with all the vaccine types used as boosters in Thailand.

CONCLUSIONS

Booster doses provided high levels of protection against severe COVID-19 with omicron, up to 4 months. Repeat boosters will be required to continue protection beyond 4 months, particularly in the elderly. mRNA and viral vector vaccines can be used flexibly to improve booster coverage.

Evaluation of Waning of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine-Induced Immunity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Estimates of the rate of waning of vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 are key to assess population levels of protection and future needs for booster doses to face the resurgence of epidemic waves.

Objective

To quantify the progressive waning of VE associated with the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 by number of received doses.

Data Sources

PubMed and Web of Science were searched from the databases' inception to October 19, 2022, as well as reference lists of eligible articles. Preprints were included.

Study Selection

Selected studies for this systematic review and meta-analysis were original articles reporting estimates of VE over time against laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic disease.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Estimates of VE at different time points from vaccination were retrieved from original studies. A secondary data analysis was performed to project VE at any time from last dose administration, improving the comparability across different studies and between the 2 considered variants. Pooled estimates were obtained from random-effects meta-analysis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes were VE against laboratory-confirmed Omicron or Delta infection and symptomatic disease and half-life and waning rate associated with vaccine-induced protection.

Results

A total of 799 original articles and 149 reviews published in peer-reviewed journals and 35 preprints were identified. Of these, 40 studies were included in the analysis. Pooled estimates of VE of a primary vaccination cycle against laboratory-confirmed Omicron infection and symptomatic disease were both lower than 20% at 6 months from last dose administration. Booster doses restored VE to levels comparable to those acquired soon after the administration of the primary cycle. However, 9 months after booster administration, VE against Omicron was lower than 30% against laboratory-confirmed infection and symptomatic disease. The half-life of VE against symptomatic infection was estimated to be 87 days (95% CI, 67-129 days) for Omicron compared with 316 days (95% CI, 240-470 days) for Delta. Similar waning rates of VE were found for different age segments of the population.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against laboratory-confirmed Omicron or Delta infection and symptomatic disease rapidly wanes over time after the primary vaccination cycle and booster dose. These results can inform the design of appropriate targets and timing for future vaccination programs.

Real-world effectiveness and factors associated with effectiveness of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

The two inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, CoronaVac and BBIBP-CorV, have been widely used to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The influence of multiple factors on inactivated vaccine effectiveness (VE) during long-term use and against variants is not well understood.

METHODS

We selected published or preprinted articles from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, medRxiv, BioRxiv, and the WHO COVID-19 database by 31 August 2022. We included observational studies that assessed the VE of completed primary series or homologous booster against SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19. We used DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models to calculate pooled estimates and conducted multiple meta-regression with an information theoretic approach based on Akaike's Information Criterion to select the model and identify the factors associated with VE.

RESULTS

Fifty-one eligible studies with 151 estimates were included. For prevention of infection, VE associated with study region, variants, and time since vaccination; VE was significantly decreased against Omicron compared to Alpha (P = 0.021), primary series VE was 52.8% (95% CI, 43.3 to 60.7%) against Delta and 16.4% (95% CI, 9.5 to 22.8%) against Omicron, and booster dose VE was 65.2% (95% CI, 48.3 to 76.6%) against Delta and 20.3% (95% CI, 10.5 to 28.0%) against Omicron; primary VE decreased significantly after 180 days (P = 0.022). For the prevention of severe COVID-19, VE associated with vaccine doses, age, study region, variants, study design, and study population type; booster VE increased significantly (P = 0.001) compared to primary; though VE decreased significantly against Gamma (P = 0.034), Delta (P = 0.001), and Omicron (P = 0.001) compared to Alpha, primary and booster VEs were all above 60% against each variant.

CONCLUSIONS

Inactivated vaccine protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection was moderate, decreased significantly after 6 months following primary vaccination, and was restored by booster vaccination. VE against severe COVID-19 was greatest after boosting and did not decrease over time, sustained for over 6 months after the primary series, and more evidence is needed to assess the duration of booster VE. VE varied by variants, most notably against Omicron. It is necessary to ensure booster vaccination of everyone eligible for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and continue monitoring virus evolution and VE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42022353272.

Narrative Review of the Evolution of COVID-19 Vaccination Recommendations in Countries in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, and Asia

The rapid rollout of vaccines to combat the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic over the past 2 years has resulted in the use of various vaccine platforms and regional differences in COVID-19 vaccine implementation strategies. The aim of this narrative review was to summarize evolving COVID-19 vaccine recommendations in countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa and the Middle East across various vaccine platforms, age groups, and specific subpopulations. Nuances in primary and booster vaccination schedules were evaluated, and the preliminary impact of such diverse vaccination strategies are discussed, including key vaccine effectiveness data in the era of Omicron-lineage variants. Primary vaccination rates for included Latin American countries were 71-94% for adults and between 41% and 98% for adolescents and children; rates for first booster in adults were 36-85%. Primary vaccination rates for adults in the included Asian countries ranged from 64% in the Philippines to 98% in Malaysia, with corresponding booster rates varying from 9% in India to 78% in Singapore; for adolescents and children, primary vaccination rates ranged from 29% in the Philippines to 93% in Malaysia. Across included African and Middle Eastern countries, primary vaccination rates in adults varied widely from 32% in South Africa to 99% in the United Arab Emirates; booster rates ranged from 5% in South Africa to 60% in Bahrain. Evidence from the regions studied indicates preference of using an mRNA vaccine as a booster on the basis of safety and effectiveness of observed real-world data, especially during circulation of Omicron lineages. Vaccination against COVID-19 remains of paramount importance to reduce the burden of disease; strategies to overcome vaccine inequity, fatigue, hesitancy, and misinformation and to ensure adequate access and supply are also important.

Effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines among older adults in Shanghai: retrospective cohort study

We conducted a matched retrospective cohort study of two cohorts to estimate inactivated vaccine effectiveness (VE) and its comparative effectiveness of booster dose among older people in Shanghai. Cohort 1 consisted of a vaccinated group (≥1 dose) and an unvaccinated group (3,317,475 pairs), and cohort 2 consisted of a booster vaccinated group and a fully vaccinated group (2,084,721 pairs). The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression models were used to estimate risk and hazard ratios (HRs) study outcomes. For cohort 1, the overall estimated VEs of ≥1 dose of inactivated vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe/critical Covid-19, and Covid-19 related death were 24.7% (95%CI 23.7%-25.7%), 86.6% (83.1%-89.4%), and 93.2% (88.0%-96.1%), respectively. Subset analysis showed that the booster vaccination provided greatest protection. For cohort 2, compared with full vaccination, relative VEs of booster dose against corresponding outcome were 16.3% (14.4%-17.9%), 60.5% (37.8%-74.9%), and 81.7% (17.5%-95.9%). Here we show, although under the scenario of persistent dynamic zero-Covid policy and non-pharmaceutical interventions, promoting high uptake of the full vaccination series and booster dose among older adults is critically important. Timely vaccination with the booster dose provided effective protection against Covid-19 outcomes.

Efficacy of the neutralizing antibodies after the booster dose on SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and a two-year longitudinal antibody study on Wild Type convalescents

Objectives

Waning vaccine-induced immunity and emergence of new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants which may lead to immune escape, pose a major threat to the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, enhanced efficacy of the neutralization antibodies (NAb) produced after the booster dose of vaccinations against the Omicron variant is the main focus of vaccine strategy research. In this study we have analyzed the potency of the NAbs and IgGs produced after the third vaccine dose in patients infected with Omicron variant and wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

We enrolled 75 patients with Omicron variant breakthrough infections, and 87 patients with WT infections. We recorded the clinical characteristics and vaccination information of all patients and measured the NAb and anti-S1 (spike protein)+N (nucleocapsid protein) IgG-binding antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in serum samples of Omicron variant-infected patients at admission, and patients with WT COVID-19 infection from the time of admission and discharge, and one-year to two-years follow-ups.

Results

Our results demonstrated higher NAb levels, fewer clinical symptoms, and faster viral shedding in Omicron variant infected patients vaccinated with the booster dose. Hybrid immunity (natural infection plus vaccination) induces higher NAb levels than vaccine-only immunity. NAb and IgG levels decreased significantly at one-year follow-up in WT convalescents with natural infection. The NAb and IgG levels in booster-vaccinated COVID-19 patients were higher than those in two-dose-vaccinated patients.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that booster vaccinations are required to improve the level of protective NAbs. Moreover, our data provide important evidence for vaccination strategies based on existing vaccines.

Predicting vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 over time and against variants: a meta-analysis

Vaccine protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection has been shown to be strongly correlated with neutralising antibody titres; however, this has not yet been demonstrated for severe COVID-19. To explore whether this relationship also holds for severe COVID-19, we performed a systematic search for studies reporting on protection against different SARS-CoV-2 clinical endpoints and extracted data from 15 studies. Since matched neutralising antibody titres were not available, we used the vaccine regimen, time since vaccination and variant of concern to predict corresponding neutralising antibody titres. We then compared the observed vaccine effectiveness reported in these studies to the protection predicted by a previously published model of the relationship between neutralising antibody titre and vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19. We find that predicted neutralising antibody titres are strongly correlated with observed vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic (Spearman [Formula: see text] = 0.95, p < 0.001) and severe (Spearman [Formula: see text] = 0.72, p < 0.001 for both) COVID-19 and that the loss of neutralising antibodies over time and to new variants are strongly predictive of observed vaccine protection against severe COVID-19.

Simulating potential outbreaks of Delta and Omicron variants based on contact-tracing data: A modelling study in Fujian Province, China

Although studies have compared the relative severity of Omicron and Delta variants by assessing the relative risks, there are still gaps in the knowledge of the potential COVID-19 burden these variations may cause. And the contact patterns in Fujian Province, China, have not been described. We identified 8969 transmission pairs in Fujian, China, by analyzing a contact-tracing database that recorded a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in September 2021. We estimated the waning vaccine effectiveness against Delta variant infection, contact patterns, and epidemiology distributions, then simulated potential outbreaks of Delta and Omicron variants using a multi-group mathematical model. For instance, in the contact setting without stringent lockdowns, we estimated that in a potential Omicron wave, only 4.7% of infections would occur in Fujian Province among individuals aged >60 years. In comparison, 58.75% of the death toll would occur in unvaccinated individuals aged >60 years. Compared with no strict lockdowns, combining school or factory closure alone reduced cumulative deaths of Delta and Omicron by 28.5% and 6.1%, respectively. In conclusion, this study validates the need for continuous mass immunization, especially among elderly aged over 60 years old. And it confirms that the effect of lockdowns alone in reducing infections or deaths is minimal. However, these measurements will still contribute to lowering peak daily incidence and delaying the epidemic, easing the healthcare system's burden.

Age-dependent impairment in antibody responses elicited by a homologous CoronaVac booster dose

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages resulted in increased transmission rates and reduced protection from vaccines. To counteract these effects, multiple booster strategies were used in different countries, although data comparing their efficiency in improving protective immunity remain sparse, especially among vulnerable populations, including older adults. The inactivated CoronaVac vaccine was among the most widely distributed vaccine worldwide and was essential in the early control of SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalizations and deaths. However, it is not well understood whether homologous versus heterologous booster doses in those fully vaccinated with CoronaVac induce distinct humoral responses or whether these responses vary across age groups. We analyzed plasma antibody responses from CoronaVac-vaccinated younger or older individuals who received a homologous CoronaVac or heterologous BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 booster vaccine. All three evaluated boosters resulted in increased virus-specific IgG titers 28 days after the booster dose. However, we found that both IgG titers against SARS-CoV-2 Spike or RBD and neutralization titers against Omicron sublineages were substantially reduced in participants who received homologous CoronaVac compared with the heterologous BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 booster. This effect was specifically prominent in recipients >50 years of age. In this group, the CoronaVac booster induced low virus-specific IgG titers and failed to elevate neutralization titers against any Omicron sublineage. Our results point to the notable inefficiency of CoronaVac immunization and boosting in mounting protective antiviral humoral immunity, particularly among older adults, during the Omicron wave. These observations also point to benefits of heterologous regimens in high-risk populations fully vaccinated with CoronaVac.

Protection of hybrid immunity against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and severe COVID-19 during periods of Omicron variant predominance in Mexico

Background

With the widespread transmission of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant, reinfections have become increasingly common. Here, we explored the role of immunity, primary infection severity, and variant predominance in the risk of reinfection and severe COVID-19 during Omicron predominance in Mexico.

Methods

We analyzed reinfections in Mexico in individuals with a primary infection separated by at least 90 days from reinfection using a national surveillance registry of SARS-CoV-2 cases from March 3rd, 2020, to August 13th, 2022. Immunity-generating events included primary infection, partial or complete vaccination, and booster vaccines. Reinfections were matched by age and sex with controls with primary SARS-CoV-2 infection and negative RT-PCR or antigen test at least 90 days after primary infection to explore reinfection and severe disease risk factors. We also compared the protective efficacy of heterologous and homologous vaccine boosters against reinfection.

Results

We detected 231,202 SARS-CoV-2 reinfections in Mexico, most occurring in unvaccinated individuals (41.55%). Over 207,623 reinfections occurred during periods of Omicron (89.8%), BA.1 (36.74%), and BA.5 (33.67%) subvariant predominance and a case-fatality rate of 0.22%. Vaccination protected against reinfection, without significant influence of the order of immunity-generating events and provided >90% protection against severe reinfections. Heterologous booster schedules were associated with ~11% and ~ 54% lower risk for reinfection and reinfection-associated severe COVID-19, respectively, modified by time-elapsed since the last immunity-generating event, when compared against complete primary schedules.

Conclusion

SARS-CoV-2 reinfections increased during Omicron predominance. Hybrid immunity provides protection against reinfection and associated severe COVID-19, with potential benefit from heterologous booster schedules.

Neutralizing and Total/IgG Spike Antibody Responses Following Homologous CoronaVac vs. BNT162b2 Vaccination Up to 90 Days Post-Booster

INTRODUCTION

We documented the total spike antibody (S-Ab), IgG S-Ab and neutralizing antibody (N-Ab) responses of BNT162b2/CoronaVac vaccinees up to 90 days post-booster dose.

METHODS

We included 32 homologous regimen CoronaVac vaccinees and 136 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccinees. We tested their total S-Ab (Roche), IgG (Abbott) and N-Ab (Snibe) levels at set time points from January 2021 to April 2022. All subjects were deemed to be COVID-19-naïve either via clinical history (CoronaVac vaccinees) or nucleocapsid antibody testing (BNT162b2 vaccinees).

RESULTS

All antibodies peaked 20-30 days post-inoculation. In BNT162b2 vaccinees, all post-booster antibodies were significantly higher than second-dose peaks. In CoronaVac vaccinees, IgG showed no significant differences between peak third-/second-dose titers (difference of 56.0 BAU/mL, 95% CI of -17.1 to 129, p = 0.0894). The post-vaccination titers of all antibodies in BNT162b2 vaccinees were significantly higher than those in CoronaVac vaccinees at all time points. Post-booster, all antibodies declined in 90 days; the final total/IgG/N-Ab titers were 7536 BAU/mL, 1276 BAU/mL and 12.5 μg/mL in BNT162b2 vaccinees and 646 BAU/mL, 62.4 BAU/mL and 0.44 μg/mL in CoronaVac vaccinees.

CONCLUSION

The mRNA vaccine generated more robust total S-Ab, IgG and N-Ab responses after the second and third vaccinations.