Monovalent Vaccine Research Articles

Immunogenicity of the Monovalent Omicron XBB.1.5-Adapted BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine against XBB.1.5, BA.2.86, and JN.1 Sublineages: A Phase 2/3 Trial.

We report neutralization titer data against contemporary SARS-CoV-2 sublineages from an ongoing, phase 2/3, open-label, clinical trial of a single dose (30 μg) of an Omicron XBB.1.5-adapted BNT162b2 monovalent mRNA vaccine. The trial included healthy participants who had received at least three previous doses of an mRNA vaccine authorized in the United States, with the most recent authorized vaccine dose being a bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted vaccine given at least 150 days before the study vaccination. In this analysis, Omicron XBB.1.5, BA.2.86, and JN.1 serum neutralizing titers were assessed at baseline and at 1 month after vaccination. Analyses were conducted in a subset of participants who were at least 18 years of age (N = 40) and who had evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Immunogenicity was also evaluated in a group of participants who received bivalent BA.4/BA.5-adapted BNT162b2 in another study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05472038) and who were matched demographically to the participants in the current trial. In this analysis, monovalent XBB.1.5-adapted BNT162b2 vaccine elicited higher XBB.1.5, BA.2.86, and JN.1 neutralizing titers than those elicited by bivalent BA.4/BA.5-adapted BNT162b2. Overall geometric mean fold rises in neutralizing titers from baseline to 1 month after vaccination were higher among participants who received XBB.1.5-adapted BNT162b2 than those who received bivalent BA.4/BA.5-adapted BNT162b2 for XBB.1.5 (7.6 vs. 5.6), slightly higher for JN.1 (3.9 vs. 3.5), and similar for BA.2.86 (4.8 vs. 4.9). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05997290.

Development and evaluation of vaccination strategies for addressing the continuous evolution SARS-CoV-2 based on recombinant trimeric protein technology: Potential for cross-neutralizing activity and broad coronavirus response

Given the significant decline in vaccine efficacy against Omicron, the development of novel vaccines with specific or broad-spectrum effectiveness is paramount. In this study, we formulated four monovalent vaccines based on recombinant spike trimer proteins, along with three bivalent vaccines, and five monovalent vaccines based on recombinant spike proteins. We evaluated the efficacy of different vaccination regimens in eliciting neutralizing antibodies in mice through pseudovirus neutralization assays. Following two doses of primary immunization with D614G, mice received subsequent immunizations with Omicron (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/5) boosters individually, which led to the generation of broader and more potent cross-neutralizing activity compared to D614G boosters. Notably, the BA.4/5 booster exhibited superior efficacy. Following two doses of primary immunization with Omicron (BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/5), mice were subsequently immunized with one dose of D614G booster which resulted in broader neutralizing activity compared to one dose of Omicron (BA.1, BA.2, or BA.4/5). In unvaccinated mice, full-course immunization with different bivalent vaccines induced broad neutralizing activity against Omicron and pre-Omicron variants, with D614G&BA.4/5 demonstrating superior efficacy. However, compared to other variants, the neutralizing activity against XBB.1.5/1.9.1 is notably reduced. This observation emphasizes the necessity of timely updates to the vaccine antigen composition. Based on these findings and existing studies, we propose a vaccination strategy aimed at preserving the epitope repertoire to its maximum potential: (1) Individuals previously vaccinated or infected with pre-Omicron variants should inoculate a monovalent vaccine containing Omicron components; (2) Individuals who have only been vaccinated or infected with Omicron should be inoculated a monovalent vaccine containing pre-Omicron variants components; (3) Individuals without SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination should inoculate a bivalent vaccine comprising both pre-Omicron and Omicron components for primary immunization. Additionally, through cross-inoculation of SARS-CoV-2 D614G spike trimer protein and SARS-CoV-1 spike protein in mice, we preliminarily demonstrated the possibility of cross-reaction between different coronavirus vaccines to produce resistance to the pan-coronavirus.

Efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of a monovalent mRNA vaccine, ABO1020, in adults: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

ABO1020 is a monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Results from a phase 1 trial showed ABO1020 was safe and well tolerated, and phase 3 trials to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of ABO1020 in healthy adults are urgently needed. We conducted a multinational, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial among healthy adults (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05636319). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 2 doses of ABO1020 (15μg per dose) or placebo, administered 28days apart. The primary endpoint was the vaccine efficacy in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 cases that occurred at least 14days post-full vaccination. The second endpoint included the neutralizing antibody titers against Omicron BA.5 and XBB and safety assessments. A total of 14,138 participants were randomly assigned to receive either vaccine or placebo (7,069 participants in each group). A total of 366 symptomatic COVID-19 cases were confirmed 14days after the second dose among 93 participants in the ABO1020 group and 273 participants in the placebo group, yielding a vaccine efficacy of 66.18% (95% confidence interval: 57.21-73.27, p<0.0001). A single dose or two doses of ABO1020 elicited potent neutralizing antibodies against both BA.5 and XBB.1.5. The safety profile of ABO1020 was characterized by transient, mild-to-moderate fever, pain at the injection site, and headache. ABO1020 was well tolerated and conferred 66.18% protection against symptomatic COVID-19 in adults. National Key Research and Development Project of China, Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences from the CAMS, National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Impact of dosing schedules on performance of rotavirus vaccines in Ghana.

Available live-oral rotavirus vaccines are associated with low to moderate performance in low- and middle-income settings. There is limited evidence relating to how the vaccine dosing schedule might be adjusted to improve vaccine performance in these settings. We used mathematical models fitted to rotavirus surveillance data for children <5 years of age from three different hospitals in Ghana (Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital in Accra, Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital in Kumasi and War Memorial Hospital in Navrongo) to project the impact of rotavirus vaccination over a 10-year period (April 2012-March 2022). We quantified and compared the impact of the previous vaccination program in Ghana to the model-predicted impact for other vaccine dosing schedules across the three hospitals and the entire country, under different assumptions about vaccine protection. To project the rotavirus vaccine impact over Ghana, we sampled from the range of model parameters for Accra and Navrongo, assuming that these two settings represent the "extremes" of rotavirus epidemiology within Ghana. For the previously implemented 6/10-week monovalent Rotarix vaccine (RV1) schedule, the model-estimated average annual incidence of moderate-to-severe rotavirus-associated gastroenteritis (RVGE) ranged between 1,151 and 3,002 per 100,000 people per year over the 10-year period for the three sites. Compared to no vaccination, the model-estimated median percentage reductions in RVGE ranged from 28-85% and 12-71% among children <1 year and <5 years of age respectively, with the highest and lowest percentage reductions predicted using model parameters estimated for Accra and Navrongo, respectively. The median predicted reductions in RVGE for the whole country ranged from 57-66% and 35-45% among children <1 year and <5 years of age, respectively. The 1/6/10- and 6/10/14-week schedules provided the best and comparable reductions in RVGE compared to the original 6/10-week schedule, whereas there was no improvement in impact for the 10/14-week schedule. We found that administering an additional dose of RV1 might be an effective strategy to improve rotavirus vaccine impact, particularly in settings with low vaccine effectiveness. The results could be extrapolated to other countries using a 2-dose vaccine schedule with low to moderate vaccine performance.

Risks of SARS-CoV-2 JN.1 infection and COVID-19 associated emergency-department (ED) visits/hospitalizations following updated boosters and prior infection: a population-based cohort study.

Data on protection afforded by updated COVID-19 vaccines (bivalent/XBB 1.5 monovalent) against the emergent JN.1 variant remains limited. We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study amongst all boosted Singaporeans aged ≥18 years during a COVID-19 wave predominantly driven by JN.1, from 26th November 2023 to 13th January 2024. Multivariable Cox regression was utilised to assess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 associated emergency-department (ED) visits/hospitalizations, stratified by vaccination status/prior infection; with individuals last boosted ≥1 year utilized as the reference category. Vaccination and infection status were classified using national registries. 3,086,562 boosted adult Singaporeans were included in the study population, accounting for 146,863,476 person-days of observation. During the JN.1 outbreak, 28,160 SARS-CoV-2 infections were recorded, with 2,926 hospitalizations and 3,747 ED-visits. Compared with individuals last boosted ≥1 year prior with ancestral monovalent vaccines, receipt of an updated XBB.1.5 booster 8-120 days prior was associated with lower risk of JN.1 infection (adjusted-hazard-ratio, aHR = 0.59[0.52-0.66]), COVID-19 associated ED-visits (aHR = 0.50[0.34-0.73]) and hospitalizations(aHR = 0.58[0.37-0.91]), while receipt of a bivalent booster 121-365 days prior was associated with lower risk of JN.1 infection (aHR = 0.92[0.88-0.95]) and ED-visits (aHR = 0.80[0.70-0.90]). Lower risk of COVID-19 hospitalization during the JN.1 outbreak (aHR = 0.57[0.33-0.97]) was still observed following receipt of an updated XBB.1.5 booster 8-120 days prior, even when analysis was restricted to previously infected individuals. Recent receipt of updated boosters conferred protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and ED-visits/hospitalization during a JN.1 variant wave, in both previously infected and uninfected individuals. Annual booster doses confer protection during COVID-19 endemicity.

Ischemic Stroke After Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccination: Self-Controlled Case Series Study.

The potential association between bivalent COVID-19 vaccination and ischemic stroke remains uncertain, despite several studies conducted thus far. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of ischemic stroke following bivalent COVID-19 vaccination during the 2022-2023 season. A self-controlled case series study was conducted among members aged 12 years and older who experienced ischemic stroke between September 1, 2022, and March 31, 2023, in a large health care system. Ischemic strokes were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes in emergency departments and inpatient settings. Exposures were Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccination. Risk intervals were prespecified as 1-21 days and 1-42 days after bivalent vaccination; all non-risk-interval person-time served as the control interval. The incidence of ischemic stroke was compared in the risk interval and control interval using conditional Poisson regression. We conducted overall and subgroup analyses by age, history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and coadministration of influenza vaccine. When an elevated risk was detected, we performed a chart review of ischemic strokes and analyzed the risk of chart-confirmed ischemic stroke. With 4933 ischemic stroke events, we found no increased risk within the 21-day risk interval for the 2 vaccines and by subgroups. However, risk of ischemic stroke was elevated within the 42-day risk interval among individuals aged younger than 65 years with coadministration of Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent and influenza vaccines on the same day; the relative incidence (RI) was 2.13 (95% CI 1.01-4.46). Among those who also had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the RI was 3.94 (95% CI 1.10-14.16). After chart review, the RIs were 2.34 (95% CI 0.97-5.65) and 4.27 (95% CI 0.97-18.85), respectively. Among individuals aged younger than 65 years who received Moderna bivalent vaccine and had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the RI was 2.62 (95% CI 1.13-6.03) before chart review and 2.24 (95% CI 0.78-6.47) after chart review. Stratified analyses by sex did not show a significantly increased risk of ischemic stroke after bivalent vaccination. While the point estimate for the risk of chart-confirmed ischemic stroke was elevated in a risk interval of 1-42 days among individuals younger than 65 years with coadministration of Pfizer-BioNTech bivalent and influenza vaccines on the same day and among individuals younger than 65 years who received Moderna bivalent vaccine and had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the risk was not statistically significant. The potential association between bivalent vaccination and ischemic stroke in the 1-42-day analysis warrants further investigation among individuals younger than 65 years with influenza vaccine coadministration and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, the findings on ischemic stroke risk after bivalent COVID-19 vaccination underscore the need to evaluate monovalent COVID-19 vaccine safety during the 2023-2024 season.

Phase III, open-label, single-arm study of a new MMR vaccine (JVC-001); measles AIK-C, mumps RIT 4385, rubella Takahashi, as a second vaccine dose in healthy Japanese children aged 5–6 years

PurposeThis Phase III, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) combined vaccine, JVC-001, as a second MMR vaccination. MethodsHealthy Japanese children aged 5–6 years received a single dose of JVC-001 following a first measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination (measles-rubella bivalent and mumps monovalent vaccine [Hoshino or Torii strain] or JVC-001) or the MMR vaccine received between ages 1 to <4 years. Immunogenicity was evaluated using antibody titers before and after vaccination (Day 1/Day 43). The primary endpoint was the seroprotection rate of antibody titers against each virus; geometric mean titer (GMT) was also evaluated. Adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were monitored. ResultsOne-hundred participants completed the study. The seroprotection rate of antibody titers against measles, rubella, and mumps virus (genotype D) were 100.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 96.4 %, 100.0 %), 100.0 % (95 % CI 96.4 %, 100.0 %), and 100.0 % (95 % CI 96.3 %, 100.0 %), respectively. GMT (fold) increases (Day 1 to Day 43) were 16.0 to 55.7 for measles virus, 35.5 to 99.0 for rubella virus, and 25.7 to 89.5 for mumps virus (genotype D). Solicited ADRs occurred in 40.0 % of participants (injection site, 34.0 %; systemic, 13.0 %). ConclusionsThe second MMR vaccination with JVC-001 demonstrated sufficient antibody coverage against all three viruses; the safety profile was tolerable. Clinical trial registrationjRCT2080225022.

Evaluating Humoral Immunity Elicited by XBB.1.5 Monovalent COVID-19 Vaccine.

Because novel SARS-CoV-2 variants continue to emerge, immunogenicity of XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccines against live clinical isolates needs to be evaluated. We report boosting of IgG (2.1×), IgA (1.5×), and total IgG/A/M (1.7×) targeting the spike receptor-binding domain and neutralizing titers against WA1 (2.2×), XBB.1.5 (7.4×), EG.5.1 (10.5×), and JN.1 (4.7×) variants.

Neutralizing antibody responses and cellular responses against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants after mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in kidney transplant recipients

Although the mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine has improved the mortality rate in the general population, its efficacy against rapidly mutating virus strains, especially in kidney transplant recipients, remains unclear. We examined the anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG antibody and neutralizing antibody titers and cellular immunity against B.1.1, BA.1, and BA.5 antigens in 73 uninfected kidney recipients and 16 uninfected healthy controls who received three doses of an mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The IgG antibody titers were significantly lower in recipients than in healthy controls. Similarly, neutralizing antibody titers against three viral variants were significantly lower in recipients. When the virus was mutated, the neutralizing antibody titers decreased significantly in both groups. In cellular immunity analysis, the number of spike-specific CD8 + non-naïve T cells against three variants significantly decreased in recipients. Conversely, the frequency of spike-specific Th2 CD4 + T-cells in recipients was higher than that in healthy controls. Nineteen recipients and six healthy controls also received a bivalent omicron-containing booster vaccine, leading to increase IgG and neutralizing antibody titers in both groups. After that, eleven recipients and five healthy controls received XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccines, increasing the neutralizing antibody titers against not only XBB.1.5, but also EG.5.1 and BA.2.86 antigens in kidney recipients. Although kidney recipients did not gain sufficient immunity against Omicron BA.5 with the third dose of vaccine, humoral response against mutant SARS-CoV-2 lineages significantly increased after bivalent Omicron-containing booster vaccine and the XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine. Therefore, it is important for kidney recipients to continue to administer updated vaccines.

A Review of Protein-Based COVID-19 Vaccines: From Monovalent to Multivalent Formulations.

The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), resulting in the COVID-19 pandemic, has profoundly impacted global healthcare systems and the trajectory of economic advancement. As nations grapple with the far-reaching consequences of this unprecedented health crisis, the administration of COVID-19 vaccines has proven to be a pivotal strategy in managing this crisis. Protein-based vaccines have garnered significant attention owing to their commendable safety profile and precise immune targeting advantages. Nonetheless, the unpredictable mutations and widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 have posed challenges for vaccine developers and governments worldwide. Monovalent and multivalent vaccines represent two strategies in COVID-19 vaccine development, with ongoing controversy surrounding their efficacy. This review concentrates on the development of protein-based COVID-19 vaccines, specifically addressing the transition from monovalent to multivalent formulations, and synthesizes data on vaccine manufacturers, antigen composition, pivotal clinical study findings, and other features that shape their distinct profiles and overall effectiveness. Our hypothesis is that multivalent vaccine strategies for COVID-19 could offer enhanced capability with broad-spectrum protection.

The clinical and economic costs associated with regional disparities in varicella vaccine coverage in Italy over 50 years (2020–2070)

Italy implemented two-dose universal varicella vaccination (UVV) regionally from 2003 to 2013 and nationally from 2017 onwards. Our objective was to analyze regional disparities in varicella outcomes resulting from disparities in vaccine coverage rates (VCRs) projected over a 50-year time-horizon (2020–2070). A previously published dynamic transmission model was updated to quantify the potential public health impact of the UVV program in Italy at the national and regional levels. Four 2-dose vaccine strategies utilizing monovalent (V) and quadrivalent (MMRV) vaccines were evaluated for each region: (A) MMRV-MSD/MMRV-MSD, (B) MMRV-GSK/MMRV-GSK, (C) V-MSD/MMRV-MSD, and (D) V-GSK/MMRV-GSK. Costs were reported in 2022 Euros. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted 3% annually. Under strategy A, the three regions with the lowest first-dose VCR reported increased varicella cases (+ 34.3%), hospitalizations (+ 20.0%), QALYs lost (+ 5.9%), payer costs (+ 22.2%), and societal costs (+ 14.6%) over the 50-year time-horizon compared to the three regions with highest first-dose VCR. Regions with low first-dose VCR were more sensitive to changes in VCR than high first-dose VCR regions. Results with respect to second-dose VCR were qualitatively similar, although smaller in magnitude. Results were similar across all vaccine strategies.

Development of a nucleoside-modified mRNA vaccine against clade 2.3.4.4b H5 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus

mRNA lipid nanoparticle (LNP) vaccines would be useful during an influenza virus pandemic since they can be produced rapidly and do not require the generation of egg-adapted vaccine seed stocks. Highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses from H5 clade 2.3.4.4b are circulating at unprecedently high levels in wild and domestic birds and have the potential to adapt to humans. Here, we generate an mRNA lipid nanoparticle (LNP) vaccine encoding the hemagglutinin (HA) glycoprotein from a clade 2.3.4.4b H5 isolate. The H5 mRNA-LNP vaccine elicits strong T cell and antibody responses in female mice, including neutralizing antibodies and broadly-reactive anti-HA stalk antibodies. The H5 mRNA-LNP vaccine elicits antibodies at similar levels compared to whole inactivated vaccines in female mice with and without prior H1N1 exposures. Finally, we find that the H5 mRNA-LNP vaccine is immunogenic in male ferrets and prevents morbidity and mortality of animals following 2.3.4.4b H5N1 challenge. Together, our data demonstrate that a monovalent mRNA-LNP vaccine expressing 2.3.4.4b H5 is immunogenic and protective in pre-clinical animal models.

The Milk of Cows Immunized with Trivalent Inactivated Vaccines Provides Broad-Spectrum Passive Protection against Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease in Neonatal Mice.

Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a contagious viral infection predominantly affecting infants and young children, caused by multiple enteroviruses, including Enterovirus 71 (EV71), Coxsackievirus A16 (CA16), Coxsackievirus A10 (CA10), and Coxsackievirus A6 (CA6). The high pathogenicity of HFMD has garnered significant attention. Currently, there is no specific treatment or broad-spectrum preventive measure available for HFMD, and existing monovalent vaccines have limited impact on the overall incidence or prevalence of the disease. Consequently, with the emergence of new viral strains driven by vaccine pressure, there is an urgent need to develop strategies for the rapid response and control of new outbreaks. In this study, we demonstrated the broad protective effect of maternal antibodies against three types of HFMD by immunizing mother mice with a trivalent inactivated vaccine targeting EV71, CA16, and CA10, using a neonatal mouse challenge model. Based on the feasibility of maternal antibodies as a form of passive immunization to prevent HFMD, we prepared a multivalent antiviral milk by immunizing dairy cows with the trivalent inactivated vaccine to target multiple HFMD viruses. In the neonatal mouse challenge model, this immunized milk exhibited extensive passive protection against oral infections caused by the three HFMD viruses. Compared to vaccines, this strategy may offer a rapid and broadly applicable approach to providing passive immunity for the prevention of HFMD, particularly in response to the swift emergence and spread of new variants.

Characteristics of JN.1-derived SARS-CoV-2 subvariants SLip, FLiRT, and KP.2 in neutralization escape, infectivity and membrane fusion.

SARS-CoV-2 variants derived from the immune evasive JN.1 are on the rise worldwide. Here, we investigated JN.1-derived subvariants SLip, FLiRT, and KP.2 for their ability to be neutralized by antibodies in bivalent-vaccinated human sera, XBB.1.5 monovalent-vaccinated hamster sera, sera from people infected during the BA.2.86/JN.1 wave, and class III monoclonal antibody (Mab) S309. We found that compared to parental JN.1, SLip and KP.2, and especially FLiRT, exhibit increased resistance to COVID-19 bivalent-vaccinated human sera and BA.2.86/JN.1-wave convalescent sera. Interestingly, antibodies in XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccinated hamster sera robustly neutralized FLiRT and KP.2 but had reduced efficiency for SLip. These JN.1 subvariants were resistant to neutralization by Mab S309. In addition, we investigated aspects of spike protein biology including infectivity, cell-cell fusion and processing, and found that these subvariants, especially SLip, had a decreased infectivity and membrane fusion relative to JN.1, correlating with decreased spike processing. Homology modeling revealed that L455S and F456L mutations in SLip reduced local hydrophobicity in the spike and hence its binding to ACE2. In contrast, the additional R346T mutation in FLiRT and KP.2 strengthened conformational support of the receptor-binding motif, thus counteracting the effects of L455S and F456L. These three mutations, alongside D339H, which is present in all JN.1 sublineages, alter the epitopes targeted by therapeutic Mabs, including class I and class III S309, explaining their reduced sensitivity to neutralization by sera and S309. Together, our findings provide insight into neutralization resistance of newly emerged JN.1 subvariants and suggest that future vaccine formulations should consider JN.1 spike as immunogen, although the current XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine could still offer adequate protection.

Relative and Temporal Efficacy of the First and Second Covid 19 Booster Vaccine (3rd And 4th Dose) to Prevent Symptomatic Infection from December 2021 to October 2023 in a General Medicine Office in Toledo (Spain)

Background: The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing serious infection and death is established, but their protection against infection is less certain. Additionally, their effectiveness diminishes over time. Furthermore, the evolution of the effectiveness of different booster doses of the vaccine against COVID-19, to prevent symptomatic infection in real life during the pandemic and the subsequent endemic, is not clearly documented. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the 3rd and 4th vaccine boosters against COVID-19 in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 infection during both the pandemic and the subsequent endemic phase. Methodology: A comparative secondary analysis of the vaccine’s effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 infection (calculated as: 1 – (COVID-19 cases with vaccine doses / COVID-19 cases without vaccine dose) × 100) based on a prospective study from December 2021 to October 2023 in a general medicine office was conducted. The first booster dose was administered with monovalent mRNA vaccines, and the second booster with bivalent mRNA vaccines. Results: From December 2021 to February 2022, the effectiveness of the primer vaccine booster was 60% when administered &gt;= 15 days versus &lt;15 days before infection, and 36% when administered &gt;= 29 days versus &lt; 29 days before infection. From October 2022 to February 2023, the effectiveness of the vaccine’s 4th dose was 84%. From October 2022 to October 2023, the effectiveness of the 4th dose of bivalent mRNA vaccine in preventing reinfections was 30%. Conclusion: In the general practice setting in Toledo, Spain, the effectiveness of the first booster with mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 primary infection and symptomatic COVID-19 waned over time, but protection remained high with the second bivalent booster. However, the booster vaccine’s effectiveness is more modest in preventing symptomatic reinfections. Overall, completing the booster vaccination is worthwhile.

Original COVID-19 priming regimen impacts the immunogenicity of bivalent BA.1 and BA.5 boosters.

Waning antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination combined with the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineage led to reduced vaccine effectiveness. As a countermeasure, bivalent mRNA-based booster vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein in combination with that of Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 were introduced. Since then, different BA.2-descendent lineages have become dominant, such as XBB.1.5, JN.1, or EG.5.1. Here, we report post-hoc analyses of data from the SWITCH-ON study, assessing how different COVID-19 priming regimens affect the immunogenicity of bivalent booster vaccinations and breakthrough infections (NCT05471440). BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent vaccines boosted neutralizing antibodies and T-cells up to 3 months after boost; however, cross-neutralization of XBB.1.5 was poor. Interestingly, different combinations of prime-boost regimens induced divergent responses: participants primed with Ad26.COV2.S developed lower binding antibody levels after bivalent boost while neutralization and T-cell responses were similar to mRNA-based primed participants. In contrast, the breadth of neutralization was higher in mRNA-primed and bivalent BA.5 boosted participants. Combined, our data further support the current use of monovalent vaccines based on circulating strains when vaccinating risk groups, as recently recommended by the WHO. We emphasize the importance of the continuous assessment of immune responses targeting circulating variants to guide future COVID-19 vaccination policies.

Immunogenicity of Monovalent mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 Vaccines in Children

The messenger RNA (mRNA)-based coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines approved for use in children <5 years of age have different antigen doses and administration schedules that could affect vaccine immunogenicity and effectiveness. We sought to compare the strength and breadth of serum binding and neutralizing antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) elicited by monovalent mRNA-based coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines in young children. We conducted a prospective cohort study of children 6 months to 4 years of age who completed primary series vaccination with monovalent mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccines. Serum was collected 1 month after primary vaccine series completion for the measurement of SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral immune responses, including antibody binding responses to Spike proteins from an ancestral strain (D614G) and major variants of SARS-CoV-2 and antibody neutralizing activity against D614G and Omicronsubvariants (BA.1, BA.4/5). Of 75 participants, 40 (53%) received mRNA-1273 and 35 (47%) received BNT162b2. Children receiving either primary vaccine series developed robust and broad SARS-CoV-2-specific binding and neutralizing antibodies, including to Omicronsubvariants. Children with a previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection developed significantly higher antibody binding responses and neutralization titers to Omicronsubvariants, which is consistent with the occurrence of identified infections during the circulation of Omicronsubvariants in the region. Monovalent mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 elicited similar antibody responses 1 month after vaccination in young children. In addition, previous infection significantly enhanced the strength of antibody responses to Omicronsubvariants. The authors of future studies should evaluate incorporation of these vaccines into the standard childhood immunization schedule.

Relative vaccine protection, disease severity, and symptoms associated with the SARS-CoV-2 omicron subvariant BA.2.86 and descendant JN.1 in Denmark: a nationwide observational study

During the 2023 Danish COVID-19 vaccination campaign, an updated monovalent mRNA vaccine targeting the SARS-CoV-2 omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant was administered. However, the rapid spread of a genetically divergent omicron BA.2.86 subvariant, JN.1, since September, 2023, poses potential challenges due to its rapid dominance and possible immune escape. Using national electronic health registry data from all regions of Denmark, we aimed to investigate whether the SARS-CoV-2 subvariant BA.2.86, and its descendant JN.1, differed from other circulating variants in terms of their ability to escape vaccine protection, the risk of infection leading to severe disease, and self-reported symptoms among infected people. In this observational study, we included all residents of Denmark aged 65 years and older who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR between Oct 1 and Dec 31, 2023, and for whom genomic data on the SARS-CoV-2 variant that had caused their infection were available. Data from clinical testing, sentinel, and self-sampling-based surveillance were linked with national electronic civil, vaccination, and hospitalisation registers. The relative protection of the XBB.1.5 updated COVID-19 vaccine against BA.2.86 infections versus infections with other variants was analysed in a case-only study, and the relative risk of hospitalisation in people infected with BA.2.86 versus other variants was analysed in a case-control study. Both analyses were adjusted for time, comorbidities, and previous vaccination history, among other potential confounders. Additionally, prevalence patterns in self-reported symptoms among people of all ages infected with SARS-CoV-2 were reported separately by subvariant. Of the 7581 people in Denmark aged 65 years or older who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR during the study period, 5882 (78%) samples were eligible for sequencing. 3862 (66%) of these passed quality control, were successfully sequenced, and the SARS-CoV-2 variant and subvariant identified, and these individuals were included in the study. Of these 3862 people, 2184 (57%) were infected with the BA.2.86 subvariant, including 1615 JN.1 infections. Participants infected with BA.2.86 had 1·52 (95% CI 1·25-1·86) times the odds, and those infected with JN.1 had 1·60 (1·27-2·02) times the odds, of having received the XBB.1.5 vaccine at least 7 days before their infection compared with participants infected with a non-BA.2.86 variant. The severity analysis showed no evidence of association between the infecting variant and the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation (odds ratio 1·04 [95% CI 0·86-1·26] for BA.2.86 and 1·07 [0·85-1·34] for JN.1). Similarly, there was no evidence of differences in self-reported symptoms by variant strain. Compared with other SARS-CoV-2 variants, BA.2.86 and the JN.1 sublineage were less sensitive to vaccine-induced immune protection from the XBB.1.5 updated COVID-19 vaccine; however, we found no evidence that infection with BA.2.86 or JN.1 resulted in increased disease severity or different symptom profiles. Although less effective against the new variants, XBB.1.5 vaccination remains protective and reduces the risk of infection and COVID-19 disease. The Danish Government and the EU's EU4Health programme.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 XBB.1.5 monovalent mRNA vaccine in Korea: interim analysis.

As coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) becomes an endemic disease, the virus continues to evolve and become immunologically distinct from previous strains. Immune imprinting has raised concerns about bivalent mRNA vaccines containing both ancestral virus and Omicron variant. To increase efficacy against the predominant strains as of the second half of 2023, the updated vaccine formulation contained only the mRNA of XBB.1.5 sublineage. We conducted a multicenter, test-negative, case-control study to estimate XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine effectiveness (VE) and present the results of an interim analysis with data collected in November 2023. Patients who underwent COVID-19 testing at eight university hospitals were included and matched based on age (19-49, 50-64, and ≥65 years) and sex in a 1:1 ratio. VE was calculated using the adjusted odds ratio derived from multivariable logistic regression. Of the 992 patients included, 49 (5.3%) received the XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine at least 7 days before COVID-19 testing. Patients with COVID-19 (cases) were less likely to have received the XBB.1.5 monovalent vaccine (case 3.5% vs. control 7.2%, p=0.019) and to have a history of COVID-19 within 6 months (2.2% vs. 4.6%, p=0.068). In contrast, patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be healthcare workers (8.2% vs. 3.0%, p=0.001) and to have chronic neurological diseases (16.7% vs. 11.9%, p=0.048). The adjusted VE of the XBB.1.5 monovalent mRNA vaccine was 56.8% (95% confidence interval: 18.7-77.9%). XBB.1.5 monovalent mRNA vaccine provided significant protection against COVID-19 in the first one to two months after vaccination.

Virus-like particle-based multipathogen vaccine of FMD and SVA elicits balanced and broad protective efficacy in mice and pigs

Inactivated vaccines lack the capability to serologically differentiate between infected and vaccinated animals, thereby impeding the effective eradication of pathogen. Conversely, vaccines based on virus-like particles (VLPs) emulate natural viruses in both size and antigenic structure, presenting a promising alternative to overcome these limitations. As the complexity of swine infectious diseases increases, the increase of vaccine types and doses may intensify the stress response. This exacerbation can lead to diminished productivity, failure of immunization, and elevated costs. Given the critical dynamics of co-infection and the clinically indistinguishable symptoms associated with foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) and senecavirus A (SVA), there is a dire need for an efficacious intervention. To address these challenges, we developed a combined vaccine composed of three distinct VLPs, specifically designed to target SVA and FMDV serotypes O and A. Our research demonstrates that this trivalent VLP vaccine induces antigen-specific and robust serum antibody responses, comparable to those produced by the respective monovalent vaccines. Moreover, the immune sera from the combined VLP vaccine strongly neutralized FMDV type A and O, and SVA, with neutralization titers comparable to those of the individual vaccines, indicating a high level of immunogenic compatibility among the three VLP components. Importantly, the combined VLPs vaccines-immunized sera conferred efficient protection against single or mixed infections with FMDV type A and O, and SVA viruses in pigs. In contrast, individual vaccines could only protect pigs against homologous virus infections and not against heterologous challenges. This study presents a novel combined vaccines candidate against FMD and SVA, and provides new insights for the development of combination vaccines for other viral swine diseases.