Xinxue Liu1, Robert H Shaw2, Arabella S V Stuart2, Melanie Greenland1, Parvinder K Aley1, Nick J Andrews3, J Claire Cameron4, Sue Charlton5, Elizabeth A Clutterbuck1, Andrea M Collins6, Tanya Dinesh1, Anna England5, Saul N Faust7, Daniela M Ferreira6, Adam Finn8, Christopher A Green9, Bassam Hallis5, Paul T Heath10, Helen Hill6, Teresa Lambe11, Rajeka Lazarus12, Vincenzo Libri13, Fei Long1, Yama F Mujadidi1, Emma L Plested1, Samuel Provstgaard-Morys1, Maheshi N Ramasamy2, Mary Ramsay14, Robert C Read7, Hannah Robinson1, Nisha Singh1, David P J Turner15, Paul J Turner16, Laura L Walker1, Rachel White1, Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam17, Matthew D Snape18. 1. Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2. Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. 3. Statistics, Modelling and Economics Department, Public Health England, London, UK; Immunisation and Countermeasures Division, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK. 4. Health Protection Scotland, Glasgow, UK. 5. Public Health England, Porton Down, Salisbury, UK. 6. Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK. 7. NIHR Southampton Clinical Research Facility and Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK; Faculty of Medicine and Institute for Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 8. School of Population Health Sciences and School of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 9. NIHR/Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK. 10. The Vaccine Institute, St George's University of London, London, UK. 11. Jenner Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 12. North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK. 13. NIHR UCLH Clinical Research Facility and NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 14. Immunisation and Countermeasures Division, National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, UK. 15. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK. 16. National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK. 17. Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham School of Medicine, Nottingham, UK. 18. Oxford Vaccine Group, Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: matthew.snape@paediatrics.ox.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. METHODS: Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. FINDINGS:Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. INTERPRETATION: Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research. Crown
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. METHODS: Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. INTERPRETATION: Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research. Crown
Authors: Giulia Collatuzzo; Giovanni Visci; Francesco S Violante; Stefano Porru; Gianluca Spiteri; Maria Grazia Lourdes Monaco; Francesca Larese Fillon; Corrado Negro; Christian Janke; Noemi Castelletti; Giuseppe De Palma; Emanuele Sansone; Dana Mates; Silvia Teodorescu; Eleonóra Fabiánová; Jana Bérešová; Luigi Vimercati; Silvio Tafuri; Mahsa Abedini; Giorgia Ditano; Shuffield S Asafo; Paolo Boffetta Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 8.786
Authors: Karla Cervantes-Luevano; Astrid N Espino-Vazquez; Gonzalo Flores-Acosta; Johanna Bernaldez-Sarabia; Olivia Cabanillas-Bernal; Jahaziel Gasperin-Bulbarela; Ricardo Gonzalez-Sanchez; Andreu Comas-Garcia; Alexei F Licea-Navarro Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Maria Elena Pugliese; Riccardo Battaglia; Maria Girolama Raso; Raffaela Chiaravalloti; Francesco Coschignano; Angela Pagliuso; Roberta Bruschetta; Giovanni Pugliese; Paolo Scola; Paolo Tonin; Antonio Cerasa Journal: Clin Pract Date: 2022-05-11