Human leukocyte antigen alleles associate with COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity and risk of breakthrough infection

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine immunogenicity varies between individuals, and immune responses correlate with vaccine efficacy. Using data from 1,076 participants enrolled in ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine efficacy trials in the United Kingdom, we found that inter-individual variation in normalized antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 spike and its receptor-binding domain (RBD) at 28 days after first vaccination shows genome-wide significant association with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II alleles. The most statistically significant association with higher levels of anti-RBD antibody was HLA-DQB1*06 (P = 3.2 × 10−9), which we replicated in 1,677 additional vaccinees. Individuals carrying HLA-DQB1*06 alleles were less likely to experience PCR-confirmed breakthrough infection during the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent Alpha variant waves compared to non-carriers (hazard ratio = 0.63, 0.42–0.93, P = 0.02). We identified a distinct spike-derived peptide that is predicted to bind differentially to HLA-DQB1*06 compared to other similar alleles, and we found evidence of increased spike-specific memory B cell responses in HLA-DQB1*06 carriers at 84 days after first vaccination. Our results demonstrate association of HLA type with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine antibody response and risk of breakthrough infection, with implications for future vaccine design and implementation

Effect of priming interval on reactogenicity, peak immunological response, and waning after homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccine schedules: exploratory analyses of Com-COV, a randomised control trial

Background: Priming COVID-19 vaccine schedules have been deployed at variable intervals globally, which might influence immune persistence and the relative importance of third-dose booster programmes. Here, we report exploratory analyses from the Com-COV trial, assessing the effect of 4-week versus 12-week priming intervals on reactogenicity and the persistence of immune response up to 6 months after homologous and heterologous priming schedules using the vaccines BNT162b2 (tozinameran, Pfizer/BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca). Methods: Com-COV was a participant-masked, randomised immunogenicity trial. For these exploratory analyses, we used the trial's general cohort, in which adults aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned to four homologous and four heterologous vaccine schedules using BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with 4-week or 12-week priming intervals (eight groups in total). Immunogenicity analyses were done on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, comprising participants with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline or for the trial duration, to assess the effect of priming interval on humoral and cellular immune response 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, in addition to the effects on reactogenicity and safety. The Com-COV trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 69254139 (EudraCT 2020–005085–33). Findings: Between Feb 11 and 26, 2021, 730 participants were randomly assigned in the general cohort, with 77–89 per group in the ITT analysis. At 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, the geometric mean concentration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG was significantly higher in the 12-week interval groups than in the 4-week groups for homologous schedules. In heterologous schedule groups, we observed a significant difference between intervals only for the BNT162b2–ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group at 28 days. Pseudotyped virus neutralisation titres were significantly higher in all 12-week interval groups versus 4-week groups, 28 days post-second dose, with geometric mean ratios of 1·4 (95% CI 1·1–1·8) for homologous BNT162b2, 1·5 (1·2–1·9) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19–BNT162b2, 1·6 (1·3–2·1) for BNT162b2–ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 2·4 (1·7–3·2) for homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. At 6 months post-second dose, anti-spike IgG geometric mean concentrations fell to 0·17–0·24 of the 28-day post-second dose value across all eight study groups, with only homologous BNT162b2 showing a slightly slower decay for the 12-week versus 4-week interval in the adjusted analysis. The rank order of schedules by humoral response was unaffected by interval, with homologous BNT162b2 remaining the most immunogenic by antibody response. T-cell responses were reduced in all 12-week priming intervals compared with their 4-week counterparts. 12-week schedules for homologous BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19–BNT162b2 were up to 80% less reactogenic than 4-week schedules. Interpretation: These data support flexibility in priming interval in all studied COVID-19 vaccine schedules. Longer priming intervals might result in lower reactogenicity in schedules with BNT162b2 as a second dose and higher humoral immunogenicity in homologous schedules, but overall lower T-cell responses across all schedules. Future vaccines using these novel platforms might benefit from schedules with long intervals. Funding: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health and Care Research

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Determinants of Influenza and Pertussis Vaccination Uptake in Pregnancy: A Multicenter Questionnaire Study of Pregnant Women and Healthcare Professionals

Introduction: Uptake rates of antenatal vaccination remain suboptimal. Our aims were to determine (1) the acceptability of routine vaccination among pregnant women, (2) the confidence of maternity healthcare professionals (HCPs) discussing vaccination and (3) HCP opinion regarding the optimum healthcare site for vaccine administration. Methods: Separate questionnaires for pregnant women and HCPs were distributed within 4 national health service (NHS) trusts in South England (July 2017 to January 2018). Results: Responses from 314 pregnant women and 204 HCPs (18% obstetricians, 75% midwives, 7% unidentified) were analyzed. Previous/intended uptake of influenza and pertussis vaccination was 78% and 92%, respectively. The commonest reason for declining vaccination was feared side effects for their child. White British women (79%) were significantly more accepting of influenza [85% vs. 61%; odds ratio (OR) 3.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.67–6.32] and pertussis vaccination (96% vs. 83%; OR 4.83; 95% CI: 1.77–13.19) compared with nonwhite British women. Among HCPs, 25% were slightly or not at all confident discussing vaccination. Obstetricians felt significantly more confident discussing pertussis vaccination than midwives (68% vs. 55% were very/moderately confident; OR 2.05; 95% CI: 1.02–4.12). Among HCPs, 53%, 25% and 16% thought vaccines should be administered in primary care (general practice), community midwifery and in hospital, respectively. Conclusion: Misconceptions exist regarding safety/efficacy of antenatal vaccination, and framing information towards the child’s safety may increase uptake. Education of HCPs is essential, and vaccine promotion should be incorporated into routine antenatal care, with an emphasis on women from ethnic minorities. Administration of vaccines in primary care presents logistical barriers; however, support for alternative sites appears low among HCPs

Phase II study of a three-dose primary vaccination course of DTPa-IPV/Hib-MenC-TT followed by a 12-month Hib-MenC-TT booser in healthy infants

AIM: To test for immunologic noninferiority of antibody responses to Hib and MenC using a 6-in-1 combination vaccine (DTPa-IPV/Hib-MenC-TT) compared with DTPa-IPV-Hib plus MenC-CRM197, before and after a 12-month Hib-MenC-TT booster. METHODS: Pragmatic open-label, randomized, multicenter, UK study. "6-in-1" group received DTPa-IPV/Hib-MenC-TT at 2, 3 and 4 months; control group received DTPa-IPV-Hib at 2, 3 and 4 months and MenC-CRM197 at 3 and 4 months. Both groups received Hib-MenC-TT at 12 months. Concomitant vaccines: pneumococcal conjugate vaccine at 2, 4 and 13 months, and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine at 13 months. RESULTS: One hundred forty-two children were randomized to each group. One hundred children in the "6-in-1" group and 112 control group children completed the study according-to-protocol. One month postprimary immunizations: 100% of "6-in-1" group and 93.3% of control children had anti-polyribosylribitol phosphate (PRP) IgG ≥0.15 µg/mL; 96.2% and 100%, respectively, had rSBA-MenC titers ≥1:8. One month after booster all children met these thresholds, with anti-PRP geometric mean concentrations of 66.7 (53.3; 83.5) in "6-in-1" recipients and 26.9 (20.9; 34.6) in control children (4.4 [3.5; 5.4] and 3.0 [2.2-4.2] postprimary immunizations, respectively,). rSBA-MenC geometric mean titers were 3062.9 (2421.2; 3874.6) and 954.0 (761.3; 1195.5), respectively, postbooster and 393.2 (292.5; 528.7) and 3110.5 (2612; 3704.2) postprimary. CONCLUSION: Noninferiority of DTPa-IPV/Hib-MenC-TT compared with DTPa-IPV/Hib plus MenC-CRM197 was demonstrated. In the "6-in-1" group, lower postprimary and greater postbooster rSBA-MenC geometric mean titers suggest memory B-cell priming may be favored by this vaccine over plasma cell induction. Furthermore, greater immunogenicity of TT conjugates used in both primary and booster vaccines in this group may be important

Global Perspectives on Immunization During Pregnancy and Priorities for Future Research and Development: An International Consensus Statement

Immunization during pregnancy has been recommended in an increasing number of countries. The aim of this strategy is to protect pregnant women and infants from severe infectious disease, morbidity and mortality and is currently limited to tetanus, inactivated influenza, and pertussis-containing vaccines. There have been recent advancements in the development of vaccines designed primarily for use in pregnant women (respiratory syncytial virus and group B Streptococcus vaccines). Although there is increasing evidence to support vaccination in pregnancy, important gaps in knowledge still exist and need to be addressed by future studies. This collaborative consensus paper provides a review of the current literature on immunization during pregnancy and highlights the gaps in knowledge and a consensus of priorities for future research initiatives, in order to optimize protection for both the mother and the infant. © Copyright © 2020 Abu-Raya, Maertens, Edwards, Omer, Englund, Flanagan, Snape, Amirthalingam, Leuridan, Damme, Papaevangelou, Launay, Dagan, Campins, Cavaliere, Frusca, Guidi, O'Ryan, Heininger, Tan, Alsuwaidi, Safadi, Vilca, Wanlapakorn, Madhi, Giles, Prymula, Ladhani, Martinón-Torres, Tan, Michelin, Scambia, Principi and Esposito

Supplementation with <em>Bifidobacterium longum</em> subspecies <em>infantis</em> EVC001 for mitigation of type 1 diabetes autoimmunity: the GPPAD-SINT1A randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The Global Platform for the Prevention of Autoimmune Diabetes-SINT1A Study is designed as a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, multinational, primary prevention study aiming to assess whether daily administration of Bifidobacterium infantis from age 7 days to 6 weeks until age 12 months to children with elevated genetic risk for type 1 diabetes reduces the cumulative incidence of beta-cell autoantibodies in childhood. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Infants aged 7 days to 6 weeks from Germany, Poland, Belgium, UK and Sweden are eligible for study participation if they have a &gt;10.0% expected risk for developing multiple beta-cell autoantibodies by age 6 years as determined by genetic risk score or family history and HLA genotype. Infants are randomised 1:1 to daily administration of B. infantis EVC001 or placebo until age 12 months and followed for a maximum of 5.5 years thereafter. The primary outcome is the development of persistent confirmed multiple beta-cell autoantibodies. Secondary outcomes are (1) Any persistent confirmed beta-cell autoantibody, defined as at least one confirmed autoantibody in two consecutive samples, including insulin autoantibodies, glutamic acid decarboxylase, islet tyrosine phosphatase 2 or zinc transporter 8, (2) Diabetes, (3) Transglutaminase autoantibodies associated with coeliac disease, (4) Respiratory infection rate in first year of life during supplementation and (5) Safety. Exploratory outcomes include allergy, antibody response to vaccines, alterations of the gut microbiome or blood metabolome, stool pH and calprotectin. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the local ethical committees of the Technical University Munich, Medical Faculty, the Technische Universität Dresden, the Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, the Medical University of Warsaw, EC Research UZ Leuven and the Swedish ethical review authority. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations and will be openly shared after completion of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04769037