Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results From the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial

A Bivalent Omicron-BA.4/BA.5-Adapted BNT162b2 Booster in ≥12-Year-Olds

BACKGROUND

Protection against contemporary severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants requires sequence-adapted vaccines.

METHODS

In this ongoing phase 2/3 trial, 12-17-year-olds (n = 108), 18-55-year-olds (n = 313), and >55-year-olds (n = 306) who previously received 3 original BNT162b2 30-µg doses, received a fourth dose (second booster) of 30-µg bivalent original/Omicron-BA.4/BA.5-adapted BNT162b2 (BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5). For comparisons with original BNT162b2, participants were selected from another phase 3 trial. Immunologic superiority 1 month after vaccination, with respect to 50% neutralizing titers (lower bound [LB] of 2-sided 95% confidence interval [CI] for geometric mean ratio [GMR], >1), and noninferiority with respect to seroresponse rates (LB of 2-sided 95% CI for rate difference, greater than -5%), for Omicron BA.4/BA.5 were assessed in >55-year-olds versus original BNT162b2 as a second booster. Noninferiority with respect to neutralizing titer level (LB of 2-sided 95% CI for GMR, > 0.67) and seroresponse rate (LB of 2-sided 95% CI for rate difference, greater than -10%) of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 immune response for BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 in 18-55 versus >55-year-olds was assessed.

RESULTS

One month after vaccination in >55-year-olds, the model-adjusted GMR of Omicron BA.4/BA.5 neutralizing titers for the BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 versus BNT162b2 groups (2.91 [95% CI, 2.45-3.44]) demonstrated the superiority of BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5. Adjusted difference in the percentages of >55-year-olds with seroresponse (26.77% [95% CI, 19.59-33.95]) showed noninferiority of BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 to BNT162b2. Noninferiority of BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 in 18-55-year-olds compared with >55-year-olds was met for model-adjusted GMR and seroresponse. Geometric mean titers in 12-17-year-olds increased from baseline to 1 month after vaccination. The BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 safety profile was similar to the profiles for booster doses of bivalent Omicron BA.1-modified BNT162b2 and original BNT162b2 reported in previous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on immunogenicity and safety data up to 1 month after vaccination in participants who previously received 3 original BNT162b2 doses, a BNT162b2-Omi.BA.4/BA.5 30-µg booster has a favorable benefit-risk profile.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT05472038.

Effectiveness of bivalent mRNA vaccines against medically attended symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospital admission among SARS-CoV-2-naive and previously infected individuals: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant with high immune evasion has led to the development and roll-out of bivalent mRNA vaccines targeting original and omicron strains. However, real-world observational data on effectiveness of bivalent vaccines are scarce. We aimed to assess the relative effectiveness of a fourth vaccine dose with the BA.1-adapted or BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccines against medically attended symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospital admission among SARS-CoV-2-naive and previously infected individuals in Singapore.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among Singapore residents aged 18 years and older who had received three monovalent mRNA vaccine doses and were eligible for a fourth dose. Data were collected from official databases on COVID-19 cases and vaccinations maintained by the Singapore Ministry of Health. We analysed the incidence of medically attended symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospital admission between Oct 14, 2022, and Jan 31, 2023, by previous infection status and type of fourth vaccine dose received. Inverse probability-weighted Cox regressions were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs).

FINDINGS

2 749 819 individuals were included in the analysis. For the SARS-CoV-2-naive group, a fourth monovalent vaccine dose did not confer additional protection over three monovalent doses against symptomatic infection (HR 1·09 [95% CI 1·07-1·11]), whereas the bivalent vaccine did provide additional protection (0·18 [0·17-0·19]). Among individuals with previous infection, the HR was 0·87 (95% CI 0·84-0·91) and 0·14 (0·13-0·15) with receipt of the fourth monovalent and bivalent doses, respectively. Against COVID-19-related hospital admission, the bivalent vaccine (HR 0·12 [95% CI 0·08-0·18] in SARS-CoV-2-naive participants and 0·04 [0·01-0·15] in previously infected participants) conferred greater benefit compared with the fourth monovalent dose (0·84 [0·77-0·91] in SARS-CoV-2-naive participants and 0·85 [0·69-1·04] in previously infected participants).

INTERPRETATION

A fourth dose with the bivalent vaccine was substantially more effective against medically attended symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospital admission than four monovalent doses among both SARS-CoV-2-naive and previously infected individuals. Boosters with the bivalent vaccine might be preferred in this omicron-predominant pandemic, regardless of previous infection history.

FUNDING

None.

Omicron variant neutralizing antibodies following BNT162b2 BA.4/5 versus mRNA-1273 BA.1 bivalent vaccination in patients with end-stage kidney disease

Neutralization of Omicron subvariants by different bivalent vaccines has not been well evaluated. This study characterizes neutralization against Omicron subvariants in 98 individuals on dialysis or with a kidney transplant receiving the BNT162b2 (BA.4/BA.5) or mRNA-1273 (BA.1) bivalent COVID-19 vaccine. Neutralization against Omicron BA.1, BA.5, BQ.1.1, and XBB.1.5 increased by 8-fold one month following bivalent vaccination. In comparison to wild-type (D614G), neutralizing antibodies against Omicron-specific variants were 7.3-fold lower against BA.1, 8.3-fold lower against BA.5, 45.8-fold lower against BQ.1.1, and 48.2-fold lower against XBB.1.5. Viral neutralization was not significantly different by bivalent vaccine type for wild-type (D614G) (P = 0.48), BA.1 (P = 0.21), BA.5 (P = 0.07), BQ.1.1 (P = 0.10), nor XBB.1.5 (P = 0.10). Hybrid immunity conferred higher neutralizing antibodies against all Omicron subvariants. This study provides evidence that BNT162b2 (BA.4/BA.5) and mRNA-1273 (BA.1) induce similar neutralization against Omicron subvariants, even when antigenically divergent from the circulating variant.

Characterizing SARS-CoV-2 neutralization profiles after bivalent boosting using antigenic cartography

Since emergence of the initial SARS-CoV-2 BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5 variants, Omicron has diversified substantially. Antigenic characterization of these new variants is important to analyze their potential immune escape from population immunity and implications for future vaccine composition. Here, we describe an antigenic map based on human single-exposure sera and live-virus isolates that includes a broad selection of recently emerged Omicron variants such as BA.2.75, BF.7, BQ, XBB and XBF variants. Recent Omicron variants clustered around BA.1 and BA.5 with some variants further extending the antigenic space. Based on this antigenic map we constructed antibody landscapes to describe neutralization profiles after booster immunization with bivalent mRNA vaccines based on ancestral virus and either BA.1 or BA.4/5. Immune escape of BA.2.75, BQ, XBB and XBF variants was also evident in bivalently boosted individuals, however, cross-neutralization was improved for those with hybrid immunity. Our results indicate that future vaccine updates are needed to induce cross-neutralizing antibodies against currently circulating variants.

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.

Clinical development of variant-adapted BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines: the early Omicron era

INTRODUCTION

The Omicron BA.1 variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and subsequent sub-lineages exhibit partial escape from neutralizing antibodies elicited by vaccines containing or encoding wild-type spike protein. In response to the emergence of Omicron sub-lineages, variant-adapted vaccines that contain or encode for Omicron spike protein components have been developed.

AREAS COVERED

This review presents currently available clinical immunogenicity and safety data on Omicron variant-adapted versions of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine and summarizes the expected mechanism of action, and rationale for development, of these vaccines. In addition, challenges encountered during development and regulatory approval are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Omicron-adapted BNT162b2 vaccines provide a wider breadth and potentially more durable protection against Omicron sub-lineages and antigenically aligned variants when compared with the original vaccine. As SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve, further vaccine updates may be required. To facilitate this, a globally harmonized regulatory process for the transition to updated vaccines is needed. Next-generation vaccine approaches may provide broader protection against future variants.