Six-month follow-up of a booster dose of CoronaVac in two single-centre phase 2 clinical trials.

Determining the duration of immunity induced by booster doses of CoronaVac is crucial for informing recommendations for booster regimens and adjusting immunization strategies. In two single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trials, immunogenicity and safety of four immunization regimens are assessed in adults aged 18 to 59 years and one immunization regimen in adults aged 60 years and older, respectively. Serious adverse events occurring within 6 months after booster doses are recorded as pre-specified secondary endpoints, geometric mean titres (GMTs) of neutralising antibodies one year after the 3-dose schedule immunization and 6 months after the booster doses are assessed as pre-specified exploratory endpoints, GMT fold-decreases in neutralization titres are assessed as post-hoc analyses. Neutralising antibody titres decline approximately 4-fold and 2.5-fold from day 28 to day 180 after third doses in adults aged 18-59 years of age and in adults aged 60 years and older, respectively. No safety concerns are identified during the follow-up period. There are increases in the magnitude and duration of humoral response with homologous booster doses of CoronaVac given 8 months after a primary two-dose immunization series, which could prolong protection and contribute to building our wall of population immunity. Trial number: NCT04352608 and NCT04383574.

Immunogenicity and safety of a third dose of CoronaVac, and immune persistence of a two-dose schedule, in healthy adults: interim results from two single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale vaccination against COVID-19 is being implemented in many countries with CoronaVac, an inactivated vaccine. We aimed to assess the immune persistence of a two-dose schedule of CoronaVac, and the immunogenicity and safety of a third dose of CoronaVac, in healthy adults aged 18 years and older. METHODS: In the first of two single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trials, adults aged 18-59 years in Jiangsu, China, were initially allocated (1:1) into two vaccination schedule cohorts: a day 0 and day 14 vaccination cohort (cohort 1) and a day 0 and day 28 vaccination cohort (cohort 2); each cohort was randomly assigned (2:2:1) to either a 3 µg dose or 6 µg dose of CoronaVac or a placebo group. Following a protocol amendment on Dec 25, 2020, half of the participants in each cohort were allocated to receive an additional dose 28 days (window period 30 days) after the second dose, and the other half were allocated to receive a third dose 6 months (window period 60 days) after the second dose. In the other phase 2 trial, in Hebei, China, participants aged 60 years and older were assigned sequentially to receive three injections of either 1·5 µg, 3 µg, or 6 µg of vaccine or placebo, administered 28 days apart for the first two doses and 6 months (window period 90 days) apart for doses two and three. The main outcomes of the study were geometric mean titres (GMTs), geometric mean increases (GMIs), and seropositivity of neutralising antibody to SARS-CoV-2 (virus strain SARS-CoV-2/human/CHN/CN1/2020, GenBank accession number MT407649.1), as analysed in the per-protocol population (all participants who completed their assigned third dose). Our reporting is focused on the 3 µg groups, since 3 µg is the licensed formulation. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04352608 and NCT04383574. FINDINGS: 540 (90%) of 600 participants aged 18-59 years were eligible to receive a third dose, of whom 269 (50%) received the primary third dose 2 months after the second dose (cohorts 1a-14d-2m and 2a-28d-2m) and 271 (50%) received a booster dose 8 months after the second dose (cohorts 1b-14d-8m and 2b-28d-8m). In the 3 µg group, neutralising antibody titres induced by the first two doses declined after 6 months to near or below the seropositive cutoff (GMT of 8) for cohort 1b-14d-8m (n=53; GMT 3·9 [95% CI 3·1-5·0]) and for cohort 2b-28d-8m (n=49; 6·8 [5·2-8·8]). When a booster dose was given 8 months after a second dose, GMTs assessed 14 days later increased to 137·9 (95% CI 99·9-190·4) for cohort 1b-14d-8m and 143·1 (110·8-184·7) 28 days later for cohort 2b-28d-8m. GMTs moderately increased following a primary third dose, from 21·8 (95% CI 17·3-27·6) on day 28 after the second dose to 45·8 (35·7-58·9) on day 28 after the third dose in cohort 1a-14d-2m (n=54), and from 38·1 (28·4-51·1) to 49·7 (39·9-61·9) in cohort 2a-28d-2m (n=53). GMTs had decayed to near the positive threshold by 6 months after the third dose: GMT 9·2 (95% CI 7·1-12·0) in cohort 1a-14d-2m and 10·0 (7·3-13·7) in cohort 2a-28d-2m. Similarly, in adults aged 60 years and older who received booster doses (303 [87%] of 350 participants were eligible to receive a third dose), neutralising antibody titres had declined to near or below the seropositive threshold by 6 months after the primary two-dose series. A third dose given 8 months after the second dose significantly increased neutralising antibody concentrations: GMTs increased from 42·9 (95% CI 31·0-59·4) on day 28 after the second dose to 158·5 (96·6-259·2) on day 28 following the third dose (n=29). All adverse reactions reported within 28 days after a third dose were of grade 1 or 2 severity in all vaccination cohorts. There were three serious adverse events (2%) reported by the 150 participants in cohort 1a-14d-2m, four (3%) by 150 participants from cohort 1b-14d-8m, one (1%) by 150 participants in each of cohorts 2a-28d-2m and 2b-28d-8m, and 24 (7%) by 349 participants from cohort 3-28d-8m. INTERPRETATION: A third dose of CoronaVac in adults administered 8 months after a second dose effectively recalled specific immune responses to SARS-CoV-2, which had declined substantially 6 months after two doses of CoronaVac, resulting in a remarkable increase in the concentration of antibodies and indicating that a two-dose schedule generates good immune memory, and a primary third dose given 2 months after the second dose induced slightly higher antibody titres than the primary two doses. FUNDING: National Key Research and Development Program, Beijing Science and Technology Program, and Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China. TRANSLATION: For the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Modeling transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron in China.

Having adopted a dynamic zero-COVID strategy to respond to SARS-CoV-2 variants with higher transmissibility since August 2021, China is now considering whether, and for how long, this policy can remain in place. The debate has thus shifted towards the identification of mitigation strategies for minimizing disruption to the healthcare system in the case of a nationwide epidemic. To this aim, we developed an age-structured stochastic compartmental susceptible-latent-infectious-removed-susceptible model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission calibrated on the initial growth phase for the 2022 Omicron outbreak in Shanghai, to project COVID-19 burden (that is, number of cases, patients requiring hospitalization and intensive care, and deaths) under hypothetical mitigation scenarios. The model also considers age-specific vaccine coverage data, vaccine efficacy against different clinical endpoints, waning of immunity, different antiviral therapies and nonpharmaceutical interventions. We find that the level of immunity induced by the March 2022 vaccination campaign would be insufficient to prevent an Omicron wave that would result in exceeding critical care capacity with a projected intensive care unit peak demand of 15.6 times the existing capacity and causing approximately 1.55 million deaths. However, we also estimate that protecting vulnerable individuals by ensuring accessibility to vaccines and antiviral therapies, and maintaining implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions could be sufficient to prevent overwhelming the healthcare system, suggesting that these factors should be points of emphasis in future mitigation policies.

Global landscape of SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance and data sharing.

Genomic surveillance has shaped our understanding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants. We performed a global landscape analysis on SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance and genomic data using a collection of country-specific data. Here, we characterize increasing circulation of the Alpha variant in early 2021, subsequently replaced by the Delta variant around May 2021. SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance and sequencing availability varied markedly across countries, with 45 countries performing a high level of routine genomic surveillance and 96 countries with a high availability of SARS-CoV-2 sequencing. We also observed a marked heterogeneity of sequencing percentage, sequencing technologies, turnaround time and completeness of released metadata across regions and income groups. A total of 37% of countries with explicit reporting on variants shared less than half of their sequences of variants of concern (VOCs) in public repositories. Our findings indicate an urgent need to increase timely and full sharing of sequences, the standardization of metadata files and support for countries with limited sequencing and bioinformatics capacity.

Neutralizing Antibodies Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Variants Induced by Natural Infection or Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis.

Recently emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants may pose a threat to immunity. A systematic landscape of neutralizing antibodies against emerging variants is needed. We systematically searched for studies that evaluated neutralizing antibody titers induced by previous infection or vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 variants and collected individual data. We identified 106 studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Lineage B.1.351 (beta), P.1 (gamma) and B.1.617.2 (delta) significantly escaped natural infection-mediated neutralization, with an average of 4.1-fold (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6-4.7-fold), 1.8-fold (1.4-2.4-fold), and 3.2-fold (2.4-4.1-fold) reduction in live virus neutralization assay, while neutralizing titers against B.1.1.7 (alpha) decreased slightly (1.4-fold [95% CI: 1.2-1.6-fold]). Serum from vaccinees also led to significant reductions in neutralization of B.1.351 across different platforms, with an average of 7.1-fold (95% CI: 5.5-9.0-fold) for nonreplicating vector platform, 4.1-fold (3.7-4.4-fold) for messenger RNA platform, and 2.5-fold (1.7-2.9-fold) for protein subunit platform. Neutralizing antibody levels induced by messenger RNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants were similar to, or higher, than that derived from naturally infected individuals.

Serological evidence of human infection with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A rapidly increasing number of serological surveys for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 have been reported worldwide. We aimed to synthesise, combine, and assess this large corpus of data. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and five preprint servers for articles published in English between Dec 1, 2019, and Dec 22, 2020. Studies evaluating SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in humans after the first identified case in the area were included. Studies that only reported serological responses among patients with COVID-19, those using known infection status samples, or any animal experiments were all excluded. All data used for analysis were extracted from included papers. Study quality was assessed using a standardised scale. We estimated age-specific, sex-specific, and race-specific seroprevalence by WHO regions and subpopulations with different levels of exposures, and the ratio of serology-identified infections to virologically confirmed cases. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020198253. FINDINGS: 16 506 studies were identified in the initial search, 2523 were assessed for eligibility after removal of duplicates and inappropriate titles and abstracts, and 404 serological studies (representing tests in 5 168 360 individuals) were included in the meta-analysis. In the 82 studies of higher quality, close contacts (18·0%, 95% CI 15·7-20·3) and high-risk health-care workers (17·1%, 9·9-24·4) had higher seroprevalence than did low-risk health-care workers (4·2%, 1·5-6·9) and the general population (8·0%, 6·8-9·2). The heterogeneity between included studies was high, with an overall I2 of 99·9% (p<0·0001). Seroprevalence varied greatly across WHO regions, with the lowest seroprevalence of general populations in the Western Pacific region (1·7%, 95% CI 0·0-5·0). The pooled infection-to-case ratio was similar between the region of the Americas (6·9, 95% CI 2·7-17·3) and the European region (8·4, 6·5-10·7), but higher in India (56·5, 28·5-112·0), the only country in the South-East Asia region with data. INTERPRETATION: Antibody-mediated herd immunity is far from being reached in most settings. Estimates of the ratio of serologically detected infections per virologically confirmed cases across WHO regions can help provide insights into the true proportion of the population infected from routine confirmation data. FUNDING: National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, Key Emergency Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Committee, Program of Shanghai Academic/Technology Research Leader, National Science and Technology Major project of China, the US National Institutes of Health. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.