RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Immune responses of the third dose of AZD1222 vaccine or BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine after two doses of CoronaVac vaccines against Delta and Omicron variants
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.10.02.22280572
DO 10.1101/2022.10.02.22280572
A1 Niyomnaitham, Suvimol
A1 Jongkaewwattana, Anan
A1 Meesing, Atibordee
A1 Chusri, Sarunyou
A1 Nanthapisal, Sira
A1 Hirankarn, Nattiya
A1 Siwamogsatham, Sarawut
A1 Kirdlarp, Suppachok
A1 Chaiwarith, Romanee
A1 Niyom, Saranath Lawpoolsri
A1 Thitithanyanont, Arunee
A1 Hansasuta, Pokrath
A1 Pornprasit, Kanokwan
A1 Chaiyaroj, Sansanee
A1 Pitisuttithum, Punnee
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/03/2022.10.02.22280572.abstract
AB Summary Half-dose AZD1222 or BNT162b2 boosters maintained immunogenicity and safety, and were non-inferior to full doses. All doses elicited high immunogenicity and best with extended post-CoronaVac primary-series intervals (120-180 days) and high-transmissibility Omicron.Methods At 60-to-<90, 90-to-<120, or 120-to-180 days (‘intervals’) post-CoronaVac primary-series, participants were randomized to full-dose or half-dose AZD1222 or BNT162b2, and followed up at day-28, -60 and -90. Vaccination-induced immunogenicity to Ancestral, Delta and Omicron BA.1 strains were evaluated by assessing anti-spike (‘anti-S’), anti-nucleocapsid antibodies, pseudovirus neutralization (‘PVNT’), micro-neutralization titers, and T-cells assays. Descriptive statistics and non-inferiority cut-offs were reported as geometric mean concentration (GMC) or titer (GMT) and GMC/GMT ratios comparing baseline to day-28 and day-90 seroresponses, and different intervals post-CoronaVac primary-series. Omicron immunogenicity was only evaluated in full-dose recipients.Findings No serious or severe vaccine-related safety events occurred. All assays and intervals showed non-inferior immunogenicity between full-doses and half-doses. However, full-dose vaccines and/or longer, 120-to-180-day intervals substantially improved immunogenicity (in GMC measured by anti-S assays or GMT measured by PVNT50; p <0.001). Within platforms and regardless of dose or platform, seroconversions were over 97%, and over 90% for pseudovirus neutralizing antibodies, but similar against the SARS-CoV-2 strains. Immunogenicity waned more quickly with half-doses than full-doses between day 60-to-90 follow-ups, but remained high against Ancestral or Delta strains. Against Omicron, the day-28 immunogenicity increased with longer intervals than shorter intervals for full-dose vaccines.Interpretation Combining heterologous schedules, fractional dosing, and extended post-second dose intervals, broadens population-level protection and prevents disruptions, especially in resource-limited settings.Funding Funding was provided by the Program Management Unit for Competitiveness Enhancement (PMU-C) National research, National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council, Thailand through Clinixir Ltd.Evidence before this studyAlthough nAb titers from CoronaVac primary series waned after 3-4 months, nAb were more increased when boosted at 8 months than at 2 months post-primary series.Six months post-vaccination with a one-fourth dose of primary mRNA-1273, nAb responses were half as robust as full doses, but VE was over 80% of that of full-dose vaccinations.Thai adults boosted with 30μg-BNT162b2 and 15μg-BNT162b2 at 8-12 weeks after two-dose CoronaVac or AZD1222 had high antibodies to the virus receptor-binding domain, nAb titers against all variants, and T-cell responses.Third-dose boosting at a 44–45-week interval significantly increased antibody levels compared to boosting at 15-25-week or 8-12-week intervals.A third dose of CoronaVac administered eight months after the second dose increased antibody levels more than when administered at two months, while antibody responses were two-fold higher with a booster dose of AZD1222 administered at a 12-weeks or longer interval than a 6-weeks or shorter interval.Error! Bookmark not defined.In the UK, third doses of AZD1222 led to higher antibody levels that correlated with high efficacy and T-cell responses, after a prolonged, dose-stretched interval between vaccine doses, than shorter intervals.Omicron-neutralizing antibodies were detected in only 56% of short-interval vaccine recipients versus all (100%) prolonged-interval vaccine recipients, 69% of whom also demonstrated Omicron-neutralizing antibodies at 4-6 months post-booster.Israeli studies noted a restoration of antibody levels and enhanced immunogenic protection against severe disease when a second booster (fourth dose) was given 4 months or longer after a first booster, with no new safety concerns.Added value of this study There were no studies designed specifically aimed to analyzed non inferiority between the full dose and half dose of AZD1222 or BNT162b2 boosters after CoronaVac two doses which is important research question when we started the study and the situation of limited vaccine supply, global inequity and high disease burden in the Lower middle-income countriesData on the optimal prime-boost interval is limited, especially data that combines lower (fractional) dosing from resource-limited countries, which is provided by our study.Implications of all the available evidence We confirm the feasibility of a booster strategy that accounts for the needs of resource-limitations, through the use of fractional dosing, dose-stretching and heterologous schedules, which can broaden population-level protection and prevent vaccination disruptions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT05049226Funding StatementThis study was funded by the Program Management Unit for Competitiveness Enhancement (PMU-C) National research, National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council, Thailand through Clinixir Ltd.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC) gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.