RESUMO
Vaccination remains an important mitigation tool against COVID-19. We report 1-month safety and preliminary immunogenicity data from a substudy of an ongoing, open-label, phase 2/3 study of monovalent Omicron XBB.1.5-adapted BNT162b2 (single 30-µg dose). Healthy participants ≥12 years old (N = 412 (12-17 years, N = 30; 18-55 years, N = 174; >55 years, N = 208)) who previously received ≥3 doses of a US-authorized mRNA vaccine, the most recent being an Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine ≥150 days before study vaccination, were vaccinated. Serum 50% neutralizing titers against Omicron XBB.1.5, EG.5.1, and BA.2.86 were measured 7 days and 1 month after vaccination in a subset of ≥18-year-olds (N = 40) who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. Seven-day immunogenicity was also evaluated in a matched group who received bivalent BA.4/BA.5-adapted BNT162b2 in a previous study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05472038). There were no new safety signals; local reactions and systemic events were mostly mild to moderate in severity, adverse events were infrequent, and none led to study withdrawal. The XBB.1.5-adapted BNT162b2 induced numerically higher titers against Omicron XBB.1.5, EG.5.1, and BA.2.86 than BA.4/BA.5-adapted BNT162b2 at 7 days and robust neutralizing responses to all three sublineages at 1 month. These data support a favorable benefit-risk profile of XBB.1.5-adapted BNT162b2 30 µg. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05997290.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The emergence of immune-escape variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 warrants the use of sequence-adapted vaccines to provide protection against coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: In an ongoing phase 3 trial, adults older than 55 years who had previously received three 30-µg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine were randomly assigned to receive 30 µg or 60 µg of BNT162b2, 30 µg or 60 µg of monovalent B.1.1.529 (omicron) BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 (monovalent BA.1), or 30 µg (15 µg of BNT162b2 + 15 µg of monovalent BA.1) or 60 µg (30 µg of BNT162b2 + 30 µg of monovalent BA.1) of BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 (bivalent BA.1). Primary objectives were to determine superiority (with respect to 50% neutralizing titer [NT50] against BA.1) and noninferiority (with respect to seroresponse) of the BA.1-adapted vaccines to BNT162b2 (30 µg). A secondary objective was to determine noninferiority of bivalent BA.1 to BNT162b2 (30 µg) with respect to neutralizing activity against the ancestral strain. Exploratory analyses assessed immune responses against omicron BA.4, BA.5, and BA.2.75 subvariants. RESULTS: A total of 1846 participants underwent randomization. At 1 month after vaccination, bivalent BA.1 (30 µg and 60 µg) and monovalent BA.1 (60 µg) showed neutralizing activity against BA.1 superior to that of BNT162b2 (30 µg), with NT50 geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of 1.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17 to 2.08), 1.97 (95% CI, 1.45 to 2.68), and 3.15 (95% CI, 2.38 to 4.16), respectively. Bivalent BA.1 (both doses) and monovalent BA.1 (60 µg) were also noninferior to BNT162b2 (30 µg) with respect to seroresponse against BA.1; between-group differences ranged from 10.9 to 29.1 percentage points. Bivalent BA.1 (either dose) was noninferior to BNT162b2 (30 µg) with respect to neutralizing activity against the ancestral strain, with NT50 GMRs of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.20) and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.58), respectively. BA.4-BA.5 and BA.2.75 neutralizing titers were numerically higher with 30-µg bivalent BA.1 than with 30-µg BNT162b2. The safety profile of either dose of monovalent or bivalent BA.1 was similar to that of BNT162b2 (30 µg). Adverse events were more common in the 30-µg monovalent-BA.1 (8.5%) and 60-µg bivalent-BA.1 (10.4%) groups than in the other groups (3.6 to 6.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The candidate monovalent or bivalent omicron BA.1-adapted vaccines had a safety profile similar to that of BNT162b2 (30 µg), induced substantial neutralizing responses against ancestral and omicron BA.1 strains, and, to a lesser extent, neutralized BA.4, BA.5, and BA.2.75 strains. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.).
Assuntos
Vacina BNT162 , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinas Combinadas , Humanos , Anticorpos Neutralizantes/imunologia , Anticorpos Antivirais/imunologia , Vacina BNT162/efeitos adversos , Vacina BNT162/imunologia , Vacina BNT162/uso terapêutico , COVID-19/genética , COVID-19/imunologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/virologia , SARS-CoV-2/efeitos dos fármacos , SARS-CoV-2/genética , SARS-CoV-2/imunologia , Vacinação , Vacinas Combinadas/uso terapêutico , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
A 23-year-old male with a history of previous abdominal surgery was involved in a road traffic accident. He was discharged after initial assessment but represented several days with small bowel obstruction secondary to a mesenteric haematoma. He underwent resection and recovered well but represented later on the day of discharge with a leaking surgical wound consistent with an enterocutaneous fistula. This was managed conservatively and closed spontaneously after ten days. This case serves to highlight that adhesions from previous surgery can tether the small bowel causing mesenteric injury following blunt-force trauma. It also demonstrates that postoperative ileus can result in an enterocutaneous fistula that has the appearance of an anastomotic breakdown but which resolves more rapidly.