Background The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, which was approved as a single-shot immunization regimen, has been shown to be effective against severe coronavirus disease 2019. However, this vaccine induces lower severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein (S)–specific antibody levels than those induced by messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccines. The immunogenicity and reactogenicity of a homologous or heterologous booster in persons who have received an Ad26.COV2.S priming dose are unclear. Methods In this single-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving health care workers who had received a priming dose of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, we assessed immunogenicity and reactogenicity 28 days after a homologous or heterologous booster vaccination. The participants were assigned to receive no booster, an Ad26.COV2.S booster, an mRNA-1273 booster, or a BNT162b2 booster. The primary end point was the level of S-specific binding antibodies, and the secondary end points were the levels of neutralizing antibodies, S-specific T-cell responses, and reactogenicity. A post hoc analysis was performed to compare mRNA-1273 boosting with BNT162b2 boosting. Results Homologous or heterologous booster vaccination resulted in higher levels of S-specific binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, and T-cell responses than a single Ad26.COV2.S vaccination. The increase in binding antibodies was significantly larger with heterologous regimens that included mRNA-based vaccines than with the homologous booster. The mRNA-1273 booster was most immunogenic and was associated with higher reactogenicity than the BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S boosters. Local and systemic reactions were generally mild to moderate in the first 2 days after booster administration. Conclusions The Ad26.COV2.S and mRNA boosters had an acceptable safety profile and were immunogenic in health care workers who had received a priming dose of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine. The strongest responses occurred after boosting with mRNA-based vaccines. Boosting with any available vaccine was better than not boosting. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development ZonMw; SWITCH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04927936 .)

Background Vaccine supply shortages are of global concern. We hypothesise that intradermal (ID) immunisation as an alternative to standard routes might augment vaccine supply utilisation without loss of vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis searching Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases. Studies were included if: licensed, currently available vaccines were used; fractional dose of ID was compared to IM or SC immunisation; primary immunisation schedules were evaluated; immunogenicity, safety data and/or cost were reported. We calculated risk differences (RD). Studies were included in meta-analysis if: a pre-defined immune correlate of protection was assessed; WHO-recommend schedules and antigen doses were used in the control group; the same schedule was applied to both ID and control groups (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020151725). Results The primary search yielded 5,873 articles, of which 156 articles were included; covering 12 vaccines. Non-inferiority of immunogenicity with 20–60% of antigen used with ID vaccines was demonstrated for influenza (H1N1: RD -0·01; 95% CI -0·02, 0·01; I 2 = 55%, H2N3: RD 0·00; 95% CI -0·01, 0·01; I 2 = 0%, B: RD -0·00; 95% CI -0·02, 0·01; I 2 = 72%), rabies (RD 0·00; 95% CI -0·02, 0·02; I 2 = 0%), and hepatitis B vaccines (RD -0·01; 95% CI -0·04, 0·02; I 2 = 20%). Clinical trials on the remaining vaccines yielded promising results, but are scarce. Conclusions There is potential for inoculum/antigen dose-reduction by using ID immunisation as compared to standard routes of administration for some vaccines (e.g. influenza, rabies). When suitable, vaccine trials should include an ID arm.

To determine the risk of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) in adult cancer patients stratified by type of underlying malignancy, age, and capsular serotype and to assess herd effects of childhood pneumococcal vaccination. Methods: All adult IPD cases reported to the Dutch pneumococcal surveillance system between 2004 and 2016 were included in this study. IPD incidence rates (IR) stratified by subtype of malignancy were calculated per 100 000 patient-years of follow-up. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated to compare IRs between groups. Results: A total of 7167 IPD cases were included, of which 1453 were in patients with malignancies. For patients with hematological malignancies (HM) and solid organ malignancies (SOM), IRs were 482/100 000 and 79/100 000, respectively, compared with 15/100 000 in controls. The highest incidence was observed among patients with multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, pancreatic cancer, and lung cancer (3299/100 000, 2717/100 000, 538/100 000, 559/100 000, and 393/100 000, respectively), and in patients !50 years old. Among HM patients, the incidence of IPD declined significantly after the implementation of infant pneumococcal vaccination (IRR 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.51-0.84); among SOM patients, the decline was not statistically significant (IRR 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.07). Conclusions: The IPD disease burden in cancer patients remains high. Large differences in IPD incidence between the different types of cancer demand tailored guidance regarding pneumococcal vaccination.