mRNA-1273 bivalent (original and Omicron) COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 outcomes in the United States

Frameworks for transformational breakthroughs in RNA-based medicines

RNA has sparked a revolution in modern medicine, with the potential to transform the way we treat diseases. Recent regulatory approvals, hundreds of new clinical trials, the emergence of CRISPR gene editing, and the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines in dramatic response to the COVID-19 pandemic have converged to create tremendous momentum and expectation. However, challenges with this relatively new class of drugs persist and require specialized knowledge and expertise to overcome. This Review explores shared strategies for developing RNA drug platforms, including layering technologies, addressing common biases and identifying gaps in understanding. It discusses the potential of RNA-based therapeutics to transform medicine, as well as the challenges associated with improving applicability, efficacy and safety profiles. Insights gained from RNA modalities such as antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) and small interfering RNAs are used to identify important next steps for mRNA and gene editing technologies.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of bivalent mRNA booster vaccines against Omicron variants

BACKGROUND

A global shift to bivalent mRNA vaccines is ongoing to counterbalance the diminishing effectiveness of the original monovalent vaccines due to the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 variants, yet substantial variation in the bivalent vaccine effectiveness (VE) exists across studies and a complete picture is lacking.

METHODS

We searched papers evaluating absolute or relative effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 BA.1 type or BA.4/5 type bivalent mRNA vaccines on eight publication databases published from September 1st, 2022, to November 8th, 2023. Pooled VE against Omicron-associated infection and severe events (hospitalization and/or death) was estimated in reference to unvaccinated, ≥2 original monovalent doses, and ≥ 3 original monovalent doses.

RESULTS

From 630 citations identified, 28 studies were included, involving 55,393,303 individuals. Bivalent boosters demonstrated higher effectiveness against symptomatic or any infection for all ages combined, with an absolute VE of 53.5 % (95 % CI: -22.2-82.3 %) when compared to unvaccinated and relative VE of 30.8 % (95 % CI: 22.5-38.2 %) and 28.4 % (95 % CI: 10.2-42.9 %) when compared to ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 original monovalent doses, respectively. The corresponding VE estimates for adults ≥ 60 years old were 22.5 % (95 % CI: 16.8-39.8 %), 31.4 % (95 % CI: 27.7-35.0 %), and 30.6 % (95 % CI: -13.2-57.5 %). Pooled bivalent VE estimates against severe events were higher, 72.9 % (95 % CI: 60.5-82.4 %), 57.6 % (95 % CI: 42.4-68.8 %), and 62.1 % (95 % CI: 54.6-68.3 %) for all ages, and 72.0 % (95 % CI: 51.4-83.9 %), 63.4 % (95 % CI: 41.0-77.3 %), and 60.7 % (95 % CI: 52.4-67.6 %) for adults ≥ 60 years old, compared to unvaccinated, ≥2 original monovalent doses, and ≥ 3 original monovalent doses, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The bivalent boosters demonstrated superior protection against severe outcomes than the original monovalent boosters across age groups, highlighting the critical need for improving vaccine coverage, especially among the vulnerable older subpopulation.

Effectiveness of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among U.S. Healthcare personnel, September 2022-May 2023

BACKGROUND

Bivalent mRNA vaccines were recommended since September 2022. However, coverage with a recent vaccine dose has been limited, and there are few robust estimates of bivalent VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against COVID-19 among eligible U.S. healthcare personnel who had previously received monovalent mRNA vaccine doses.

METHODS

We conducted a case-control study in 22 U.S. states, and enrolled healthcare personnel with COVID-19 (case-participants) or without COVID-19 (control-participants) during September 2022-May 2023. Participants were considered eligible for a bivalent mRNA dose if they had received 2-4 monovalent (ancestral-strain) mRNA vaccine doses, and were ≥67 days after the most recent vaccine dose. We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA dose using conditional logistic regression, accounting for matching by region and four-week calendar period. We adjusted estimates for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, underlying health conditions, community COVID-19 exposure, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and days since the last monovalent mRNA dose.

RESULTS

Among 3,647 healthcare personnel, 1,528 were included as case-participants and 2,119 as control-participants. Participants received their last monovalent mRNA dose a median of 404 days previously; 1,234 (33.8%) also received a bivalent mRNA dose a median of 93 days previously. Overall, VE of a bivalent dose was 34.1% (95% CI, 22.6%-43.9%) against COVID-19 and was similar by product, days since last monovalent dose, number of prior doses, age group, and presence of underlying health conditions. However, VE declined from 54.8% (95% CI, 40.7%-65.6%) after 7-59 days to 21.6% (95% CI 5.6%-34.9%) after ≥60 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines initially conferred approximately 55% protection against COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare personnel. However, protection waned after two months. These findings indicate moderate initial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by remaining up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines.

Poor durability of the neutralizing response against XBB sublineages after a bivalent mRNA COVID-19 booster dose in persons with HIV

We estimated the dynamics of the neutralizing response against XBB sublineages and T cell response in persons with HIV (PWH) with previous AIDS and/or CD4 < 200/mm3 receiving the bivalent original strain/BA.4-5 booster dose in fall 2022. Samples were collected before the shot (Day 0), 15 days, 3, and 6 months after. PWH were stratified by immunization status: hybrid immunity (HI; vaccination plus COVID-19) versus nonhybrid immunity (nHI; vaccination only). Fifteen days after the booster, 16% and 30% of PWH were nonresponders in terms of anti-XBB.1.16 or anti-EG.5.1 nAbs, respectively. Three months after, a significant waning of anti-XBB.1.16, EG.5.1 and -XBB.1 nAbs was observed both in HI and nHI but nAbs in HI were higher than in nHI. Six months after both HI and nHI individuals displayed low mean levels of anti-XBB.1.16 and EG.5.1 nAbs. Regarding T cell response, IFN-γ values were stable over time and similar in HI and nHI. Our data showed that in PWH, during the prevalent circulation of the XBB.1.16, EG.5.1, and other XBB sublineages, a mRNA bivalent vaccine might not confer broad protection against them. With a view to the 2023/2024 vaccination campaign, the use of the monovalent XBB.1.5 mRNA vaccine should be urgently warranted in PWH to provide adequate protection.

Enhanced mucosal B- and T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 after heterologous intramuscular mRNA prime/intranasal protein boost vaccination with a combination adjuvant

Current COVID-19 mRNA vaccines delivered intramuscularly (IM) induce effective systemic immunity, but with suboptimal immunity at mucosal sites, limiting their ability to impart sterilizing immunity. There is strong interest in rerouting immune responses induced in the periphery by parenteral vaccination to the portal entry site of respiratory viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, by mucosal vaccination. We previously demonstrated the combination adjuvant, NE/IVT, consisting of a nanoemulsion (NE) and an RNA-based RIG-I agonist (IVT) induces potent systemic and mucosal immune responses in protein-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines administered intranasally (IN). Herein, we demonstrate priming IM with mRNA followed by heterologous IN boosting with NE/IVT adjuvanted recombinant antigen induces strong mucosal and systemic antibody responses and enhances antigen-specific T cell responses in mucosa-draining lymph nodes compared to IM/IM and IN/IN prime/boost regimens. While all regimens induced cross-neutralizing antibodies against divergent variants and sterilizing immunity in the lungs of challenged mice, mucosal vaccination, either as homologous prime/boost or heterologous IN boost after IM mRNA prime was required to impart sterilizing immunity in the upper respiratory tract. Our data demonstrate the benefit of hybrid regimens whereby strong immune responses primed via IM vaccination are rerouted by IN vaccination to mucosal sites to provide optimal protection to SARS-CoV-2.

A polyvalent RNA vaccine reduces the immune imprinting phenotype in mice and induces neutralizing antibodies against omicron SARS-CoV-2

Immune imprinting is now evident in COVID-19 vaccinated people. This phenomenon may impair the development of effective neutralizing antibodies against variants of concern (VoCs), mainly Omicron and its subvariants. Consequently, the boost doses with bivalent vaccines have not shown a significant gain of function regarding the neutralization of Omicron. The approach to design COVID-19 vaccines must be revised to improve the effectiveness against VoCs. Here, we took advantage of the self-amplifying characteristic of RepRNA and developed a polyvalent formulation composed of mRNA from five VoCs. LION/RepRNA Polyvalent induced neutralizing antibodies in mice previously immunized with LION/RepRNA D614G and reduced the imprinted phenotype associated with low neutralization capacity of Omicron B.1.1.529 pseudoviruses. The polyvalent vaccine can be a strategy to handle the low neutralization of Omicron VoC, despite booster doses with either monovalent or bivalent vaccines.

Relative effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The rapid development of COVID-19 bivalent vaccines (BVs) has encompassed both the original virus strains and the variant strain. However, the effectiveness of BVs is largely unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of BVs.

Methods

Literature research was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science up until November 4, 2023. Both randomized control trials and observational studies were considered for inclusion. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in cohort and case-control studies.

Results

A total of 1,174 articles were reviewed and 22 eligible studies were included. All included studies were observational (15 cohort studies, 7 case-control studies). The total number of participants was 39,673,160, and the number of people vaccinated with BVs as an intervention group was 11,585,182. Two mRNA BVs were mainly involved, including the ancestral strain and the BA.1 or BA.4-5 variants. Meta-analysis results showed, compared with the monovalent vaccines (MVs), the relative effectiveness (rVE) of the BVs in COVID-19-associated infections/symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths was 30.90% [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.43-53.37], 39.83% (95% CI, 27.34-52.32), 59.70% (95% CI, 44.08-75.32), and 72.23% (95% CI, 62.08-82.38), respectively. For those aged 50 years and older, BVs provided an additional 49.69% (95% CI, 41.44-57.94) effective protection compared with MVs. During the dominance period of the omicron XBB variant strain, BVs provided an additional 47.63% (95% CI, 27.45-67.82) effective protection compared with MVs.

Conclusion

Our findings show that the rVE of BVs in preventing COVID-19-associated infections, symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths is higher compared to MVs. Particularly for people over 50 years of age and during the Omicron variant XBB dominance phase, BVs provided superior protection. Therefore, BVs may have a broader application in the prevention and control of coronaviruses variant.

Causes and Consequences of Coronavirus Spike Protein Variability

Coronaviruses are a large family of enveloped RNA viruses found in numerous animal species. They are well known for their ability to cross species barriers and have been transmitted from bats or intermediate hosts to humans on several occasions. Four of the seven human coronaviruses (hCoVs) are responsible for approximately 20% of common colds (hCoV-229E, -NL63, -OC43, -HKU1). Two others (SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV) cause severe and frequently lethal respiratory syndromes but have only spread to very limited extents in the human population. In contrast the most recent human hCoV, SARS-CoV-2, while exhibiting intermediate pathogenicity, has a profound impact on public health due to its enormous spread. In this review, we discuss which initial features of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein and subsequent adaptations to the new human host may have helped this pathogen to cause the COVID-19 pandemic. Our focus is on host forces driving changes in the Spike protein and their consequences for virus infectivity, pathogenicity, immune evasion and resistance to preventive or therapeutic agents. In addition, we briefly address the significance and perspectives of broad-spectrum therapeutics and vaccines.

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of the updated COVID-19 mRNA Autumn 2023 vaccines in Germany

OBJECTIVES

To assess the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines updated for Autumn 2023 in adults aged ≥60 years and high-risk persons aged 30-59 years in Germany over a 1-year analytic time horizon (September 2023-August 2024).

METHODS

A compartmental Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered model was updated and adapted to the German market. Numbers of symptomatic infections, a number of COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated using a decision tree model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an Autumn 2023 Moderna updated COVID-19 (mRNA-1273.815) vaccine was compared to no additional vaccination. Potential differences between the mRNA-1273.815 and the Autumn Pfizer-BioNTech updated COVID-19 (XBB.1.5 BNT162b2) vaccines, as well as societal return on investment for the mRNA-1273.815 vaccine relative to no vaccination, were also examined.

RESULTS

Compared to no autumn vaccination, the mRNA-1273.815 campaign is predicted to prevent approximately 1,697,900 symptomatic infections, 85,400 hospitalizations, and 4,100 deaths. Compared to an XBB.1.5 BNT162b2 campaign, the mRNA-1273.815 campaign is also predicted to prevent approximately 90,100 symptomatic infections, 3,500 hospitalizations, and 160 deaths. Across both analyses we found the mRNA-1273.815 campaign to be dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

The mRNA-1273.815 vaccine can be considered cost-effective relative to the XBB.1.5 BNT162b2 vaccine and highly likely to provide more benefits and save costs compared to no vaccine in Germany, and to offer high societal return on investment.

Factors associated with uptake of bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in a large US health care system

BACKGROUND

Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were developed to provide protection against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 variants, but uptake in the United States has been low. Sociodemographic disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake have been documented, but it is unclear if similar disparities persist among individuals who previously completed a primary series of monovalent COVID-19 vaccine.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) including youth aged 5-17 years and adults aged ≥18 years who were KPSC members and had completed a primary series of monovalent COVID-19 vaccine. Individuals were followed from index date (date of eligibility for bivalent vaccine) to 03/31/2023 to ascertain receipt of any dose of bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or until disenrollment from KPSC or death. Multivariable robust Poisson regression was conducted to assess the adjusted relative risk and 95 % confidence intervals of factors associated with receipt of bivalent vaccine.

RESULTS

The final cohorts included 305,339 youth and 2,534,619 adults, of whom 19.5 % and 30.7 %, respectively, had received bivalent COVID-19 vaccine. Factors associated with being more likely to receive bivalent COVID-19 vaccine included older age, Asian race, more prior year outpatient and virtual visits, Charlson score ≥1, and immunocompromised status. Factors associated with being less likely to receive a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine included age 12-17 vs 5-11 years, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity, ≥1 prior year inpatient or emergency department visits, prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (adults only), Medicaid insurance, and higher neighborhood deprivation index.

CONCLUSION

Even among youth and adults who had previously received a primary series of monovalent COVID-19 vaccine, sociodemographic and clinical disparities were observed in receipt of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine. These findings are critical to inform equitable strategies for the implementation of the updated monovalent COVID-19 vaccine targeting the Omicron XBB strain.