Timing and sequence of vaccination against COVID-19 and influenza (TACTIC): a single-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial.

Background: Novel mRNA-based vaccines have been used to protect against SARS-CoV-2, especially in vulnerable populations who also receive an annual influenza vaccination. The TACTIC study investigated potential immune interference between the mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccine and the quadrivalent influenza vaccine, and determined if concurrent administration would have effects on safety or immunogenicity. Methods: TACTIC was a single-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted at the Radboud University Medical Centre, the Netherlands. Individuals ≥60 years, fully vaccinated against COVID-19 were eligible for participation and randomized into one of four study groups: 1) 0.5 ml influenza vaccination Vaxigrip Tetra followed by 0.3 ml BNT162b2 COVID-19 booster vaccination 21 days later, (2) COVID-19 booster vaccination followed by influenza vaccination, (3) influenza vaccination concurrent with the COVID-19 booster vaccination, and (4) COVID-19 booster vaccination only (reference group). Primary outcome was the geometric mean concentration (GMC) of IgG against the spike (S)-protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, 21 days after booster vaccination. We performed a non-inferiority analysis of concurrent administration compared to booster vaccines alone with a predefined non-inferiority margin of -0.3 on the log10-scale. Findings: 154 individuals participated from October, 4, 2021, until November, 5, 2021. Anti-S IgG GMCs for the co-administration and reference group were 1684 BAU/ml and 2435 BAU/ml, respectively. Concurrent vaccination did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (estimate -0.1791, 95% CI -0.3680 to -0.009831) and antibodies showed significantly lower neutralization capacity compared to the reference group. Reported side-effects were mild and did not differ between study groups. Interpretation: Concurrent administration of both vaccines is safe, but the quantitative and functional antibody responses were marginally lower compared to booster vaccination alone. Lower protection against COVID-19 with concurrent administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccination cannot be excluded, although additional larger studies would be required to confirm this. Trial registration number: EudraCT: 2021-002186-17. Funding: The study was supported by the ZonMw COVID-19 Programme.

The RECOVAC Immune-response Study: The Immunogenicity, Tolerability, and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease, on Dialysis, or Living With a Kidney Transplant.

BACKGROUND: In kidney patients COVID-19 is associated with severely increased morbidity and mortality. A comprehensive comparison of the immunogenicity, tolerability, and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in different cohorts of kidney patients and a control cohort is lacking. METHODS: This investigator driven, prospective, controlled multicenter study included 162 participants with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages G4/5 (eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73m2), 159 participants on dialysis, 288 kidney transplant recipients, and 191 controls. Participants received 2 doses of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine (Moderna). The primary endpoint was seroconversion. RESULTS: Transplant recipients had a significantly lower seroconversion rate when compared with controls (56.9% versus 100%, P < 0.001), with especially mycophenolic acid, but also, higher age, lower lymphocyte concentration, lower eGFR, and shorter time after transplantation being associated with nonresponder state. Transplant recipients also showed significantly lower titers of neutralizing antibodies and T-cell responses when compared with controls. Although a high seroconversion rate was observed for participants with CKD G4/5 (100%) and on dialysis (99.4%), mean antibody concentrations in the CKD G4/5 cohort and dialysis cohort were lower than in controls (2405 [interquartile interval 1287-4524] and 1650 [698-3024] versus 3186 [1896-4911] BAU/mL, P = 0.06 and P < 0.001, respectively). Dialysis patients and especially kidney transplant recipients experienced less systemic vaccination related adverse events. No specific safety issues were noted. CONCLUSIONS: The immune response following vaccination in patients with CKD G4/5 and on dialysis is almost comparable to controls. In contrast, kidney transplant recipients have a poor response. In this latter, patient group development of alternative vaccination strategies are warranted.

SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern partially escape humoral but not T-cell responses in COVID-19 convalescent donors and vaccinees.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants harboring mutations in the spike (S) protein has raised concern about potential immune escape. Here, we studied humoral and cellular immune responses to wild type SARS-CoV-2 and the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants of concern in a cohort of 121 BNT162b2 mRNA-vaccinated health care workers (HCW). Twenty-three HCW recovered from mild COVID-19 disease and exhibited a recall response with high levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific functional antibodies and virus-specific T cells after a single vaccination. Specific immune responses were also detected in seronegative HCW after one vaccination, but a second dose was required to reach high levels of functional antibodies and cellular immune responses in all individuals. Vaccination-induced antibodies cross-neutralized the variants B.1.1.7 and B.1.351, but the neutralizing capacity and Fc-mediated functionality against B.1.351 was consistently 2- to 4-fold lower than to the homologous virus. In addition, peripheral blood mononuclear cells were stimulated with peptide pools spanning the mutated S regions of B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 to detect cross-reactivity of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells with variants. Importantly, we observed no differences in CD4+ T-cell activation in response to variant antigens, indicating that the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 S proteins do not escape T-cell-mediated immunity elicited by the wild type S protein. In conclusion, this study shows that some variants can partially escape humoral immunity induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection or BNT162b2 vaccination, but S-specific CD4+ T-cell activation is not affected by the mutations in the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants.

Temporal Dynamics of VEGFA-Induced VEGFR2/FAK Co-Localization Depend on SHB.

Focal adhesion kinase (FAK) is essential for vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGFA)/VEGF receptor-2 (VEGFR2)-stimulated angiogenesis and vascular permeability. We have previously noted that presence of the Src homology-2 domain adapter protein B (SHB) is of relevance for VEGFA-stimulated angiogenesis in a FAK-dependent manner. The current study was conducted in order address the temporal dynamics of co-localization between these components in HEK293 and primary lung endothelial cells (EC) by total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy (TIRF). An early (<2.5 min) VEGFA-induced increase in VEGFR2 co-localization with SHB was dependent on tyrosine 1175 in VEGFR2. VEGFA also enhanced SHB co-localization with FAK. FAK co-localization with VEGFR2 was dependent on SHB since it was significantly lower in SHB deficient EC after VEGFA addition. Absence of SHB also resulted in a gradual decline of VEGFR2 co-localization with FAK under basal (prior to VEGFA addition) conditions. A similar basal response was observed with expression of the Y1175F-VEGFR2 mutant in wild type EC. The distribution of focal adhesions in SHB-deficient EC was altered with a primarily perinuclear location. These live cell data implicate SHB as a key component regulating FAK activity in response to VEGFA/VEGFR2.