Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Extending the dosing interval of COVID-19 vaccination leads to higher rates of seroconversion in people living with HIV

      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.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is an effective way of protecting individuals from severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, immune responses to vaccination vary considerably. This study dynamically assessed the neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses to the third dose of the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine administered to people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; PLWH) with different inoculation intervals.

          Methods

          A total of 171 participants were recruited: 63 PLWH were placed in cohort 1 (with 3-month interval between the second and third doses), while 95 PLWH were placed in cohort 2 (with 5-month interval between the second and third doses); 13 individuals were enrolled as healthy controls (HCs). And risk factors associated with seroconversion failure after vaccination were identified via Cox regression analysis.

          Results

          At 6 months after the third vaccination, PLWH in cohort 2 had higher NAb levels (GMC: 64.59 vs 21.99, P < 0.0001) and seroconversion rate (68.42% vs 19.05%, P < 0.0001). A weaker neutralizing activity against the SARSCoV-2 Delta variant was observed (GMT: 3.38 and 3.63, P < 0.01) relative to the wildtype strain (GMT: 13.68 and 14.83) in both cohorts. None of the participants (including HCs or PLWH) could mount a NAb response against Omicron BA.5.2. In the risk model, independent risk factors for NAb seroconversion failure were the vaccination interval (hazed ration [HR]: 0.316, P < 0.001) and lymphocyte counts (HR: 0.409, P < 0.001). Additionally, PLWH who exhibited NAb seroconversion after vaccination had fewer initial COVID-19 symptoms when infected with Omicron.

          Discussion

          This study demonstrated that the third vaccination elicited better NAb responses in PLWH, when a longer interval was used between vaccinations. Since post-vaccination seroconversion reduced the number of symptoms induced by Omicron, efforts to protect PLWH with risk factors for NAb seroconversion failure may be needed during future Omicron surges.

          Clinical trial registration

          https://beta.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05075070, identifier NCT05075070.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Omicron escapes the majority of existing SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies

          The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant contains 15 mutations of the receptor-binding domain (RBD). How Omicron evades RBD-targeted neutralizing antibodies requires immediate investigation. Here we use high-throughput yeast display screening 1,2 to determine the profiles of RBD escaping mutations for 247 human anti-RBD neutralizing antibodies and show that the neutralizing antibodies can be classified by unsupervised clustering into six epitope groups (A–F)—a grouping that is highly concordant with knowledge-based structural classifications 3–5 . Various single mutations of Omicron can impair neutralizing antibodies of different epitope groups. Specifically, neutralizing antibodies in groups A–D, the epitopes of which overlap with the ACE2-binding motif, are largely escaped by K417N, G446S, E484A and Q493R. Antibodies in group E (for example, S309) 6 and group F (for example, CR3022) 7 , which often exhibit broad sarbecovirus neutralizing activity, are less affected by Omicron, but a subset of neutralizing antibodies are still escaped by G339D, N440K and S371L. Furthermore, Omicron pseudovirus neutralization showed that neutralizing antibodies that sustained single mutations could also be escaped, owing to multiple synergetic mutations on their epitopes. In total, over 85% of the tested neutralizing antibodies were escaped by Omicron. With regard to neutralizing-antibody-based drugs, the neutralization potency of LY-CoV016, LY-CoV555, REGN10933, REGN10987, AZD1061, AZD8895 and BRII-196 was greatly undermined by Omicron, whereas VIR-7831 and DXP-604 still functioned at a reduced efficacy. Together, our data suggest that infection with Omicron would result in considerable humoral immune evasion, and that neutralizing antibodies targeting the sarbecovirus conserved region will remain most effective. Our results inform the development of antibody-based drugs and vaccines against Omicron and future variants.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Considerable escape of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron to antibody neutralization

            The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was first identified in November 2021 in Botswana and South Africa1-3. It has since spread to many countries and is expected to rapidly become dominant worldwide. The lineage is characterized by the presence of around 32 mutations in spike-located mostly in the N-terminal domain and the receptor-binding domain-that may enhance viral fitness and enable antibody evasion. Here we isolated an infectious Omicron virus in Belgium from a traveller returning from Egypt. We examined its sensitivity to nine monoclonal antibodies that have been clinically approved or are in development4, and to antibodies present in 115 serum samples from COVID-19 vaccine recipients or individuals who have recovered from COVID-19. Omicron was completely or partially resistant to neutralization by all monoclonal antibodies tested. Sera from recipients of the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine, sampled five months after complete vaccination, barely inhibited Omicron. Sera from COVID-19-convalescent patients collected 6 or 12 months after symptoms displayed low or no neutralizing activity against Omicron. Administration of a booster Pfizer dose as well as vaccination of previously infected individuals generated an anti-Omicron neutralizing response, with titres 6-fold to 23-fold lower against Omicron compared with those against Delta. Thus, Omicron escapes most therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and, to a large extent, vaccine-elicited antibodies. However, Omicron is neutralized by antibodies generated by a booster vaccine dose.
              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

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Immunol
                Front Immunol
                Front. Immunol.
                Frontiers in Immunology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-3224
                02 March 2023
                2023
                02 March 2023
                : 14
                : 1152695
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Infection, Affiliated Hangzhou Xixi Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine , Hangzhou, China
                [2] 2Institute of Hepatology and Epidemiology, Affiliated Hangzhou Xixi Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine , Hangzhou, China
                [3] 3Institute of Microbiology, Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , Hangzhou, China
                [4] 4Department of Nursing, Affiliated Hangzhou Xixi Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine , Hangzhou, China
                [5] 5Medical Laboratory, Affiliated Hangzhou Xixi Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine , Hangzhou, China
                Author notes

                Edited by: Ritthideach Yorsaeng, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

                Reviewed by: Yanmin Wan, Fudan University, China; Hongxin Zhao, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, China

                *Correspondence: Jianhua Yu, yujhmc@ 123456126.com ; Yanjun Zhang, yjzhang@ 123456cdc.zj.cn

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

                This article was submitted to Vaccines and Molecular Therapeutics, a section of the journal Frontiers in Immunology

                Article
                10.3389/fimmu.2023.1152695
                10017959
                36936952
                91a24341-663a-4627-9f2f-3f40dc9b6af5
                Copyright © 2023 Wang, Li, Zhang, Liu, Miao, Li, Fu, Bao, Huang, Zheng, Li, Zhang and Yu

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 28 January 2023
                : 22 February 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 6, Equations: 0, References: 52, Pages: 13, Words: 6786
                Funding
                This research was supported by grants from the Infectious Diseases of Hangzhou Medical Key Subject, Key Programs of Hangzhou Bureau of Science and Technology (202204A02), Hangzhou Biomedicine and Health Industry Development Project (2022WJCY174), Guidance Programs of Hangzhou Bureau of Science and Technology (20211231Y050), Medical Science and Technology Project of Hangzhou (A20210014) and Medical Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Province (2023KY196 and 2023KY978).
                Categories
                Immunology
                Clinical Trial

                Immunology
                inactivated covid-19 vaccination,dosing interval,neutralizing antibody,seroconversion,people living with hiv

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content95

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors1,741