7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccines and the absence of BA.5-specific antibodies

      letter

      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

          Vaccination against COVID-19 increased immunity in the population, which reduced viral transmission and protected against severe disease. However, continuous emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants required the implementation of bivalent boosters including the wild-type (D614G) and omicron (BA.5) spike. Improved effectiveness of the bivalent booster versus monovalent booster against omicron subvariants has been reported; 1 however, few differences in the immune response have been detected.2, 3 We investigated whether a bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine that included wild-type spike and BA.5 spike induced detectable BA.5-specific antibody responses in serum. 16 serum samples collected at mean 31 days (SD 63 [range 0–260]) before and a mean 16 days (8 [6–31]) after receiving the bivalent booster were tested for antibody binding and avidity to the receptor binding domain (RBD) of wild-type and BA.5 SARS-CoV-2. Neutralisation of wild-type and BA.5 viruses was determined. Omicron-specific antibodies were measured by depletion of wild-type RBD reactive antibodies and assessment of depleted serum samples against BA.5 RBD. A substantial increase in antibody binding to wild-type and BA.5 RBD as well as in neutralisation of wild-type and BA.5 viruses was seen in serum samples after receiving the bivalent booster (figure , appendix p 6). There were substantial differences in binding of post-booster serum samples between wild-type and BA.5 RBDs; however, differences in neutralisation were not significant. Pre-booster and post-booster RBD antibody avidity was lower against BA.5 RBD than wild-type RBD, which prompted us to look for BA.5 specific antibodies. Wild-type RBD depleted serum samples had undetectable reactivity to wild-type RBD—as expected—and to BA.5 RBD, suggesting that a single exposure to BA.5 antigens by the administration of bivalent vaccine boosters does not elicit robust concentrations of BA.5 specific serum antibodies. Figure Serum samples depleted of wild-type RBD have no reactivity to BA.5 RBD Reactivity of pre-bivalent booster vaccination serum samples is shown in blue and reactivity of post-bivalent booster vaccination serum samples is shown in red for both (A) wild-type RBD protein and (B) BA.5 RBD protein. Samples were depleted of wild-type RBD antibodies and reactivity was measured to (A) wild-type RBD (to confirm complete depletion) and to (B) BA.5 RBD (to determine if omicron-specific antibodies were present). Samples depleted of wild-type RBD antibodies are shown as dashed lines and samples not depleted of wild-type RBD antibodies are shown as continuous lines. OD is shown on the y axis and reciprocal serum dilutions (100–12 800 with two-fold dilution series) are shown on the x axis. The sample size was 16. RBD=receptor binding domain. OD=optical density. Reduced sensitivity of antibody tests based on wild-type viral antigens was detected in previously SARS-CoV-2 antigen naive individuals after omicron infection. 4 However, most of the global population has been infected with ancestral strains or exposed to wild-type antigens through vaccination, hence our results are relevant for the current immune status of the population worldwide. Moreover, our data align with results from April, 2023, which indicate that a monovalent booster with BA.1 vaccine elicits robust spike-specific germinal centre B-cell responses but very low numbers of de-novo B cells targeting variant-specific epitopes. 5 Whether further exposures to omicron antigens will boost these responses to make them detectable in serum remains to be explored. Importantly, it is probable that cross-reactive antibodies towards omicron-antigens contribute to protection.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Low neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2.75.2, BQ.1.1, and XBB.1 by parental mRNA vaccine or a BA.5-bivalent booster

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness of Bivalent Boosters against Severe Omicron Infection

            To the Editor: On August 31, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech bivalent Covid-19 vaccines, each containing equal amounts of mRNA encoding the spike protein from the ancestral strain and the spike protein from the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant, for emergency use as a single booster dose at least 2 months after primary or booster vaccination. 1 The FDA authorizations were based on nonclinical data for these two bivalent vaccines, safety and immunogenicity data for bivalent vaccines containing mRNA from the BA.1 lineage of the omicron variant, and safety and effectiveness data for the monovalent mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. 1 Since September 1, these two bivalent mRNA vaccines have replaced their monovalent counterparts as booster doses for persons 12 years of age or older in the United States and in other countries. Here, we report data from a large cohort study on the effectiveness of these two bivalent vaccines against severe infection with omicron BA.4.6, BA.5, BQ.1, and BQ.1.1. The data sources for this study have been described elsewhere. 2-4 We focused on new data collected over 99 days during which bivalent boosters were administered, from September 1 to December 8, 2022, and over the preceding 99 days during which monovalent boosters were administered, from May 25 to August 31, 2022 (see the Supplemental Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). During the period from May 25 to August 31, a total of 292,659 participants among the 6,242,259 who were eligible received monovalent boosters, and 61 of 1896 reported Covid-19–related hospitalizations and 23 of 690 reported Covid-19–related deaths occurred after receipt of the booster; during the period from September 1 to November 3, a total of 1,070,136 participants among the 6,283,483 who were eligible received bivalent boosters, and 57 of 1093 reported Covid-19–related hospitalizations and 17 of 514 reported Covid-19–related deaths occurred after receipt of the booster (Tables S1 and S2 in the Supplementary Appendix). We fit the Cox regression model with a time-varying hazard ratio for severe infection (defined as infection resulting in hospitalization or death) for a single booster dose (i.e., first booster vs. primary vaccination only, second booster vs. first booster, or third booster vs. second booster) with adjustment for the baseline characteristics shown in Table S1 (see the Supplemental Methods section). We defined vaccine effectiveness as 1 minus the hazard ratio, multiplied by 100. This vaccine effectiveness indicates the additional benefit of receiving a single booster dose rather than the effectiveness as compared with being unvaccinated. The results are shown in Table 1 and Figures S2 and S3. Booster effectiveness peaked at approximately 4 weeks and waned afterward. For all participants 12 years of age or older, vaccine effectiveness against severe infection resulting in hospitalization over days 15 to 99 after receipt of one monovalent booster dose was 25.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], –0.2 to 44.2), and the corresponding vaccine effectiveness for one bivalent booster dose was 58.7% (95% CI, 43.7 to 69.8); the difference in vaccine effectiveness against this outcome between the bivalent booster and the monovalent booster was 33.5 percentage points (95% CI, 2.9 to 62.1). Vaccine effectiveness against severe infection resulting in hospitalization or death was 24.9% (95% CI, 1.4 to 42.8) for one monovalent booster dose and 61.8% (95% CI, 48.2 to 71.8) for one bivalent booster dose; the difference in vaccine effectiveness against this outcome between the bivalent booster and the monovalent booster was 36.9 percentage points (95% CI, 12.6 to 64.3) (Fig. S3 and Table 1). We obtained similar vaccine effectiveness estimates when the analysis was restricted to participants who were 18 years of age or older or 65 years of age or older, to participants who received an mRNA vaccine as their primary vaccine, or to previously uninfected participants (Table 1). In addition, estimates of vaccine effectiveness were similar for the Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech boosters and similar among the first, second, and third booster doses (Table 1). Bivalent boosters provided substantial additional protection against severe omicron infection in persons who had previously been vaccinated or boosted, although the effectiveness waned over time. The effectiveness of bivalent boosters was higher than that of monovalent boosters. We adjusted for measured confounders, including vaccination history, previous infection, and demographic variables. However, estimates of booster effectiveness would be biased if boosted persons were more likely or less likely to seek Covid-19 testing than nonboosted persons. For this reason, we focused on severe infection, which was more likely to be reported than mild infection. Very strong unmeasured confounders would be required in order to fully explain away the observed effectiveness of bivalent boosters.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Antibody Response to Omicron BA.4–BA.5 Bivalent Booster

              To the Editor: The continued evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to the emergence of the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant and numerous sublineages that often evade neutralizing-antibody responses induced by infection or vaccination. 1 In response to this worrisome trend, the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorizations to bivalent formulations of the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines mRNA-1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) that target both the omicron BA.4–BA.5 spike and the ancestral wild-type (D614G) spike of SARS-CoV-2. 2 Published data on antibody responses to the bivalent vaccines have been limited to studies in animals and in humans that have used another bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting the BA.1 spike in addition to the D614G spike. 3,4 Despite the widespread administration of booster vaccines, the effect of a booster injection with new bivalent vaccines on the neutralizing-antibody response in humans remains unknown. Therefore, we collected serum samples from participants who had received three doses of either of the original monovalent mRNA vaccines followed by one dose of a bivalent vaccine targeting BA.4–BA.5 (bivalent-booster group), with each booster produced by the two original manufacturers. (The BA.4–BA.5 subvariants are often grouped together because they have the same spike protein.) Details regarding the methods that were used in this study and the recruitment and follow-up of the participants are provided in the Supplementary Appendix (available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). We compared neutralizing-antibody levels in these samples with levels in samples obtained from three other groups of participants: those who had received either three or four doses of monovalent mRNA vaccines (three-dose and four-dose monovalent groups) and those who had a history of BA.4–BA.5 breakthrough infection after three or four doses of monovalent mRNA vaccine (convalescent group). We used pseudovirus neutralization assays to test all serum samples against the D614G strain and against omicron sublineages BA.1, BA.2, BA.4–BA.5, BA.4.6, BA.2.75, and BA.2.75.2. To further assess the extent of antibody response, we also measured neutralizing-antibody levels against several related sarbecoviruses, including SARS-CoV, GD-pangolin, GX-pangolin, and WIV1. Clinical details are summarized for all groups in Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix and are listed for each participant in Table S2. The participants in the four-dose group were older than those in the bivalent-booster group (mean age, 55.3 years vs. 36.4 years). Serum was collected from the four-dose and bivalent-booster groups at a similar interval after the last dose of vaccine (mean, 24.0 days in the four-dose group and 26.4 days in the bivalent-booster group); the interval was longer after vaccination in the three-dose group (39.2 days) and after infection in the convalescent group (31.8 days). All four groups had the highest neutralizing-antibody titers (measured as the 50% inhibitory dilution [ID50]) against the D614G strain (Figure 1A). Geometric mean ID50 titers against each of the tested SARS-CoV-2 variants were lowest in the three-dose monovalent group and highest in the convalescent group. The between-group difference in neutralization of any SARS-CoV-2 variant tested was not significant between the four-dose monovalent group and the bivalent-booster group (Figure 1B). ID50 titers against three related sarbecoviruses (SARS-CoV, GD-pangolin, and WIV1) were slightly but significantly higher in the four-dose monovalent group than in the bivalent-booster group. Boosting with new bivalent mRNA vaccines targeting both the BA.4–BA.5 variant and the D614G strain did not elicit a discernibly superior virus-neutralizing peak antibody response as compared with boosting with the original monovalent vaccines. Limitations of our study include the small sample size and follow-up period of our groups. We also note that the between-group comparisons were not controlled for factors such as age, vaccine type, and health status, which may have had an effect on antibody responses. These findings may be indicative of immunologic imprinting, 5 although follow-up studies are needed to determine whether antibody responses will deviate over time, including after the administration of a second bivalent booster.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Lancet Microbe
                Lancet Microbe
                The Lancet. Microbe
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                2666-5247
                1 May 2023
                1 May 2023
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Microbiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
                [b ]Center for Vaccine Research and Pandemic Preparedness, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
                [c ]Department of Pathology, Molecular and Cell Based Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
                [d ]Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
                [e ]The Global Health and Emerging Pathogens Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
                Article
                S2666-5247(23)00118-0
                10.1016/S2666-5247(23)00118-0
                10151029
                37141905
                0d71dfa5-3e88-45a6-82d0-d432c74179cf
                © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

                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
                Categories
                Correspondence

                Comments

                Comment on this article