Comparative effectiveness of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 covid-19 vaccines in health and social care workers in England: cohort study using OpenSAFELY

Observational methods for COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness research: an empirical evaluation and target trial emulation

BACKGROUND

There are scarce data on best practices to control for confounding in observational studies assessing vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19. We compared the performance of three well-established methods [overlap weighting, inverse probability treatment weighting and propensity score (PS) matching] to minimize confounding when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Subsequently, we conducted a target trial emulation to study the ability of these methods to replicate COVID-19 vaccine trials.

METHODS

We included all individuals aged ≥75 from primary care records from the UK [Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) AURUM], who were not infected with or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as of 4 January 2021. Vaccination status was then defined based on first COVID-19 vaccine dose exposure between 4 January 2021 and 28 January 2021. Lasso regression was used to calculate PS. Location, age, prior observation time, regional vaccination rates, testing effort and COVID-19 incidence rates at index date were forced into the PS. Following PS weighting and matching, the three methods were compared for remaining covariate imbalance and residual confounding. Last, a target trial emulation comparing COVID-19 at 3 and 12 weeks after first vaccine dose vs unvaccinated was conducted.

RESULTS

Vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts comprised 583 813 and 332 315 individuals for weighting, respectively, and 459 000 individuals in the matched cohorts. Overlap weighting performed best in terms of minimizing confounding and systematic error. Overlap weighting successfully replicated estimates from clinical trials for vaccine effectiveness for ChAdOx1 (57%) and BNT162b2 (75%) at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Overlap weighting performed best in our setting. Our results based on overlap weighting replicate previous pivotal trials for the two first COVID-19 vaccines approved in Europe.

Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance

Observational (nonexperimental) studies that aim to emulate a randomized trial (ie, the target trial) are increasingly informing medical and policy decision-making, but it is unclear how these studies are reported in the literature. Consistent reporting is essential for quality appraisal, evidence synthesis, and translation of evidence to policy and practice.

Objective

To assess the reporting of observational studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial.

Evidence Review

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for observational studies published between March 2012 and October 2022 that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial of a health or medical intervention. Two reviewers double-screened and -extracted data on study characteristics, key predefined components of the target trial protocol and its emulation (eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, treatment assignment, outcome[s], follow-up, causal contrast[s], and analysis plan), and other items related to the target trial emulation.

Findings

A total of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial were included. These studies included 26 subfields of medicine, and 168 (84%) were published from January 2020 to October 2022. The aim to emulate a target trial was explicit in 70 study titles (35%). Forty-three studies (22%) reported use of a published reporting guideline (eg, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology). Eighty-five studies (43%) did not describe all key items of how the target trial was emulated and 113 (57%) did not describe the protocol of the target trial and its emulation.

Conclusion and Relevance

In this systematic review of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial, reporting of how the target trial was emulated was inconsistent. A reporting guideline for studies explicitly aiming to emulate a target trial may improve the reporting of the target trial protocols and other aspects of these emulation attempts.

Influence of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Booster among Cancer Patients on Active Treatment Previously Immunized with Inactivated versus mRNA Vaccines: A Prospective Cohort Study

Cancer patients on chemotherapy have a lower immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Therefore, through a prospective cohort study of patients with solid tumors receiving chemotherapy, we aimed to determine the immunogenicity of an mRNA vaccine booster (BNT162b2) among patients previously immunized with an inactivated (CoronaVac) or homologous (BNT162b2) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody (NAb) seropositivity at 8-12 weeks post-booster. The secondary end points included IgG antibody (TAb) seropositivity and specific T-cell responses. A total of 109 patients were included. Eighty-four (77%) had heterologous vaccine schedules (two doses of CoronaVac followed by the BNT162b2 booster) and twenty-five had (23%) homologous vaccine schedules (three doses of BNT162b2). IgG antibody positivity for the homologous and heterologous regimen were 100% and 96% (p = 0.338), whereas NAb positivity reached 100% and 92% (p = 0.13), respectively. Absolute NAb positivity and Tab levels were associated with the homologous schedule (with a beta coefficient of 0.26 with p = 0.027 and a geometric mean ratio 1.41 with p = 0.044, respectively). Both the homologous and heterologous vaccine regimens elicited a strong humoral and cellular response after the BNT162b2 booster. The homologous regimen was associated with higher NAb positivity and Tab levels after adjusting for relevant covariates.

Immune Responses After Vaccination With Primary 2-Dose ChAdOx1 Plus a Booster of BNT162b2 or Vaccination With Primary 2-Dose BNT162b2 Plus a Booster of BNT162b2 and the Occurrence of Omicron Breakthrough Infection

BACKGROUND

Before the omicron era, health care workers were usually vaccinated with either the primary 2-dose ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) series plus a booster dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) (CCB group) or the primary 2-dose BNT162b2 series plus a booster dose of BNT162b2 (BBB group) in Korea.

METHODS

The two groups were compared using quantification of the surrogate virus neutralization test for wild type severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SVNT-WT), the omicron variant (SVNT-O), spike-specific IgG, and interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), as well as the omicron breakthrough infection cases.

RESULTS

There were 113 participants enrolled in the CCB group and 51 enrolled in the BBB group. Before and after booster vaccination, the median SVNT-WT and SVNT-O values were lower in the CCB (SVNT-WT [before-after]: 72.02-97.61%, SVNT-O: 15.18-42.29%) group than in the BBB group (SVNT-WT: 89.19-98.11%, SVNT-O: 23.58-68.56%; all P < 0.001). Although the median IgG concentrations were different between the CCB and BBB groups after the primary series (2.677 vs. 4.700 AU/mL, respectively, P < 0.001), they were not different between the two groups after the booster vaccination (7.246 vs. 7.979 AU/mL, respectively, P = 0.108). In addition, the median IFN-γ concentration was higher in the BBB group than in the CCB group (550.5 and 387.5 mIU/mL, respectively, P = 0.014). There was also a difference in the cumulative incidence curves over time (CCB group 50.0% vs. BBB group 41.8%; P = 0.045), indicating that breakthrough infection occurred faster in the CCB group.

CONCLUSION

The cellular and humoral immune responses were low in the CCB group so that the breakthrough infection occurred faster in the CCB group than in the BBB group.

Identification of genes related to immune enhancement caused by heterologous ChAdOx1-BNT162b2 vaccines in lymphocytes at single-cell resolution with machine learning methods

The widely used ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (ChAd) vector and BNT162b2 (BNT) mRNA vaccines have been shown to induce robust immune responses. Recent studies demonstrated that the immune responses of people who received one dose of ChAdOx1 and one dose of BNT were better than those of people who received vaccines with two homologous ChAdOx1 or two BNT doses. However, how heterologous vaccines function has not been extensively investigated. In this study, single-cell RNA sequencing data from three classes of samples: volunteers vaccinated with heterologous ChAdOx1-BNT and volunteers vaccinated with homologous ChAd-ChAd and BNT-BNT vaccinations after 7 days were divided into three types of immune cells (3654 B, 8212 CD4+ T, and 5608 CD8+ T cells). To identify differences in gene expression in various cell types induced by vaccines administered through different vaccination strategies, multiple advanced feature selection methods (max-relevance and min-redundancy, Monte Carlo feature selection, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, light gradient boosting machine, and permutation feature importance) and classification algorithms (decision tree and random forest) were integrated into a computational framework. Feature selection methods were in charge of analyzing the importance of gene features, yielding multiple gene lists. These lists were fed into incremental feature selection, incorporating decision tree and random forest, to extract essential genes, classification rules and build efficient classifiers. Highly ranked genes include PLCG2, whose differential expression is important to the B cell immune pathway and is positively correlated with immune cells, such as CD8+ T cells, and B2M, which is associated with thymic T cell differentiation. This study gave an important contribution to the mechanistic explanation of results showing the stronger immune response of a heterologous ChAdOx1-BNT vaccination schedule than two doses of either BNT or ChAdOx1, offering a theoretical foundation for vaccine modification.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG following injection of the third dose vaccine: A systematic review with meta-analysis of heterologous versus homologous vaccination

Background

The mass vaccination is a key strategy to prevent and control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Today, several different types of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed worldwide. These vaccines are usually administered in a two-dose schedule, and the third dose is currently being administered in most countries. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the immunogenicity of heterologous vs. homologous vaccination after administration of the third dose of COVID-19 vaccines.

Methods

Electronic databases and websites including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google scholar were searched for relevant randomized clinical trial (RCT) studies. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of three RCTs were included in the study. These RCTs were included 2,613 healthy adults (18 years or older and without a history of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19) with 15 heterologous and five homologous prime-boost vaccination regimens. Anti-SARS-CoV-2-spike IgG levels at day 28 after administration of the third dose, were compared between the heterologous and homologous regimens.

Results

The highest antibody responses had been reported for the homologous vaccination regimen of m1273/m1273/m1273 (Moderna), followed by the heterologous regimen of BNT/BNT/m1273. In addition, the immunogenicity of viral vector and inactivated vaccines was remarkably enhanced when they had been boosted by a heterologous vaccine, especially mRNA vaccines.

Conclusion

This systematic review suggests that mRNA vaccines in a homologous regimen induce strong antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 compared to other vaccine platforms. In contrast, viral vector and inactivated vaccines show a satisfactory immunogenicity in a heterologous regimen, especially in combination with mRNA vaccines.