SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Strain Selection: Guidance from Influenza.

When first approved, many hoped that the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine would provide long-term protection after a primary series. Waning of immunity and continued appearance of new variants has made booster inoculations necessary. The process is becoming increasingly similar to that used for annual updating of the influenza vaccine. The similarity has become even more apparent with selection of BA.4/BA.5 as the Omicron strain of the updated bivalent (Original + Omicron) Covid-19 vaccines. It is hoped that, if Covid-19 develops winter seasonality, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will require only annual review to determine if updates are necessary. Recommendations on whom should receive the booster would be based on conditions at that time.

Protection of mRNA vaccines against hospitalized COVID-19 in adults over the first year following authorization in the United States.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were authorized in the United States in December 2020. Although vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild infection declines markedly after several months, limited understanding exists on the long-term durability of protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization. METHODS: Case control analysis of adults (≥18 years) hospitalized at 21 hospitals in 18 states March 11 - December 15, 2021, including COVID-19 case patients and RT-PCR-negative controls. We included adults who were unvaccinated or vaccinated with two doses of a mRNA vaccine before the date of illness onset. VE over time was assessed using logistic regression comparing odds of vaccination in cases versus controls, adjusting for confounders. Models included dichotomous time (<180 vs ≥180 days since dose two) and continuous time modeled using restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: 10,078 patients were included, 4906 cases (23% vaccinated) and 5172 controls (62% vaccinated). Median age was 60 years (IQR 46-70), 56% were non-Hispanic White, and 81% had ≥1 medical condition. Among immunocompetent adults, VE <180 days was 90% (95%CI: 88-91) vs 82% (95%CI: 79-85) at ≥180 days (p < 0.001). VE declined for Pfizer-BioNTech (88% to 79%, p < 0.001) and Moderna (93% to 87%, p < 0.001) products, for younger adults (18-64 years) [91% to 87%, p = 0.005], and for adults ≥65 years of age (87% to 78%, p < 0.001). In models using restricted cubic splines, similar changes were observed. CONCLUSION: In a period largely pre-dating Omicron variant circulation, effectiveness of two mRNA doses against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was largely sustained through 9 months.

mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 induce comparably low long-term IgG Fc galactosylation and sialylation levels but increasing long-term IgG4 responses compared to an adenovirus-based vaccine.

Background: The new types of mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticle vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 and the adenovirus-based vaccine AZD1222 were developed against SARS-CoV-2 and code for its spike (S) protein. Several studies have investigated short-term antibody (Ab) responses after vaccination. Objective: However, the impact of these new vaccine formats with unclear effects on the long-term Ab response - including isotype, subclass, and their type of Fc glycosylation - is less explored. Methods: Here, we analyzed anti-S Ab responses in blood serum and the saliva of SARS-CoV-2 naïve and non-hospitalized pre-infected subjects upon two vaccinations with different mRNA- and adenovirus-based vaccine combinations up to day 270. Results: We show that the initially high mRNA vaccine-induced blood and salivary anti-S IgG levels, particularly IgG1, markedly decrease over time and approach the lower levels induced with the adenovirus-based vaccine. All three vaccines induced, contrary to the short-term anti-S IgG1 response with high sialylation and galactosylation levels, a long-term anti-S IgG1 response that was characterized by low sialylation and galactosylation with the latter being even below the corresponding total IgG1 galactosylation level. Instead, the mRNA, but not the adenovirus-based vaccines induced long-term IgG4 responses - the IgG subclass with inhibitory effector functions. Furthermore, salivary anti-S IgA levels were lower and decreased faster in naïve as compared to pre-infected vaccinees. Predictively, age correlated with lower long-term anti-S IgG titers for the mRNA vaccines. Furthermore, higher total IgG1 galactosylation, sialylation, and bisection levels correlated with higher long-term anti-S IgG1 sialylation, galactosylation, and bisection levels, respectively, for all vaccine combinations. Conclusion: In summary, the study suggests a comparable "adjuvant" potential of the newly developed vaccines on the anti-S IgG Fc glycosylation, as reflected in relatively low long-term anti-S IgG1 galactosylation levels generated by the long-lived plasma cell pool, whose induction might be driven by a recently described TH1-driven B cell response for all three vaccines. Instead, repeated immunization of naïve individuals with the mRNA vaccines increased the proportion of the IgG4 subclass over time which might influence the long-term Ab effector functions. Taken together, these data shed light on these novel vaccine formats and might have potential implications for their long-term efficacy.

mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 induce comparably low long-term IgG Fc galactosylation and sialylation levels but increasing long-term IgG4 responses compared to an adenovirus-based vaccine

Background The new types of mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticle vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 and the adenovirus-based vaccine AZD1222 were developed against SARS-CoV-2 and code for its spike (S) protein. Several studies have investigated short-term antibody (Ab) responses after vaccination. Objective However, the impact of these new vaccine formats with unclear effects on the long-term Ab response – including isotype, subclass, and their type of Fc glycosylation – is less explored. Methods Here, we analyzed anti-S Ab responses in blood serum and the saliva of SARS-CoV-2 naïve and non-hospitalized pre-infected subjects upon two vaccinations with different mRNA- and adenovirus-based vaccine combinations up to day 270. Results We show that the initially high mRNA vaccine-induced blood and salivary anti-S IgG levels, particularly IgG1, markedly decrease over time and approach the lower levels induced with the adenovirus-based vaccine. All three vaccines induced, contrary to the short-term anti-S IgG1 response with high sialylation and galactosylation levels, a long-term anti-S IgG1 response that was characterized by low sialylation and galactosylation with the latter being even below the corresponding total IgG1 galactosylation level. Instead, the mRNA, but not the adenovirus-based vaccines induced long-term IgG4 responses – the IgG subclass with inhibitory effector functions. Furthermore, salivary anti-S IgA levels were lower and decreased faster in naïve as compared to pre-infected vaccinees. Predictively, age correlated with lower long-term anti-S IgG titers for the mRNA vaccines. Furthermore, higher total IgG1 galactosylation, sialylation, and bisection levels correlated with higher long-term anti-S IgG1 sialylation, galactosylation, and bisection levels, respectively, for all vaccine combinations. Conclusion In summary, the study suggests a comparable "adjuvant” potential of the newly developed vaccines on the anti-S IgG Fc glycosylation, as reflected in relatively low long-term anti-S IgG1 galactosylation levels generated by the long-lived plasma cell pool, whose induction might be driven by a recently described TH1-driven B cell response for all three vaccines. Instead, repeated immunization of naïve individuals with the mRNA vaccines increased the proportion of the IgG4 subclass over time which might influence the long-term Ab effector functions. Taken together, these data shed light on these novel vaccine formats and might have potential implications for their long-term efficacy.

Absolute and Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Series of COVID-19 Vaccines (mRNA and Adenovirus Vector) Against COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the United States, December 2021-April 2022.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE. Results: A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary. Conclusions: Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

Predictors of COVID-19 outcomes: Interplay of frailty, comorbidity, and age in COVID-19 prognosis

Prior research has identified frailty, comorbidity, and age as predictors of outcomes for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including mortality. However, it remains unclear how these factors play different roles in COVID-19 prognosis. This study focused on correlations between frailty, comorbidity and age, and their correlations to discharge outcome and length-of-stay in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Clinical data was collected from 56 patients who were ≥50 years old and admitted from March 2020 to June 2020 primarily for COVID-19. Frailty Risk Score (FRS) and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) were used for assessment of frailty and comorbidity burden, respectively. Age had significant positive correlation with FRS and CCI (P < .001, P < .001, respectively). There was also significant positive correlation between FRS and CCI (P < .001). For mortality, patients who died during their hospitalization had significantly higher FRS and CCI (P = .01 and P < .001, respectively) but were not significantly older than patients who did not. FRS, CCI, and age were all significantly associated when looking at overall adverse discharge outcome (transfer to other facility or death) (P < .001, P = .005, and P = .009, respectively). However, none of the 3 variables were significantly correlated with length-of-stay. Multivariate analysis showed FRS (P = .007) but not patient age (P = .967) was significantly associated with death. We find that frailty is associated with adverse outcomes from COVID-19 and supplants age in multivariable analysis. Frailty should be part of risk assessment of older adults with COVID-19.

Early Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent Adults Aged ≥65 Years - IVY Network, 18 States, September 8-November 30, 2022.

Monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, designed against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2, successfully reduced COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in the United States and globally (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization has declined over time, likely related to a combination of factors, including waning immunity and, with the emergence of the Omicron variant and its sublineages, immune evasion (3). To address these factors, on September 1, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA booster (bivalent booster) dose, developed against the spike protein from ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages, for persons who had completed at least a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (with or without monovalent booster doses) ≥2 months earlier (4). Data on the effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose against COVID-19 hospitalization in the United States are lacking, including among older adults, who are at highest risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness. During September 8-November 30, 2022, the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill (IVY) Network§ assessed effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose received after ≥2 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥65 years. When compared with unvaccinated persons, VE of a bivalent booster dose received ≥7 days before illness onset (median = 29 days) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 84%. Compared with persons who received ≥2 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, relative VE of a bivalent booster dose was 73%. These early findings show that a bivalent booster dose provided strong protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization in older adults and additional protection among persons with previous monovalent-only mRNA vaccination. All eligible persons, especially adults aged ≥65 years, should receive a bivalent booster dose to maximize protection against COVID-19 hospitalization this winter season. Additional strategies to prevent respiratory illness, such as masking in indoor public spaces, should also be considered, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high (4,5).

Relationship between Telework Experience and Presenteeism during COVID-19 Pandemic, United States, March-November 2020.

Persons with COVID-19-like illnesses are advised to stay home to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. We assessed relationships between telework experience and COVID-19 illness with work attendance when ill. Adults experiencing fever, cough, or loss of taste or smell who sought healthcare or COVID-19 testing in the United States during March-November 2020 were enrolled. Adults with telework experience before illness were more likely to work at all (onsite or remotely) during illness (87.8%) than those with no telework experience (49.9%) (adjusted odds ratio 5.48, 95% CI 3.40-8.83). COVID-19 case-patients were less likely to work onsite (22.1%) than were persons with other acute respiratory illnesses (37.3%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.24-0.53). Among COVID-19 case-patients with telework experience, only 6.5% worked onsite during illness. Telework experience before illness gave mildly ill workers the option to work and improved compliance with public health recommendations to stay home during illness.

Rapid transmission and tight bottlenecks constrain the evolution of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Transmission bottlenecks limit the spread of novel mutations and reduce the efficiency of selection along a transmission chain. While increased force of infection, receptor binding, or immune evasion may influence bottleneck size, the relationship between transmissibility and the transmission bottleneck is unclear. Here we compare the transmission bottleneck of non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 lineages to those of Alpha, Delta, and Omicron. We sequenced viruses from 168 individuals in 65 households. Most virus populations had 0-1 single nucleotide variants (iSNV). From 64 transmission pairs with detectable iSNV, we identify a per clade bottleneck of 1 (95% CI 1-1) for Alpha, Delta, and Omicron and 2 (95% CI 2-2) for non-VOC. These tight bottlenecks reflect the low diversity at the time of transmission, which may be more pronounced in rapidly transmissible variants. Tight bottlenecks will limit the development of highly mutated VOC in transmission chains, adding to the evidence that selection over prolonged infections may drive their evolution.

The BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine induces transient afucosylated IgG1 in naive but not in antigen-experienced vaccinees.

BACKGROUND: Afucosylated IgG1 responses have only been found against membrane-embedded epitopes, including anti-S in SARS-CoV-2 infections. These responses, intrinsically protective through enhanced FcγRIIIa binding, can also trigger exacerbated pro-inflammatory responses in severe COVID-19. We investigated if the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA also induced afucosylated IgG responses. METHODS: Blood from vaccinees during the first vaccination wave was collected. Liquid chromatography-Mass spectrometry (LC-MS) was used to study anti-S IgG1 Fc glycoprofiles. Responsiveness of alveolar-like macrophages to produce proinflammatory cytokines in presence of sera and antigen was tested. Antigen-specific B cells were characterized and glycosyltransferase levels were investigated by Fluorescence-Activated Cell Sorting (FACS). FINDINGS: Initial transient afucosylated anti-S IgG1 responses were found in naive vaccinees, but not in antigen-experienced ones. All vaccinees had increased galactosylated and sialylated anti-S IgG1. Both naive and antigen-experienced vaccinees showed relatively low macrophage activation potential, as expected, due to the low antibody levels for naive individuals with afucosylated IgG1, and low afucosylation levels for antigen-experienced individuals with high levels of anti-S. Afucosylation levels correlated with FUT8 expression in antigen-specific plasma cells in naive individuals. Interestingly, low fucosylation of anti-S IgG1 upon seroconversion correlated with high anti-S IgG levels after the second dose. INTERPRETATION: Here, we show that BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination induces transient afucosylated anti-S IgG1 responses in naive individuals. This observation warrants further studies to elucidate the clinical context in which potent afucosylated responses would be preferred. FUNDING: LSBR1721, 1908; ZonMW10430012010021, 09150161910033, 10430012010008; DFG398859914, 400912066, 390884018; PMI; DOI4-Nr. 3; H2020-MSCA-ITN 721815.

Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza A(H3N2)-Related Illness in the United States During the 2021-2022 Influenza Season.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, influenza activity during the 2021-2022 season was modest and sufficient enough to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness for the first time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimated influenza vaccine effectiveness against lab-confirmed outpatient acute illness caused by predominant A(H3N2) viruses. METHODS: Between October 2021 and April 2022, research staff across 7 sites enrolled patients aged ≥6 months seeking outpatient care for acute respiratory illness with cough. Using a test-negative design, we assessed VE against influenza A(H3N2). Due to strong correlation between influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from vaccine effectiveness estimations. Estimates were adjusted for site, age, month of illness, race/ethnicity and general health status. RESULTS: Among 6,260 participants, 468 (7%) tested positive for influenza only, including 440 (94%) for A(H3N2). All 206 sequenced A(H3N2) viruses were characterized as belonging to genetic group 3C.2a1b subclade 2a.2, which has antigenic differences from the 2021-2022 season A(H3N2) vaccine component that belongs to clade 3C.2a1b subclade 2a.1. After excluding 1,948 SARS-CoV-2 positive patients, 4,312 patients were included in analyses of influenza VE; 2,463 (57%) were vaccinated against influenza. Effectiveness against A(H3N2) for all ages was 36% (95%CI, 20-49%) overall. CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination in 2021-2022 provided protection against influenza A(H3N2)-related outpatient visits among young persons.

Vaccine effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2)-associated hospitalized illness, United States, 2022.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with historically low influenza circulation during the 2020-2021 season, followed by increase in influenza circulation during the 2021-2022 US season. The 2a.2 subgroup of the influenza A(H3N2) 3C.2a1b subclade that predominated was antigenically different from the vaccine strain. METHODS: To understand the effectiveness of the 2021-2022 vaccine against hospitalized influenza illness, a multi-state sentinel surveillance network enrolled adults aged ≥18 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness (ARI) and tested for influenza by a molecular assay. Using the test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness (VE) was measured by comparing the odds of current season influenza vaccination in influenza-positive case-patients and influenza-negative, SARS-CoV-2-negative controls, adjusting for confounders. A separate analysis was performed to illustrate bias introduced by including SARS-CoV-2 positive controls. RESULTS: A total of 2334 patients, including 295 influenza cases (47% vaccinated), 1175 influenza- and SARS-CoV-2 negative controls (53% vaccinated), and 864 influenza-negative and SARS-CoV-2 positive controls (49% vaccinated), were analyzed. Influenza VE was 26% (95%CI: -14 to 52%) among adults aged 18-64 years, -3% (95%CI: -54 to 31%) among adults aged ≥65 years, and 50% (95%CI: 15 to 71%) among adults 18-64 years without immunocompromising conditions. Estimated VE decreased with inclusion of SARS-CoV-2-positive controls. CONCLUSIONS: During a season where influenza A(H3N2) was antigenically different from the vaccine virus, vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of influenza hospitalization in younger immunocompetent adults. However, vaccination did not provide protection in adults ≥65 years of age. Improvements in vaccines, antivirals, and prevention strategies are warranted.

Comparison of test-negative and syndrome-negative controls in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness evaluations for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Test-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls. METHODS: Adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group. RESULTS: 5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64 years, VE was 93 % (95 % CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91 % (95 % CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: Despite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.

Effectiveness of Monovalent mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent Adults During BA.1/BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 Predominant Periods of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant in the United States - IVY Network, 18 States, December 26, 2021-August 31, 2022.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 or BA.1) became predominant in the United States by late December 2021 (1). BA.1 has since been replaced by emerging lineages BA.2 (including BA.2.12.1) in March 2022, followed by BA.4 and BA.5, which have accounted for a majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections since late June 2022 (1). Data on the effectiveness of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against BA.4/BA.5-associated hospitalizations are limited, and their interpretation is complicated by waning of vaccine-induced immunity (2-5). Further, infections with earlier Omicron lineages, including BA.1 and BA.2, reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates because certain persons in the referent unvaccinated group have protection from infection-induced immunity. The IVY Network† assessed effectiveness of 2, 3, and 4 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccines compared with no vaccination against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during December 26, 2021-August 31, 2022. During the BA.1/BA.2 period, VE 14-150 days after a second dose was 63% and decreased to 34% after 150 days. Similarly, VE 7-120 days after a third dose was 79% and decreased to 41% after 120 days. VE 7-120 days after a fourth dose was 61%. During the BA.4/BA.5 period, similar trends were observed, although CIs for VE estimates between categories of time since the last dose overlapped. VE 14-150 days and >150 days after a second dose was 83% and 37%, respectively. VE 7-120 days and >120 days after a third dose was 60%and 29%, respectively. VE 7-120 days after the fourth dose was 61%. Protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization waned even after a third dose. The newly authorized bivalent COVID-19 vaccines include mRNA from the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain and from shared mRNA components between BA.4 and BA.5 lineages and are expected to be more immunogenic against BA.4/BA.5 than monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (6-8). All eligible adults aged ≥18 years§ should receive a booster dose, which currently consists of a bivalent mRNA vaccine, to maximize protection against BA.4/BA.5 and prevent COVID-19-associated hospitalization.

Effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine for Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalizations and Progression to High Disease Severity in the United States.

Background . Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the adenovirus vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. Methods . In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized 11 March to 15 December 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. Results . After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-75%) overall, including 55% (29-72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64-77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14-90 days (73% [59-82%]), 91-180 days (71% [60-80%]), and 181-274 days (70% [54-81%]) postvaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18-65%) among immunocompetent patients. Conclusions . The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months postvaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.

Vaccine effectiveness of primary series and booster doses against covid-19 associated hospital admissions in the United States: living test negative design study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of a primary covid-19 vaccine series plus booster doses with a primary series alone for the prevention of hospital admission with omicron related covid-19 in the United States. DESIGN: Multicenter observational case-control study with a test negative design. SETTING: Hospitals in 18 US states. PARTICIPANTS: 4760 adults admitted to one of 21 hospitals with acute respiratory symptoms between 26 December 2021 and 30 June 2022, a period when the omicron variant was dominant. Participants included 2385 (50.1%) patients with laboratory confirmed covid-19 (cases) and 2375 (49.9%) patients who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 (controls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission with covid-19 for a primary series plus booster doses and a primary series alone by comparing the odds of being vaccinated with each of these regimens versus being unvaccinated among cases versus controls. Vaccine effectiveness analyses were stratified by immunosuppression status (immunocompetent, immunocompromised). The primary analysis evaluated all covid-19 vaccine types combined, and secondary analyses evaluated specific vaccine products. RESULTS: Overall, median age of participants was 64 years (interquartile range 52-75 years), 994 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 85 (1.8%) were vaccinated with a primary series plus two boosters, 1367 (28.7%) with a primary series plus one booster, and 1875 (39.3%) with a primary series alone, and 1433 (30.1%) were unvaccinated. Among immunocompetent participants, vaccine effectiveness for prevention of hospital admission with omicron related covid-19 for a primary series plus two boosters was 63% (95% confidence interval 37% to 78%), a primary series plus one booster was 65% (58% to 71%), and for a primary series alone was 37% (25% to 47%) (P<0.001 for the pooled boosted regimens compared with a primary series alone). Vaccine effectiveness was higher for a boosted regimen than for a primary series alone for both mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech): 73% (44% to 87%) for primary series plus two boosters, 64% (55% to 72%) for primary series plus one booster, and 36% (21% to 48%) for primary series alone (P<0.001); mRNA-1273 (Moderna): 68% (17% to 88%) for primary series plus two boosters, 65% (55% to 73%) for primary series plus one booster, and 41% (25% to 54%) for primary series alone (P=0.001)). Among immunocompromised patients, vaccine effectiveness for a primary series plus one booster was 69% (31% to 86%) and for a primary series alone was 49% (30% to 63%) (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: During the first six months of 2022 in the US, booster doses of a covid-19 vaccine provided additional benefit beyond a primary vaccine series alone for preventing hospital admissions with omicron related covid-19. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living test negative design study that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Multiplex Detection of Antibody Landscapes to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)/Influenza/Common Human Coronaviruses Following Vaccination or Infection With SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses continue to co-circulate, representing 2 major public health threats from respiratory infections with similar clinical presentations. SARS-CoV-2 and influenza vaccines can also now be co-administered. However, data on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza coinfection and vaccine co-administration remain limited. METHODS: We developed a 41-plex antibody immunity assay that can simultaneously characterize antibody landscapes to SARS-CoV-2/influenza/common human coronaviruses. We analyzed sera from 840 individuals (11-93 years), including sera from reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive (n = 218) and -negative (n = 120) cases, paired sera from SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (n = 29) and infection (n = 11), and paired sera from influenza vaccination (n = 56) and RT-PCR-confirmed influenza infection (n = 158) cases. Last, we analyzed sera collected from 377 individuals who exhibited acute respiratory illness (ARI) in 2020. RESULTS: This 41-plex assay has high sensitivity and specificity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections. It differentiated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (antibody responses only to spike protein) from infection (antibody responses to both spike and nucleoprotein). No cross-reactive antibodies were induced to SARS-CoV-2 from influenza vaccination and infection, and vice versa, suggesting no interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza antibody responses. However, cross-reactive antibodies were detected between spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and common human coronaviruses that were removed by serum adsorption. Among 377 individuals who exhibited ARI in 2020, 129 were influenza positive; none had serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2/influenza coinfections. CONCLUSIONS: Multiplex detection of antibody landscapes can provide in-depth analysis of the antibody protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in the context of other respiratory viruses, including influenza.

Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines for Preventing Covid-19 Hospitalizations in the United States.

BACKGROUND: As SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage increases in the United States (US), there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe Covid-19 and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. METHODS: In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11 - May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent Covid-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with Covid-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Among 1210 participants, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.8% were Hispanic, and 20.6% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 was most common variant (59.7% of sequenced viruses). Full vaccination (receipt of two vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 45/590 (7.6%) cases and 215/620 (34.7%) controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 86.9% (95% CI: 80.4 to 91.2%). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.3%; 95% CI: 78.9 to 99.7%). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough Covid hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (59.2%; 95% CI: 11.9 to 81.1%) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI: 85.5 to 94.7%). CONCLUSION: During March-May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Effectiveness of two and three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses against Omicron- and Delta-Related outpatient illness among adults, October 2021-February 2022.

Background: We estimated SARS-CoV-2 Delta- and Omicron-specific effectiveness of two and three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses in adults against symptomatic illness in US outpatient settings. Methods: Between October 1, 2021, and February 12, 2022, research staff consented and enrolled eligible participants who had fever, cough, or loss of taste or smell and sought outpatient medical care or clinical SARS-CoV-2 testing within 10 days of illness onset. Using the test-negative design, we compared the odds of receiving two or three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses among SARS-CoV-2 cases versus controls using logistic regression. Regression models were adjusted for study site, age, onset week, and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) was calculated as (1 - adjusted odds ratio) × 100%. Results: Among 3847 participants included for analysis, 574 (32%) of 1775 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta predominant period and 1006 (56%) of 1794 participants tested positive during the Omicron predominant period. When Delta predominated, VE against symptomatic illness in outpatient settings was 63% (95% CI: 51% to 72%) among mRNA two-dose recipients and 96% (95% CI: 93% to 98%) for three-dose recipients. When Omicron predominated, VE was 21% (95% CI: -6% to 41%) among two-dose recipients and 62% (95% CI: 48% to 72%) among three-dose recipients. Conclusions: In this adult population, three mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses provided substantial protection against symptomatic illness in outpatient settings when the Omicron variant became the predominant cause of COVID-19 in the United States. These findings support the recommendation for a third mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose.

Ascertainment of vaccination status by self-report versus source documentation: Impact on measuring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 vaccination might facilitate rapid evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) when source documentation (e.g., immunization information systems [IIS]) is not readily available. We evaluated the concordance of COVID-19 vaccination status ascertained by self-report versus source documentation and its impact on VE estimates. METHODS: Hospitalized adults (≥18 years) admitted to 18 U.S. medical centers March-June 2021 were enrolled, including COVID-19 cases and SARS-CoV-2 negative controls. Patients were interviewed about COVID-19 vaccination. Abstractors simultaneously searched IIS, medical records, and other sources for vaccination information. To compare vaccination status by self-report and documentation, we estimated percent agreement and unweighted kappa with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We then calculated VE in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization of full vaccination (2 doses of mRNA product ≥14 days prior to illness onset) independently using data from self-report or source documentation. RESULTS: Of 2520 patients, 594 (24%) did not have self-reported vaccination information to assign vaccination group; these patients tended to be more severely ill. Among 1924 patients with both self-report and source documentation information, 95.0% (95% CI: 93.9-95.9%) agreement was observed, with a kappa of 0.9127 (95% CI: 0.9109-0.9145). VE was 86% (95% CI: 81-90%) by self-report data only and 85% (95% CI: 81-89%) by source documentation data only. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-quarter of hospitalized patients could not provide self-report COVID-19 vaccination status. Among patients with self-report information, there was high concordance with source documented status. Self-report may be a reasonable source of COVID-19 vaccination information for timely VE assessment for public health action.