7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparative antibody and cell-mediated immune responses, reactogenicity, and efficacy of homologous and heterologous boosting with CoronaVac and BNT162b2 (Cobovax): an open-label, randomised trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Few trials have compared homologous and heterologous third doses of COVID-19 vaccination with inactivated vaccines and mRNA vaccines. The aim of this study was to assess immune responses, safety, and efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection following homologous or heterologous third-dose COVID-19 vaccination with either one dose of CoronaVac (Sinovac Biotech; inactivated vaccine) or BNT162b2 (Fosun Pharma–BioNTech; mRNA vaccine).

          Methods

          This is an ongoing, randomised, allocation-concealed, open-label, comparator-controlled trial in adults aged 18 years or older enrolled from the community in Hong Kong, who had received two doses of CoronaVac or BNT162b2 at least 6 months earlier. Participants were randomly assigned, using a computer-generated sequence, in a 1:1 ratio with allocation concealment to receive a (third) dose of CoronaVac or BNT162b2 (ancestral virus strain), stratified by types of previous COVID-19 vaccination (homologous two doses of CoronaVac or BNT162b2). Participants were unmasked to group allocation after vaccination. The primary endpoint was serum neutralising antibodies against the ancestral virus at day 28 after vaccination in each group, measured as plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT 50) geometric mean titre (GMT). Surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT) mean inhibition percentage and PRNT 50 titres against omicron BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants were also measured. Secondary endpoints included geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in antibody titres; incidence of solicited local and systemic adverse events; IFNγ + CD4 + and IFNγ + CD8 + T-cell responses at days 7 and 28; and incidence of COVID-19. Within-group comparisons of boost in immunogenicity from baseline and between-group comparisons were done according to intervention received (ie, per protocol) by paired and unpaired t test, respectively, and cumulative incidence of infection was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and a proportional hazards model to estimate hazard ratio. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05057169.

          Findings

          We enrolled participants from Nov 12, 2021, to Jan 27, 2022. We vaccinated 219 participants who previously received two doses of CoronaVac, including 101 randomly assigned to receive CoronaVac (CC-C) and 118 randomly assigned to receive BNT162b2 (CC-B) as their third dose; and 232 participants who previously received two doses of BNT162b2, including 118 randomly assigned to receive CoronaVac (BB-C) and 114 randomly assigned to receive BNT162b2 (BB-B) as their third dose. The PRNT 50 GMTs on day 28 against ancestral virus were 109, 905, 92, and 816; against omicron BA.1 were 9, 75, 8, and 86; and against omicron BA.2 were 6, 80, 6, and 67 in the CC-C, CC-B, BB-C, and BB-B groups, respectively. Mean sVNT inhibition percentages on day 28 against ancestral virus were 83%, 96%, 87%, and 96%; against omicron BA.1 were 15%, 58%, 19%, and 69%; and against omicron BA.2 were 43%, 85%, 50%, and 90%, in the CC-C, CC-B, BB-C, and BB-B groups, respectively. Participants who had previously received two doses of CoronaVac and a BNT162b2 third dose had a GMFR of 12 (p<0·0001) compared with those who received a CoronaVac third dose; similarly, those who had received two doses of BNT162b2 and a BNT162b2 third dose had a GMFR of 8 (p<0·0001). No differences in CD4 + and CD8 + T-cell responses were observed between groups. We did not identify any vaccination-related hospitalisation within 1 month after vaccination. We identified 58 infections when omicron BA.2 was predominantly circulating, with cumulative incidence of 15·3% and 15·4% in the CC-C and CC-B groups, respectively (p=0·93), and 16·7% and 14·0% in the BB-C and BB-B groups, respectively (p=0·56).

          Interpretation

          Similar levels of incidence of, presumably, omicron BA.2 infections were observed in each group despite very weak antibody responses to BA.2 in the recipients of a CoronaVac third dose. Further research is warranted to identify appropriate correlates of protection for inactivated COVID-19 vaccines.

          Funding

          Health and Medical Research Fund, Hong Kong.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

          Predictive models of immune protection from COVID-19 are urgently needed to identify correlates of protection to assist in the future deployment of vaccines. To address this, we analyzed the relationship between in vitro neutralization levels and the observed protection from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection using data from seven current vaccines and from convalescent cohorts. We estimated the neutralization level for 50% protection against detectable SARS-CoV-2 infection to be 20.2% of the mean convalescent level (95% confidence interval (CI) = 14.4-28.4%). The estimated neutralization level required for 50% protection from severe infection was significantly lower (3% of the mean convalescent level; 95% CI = 0.7-13%, P = 0.0004). Modeling of the decay of the neutralization titer over the first 250 d after immunization predicts that a significant loss in protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection will occur, although protection from severe disease should be largely retained. Neutralization titers against some SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern are reduced compared with the vaccine strain, and our model predicts the relationship between neutralization and efficacy against viral variants. Here, we show that neutralization level is highly predictive of immune protection, and provide an evidence-based model of SARS-CoV-2 immune protection that will assist in developing vaccine strategies to control the future trajectory of the pandemic.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Correlates of protection against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

            The global supply of COVID-19 vaccines remains limited. An understanding of the immune response that is predictive of protection could facilitate rapid licensure of new vaccines. Data from a randomized efficacy trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in the United Kingdom was analyzed to determine the antibody levels associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2. Binding and neutralizing antibodies at 28 days after the second dose were measured in infected and noninfected vaccine recipients. Higher levels of all immune markers were correlated with a reduced risk of symptomatic infection. A vaccine efficacy of 80% against symptomatic infection with majority Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of SARS-CoV-2 was achieved with 264 (95% CI: 108, 806) binding antibody units (BAU)/ml: and 506 (95% CI: 135, not computed (beyond data range) (NC)) BAU/ml for anti-spike and anti-RBD antibodies, and 26 (95% CI: NC, NC) international unit (IU)/ml and 247 (95% CI: 101, NC) normalized neutralization titers (NF50) for pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization, respectively. Immune markers were not correlated with asymptomatic infections at the 5% significance level. These data can be used to bridge to new populations using validated assays, and allow extrapolation of efficacy estimates to new COVID-19 vaccines.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after Covid-19 Vaccination and Previous Infection

              Background The duration and effectiveness of immunity from infection with and vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are relevant to pandemic policy interventions, including the timing of vaccine boosters. Methods We investigated the duration and effectiveness of immunity in a prospective cohort of asymptomatic health care workers in the United Kingdom who underwent routine polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) testing. Vaccine effectiveness (≤10 months after the first dose of vaccine) and infection-acquired immunity were assessed by comparing the time to PCR-confirmed infection in vaccinated persons with that in unvaccinated persons, stratified according to previous infection status. We used a Cox regression model with adjustment for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status, vaccine type and dosing interval, demographic characteristics, and workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Results Of 35,768 participants, 27% (9488) had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine coverage was high: 97% of the participants had received two doses (78% had received BNT162b2 vaccine [Pfizer–BioNTech] with a long interval between doses, 9% BNT162b2 vaccine with a short interval between doses, and 8% ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine [AstraZeneca]). Between December 7, 2020, and September 21, 2021, a total of 2747 primary infections and 210 reinfections were observed. Among previously uninfected participants who received long-interval BNT162b2 vaccine, adjusted vaccine effectiveness decreased from 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72 to 92) 14 to 73 days after the second dose to 51% (95% CI, 22 to 69) at a median of 201 days (interquartile range, 197 to 205) after the second dose; this effectiveness did not differ significantly between the long-interval and short-interval BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. At 14 to 73 days after the second dose, adjusted vaccine effectiveness among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine recipients was 58% (95% CI, 23 to 77) — considerably lower than that among BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. Infection-acquired immunity waned after 1 year in unvaccinated participants but remained consistently higher than 90% in those who were subsequently vaccinated, even in persons infected more than 18 months previously. Conclusions Two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were associated with high short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection; this protection waned considerably after 6 months. Infection-acquired immunity boosted with vaccination remained high more than 1 year after infection. (Funded by the U.K. Health Security Agency and others; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN11041050 .)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                101769019
                49714
                Lancet Microbe
                Lancet Microbe
                The Lancet. Microbe
                2666-5247
                3 September 2023
                September 2023
                04 August 2023
                27 September 2023
                : 4
                : 9
                : e670-e682
                Affiliations
                WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control (N H L Leung PhD, S M S Cheng MPhil, M Martín-Sánchez MD, N Y M Au MPH, L L H Luk MSc, L C H Tsang BSc, K K H Kwan BSc, S Chaothai BSc, L W C Fung MMedSc, K C K Chan BSc, J K C Li BSc, Y Y Ng MPH, D K M Ip MD, Prof L L M Poon DPhil, Prof G M Leung MD, Prof J S M Peiris FRCP, Prof B J Cowling PhD) and HKU-Pasteur Research Pole (C A Cohen BSc, A W L Cheung MPhil, P Kaewpreedee PhD, J Z Jia MSc, Prof L L M Poon, Prof J S M Peiris, S A Valkenburg PhD), School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Takemi Program in International Health, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA (N H L Leung); Laboratory of Data Discovery for Health (N H L Leung, Prof G M Leung, Prof B J Cowling), and Centre for Immunology and Infection (Prof J S M Peiris, Prof L L M Poon), Hong Kong Science and Technology Park, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (S A Valkenburg)
                Author notes
                [*]

                Joint first authors; contributed equally

                [†]

                Joint senior authors; contributed equally

                Contributors

                NHLL and BJC are the principal investigators of this trial and wrote the study protocol. NHLL, GML, and BJC initiated the trial and acquired funding. NHLL, SMSC, CAC, JSMP, SAV, and BJC designed the laboratory testing. NHLL, SMSC, DKMI, LLMP, JSMP, SAV, and BJC supervised trial activities and laboratory testing. NYMA, LWCF, and YYN managed and conducted trial activities. CAC, LLHL, LCHT, KKHK, SC, AWLC, KCKC, JKCL, PK, and JZJ conducted the laboratory testing. NHLL, CAC, MM-S, NYMA, LWCF, SAV, and BJC performed the data cleaning and analyses. NHLL, SMSC, CAC, MM-S, JSMP, SAV, and BJC wrote the original draft of the manuscript. NHLL, NYMA, and BJC verified underlying data on demographics, vaccination history, reactogenicity, infection, and other epidemiological data of the study. SMSC and JSMP verified underlying data for antibody response. CAC and SAV verified underlying data for cell-mediated response. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

                Correspondence to: Prof Benjamin J Cowling, WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China, bcowling@ 123456hku.hk
                Article
                NIHMS1928583
                10.1016/S2666-5247(23)00216-1
                10528748
                37549680
                ffce1718-a1b6-4574-a1f0-125c6a6f5f06

                This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article