Antibody responses to Omicron BA.4/BA.5 bivalent mRNA vaccine booster shot

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and its numerous sub-lineages have exhibited a striking ability to evade humoral immune responses induced by prior vaccination or infection. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) to new bivalent formulations of the original Moderna and Pfizer mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that target both the ancestral strain as well as the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 variant. Despite their widespread use as a vaccine boost, little is known about the antibody responses induced in humans. Here, we collected sera from several clinical cohorts: individuals after three or four doses of the original monovalent mRNA vaccines, individuals receiving the new bivalent vaccines as a fourth dose, and individuals with BA.4/BA.5 breakthrough infection following mRNA vaccination. Using pseudovirus neutralization assays, these sera were tested for neutralization against an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain, several Omicron sub-lineages, and several related sarbecoviruses. At ~3-5 weeks post booster shot, individuals who received a fourth vaccine dose with a bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting BA.4/BA.5 had similar neutralizing antibody titers as those receiving a fourth monovalent mRNA vaccine against all SARS-CoV-2 variants tested, including BA.4/BA.5. Those who received a fourth monovalent vaccine dose had a slightly higher neutralizing antibody titers than those who received the bivalent vaccine against three related sarbecoviruses: SARS-CoV, GD-Pangolin, and WIV1. When given as a fourth dose, a bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting Omicron BA.4/BA.5 and an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain did not induce superior neutralizing antibody responses in humans, at the time period tested, compared to the original monovalent vaccine formulation.

Reduction in risk of death among patients admitted with COVID-19 between first and second epidemic waves in New York City

Many regions have experienced successive epidemic waves of COVID-19 since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 with heterogeneous differences in mortality. Elucidating factors differentially associated with mortality between epidemic waves may inform clinical and public health strategies. We examined clinical and demographic data among patients admitted with COVID-19 during the first (March-June 2020) and second (December 2020-March 2021) epidemic waves at an academic medical center in New York City. Hospitalized patients (N=4631) had lower mortality during the second wave (14%) than the first (23%). Patients in the second wave had a lower 30-day mortality (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.52, 95% CI 0.44, 0.61) than those in the first wave. The mortality decrease persisted after adjusting for confounders except for the volume of COVID-19 admissions (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70, 1.11), a measure of health system strain. Several demographic and clinical patient factors were associated with an increased risk of mortality independent of wave. Article summaryUsing clinical and demographic data from COVID-19 hospitalizations at a tertiary New York City medical center, we show that a reduction in mortality during the second epidemic wave was associated with decreased strain on healthcare resources.

Randomized controlled trial transfusing convalescent plasma as post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection

BACKGROUNDThe efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. We hypothesized that CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. METHODSThis double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer ([≥]1:320) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged [≥]18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19 in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was development of SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity at screening. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14.8%) CCP and 13/87 (14.9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7.4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. There were 28 adverse events in CCP and 58 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25.3 vs. 25.2 days; p=0.49) and COVID-19 (26.3 vs. 25.9 days; p=0.35) were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONIn this trial, which enrolled persons with recent exposure to a person with confirmed COVID-19, high titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis appeared safe, but did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial RegistrationClinicaltrial.gov number NCT04323800.