Search

BackgroundProtection from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines wanes over time and is compounded by emerging variants including Omicron subvariants. This study evaluated safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variant vaccines.MethodsThis phase 2 open-label, randomized trial enrolled healthy adults previously vaccinated with a SARS-CoV-2 primary series and a single boost. Eligible participants were randomized to one of six Moderna COVID19 mRNA vaccine arms (50µg dose): Prototype (mRNA-1273), Omicron BA.1+Beta (1 or 2 doses), Omicron BA.1+Delta, Omicron BA.1 monovalent, and Omicron BA.1+Prototype. Neutralization antibody titers (ID50) were assessed for D614G, Delta, Beta and Omicron BA.1 variants and Omicron BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 subvariants 15 days after vaccination.ResultsFrom March 30 to May 6, 2022, 597 participants were randomized and vaccinated. Median age was 53 years, and 20% had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. All vaccines were safe and well-tolerated. Day 15 geometric mean titers (GMT) against D614G were similar across arms and ages, and higher with prior infection. For uninfected participants, Day 15 Omicron BA.1 GMTs were similar across Omicron-containing vaccine arms (3724-4561) and higher than Prototype (1,997 [95%CI:1,482-2,692]). The Omicron BA.1 monovalent and Omicron BA.1+Prototype vaccines induced a geometric mean ratio (GMR) to Prototype for Omicron BA.1 of 2.03 (97.5%CI:1.37-3.00) and 1.56 (97.5%CI:1.06-2.31), respectively. A subset of samples from uninfected participants in four arms were also tested in a different laboratory at Day 15 for neutralizing antibody titers to D614G and Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2.12.2 and BA.4/BA.5. Omicron BA.4/BA.5 GMTs were approximately one third BA.1 GMTs (Prototype 517 [95%CI:324-826] vs. 1503 [95%CI:949-2381]; Omicron BA.1+Beta 628 [95%CI:367-1,074] vs. 2125 [95%CI:1139-3965]; Omicron BA.1+Delta 765 [95%CI:443-1,322] vs. 2242 [95%CI:1218-4128] and Omicron BA.1+Prototype 635 [95%CI:447-903] vs. 1972 [95%CI:1337-2907).ConclusionsHigher Omicron BA.1 titers were observed with Omicron-containing vaccines compared to Prototype vaccine and titers against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 were lower than against BA.1 for all candidate vaccines.Clinicaltrials.govNCT05289037

BACKGROUND: Antigenic characterization of influenza viruses is typically based on hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay data for viral isolates tested against strain-specific postinfection ferret antisera. Here, similar virus characterizations were performed using serological data from humans with primary influenza A(H3N2) infection. METHODS: We screened sera collected between 1995 and 2011 from children between 9 and 24 months of age for influenza virus antibodies, performed HI tests for the positive sera against 23 influenza viruses isolated between 1989 and 2011, and measured HI titers of antisera against influenza A(H3N2) from 24 ferrets against the same panel of viruses. RESULTS: Of the 17 positive human sera, 6 had a high response, showing HI patterns that would be expected from primary infection antisera, while 11 sera had lower, more dispersed patterns of reactivity that are not easily explained. The antigenic map based on the high-response human HI data was similar to the map created using ferret data. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall structure of the ferret and human antigenic maps is similar, local differences in virus positions indicate that the human and ferret immune system might see antigenic properties of viruses differently. Further studies are needed to establish the degree of similarity between serological patterns in ferret and human data.

The antigenic evolution of SARS-CoV-2 requires ongoing monitoring to judge the immune escape of newly arising variants. A surveillance system necessitates an understanding of differences in neutralization titers measured in different assays and using human and animal sera. We compared 18 datasets generated using human, hamster, and mouse sera, and six different neutralization assays. Titer magnitude was lowest in human, intermediate in hamster, and highest in mouse sera. Fold change, immunodominance patterns and antigenic maps were similar among sera. Most assays yielded similar results, except for differences in fold change in cytopathic effect assays. Not enough data was available for conclusively judging mouse sera, but hamster sera were a consistent surrogate for human first-infection sera., Competing Interests: VMC: Named on patents regarding SARS-CoV-2 serological testing and monoclonal antibodies. MSD: Consultant for Inbios, Vir Biotechnology, Ocugen, Topspin Therapeutics, Moderna, and Immunome. The Diamond laboratory has received unrelated funding support in sponsored research agreements from Moderna, Vir Biotechnology, Generate Biomedicines, and Emergent BioSolutions. YK: Received unrelated funding support from Daiichi Sankyo Pharmaceutical, Toyama Chemical, Tauns Laboratories, Inc., Shionogi & Co. LTD, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, KM Biologics, Kyoritsu Seiyaku, Shinya Corporation, and Fuji Rebio. IE: Research grant and speakers fees from Moderna. BMe: Research grant from Moderna. GRS: Is on the GSK Vaccines Scientific Advisory Board. Oxford University holds intellectual property related to the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. MS: Serves in an advisory role for Ocugen, Inc. SP: Reports that the Uniformed Services University (USU) Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Program (IDCRP), a US Department of Defense institution, and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation (HJF) were funded under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement to conduct an unrelated phase III COVID-19 monoclonal antibody immunoprophylaxis trial sponsored by AstraZeneca. The HJF, in support of the USU IDCRP, was funded by the Department of Defense Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense to augment the conduct of an unrelated phase III vaccine trial sponsored by AstraZeneca. Both trials were part of the U.S. Government COVID-19 response. Neither is related to the work presented here.

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, multiple variants escaping pre-existing immunity emerged, causing concerns about continued protection. Here, we use antigenic cartography to analyze patterns of cross-reactivity among a panel of 21 variants and 15 groups of human sera obtained following primary infection with 10 different variants or after mRNA-1273 or mRNA-1273.351 vaccination. We find antigenic differences among pre-Omicron variants caused by substitutions at spike protein positions 417, 452, 484, and 501. Quantifying changes in response breadth over time and with additional vaccine doses, our results show the largest increase between 4 weeks and >3 months post-2nd dose. We find changes in immunodominance of different spike regions depending on the variant an individual was first exposed to, with implications for variant risk assessment and vaccine strain selection.

Background: Protection from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines wanes over time and is compounded by emerging variants including Omicron subvariants. This study evaluated safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 variant vaccines., Methods: This phase 2 open-label, randomized trial enrolled healthy adults previously vaccinated with a SARS-CoV-2 primary series and a single boost. Eligible participants were randomized to one of six Moderna COVID19 mRNA vaccine arms (50µg dose): Prototype (mRNA-1273), Omicron BA.1+Beta (1 or 2 doses), Omicron BA.1+Delta, Omicron BA.1 monovalent, and Omicron BA.1+Prototype. Neutralization antibody titers (ID 50 ) were assessed for D614G, Delta, Beta and Omicron BA.1 variants and Omicron BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 subvariants 15 days after vaccination., Results: From March 30 to May 6, 2022, 597 participants were randomized and vaccinated. Median age was 53 years, and 20% had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. All vaccines were safe and well-tolerated. Day 15 geometric mean titers (GMT) against D614G were similar across arms and ages, and higher with prior infection. For uninfected participants, Day 15 Omicron BA.1 GMTs were similar across Omicron-containing vaccine arms (3724-4561) and higher than Prototype (1,997 [95%CI:1,482-2,692]). The Omicron BA.1 monovalent and Omicron BA.1+Prototype vaccines induced a geometric mean ratio (GMR) to Prototype for Omicron BA.1 of 2.03 (97.5%CI:1.37-3.00) and 1.56 (97.5%CI:1.06-2.31), respectively. A subset of samples from uninfected participants in four arms were also tested in a different laboratory at Day 15 for neutralizing antibody titers to D614G and Omicron subvariants BA.1, BA.2.12.2 and BA.4/BA.5. Omicron BA.4/BA.5 GMTs were approximately one third BA.1 GMTs (Prototype 517 [95%CI:324-826] vs. 1503 [95%CI:949-2381]; Omicron BA.1+Beta 628 [95%CI:367-1,074] vs. 2125 [95%CI:1139-3965]; Omicron BA.1+Delta 765 [95%CI:443-1,322] vs. 2242 [95%CI:1218-4128] and Omicron BA.1+Prototype 635 [95%CI:447-903] vs. 1972 [95%CI:1337-2907)., Conclusions: Higher Omicron BA.1 titers were observed with Omicron-containing vaccines compared to Prototype vaccine and titers against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 were lower than against BA.1 for all candidate vaccines., Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT05289037.

Although mRNA vaccines prevent COVID-19, variants jeopardize their efficacy as immunity wanes. Here, we assessed the immunogenicity and protective activity of historical (mRNA-1273, designed for Wuhan-1 spike) or modified (mRNA-1273.351, designed for B.1.351 spike) preclinical Moderna mRNA vaccines in 129S2 and K18-hACE2 mice. Immunization with high or low dose formulations of mRNA vaccines induced neutralizing antibodies in serum against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and several variants, although levels were lower particularly against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) virus. Protection against weight loss and lung pathology was observed with all high-dose vaccines against all viruses. Nonetheless, low-dose formulations of the vaccines, which produced lower magnitude antibody and T cell responses, and serve as a possible model for waning immunity, showed breakthrough lung infection and pneumonia with B.1.617.2. Thus, as levels of immunity induced by mRNA vaccines decline, breakthrough infection and disease likely will occur with some SARS-CoV-2 variants, suggesting a need for additional booster regimens.