Persistence of immune responses after heterologous and homologous third COVID-19 vaccine dose schedules in the UK: eight-month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial.

BACKGROUND: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose in June 2021. Monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines were subsequently widely used for the third and fourth-dose vaccination campaigns in high-income countries. Real-world vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infections following third doses declined during the Omicron wave. This report compares the immunogenicity and kinetics of responses to third doses of vaccines from day (D) 28 to D242 following third doses in seven study arms. METHODS: The trial initially included ten experimental vaccine arms (seven full-dose, three half-dose) delivered at three groups of six sites. Participants in each site group were randomised to three or four experimental vaccines, or MenACWY control. The trial was stratified such that half of participants had previously received two primary doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and half had received two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hereafter referred to as BNT). The D242 follow-up was done in seven arms (five full-dose, two half-dose). The BNT vaccine was used as the reference as it was the most commonly deployed third-dose vaccine in clinical practice in high-income countries. The primary analysis was conducted using all randomised and baseline seronegative participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study and who had not received a further COVID-19 vaccine for any reason since third dose randomisation. RESULTS: Among the 817 participants included in this report, the median age was 72 years (IQR: 55-78) with 50.7% being female. The decay rates of anti-spike IgG between vaccines are different among both populations who received initial doses of ChAd/ChAd and BNT/BNT. In the population that previously received ChAd/ChAd, mRNA vaccines had the highest titre at D242 following their vaccine dose although Ad26. COV2. S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) showed slower decay. For people who received BNT/BNT as their initial doses, a slower decay was also seen in the Ad26 and ChAd arms. The anti-spike IgG became significantly higher in the Ad26 arm compared to the BNT arm as early as 3 months following vaccination. Similar decay rates were seen between BNT and half-BNT; the geometric mean ratios ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 at different time points. The difference in decay rates between vaccines was similar for wild-type live virus-neutralising antibodies and that seen for anti-spike IgG. For cellular responses, the persistence was similar between study arms. CONCLUSIONS: Heterologous third doses with viral vector vaccines following two doses of mRNA achieve more durable humoral responses compared with three doses of mRNA vaccines. Lower doses of mRNA vaccines could be considered for future booster campaigns.

Safety and Efficacy of the NVX-CoV2373 COVID-19 Vaccine at Completion of the Placebo-Controlled Phase of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The recombinant protein-based vaccine, NVX-CoV2373, demonstrated 89.7% efficacy against COVID-19 in a phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in the United Kingdom. The protocol was amended to include a blinded crossover; data to the end of the placebo-controlled phase are reported. METHODS: Adults aged 18-84 years received two doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo (1:1) and were monitored for virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 (onset from 7 days after second vaccination). Participants who seroconverted to immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the nucleocapsid protein and did not meet criteria for symptomatic COVID-19 were classified as having asymptomatic disease. Secondary outcomes included anti-spike (S) IgG responses, wild-type virus neutralization, and T-cell responses. RESULTS: Of 15185 participants, 13989 remained in the per-protocol efficacy population (6989 NVX-CoV2373, 7000 placebo). At a maximum of 7.5 months (median, 4.5 months) postvaccination, there were 24 cases of COVID-19 among NVX-CoV2373 recipients and 134 cases among placebo recipients, a vaccine efficacy of 82.7% (95% CI: 73.3-88.8). Vaccine efficacy was 100% (17.9-100.0) against severe disease and 76.3% (57.4-86.8) against asymptomatic disease. High anti-S and neutralization responses to vaccination were evident, together with S-protein-specific induction of interferon-γ secretion in peripheral blood T cells. Incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of NVX-CoV2373 conferred a high level of ongoing protection against asymptomatic, symptomatic, and severe COVID-19 through >6 months postvaccination. A gradual decrease of protection suggests that a booster dose may be indicated.

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19. METHODS: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6-77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3-214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030-27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996-43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41-1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996-30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826-64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90-2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37-14·32) and 15·90 (12·92-19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24-16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90-9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group). INTERPRETATION: Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.

Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: Three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters. METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study. RESULTS: Amongst the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd), schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10,085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT)). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 µg) or BNT (30 µg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 µg) versus BNT (30 µg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses. CONCLUSIONS: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentrations at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were similar to or even higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses.

Safety and immunogenicity of seven COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose (booster) following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK (COV-BOOST): a blinded, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT). METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130. FINDINGS: Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5-2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8-42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4-5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0-1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4-14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1-7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30-69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273. INTERPRETATION: All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research.

Safety and Efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 Covid-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Early clinical data from studies of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (Novavax), a recombinant nanoparticle vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that contains the full-length spike glycoprotein of the prototype strain plus Matrix-M adjuvant, showed that the vaccine was safe and associated with a robust immune response in healthy adult participants. Additional data were needed regarding the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of this vaccine in a larger population. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 33 sites in the United Kingdom, we assigned adults between the ages of 18 and 84 years in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular 5-µg doses of NVX-CoV2373 or placebo administered 21 days apart. The primary efficacy end point was virologically confirmed mild, moderate, or severe SARS-CoV-2 infection with an onset at least 7 days after the second injection in participants who were serologically negative at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 15,187 participants underwent randomization, and 14,039 were included in the per-protocol efficacy population. Of the participants, 27.9% were 65 years of age or older, and 44.6% had coexisting illnesses. Infections were reported in 10 participants in the vaccine group and in 96 in the placebo group, with a symptom onset of at least 7 days after the second injection, for a vaccine efficacy of 89.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.2 to 94.6). No hospitalizations or deaths were reported among the 10 cases in the vaccine group. Five cases of severe infection were reported, all of which were in the placebo group. A post hoc analysis showed an efficacy of 86.3% (95% CI, 71.3 to 93.5) against the B.1.1.7 (or alpha) variant and 96.4% (95% CI, 73.8 to 99.5) against non-B.1.1.7 variants. Reactogenicity was generally mild and transient. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine administered to adult participants conferred 89.7% protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and showed high efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant. (Funded by Novavax; EudraCT number, 2020-004123-16.).

Communication in the intensive care unit during COVID-19: early experience with the Nightingale Communication Method.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility and frequency of use of the Nightingale Communication Method, during the early operational phase of the Nightingale Hospital London (NHL) 4000-bed field hospital's intensive care unit. DESIGN: Survey-based cross-sectional assessment. SETTING: The intensive care unit at the Nightingale London hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Staff working in the clinical area and therefore requiring full personal protective equipment (PPE). INTERVENTION: Survey of all staff members sampled from a single shift at the Nightingale Hospital. This investigated perceived utility and actual use of identification methods (name and role labels on visors and gowns, coloured role identification tapes) and formal hand signals as an adjunctive communication method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Self-reported frequency of use and perceived utility of each communication and personnel identification adjunct. RESULTS: Fifty valid responses were received (72% response rate), covering all clinical professional groups. Prominent name/role identifications and coloured role identification tapes were very frequently used and were perceived as being highly useful. Formal hand signals were infrequently used and not perceived as being beneficial, with respondents citing use of individual hand signals only in specific circumstances. CONCLUSION: PPE is highly depersonalizing, and interpersonal identification aids are very useful. Despite being difficult, verbal communication is not completely prohibited, which could explain the low utility of formal hand signals. The methods developed at the Nightingale hospital have enhanced communication in the critical care, field hospital setting. There is potential for wider application to a variety of healthcare settings, in both the current situation and future pandemic scenarios.

A Coronavirus (COVID-19) Triage Framework for (Sub)National Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Programs

Around the world, countries are struggling to address the immediate and long-term impacts of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on their (sub)national public-private partnership (PPP) programs. Burdened with the real possibility of widespread project failures and constrained budgets, governments are searching for ways to prioritize projects in need of relief and bolster post-pandemic recovery plans. To meet this need, this article conceptualizes a triage system for PPP programs based on five categories: (1) projects without a need for economic stimulus (blue);(2) projects experiencing minor economic/financial losses (green);(3) projects needing temporary/stop-gap support or restructuring (yellow);(4) projects unable to survive without significant economic relief (red);and (5) projects that cannot survive, even with government intervention (black). This research also stresses the importance of launching and sustaining a crisis command center to support PPP triage decisions and encourages PPP stakeholders to collectively craft win-win solutions for post-pandemic recovery efforts.

Proactive and Strategic Healthcare Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in the Coronavirus (Covid-19) Epoch

<p>Abstract: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed many national healthcare systems around the world. In attempts to meet their emergency needs and mitigate escalating challenges, governments are increasingly reaching out to the private sector to form sustainable, public-private partnerships (PPPs). Unfortunately, many of these ad hoc efforts have been reactive and uncoordinated to date. This perspective article thus offers a proactive, collaborative, and strategic vision for healthcare PPPs, focusing on short-, medium-, and long-term proposals that will harmonize strategic objectives and mobilize both public and private resources to combat and build resilience against global pandemics like COVID-19.</p>