SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Neutralization After Heterologous Vaccine Boosting

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

As part of an ongoing study assessing homologous and heterologous booster vaccines, following primary EUA series, we assessed neutralization of D614G and Omicron variants prior to and 28 days after boost. Subset analysis was done in six combinations (N = 10/group): four homologous primary-booster combinations included mRNA-1273 two-dose priming followed by boosting with 100-μg or 50-μg mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S single-dose priming followed by Ad26.COV2.S booster and BNT162b2 two-dose priming followed by BNT162b2 boosting; and two heterologous primary-booster combinations: BNT162b2 followed by Ad26.COV2.S and Ad26.COV2.S followed by BNT162b2. Neutralizing antibody (Nab) titers to D614G on the day of boost (baseline) were detected in 85-100% of participants, with geometric mean titers (GMT) of 71-343 in participants who received an mRNA vaccine series versus GMTs of 35-41 in participants primed with Ad26.OV2.S. Baseline NAb titers to Omicron were detected in 50-90% of participants who received an mRNA vaccine series (GMT range 12.8-24.5) versus 20-25% among participants primed with Ad26.COV2.S. The booster dose increased the neutralizing GMT in most combinations to above 1000 for D614G and above 250 for Omicron by Day 29. Homologous prime-boost Ad26.COV2.S had the lowest NAb on Day 29 (D614G GMT 128 and Omicron GMT 45). Results were similar between age groups. Most homologous and heterologous boost combinations examined will increase humoral immunity to the Omicron variant.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.13.22268861: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04889209RecruitingDelayed Heterologous SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Dosing (Boost) After…


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.