Population-based sero-epidemiological estimates of real-world vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection in an infection-naive population, Hong Kong, January to July 2022 (preprint)

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has demonstrated enhanced transmissibility and escape of vaccine-derived immunity. While current vaccines remain effective against severe disease and death, robust evidence on vaccine effectiveness (VE) against all Omicron infections (i.e. irrespective of symptoms) remains sparse. We addressed this knowledge-gap using a community-wide serosurvey with 5,310 subjects by estimating how vaccination histories modulated risk of infection in Hong Kong (which was largely infection naive) during a large wave of Omicron epidemic during January-July 2022. We estimated that Omicron infected 45% (41-48%) of the Hong Kong population. Three and four doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac were effective against Omicron infection (VE of 47% (95% credible interval 34-68%) and 70% (43-99%) for three and four doses of BNT162b2 respectively; VE of 31% (1-73%) and 59% (10-99%) for three and four doses of CoronaVac respectively) seven days after vaccination, but protection waned with half-lives of 15 (3-47) weeks for BNT162b2 and 5 (1-37) weeks for CoronaVac. Our findings suggest that booster vaccination can temporarily enhance population immunity ahead of anticipated waves of infections.

A RCT of a third dose CoronaVac or BNT162b2 vaccine in adults with two doses of CoronaVac (preprint)

Background. Poor immunogenicity and antibody waning were found in vaccinees of CoronaVac. There is lack of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data to compare the immunogenicity and safety of schedules using homologous and heterologous vaccine as a booster dose. Methods. We randomly assigned adults who had received 2 doses of CoronaVac with low antibody response to receive an additional booster dose of either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac. The local and systemic adverse reactions were recorded. Levels of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing and spike binding antibody in plasma were measured. Findings. At one month after the third dose of vaccine, BNT162b2 vaccines elicited significantly higher surrogate virus neutralizing test (sVNT), spike receptor binding, spike N terminal domain binding, spike S2 domain binding levels than CoronaVac. More participants from the BNT162b2 group reported injection site pain and swelling as well as fatigue and muscle pain than those who received CoronaVac as the third dose. The mean results of the sVNT against the wild type, beta, gamma and delta variants in the BNT162b2 boosted group was 96.83%, 92.29%, 92.51% and 95.33% respectively which were significantly higher than the CoronaVac boosted group (Wild type: 57.75%; Beta: 38.79 %; Gamma: 32.22%; Delta: 48.87%) Conclusion. Our RCT study shows that BNT162b2 booster dose for those people who poorly responded to the previous vaccination of CoronaVac is significantly more immunogenic than a CoronaVac booster. BNT162b2 also elicits higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralizing antibodies to different variants of concern. The adverse reactions were only mild and short-lived.

Comparison of the immunogenicity of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac COVID-19 Vaccines in Hong Kong (preprint)

Background. Few head-to-head evaluations of immune responses to difference vaccines have been reported. Methods. Surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) antibody levels of adults receiving either 2 doses of BNT162b2 (n=366) or CoronaVac (n=360) vaccines in Hong Kong were determined. An age-matched subgroup (BNT162b2 (n=49) vs CoronaVac (n=49)) were tested for plaque reduction neutralizing (PRNT) and spike binding antibody and T cell reactivity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). Findings. One month after the second dose of vaccine, BNT162b2 elicited significantly higher PRNT50, PRNT90, sVNT, spike receptor binding, spike N terminal domain binding, spike S2 domain binding, spike FcR binding and antibody avidity levels than CoronaVac. The geometric mean PRNT50 titres in those vaccinated with BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines were 251.6 and 69.45 while PRNT90 titres were 98.91 and 16.57, respectively. All of those vaccinated with BNT162b2 and 45 (91.8%) of 49 vaccinated with CoronaVac achieved the 50% protection threshold for PRNT90. Allowing for an expected seven-fold waning of antibody titres over six months for those receiving CoronaVac, only 16.3% would meet the 50% protection threshold versus 79.6% of BNT162b2 vaccinees. Age was negatively correlated with PRNT90 antibody titres. Both vaccines induced SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses at 1-month post-vaccination but CoronaVac elicited significantly higher structural protein-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses. Conclusion. Vaccination with BNT162b2 induces stronger humoral responses than CoronaVac. CoronaVac induce higher CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses to the structural protein than BNT162b2.