17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Immune response and safety of heterologous ChAdOx1-nCoV-19/mRNA-1273 vaccination compared with homologous ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 or homologous mRNA-1273 vaccination

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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.

          Abstract

          Background/Purpose

          Efficacy and safety data of heterologous prime-boost vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 remains limited.

          Methods

          We recruited adult volunteers for homologous or heterologous prime-boost vaccinations with adenoviral (ChAdOx1, AstraZeneca) and/or mRNA (mRNA-1273, Moderna) vaccines. Four groups of prime-boost vaccination schedules were designed: Group 1, ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 8 weeks apart; Group 2, ChAdOx1/mRNA-1273 8 weeks apart; Group 3, ChAdOx1/mRNA-1273 4 weeks apart; and Group 4, mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 4 weeks apart. The primary outcome was serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers and neutralizing antibody titers against B.1.1.7 (alpha) and B.1.617.2 (delta) variants on day 28 after the second dose. Adverse events were recorded up until 84 days after the second dose.

          Results

          We enrolled 399 participants with a median age of 41 years and 75% were female. On day 28 after the second dose, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers of both heterologous vaccinations (Group 2 and Group 3) were significantly higher than that of homologous ChAdOx1 vaccination (Group 1), and comparable with homologous mRNA-1273 vaccination (Group 4). The heterologous vaccination group had better neutralizing antibody responses against the alpha and delta variant as compared to the homologous ChAdOx1 group. Most of the adverse events (AEs) were mild and transient. AEs were less frequent when heterologous boosting was done at 8 weeks rather than at 4 weeks.

          Conclusion

          Heterologous ChAdOx1/mRNA-1273 vaccination provided higher immunogenicity than homologous ChAdOx1 vaccination and comparable immunogenicity with the homologous mRNA-1273 vaccination. Our results support the safety and efficacy of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using the ChAdOx1 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines. ( ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05074368).

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • 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: not found

            Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination

            Background Several cases of unusual thrombotic events and thrombocytopenia have developed after vaccination with the recombinant adenoviral vector encoding the spike protein antigen of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (ChAdOx1 nCov-19, AstraZeneca). More data were needed on the pathogenesis of this unusual clotting disorder. Methods We assessed the clinical and laboratory features of 11 patients in Germany and Austria in whom thrombosis or thrombocytopenia had developed after vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19. We used a standard enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect platelet factor 4 (PF4)–heparin antibodies and a modified (PF4-enhanced) platelet-activation test to detect platelet-activating antibodies under various reaction conditions. Included in this testing were samples from patients who had blood samples referred for investigation of vaccine-associated thrombotic events, with 28 testing positive on a screening PF4–heparin immunoassay. Results Of the 11 original patients, 9 were women, with a median age of 36 years (range, 22 to 49). Beginning 5 to 16 days after vaccination, the patients presented with one or more thrombotic events, with the exception of 1 patient, who presented with fatal intracranial hemorrhage. Of the patients with one or more thrombotic events, 9 had cerebral venous thrombosis, 3 had splanchnic-vein thrombosis, 3 had pulmonary embolism, and 4 had other thromboses; of these patients, 6 died. Five patients had disseminated intravascular coagulation. None of the patients had received heparin before symptom onset. All 28 patients who tested positive for antibodies against PF4–heparin tested positive on the platelet-activation assay in the presence of PF4 independent of heparin. Platelet activation was inhibited by high levels of heparin, Fc receptor–blocking monoclonal antibody, and immune globulin (10 mg per milliliter). Additional studies with PF4 or PF4–heparin affinity purified antibodies in 2 patients confirmed PF4-dependent platelet activation. Conclusions Vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 can result in the rare development of immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia mediated by platelet-activating antibodies against PF4, which clinically mimics autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. (Funded by the German Research Foundation.)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials

              Background The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4–12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. Methods We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials—one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)—and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). Findings Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4–74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3–85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59–0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3–91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0–69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18–55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01–2·68]). Interpretation The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. Funding UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D’Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Formos Med Assoc
                J Formos Med Assoc
                Journal of the Formosan Medical Association
                Formosan Medical Association. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.
                0929-6646
                0929-6646
                16 March 2022
                16 March 2022
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan
                [b ]School of Medicine, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei City, Taiwan
                [c ]Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences and Medical Biotechnology, National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan
                [d ]Department of Laboratory Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan
                [e ]Graduate Institute of Microbiology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
                [f ]Department of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
                [g ]Occupational Safety and Health Office, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
                [h ]Department of Family Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital and College of Medicine, Taipei 10016, Taiwan
                [i ]Department of Infectious Diseases, Taoyuan General Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taoyuan, Taiwan
                [j ]Institute of Public Health, School of Medicine National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Taiwan
                [k ]Genomics Research Center, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan
                [l ]School of Clinical Medicine, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan
                [m ]Institute of Public Health, School of Medicine National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, School of Public Health, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, 7, Chung Shan South Road, Taipei City, 10002, Taiwan. Fax: +886 2 23224793.
                [1]

                WH Sheng, SY Chang and PH Lin contributed equally to this manuscript.

                Article
                S0929-6646(22)00101-2
                10.1016/j.jfma.2022.02.020
                8926322
                35305895
                5a5caddf-bb1a-4abf-8c7a-1701c9d8fa48
                © 2022 Formosan Medical Association. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 4 February 2022
                : 24 February 2022
                : 25 February 2022
                Categories
                Original Article

                adenovirus-vector vaccine,messenger rna vaccine,coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19),severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (sars-cov-2),immune response

                Comments

                Comment on this article