Virus World

Highlights

Summary

Background: Epidemiological evidence for immune imprinting was investigated in immune histories related to vaccination in Qatar from onset of the omicron wave, on December 19, 2021, through September 15, 2022.

Methods: Matched, retrospective, cohort studies were conducted to investigate differences in incidence of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in the national cohort of persons who had a primary omicron infection, but different vaccination histories. History of primary-series (two-dose) vaccination was compared to that of no vaccination, history of booster (three-dose) vaccination was compared to that of two-dose vaccination, and history of booster vaccination was compared to that of no vaccination. Associations were estimated using Cox proportional-hazards regression models.

Results: The adjusted hazard ratio comparing incidence of reinfection in the two-dose cohort to that in the unvaccinated cohort was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.38-0.48). The adjusted hazard ratio comparing incidence of reinfection in the three-dose cohort to that in the two-dose cohort was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.16-1.65). The adjusted hazard ratio comparing incidence of reinfection in the three-dose cohort to that in the unvaccinated cohort was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.44-0.63). All adjusted hazard ratios appeared stable over 6 months of follow-up. Divergence in cumulative incidence curves in all comparisons increased markedly when incidence was dominated by BA.4/BA.5 and BA.2.75*. No reinfection in any cohort progressed to severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19.

Conclusions: History of primary-series vaccination enhanced immune protection against omicron reinfection, but history of booster vaccination compromised protection against omicron reinfection. These findings do not undermine the short-term public health utility of booster vaccination.

Preprint in medRxiv (Nov. 1, 2022):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.31.22281756 

With the aim of broadening immune responses against the evolving SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants, bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that encode the ancestral and Omicron BA.5 spike proteins have been authorized for clinical use, supplanting the original monovalent counterpart in numerous countries. However, recent studies have demonstrated that administering either a monovalent or bivalent vaccine as a fourth vaccine dose results in similar neutralizing antibody titers against the latest Omicron subvariants, raising the possibility of immunological imprinting. Utilizing binding immunoassays, pseudotyped virus neutralization assays, and antigenic mapping, we investigated antibody responses from 72 participants who received three monovalent mRNA vaccine doses followed by either a bivalent or monovalent booster, or who experienced breakthrough infections with the BA.5 or BQ subvariant after vaccinations with an original monovalent vaccine.

Compared to a monovalent booster, the bivalent booster did not yield noticeably higher binding titers to D614G, BA.5, and BQ.1.1 spike proteins, nor higher virus-neutralizing titers against SARS-CoV-2 variants including the predominant XBB.1.5 and the emergent XBB.1.16. However, sera from breakthrough infection cohorts neutralized Omicron subvariants significantly better. Multiple analyses of these results, including antigenic mapping, made clear that inclusion of the ancestral spike prevents the broadening of antibodies to the BA.5 component in the bivalent vaccine, thereby defeating its intended goal. Our findings suggest that the ancestral spike in the current bivalent COVID-19 vaccine is the cause of deep immunological imprinting. Its removal from future vaccine compositions is therefore strongly recommended.bioRxiv - the preprint server for biology, operated by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a research and educational institution

Preprint available (May 4, 2023) in bioRxiv:

 https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.03.539268