Evaluation of a group-based online informed consent conversation (eConsent) in participants from a low-risk vaccination clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Electronic informed consent (eConsent) usage has expanded in recent years in Europe, especially during the pandemic. Slow recruitment rate and limitations in participant outreach are the challenges often faced in clinical research. Given the benefits of eConsent and group counselling reported in the literature, group eConsent was implemented in recruitment for the SWITCH-ON study. We aim to explore the experience of participants who attended group eConsent for the SWITCH-ON study and evaluate its potential for future use. METHODS: SWITCH-ON study aims to analyse the immunogenicity of a healthy population following bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination. Four hundred thirty-four healthcare workers aged 18-65 were successfully recruited and sent a questionnaire about their experience with group eConsent. Out of 399 completed questionnaires (response rate 92%), 39 participants did not join group eConsent. The remaining 360 responses were included in the final analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were reported using descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis respectively. RESULTS: Participants found that group eConsent was an efficient method that it allowed them to hear each other's questions and concerns and created a sense of togetherness. However, limited privacy, barriers to asking questions in a group, and peer pressure can limit the use of group eConsent. One hundred sixty-five (46%) participants thought that group eConsent was suitable to recruit participants with diseases or conditions, while 87 (24%) reported limitations with this method. The remaining participants suggested that applicability of group eConsent depended on the diseases or conditions of the study population, and one-to-one conversation should always be available. Participants who had experienced both one-to-one and group eConsent shared different preferred consent formats for future studies. CONCLUSION: Group eConsent was positively evaluated by the participants of a low-risk vaccination study. Participants advised using webinars to provide general information about the study, followed by an individual session for each participant, would retain the benefits of group eConsent and minimise the limitations it posed. This proposed setting addresses privacy questions and makes group eConsent easier to implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05471440 (registered on 22nd of July, 2022).

Immunogenicity of a bivalent BA.1 COVID-19 booster vaccine in people with HIV in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the immunogenicity of a bivalent BA.1 COVID-19 booster vaccine in people with HIV (PWH). DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. METHODS: PWH aged ≥45 years received Wuhan-BA.1 mRNA-1273.214 and those <45 years Wuhan-BA.1 BNT162b2. Participants were propensity score-matched 1 : 2 to people without HIV (non-PWH) by age, primary vaccine platform (mRNA-based or vector-based), number of prior COVID-19 boosters and SARS-CoV-2 infections, and spike (S1)-specific antibodies on the day of booster administration. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of ancestral S1-specific antibodies from day 0 to 28 in PWH compared to non-PWH. Secondary endpoints included humoral responses, T-cell responses and cytokine responses up to 180 days post-vaccination. RESULTS: Forty PWH received mRNA-1273.214 ( N  = 35) or BNT162b2 ( N  = 5) following mRNA-based ( N  = 29) or vector-based ( N  = 11) primary vaccination. PWH were predominantly male (87% vs. 26% of non-PWH) and median 57 years [interquartile range (IQR) 53-59]. Their median CD4 + T-cell count was 775 (IQR 511-965) and the plasma HIV-RNA load was <50 copies/ml in 39/40. The GMR of S1-specific antibodies by 28 days post-vaccination was comparable between PWH [4.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.24-6.19] and non-PWH (4.07, 95% CI 3.42-4.83). S1-specific antibody responses were comparable between PWH and non-PWH up to 180 days, and T-cell responses up to 90 days post-vaccination. Interferon-γ, interleukin (IL)-2, and IL-4 cytokine concentrations increased 28 days post-vaccination in PWH. CONCLUSION: A bivalent BA.1 booster vaccine was immunogenic in well treated PWH, eliciting comparable humoral responses to non-PWH. However, T-cell responses waned faster after 90 days in PWH compared to non-PWH.

Fourth dose bivalent COVID-19 vaccines outperform monovalent boosters in eliciting cross-reactive memory B cells to Omicron subvariants.

Bivalent COVID-19 vaccines comprising ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 (WH1) and the Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 subvariant elicit enhanced serum antibody responses to emerging Omicron subvariants. Here, we characterized the RBD-specific memory B cell (Bmem) response following a fourth dose with a BA.1 or BA.5 bivalent vaccine, in direct comparison with a WH1 monovalent fourth dose. Healthcare workers previously immunized with mRNA or adenoviral vector monovalent vaccines were sampled before and one month after a fourth dose with a monovalent or a BA.1 or BA.5 bivalent vaccine. Serum neutralizing antibodies (NAb) were quantified, as well as RBD-specific Bmem with an in-depth spectral flow cytometry panel including recombinant RBD proteins of the WH1, BA.1, BA.5, BQ.1.1, and XBB.1.5 variants. Both bivalent vaccines elicited higher NAb titers against Omicron subvariants compared to the monovalent vaccine. Following either vaccine type, recipients had slightly increased WH1 RBD-specific Bmem numbers. Both bivalent vaccines significantly increased WH1 RBD-specific Bmem binding of all Omicron subvariants tested by flow cytometry, while recognition of Omicron subvariants was not enhanced following monovalent vaccination. IgG1+ Bmem dominated the response, with substantial IgG4+ Bmem only detected in recipients of an mRNA vaccine for their primary dose. Thus, Omicron-based bivalent vaccines can significantly boost NAb and Bmem specific for ancestral WH1 and Omicron variants and improve recognition of descendent subvariants by pre-existing, WH1-specific Bmem beyond that of a monovalent vaccine. This provides new insights into the capacity of variant-based mRNA booster vaccines to improve immune memory against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and potentially protect against severe disease. ONE-SENTENCE SUMMARY: Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent COVID-19 boosters, used as a fourth dose, increase RBD-specific Bmem cross-recognition of Omicron subvariants, both those encoded by the vaccines and antigenically distinct subvariants, further than a monovalent booster.

Original COVID-19 priming regimen impacts the immunogenicity of bivalent BA.1 and BA.5 boosters.

Waning antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination combined with the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron lineage led to reduced vaccine effectiveness. As a countermeasure, bivalent mRNA-based booster vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein in combination with that of Omicron BA.1 or BA.5 were introduced. Since then, different BA.2-descendent lineages have become dominant, such as XBB.1.5, JN.1, or EG.5.1. Here, we report post-hoc analyses of data from the SWITCH-ON study, assessing how different COVID-19 priming regimens affect the immunogenicity of bivalent booster vaccinations and breakthrough infections (NCT05471440). BA.1 and BA.5 bivalent vaccines boosted neutralizing antibodies and T-cells up to 3 months after boost; however, cross-neutralization of XBB.1.5 was poor. Interestingly, different combinations of prime-boost regimens induced divergent responses: participants primed with Ad26.COV2.S developed lower binding antibody levels after bivalent boost while neutralization and T-cell responses were similar to mRNA-based primed participants. In contrast, the breadth of neutralization was higher in mRNA-primed and bivalent BA.5 boosted participants. Combined, our data further support the current use of monovalent vaccines based on circulating strains when vaccinating risk groups, as recently recommended by the WHO. We emphasize the importance of the continuous assessment of immune responses targeting circulating variants to guide future COVID-19 vaccination policies.

Immunogenicity of bivalent omicron (BA.1) booster vaccination after different priming regimens in health-care workers in the Netherlands (SWITCH ON): results from the direct boost group of an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines encoding the ancestral and omicron spike (S) protein were developed as a countermeasure against antigenically distinct SARS-CoV-2 variants. We aimed to assess the (variant-specific) immunogenicity and reactogenicity of mRNA-based bivalent omicron (BA.1) vaccines in individuals who were primed with adenovirus-based or mRNA-based vaccines encoding the ancestral spike protein. METHODS: We analysed results of the direct boost group of the SWITCH ON study, an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Health-care workers from four academic hospitals in the Netherlands aged 18-65 years who had completed a primary COVID-19 vaccination regimen and received one booster of an mRNA-based vaccine, given no later than 3 months previously, were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using computer software in block sizes of 16 and 24 to receive an omicron BA.1 bivalent booster straight away (direct boost group) or a bivalent omicron BA.5 booster, postponed for 90 days (postponed boost group), stratified by priming regimen. The BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 boost was given to participants younger than 45 years, and the mRNA-1273.214 boost was given to participants 45 years or older, as per Dutch guidelines. The direct boost group, whose results are presented here, were divided into four subgroups for analysis: (1) Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) prime and BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 (BioNTech-Pfizer) boost (Ad/P), (2) mRNA-based prime and BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 boost (mRNA/P), (3) Ad26.COV2.S prime and mRNA-1273.214 (Moderna) boost (Ad/M), and (4) mRNA-based prime and mRNA-1273.214 boost (mRNA/M). The primary outcome was fold change in S protein S1 subunit-specific IgG antibodies before and 28 days after booster vaccination. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in all participants except those who withdrew, had a SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection, or had a missing blood sample at day 0 or day 28. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05471440. FINDINGS: Between Sept 2 and Oct 4, 2022, 219 (50%) of 434 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the direct boost group; 187 participants were included in the primary analyses; exclusions were mainly due to SARS-CoV-2 infection between days 0 and 28. From the 187 included participants, 138 (74%) were female and 49 (26%) were male. 42 (22%) of 187 participants received Ad/P and 44 (24%) mRNA/P (those aged <45 years), and 45 (24%) had received Ad/M and 56 (30%) mRNA/M (those aged ≥45 years). S1-specific binding antibody concentrations increased 7 days after bivalent booster vaccination and remained stable over 28 days in all four subgroups (geometric mean ratio [GMR] between day 0 and day 28 was 1·15 [95% CI 1·12-1·19] for the Ad/P group, 1·17 [1·14-1·20] for the mRNA/P group, 1·20 [1·17-1·23] for the Ad/M group, and 1·16 [1·13-1·19] for the mRNA/M group). We observed no significant difference in the GMR between the Ad/P and mRNA/P groups (p=0·51). The GMR appeared to be higher in the Ad/M group than in the mRNA/M group, but was not significant (p=0·073). Most side-effects were mild to moderate in severity and resolved within 48 h in most individuals. INTERPRETATION: Booster vaccination with mRNA-1273.214 or BNT162b2 OMI BA.1 in adult healthcare workers resulted in a rapid recall of humoral and cellular immune responses independent of the priming regimen. Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 immunity at the population level, and simultaneously antigenic drift at the virus level, remains crucial to assess the necessity and timing of COVID-19 variant-specific booster vaccinations. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).

Analyzing the immunogenicity of bivalent booster vaccinations in healthcare workers: The SWITCH ON trial protocol.

Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has contributed greatly to providing protection against severe disease, thereby reducing hospital admissions and deaths. Several studies have reported reduction in vaccine effectiveness over time against the Omicron sub-lineages. However, the willingness to receive regular booster doses in the general population is declining. To determine the need for repeated booster vaccinations in healthy individuals and to aid policymakers in future public health interventions for COVID-19, we aim to gain insight into the immunogenicity of the additional bivalent booster vaccination in a representative sample of the healthy Dutch population. The SWITCH ON study was initiated to investigate three main topics: i) immunogenicity of bivalent vaccines after priming with adenovirus- or mRNA-based vaccines, ii) immunological recall responses and reactivity with relevant variants after booster vaccination, and iii) the necessity of booster vaccinations for the healthy population in the future. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT05471440.