Safety and immunogenicity of a heterologous boost with a recombinant vaccine, NVSI-06-07, in the inactivated vaccine recipients from UAE: a phase 2 randomised, double-blinded, controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has stimulated global efforts to develop safe and effective vaccines against the rapid spread of the virus. So far, great progresses have been achieved, and a total of ten vaccines have been approved by the world health organization (WHO) for emergency use.¹ These COVID-19 vaccines have been used in large-scale populations and shown to offer effective protections against severe disease, hospitalization and death.² However, due to the waning of neutralization titer over time in vaccinated individuals and emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants such as Omicron and Delta, breakthrough infection cases continuously increase,^3,4 which raises the urgent need of new strategies to cope with this tendency.

Booster vaccination may be an effective way to improve waning immunity and broaden protective immune responses against SARS-CoV-2. The clinical trials in adults who have received the two-dose primary vaccination series with mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccines showed that a booster injection of the same vaccine, six to eight months later, yielded 3·8- to 7-fold higher neutralizing antibody titers against the wild-type virus compared to the peak value after the primary series.^5-7 Besides the homologous boosting, heterologous booster strategy has also attracted great concerns, and several clinical trials and cohort studies have shown that the heterologous prime-booster vaccination was immunologically superior than homologous counterparts.^8-12 However, the immunogenicity of the heterologous prime-booster vaccination with the inactivated vaccine and the recombinant subunit vaccine was evaluated recently only in a small size of samples, and the neutralizing antibodies against live SARS-CoV-2 were not detected in the study.^11,12 Till now, it is still lacking a large-scale clinical trial to evaluate the immunogenicity of heterologous boost with the recombinant subunit vaccine in individuals primed with the inactivated vaccine. Besides that, the neutralization ability of heterologous booster vaccination against the newly epidemic Omicron variant also needs to be tested.

Based on structural and computational analysis of spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2, we have designed a recombinant COVID-19 vaccine (CHO cells), named NVSI-06-07, that uses a trimeric form of RBD as the antigen. The phase 1/2 clinical trial conducted in China has demonstrated high safety and strong immunogenicity of this vaccine. We sought to know whether the use of NVSI-06-07 as a heterologous booster vaccination can effectively improve the immune responses in the inactivated vaccine recipients. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous booster vaccination with NVSI-06-07 at pre-specified time intervals in individuals who have previously received two doses of the inactivated vaccine BBIBP-CorV, which were then compared to those of homologous boosting strategy with a third dose of BBIBP-CorV. Moreover, as an exploratory study, the live-virus neutralization activities of the vaccinated sera were also evaluated against Omicron and other SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs).

METHODS

RESULTS

Healthy adults aged ≥18 years who received a full regimen (two doses) of BBIBP-CorV 1-3 months, 4-6 months and ≥6 months ago, respectively, were recruited as shown in Figure 1. For these three groups with different boosting intervals, a total of 1800 participants were enrolled with 600 of each group at one clinical site in UAE. For each group, participants were randomly assigned to receive either a heterologous booster vaccination with NVSI-06-07 or a homologous booster with a third dose of BBIBP-CorV (Figure 1). Demographic characteristics were similar between the heterologous and homologous boosting groups. The participants in the two groups exhibited balanced distributions in age, sex, height and body weight (Table 1). The nationality of participants was provided in Appendix Table A1. All the 1800 participants receiving booster vaccination were included in SS for safety analysis. A total of 1672 participants completed the follow-up visit on day 14, and these individuals were included in per-protocol set 1 (PPS1) for day 14 immunogenicity analysis. A total of 1496 participants completed day 28 visit, which were included in per-protocol set 2 (PPS2) for day 28 immunogenicity analysis (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Trial profile.

*PPS1: per-protocol analysis of immunogenicity on day 14 post booster vaccination;

**PPS2: per-protocol analysis of immunogenicity on day 28 post booster vaccination; The sera from all the participants in PPS2 were used to evaluate the neutralizing antibody titers. 255 participants in the 1-3 months group receiving NVSI-06-07 boost, 241 in the ≥6 months group receiving NVSI-06-07, and 251 in the ≥6 months group receiving BBIBP-CorV were used to detect the RBD-binging IgG titers.

For safety analysis, four cases of SAEs were reported within 30 days post-boosting, two of which occurred in homologous booster group, and the other two was reported in heterologous booster group. None of these SAEs was related to the tested vaccines. Besides, no AESI was reported. The overall occurrence of adverse reactions was low in both the heterologous and homologous booster vaccinations. The most frequent adverse reactions were grades 1 (mild) or 2 (moderate) in severity (Figures 2 and 3, and Appendix Tables A2 and A3). Among participants boosted with NVSI-06-07, 184 (20·47%) reported at least one adverse reaction within 30 days post-boosting. And for the groups boosted with a third dose of BBIBP-CorV, the total number of participants reporting any adverse reaction was 177 (19·64%). No statistically significant difference was observed in the occurrence of adverse reactions between these two groups (P=0·6805) (Appendix Table A3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Injection site adverse reactions reported within 30 days after injection of NVSI-06-07 or BBIBP-CorV.

Adverse reactions are graded according to the scale issued by the China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA). Grade 1 is mild and grade 2 is moderate.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Systemic adverse reactions reported within 30 days after injection of NVSI-06-07 or BBIBP-CorV.

Adverse reactions are graded according to the scale issued by the China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA). Grade 1 is mild, grade 2 is moderate, and grade 3 is severe.

The number of individuals reporting any unsolicited adverse event relevant to vaccination was 57 (6·34%) and 58 (6·44%) in heterologous and homologous boosting groups, respectively, within 30 days after booster vaccination (P=1·0000) (Appendix Table A3). These reported unsolicited adverse reactions were all ranked as grades 1 or 2. For solicited adverse reactions collected within 30 days post-boosting, most of the local and systemic adverse reactions were graded as 1 (mild) or 2 (moderate) in both heterologous and homologous boosting groups, except for grade 3 systemic fever reported by 1 participant (0·11%) in heterologous boosting group and 3participants (0·33%) in homologous boosting group (Figures 2 and Appendix Table A3). Most of the solicited adverse reactions occurred within 7 days (Appendix Table A2). The most common injection site adverse reaction within 30 days was pain, reported in 70 (7·79%) subjects in the NVSI-06-07 boosting recipients and 47 (5·22%) in the BBIBP-CorV boosting recipients. There was a statistically difference in the pain of grade 1 between these two groups (P=0·0237). The most common systemic adverse reactions were headaches, muscle pain (non-inoculation site), fatigues and fever, which were reported in 49 (5·45%), 48 (5·34%), 30 (3·34%) and 23 (2·56%) participants in NVSI-06-07 boosting recipients, and 59 (6·55%), 41 (4·55%), 40 (4·44%) and 24 (2·66%) in the BBIBP-CorV boosting recipients. No statistically significant differences were observed in systemic adverse reactions between the heterologous and homologous boosting groups (all P>0·05) (Figure 3 and Appendix Table A3).

For immunogenicity, the serologic RBD-specific IgG titers were detected before and after boost vaccination by using ELISA kits to assess the antibody responses. The baseline IgG levels in the enrolled participants were firstly detected, as shown in Table 2. There was no difference in the baseline IgG levels between participants assigned to heterologous and homologous boosting groups. On 14 days after boosting, notable increases were observed in IgG titers. In homologous BBIBP-CorV booster group, the seroconversion rates were 23·70% (95% CI,18·76%-29·24%), 25·17% (20·28%-30·58%) and 36·14% (30·56%-42·01%) for 1-3-month, 4-6-month and ≥6-month boosting-interval groups, respectively, whereas in heterologous NVSI-06-07 booster group, the seroconversion rates were 93·26% (95%CI, 89·55%-95·96%), 90·32% (86·23%-93·53%) and 85·77% (81·12%-89·63%), respectively (Table 2). Significantly higher seroconversion rates (P<0·0001) were elicited by heterologous boosting than by homologous vaccination (Table 2). For participants receiving the homologous boost, IgG GMTs increased from baseline by 2·76-fold (95%CI, 2·39-3·17) in 1-3-month boosting-interval group, 2·63-fold (95% CI, 2·26-3·06) in 4-6-month group and 4·71-fold (3·77-5·89) in ≥6-month group, respectively. Notedly, in participants receiving the heterologous boost with NVSI-06-07, IgG GMTs demonstrated a 43·41-fold (95%CI, 36·54-51·56), 44·68-fold (36·79-54·26) and 57·56-fold (44·72-74·07) of increases in the three groups with different boosting intervals, respectively (Table 2). IgG responses boosted by NVSI-06-07 were much higher (P<0.0001) than those by BBIBP-CorV (Table 2). Similar results were observed on day 28 post-boosting. Seroconversion rates were 84·23%-92·94% in different groups receiving heterologous boosting, which were significantly higher than those in participants receiving homologous boosting (17·60%-29·48%), as shown in Table 2. A similar increasing trend was observed in IgG GMTs, which were 1·97-3·57 folds in the groups receiving homologous prime-boost vaccination and 30·99-41·68 folds in the groups receiving heterologous prime-boost vaccination. On day 28 after boost, both seroconversion rates and IgG GMTs induced by the heterologous boost vaccination were significantly higher (P<0·0001) than those induced by the homologous boost vaccination (Table 2).

The immunogenic superiority of heterologous NVSI-06-07 booster to homologous BBIBP-CorV booster was further confirmed by neutralizing antibody response measured with live-virus neutralization assays. Before booster vaccination, most of the participants had detectable neutralizing activities against prototype SARS-CoV-2 and showed a comparable level between two boosting groups in the pre-booster neutralizing antibodies. The pre-booster neutralizing antibody GMT of participants in the group of over-6-month boosting-interval was about half of the values in the 3-6-month group, indicating wanning of neutralizing antibody responses over time (Table 3). On day 14 post-boosting, the neutralizing antibody titers against prototype SARS-CoV-2 live virus were significantly improved in both the heterologous and homologous boosting recipients. In homologous boosting participants, the seroconversion rates in 1-3-month, 4-6-month and ≥6-month boosting-interval groups were 39·26% (95%CI, 33·40%-45·36%), 26·90% (21·88%-32·39%) and 52·98% (47·01%-58·89%), respectively, whereas those were 81·65% (76·47%-86·10%), 86·38% (81·79%-90·18%) and 86·83% (82·31%-90·56%) for the heterologous boost (Table 3). The seroconversion rates induced by heterologous boost were significantly higher (P<0·0001) than those induced by homologous boost (Table 3). Compared with the pre-boosting baseline level, the homologous boost vaccination elicited 3·41-fold (95%CI, 2·90-4·00) higher neutralizing GMTs against prototype SARS-CoV-2 in 1-3-month boosting-interval group, 2·58-fold (95% CI, 2·21-3·00) higher in 4-6-month group and 7·36-fold (95%CI, 6·11-8·86) higher in ≥6-month group, respectively. A more remarkable improvement of neutralizing antibody responses was observed by heterologous boost vaccination against prototype live virus, in which average neutralizing GMTs increased by 13·95-fold (95%CI, 12·01-16·20), 16·45-fold (14·10-19·19) and 35·86-fold (29·44-43·67) for the three groups (Table 3). On day 28 post-boosting, live-virus neutralizing antibody responses were further improved in both homologous and heterologous boosting groups. By homologous boosting, seroconversion rates were further increased to 59·92% (95%CI, 53·52%-66·08%), 36·80%(30·81%-43·11%) and 81·75% (76·41%-86·31%) in the 1-3-month, 4-6-month and ≥6-month boosting-interval groups, respectively. Much higher seroconversion rates were obtained by heterologous boost, which reached at 90·63% (95%CI, 86·37%-93·90%), 89·96% (85·54%-93·40%) and 97·52% (94·68%-99·08%) in the three groups, respectively. On day 28 post-boost, the increases from baseline in neutralizing GMTs of heterologous prime-boost vaccination were also significantly higher than those of homologous vaccination. By homologous boosting, neutralizing GMTs improved by 7·08-fold (95%CI, 5·91-8·48), 4·20-fold (3·57-4·94) and 16·78-fold (13·51-20·83) in the three groups, respectively, whereas 21·01-fold (95%CI, 18·01-24·52), 23·10-fold (19·44-27·44) and 63·85-fold (52·15-78·18) of increase were obtained by heterologous boost (Table 3). Both on day 14 and day 28 post-boosting, neutralizing antibody levels improved by heterologous booster were much higher (P<0·0001) than those by homologous booster, indicating that NVSI-06-07 is immunologically preferred as a booster choice over BBIBP-CorV (Table 3). Comparison among three groups with different prime-boosting intervals showed that the ≥6 months groups have the largest increase in neutralizing GMTs both for heterologous and homologous boosts, and thus the booster vaccination with over 6 months intervals was optimal.

Owing to much higher transmissibility than other VOCs, the Omicron variant has rapidly spread around the world. Worryingly, Omicron has been demonstrated with substantially improved immune-escape capability by many preliminary studies,^14-16 which raised serious concerns on the effectiveness of available COVID-19 vaccines. In this study, serum samples of 192 participants with consecutive enrollment numbers in ≥6-month boosting-interval group (half boosted with homologous vaccination and the other half boosted with heterologous vaccination) were used to evaluate the neutralizing sensitivities to the Omicron variant using live-virus neutralization assays. In participants boosted with a third dose of BBIBP-CorV, neutralizing antibody GMT against Omicron was substantially reduced by 11·32 folds compared with that against prototype SARS-CoV-2 strain, implying substantial escape of the Omicron variant from the antibody neutralization response elicited by BBIBP-CorV. By comparison, in participants receiving heterologous boost of NVSI-06-07, neutralizing antibody GMT against Omicron only declined by 6·62 folds, as shown in Table 4. Neutralizing antibody GMT against Omicron elicited by heterologous boost was 292·53 (95%CI, 222·81-384·07), which was significantly higher than 37·91 (95% CI, 30·35-47·35) induced by homologous boost. Heterologous prime-booster vaccination with BBIBP-CorV followed by NVSI-06-07 demonstrated much more robust neutralizing activities against Omicron compared with homologous prime-boost vaccination with three doses of BBIBP-CorV.

We also evaluated the immune efficacy of booster vaccinations against other SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, including Alpha, Beta and Delta. After boosting with BBIBP-CorV, the neutralizing antibody GMTs against Alpha, Beta and Delta showed 2·32, 2·61 and 2·05 folds decrease compared to that against prototype strain. All these three VOCs exhibited less sensitivities to sera neutralization, among which Beta variant showed the largest reduction in neutralization sensitivity. Our studies were consistent with previously reported results.^17-19 By comparison, the sera from the participants boosted with NVSI-06-07 showed only 1·30, 1·21 and 1·60 folds reduction in neutralization of the Alpha, Beta and Delta variants, respectively. By heterologous booster vaccination, neutralizing antibody GMTs against these three VOCs were 1492·24 (95% CI,1137·05-1958·38), 1606·81 (1152·66-2239·90) and 1212·64 (935·92-1571·18), respectively, whereas the GMTs by homologous boost were 184·83 (148·96-229·36), 164·29 (130·41-206·97) and 209·12 (168·94-258·85), respectively (Table 4). The heterologous boost elicited much higher neutralizing activities against the tested VOCs.

DISCUSSION

Findings from this trial showed that both heterologous boost with NVSI-06-07 and homologous boost with BBIBP-CorV were immunogenic in the BBIBP-CorV recipients, but the immune efficacy of heterologous boost was much greater than that of homologous boost. The fold increases in both IgG and neutralizing antibody GMTs from the corresponding baseline were significantly higher after heterologous boost than those after homologous boost. Especially, for adults primed with BBIBP-CorV over 6 months ago, a 63·85-fold increase in neutralizing antibody GMTs was obtained by heterologous boost, in comparison to 16·78 folds by homologous boost. Compared with the peak value of neutralizing antibody titers primed with two doses of BBIBP-CorV as reported in the previous literature²⁰, neutralizing GMTs boosted by NVSI-06-07 were improved 6·94-13·34 folds on 28 days post-boosting. In comparison, homologous vaccination with a third dose of BBIBP-CorV only induced 2·09-3·85 folds increase over the peak value. Based on the comparison of the immune enhancements among groups with different prime-boosting intervals, our study suggested that the prime-booster vaccination with an over 6 months interval was optimal. The overall occurrence of adverse reactions was low in both heterologous and homologous boost vaccinations. Most of reported adverse reactions were graded as mild or moderate with the most common symptoms of injection-site pain, headaches, muscle pain (non-inoculation site), fatigues and fever. Reactogenicity of the booster vaccinations was similar to that of the priming vaccinations described in the previously published literatures,²⁰ and there was no obvious difference in overall safety between heterologous and homologous boosts. The heterologous prime-boost combinations among viral vector COVID-19 vaccines, inactivated vaccines and mRNA vaccines have been proved to be able to significantly improve immune responses, and heterologous boost was more immunogenic than homologous boost.^8-10 To our knowledge, this is the first reported result of a large-scale randomised, controlled clinical trial of heterologous boost with the recombinant subunit vaccine in the inactivated vaccine recipients. Our findings support the heterologous BBIBP-CorV/NVSI-06-07 prime-boost vaccination serving as one of the effective prime-boosting strategies to better combat SARS-CoV-2.

Our study showed that heterologous boost with NVSI-06-07 in persons primed by BBIBP-CorV not only substantially increased neutralization, but also improved the breadth of neutralizing response. Compared to homologous boost with a third dose of BBIBP-CorV, significantly higher neutralizing antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 VOCs, including Omicron, Alpha, Beta and Delta, were achieved by heterologous boost with NVSI-06-07. The results were consistent with other studies.^11,12,21 Currently, Omicron variant spreads rapidly around the world. However, Omicron-specific vaccine is still not available and other strategies are urgently needed to control the pandemic of this variant. Considering that BBIBP-CorV has been applied in large-scale populations and the BBIBP-CorV/NVSI-06-07 prime-booster vaccination can elicit a certain level of neutralizing antibodies against Omicron, this heterologous prime-booster vaccination might serve as a possible strategy combating Omicron.

Many studies have revealed that the levels of neutralizing antibody response were highly correlated with the real-world protection efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines.^22-27 According to the previously determined threshold indicative of reduced risks of symptomatic infection (506·00 BAU/mL),²⁷ heterologous prime-boost vaccination of BBIBP-CorV combined with NVSI-06-07 might provide protective effects against SARS-CoV-2 in the real-world. But further studies are warranted to assess the long-term protection of this prime-booster strategy.

This study has limitations. First, for the volunteers enrolled in the trial, the number of men was much larger than that of women, and thus the data did not well represent the immune effects on women. Second, the proportion of older individuals aged ≥60 years in the participants was small, and the immune response was analyzed without taking into account different age ranges of the participants. Third, data on immune persistence of the booster vaccination is not yet available, and the long-term immunogenicity needs to be further studied.

In summary, heterologous booster vaccination with NVSI-06-07 in BBIBP-CorV recipients was well tolerated and immunogenic against not only SARS-CoV-2 prototype strain but also the VOCs including Omicron, which supported the approval of emergency use of this heterologous booster strategy.

Contributors

NA was the chief investigator. NA, QML, YTZ, XMY, YKY, JingZ^# and YK designed the trial and study protocol. QML, JingZ^#, YL and JGS designed the recombinant vaccine NVSI-06-07. QML, YTZ and XMY were responsible for the organization and supervision of the project. QML, JingZ^#, YL, XJG and XYM provided NVSI-06-07 vaccine. HW and JinZ provided the inactivated vaccine BBIBP-CorV. XMY, YTZ, IE and YKY contributed to project management. TY, YK, ML, LQ, WZ, PX, XZ, CQ, DYL and SSY participated in the implementation of the trial. HMM, ZNW and JLY conducted sample collection and processing. GW, KX, WL, JingZ^‡, MY and SM carried out the serum tests. GW, KX, YL and FJS contributed to the development of serum testing method and manuscript preparation. SH, MSE and NL performed the clinical data gathering, analysis and operation. ZJ performed statistical analysis of the data. QML, JingZ^#, YL, GW, YKY and KX performed data analysis and interpretation. JGS, JingZ^#, YL, KX, SS and SSY contributed to the writing of the manuscript. QML and GW oversaw final manuscript preparation. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of interests

JingZ^#, YL, YK, JGS, SS, SSY, NL, FJS, QML are employees of the National Vaccine and Serum Institute (NVSI). YKY, TY, ML, XZ, CQ, DYL, ZNW, JLY, LQ, YTZ, XMY are employees of the China National Biotec Group Company Limited. XJG, XYM, are employees of Lanzhou Institute of Biological Products Company Limited. HW, JinZ are employees of Beijing Institute of Biological Products Company Limited. ZJ is an employee of Beijing KeyTech Statistical Consulting Co.,Ltd. HMM is an employee of Union 71, United Arab Emirates. WZ, SM, IE, PX are employees of G42 Healthcare, IROS (Insights Research Organization & Solutions), United Arab Emirates. JingZ^#, YL, JGS, SS, NL, QML are listed as inventors of the patent applications for the trimeric RBD-based vaccines (Application numbers: 202110348881.6, 202110464788.1 and 202110676901.2) and a patent (Application number: 202110676901.2) has been authorized. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Data sharing

The clinical trial is still ongoing, and the individual participant data will be available when the trial is complete, upon requests to the corresponding author (QML). After proposals are approved, data can be shared through secure online platforms.