Literature DB >> 35214619

Antibody Response of Combination of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac Platforms of COVID-19 Vaccines against Omicron Variant.

Ka-Wa Khong1, Danlei Liu1, Ka-Yi Leung2, Lu Lu2, Hoi-Yan Lam2, Linlei Chen2, Pui-Chun Chan2, Ho-Ming Lam1, Xiaochun Xie1, Ruiqi Zhang1, Yujing Fan1, Kelvin Kai-Wang To2,3,4, Honglin Chen2,3,4, Kwok-Yung Yuen2,3,4, Kwok-Hung Chan2,3,4, Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung1,3,4.   

Abstract

By vaccinating SARS-CoV-2 naïve individuals who have already received two doses of COVID-19 vaccines, we aimed to investigate whether a heterologous prime-boost strategy, using vaccines of different platforms as the booster dose, can enhance the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 virus variants. Participants were assigned into four groups, each receiving different combination of vaccinations: two doses of BNT162b2 followed by one dose of BNT162b2 booster (B-B-B); Combination of BNT162b2 (first dose) and CoronaVac (second dose) followed by one dose of BNT162b2 booster (B-C-B); two doses of CoronaVac followed by one dose of CoronaVac booster (C-C-C); two doses of CoronaVac followed by one dose of BNT162b2 booster (C-C-B). The neutralizing antibody in sera against the virus was determined with live virus microneutralization assay (vMN). The B-B-B group and C-C-B group demonstrated significantly higher immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2 Wild type (WT), Beta variant (BV) and Delta variant (DV). In addition, the B-B-B group and C-C-B group showed reduced but existing protection against Omicron variant (OV). Moreover, A persistent rise in vMN titre against OV was observed 3 days after booster dose. Regarding safety, a heterologous prime-boost vaccine strategy is well tolerated. In this study, it was demonstrated that using vaccines of different platforms as booster dose can enhance protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants, offering potent neutralizing activity against wild-type virus (WT), Beta variant (BV), Delta variant (DV) and some protection against the Omicron variant (OV). In addition, a booster mRNA vaccine results in a more potent immune response than inactivated vaccine regardless of which platform was used for prime doses.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; omicron variant; vaccines

Year:  2022        PMID: 35214619      PMCID: PMC8877145          DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10020160

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vaccines (Basel)        ISSN: 2076-393X


1. Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an upper respiratory tract infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 and has disrupted our daily lives since the end of 2019, leading to unprecedented global vaccination plans aiming to end the pandemic. Different vaccine platforms were approved for large-scale vaccination, such as inactivated virus vaccines (CoronaVac), viral vector vaccines (ChAdOx1nCoV-19 vaccine), mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 vaccine), subunit vaccines (S-Trimer vaccine), etc. [1,2,3,4]. With the emergence of the Omicron Variant (OV), vaccine breakthrough is a major concern. It was predicted that Omicron may be twice as likely to escape the current vaccine than the Delta variant (DV) [5], and a previous study conducted by our team demonstrated that the Omicron variant escapes neutralizing antibodies elicited by BNT162b2 or CoronaVac, which is worrying as none of the CoronaVac recipients had a detectable neutralizing antibody against OV, and the seroprotective rate among BNT162b2 recipients was below 25% [6]. The knowledge of whether a third booster dose can rescue the level of neutralizing antibodies against OV is vital in the global endeavor to end the pandemic. As the current available vaccines were developed based on SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus (WT), a heterologous prime-boost approach, using different combinations of COVID-19 vaccine candidates, was proposed. Such an approach was demonstrated to be effective in animal models and humans, and different combinations of vaccine platforms and sequences of the combinations demonstrated different effectiveness [7,8,9]. It is therefore hypothesized that using a combination of vaccine platforms, which present the same antigen of SARS-CoV-2 WT with different vector and adjuvants, may enhance protection against virus variants such as OV. The knowledge of safety and immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2 variants using a heterologous prime-boost approach will aid policy-making such as delivery of vaccines.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

This is a prospective cohort study performed in the Hong Kong West Cluster Hospitals under the Hospital Authority in Hong Kong. Twenty-three SARS-CoV-2 naïve healthy individuals who completed two doses of COVID-19 vaccine for at least 6 months were recruited and were given a booster vaccine dose (third dose) according to their preference. Their blood samples were collected before booster vaccination (baseline) and at least 3 days after the booster dose. In addition, 14 participants who had already received the booster dose for more than 3 days were also recruited and had their blood collected (Figure 1). All 37 recruited participants had no known history of COVID-19 infection. The study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Hong Kong and Hospital Authority (UW 21-214).
Figure 1

Procedure of the study. vMN: virus microneutralization assay; nAb: neutralizing antibody; WT: SARS-CoV-2 wild type; BV: SARS-CoV-2 Beta variant; DV: SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant; OV: SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.

2.2. Procedure

The nurse administered the vaccines as an intramuscular injection according to the participant’s choice. Recruited participants were then assigned to 4 groups based on the vaccine platforms of their prime dose and booster dose: participants primed with 2 doses of BNT162b2 and received 1 booster dose of IM BNT162b2 (0.3 mL) (B-B-B); participants primed with BNT162b2 (first dose) and CoronaVac (second dose) and received 1 booster dose of IM BNT162b2 (0.3 mL) (B-C-B); participants primed with 2 doses of CoronaVac and received 1 booster dose of IM CoronaVac (0.5 mL) (C-C-C); participants primed with 2 doses of CoronaVac and received 1 booster dose of IM BNT162b2 (0.3 mL) (C-C-B). CoronaVac (SinoVac Life Sciences, Beijing, China) is a purified inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate developed with CN2 strain of SARS-CoV-2 [10]. BNT162b2 is a mRNA vaccine candidates which encodes SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein [1]. Both vaccine candidates used in prime dose and booster dose were developed against the wild-type (WT) strain. Blood was taken from the participants before the booster dose (baseline) and at least 3 days post-vaccination for the antibody assay. As described by our previous study, live virus microneutralization assay (vMN) was performed in the Biosafety level 3 facility of HKU to determine the level of neutralizing antibody in sera [11]. Serial 2-fold dilutions of serum starting from 1:10 were incubated with 100 median tissue culture infectious doses (TCID50) or SARS-CoV-2 HKU-001a (wild type, GenBank accession number MT230904) strain (WT) [12], Beta variant (BV) (GISAID accession number: EPI_ISL_2423556), Delta variant (DV) (GISAID accession number: EPI_ISL_3221329) and Omicron variant (OV) (hCoV-19/Hong Kong/HKU-691/2021) [6] for 1.5 h at 37 °C. Then, a serum–virus mixture was added to VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells (JCRB Cell Bank Catalogue no. JCRB1819) on 96-well plates [13]. After 72 h of incubation at 37 °C and 5%CO2, the cytopathic effect (CPE) was examined and the antibody titre was determined by the highest dilution with 50% inhibition of CPE (Figure 1). To assess the safety and adverse events of the booster dose, participants were asked to record any adverse events for 7 days after vaccination.

2.3. Outcome

The primary endpoint of this study was the vMN geometric mean titre (GMT) against WT, BV, DV and OV. The secondary endpoints were GMT fold increase and safety. For safety, severe adverse events (SAEs) were defined as death, disabling or life-threatening conditions related to vaccine; adverse events include fever (>38 °C), chills, headache, tiredness, nausea, vomit, diarrhea, muscle pain, joint pain, facial dropping, skin rash or injection site reactions (pain, redness, swelling, ecchymoses, itching).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

A statistical inference of normally distributed continuous variables was performed using t-tests and one way ANOVA, including demographic parameters (age), GMT and GMT fold increase. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. When p < 0.05, the result was statistically significant. SPSS statistics (IBM Corp. Released 2020. IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp) and GraphPad PRISM 9(Version 9.3.1, for macOS, GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA, www.graphpad.com) were used for statistical computation.

3. Results

3.1. Subjects

Between November 2021 and December 2021, 37 SARS-CoV-2 naïve individuals who already received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine for at least 6 months or have recently received the third booster dose were recruited to the study. Recruited participants were assigned into four groups depending on the combination of vaccines they received: participants primed with two doses of BNT162b2 and one booster dose of BNT162b2 (B-B-B, n = 15, median age = 53 years); participants primed with BNT162b2 (first dose) and CoronaVac (second dose) who received one booster dose of BNT162b2 (B-C-B, n = 5, median age = 47 years); participants primed with two doses of CoronaVac who received one booster dose of CoronaVac (C-C-C, n = 9, median age = 58 years); participants primed with two doses of CoronaVac and who received one booster dose of BNT162b2 (C-C-B, n = 8, median age = 58.5 years). There was no statistically significant difference in age (p = 0.54), sex ratio (p = 0.888), comorbidities (p = 0.395) and number of days after the booster dose when the blood was sampled (p = 0.244) between all the groups (Table 1)
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of subjects.

B-B-B (n = 15)B-C-B (n = 5)C-C-C (n = 9)C-C-B (n = 8)p-Value
Age (Years)53 (26–76)47 (22–58)58 (31–64)58.5 (27–70)0.54
Sex 0.888
Male7 (46.7%)2 (40%)5 (55.6%)3 (37.5%)
Female8 (53.3%)3 (60%)4 (44.4%)5 (62.5%)
Comorbidities4 (26.7%)1 (20%)5 (55.6%)2 (25%)0.395
Date Post-3rd Dose (Days)14 (3–39)5 (5–7)14 (5–32)8 (4–29)0.2443

Data are median age (range) or n (%); B-B-B: participants primed with 2 doses of BNT162b2 and 1 booster dose of BNT162b2; B-C-B: participants primed with BNT162b2 (first dose) and CoronaVac (second dose), and received 1 booster dose of BNT162b2; C-C-C: participants primed with 2 doses of CoronaVac and received 1 booster dose of CoronaVac; C-C-B: participants primed with 2 doses of CoronaVac and received 1 booster dose of BNT162b2; Comorbidities: hypertension (HT), ischemic heart disease (IHD), diabetes mellitus (DM), stroke, chronic heart failure (CHF), malignancy, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and thyroid diseases. Median number of days post-third-dose vaccination (range).

3.2. Immunogenicity of Different Vaccine Combinations

The level of neutralizing antibody (nAb) in sera was determined by vMN. For SARS-CoV-2 wild type (WT) virus, sera from participants in the B-B-B group had a significantly higher level of antibody than the other groups (p = 0.046), after administration of the booster dose, B-B-B group (306, 95% CI, 154–608) and C-C-B group (207, 95% CI, 22.7–1893) had a significant higher Geometric mean titre (GMT) than C-C-C group (34.3, 95% CI, 16.3–72.1) (Figure 2a). The GMT fold increase was significantly higher in the B-B-B group (15.3, 95% CI, 7.14–32.7) and C-C-B group (36.1, 95% CI, 4.21–310). GMT level is also boosted in B-C-B group but is not significantly higher than C-C-C group (Table 2).
Figure 2

GMT titre of different vaccine combinations against SARS-CoV-2 variants at baseline and post booster vaccination. (a) Wild type; (b) Beta variant; (c) Delta variant; (d) Omicron variant; * = p < 0.05; ns = non-significant.

Table 2

Immunogenicity of different vaccine platform.

B-B-B (n = 15)B-C-B (n = 5)C-C-C (n = 9)C-C-B (n = 8)p-Value
WT
Baseline GMT 120 (10.8–37.1) 25.74 (3.91–8.44)7.94 (1.09–58) 35.74 (3.91–8.44) 40.046
Post-Booster GMT306 (154–608)106 (17.7–629)34.3 (16.3–72.1)207 (22.7–1893)0.058
GMT fold increase15.3 (7.14–32.7) 518.4 (2.84–119)4.32 (1.99–9.37) 536.1 (4.21–310) 50.012
BV
Baseline GMT18.7 (9.46–36.8) 25 (5–5)6.3 (2.33–17) 35 (5–5) 40.086
Post-Booster GMT175 (95–324)106 (25–446)18.5 (11.3–30.4)87.2 (14.5–523)0.148
GMT fold increase9.4 (5.77–15.3) 521.1 (5–89.1)2.94 (1.84–4.7) 517.4 (2.91–105) 50.026
DV
Baseline GMT13.2 (8.69–20) 25 (5–5)7.94 (1.09–58) 35 (5–5) 40.044
Post-Booster GMT184 (81.7–413)139 (21.9–900)20 (11.7–34.1)160 (17.5–1461)0.041
GMT fold increase13.9 (5.75–33.7) 527.9 (4.31–180)2.52 (1.36–4.66) 532 (3.5–292) 50.011
OV
Baseline GMT5 (5–5) 25 (5–5)5 (5–5) 35 (5–5) 4-
Post-Booster GMT27.6 (15–51)10 (2.25–44.4)5.83 (4.61–7.38)23.8 (6.45–87.7)0.077
GMT fold increase5.53 (2.99–10.2) 52 (0.45–8.88)1.17 (0.992–1.42) 54.76 (1.29–17.5) 50.077

1: data are mean value (95% CI); 2: n = 10, 10 participants recruited before booster dose; 3: n = 3, 3 participants recruited before booster dose; 4: n = 5, 5 participants recruited before booster dose; 5: baseline of participants without baseline is assumed to be the same as mean of those in the same group against that particular virus variant.

For vMN titre against Beta variant (BV), there was no significant difference in the baseline GMT level across the groups. After administration of booster dose, B-B-B group (175, 95% CI, 95–324) had a significant higher GMT level than C-C-C group (18.5, 95% CI, 11.3–30.4). The GMT level of B-C-B group (106, 95% CI, 25–446), C-C-B group (87.2, 95% CI, 14.5–523) was also elevated but was not significantly higher than the GMT level of the C-C-C group (Figure 2b). The GMT fold increase was also higher in the B-B-B group (9.4, 95% CI, 5.77–15.3), B-C-B group (21.1, 95% CI, 5–89.1) and C-C-B group (17.4, 95% CI, 2.91–105) (Table 2). Regarding immunity against the Delta variant (DV), there was some pre-existing nAb against the virus in sera of the B-B-B and C-C-C groups. After booster dose, the B-B-B group (184, 95% CI, 81.7–413) and C-C-B group (160, 95% CI, 17.5–1461) showed a significantly higher level of GMT than the C-C-C group (20, 95% CI, 11.7–34.1). There was also an elevated GMT level in the B-C-B group (139, 95% CI, 21.6–900) but it was not significantly higher than that of the C-C-C group (Figure 2c). The GMT fold increase was also higher for B-B-B group (13.9, 95% CI, 5.75–33.7), B-C-B group (27.9, 95% CI, 4.31–180) and the C-C-B group (32, 95% CI, 3.5–292) (Table 2). The immunogenicity of the booster dose against the Omicron variant (OV) is markedly reduced. For immunity against Omicron variant (OV), there was no pre-existing immunity in any of the group. After the booster dose, the GMT level was relatively higher in the B-B-B group (27.6, 95% CI, 15–51) and the C-C-B group (23.8, 95% CI, 6.45–87.7) than the C-C-C group (5.83, 95% CI, 4.61–7.38) and the B-C-B group (10, 95% CI, 2.25–44.4) (Figure 2d), but the GMT levels were non-comparable to the GMT levels against other variants. The 95% confidence interval of GMT levels from B-C-B group and C-C-C group overlaps with the baseline and is therefore considered non-significant. For GMT fold increase, B-B-B group (5.53, 95% CI, 2.99–10.2) and C-C-B group (4.76, 95% CI, 1.29–17.5) was shown to have some increase (p = 0.077) but not the B-C-B group and C-C-C group (Table 2).

3.3. Changes in GMT against OV Level after Booster Dose

In terms of changes in the vMN titre against the Omicron variant after booster dose, the GMT titre is 5 (95% CI, 5–5) at baseline, which raised to 9.52 (95% CI 4.76–19) at day 3–7, 26.4 (95% CI, 10.3–67.6) at day 8–14 and 23.5 (95% CI, 11.6–47.7) after day 14. Surprisingly, the GMT titre after day 14 was similar to that at day 8–14 (Figure 3). This may be due to small sample size and difference in participants characteristics, as participants included in the >D14 group is significantly older (Table A1).
Figure 3

vMN titre against Omicron variant after booster dose, all groups included; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.005; ns = non-significant.

3.4. Safety

Pain at the site of injection was the most common adverse events and there was no statistically significant difference between all the groups (p = 0.733). Other injection site reactions such as redness (p = 0.523), swelling (p = 0.560) were also reported. Interestingly, injection site itchiness was reported and was significantly higher in the B-C-B group (p = 0.037). Other common adverse events reported include headache (p = 0.063), tiredness (p = 0.763), muscle pain (p = 0.899) and joint pain (p = 0.483). Fever (p = 0.174), chills (p = 0.196) and diarrhea (p = 0.103) were reported in a few cases. There was no report of severe adverse events (Table 3).
Table 3

Adverse events.

B-B-B (n = 15)C-C-B (n = 6)C-C-C (n = 9)B-C-B (n = 5)p-Value
Fever0 (0%)1 (16.7%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0.174
Chills0 (0%)1 (16.7%)0 (0%)1 (20%)0.196
Headache2 (13.3%)3 (50%)0 (0%)2 (40%)0.063
Tiredness6 (40%)3 (50%)4 (44.4%)1 (20%)0.763
Nausea0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)-
Vomiting0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)-
Diarrhea0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)1 (20%)0.103
Muscle Pain4 (26.7%)2 (33.3%)2 (22.2%)2 (40%)0.899
Joint Pain2 (13.3%)2 (33.3%)2 (22.2%)0 (0%)0.483
Facial Dropping0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)-
Skin Rash0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)-
SAE 10 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)-
Injection Site Reaction
Pain12 (80%)5 (83.3%)7 (77.8%)5 (100%)0.733
Redness1 (6.67%)1 (16.7%)0 (0%)1 (20%)0.523
Swelling3 (20%)1 (16.7%)0 (0%)1 (20%)0.560
Ecchymoses0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0 (0%)-
Itching2 (13.3%)1 (16.7%)0 (0%)3 (60%)0.037

1: SAE: Severe adverse event, vaccine-related undesired events including death, disability or life-threatening conditions.

4. Discussion

Recent emergence of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 has raised great concern about vaccine efficacy, as evidenced by reduced neutralization titers from sera collected from COVID-19 vaccine recipients [6], leading to a call for updated vaccines and booster doses [14,15]. However, it takes time for new vaccines to be developed. Therefore, enhancing immunity against the Omicron variant using currently approved vaccines is critical to controlling the casualty caused by this new variant of concern (VOC). A heterologous prime-boost vaccine strategy was adopted in vaccines against different pathogens, such as HIV. It was suggested that a heterologous prime-boost strategy is more immunogenic than homologous prime boost [16]. For COVID-19 vaccines, a recently published review paper concludes that such strategy using vaccines of different platforms shows improved immunogenicity and flexibility profiles for future vaccination in time of global shortage of vaccines [17]. The immunogenicity and safety of booster dose was studied in individuals who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 vaccines and was shown to be effective in boosting antibody and neutralizing responses with no safety concern [9]. Regarding vaccine-induced immunity against the Omicron variant, it was demonstrated that individuals who received two doses of inactivated vaccine (CoronaVac) can benefit both from a booster dose of heterologous protein subunit vaccine and a booster dose of homologous inactivated vaccine [18]. Our team have previously demonstrated that for SARS-CoV-2 naïve individuals primed with two doses of inactivated vaccines (CoronaVac), a booster dose of mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) offers more potent neutralizing activity against the Delta variant compared to using inactivated vaccine as a booster dose [19]. Similarly, our current study shows that a heterologous prime-boost strategy with mRNA vaccine as the booster dose in individuals previously primed with inactivated vaccines can induce a more potent immune response against SARS-CoV-2 variants, including OV. A mRNA booster dose can also offer protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants in individuals primed with mRNA vaccines. One possible explanation could be that mRNA vaccines lead to more focused CD4 and CD8 T-cells stimulation against the spike protein, while inactivated vaccine induces a response that is more diffuse, targeting multiple different proteins, as BNT162b2 vaccine presented the spike proteins as the only antigen while CoronaVac presented the whole virus [1,10,20]. A local study from Hong Kong demonstrated that mRNA vaccine induced a higher level of neutralizing antibody against SARS-CoV-2 compared to inactivated vaccine [21]. In addition, there were also studies suggesting that BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine can induce some broad cross-reactivity antibodies [22]. Therefore, it is proposed that mRNA vaccines can be considered for booster dose to better enhance the neutralizing activity against Omicron variant. As shown in this study, individuals who received two doses of inactivated vaccine and an inactivated booster dose had a less potent immune response against virus variants; therefore, these individuals may consider receiving a mRNA booster dose for better protection against virus variants. In terms of safety, our study shows that there were no statistically significant differences in terms of side effects between different combinations of vaccines except for itchiness, suggesting that a heterologous prime-boost vaccines strategy has a similar safety profile compared to a homologous prime-boost vaccine strategy, and is well tolerated. The limitation of this study is the small sample size, which lead to wide 95% confidence intervals of GMT. In addition, some of the patients were recruited after they received the booster dose and their baseline neutralizing antibody level before vaccination was lacking. For future work, cellular immunity induced by a heterologous prime-boost strategy should be evaluated, and the recruited patients should also be followed up to monitor the changes in neutralizing antibody level in long term.

5. Conclusions

Our study found that a heterologous prime-boost approach using one booster dose of mRNA vaccine (booster dose) can enhance protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants, including wild type, Beta variant, Delta variant and Omicron variant. Although the response against Omicron variant (OV) is less potent compared to other variants, recipients of the third booster dose vaccine can still benefit from it. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that combination of vaccine platforms can be a potential vaccine strategy against emergence of virus variants.
Table A1

Baseline Characteristics of Subjects by time point assessed.

Baseline (n = 23)Day 3–Day 7 (N = 14)Day 8–Day 14 (n = 10)Day 14 or After (n = 13)p-Value
Age (Years)53 (22–70)49.5 (22–64)57.5 (24–70)64 (31–76)0.045
Sex 0.513
Male9 (39.1%)5 (35.7%)4 (40%)8 (61.5%)
Female14 (60.9%)9 (64.3%)6 (60%)5 (38.5%)
Comorbidities5 (21.7%)4 (28.6%)3 (30%)6 (46.2%)0.498

Data are median age (range) or n (%); Baseline: blood sampled before booster dose; Day 3–Day 7: Blood sampled 3–7 days after booster dose; Day 8–Day 14: Blood sampled 8–14 days after booster dose; Day 14 or after: blood sampled more than 14 days after booster dose; Comorbidities: hypertension (HT), ischemic heart disease (IHD), diabetes mellitus (DM), stroke, chronic heart failure (CHF), malignancy, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and thyroid diseases; Mean number of days post-3rd-dose vaccination (range).

  22 in total

Review 1.  Heterologous prime-boost vaccination.

Authors:  Shan Lu
Journal:  Curr Opin Immunol       Date:  2009-06-06       Impact factor: 7.486

2.  Safety and immunogenicity of S-Trimer (SCB-2019), a protein subunit vaccine candidate for COVID-19 in healthy adults: a phase 1, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Authors:  Peter Richmond; Lara Hatchuel; Min Dong; Brenda Ma; Branda Hu; Igor Smolenov; Ping Li; Peng Liang; Htay Htay Han; Joshua Liang; Ralf Clemens
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Omicron variant showed lower neutralizing sensitivity than other SARS-CoV-2 variants to immune sera elicited by vaccines after boost.

Authors:  Jingwen Ai; Haocheng Zhang; Yi Zhang; Ke Lin; Yanliang Zhang; Jing Wu; Yanming Wan; Yanfang Huang; Jieyu Song; Zhangfan Fu; Hongyu Wang; Jingxin Guo; Ning Jiang; Mingxiang Fan; Yang Zhou; Yuanhan Zhao; Qiran Zhang; Qiang Liu; Jing Lv; Peiyao Li; Chao Qiu; Wenhong Zhang
Journal:  Emerg Microbes Infect       Date:  2022-12       Impact factor: 7.163

4.  Omicron Variant (B.1.1.529): Infectivity, Vaccine Breakthrough, and Antibody Resistance.

Authors:  Jiahui Chen; Rui Wang; Nancy Benovich Gilby; Guo-Wei Wei
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 4.956

5.  Safety and immunogenicity of seven COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose (booster) following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK (COV-BOOST): a blinded, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

Authors:  Alasdair P S Munro; Leila Janani; Victoria Cornelius; Parvinder K Aley; Gavin Babbage; David Baxter; Marcin Bula; Katrina Cathie; Krishna Chatterjee; Kate Dodd; Yvanne Enever; Karishma Gokani; Anna L Goodman; Christopher A Green; Linda Harndahl; John Haughney; Alexander Hicks; Agatha A van der Klaauw; Jonathan Kwok; Teresa Lambe; Vincenzo Libri; Martin J Llewelyn; Alastair C McGregor; Angela M Minassian; Patrick Moore; Mehmood Mughal; Yama F Mujadidi; Jennifer Murira; Orod Osanlou; Rostam Osanlou; Daniel R Owens; Mihaela Pacurar; Adrian Palfreeman; Daniel Pan; Tommy Rampling; Karen Regan; Stephen Saich; Jo Salkeld; Dinesh Saralaya; Sunil Sharma; Ray Sheridan; Ann Sturdy; Emma C Thomson; Shirley Todd; Chris Twelves; Robert C Read; Sue Charlton; Bassam Hallis; Mary Ramsay; Nick Andrews; Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam; Matthew D Snape; Xinxue Liu; Saul N Faust
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 202.731

6.  Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Variant-Associated Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) Mutations on the Susceptibility to Serum Antibodies Elicited by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Infection or Vaccination.

Authors:  Lin-Lei Chen; Lu Lu; Charlotte Yee-Ki Choi; Jian-Piao Cai; Hoi-Wah Tsoi; Allen Wing-Ho Chu; Jonathan Daniel Ip; Wan-Mui Chan; Ricky Ruiqi Zhang; Xiaojuan Zhang; Anthony Raymond Tam; Daphne Pui-Ling Lau; Wing-Kin To; Tak-Lun Que; Cyril Chik-Yan Yip; Kwok-Hung Chan; Vincent Chi-Chung Cheng; Kwok-Yung Yuen; Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung; Kelvin Kai-Wang To
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  Heterologous prime-boost: breaking the protective immune response bottleneck of COVID-19 vaccine candidates.

Authors:  Qian He; Qunying Mao; Chaoqiang An; Jialu Zhang; Fan Gao; Lianlian Bian; Changgui Li; Zhenglun Liang; Miao Xu; Junzhi Wang
Journal:  Emerg Microbes Infect       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 7.163

8.  The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variant (Omicron) and increasing calls for COVID-19 vaccine boosters-The debate continues.

Authors:  Naushad Ahmad Khan; Hassan Al-Thani; Ayman El-Menyar
Journal:  Travel Med Infect Dis       Date:  2021-12-21       Impact factor: 6.211

9.  Comparative immunogenicity of mRNA and inactivated vaccines against COVID-19.

Authors:  Wey Wen Lim; Loretta Mak; Gabriel M Leung; Benjamin J Cowling; Malik Peiris
Journal:  Lancet Microbe       Date:  2021-07-16
View more
  17 in total

1.  Kinetics of the Neutralizing and Spike SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies following the Sinovac Inactivated Virus Vaccine Compared to the Pfizer mRNA Vaccine in Singapore.

Authors:  Chin Shern Lau; May Lin Helen Oh; Soon Kieng Phua; Ya Li Liang; Yanfeng Li; Jianxin Huo; Yuhan Huang; Biyan Zhang; Shengli Xu; Tar Choon Aw
Journal:  Antibodies (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-27

2.  SARS-CoV-2 Omicron: Light at the End of the Long Pandemic Tunnel or Another False Dawn for Immunodeficient Patients?

Authors:  Rohan Ameratunga; Euphemia Leung; See-Tarn Woon; Lydia Chan; Richard Steele; Klaus Lehnert; Hilary Longhurst
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract       Date:  2022-06-22

3.  Serum neutralisation of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron sublineage BA.2.

Authors:  Lin-Lei Chen; Allen Wing-Ho Chu; Ricky Rui-Qi Zhang; Ivan Fan-Ngai Hung; Kelvin Kai-Wang To
Journal:  Lancet Microbe       Date:  2022-03-28

Review 4.  The Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Variants With a Lower Antibody Response: A Genomic and Clinical Perspective.

Authors:  Suvro Biswas; Shafi Mahmud; Mohasana Akter Mita; Shamima Afrose; Md Robiul Hasan; Gobindo Kumar Paul; Mst Sharmin Sultana Shimu; Md Salah Uddin; Shahriar Zaman; Moon Nyeo Park; Abolghasem Siyadatpanah; Ahmad J Obaidullah; Md Abu Saleh; Jesus Simal-Gandara; Bonglee Kim
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-05-06

5.  Association of neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 with inoculation orders of heterologous prime-boost vaccines.

Authors:  Yufang Zhu; Yingying Lu; Caili Zhou; Gangling Tong; Manman Gao; Yan Zhan; Yan Wang; Ran Liang; Yawei Li; Tianjiao Gao; Li Wang; Muyun Zhang; Jin Cheng; Jun Gong; Jimin Wang; Wei Zhang; Junhua Qi; Miao Cui; Longchao Zhu; Fenglian Xiao; Linyu Zhu; Yunsheng Xu; Zhihua Zheng; Zhiyu Zhou; Zhengjiang Cheng; Peng Hong
Journal:  Med (N Y)       Date:  2022-06-09

6.  Impact of a delayed second dose of mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) and inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (CoronaVac) on risks of all-cause mortality, emergency department visit, and unscheduled hospitalization.

Authors:  Carlos King Ho Wong; Xi Xiong; Kristy Tsz Kwan Lau; Celine Sze Ling Chui; Francisco Tsz Tsun Lai; Xue Li; Esther Wai Yin Chan; Eric Yuk Fai Wan; Ivan Chi Ho Au; Benjamin John Cowling; Cheuk Kwong Lee; Ian Chi Kei Wong
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 8.775

7.  COVID-19 vaccine booster strategy: striving for best practice.

Authors:  Mine Durusu Tanriover; Murat Akova
Journal:  Lancet Glob Health       Date:  2022-04-23       Impact factor: 38.927

8.  Booster dose of BNT162b2 after two doses of CoronaVac improves neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.

Authors:  Guilherme R F Campos; Nathalie Bonatti Franco Almeida; Priscilla Soares Filgueiras; Camila Amormino Corsini; Sarah Vieira Contin Gomes; Daniel Alvim Pena de Miranda; Jéssica Vieira de Assis; Thaís Bárbara de Souza Silva; Pedro Augusto Alves; Gabriel da Rocha Fernandes; Jaquelline Germano de Oliveira; Paula Rahal; Rafaella Fortini Queiroz Grenfell; Maurício L Nogueira
Journal:  Commun Med (Lond)       Date:  2022-06-29

9.  Potential Antiviral Activity of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum KAU007 against Influenza Virus H1N1.

Authors:  Irfan A Rather; Majid Rasool Kamli; Jamal S M Sabir; Bilal Ahmad Paray
Journal:  Vaccines (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-16

10.  VSV-Based Vaccines Reduce Virus Shedding and Viral Load in Hamsters Infected with SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern.

Authors:  Kyle L O'Donnell; Tylisha Gourdine; Paige Fletcher; Kyle Shifflett; Wakako Furuyama; Chad S Clancy; Andrea Marzi
Journal:  Vaccines (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.