COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine administration

Maternal vaccination provision in NHS maternity trusts across England

BACKGROUND

Vaccinations for seasonal influenza and pertussis have been recommended for pregnant women in England since 2010 and 2012, respectively. Uptake rates are suboptimal with large regional variations. To improve uptake, from 2016 onwards maternity trusts were commissioned to offer pertussis (and other) vaccinations in addition to these being available in primary care. Since 2021, Covid-19 vaccination has also been recommended for pregnant women. Overall maternal vaccination rates are routinely available, but not the relative provision by maternity trusts. We aimed to describe the national picture of maternity trust provision of maternal vaccinations, including how the maternity trust vaccination programme has progressed.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey plus comparisons with 2017-18 figures for maternity trust provision of pertussis vaccination, and with UKHSA data for total pertussis vaccination.

RESULTS

Twelve NHS commissioners participated (from 13/06/22 to 31/03/23) providing data for 120 (of a total 124) maternity trusts across England. All 120 (100%) trusts were commissioned to deliver influenza, and 107 (89%) to deliver pertussis vaccinations, though not all actually administered the vaccines; 29% offered Covid-19 vaccinations. For 2021-22 we found a mean of 25% (range 0-81.3%) women were vaccinated for pertussis (a large increase compared with previous estimates for 2017-18); and 11% (range 0-74.2%) for influenza, via their maternity trust. Commissioners reported a negative impact of the pandemic on routine vaccination provision. There was indication of efficiency by vaccinating women attending for other appointments. There are diverse mechanisms for reporting pertussis and influenza vaccinations administered at maternity trusts back to primary care, which may be inefficient for maternity staff workload and accuracy of data transfer (especially for pertussis).

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of maternity trusts provide both pertussis and influenza vaccinations, despite a negative impact of the pandemic. Reasons for large between-trust variation in vaccination rates should be explored to improve uptake and equity.

Impact of vaccine platform and BCG vaccination on antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccination

Multiple factors, including vaccine platform and prior vaccinations, influence vaccine responses. We compared antibody responses to CoronaVac (Sinovac) and ChAdOx1-S (AstraZeneca-Oxford) vaccination in 874 healthcare workers in Brazil. As participants were randomised to BCG vaccination or placebo in the preceding 0-6 months as part of the BCG vaccination to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in healthcare workers (BRACE) trial, we also investigated the influence of recent BCG vaccination on antibody responses to these COVID-19 vaccines. Twenty-eight days after the second dose of each vaccine, ChAdOx1-S induced a stronger anti-spike IgG response than CoronaVac vaccination. Recent BCG vaccination did not impact IgG antibody responses to ChAdOx1-S or CoronaVac.

Retrospective study of the immunogenicity and safety of the CoronaVac SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in people with underlying medical conditions

BACKGROUND

People living with chronic disease, particularly seniors (≥60 years old), made up of most severe symptom and death cases among SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. However, they are lagging behind in the national COVID-19 vaccination campaign in China due to the uncertainty of vaccine safety and effectiveness. Safety and immunogenicity data of COVID-19 vaccines in people with underlying medical conditions are needed to address the vaccine hesitation in this population.

METHODS

We included participants (≥40 years old) who received two doses of CoronaVac inactivated vaccines (at a 3-5 week interval) and were healthy or had at least one of 6 common chronic diseases. The incidence of adverse events after vaccination was monitored. Vaccine immunogenicity was studied by determining neutralizing antibodies and SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses post vaccination.

RESULTS

Here we show that chronic diseases are associated with a higher rate of mild fatigue following the first dose of CoronaVac. By day 14-28 post vaccination, the neutralizing antibody level shows no significant difference between disease groups and healthy controls, except for people with coronary artery disease (p = 0.0287) and chronic respiratory disease (p = 0.0416), who show moderate reductions. Such differences diminish by day 90 and 180. Most people show detectable SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses at day 90 and day 180 without significant differences between disease groups and healthy controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results highlight the comparable safety, immunogenicity and cellular immunity memory of CoronaVac in seniors and people living with chronic diseases. This data should reduce vaccine hesitancy in this population.

BCG and SARS-CoV-2-What Have We Learned?

Despite controversy over the protective effect of the BCG (Bacille Calmette-Guérin) vaccine in preventing pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in adults, it has been used worldwide since 1921. Although the first reports in the 1930s had noted a remarkable decrease in child mortality after BCG immunization, this could not be explained solely by a decrease in mortality from TB. These observations gave rise to the suggestion of nonspecific beneficial effects of BCG vaccination, beyond the desired protection against M. tuberculosis. The existence of an innate immunity-training mechanism based on epigenetic changes was demonstrated several years ago. The emergence of the pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in 2019 revived the debate about whether the BCG vaccine can affect the immune response against the virus or other unrelated pathogens. Due to the mortality of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), it is important to verify each factor that may have a potential protective value against the severe course of COVID-19, complications, and death. This paper reviews the results of numerous retrospective studies and prospective trials which shed light on the potential of a century-old vaccine to mitigate the pandemic impact of the new virus. It should be noted, however, that although there are numerous studies intending to verify the hypothesis that the BCG vaccine may have a beneficial effect on COVID-19, there is no definitive evidence on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine against SARS-CoV-2.

Differences in Global Scientific Production Between New mRNA and Conventional Vaccines Against COVID-19

The search for effective vaccines to stop the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented amount of global scientific production and activity. This study aimed to analyze global scientific production on the different vaccine types (mRNA and conventional) that were validated for COVID-19 during the years 2020-2021. The scientific production generated on COVID-19 vaccines during the period 2020-2021 totaled the enormous amount of 20,459 studies published. New mRNA vaccines clearly showed higher production levels than conventional vaccines (viral and inactivated vectors), with 786 and 350 studies, respectively. The USA is the undisputed leader in the global production on COVID-19 vaccines, with Israel and Italy also playing an important role. Among the journals publishing works in this field, the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal, and Vaccines stand out from the rest as the most important. The keyword 'immunogenicity' and its derivatives have been more researched for the new mRNA vaccines, while thrombosis has been more studied for conventional vaccines. The massive scientific production generated on COVID-19 vaccines in only two years has shown the enormous gravity of the pandemic and the extreme urgency to find a solution. This high scientific production and the main keywords found for the mRNA vaccines indicate the great potential that these vaccines have against COVID-19 and future infectious diseases. Moreover, this study provides valuable information for guiding future research lines and promoting international collaboration for an effective solution.

Safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in children and adolescents: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

To systematically review and synthesize the safety and efficacy of coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines in children and adolescents. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR), and ClinicalTrials.gov website were searched to collect accessible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the safety and efficacy of human COVID‐19 vaccines in children and adolescents until May 1, 2022. Three steps, including duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, and full‐text review, were used to screen the studies. The Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool for RCTs was used to assess the bias risk of the included studies. Microsoft Excel 16.57 (2021) software was used for data extraction and analysis. (PROSPERO Code No: CRD42021295422). COVID‐19 vaccines were evaluated in a total of 10 950 children and adolescents in seven published studies and over 49 530 participants in 26 ongoing randomized controlled trials. Descriptive findings of the included published studies were reported stratified by vaccine type. The overall, local, and systemic adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) reported in most trials were similar between the vaccine and placebo groups. Most of the reactions reported were mild to moderate, whereas a few were severe. The common adverse events were injection‐site pain, fever, headache, cough, fatigue, and muscle pain. Few clinical trials reported serious adverse events, but most of them were unrelated to vaccination. In terms of efficacy, the investigated messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine was found to be 90.7%–100% efficacious in preventing COVID‐19 among children and adolescents, revealing good efficacy profiles in this age group. Among children and adolescents, the safety of current COVID‐19 vaccines is acceptable, and studies have suggested that mRNA vaccines can provide high protection against COVID‐19 infection in pediatric age groups.

Tumor antigens and immune subtypes of glioblastoma: the fundamentals of mRNA vaccine and individualized immunotherapy development

PURPOSE

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary brain tumor in adults and is notorious for its lethality. Given its limited therapeutic measures and high heterogeneity, the development of new individualized therapies is important. mRNA vaccines have exhibited promising performance in a variety of solid tumors, those designed for glioblastoma (GBM) need further development. The aim of this study is to explore tumor antigens for the development of mRNA vaccines against GBM and to identify potential immune subtypes of GBM to identify the patients suitable for different immunotherapies.

METHODS

RNA-seq data and the clinical information of 143 GBM patients was extracted from the TCGA database; microarray data and the clinical information of 181 GBM patients was obtained from the REMBRANDT cohort. A GBM immunotherapy cohort of 17 patients was obtained from a previous literature. GEPIA2, cBioPortal, and TIMER2 were used to identify the potential tumor antigens. Immune subtypes and gene modules were identified using consensus clustering; immune landscape was constructed using graph-learning-based dimensionality reduction analysis.

RESULTS

Nine potential tumor antigens associated with poor prognosis and infiltration of antigen-presenting cells were identified in GBM: ADAMTSL4, COL6A1, CTSL, CYTH4, EGFLAM, LILRB2, MPZL2, SAA2, and LSP1. Four robust immune subtypes and seven functional gene modules were identified and validated in an independent cohort. Immune subtypes had different cellular and molecular characteristics, with IS1, an immune cold phenotype; IS2, an immune hot and immunosuppressive phenotype; IS3, a relatively immune cold phenotype, second only to IS1; IS4, having a moderate tumor immune microenvironment. Immune landscape revealed the immune distribution of the GBM patients. Additionally, the potential value of immune subtypes for individualized immunotherapy was demonstrated in a GBM immunotherapy cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

ADAMTSL4, COL6A1, CTSL, CYTH4, EGFLAM, LILRB2, MPZL2, SAA2, and LSP1 are the candidate tumor antigens for mRNA vaccine development in GBM, and IS1 GBM patients are best suited for mRNA vaccination, IS2 patients are best suited for immune checkpoint inhibitor. This study provides a theoretical framework for GBM mRNA vaccine development and individualized immunotherapy strategies.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40537-022-00643-x.