Superior immunogenicity of mRNA over adenoviral vectored COVID-19 vaccines reflects B cell dynamics independent of anti-vector immunity: Implications for future pandemic vaccines.

Both vector and mRNA vaccines were an important part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may be required in future outbreaks and pandemics. The aim of this study was to validate whether immunogenicity differs for adenoviral vectored (AdV) versus mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, and to investigate how anti-vector immunity and B cell dynamics modulate immunogenicity. We enrolled SARS-CoV-2 infection-naïve health care workers who had received two doses of either AdV AZD1222 (n = 184) or mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine (n = 274) between April and October 2021. Blood was collected at least once, 10-48 days after vaccine dose 2 for antibody and B cell analyses. Median ages were 42 and 39 years, for AdV and mRNA vaccinees, respectively. Surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and spike binding antibody titres were a median of 4.2 and 2.2 times lower, respectively, for AdV compared to mRNA vaccinees (p < 0.001). Median percentages of memory B cells that recognized fluorescent-tagged spike and RBD were 2.9 and 8.3 times lower, respectively for AdV compared to mRNA vaccinees. Titres of IgG reactive with human adenovirus type 5 hexon protein rose a median of 2.2-fold after AdV vaccination but were not correlated with anti-spike antibody titres. Together the results show that mRNA induced substantially more sVNT antibody than AdV vaccine, which reflected greater B cell expansion and targeting of the RBD rather than an attenuating effect of anti-vector antibodies. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05110911.

Comparative B cell and antibody responses induced by adenoviral vectored and mRNA vaccines against COVID-19.

Both vector and mRNA vaccines were an important part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may be required in future outbreaks and pandemics. However, adenoviral vectored (AdV) vaccines may be less immunogenic than mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. We assessed anti-spike and anti-vector immunity among infection-naïve Health Care Workers (HCW) following two doses of AdV (AZD1222) versus mRNA (BNT162b2) vaccine. 183 AdV and 274 mRNA vaccinees enrolled between April and October 2021. Median ages were 42 and 39 years, respectively. Blood was collected at least once, 10-48 days after vaccine dose 2. Surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and spike binding antibody titres were a median of 4.2 and 2.2 times lower, respectively, for AdV compared to mRNA vaccinees (p<0.001). Median percentages of memory B cells that recognized fluorescent-tagged spike and RBD were 2.9 and 8.3 times lower, respectively for AdV compared to mRNA vaccinees. Titres of IgG reactive with human Adenovirus type 5 hexon protein rose a median of 2.2-fold after AdV vaccination but were not correlated with anti-spike antibody titres. Together the results show that mRNA induced substantially more sVNT antibody than AdV vaccine due to greater B cell expansion and targeting of the RBD. Pre-existing AdV vector cross-reactive antibodies were boosted following AdV vaccination but had no detectable effect on immunogenicity.

The clinical indications for testing women for Mycoplasma genitalium.

BACKGROUND: While the contribution of Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) to symptoms in men is well described, less is known about its association with common genital symptoms in women. We aimed to determine the prevalence of MG and macrolide resistance, and its association with common genital symptoms in women attending a sexual health service, to inform indications for testing and clinical practice. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional study of symptomatic and asymptomatic women attending Melbourne Sexual Health Centre (MSHC), between April 2017 and April 2019. Women were tested for MG and macrolide resistance, Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis, bacterial vaginosis and vulvovaginal candidiasis. Women completed a questionnaire on symptoms, and symptomatic women underwent examination. The prevalence of MG (and macrolide resistance) and other genital infections was calculated with 95% CIs, and associations between these outcomes and specific genital symptoms were examined using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 1318 women, 83 (6%, 95% CI: 5% to 8%) had MG, of which 39 (48%, 95% CI: 36% to 59%) had macrolide-resistant MG; 103 (8%, 95% CI: 6% to 9%) women had CT. MG prevalence was similar in asymptomatic (10 of 195; 5%) and symptomatic (73 of 1108; 7%) women, p=0.506. MG was associated with mucopurulent cervicitis on examination (adjusted OR=4.38, 95% CI: 1.69 to 11.33, p=0.002), but was not associated with other specific genital symptoms or signs. CONCLUSIONS: MG was as common as CT among women attending MSHC. MG was not associated with genital symptoms, but like CT, was significantly associated with cervicitis. These data provide evidence that routine testing for MG in women with common genital symptoms is not indicated. The presence of macrolide resistance in 48% of women supports use of resistance-guided therapy.

"It's just an issue and you deal with it you just deal with it, you move on and you do it together.": Men's experiences of bacterial vaginosis and the acceptability of male partner treatment.

Bacterial vaginosis (BV) is a common vaginal infection among women of reproductive age. Increasing evidence suggests BV may be sexually transmitted indicating a potential role for the treatment of sexual partners. If partner treatment reduces BV recurrence in women, real-world success will depend on sexual partners' willingness to accept it. However, a lack of data exists on the acceptability of partner treatment among sexual partners, and no data exists on male partners' experience of BV specifically. The aim of this study was to explore male partners' views and experience of BV and their attitudes toward associated partner treatment. A social constructionist approach informed the framework of this study. Semi structured interviews were conducted with eleven men who participated in a BV partner treatment trial. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. In the absence of symptoms in themselves, BV had little impact on men beyond their concerns for their partner's health and self-esteem. Acceptance of treatment was largely a demonstration of care and support. While all participants had accepted treatment, men surmised the primary reasons other men may reject treatment as being: if they felt BV had "nothing to do with them", which was related to not wanting to be viewed as having a 'problem' and exacerbated by norms of masculinity and STI-related stigma; lack of a diagnostic test to indicate if a male "had BV"; and a casual or less established relationship. Men's attitudes to BV and partner treatment were primarily influenced by the nature of their relationships. The ambiguous aetiology of BV appears to attenuate STI related stigma and questions of infidelity.