Heterologous vaccine interventions: boosting immunity against future pandemics

Non-specific effects of the inactivated influenza vaccine. A test-negative study: The inactivated influenza vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 infections

BACKGROUND

Previous research suggested that the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) may protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection or a severe course of COVID-19. These findings were however based on cohort studies, that are prone to confounding by indication. We examined the association between IIV and SARS-Cov-2 infection in a Dutch population using a test-negative design.

METHODS

This test-negative case-control study was conducted in adults (≥60) who tested because of COVID-19 like symptoms at community SARS-CoV-2 testing locations in the Netherlands during the period of November 8th 2021-March 11th 2022. Information on receipt of IIV in October-November 2021 was routinely collected at each visit. Logistic regression was used to calculate unadjusted, partially (sex, age, education level) and fully adjusted (COVID-19 vaccination, IIV 2020) odds ratios (ORs) for receipt of IIV in SARS-CoV-2 positive versus negative subjects. Differential effects on SARS-CoV-2 risk by time since IIV were investigated by including an interaction term for calendar time: November 2021-January 2022 vs February-March 2022.

RESULTS

In total, 1,832 participants were included in the main analysis, of whom 336 (18.3 %) had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. No significant association between IIV and SARS-CoV-2 infection was found; fully adjusted OR of 1.07 (95 % CI: 0.78-1.49). The interaction term for time periods was not significant (1.04 [95 % CI: 0.51-2.15], p = 0.91). Results were robust in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

While earlier observational studies suggested a protective non-specific effect of IIV and SARS-CoV-2 infections, this smaller, but well controlled test-negative design study does not suggest an effect, either positive or negative. Larger test-negative design studies, or alternative designs such as the self-controlled case series design are needed to confirm these findings and provide more definite answers on the topic.

Evaluation of the efficacy, safety and influencing factors of concomitant and sequential administration of viral respiratory infectious disease vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is no clear conclusion on the immunogenicity and adverse events of concomitant administration the viral respiratory infectious disease vaccines. We aimed to evaluate the impact of concomitant administering viral respiratory infectious disease vaccines on efficiencies, safety and influencing factors.

Methods

This meta-analysis included studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Research, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Randomized controlled trials of the adult participants concomitant administered with viral respiratory infectious disease vaccine and other vaccines were included. The main outcomes were the seroconversion rate and seroprotection rate of each vaccine. Used the Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects method as the main analysis to estimate the pooled RRs and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias for each trial was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, while evidence certainty was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

Results

A total of 21 studies comprising 14060 participants with two types of vaccines were retained for the meta-analysis. Concomitant immunization reduced the geometric mean titer (RR: 0.858, 95% CI: (0.785 to 0.939)) and the geometric mean fold rise (0.754 (0.629 to 0.902)) in the SARS-COV-2 vaccine group but increased the seroconversion rate (1.033 (1.0002 to 1.067)) in the seasonal influenza vaccine group. Concomitant administration were influenced by the type of vaccine, adjuvant content, booster immunization, and age and gender of the recipient.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggested that the short-term protection and safety of concomitant administered were effective. Appropriate adjuvants, health promotion and counselling and booster vaccines could improve the efficiency and safety of Concomitant vaccination.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022343709.

Risk of Worsening Heart Failure and All-Cause Mortality Following COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Heart Failure: A Nationwide Real-World Safety Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure are vulnerable to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, limited evidence exists on the safety of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in this patient population. The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of all-cause mortality, worsening heart failure, venous thromboembolism, and myocarditis associated with the mRNA vaccines in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

Using Danish nationwide registries, 2 cohorts were constructed: (1) all prevalent heart failure patients in 2019 aged 40 to 95 years and (2) all prevalent heart failure patients in 2021 aged 40 to 95 years, who were vaccinated with either of the 2 mRNA vaccines (BNT162B2 or mRNA-1273). The patients in the 2 cohorts were matched 1:1 using exact exposure matching on age, sex, and duration of heart failure. To estimate standardized absolute risks, outcome-specific Cox regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The total study population comprised 101 786 patients. The median age of the study population was 74 years (interquartile range, 66-81). The standardized risk of all-cause mortality within 90 days was 2.23% (95% CI, 2.10%-2.36%) in the vaccinated cohort and 2.56% (95% CI, 2.43%-2.70%) in the unvaccinated cohort (90-day risk difference, -0.33% [95% CI, -0.52% to -0.15%]). The standardized risk of worsening heart failure within 90 days was 1.10% (95% CI, -1.01% to 1.19%) in the 2021 (vaccinated) cohort and 1.08% (95% CI, 0.99%-1.17%) in the 2019 (unvaccinated) cohort (risk difference, 0.02% [95% CI, -0.11% to 0.15%]). No significant differences were found regarding venous thromboembolism or myocarditis.

CONCLUSIONS

Receiving an mRNA vaccine was not associated with an increased risk of worsening heart failure, myocarditis, venous thromboembolism, or all-cause mortality.

BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in children alters cytokine responses to heterologous pathogens and Toll-like receptor agonists

Background

Vaccines can have beneficial off-target (heterologous) effects that alter immune responses to, and protect against, unrelated infections. The heterologous effects of COVID-19 vaccines have not been investigated in children.

Aim

To investigate heterologous and specific immunological effects of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in children.

Methods

A whole blood stimulation assay was used to investigate in vitro cytokine responses to heterologous stimulants (killed pathogens, Toll-like receptor ligands) and SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Samples from 29 children, aged 5-11 years, before and 28 days after a second BNT162b2 vaccination were analysed (V2 + 28). Samples from eight children were analysed six months after BNT162b2 vaccination.

Results

At V2 + 28, interferon-γ and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 responses to S. aureus, E. coli, L. monocytogenes, BCG vaccine, H. influenzae, hepatitis B antigen, poly(I:C) and R848 stimulations were decreased compared to pre-vaccination. For most of these heterologous stimulants, IL-6, IL-15 and IL-17 responses were also decreased. There were sustained decreases in cytokine responses to viral, but not bacterial, stimulants six months after BNT162b2 vaccination. Cytokine responses to irradiated SARS-CoV-2, and spike glycoprotein subunits (S1 and S2) were increased at V2 + 28 for most cytokines and remained higher than pre-vaccination responses 6 months after BNT162b2 vaccination for irradiated SARS-CoV-2 and S1. There was no correlation between BNT162b2 vaccination-induced anti-SARS-CoV2-receptor binding domain IgG antibody titre at V2 + 28 and cytokine responses.

Conclusions

BNT162b2 vaccination in children alters cytokine responses to heterologous stimulants, particularly one month after vaccination. This study is the first to report the immunological heterologous effects of COVID-19 vaccination in children.

Induction of Cross-Reacting Antibodies Against the COVID-19 by BCG Vaccination in the Mouse Model

It was reported that tuberculosis and BCG vaccination are potential tools for reducing the burden of COVID-19, mainly through the non-specific trained immunity. We have investigated whether BCG vaccination is able to induce cross-reacting antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2. We have tested the induced humoral immune responses against the SARS-CoV-2 Spike in the mouse model, after either BCG or rabies DNA-based vaccination alone or in Prime/Boost approach to COVID-19 DNA-based vaccination. We have demonstrated that BCG vaccination alone was able to induce cross-reacting antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Spike. It can also boost the antibody response induced by a COVID-19 DNA-based vaccination. Hence, both BCG and latent tuberculosis infection can explain the lower burden of COVID-19 in developing countries, not only through the trained immunity but also by inducing cross-reacting antibodies. Furthermore, with the emergence of different COVID-19 variants, or eventually other Betacoronaviruses, the use of BCG vaccination can help against immune escapes of the current vaccines.

Effect of the 2020/21 season influenza vaccine on SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of Italian healthcare workers

OBJECTIVES

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are a priority group for seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV). The 2020/21 SIV campaign was conducted during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccines, including SIV, may exert non-specific protective effects on other infectious diseases which may be ascribable to the concept of trained immunity. The aim of this study was to explore the association between 2020/21 SIV and SARS-CoV-2 positivity in a cohort of Italian HCWs.

METHODS

In this observational study, a cohort of HCWs employed by a large (ca 5000 employees) referral tertiary acute-care university hospital was followed up retrospectively until the start of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. The independent variable of interest was the 2020/21 SIV uptake. Both egg-based and cell culture-derived quadrivalent SIVs were available. The study outcome was the incidence of new SARS-CoV-2 infections, as determined by RT-PCR. Multivariable Cox regression was applied in order to discern the association of interest.

RESULTS

The final cohort consisted of 2561 HCWs who underwent ≥1 RT-PCR test and accounted for a total of 94,445 person-days of observation. SIV uptake was 35.6%. During the study period, a total of 290 new SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred. The incidence of new SARS-CoV-2 was 1.62 (95% CI: 1.22-2.10) and 3.91 (95% CI: 3.43-4.45) per 1000 person-days in vaccinated and non-vaccinated HCWs, respectively, with an adjusted non-proportional hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI: 0.22-0.62). E-values suggested that unmeasured confounding was unlikely to explain the association.

CONCLUSIONS

A lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed among SIV recipients.

COVID-19 and Seasonal Influenza Vaccination: Cross-Protection, Co-Administration, Combination Vaccines, and Hesitancy

SARS-CoV-2 and influenza are the main respiratory viruses for which effective vaccines are currently available. Strategies in which COVID-19 and influenza vaccines are administered simultaneously or combined into a single preparation are advantageous and may increase vaccination uptake. Here, we comprehensively review the available evidence on COVID-19/influenza vaccine co-administration and combination vaccine candidates from the standpoints of safety, immunogenicity, efficacy, policy and public acceptance. While several observational studies have shown that the trained immunity induced by influenza vaccines can protect against some COVID-19-related endpoints, it is not yet understood whether co-administration or combination vaccines can exert additive effects on relevant outcomes. In randomized controlled trials, co-administration has proved safe, with a reactogenicity profile similar to that of either vaccine administered alone. From the immunogenicity standpoint, the immune response towards four influenza strains and the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in co-administration groups is generally non-inferior to that seen in groups receiving either vaccine alone. Several public health authorities have advocated co-administration. Different combination vaccine candidates are in (pre)-clinical development. The hesitancy towards vaccine co-administration or combination vaccines is a multifaceted phenomenon and may be higher than the acceptance of either vaccine administered separately. Public health implications are discussed.

COVID-19 vaccine development based on recombinant viral and bacterial vector systems: combinatorial effect of adaptive and trained immunity

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus (SARS-CoV-2) infection, which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has led to many cases and deaths worldwide. Therefore, a number of vaccine candidates have been developed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these, to date, 21 vaccines have received emergency approval for human use in at least one country. However, the recent global emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants has compromised the efficacy of the currently available vaccines. To protect against these variants, the use of vaccines that modulate T cell-mediated immune responses or innate immune cell memory function, termed trained immunity, is needed. The major advantage of a vaccine that uses bacteria or viral systems for the delivery of COVID-19 antigens is the ability to induce both T cell-mediated and humoral immune responses. In addition, such vaccine systems can also exert off-target effects via the vector itself, mediated partly through trained immunity; compared to other vaccine platforms, suggesting that this approach can provide better protection against even vaccine escape variants. This review presents the current status of the development of COVID-19 vaccines based on recombinant viral and bacterial delivery systems. We also discuss the current status of the use of licensed live vaccines for other infections, including BCG, oral polio and MMR vaccines, to prevent COVID-19 infections.

Reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous prime-boost immunization with COVID-19 vaccine

BACKGROUND

The objective of the present work was to assess the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens in clinical trials and observational studies.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, MedRxiv, BioRxiv databases were searched in September 29, 2021. The PRISMA instruction for systemic review was followed. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. The quality of studies was evaluated using the New Castle-Ottawa and Cochrane risk of instrument. The characteristics and study outcome (e.g., adverse events, immune response, and variant of concern) were extracted.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included in the final data synthesis with 5 clinical trials and 14 observational studies. Heterologous vaccine administration showed a trend toward more frequent systemic reactions. However, the total reactogenicity was tolerable and manageable. Importantly, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination regimens provided higher immunogenic effect either vector/ mRNA-based vaccine or vector/ inactivated vaccine in both humoral and cellular immune response. Notably, the heterologous regimens induced the potential protection against the variant of concern, even to the Delta variant.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings provided evidence about the higher induction of robust immunogenicity and tolerated reactogenicity of heterologous vaccination regimens (vector-based/mRNA vaccine or vector-based/inactivated vaccine). Also, this study supports the application of heterologous regimens against COVID-19 which may provide more opportunities to speed up the global vaccination campaign and maximize the capacity to control the pandemic.

Acceptance of COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccine Co-Administration: Insights from a Representative Italian Survey

Co-administration of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and seasonal influenza vaccines has several advantages, has been advocated by various public health authorities and should be seen as an opportunity to increase the uptake of both vaccines. The objective of this survey was to quantify the acceptance of concomitant COVID-19/influenza vaccination and to identify its correlates in a representative sample of Italian adults. Of 2463 participants, a total of 22.9% were favorable to vaccine co-administration, while 16.6% declared their firm unwillingness to receive both vaccines simultaneously. The remaining 60.5% of subjects could be dubbed hesitant to some degree. Compliance with the primary COVID-19 vaccination schedule (adjusted proportional odds ratio (aOR) = 7.78), previous influenza vaccination (aOR = 1.89) and trust in public health institutions (aOR = 1.22) were the main determinants of positive attitudes toward vaccine co-administration. Other significant correlates included age, sex, perceived disease severity and vaccination risk–benefit, being offered a more personalized influenza vaccine and recent seeking for influenza-related information. In Italy, hesitancy toward COVID-19/influenza vaccine co-administration is common and appears to be higher than hesitancy toward either vaccine administered alone. This pattern is multifaceted and requires specific and tailored strategies, with public health institutions playing the central role.

Health economic analyses of secondary vaccine effects: a systematic review and policy insights

INTRODUCTION

: Numerous analyses demonstrate substantial health economic impacts of primary vaccine effects (preventing or mitigating clinical manifestations of the diseases they target), but vaccines may also be associated with secondary effects, previously known as non-specific, heterologous, or off-target effects.

AREAS COVERED

: We define key concepts to distinguish primary and secondary vaccine effects for health economic analyses, summarized terminology used in different fields, and perform a systematic review of health economic analyses focused on secondary vaccine effects (SVEs).

EXPERT OPINION

: Health economists integrate evidence from multiple fields, which often use incomplete or inconsistent definitions. Like regulators and policy makers, health economists require high-quality evidence of specific effects. Consistent with the limited evidence on mechanisms of action for SVEs, the associated health economic literature remains highly limited, with 4 studies identified by our systematic review. The lack of specific and well-controlled evidence that supports quantification of specific SVEs limits the consideration of these effects in vaccine research, development, regulatory, and recommendation decisions and health economic analyses.

Role of multiple factors likely contributing to severity-mortality of COVID-19

COVID-19 stalled the world in 2020 and continues to be the greatest health crisis of this generation. While the apparent case fatality rates across fluctuates around ~2% globally, associated mortality/death rate (deaths per million population) varies distinctly across regions from the global average of ~600 per million population. Heterogeneous factors have been linked with COVID-19 associated mortalities and these include age, share of geriatric population, comorbidities, trained immunity and climatic conditions. Apart from direct or indirect role of endemic diseases, dietary factors and host immunity in regulating COVID-19 severity, human behaviour will inevitably control outcome of this pandemic. Comprehensive understanding of these factors will have a bearing on management of future health crises.

Prime-Boost Vaccination With Covaxin/BBV152 Induces Heightened Systemic Cytokine and Chemokine Responses

Covaxin/BBV152 is a whole virion inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The effect of prime-boost vaccination with Covaxin on systemic immune responses is not known. We investigated the effect of Covaxin on the plasma levels of a wide panel of cytokines and chemokines at baseline (M0) and at months 1 (M1), 2 (M2) and 3 (M3) following prime-boost vaccination in healthy volunteers. Our results demonstrate that Covaxin induces enhanced plasma levels of Type 1 cytokines (IFNγ, IL-2, TNFα), Type 2/regulatory cytokines (IL-4, IL-5, IL-10 and IL-13), Type 17 cytokine (IL-17A), other pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-12, IL-1α, IL-1β) and other cytokines (IL-3 and IL-7) but diminished plasma levels of IL-25, IL-33, GM-CSF and Type 1 IFNs. Covaxin also induced enhanced plasma levels of CC chemokine (CCL4) and CXC chemokines (CXCL1, CXCL2 and CX3CL1) but diminished levels of CXCL10. Covaxin vaccination induces enhanced cytokine and chemokine responses as early as month 1, following prime-boost vaccination, indicating robust activation of innate and adaptive immune responses in vaccine recipients.