Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against Omicron subvariants: Report from a meeting of the World Health Organization

Emerging in November 2021, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern exhibited marked immune evasion resulting in reduced vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic disease. Most vaccine effectiveness data on Omicron are derived from the first Omicron subvariant, BA.1, which caused large waves of infection in many parts of the world within a short period of time. BA.1, however, was replaced by BA.2 within months, and later by BA.4 and BA.5 (BA.4/5). These later Omicron subvariants exhibited additional mutations in the spike protein of the virus, leading to speculation that they might result in even lower vaccine effectiveness. To address this question, the World Health Organization hosted a virtual meeting on December 6, 2022, to review available evidence for vaccine effectiveness against the major Omicron subvariants up to that date. Data were presented from South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, as well as the results of a review and meta-regression of studies that evaluated the duration of the vaccine effectiveness for multiple Omicron subvariants. Despite heterogeneity of results and wide confidence intervals in some studies, the majority of studies showed vaccine effectiveness tended to be lower against BA.2 and especially against BA.4/5, compared to BA.1, with perhaps faster waning against severe disease caused by BA.4/5 after a booster dose. The interpretation of these results was discussed and both immunological factors (i.e., more immune escape with BA.4/5) and methodological issues (e.g., biases related to differences in the timing of subvariant circulation) were possible explanations for the findings. COVID-19 vaccines still provide some protection against infection and symptomatic disease from all Omicron subvariants for at least several months, with greater and more durable protection against severe disease.

Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against Omicron subvariants: Report from a meeting of the World Health Organization.

Emerging in November 2021, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern exhibited marked immune evasion resulting in reduced vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic disease. Most vaccine effectiveness data on Omicron are derived from the first Omicron subvariant, BA.1, which caused large waves of infection in many parts of the world within a short period of time. BA.1, however, was replaced by BA.2 within months, and later by BA.4 and BA.5 (BA.4/5). These later Omicron subvariants exhibited additional mutations in the spike protein of the virus, leading to speculation that they might result in even lower vaccine effectiveness. To address this question, the World Health Organization hosted a virtual meeting on December 6, 2022, to review available evidence for vaccine effectiveness against the major Omicron subvariants up to that date. Data were presented from South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, as well as the results of a review and meta-regression of studies that evaluated the duration of the vaccine effectiveness for multiple Omicron subvariants. Despite heterogeneity of results and wide confidence intervals in some studies, the majority of studies showed vaccine effectiveness tended to be lower against BA.2 and especially against BA.4/5, compared to BA.1, with perhaps faster waning against severe disease caused by BA.4/5 after a booster dose. The interpretation of these results was discussed and both immunological factors (i.e., more immune escape with BA.4/5) and methodological issues (e.g., biases related to differences in the timing of subvariant circulation) were possible explanations for the findings. COVID-19 vaccines still provide some protection against infection and symptomatic disease from all Omicron subvariants for at least several months, with greater and more durable protection against severe disease.

Protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against the omicron variant and severe disease: a systematic review and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: The global surge in the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant has resulted in many individuals with hybrid immunity (immunity developed through a combination of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination). We aimed to systematically review the magnitude and duration of the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against infection and severe disease caused by the omicron variant. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-regression, we searched for cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO COVID-19 database, and Europe PubMed Central from Jan 1, 2020, to June 1, 2022, using keywords related to SARS-CoV-2, reinfection, protective effectiveness, previous infection, presence of antibodies, and hybrid immunity. The main outcomes were the protective effectiveness against reinfection and against hospital admission or severe disease of hybrid immunity, hybrid immunity relative to previous infection alone, hybrid immunity relative to previous vaccination alone, and hybrid immunity relative to hybrid immunity with fewer vaccine doses. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions Tool. We used log-odds random-effects meta-regression to estimate the magnitude of protection at 1-month intervals. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022318605). FINDINGS: 11 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 15 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of hybrid immunity were included. For previous infection, there were 97 estimates (27 with a moderate risk of bias and 70 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of previous infection against hospital admission or severe disease was 74·6% (95% CI 63·1-83·5) at 12 months. The effectiveness of previous infection against reinfection waned to 24·7% (95% CI 16·4-35·5) at 12 months. For hybrid immunity, there were 153 estimates (78 with a moderate risk of bias and 75 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of hybrid immunity against hospital admission or severe disease was 97·4% (95% CI 91·4-99·2) at 12 months with primary series vaccination and 95·3% (81·9-98·9) at 6 months with the first booster vaccination after the most recent infection or vaccination. Against reinfection, the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following primary series vaccination waned to 41·8% (95% CI 31·5-52·8) at 12 months, while the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following first booster vaccination waned to 46·5% (36·0-57·3) at 6 months. INTERPRETATION: All estimates of protection waned within months against reinfection but remained high and sustained for hospital admission or severe disease. Individuals with hybrid immunity had the highest magnitude and durability of protection, and as a result might be able to extend the period before booster vaccinations are needed compared to individuals who have never been infected. FUNDING: WHO COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Post-vaccination T cell immunity to omicron.

In late 2021, the omicron variant of SARS Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged and replaced the previously dominant delta strain. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against omicron has been challenging to estimate in clinical studies or is not available for all vaccines or populations of interest. T cell function can be predictive of vaccine longevity and effectiveness against disease, likely in a more robust way than antibody neutralization. In this mini review, we summarize the evidence on T cell immunity against omicron including effects of boosters, homologous versus heterologous regimens, hybrid immunity, memory responses and vaccine product. Overall, T cell reactivity in post-vaccine specimens is largely preserved against omicron, indicating that vaccines utilizing the parental antigen continue to be protective against disease caused by the omicron variant.

Systematic review of primary and booster COVID-19 sera neutralizing ability against SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant.

Virus neutralization data using post-vaccination sera are an important tool in informing vaccine use policy decisions, however, they often pose interpretive challenges. We systematically reviewed the pre-print and published literature for neutralization studies against Omicron using sera collected after both primary and booster vaccination. We found a high proportion of post-primary vaccination sera were not responding against Omicron but boosting increased both neutralizing activity and percent of responding sera. We recommend reporting percent of responders alongside neutralization data to portray vaccine neutralization ability more accurately.

Post-Vaccination Neutralization Responses to Omicron Sub-Variants.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529), which correlated with dramatic losses in cross-neutralization capacity of post-vaccination sera, raised concerns about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against infection and disease. Several clinically relevant sub-variants subsequently emerged rapidly. METHODS: We evaluated published and pre-print studies reporting sub-variant specific reductions in cross-neutralization compared to the prototype strain of SARS-CoV-2 and between sub-variants. Median fold-reduction across studies was calculated by sub-variant and vaccine platform. RESULTS: Among 178 studies with post-vaccination data, after primary vaccination the sub-variant specific fold-reduction in neutralization capacity compared to the prototype antigen varied widely, from median 4.2-fold for BA.3 to 40.1-fold for BA.2.75; in boosted participants fold-reduction was similar for most sub-variants (5.3-fold to 7.0-fold); however, a more pronounced fold-change was observed for sub-variants related to BA.4 and BA.5 (10.4-fold to 14.2-fold). Relative to BA.1, the other Omicron sub-variants had similar neutralization capacity post-primary vaccination (range median 0.8-fold to 1.1-fold) and post-booster (0.9-fold to 1.4-fold) except for BA.4/5-related sub-variants which was higher (2.1-fold to 2.7-fold). Omicron sub-variant-specific responder rates were low post-primary vaccination (range median 28.0% to 65.9%) compared to the prototype (median 100%) but improved post-booster (range median 73.3% to 100%). CONCLUSIONS: Fold-reductions in neutralization titers were comparable post-booster except for sub-variants related to BA.4 and BA.5, which had higher fold-reduction. Assessment after primary vaccination was not possible because of overall poor neutralization responses causing extreme heterogeneity. Considering large fold-decreases in neutralization titers relative to the parental strain for all Omicron sub-variants, vaccine effectiveness is very likely to be reduced against all Omicron sub-variants, and probably more so against variants related to BA.4 or BA.5.

Post-vaccination T cell immunity to omicron

In late 2021, the omicron variant of SARS Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged and replaced the previously dominant delta strain. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against omicron has been challenging to estimate in clinical studies or is not available for all vaccines or populations of interest. T cell function can be predictive of vaccine longevity and effectiveness against disease, likely in a more robust way than antibody neutralization. In this mini review, we summarize the evidence on T cell immunity against omicron including effects of boosters, homologous versus heterologous regimens, hybrid immunity, memory responses and vaccine product. Overall, T cell reactivity in post-vaccine specimens is largely preserved against omicron, indicating that vaccines utilizing the parental antigen continue to be protective against disease caused by the omicron variant.

Assessing the Reliability of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Studies That Use Post-Vaccination Sera.

Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants is crucial for determining future vaccination strategies and other public health strategies. When clinical effectiveness data are unavailable, a common method of assessing vaccine performance is to utilize neutralization assays using post-vaccination sera. Neutralization studies are typically performed across a wide array of settings, populations and vaccination strategies, and using different methodologies. For any comparison and meta-analysis to be meaningful, the design and methodology of the studies used must at minimum address aspects that confer a certain degree of reliability and comparability. We identified and characterized three important categories in which studies differ (cohort details, assay details and data reporting details) and that can affect the overall reliability and/or usefulness of neutralization assay results. We define reliability as a measure of methodological accuracy, proper study setting concerning subjects, samples and viruses, and reporting quality. Each category comprises a set of several relevant key parameters. To each parameter, we assigned a possible impact (ranging from low to high) on overall study reliability depending on its potential to influence the results. We then developed a reliability assessment tool that assesses the aggregate reliability of a study across all parameters. The reliability assessment tool provides explicit selection criteria for inclusion of comparable studies in meta-analyses of neutralization activity of SARS-CoV-2 variants in post-vaccination sera and can also both guide the design of future neutralization studies and serve as a checklist for including important details on key parameters in publications.

A Systematic Review of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine Efficacy and Effectiveness Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection and Disease.

Billions of doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been administered globally, dramatically reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) incidence and severity in some settings. Many studies suggest vaccines provide a high degree of protection against infection and disease, but precise estimates vary and studies differ in design, outcomes measured, dosing regime, location, and circulating virus strains. In this study, we conduct a systematic review of COVID-19 vaccines through February 2022. We included efficacy data from Phase 3 clinical trials for 15 vaccines undergoing World Health Organization Emergency Use Listing evaluation and real-world effectiveness for 8 vaccines with observational studies meeting inclusion criteria. Vaccine metrics collected include protection against asymptomatic infection, any infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and severe outcomes including hospitalization and death, for partial or complete vaccination, and against variants of concern Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron. We additionally review the epidemiological principles behind the design and interpretation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness studies, including important sources of heterogeneity.

A systematic review of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection and disease

Billions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered globally, dramatically reducing SARS-CoV-2 incidence and severity in some settings. Many studies suggest vaccines provide a high degree of protection against infection and disease, but precise estimates vary and studies differ in design, outcomes measured, dosing regime, location, and circulating virus strains. Here we conduct a systematic review of COVID-19 vaccines through February 2022. We included efficacy data from Phase 3 clinical trials for 15 vaccines undergoing WHO Emergency Use Listing evaluation and real-world effectiveness for 8 vaccines with observational studies meeting inclusion criteria. Vaccine metrics collected include protection against asymptomatic infection, any infection, symptomatic COVID-19, and severe outcomes including hospitalization and death, for partial or complete vaccination, and against variants of concern Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron. We additionally review the epidemiological principles behind the design and interpretation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness studies, including important sources of heterogeneity.

Assessing vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 disease caused by omicron variant. Report from a meeting of the World Health Organization.

Vaccine effectiveness is lower and wanes faster against infection and symptomatic disease caused by the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 than was observed with previous variants. Vaccine effectiveness against severe omicron disease, on average, is higher, but has shown variability, including rapid apparent waning, in some studies. Assessing vaccine effectiveness against omicron severe disease using hospital admission as a measure of severe disease has become more challenging because of omicron's attenuated intrinsic severity and its high prevalence of infection. Many hospital admissions likely occur among people with incidental omicron infection or among those with infection-induced exacerbation of chronic medical conditions. To address this challenge, the World Health Organization held a virtual meeting on March 15, 2022, to review evidence from several studies that assessed Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness against severe omicron disease using several outcome definitions. Data was shown from studies in South Africa, the United States, the United Kingdom and Qatar. Several approaches were proposed that better characterize vaccine protection against severe Covid-19 disease caused by the omicron variant than using hospitalization of omicron-infected persons to define severe disease. Using more specific definitions for severe respiratory Covid-19 disease, such as indicators of respiratory distress (e.g. oxygen requirement, mechanical ventilation, and ICU admission), showed higher vaccine effectiveness than against hospital admission. Second, vaccine effectiveness against progression from omicron infection to hospitalization, or severe disease, also showed higher vaccine protection. These approaches might better characterize vaccine performance against severe Covid-19 disease caused by omicron, as well as future variants that evade humoral immunity, than using hospitalization with omicron infection as an indicator of severe disease.

Duration of effectiveness of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease: results of a systematic review and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: Knowing whether COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness wanes is crucial for informing vaccine policy, such as the need for and timing of booster doses. We aimed to systematically review the evidence for the duration of protection of COVID-19 vaccines against various clinical outcomes, and to assess changes in the rates of breakthrough infection caused by the delta variant with increasing time since vaccination. METHODS: This study was designed as a systematic review and meta-regression. We did a systematic review of preprint and peer-reviewed published article databases from June 17, 2021, to Dec 2, 2021. Randomised controlled trials of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and observational studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness were eligible. Studies with vaccine efficacy or effectiveness estimates at discrete time intervals of people who had received full vaccination and that met predefined screening criteria underwent full-text review. We used random-effects meta-regression to estimate the average change in vaccine efficacy or effectiveness 1-6 months after full vaccination. FINDINGS: Of 13 744 studies screened, 310 underwent full-text review, and 18 studies were included (all studies were carried out before the omicron variant began to circulate widely). Risk of bias, established using the risk of bias 2 tool for randomised controlled trials or the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions tool was low for three studies, moderate for eight studies, and serious for seven studies. We included 78 vaccine-specific vaccine efficacy or effectiveness evaluations (Pfizer-BioNTech-Comirnaty, n=38; Moderna-mRNA-1273, n=23; Janssen-Ad26.COV2.S, n=9; and AstraZeneca-Vaxzevria, n=8). On average, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased from 1 month to 6 months after full vaccination by 21·0 percentage points (95% CI 13·9-29·8) among people of all ages and 20·7 percentage points (10·2-36·6) among older people (as defined by each study, who were at least 50 years old). For symptomatic COVID-19 disease, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness decreased by 24·9 percentage points (95% CI 13·4-41·6) in people of all ages and 32·0 percentage points (11·0-69·0) in older people. For severe COVID-19 disease, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness decreased by 10·0 percentage points (95% CI 6·1-15·4) in people of all ages and 9·5 percentage points (5·7-14·6) in older people. Most (81%) vaccine efficacy or effectiveness estimates against severe disease remained greater than 70% over time. INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against severe disease remained high, although it did decrease somewhat by 6 months after full vaccination. By contrast, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against infection and symptomatic disease decreased approximately 20-30 percentage points by 6 months. The decrease in vaccine efficacy or effectiveness is likely caused by, at least in part, waning immunity, although an effect of bias cannot be ruled out. Evaluating vaccine efficacy or effectiveness beyond 6 months will be crucial for updating COVID-19 vaccine policy. FUNDING: Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Upper Respiratory Tract Co-detection of Human Endemic Coronaviruses and High-density Pneumococcus Associated With Increased Severity Among HIV-Uninfected Children Under 5 Years Old in the PERCH Study.

BACKGROUND: Severity of viral respiratory illnesses can be increased with bacterial coinfection and can vary by sex, but influence of coinfection and sex on human endemic coronavirus (CoV) species, which generally cause mild to moderate respiratory illness, is unknown. We evaluated CoV and pneumococcal co-detection by sex in childhood pneumonia. METHODS: In the 2011-2014 Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health study, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NP/OP) swabs and other samples were collected from 3981 children <5 years hospitalized with severe or very severe pneumonia in 7 countries. Severity by NP/OP detection status of CoV (NL63, 229E, OC43 or HKU1) and high-density (≥6.9 log10 copies/mL) pneumococcus (HDSpn) by real-time polymerase chain reaction was assessed by sex using logistic regression adjusted for age and site. RESULTS: There were 43 (1.1%) CoV+/HDSpn+, 247 CoV+/HDSpn-, 449 CoV-/HDSpn+ and 3149 CoV-/HDSpn- cases with no significant difference in co-detection frequency by sex (range 51.2%-64.0% male, P = 0.06). More CoV+/HDSpn+ pneumonia was very severe compared with other groups for both males (13/22, 59.1% versus range 29.1%-34.7%, P = 0.04) and females (10/21, 47.6% versus 32.5%-43.5%, P = 0.009), but only male CoV+/HDSpn+ required supplemental oxygen more frequently (45.0% versus 20.6%-28.6%, P < 0.001) and had higher mortality (35.0% versus 5.3%-7.1%, P = 0.004) than other groups. For females with CoV+/HDSpn+, supplemental oxygen was 25.0% versus 24.8%-33.3% (P = 0.58) and mortality was 10.0% versus 9.2%-12.9% (P = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Co-detection of endemic CoV and HDSpn was rare in children hospitalized with pneumonia, but associated with higher severity and mortality in males. Findings may warrant investigation of differences in severity by sex with co-detection of HDSpn and SARS-CoV-2.