Comparing real-life effectiveness of various COVID-19 vaccine regimens during the delta variant-dominant pandemic: A test-negative case-control study

Estimating All-Cause Deaths Averted in the First Two Years of the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign in Italy

Comparing deaths averted by vaccination campaigns is a crucial public health endeavour. Excess all-cause deaths better reflect the impact of the pandemic than COVID-19 deaths. We used a seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average with exogenous factors model to regress daily all-cause deaths on annual trend, seasonality, and environmental temperature in three Italian regions (Lombardy, Marche and Sicily) from 2015 to 2019. The model was used to forecast excess deaths during the vaccinal period (December 2020-October 2022). We used the prevented fraction to estimate excess deaths observed during the vaccinal campaigns, those which would have occurred without vaccination, and those averted by the campaigns. At the end of the vaccinal period, the Lombardy region proceeded with a more intensive COVID-19 vaccination campaign than other regions (on average, 1.82 doses per resident, versus 1.67 and 1.56 in Marche and Sicily, respectively). A higher prevented fraction of all-cause deaths was consistently found in Lombardy (65% avoided deaths, as opposed to 60% and 58% in Marche and Sicily). Nevertheless, because of a lower excess mortality rate found in Lombardy compared to Marche and Sicily (12, 24 and 23 per 10,000 person-years, respectively), a lower rate of averted deaths was observed (22 avoided deaths per 10,000 person-years, versus 36 and 32 in Marche and Sicily). In Lombardy, early and full implementation of adult COVID-19 vaccination was associated with the largest reduction in all-cause deaths compared to Marche and Sicily.

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.

Safety profiles of homologous and heterologous regimens containing three major types of COVID-19 vaccine among people living with HIV

BACKGROUND

Existing data on adverse effects (AEs) of homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccine regimens among people living with HIV (PLHIV) are limited.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted among Thai PLHIV during 2021-2022. Vaccine types and AEs were collected using an online survey.

RESULTS

Of the 398 vaccinated PLHIV, 92% had CD4 count ≥200 cells/µL and 96% were virologically suppressed at enrolment; 38% received two doses and 62% received three doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Inactivated, viral vector and mRNA were the most common vaccine types received as the first, second, and booster doses, respectively. For the first and second vaccine doses, the most common AEs were fever (15% and 11%) and injection site pain (11% and 11%). The mRNA vaccine significantly caused more overall AEs, injection pain, fatigue, and rashes than the other two types. For a booster dose, viral vector vaccine significantly caused more injection site pain and headache than the other two types. The majority of AEs of the first, second and booster doses spontaneously recovered without treatment. By multivariable analysis, receipt of viral vector or mRNA vaccine and age less than 40 years were independently associated with AEs of the primary series vaccines, while having AEs from the previous dose and female sex were independent factors associated with AEs of a booster vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested the safety of homologous and heterologous regimens containing the three types of COVID-19 vaccines among PLHIV and identified those who required close monitoring for vaccine AEs.

Evidence synthesis and pooled analysis of vaccine effectiveness for COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 as a heterologous booster after inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus vaccines

Introduction of primary COVID-19 vaccination has helped reduce severe disease and death caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Understanding the protection conferred by heterologous booster regimens informs alternative vaccination strategies that enable programmatic resilience and can catalyze vaccine confidence and coverage. Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are among the most widely used vaccines worldwide. This review synthesizes the available evidence identified as of May 26, 2022, on the safety, immunogenicity, and effectiveness of a heterologous BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA vaccine booster dose after an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine primary series, to help protect against COVID-19. Evidence showed that the heterologous BNT16b2 mRNA vaccine booster enhances immunogenicity and improves vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19, and no new safety concerns were identified with heterologous inactivated primary series with mRNA booster combinations.

Real-life effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine during the Omicron variant-dominant pandemic: how many booster doses do we need?

The surge in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the Omicron variants of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 necessitates researches to inform vaccine effectiveness (VE) and other preventive measures to halt the pandemic. A test-negative case-control study was conducted among adults (age ≥18 years) who were at-risk for COVID-19 and presented for nasopharyngeal real-time polymerase chain reaction testing during the Omicron variant-dominant period in Thailand (1 January 2022-15 June 2022). All participants were prospectively followed up for COVID-19 development for 14 days after the enrolment. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated and adjusted for characteristics associated with COVID-19. Of the 7971 included individuals, there were 3104 cases and 4867 controls. The adjusted VE among persons receiving 2-dose, 3-dose, and 4-dose vaccine regimens for preventing infection and preventing moderate-to-critical diseases were 33%, 48%, 62% and 60%, 74%, 76%, respectively. The VE were generally higher among those receiving the last dose of vaccine within 90 days compared to those receiving the last dose more than 90 days prior to the enrolment. The highest VE were observed in individuals receiving the 4-dose regimen, CoronaVac-CoronaVac-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-BNT162b2 for both preventing infection (65%) and preventing moderate-to-critical diseases (82%). Our study demonstrated increased VE along with an increase in number of vaccine doses received. Current vaccination programmes should focus on reducing COVID-19 severity and mandate at least one booster dose. The heterologous boosters with viral vector and mRNA vaccines were highly effective and can be used in individuals who previously received the primary series of inactivated vaccine.

Vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 for Pfizer BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca vaccines: a systematic review

The purpose of this systematic review was to report on the vaccine efficacy (VE) of three SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved by Health Canada: Pfizer BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca. Four databases were searched for primary publications on population-level VE. Ninety-two publications matched the inclusion criteria, and the extracted data were separated by vaccine type: mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) and the AstraZeneca vaccine. The median VE for PCR-positive patients and various levels of clinical disease was determined for the first and second doses of both vaccine types against multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants. The median VE for PCR-positive infections against unidentified variants from an mRNA vaccine was 64.5 and 89%, respectively, after one or two doses. The median VE for PCR-positive infections against unidentified variants from the AstraZeneca vaccine was 53.4 and 69.6%, respectively, after one or two doses. The median VE for two doses of mRNA for asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infection against unidentified variants was 85.5, 93.2, and 92.2%, respectively. The median VE for two doses of AstraZeneca for asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe infection against unidentified variants was 69.7, 71, and 90.2%, respectively. Vaccine efficacy numerically increased from the first to the second dose, increased from the first 2 weeks to the second 2 weeks post-vaccination for both doses, but decreased after 4 months from the second dose. Vaccine efficacy did not differ by person's age.

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.

Comparison of infection severity of vaccinated and unvaccinated health workers with Corona Virus: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Hospital staff members are most susceptible to the COVID-19 illness, which is currently prevented through vaccination. Hospital staff members also refuse vaccinations, albeit the underlying causes have not been identified. The study aimed to compare the severity of the symptoms of the disease on the body for health workers who took the coronavirus vaccine and those who did not take the vaccine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cohort study aimed to estimate the of infection severity of vaccinated and unvaccinated health workers with Corona Virus in Mosul Hospital, Iraq. Data were obtained from the General Mosul Hospital, Nineveh, Iraq. The first of the three components of this questionnaire outlined the demographic characteristics. Second part: First group of unvaccinated Health care workers included those who had not received the COVID-19 immunization or had only gotten one dose of the vaccine; the second group included those who had received their first dose of Corona vaccine and the third group included those who had received two doses of Corona Vaccine. HCWs who got corona vaccine were included in the three-dose final group.

RESULTS

The study's findings indicate that as compared to the corona vaccination, the vaccinated experienced less severe infection symptoms and fewer dosage stays. The high share of healthcare workers among the 20- to 30-year-olds who received vaccinations accounts for the gender gap between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

CONCLUSION

This study concluded that the results of the corona vaccine are not consistent among the various groups of HCWs. The acceptability of vaccinations is practically unanimous among nurses, but less so among doctors and other healthcare professionals.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of fractional, heterologous primary COVID-19 vaccination schedules with BNT162b2 boosters in 5-11-year-old Thai children: A multicenter, prospective, double-blind, randomized control trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate immunogenicity and safety of heterologous COVID-19 primary vaccination regimens of CoronaVac with fractional and standard BNT162b2 dosages in 5-11-year-old Thai children.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized control trial divided participants 1:1:1:1 to receive a second dose of either standard (10-μg) or half-dose (5-μg) BNT162b2 vaccines as follows: CoronaVac/10-μg-BNT162b2 (Group 1), CoronaVac/5-μg-BNT162b2 (Group 2), 10-μg-BNT162b2/10-μg-BNT162b2 (Group 3), or 10-μg-BNT162b2/5-μg-BNT162b2 (Group 4). A subset of participants from each arm received 10-μg-BNT162b2 booster (third) doses 16 weeks after their second vaccination. Humoral and cellular immunogenicity were assessed and adverse events (AEs) digitally self-reported.

RESULTS

Of 553 enrolled participants, 50 % were male, the median (interquartile range) age was 8.65 (7.00, 10.00) years, and a majority (91 %) had normal weight-for-height. All participants exhibited similarly robust neutralizing antibodies (NAb) against the ancestral Wuhan strain two weeks after the second vaccination, with titers highest in Group 1 (737.60, 95% CI [654.80, 830.88]), followed by Groups 3 (630.42, 95% CI [555.50, 715.45]), 2 (593.98, 95% CI [506.02, 697.23]), and 4 (451.79, 95% CI [388.62, 525.23]), as well as 56.01 % and 49.68 % seroconversion for BA.1 and BA.5, respectively. Half-dose BNT162b2 as a second dose induced significantly lower NAb titers compared to their respective full-dose regimens (p = 0.03 for Groups 1 vs 2 and p < 0.001 for Groups 3 vs 4). 77.71 % of participants developed SARS-CoV-2 ancestral spike protein-specific T-cell responses two weeks after the second vaccination. This was similar across arms. Booster doses generated NAb titers 5.69-11.51-folds higher than the second vaccination against BA.1. AEs were similar across arms, all mild or moderate, and fully resolved 2-3 days thereafter.

CONCLUSION

Standard and fractional heterologous regimens of CoronaVac-BNT162b2 induced similar or higher humoral immunity than homologous BNT162b2 and represent alternative vaccine regimens for children. These findings are highly relevant in settings concurrently using both vaccines.

The immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination in participants with underlying comorbidity diseases: A prospective cohort study

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) increases mortality rates in older adults and those with comorbidities. Individuals with certain comorbidities may have a poor immune response and require early booster vaccines. We aimed to assess the immune response after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, at 84-day intervals, in participants with the following comorbidities; diabetes mellitus; obesity; cardiovascular disease; chronic kidney disease; rheumatological disease; cirrhosis; hematological disease; hematological malignancy; or solid malignancy. The study was conducted at Chulabhorn Hospital in Thailand, with healthy healthcare workers serving as the control group. Of the 769 participants, 352 were in the healthy cohort and 417 were in the comorbidity cohort, all received at least one dose of vaccine. Anti-RBD total antibody levels were evaluated on Day 0, Day 84, and Day 112. The results at Day 112 (4 weeks after the second dose) showed that individuals with comorbidities had a poor immune response compared to healthy individuals, especially those with hematological malignancy and solid malignancy. The geometric mean concentration (GMC) of anti-RBD antibody in the comorbidity cohort was significantly lower than that in the healthy cohort: 433.66 BAU/ml (95% CI 334.62-562.01) versus 1096.14 BAU/ml (95% CI 1010.26-1189.33), respectively. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) between the two cohorts was 0.40 (95% CI 0.30-0.52, p < .001). This study concluded that individuals with comorbidities, particularly hematological and solid malignancies, had poor immune responses and may require an early booster vaccine to prevent infection and death.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women

This open-labeled non-inferiority trial evaluated immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous and homologous COVID-19 vaccination schedules in pregnant Thai women. 18-45-year-old pregnant women with no history of COVID-19 infection or vaccination and a gestational age of ≥12 weeks were randomized 1:1:1 into three two-dose primary series scheduled 4 weeks apart: BNT162b2-BNT162b2 (Group 1), ChAdOx1-BNT162b2 (Group 2), and CoronaVac-BNT162b2 (Group 3). Serum antibody responses, maternal and cord blood antibody levels at delivery, and adverse events (AEs) following vaccination until delivery were assessed. The 124 enrolled participants had a median age of 31 (interquartile range [IQR] 26.0-35.5) years and gestational age of 23.5 (IQR 18.0-30.0) weeks. No significant difference in anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG were observed across arms at 2 weeks after the second dose. Neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers against the ancestral Wuhan strain were highest in Group 3 (258.22, 95% CI [187.53, 355.56]), followed by Groups 1 (187.47, 95% CI [135.15, 260.03]) and 2 (166.63, 95% CI [124.60, 222.84]). Cord blood anti-RBD IgG was correlated with, and equal to or higher than, maternal levels at delivery (r = 0.719, P < .001) and inversely correlated with elapsed time after the second vaccination (r = -0.366, P < .001). No significant difference in cord blood antibody levels between groups were observed. Local and systemic AEs were mild-to-moderate and more frequent in Group 2. Heterologous schedules of CoronaVac-BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-BNT162b2 induced immunogenicity on-par with BNT162b2-BNT162b2 and may be considered as alternative schedules for primary series in pregnant women in mRNA-limited vaccine settings.

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.

Considerations for vaccinating children against COVID-19

COVID-19 vaccines have been introduced in children and adolescents in many countries. However, high levels of community transmission and infection-derived immunity make the decision to introduce COVID-19 vaccination of children in countries yet to do so particularly challenging. For example, other vaccine preventable diseases, including measles and polio, generally have far higher childhood morbidity and mortality in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) than COVID-19, and coverage with these vaccines has declined during the pandemic. Many countries are yet to introduce pneumococcal conjugate and rotavirus vaccines for children, which prevent common causes of childhood death, or human papillomavirus vaccine for adolescents. The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines that have been widely tested in children and adolescents have a positive risk-benefit profile. However, the benefit is less compared with other life-saving vaccines in this age group, particularly in LMICs and settings with widespread infection-derived immunity. The resources required for rollout may also pose a considerable challenge in LMICs. In this paper, we describe COVID-19 in children, with a focus on LMICs, and summarise the published literature on safety, efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in children and adolescents. We highlight the complexity of decision-making regarding COVID-19 vaccination of children now that most of this low-risk population benefit from infection-derived immunity. We emphasise that at-risk groups should be prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination; and that if COVID-19 vaccines are introduced for children, the opportunity should be taken to improve coverage of routine childhood vaccines and preventative healthcare. Additionally, we highlight the paucity of epidemiological data in LMICs, and that for future epidemics, measures need to be taken to ensure equitable access to safe and efficacious vaccines before exposure to infection.

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.

Efficacy and effectiveness of inactivated vaccines against symptomatic COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 clinical outcomes in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Inactivated, whole-virion vaccines have been used extensively in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Its efficacy and effectiveness across regions have not been systematically evaluated. Efficacy refers to how well a vaccine performs in a controlled environment. Effectiveness refers to how well it performs in real world settings.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed published, peer-reviewed evidence on all WHO-approved inactivated vaccines and evaluated their efficacy and effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic infection, severe clinical outcomes, and severe COVID-19. We searched Pubmed (including MEDLINE), EMBASE (via OVID), Web of Science Core Collection, Web of Science Chinese Science Citation Database, and Clinicaltrials.gov.

Findings

The final pool included 28 studies representing over 32 million individuals reporting efficacy or effectiveness estimates of complete vaccination using any approved inactivated vaccine between January 1, 2019 and June 27, 2022. Evidence was found for efficacy and effectiveness against symptomatic infection (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16-0.27, I2 = 28% and OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.64, I2 = 98%, respectively) and infection (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.49-0.57, I2 = 90% and OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.24-0.41, I2 = 0%, respectively) for early SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoCs) (Alpha, Delta), and for waning of vaccine effectiveness with more recent VoCs (Gamma, Omicron). Effectiveness remained robust against COVID-related ICU admission (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04-1.08, I2 = 99%) and death (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00-2.02, I2 = 96%), although effectiveness estimates against hospitalization (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37-0.53, I2 = 0%) were inconsistent.

Interpretation

This study showed evidence of efficacy and effectiveness of inactivated vaccines for all outcomes, although inconsistent reporting of key study parameters, high heterogeneity of observational studies, and the small number of studies of particular designs for most outcomes undermined the reliability of the findings. Findings highlight the need for additional research to address these limitations so that more definitive conclusions can be drawn to inform SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and vaccination policies.

Funding

Health and Medical Research Fund on COVID-19, Health Bureau of the Government of the Hong Kong SAR.

Hybrid immunity expands the functional humoral footprint of both mRNA and vector-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

Despite the successes of current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, waning immunity, the emergence of variants of concern, and breakthrough infections among vaccinees have begun to highlight opportunities to improve vaccine platforms. Real-world vaccine efficacy studies have highlighted the reduced risk of breakthrough infections and diseases among individuals infected and vaccinated, referred to as hybrid immunity. Thus, we sought to define whether hybrid immunity shapes the humoral immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) following Pfizer/BNT162b2, Moderna mRNA-1273, ChadOx1/AZD1222, and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. Each vaccine exhibits a unique functional humoral profile in vaccination only or hybrid immunity. However, hybrid immunity shows a unique augmentation of S2-domain-specific functional immunity that was poorly induced for the vaccination only. These data highlight the importance of natural infection in breaking the immunodominance away from the evolutionarily unstable S1 domain and potentially affording enhanced cross-variant protection by targeting the more highly conserved S2 domain of SARS-CoV-2.

Prevalence, risk factors, and vaccine effectiveness of COVID-19 infection in thai children, adolescents, and young adults in the omicron era

Background and objectives

The study of prevalence, risk factors, and vaccine effectiveness (VE) in children, adolescents, and young adults during the Omicron era has been limited, making this the objectives of the study.

Methods

A prospective, test-negative case-control study was conducted on patients aged 0-24 years old classified as patients under investigation (PUI) from January to May 2022. PUI with positive RT-PCR within 14 days were classified as cases, whilst PUI with negative RT-PCR in 14 days were controls. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined risk factors; VE was calculated using [1-adjusted odds ratio (OR)] × 100.

Results

The final analyses included 3,490 patients with a PUI infection rate of 45.6%. Heterologous vaccination regimens, including inactivated vaccines, viral vectors, and mRNA were utilized during the study period. A total of 2,563 patients (73.5%) had received at least 2 vaccine doses, regardless of regimen. Male gender and household infections were independent risk factors for the development of infection, with an adjusted OR of 1.55 and 1.45, respectively. Underlying comorbidities and obesity were not significantly associated with the development of infection. Patients with underlying comorbidities were more likely to have at least moderate severity of infection with the adjusted OR of 3.07. Age older than 11 years was associated with lower infection risk and development of at least moderate infection with adjusted OR of 0.4 and 0.34, respectively. Vaccinated participants also had a lower risk of developing at least moderate infection: adjusted OR of 0.40. The adjusted VE of any vaccination regimen for infection prevention for one, two, three, or more than four doses was 21.8%, 30.6%, 53.5%, and 81.2%, respectively. The adjusted VE of any vaccination regimen for prevention of at least moderate severity of the disease for one, two, three, or more than four doses was 5.7%, 24.3% 62.9%, and 90.6%, respectively.

Conclusion

Disease prevalence among PUI was substantially high during the Omicron wave. A two-dose vaccination regimen does not appear sufficient to ensure protection against infection.

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.

Update on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines on different variants of SARS-CoV-2

It has been more than three years since the first emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and millions of lives have been taken to date. Like most pandemics caused by viral infections, massive public vaccination is the most promising approach to cease COVID-19 infection. In this regard, several vaccine platforms including inactivated virus, nucleic acid-based (mRNA and DNA vaccines), adenovirus-based, and protein-based vaccines have been designed and developed for COVID-19 prevention and many of them have received FDA or WHO approval. Fortunately, after global vaccination, the transmission rate, disease severity, and mortality rate of COVID-19 infection have diminished significantly. However, a rapid increase in COVID-19 cases due to the omicron variant in vaccinated countries has raised concerns about the effectiveness of these vaccines. In this review, articles published between January 2020 and January 2023 were reviewed using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science search engines with appropriate related keywords. The related papers were selected and discussed in detail. The current review mainly focuses on the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants. Along with discussing the available and approved vaccines, characteristics of different variants of COVID-19 have also been discussed in brief. Finally, the currently circulating COVID-19 variant i.e Omicron, along with the effectiveness of available COVID-19 vaccines against these new variants are discussed in detail. In conclusion, based on the available data, administration of newly developed bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, as booster shots, would be crucial to prevent further circulation of the newly developed variants.

Heterologous Vector-mRNA Based SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Strategy Appears Superior to a Homologous Vector-Based Vaccination Scheme in German Healthcare Workers Regarding Humoral SARS-CoV-2 Response Indicating a High Boosting Effect by mRNA Vaccines

BACKGROUND

Longitudinal humoral SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2) immunity for up to 15 months due to vaccination, the efficacy of vaccination strategies (homologous, vector-vector versus heterologous, vector-mRNA), the influence of vaccination side effects, and the infection rate in German healthcare workers need to be investigated.

METHODS

In this study, 103 individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled to examine their anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-N- and anti-RBD/S1-Ig levels. A total of 415 blood samples in lithium heparin tubes were prospectively obtained, and a structured survey regarding medical history, type of vaccine, and vaccination reactions was conducted.

RESULTS

All participants demonstrated a humoral immune response, among whom no values decreased below the positivity cutoff. Five to six months after the third vaccination, three participants showed anti-RBD/S1 antibodies of less than 1000 U/mL. We observed higher levels for heterologous mRNA-/vector-based combinations compared to pure vector-based vaccination after the second vaccination, which is harmonized after a third vaccination with the mRNA-vaccine only in both cohorts. The incidence of vaccine breakthrough in a highly exposed cohort was 60.3%.

CONCLUSION

Sustained long-term humoral immunity was observed, indicating the superiority of a heterologous mRNA-/vector-based combination compared to pure vector-based vaccination. There was longevity of anti-RBD/S1 antibodies of at least 4 and up to 7 months without external stimulus. Regarding vaccination reactogenity, the occurrence of local symptoms as pain at the injection site was increased after the first mRNA application compared to the vector-vector cohort with a general decrease in adverse events at later vaccination time points. Overall, a correlation between the humoral vaccination response and vaccination side effects was not observed. Despite the high prevalence of vaccine breakthroughs, these only occurred in the later course of the study when more infectious variants, which are, however, associated with milder courses, were present. These results provide insights into vaccine-related serologic responses, and the study should be expanded using additional vaccine doses and novel variants in the future.

The dose- and time-dependent effectiveness and safety associated with COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to provide guidance for clinical treatment and increase public confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, and other COVID-19 datasets were searched from December 2019 to May 2022. Case-control studies and prospective cohort studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and safety in pregnant women were included.

RESULTS

From day 11 to day 13, after the first dose of the COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccine, the effectiveness was 54% (95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.69). On days 14 to 27, the effectiveness was 59%. There was a 14% increase in vaccine effectiveness 28 days after the first dose was given. The inactivated vaccines showed similar effectiveness. The proportions of placental abruptions, postpartum hemorrhages, miscarriages, stillbirths, premature births, and small for gestational age infants were not significantly different between vaccinated and nonvaccinated pregnant women. Fatigue and fever were also not associated with pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Our findings affirm that the effectiveness varies for different types of vaccines and is significantly and positively correlated with time in the pregnant population. COVID-19 vaccines have also been deemed safe for pregnant women. Thus, we developed a comprehensive understanding of the role of vaccines in pregnant women.

Effectiveness of heterologous third and fourth dose COVID-19 vaccine schedules for SARS-CoV-2 infection during delta and omicron predominance in Thailand: a test-negative, case-control study

Background

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has evolved quickly, with numerous waves of different variants of concern resulting in the need for countries to offer continued protection through booster vaccination. To ensure adequate vaccination coverage, Thailand has proactively adopted heterologous vaccination schedules. While randomised controlled trials have assessed homologous schedules in detail, limited data has been reported for heterologous vaccine effectiveness (VE).

Methods

Utilising a unique active surveillance network established in Chiang Mai, Northern Thailand, we conducted a test-negative case control study to assess the VE of heterologous third and fourth dose schedules against SARS-CoV-2 infection among suspect-cases during Oct 1-Dec 31, 2021 (delta-predominant) and Feb 1-Apr 10, 2022 (omicron-predominant) periods.

Findings

After a third dose, effectiveness against delta infection was high (adjusted VE 97%, 95% CI 94-99%) in comparison to moderate protection against omicron (adjusted VE 31%, 95% CI 26-36%). Good protection was observed after a fourth dose (adjusted VE 75%, 95% CI 71-80%). VE was consistent across age groups for both delta and omicron infection. The VE of third or fourth doses against omicron infection were equivalent for the three main vaccines used for boosting in Thailand, suggesting coverage, rather than vaccine type is a much stronger predictor of protection.

Interpretation

Appropriately timed booster doses have a high probability of preventing COVID-19 infection with both delta and omicron variants. Our evidence supports the need for ongoing national efforts to increase population coverage of booster doses.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) under The Smart Emergency Care Services Integration (SECSI) project to Faculty of Public Health Chiang Mai University.

Characteristics, Outcomes, and Factors Affecting Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with CAP Due to Different Variants of SARS-CoV-2 and Non-COVID-19 CAP

The study was conducted from October 2020 to March 2022 in a province in southern Thailand. The inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and more than 18 years old were enrolled. Of the 1511 inpatients with CAP, COVID-19 was the leading cause, accounting for 27%. Among the patients with COVID-19 CAP, mortalities, mechanical ventilators, ICU admissions, ICU stay, and hospital costs were significantly higher than of those with non-COVID-19 CAP. Household and workplace contact with COVID-19, co-morbidities, lymphocytopenia and peripheral infiltration in chest imaging were associated with CAP due to COVID-19. The delta variant yielded the most unfavorable clinical and non-clinical outcomes. While COVID-19 CAP due to B.1.113, Alpha and Omicron variants had relatively similar outcomes. Among those with CAP, COVID-19 infection as well as obesity, a higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and APACHE II score were associated with in-hospital mortality. Among those with COVID-19 CAP, obesity, infection due to the Delta variant, a higher CCI and higher APACHE II score were associated with in-hospital mortality. COVID-19 had a great impact on the epidemiology and outcomes of CAP.

The Effects of CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Reducing Severe Illness in Thailand: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Two primary vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been rolled out in the mass vaccination campaign that started simultaneously with the spread of the delta variant. To explore the vaccines' effect on reducing viral load and disease severity, we conducted a retrospective cohort study in Thai patients aged ≥18 years who were confirmed COVID-19 positive by RT-PCR. Compared to unvaccinated patients, Ct values and the number of severe cases among vaccine regimens were analyzed. Ct values of vaccinated patients were not significantly different from unvaccinated patients, despite an increase of Ct values in a booster dose. The adjusted odd ratio for prevention of delta-related severe diseases was 0.47, 95% CI: 0.30-0.76 and 0.06, 95% CI: 0.01-0.45 after receiving one dose and two doses, respectively. No severe illness was found in booster-vaccinated individuals. Focusing on the vaccine types, one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 gave significant protection, whereas one dose of CoronaVac did not (0.49, 95% CI: 0.30-0.79, p = 0.003 vs. 0.28, 95% CI: 0.04-2.16, p = 0.223). Two-dose vaccination showed robust protective effects in all subpopulations regardless of vaccine type. Vaccinations with two primary vaccines could not reduce viral load in patients with COVID-19, but could prevent severe illness.

Risk categorization and outcomes among healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19: A cohort study from a Thai tertiary-care center

BACKGROUND

A risk categorization tool for healthcare workers (HCWs) exposed to COVID-19 is crucial for preventing COVID-19 transmission and requires validation and modification according to local context.

METHODS

From January to December 2021, a prospective cohort study was conducted among Thai HCWs to evaluate the performance of the specifically-created risk categorization tool, which classified HCWs into low-risk (LR), intermediate-risk (IR), and high-risk (HR) groups based on types of activities, duration of exposure, and protective methods used during exposure. Subsequent measures were determined for the HCWs based on the risk categories.

RESULTS

1891 HCWs were included; 52%, 25% and 23% were LR, IR, and HR, respectively. COVID-19 was diagnosed in 1.3%, 5.1% and 27.3% of LR, IR and HR HCWs, respectively (P <0.001). Independent factors associated with COVID-19 were household or community exposure [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1588.68; P <0.001), being HR (aOR, 11.94; P <0.001), working at outpatient departments (aOR, 2.54; P <0.001), and no history of COVID-19 vaccination (aOR, 2.05; P = 0.01). The monthly rates of COVID-19 among LR, IR, and HR HCWs significantly decreased after the incremental rate of full vaccination. In-hospital transmission between HCWs occurred in 8% and was mainly due to eating at the same table.

CONCLUSION

The study risk categorization tool can differentiate risks of COVID-19 among the HCWs. Prevention of COVID-19 should be focused on HCWs with the identified risk factors and behaviors associated with COVID-19 development and encouraging receipt of full vaccination.

Breakthrough infections, hospital admissions, and mortality after major COVID-19 vaccination profiles: A prospective cohort study

Background

Several COVID-19 vaccination rollout strategies are implemented. Real-world data from the large-scale, government-mandated Central Vaccination Center (CVC), Thailand, could be used for comparing the breakthrough infection, across all available COVID-19 vaccination profiles.

Methods

This prospective cohort study combined the vaccine profiles from the CVC registry with three nationally validated outcome datasets to assess the breakthrough COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death among Thais individuals who received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The outcomes were analyzed by comparing vaccine profiles to investigate the shot effect and homologous effect.

Findings

Of 2,407,315 Thais who had at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, 63,469 (2.75%) had breakthrough infection, 42,001 (1.79%) had been hospitalized, and 431 (0.02%) died. Per one vaccination shot added, there was an 18% risk reduction of breakthrough infection (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.82), a 25% risk reduction of hospitalization (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.76), and a 96% risk reduction of mortality (HR 0.04, 95% CI 0.03-0.06). The heterologous two-shot vaccine profiles had a higher protective effect against infection, hospitalization, and mortality compared to the homologous counterparts.

Interpretation

COVID-19 breakthrough infection, hospitalization, and death differ across vaccination profiles that had a different number of shots and types of vaccines.

Funding

This study did not involve any funding.

Booster vaccination protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections in young adults during an Omicron BA.1-predominant period: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

While booster vaccinations clearly reduce the risk of severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and death, the impact of boosters on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections has not been fully characterized: Doing so requires understanding their impact on asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic infections that often go unreported but nevertheless play an important role in spreading SARS-CoV-2. We sought to estimate the impact of COVID-19 booster doses on SARS-CoV-2 infections in a vaccinated population of young adults during an Omicron BA.1-predominant period.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We implemented a cohort study of young adults in a college environment (Cornell University's Ithaca campus) from a period when Omicron BA.1 was the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant on campus (December 5 to December 31, 2021). Participants included 15,800 university students who completed initial vaccination series with vaccines approved by the World Health Organization for emergency use, were enrolled in mandatory at-least-weekly surveillance polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, and had no positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test within 90 days before the start of the study period. Robust multivariable Poisson regression with the main outcome of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test was performed to compare those who completed their initial vaccination series and a booster dose to those without a booster dose. A total of 1,926 unique SARS-CoV-2 infections were identified in the study population. Controlling for sex, student group membership, date of completion of initial vaccination series, initial vaccine type, and temporal effect during the study period, our analysis estimates that receiving a booster dose further reduces the rate of having a PCR-detected SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to an initial vaccination series by 56% (95% confidence interval [42%, 67%], P < 0.001). While most individuals had recent booster administration before or during the study period (a limitation of our study), this result is robust to the assumed delay over which a booster dose becomes effective (varied from 1 day to 14 days). The mandatory active surveillance approach used in this study, under which 86% of the person-days in the study occurred, reduces the likelihood of outcome misclassification. Key limitations of our methodology are that we did not have an a priori protocol or statistical analysis plan because the analysis was initially done for institutional research purposes, and some analysis choices were made after observing the data.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that boosters are effective, relative to completion of initial vaccination series, in further reducing the rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections in a college student population during a period when Omicron BA.1 was predominant; booster vaccinations for this age group may play an important role in reducing incidence of COVID-19.

Real-World Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines against Severe Outcomes during the Period of Omicron Predominance in Thailand: A Test-Negative Nationwide Case-Control Study

Due to the widespread Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in Thailand, the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines has become a major issue. The primary objective of this study is to examine the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines based on secondary data acquired under normal circumstances in a real-world setting, to protect against treatment with invasive ventilation of pneumonia during January to April 2022, a period when Omicron was predominant. We conducted a nationwide test-negative case-control study. The case and control were matched with a ratio of 1:4 in terms of age, date of specimen collection, and hospital collection specimen and the odds ratio was calculated using conditional logistic regression. Overall, there was neither a distinction between mix-and-match regimens and homologous mRNA regimens against severe symptoms, nor was there a decline of the protective effect over the study period. The third and fourth dose boosters with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or mRNA vaccines provided high levels of protection against severe outcomes, approximately 87% to 100%, whereas two doses provided a moderate degree (70%). Thus, this study concludes that current national vaccine strategies provide favourable protective benefits against the Omicron variant. All Thais should receive at least two doses, while high-risk or vulnerable groups should be administered at least three doses.

Progress Update on the Epidemiology of COVID-19 Variants and the Assessment Status of Developed Vaccines

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread rapidly and diffused to more than 180 countries at varying severities. This pandemic has accounted for increased mortality and morbidity in developed as well as developing nations. The WHO has announced that there is a persistent need for the evaluation of the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against major outcomes, which include severe diseases, symptomatic COVID-19, and mortalities related to COVID-19. Therefore, mass vaccination programs using vaccines of high effectiveness are among the strategies that have been used by governments worldwide to impede the COVID-19 pandemic transmission. In this regard, massive efforts were made by governments, scientists, biomedical researchers, and healthcare professionals leading to the successful development of various vaccines to bring this pandemic under control. This editorial aims to shed light on the epidemiological status of COVID-19 variants, namely, Delta, Omicron, and Deltacron variants as well as discuss the effectiveness of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity against the SARS-CoV-2 variants following heterologous primary series involving CoronaVac, ChAdox1 nCov-19 and BNT162b2 plus BNT162b2 booster vaccination: An open-label randomized study in healthy Thai adults

We evaluated the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 primary schedules involving BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca) and CoronaVac (Sinovac) in healthy adults, as well as booster response to BNT162b2 following heterologous CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 regimens. Participants were randomized to one of seven groups that received two-dose homologous BNT162b2 or heterologous combinations of CoronaVac, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2, with 4 weeks interval. A total of 210 participants were enrolled, 30 in each group. Median age of participants was 38 (19-60) years, and 108/210 (51.43%) were female. Overall adverse events after the second dose were mild to moderate. We found that groups that received BNT162b2 as second dose induced the highest anti-receptor binding domain IgG response against the ancestral strain [BNT162b2: geometric mean concentration (GMC) 2133-2249 BAU/mL; ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 851-1201; CoronaVac: 137-225 BAU/mL], neutralizing antibodies (NAb) against Beta and Delta, and interferon gamma response. All groups induced low to negligible NAb against Omicron after second dose. A BNT162b2 booster (third dose) following heterologous CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 regimens induced >140-fold increase in NAb titers against Omicron. Our findings indicate that heterologous regimens using BNT162b2 as the second dose may be an alternative schedule to maximize immune response. While heterologous two-dose schedules induced low NAb against Omicron, the use of an mRNA vaccine booster dose substantially increased the Omicron response. These findings are relevant for low-income countries considering heterologous primary and booster COVID-19 vaccine schedules.

Lactoferrin for COVID-19 prevention, treatment, and recovery

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), a unique beta-coronavirus, has caused the most serious outbreak of the last century at the global level. SARS-CoV-2 infections were firstly reported in the city of Wuhan in China in 2019 and this new disease was named COVID-19 by World Health Organization (WHO). As this novel disease can easily be transmitted from one individual to another via respiratory droplets, many nations around the world have taken several precautions regarding the reduction in social activities and quarantine for the limitation of the COVID-19 transmission. SARS-CoV-2 is known to cause complications that may include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multi-organ failure, septic shock, and death. To prevent and treat COVID-19, some significant studies have been conducted since the outbreak. One of the most noticeable therapeutic approaches is related to a multifunctional protein, lactoferrin. Lactoferrin (Lf) is an 80 kDa cationic glycoprotein that has a great range of benefits from improving the immunity to antiviral effects due to its unique characteristics such as the iron-binding ability. This review summarizes the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and the potential applications of Lf for the prevention, treatment, and recovery of COVID-19.

Effectiveness of the Fiocruz recombinant ChadOx1-nCoV19 against variants of SARS-CoV-2 in the Municipality of Botucatu-SP

Introduction

As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, rapidly emerging variants of concern raise fears that currently licensed vaccines may have reduced effectiveness against these new strains. In the municipality of Botucatu, São Paulo State, Brazil, a mass vaccination campaign using ChadOx1-nCoV19 was initiated on 16th of May 2021, targeting people 18-60 years old. Two vaccine doses were offered 12 weeks apart, with the second delivered on 8th of August, 2021. This setting offered a unique opportunity to assess the effectiveness of two ChadOx1-nCoV19 doses in a real-life setting.

Materials and methods

Data on testing, hospitalization, symptoms, demographics, and vaccination were obtained from the Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu. A test-negative study design was employed; whereby the odds of being vaccinated among cases vs controls were calculated to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE; 1-OR). All individuals aged 18-60 who received a PCR test after the 16th of May and were unvaccinated prior to this date were included in the analysis until the study ended in mid-November 2021.

Results

77,683 citizens of Botucatu aged 18-60 received the first dose, and 74,051 received a second ChadOx1-nCoV19 dose 12 weeks later for a vaccination coverage of 84.2 and 80.2%, respectively. Of 7.958 eligible PCR tests, 2.109 were positive and 5.849 negative. The VE against any symptomatic infection was estimated at 39.2%, 21 days after dose 1, and 74.5%, 14 days after dose 2. There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations or deaths among the 74,051 fully vaccinated individuals. The VE against severe disease was estimated at 70.8 and 100% after doses 1 and 2, respectively. 90.5% of all lineages sequenced between doses 1 and 2 (16th of May-7th of August) were of the Gamma variant, while 83.0% were of the Delta variant during the second period after dose 2 (8th of August-18th of November).

Discussion

This observational study found the effectiveness of ChadOx1-nCoV19 to be 74.5% against COVID-19 disease of any severity, comparable to the efficacy observed in clinical trials (81.3% after dose 2), despite the dominance of the Gamma and Delta VoCs. No COVID-19-related hospitalizations or deaths in fully vaccinated individuals were reported.

A Risk Prediction Model and Risk Score of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Following Healthcare-Related Exposure

Hospital workers are at high risk of contact with COVID-19 patients. Currently, there is no evidence-based, comprehensive risk assessment tool for healthcare-related exposure; so, we aimed to identify independent factors related to COVID-19 infection in hospital workers following workplace exposure(s) and construct a risk prediction model. We analyzed the COVID-19 contact tracing dataset from 15 July to 31 December 2021 using multiple logistic regression analysis, considering exposure details, demographics, and vaccination history. Of 7146 included exposures to confirmed COVID-19 patients, 229 (4.2%) had subsequently tested positive via RT-PCR. Independent risk factors for a positive test were having symptoms (adjusted odds ratio 4.94, 95%CI 3.83−6.39), participating in an unprotected aerosol-generating procedure (aOR 2.87, 1.66−4.96), duration of exposure >15 min (aOR 2.52, 1.82−3.49), personnel who did not wear a mask (aOR 2.49, 1.75−3.54), exposure to aerodigestive secretion (aOR 1.5, 1.03−2.17), index patient not wearing a mask (aOR 1.44, 1.01−2.07), and exposure distance <1 m without eye protection (aOR 1.39, 1.02−1.89). High-potency vaccines and high levels of education protected against infection. A risk model and scoring system with good discrimination power were built. Having symptoms, unprotected exposure, lower education level, and receiving low potency vaccines increased the risk of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 following healthcare-related exposure events.

Comparison of the Immune Responses to COVID-19 Vaccines in Bangladeshi Population

Background: The adaptive immune response is a crucial component of the protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2, generated after infection or vaccination. Methods: We studied antibody titers, neutralizing antibodies and cellular immune responses to four different COVID-19 vaccines, namely Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna Spikevax, AstraZeneca and Sinopharm vaccines in the Bangladeshi population (n = 1780). Results: mRNA vaccines Moderna (14,655 ± 11.3) and Pfizer (13,772 ± 11.5) elicited significantly higher anti-Spike (S) antibody titers compared to the Adenovector vaccine AstraZeneca (2443 ± 12.8) and inactivated vaccine Sinopharm (1150 ± 11.2). SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralizing antibodies as well as IFN-γ-secreting lymphocytes were more abundant in Pfizer and Moderna vaccine recipients compared to AstraZeneca and Sinopharm vaccine recipients. Participants previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 exhibited higher post-vaccine immune responses (S-specific and neutralizing antibodies, IFN-γ-secreting cells) compared to uninfected participants. Memory B (B_MEM), total CD8⁺T, CD4⁺ central memory (CD4⁺_CM) and T-regulatory (T_REG) cells were more numerous in AstraZeneca vaccine recipients compared to other vaccine recipients. Plasmablasts, B-regulatory (B_REG) and CD4⁺ effector (CD4⁺_EFF) cells were more numerous in mRNA vaccine recipients. Conclusions: mRNA vaccines generated a higher antibody response, while a differential cellular response was observed for different vaccine types, suggesting that both cellular and humoral responses are important in immune monitoring of different types of vaccines.

A comprehensive analysis of the efficacy and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines

It is urgently needed to update the comprehensive analysis about the efficacy or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines especially during the COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron variants. In general, the current COVID-19 vaccines showed a cumulative efficacy of 66.4%, 79.7%, and 93.6% to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and severe COVID-19, respectively, but could not prevent the asymptomatic infection of SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, the current COVID-19 vaccines could effectively prevent COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant although the incidence of breakthrough infection of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant increased when the intervals post full vaccination extended, suggesting the waning effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. In addition, one-dose booster immunization showed an effectiveness of 74.5% to prevent COVID-19 caused by the Delta variant. However, current COVID-19 vaccines could not prevent the infection of Omicron sub-lineage BA.1.1.529 and had about 50% effectiveness to prevent COVID-19 caused by Omicron sub-lineage BA.1.1.529. Furthermore, the effectiveness was 87.6% and 90.1% to prevent severe COVID-19 and COVID-19-related death caused by Omicron sub-lineage BA.2, respectively, while one-dose booster immunization could enhance the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines to prevent the infection and COVID-19 caused by Omicron sub-lineage BA.1.1.529 and sub-lineage BA.2. Two-dose booster immunization showed an increased effectiveness of 81.8% against severe COVID-19 caused by the Omicron sub-lineage BA.1.1.529 variant compared with one-dose booster immunization. The effectiveness of the booster immunization with RNA-based vaccine BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 was over 75% against severe COVID-19 more than 17 weeks after booster immunization whereas the heterogenous booster immunization showed better effectiveness than homologous booster immunization. In summary, the current COVID-19 vaccines could effectively protect COVID-19 caused by Delta and Omicron variants but was less effective against Omicron variant infection. One-dose booster immunization could enhance protection capability, and two-dose booster immunization could provide additional protection against severe COVID-19.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shot Compared with Non-Booster: A Meta-Analysis

The analysis of the effectiveness of booster shots compared with primary vaccination is extremely vital. This paper aimed to summarize the results of all available evidence studies on the effectiveness of booster vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Articles published up to 21 June 2022 were systematically searched through PubMed and EMBASE databases. The searched studies were independently assessed for quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Seven studies (nine datasets) met the criteria and were included in this study. The pooled results demonstrated a 71% (OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.17–0.48) reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates among subjects who received a booster shot compared with those who did not receive a booster shot of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine. In addition, this analysis emphasized that during the period when the Delta variant was predominant, subjects who received the booster shot showed an 82% (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.13–0.25) reduction in infection rates. Moreover, during the period of dominance of the Omicron variant, subjects who received the booster vaccination displayed a 47% (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.35–0.81) reduction in infection rates. This finding confirmed that booster vaccination against the Omicron variant is significantly less effective than that against the Delta variant. In pandemic periods, correlations between the dominant variant and the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine booster should be considered when making vaccine booster plans.

The significance of advanced COVID-19 diagnostic testing in pandemic control measures

During the 2 years since the start of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the scientific world made an enormous effort to fight against this disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which has high transmissibility. Advancements in vaccine and treatment strategies have reduced both the hospitalization and mortality rates. However, the virus has shown its ability to evolve and evade from our COVID-19 combating armamentaria by the most common evolution mechanism—mutation. Diagnostic testing has been the first line of defense following the identification of the causative agent. Ever since, the scientific community has developed nuclei acid-based, antigen-based, and antibody-based diagnostic tests, and these testing methodologies are still playing a central role in slowing down viral transmission. These testing methods have different sensitivity and specificity and could be optimally used in areas facing different challenges owing to different level and conditions of COVID-19 outbreak. In this review, we discuss these testing methodologies as well as the considerations on how to apply these diagnostic tests optimally in the community to cope with the ever-changing pandemic conditions.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Inactivated Vaccine to Address COVID-19 Pandemic in China: Evidence From Randomized Control Trials and Real-World Studies

Objective

This study aimed to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines (CoronaVac and BBIBP-CorV) in China using existing international clinical trials and real-world evidence.

Methods

Through a search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI, studies investigating the effectiveness of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines were identified, and a meta-analysis was undertaken to synthesize the vaccine efficacy and effectiveness data. Moreover, a decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of inactivated vaccines for combating the COVID-19 pandemic in the Chinese context from a societal perspective. Results of the meta-analysis, along with cost data from official websites and works of literature were used to populate the model. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the model results.

Results

A total of 24 studies were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison to no immunization, the effectiveness of inactivated vaccine against COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and death were 65.18% (95% CI 62.62, 67.75), 79.10% (95% CI 71.69, 86.51), 90.46% (95% CI 89.42, 91.50), and 86.69% (95% CI 85.68, 87.70); and the efficacy against COVID-19 infection and hospitalization were 70.56% (95% CI 57.87, 83.24) and 100% (95% CI 61.72, 100). Inactivated vaccine vaccination prevented more infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths with lower total costs, thus was cost-saving from a societal perspective in China. Base-case analysis results were robust in the one-way sensitivity analysis, and the percentage of ICU admission or death and direct medical cost ranked the top influential factors in our models. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, vaccination had a 100% probability of being cost-effective.

Conclusion

Inactivated vaccine is effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and avoiding COVID-19 related death, and COVID-19 vaccination program is cost-saving from societal perspective in China.

Molecular characteristics, immune evasion, and impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants

The persistent COVID-19 pandemic since 2020 has brought an enormous public health burden to the global society and is accompanied by various evolution of the virus genome. The consistently emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants harboring critical mutations impact the molecular characteristics of viral proteins and display heterogeneous behaviors in immune evasion, transmissibility, and the clinical manifestation during infection, which differ each strain and endow them with distinguished features during populational spread. Several SARS-CoV-2 variants, identified as Variants of Concern (VOC) by the World Health Organization, challenged global efforts on COVID-19 control due to the rapid worldwide spread and enhanced immune evasion from current antibodies and vaccines. Moreover, the recent Omicron variant even exacerbated the global anxiety in the continuous pandemic. Its significant evasion from current medical treatment and disease control even highlights the necessity of combinatory investigation of the mutational pattern and influence of the mutations on viral dynamics against populational immunity, which would greatly facilitate drug and vaccine development and benefit the global public health policymaking. Hence in this review, we summarized the molecular characteristics, immune evasion, and impacts of the SARS-CoV-2 variants and focused on the parallel comparison of different variants in mutational profile, transmissibility and tropism alteration, treatment effectiveness, and clinical manifestations, in order to provide a comprehensive landscape for SARS-CoV-2 variant research.

Expert Review on global real-world vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 vaccines have been highly effective in reducing morbidity and mortality during the pandemic. While primary series vaccination rates are generally high in Southeast Asian (SEA) countries, various factors have limited the rollout and impact of booster doses.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed 79 studies in the publicly available International Vaccine Access Center (IVAC) VIEW-hub platform on vaccine effectiveness (VE) after primary immunizations with two-dose schedules. VE data were reported for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths, and stratified across variants of concern (VOC), age, study design and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 and combinations of both), vector vaccines (AstraZeneca, AZD1222 "Vaxzevria") and inactivated virus vaccines (CoronaVac).

EXPERT OPINION

The most-studied COVID-19 vaccines provide consistently high (>90%) protection against serious clinical outcomes like hospitalizations and deaths, regardless of variant. Additionally, this protection appears equivalent for mRNA vaccines and vector vaccines like AZD1222, as supported by our analysis of local Asian and relevant international data, and by insights from SEA experts. Given the continued impact of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths on healthcare systems worldwide, encouraging vaccination strategies that can reduce this burden is more relevant than attempting to prevent broader but milder infections with specific variants, including Omicron.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It was urgent and necessary to synthesize the evidence for vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness profile of COVID-19 vaccines against VOC.

METHODS

Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies that evaluated the VE against VOC (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Omicron) were searched until 4 March 2022. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. VE was defined as (1-estimate).

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs (161,388 participants), 20 cohort studies (52,782,321 participants), and 26 case-control studies (2,584,732 cases) were included. Eleven COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, Ad26.COV2.S, NVX-CoV2373, BBV152, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, SCB-2019, CVnCoV, and HB02) were included in this analysis. Full vaccination was effective against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron variants, with VE of 88.0% (95% CI, 83.0-91.5), 73.0% (95% CI, 64.3-79.5), 63.0% (95% CI, 47.9-73.7), 77.8% (95% CI, 72.7-82.0), and 55.9% (95% CI, 40.9-67.0), respectively. Booster vaccination was more effective against Delta and Omicron variants, with VE of 95.5% (95% CI, 94.2-96.5) and 80.8% (95% CI, 58.6-91.1), respectively. mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273/BNT162b2) seemed to have higher VE against VOC over others; significant interactions (p_interaction < 0.10) were observed between VE and vaccine type (mRNA vaccines vs. not mRNA vaccines).

CONCLUSIONS

Full vaccination of COVID-19 vaccines is highly effective against Alpha variant, and moderate effective against Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants. Booster vaccination is more effective against Delta and Omicron variants. mRNA vaccines seem to have higher VE against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants over others.