SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine ElicitsSustained T Cell Responses Against the Omicron Variant in Adolescents

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been acknowledged as an effective mean of preventing infection and hospitalization.However, the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) has led to substantial increase in infections among children and adolescents. Vaccineinduced immunity and longevity have not been well defined in this population. Therefore, we aimed to analyze humoral and cellular immune responses against ancestral and SARSCoV-2 variants after two shots of the BNT162b2 vaccine in healthy adolescents. Although vaccination induced a robust increase of spike-specific binding Abs and neutralizing Abs against the ancestral and SARS-CoV-2 variants, the neutralizing activity against the Omicron variant was significantly low. On the contrary, vaccine-induced memory CD4+ T cells exhibited substantial responses against both ancestral and Omicron spike proteins.Notably, CD4+ T cell responses against both ancestral and Omicron strains were preserved at 3 months after two shots of the BNT162b2 vaccine without waning. Polyfunctionality of vaccine-induced memory T cells was also preserved in response to Omicron spike protein.The present findings characterize the protective immunity of vaccination for adolescents in the era of continuous emergence of variants/subvariants.

Loss of Neutralizing Activity of Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab (Evusheld™) Against Omicron BN.1, a Dominant Circulating Strain Following BA.5During the Seventh Domestic Outbreak in Korea in Early 2023

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab is a monoclonal antibody used to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 among immunocompromised hosts and maintained neutralizing activity against early omicron variants. Omicron BN.1 became a dominant circulating strain in Korea early 2023, but its susceptibility to tixagevimab/cilgavimab is unclear. We conducted plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) against BN.1 in a prospective cohort (14 patients and 30 specimens). BN.1 PRNT was conducted for one- and three-months after tixagevimab/ cilgavimab administration and the average PRNT ND 50 of each point was lower than the positive cut-off value of 20 (12.9 ± 4.5 and 13.2 ± 4.2, respectively, P = 0.825). In the paired analyses, tixagevimab/cilgavimab-administered sera could not actively neutralize BN.1 (PRNT ND 50 11.5 ± 2.9, P = 0.001), compared with the reserved activity against BA.5 (ND 50 310.5 ± 180.4). Unlike virus-like particle assay, tixagevimab/cilgavimab was not active against BN.1 in neutralizing assay, and would not be effective in the present predominance of BA.2.75 sublineages.