165 research outputs found
Hybrid immunity expands the functional humoral footprint of both mRNA and vector-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines
Funding Information: We thank Nancy Zimmerman, Mark and Lisa Schwartz, an anonymous donor (financial support), Terry and Susan Ragon, and the SAMANA Kay MGH Research Scholars award for support. We acknowledge support from the Ragon Institute of Mass General, MIT, and Harvard (to G.A.) the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR) (to G.A.), and the National Institutes of Health ( 3R37AI080289-11S1 , R01AI146785 , U19AI42790–01 , U19AI135995–02 , U19AI42790-01 , 1U01CA260476 – 01 , and CIVIC75N93019C00052 ) (to G.A.). Publisher Copyright: © 2023Despite 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.publishersversionPeer reviewe
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
Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters. METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study. RESULTS: Among the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAd, schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 μg) or BNT (30 μg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 μg) versus BNT (30 μg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses. CONCLUSIONS: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentration at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses
Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: Three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters. METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study. RESULTS: Amongst the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd), schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10,085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT)). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 μg) or BNT (30 μg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 μg) versus BNT (30 μg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses. CONCLUSIONS: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentrations at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were similar to or even higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses
Fourth dose bivalent COVID-19 vaccines outperform monovalent boosters in eliciting cross-reactive memory B cells to Omicron subvariants
Bivalent COVID-19 vaccines comprising ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 (WH1) and the Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 subvariant elicit enhanced serum antibody responses to emerging Omicron subvariants. Here, we characterized the RBD-specific memory B cell (Bmem) response following a fourth dose with a BA.1 or BA.5 bivalent vaccine, in direct comparison with a WH1 monovalent fourth dose. Healthcare workers previously immunized with mRNA or adenoviral vector monovalent vaccines were sampled before and one month after a fourth dose with a monovalent or a BA.1 or BA.5 bivalent vaccine. Serum neutralizing antibodies (NAb) were quantified, as well as RBD-specific Bmem with an in-depth spectral flow cytometry panel including recombinant RBD proteins of the WH1, BA.1, BA.5, BQ.1.1, and XBB.1.5 variants. Both bivalent vaccines elicited higher NAb titers against Omicron subvariants compared to the monovalent vaccine. Following either vaccine type, recipients had slightly increased WH1 RBD-specific Bmem numbers. Both bivalent vaccines significantly increased WH1 RBD-specific Bmem binding of all Omicron subvariants tested by flow cytometry, while recognition of Omicron subvariants was not enhanced following monovalent vaccination. IgG1+ Bmem dominated the response, with substantial IgG4+ Bmem only detected in recipients of an mRNA vaccine for their primary dose. Thus, Omicron-based bivalent vaccines can significantly boost NAb and Bmem specific for ancestral WH1 and Omicron variants and improve recognition of descendent subvariants by pre-existing, WH1-specific Bmem beyond that of a monovalent vaccine. This provides new insights into the capacity of variant-based mRNA booster vaccines to improve immune memory against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and potentially protect against severe disease. One-sentence summary: Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent COVID-19 boosters, used as a fourth dose, increase RBD-specific Bmem cross-recognition of Omicron subvariants, both those encoded by the vaccines and antigenically distinct subvariants, further than a monovalent booster.</p
Uncharted Territory: Early Events After Adenovirus 26-Based Vaccination
Vaccines play a crucial role in improving human health by reducing the incidence and mortality of vaccine-preventable diseases, such as diphtheria, smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella. Vaccines confer protection against specific pathogens by triggering an immune response in the host and they can be produced on different platforms including inactivated or weakened pathogens or toxins, viral vectors (such as adenovirus or modified vaccinia virus Ankara), subunit vaccines, and genetic vaccines (e.g., mRNA vaccines). Adenovirus-based vaccines encode one or more disease-specific transgenes to induce immunity against the target disease. Adenoviral vectors present certain characteristics that make them excellent vaccine platforms, such as the induction of transgene-specific immunity, large packaging capacity (up to 35 kbp of transgenic sequence), and broad tropism. In the field of prophylactic vaccines, the use of adenoviral vectors is limited to non-replicating vectors. These vectors are engineered through genetic modifications of the virus to produce a non-replicating virion that can carry a transgene of interest. Adenovirus-based vaccines elicit strong immune responses against the transgene that they carry and these immune responses depend heavily on early events following vaccination. In this dissertation, we study early events after adenovirus-based vaccination to understand their role in shaping adaptive immune responses and the development of adverse effects
COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer:immunogenicity, efficacy and safety
Patients with cancer have a higher risk of severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and associated mortality than the general population. Owing to this increased risk, patients with cancer have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination globally, for both primary and booster vaccinations. However, given that these patients were not included in the pivotal clinical trials, considerable uncertainty remains regarding vaccine efficacy, and the extent of humoral and cellular immune responses in these patients, as well as the risks of vaccine-related adverse events. In this Review, we summarize the current knowledge generated in studies conducted since COVID-19 vaccines first became available. We also highlight critical points that might affect vaccine efficacy in patients with cancer in the future
Adenovirus vector and mRNA vaccines: mechanisms regulating their immunogenicity
Replication-incompetent adenovirus (Ad) vector and mRNA-lipid nanoparticle (LNP) constructs represent two modular vaccine platforms that have attracted substantial interest over the past two decades. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the rapid development of multiple successful vaccines based on these technologies, there is now clear real-world evidence of the utility and efficacy of these platforms. Considerable optimization and refinement efforts underpin the successful application of these technologies. Despite this, our understanding of the specific pathways and processes engaged by these vaccines to stimulate the immune response remains incomplete. This review will synthesize our current knowledge of the specific mechanisms by which CD8+ T cell and antibody responses are induced by each of these vaccine platforms, and how this can be impacted by specific vaccine construction techniques. Key gaps in our knowledge are also highlighted, which can hopefully focus future studies
A systematic review on COVID-19 vaccine strategies, their effectiveness, and issues
COVID-19 vaccines are indispensable, with the number of cases and mortality still rising, and currently no medicines are routinely available for reducing morbidity and mortality, apart from dexamethasone, although others are being trialed and launched. To date, only a limited number of vaccines have been given emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. There is a need to systematically review the existing vaccine candidates and investigate their safety, efficacy, immunogenicity, unwanted events, and limitations. The review was undertaken by searching online databases, i.e., Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect, with finally 59 studies selected. Our findings showed several types of vaccine candidates with different strategies against SARS-CoV-2, including inactivated, mRNA-based, recombinant, and nanoparticle-based vaccines, are being developed and launched. We have compared these vaccines in terms of their efficacy, side effects, and seroconversion based on data reported in the literature. We found mRNA vaccines appeared to have better efficacy, and inactivated ones had fewer side effects and similar seroconversion in all types of vaccines. Overall, global variant surveillance and systematic tweaking of vaccines, coupled with the evaluation and administering vaccines with the same or different technology in successive doses along with homologous and heterologous prime-booster strategy, have become essential to impede the pandemic. Their effectiveness appreciably outweighs any concerns with any adverse events
- …