A Review on Immunological Responses to SARS-CoV-2 and Various COVID-19 Vaccine Regimens

Upreti, Shobha; Samant, Mukesh

doi:10.1007/s11095-022-03323-w

Cited by 21 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 118 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study has several strengths. First of all, the participants were prospectively followed up for 6 months, which was longer than other previous studies in China ( 18 , 19 , 22 ). The follow-up period is important and could provide compelling evidence to identify an optimal vaccination schedule for PLWH.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The exclusion criteria were ( 1 ): a presence of severe hearing loss, impaired vision, or intellectual disability observed by the interviewers ( 2 ); a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection which was defined by searching national medical records and self-reports ( 3 ). a history of vaccination with another COVID-19 vaccine instead of CoronaVac according to the national medical records; or ( 4 ) major psychiatric illness (schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) or other severe diseases which were not suitable for this study based on clinician’s assessment.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…World Health Organization (WHO) reported that about 38 million PLWH as of 2020 ( 3 ). COVID-19 vaccines are regarded as the most promising control method to curb the spread of SARS-CoV-2 ( 4 ). Therefore, the development of COVID-19 vaccines has been accelerated to prevent the spread of the virus and reduce the risk of severe illness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In studies conducted in Kunming ( 19 ), Chongqing ( 20 ), and Wuhan ( 21 ), PLWH displayed weaker immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination compared to HIV-negative participants. The immunoglobulin G against the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein (S-IgG) declined faster in the PLWH than those in the HIV-negative individuals, which indicated that a two-dose regimen may not be sufficient to provide persistent protection against SARS-CoV-2 among PLWH ( 22 ). A cross-sectional study demonstrated that poor immunological response was associated with impaired humoral response ( 23 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose schedule of CoronaVac, and the immune persistence of vaccination for six months, in people living with HIV: A multicenter prospective cohort study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPeople living with HIV (PLWH) are more vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2. However, evidence on the immunogenicity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in this population is insufficient. The objective of this study is to assess the immunogenicity and safety of the two-dose schedule of Sinovac CoronaVac for 6 months postvaccination in PLWH.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study among PLWH and HIV-negative adults in China. Participants who received two doses of CoronaVac prior to the recruitment were allocated into two groups and followed up for 6 months. The neutralizing antibodies (nAbs), immunoglobulin G against the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein (S-IgG), and gamma-interferon (IFN-γ) were measured to assess the associations among CoronaVac immunogenicity and related factors. Adverse reactions were collected to evaluate the safety profile of vaccination.ResultsA total of 203 PLWH and 100 HIV-negative individuals were enrolled. A small portion of participants reported mild or moderate adverse reactions without serious adverse events. Median nAbs level in PLWH (31.96 IU/mL, IQR: 12.34-76.40) was lower than that in the control group (46.52 IU/mL, IQR: 29.08-77.30) at the 2-4 weeks postvaccination (P=0.002), and the same trend was presented for median S-IgG titer (37.09 vs. 60.02 IU/ml) (both P <0.05). The nAbs seroconversion rate in the PLWH group was also lower than in the control group (75.86% vs. 89.00%). After then, the immune responses reduced over time in term of only 23.04% of PLWH and 36.00% of HIV-negative individuals had a positive seroconversion for nAbs at 6-month. The multivariable generalized estimating equation analysis showed that PLWH with CD4+T count≥350 cells/µL presented higher immune response than PLWH with CD4+T count <350 cells/µL in terms of antibody seroconversion and titers. The immunogenicity did not differ in participants with low or high HIV viral load. The S-antigen specific IFN-γ immunity was generally stable and had a slow attenuation in both two groups for 6 months postvaccination.ConclusionThe Sinovac CoronaVac was generally safe and immunogenic in PLWH, but the immunity response was inferior and the antibodies vanished faster compared to HIV-negative individuals. This study suggested a shorter than 6-month interval of prime-boost vaccination for PLWH to ensure a better protection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose schedule of CoronaVac, and the immune persistence of vaccination for six months, in people living with HIV: A multicenter prospective cohort study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MRNA vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 were primarily used for booster vaccination in Belgium [ 10 ], potentially matching the vaccine type (mRNA or viral vector) of the primary vaccination (i.e., a homologous booster) or not (i.e., a heterologous booster). SARS-CoV-2 vaccines act through humoral immune responses (e.g., B-cell proliferation into neutralizing antibody-producing plasma cells, neutralizing antibodies target the viral spike protein and block the virus’ ability to enter human cells), cellular immune responses (e.g., T cell proliferation into cytotoxic T cells) and memory responses of B- and T-cells [ 11 , 16 ]. It has been previously indicated for non-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that heterologous prime-boost vaccination might result in more durable and broader vaccine-induced immune response and a higher number of neutralizing antibodies [ 17 , 18 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Homologous and Heterologous Prime-Boost Vaccination: Impact on Clinical Severity of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Belgium

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated effectiveness of (1) mRNA booster vaccination versus primary vaccination only and (2) heterologous (viral vector–mRNA) versus homologous (mRNA–mRNA) prime-boost vaccination against severe outcomes of BA.1, BA.2, BA.4 or BA.5 Omicron infection (confirmed by whole genome sequencing) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients using observational data from national COVID-19 registries. In addition, it was investigated whether the difference between the heterologous and homologous prime-boost vaccination was homogenous across Omicron sub-lineages. Regression standardization (parametric g-formula) was used to estimate counterfactual risks for severe COVID-19 (combination of severity indicators), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality under exposure to different vaccination schedules. The estimated risk for severe COVID-19 and in-hospital mortality was significantly lower with an mRNA booster vaccination as compared to only a primary vaccination schedule (RR = 0.59 [0.33; 0.85] and RR = 0.47 [0.15; 0.79], respectively). No significance difference was observed in the estimated risk for severe COVID-19, ICU admission and in-hospital mortality with a heterologous compared to a homologous prime-boost vaccination schedule, and this difference was not significantly modified by the Omicron sub-lineage. Our results support evidence that mRNA booster vaccination reduced the risk of severe COVID-19 disease during the Omicron-predominant period.

show abstract

Estimated Effectiveness of Coadministration of the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 COVID-19 Vaccine With Influenza Vaccine

McGrath,

Malhotra,

Miles

et al. 2023

JAMA Netw Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceNo data comparing the estimated effectiveness of coadministering COVID-19 vaccines with seasonal influenza vaccine (SIV) in the community setting exist.ObjectiveTo examine the comparative effectiveness associated with coadministering the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2-biv [Pfizer BioNTech]) and SIV vs giving each vaccine alone.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA retrospective comparative effectiveness study evaluated US adults aged 18 years or older enrolled in commercial health insurance or Medicare Advantage plans and vaccinated with BNT162b2-biv only, SIV only, or both on the same day between August 31, 2022, and January 30, 2023. Individuals with monovalent or another brand of mRNA bivalent COVID-19 vaccine were excluded.ExposureSame-day coadministration of BNT162b2-biv and SIV; receipt of BNT162b2-biv only (for COVID-19–related outcomes) or SIV only (for influenza-related outcomes) were the comparator groups. For adults aged 65 years or older, only enhanced SIVs were included.Main Outcomes and MeasuresCOVID-19–related and influenza-related hospitalization, emergency department (ED) or urgent care (UC) encounters, and outpatient visits.ResultsOverall, 3 442 996 individuals (57.0% female; mean [SD] age, 65 [16.7] years) were included. A total of 627 735 individuals had BNT162b2-biv and SIV vaccine coadministered, 369 423 had BNT162b2-biv alone, and 2 445 838 had SIV alone. Among those aged 65 years or older (n = 2 210 493; mean [SD] age, 75 [6.7] years; 57.9% female), the coadministration group had a similar incidence of COVID-19–related hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87-1.24) and slightly higher incidence of emergency department or urgent care encounters (AHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23) and outpatient visits (AHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11) compared with the BNT162b2-biv–only group. Among individuals aged 18 to 64 years (n = 1 232 503; mean [SD] age, 47 [13.1] years; 55.4% female), the incidence of COVID-19–related outcomes was slightly higher among those who received both vaccines vs BNT162b2-biv alone (AHR point estimate range, 1.14-1.57); however, fewer events overall in this age group resulted in wider CIs. Overall, compared with those who received SIV alone, the coadministration group had a slightly lower incidence of most influenza-related end points (AHR point estimates 0.83-0.93 for those aged ≥65 years vs 0.76-1.08 for those aged 18-64 years). Negative control outcomes suggested residual bias and calibration of COVID-19–related and influenza-related outcomes with negative controls moved all estimates closer to the null, with most CIs crossing 1.00.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, coadministration of BNT162b2-biv and SIV was associated with generally similar effectiveness in the community setting against COVID-19–related and SIV-related outcomes compared with giving each vaccine alone and may help improve uptake of both vaccines.

show abstract

A Review on Immunological Responses to SARS-CoV-2 and Various COVID-19 Vaccine Regimens

Cited by 21 publications

References 118 publications

The safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose schedule of CoronaVac, and the immune persistence of vaccination for six months, in people living with HIV: A multicenter prospective cohort study

The safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose schedule of CoronaVac, and the immune persistence of vaccination for six months, in people living with HIV: A multicenter prospective cohort study

Homologous and Heterologous Prime-Boost Vaccination: Impact on Clinical Severity of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Belgium

Estimated Effectiveness of Coadministration of the BNT162b2 BA.4/5 COVID-19 Vaccine With Influenza Vaccine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About