Differences in lipid nanoparticle packaging may be a factor (though of course dosage and dose interval timing may also play roles here). mRNA-1273 appears to promote greater Fc-functional antibody response, which may not be as compromised as neutralising antibodies are when a dominant VOC is usurped by a new VOC (since Fc can target the whole surface of the spike antigen). It also appears to promote higher IgA, which as previously highlighted (#1660), potentially contributes to shutting down infection, as well as increased natural killer T-cell and phagocyte levels, which are also both key components of the innate response.Although no difference in neutralizing activity has been reported across the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, differences were observed across the two platforms in this study, both in terms of isotype or subclass and in terms of Fc functions [...] elevated concentrations of IgA were noted following mRNA-1273, accompanied by higher antibody dependent neutrophil phagocytosis and antibody dependent natural killer activity.
* an attenuated vaccine of a poxvirus.While spike continues to accumulate mutations, the nucleocapsid (N) protein remains significantly more conserved among betacoronaviruses. It is a major structural protein and induces potent T cell responses during natural infection. For these reasons, it is an attractive target for induction of broadly-active T cells. Additionally, T cells can also provide localized protection in the respiratory mucosa so enhancing mucosal immunity could also prevent new infections by destroying incoming virions before they can replicate, reduce disease severity via local antiviral effects in the lower respiratory tract, and stop transmission by damaging virions prior to exhalation.
These results showed that improved MVA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccine delivered intramuscularly elicits strong spike-specific antibody response with diverse functions and T-cell responses to spike and N, which contribute to protective immunity against homologous and heterologous SARS-CoV-2 variants. They also highlight the potential of MVA/dFCS-N vaccine as the initial or booster vaccine against future emerging variants.
DOI:10.1038/s41591-022-01816-0.Unvaccinated individuals infected with pre-VOC SARS-CoV-2 had lower infectious VL compared to Delta-infected unvaccinated individuals. Full vaccination (defined as >2weeks after reception of 2nd dose during primary vaccination series) significantly reduced infectious VL for Delta breakthrough cases compared to unvaccinated individuals. For Omicron breakthrough cases, reduced infectious VL was only observed in boosted but not in fully vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated subjects. In addition, infectious VL was lower in fully vaccinated Omicron- compared to fully vaccinated Delta-infected individuals, suggesting that other mechanisms than increased infectious VL contribute to the high infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron. Our findings indicate that vaccines may lower transmission risk and therefore have a public health benefit beyond the individual protection from severe disease.
Am I interpreting that graph correctly if I conclude that vaccination reduces transmission significantly but not dramatically? Or does that log scale on the Y axis mean that the difference is actually quite dramatic?(UniGe) A study of both unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals measuring infectious viral loads (by in vitro culturability assay) during the first five days of symptomatic infection (early-type, delta and omicron).
Finally, we have a clear indication that number of infectious particles produced in infected persons is significantly lower in vaccinees (vaccines not only reduce risk of severe disease but also risk of transmission). Also that genome copies (PCR Ct values) are not correlated with those numbers of infectious particles.
In more detail:
DOI:10.1038/s41591-022-01816-0.
You've probably answered your own question but here are a couple of quotes from the full paper that might help. My bold:Am I interpreting that graph correctly if I conclude that vaccination reduces transmission significantly but not dramatically? Or does that log scale on the Y axis mean that the difference is actually quite dramatic?
The decrease in infectious VL was even more pronounced in vaccinated patients (4.78 fold, 0.68 log10, p<0.0001)
Omicron breakthrough infections in fully vaccinated patients resulted in similar genome copies compared to Delta, but significantly lower infectious VLs (14 fold, 1.146 log10, p<0.0001)
a significantly lower infectious VL, but not RNA VL, was observed for boosted individuals (5.3 fold, 0.7280 log10, p=0.0004)
In this work, we present an in-depth analysis of the population-level impact of the different elements of the booster campaign on epidemic outcomes. We developed a transmission model that incorporates the waning of vaccine-induced immunity and its buildup after boosting. The model accounts for vaccine and booster administration per age group at a daily resolution and is calibrated using real-world data from Israel in the period from July 1st to November 25th 2021. The model was fitted to time series of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed cases in 10-year age groups and different vaccination states. We used the calibrated model to study the impact of the booster campaign by quantifying the outcomes of counter-factual scenarios such as the application of alternative boosting campaigns in which boosting is restricted to specific age groups or in which the timing of the booster campaign is modified.
This study also indicates that the timing of booster campaigns is critical during exponential phases of infection growth.The results point to the vast benefits of vaccinating younger age groups that are not at a high risk of developing severe disease but play an important role in transmission.
Preprint - DOI:10.1101/2022.04.15.22273711.(AHRI/UKwaZulu-Natal) In a small South African study (N=18) of beta/B.1.351 convalescent vaccinees a ~69x increase in omicron neutralisation was observed (live virus neutralisation assay). This compared to results from an earlier study*, by the same group, where they saw a (typically) ~20x drop in vaccinees' omicron neutralisation where prior infection was due to delta.
[...]
DOI: pending
DOI:10.1101/2022.03.31.486548The single dose Ad.26.COV.2 (Janssen) vaccine elicits lower levels of neutralizing antibodies and shows more limited efficacy in protection against infection than either of the available mRNA vaccines. [...] The data help explain why boosting Ad.26.COV.2 vaccine recipients with mRNA vaccines is effective, and why the Janssen vaccine appears to have been less protective against severe disease during the Omicron surge than the mRNA vaccine.
DOI:10.1101/2022.04.08.487674.Together, these data support the idea that the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine induces a complex immune response consisting of robust and polyfunctional CD4+ T cells producing Th1-type cytokines as well as a rapid cTFH cell response capable of supporting a substantial neutralizing antibody response, as well as a modest CD8+ T cell response in a subset of donors. Overall, these data show that NVX-CoV2373 induces a relatively broad humoral and cellular immune response against SARS-CoV-2 in humans, and might demonstrate distinctive long-term behavior relative to mRNA vaccines.
Interesting new results from Moderna which would appear to corroborate the above work by Sigal (AHRI) on beta/omicron antigenic history.(AHRI/UKwaZulu-Natal) In a small South African study (N=18) of beta/B.1.351 convalescent vaccinees a ~69x increase in omicron neutralisation was observed (live virus neutralisation assay).
[...]
Finally, this work underlines how antigenic exposure history leads to heterogeneity in outcomes, and it might indicate that a second-generation vaccine expressing beta-spike may have utility in tackling omicron lineages.
DOI: 10.1101/2022.04.15.22273711.
So is my son, and we had been wondering why Covid just seems not to be able to infect him. Most interesting.Ooh ooh ooh I'm on this one already
Asthma drug can block crucial SARS-CoV-2 protein
Montelukast, an FDA-approved drug, can bind strongly to and block the activity of a SARS-CoV-2 protein called Nsp1www.eurekalert.org
With thanks to whoever on here recommended it - it is good for clearing airways.
Our 5 and 10 year old had the pediatric Pfizer, which is 1/3rd of the dose of the adult one. I think that's what they're supposed to get.I'm a bit confused about the vaccines they are giving to kids. The NHS site says that 5-15 year olds will get the Pfizer. There is a link on their page that takes you to the information leaflet which clearly states that the Pfizer is not suitable for under 12s.
My 11yo had the Pfizer but the governments own documentation says she shouldn't. Can anyone explain? elbows 2hats
I see. Still a bit odd that they state it's not suitable. It should say that the full dose isn't suitable surely.Our 5 and 10 year old had the pediatric Pfizer, which is 1/3rd of the dose of the adult one. I think that's what they're supposed to get.
Initially, the COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech was supplied in the UK on a temporary basis under Regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012, but this was always intended to be a temporary arrangement. Supply of the vaccine is now in accordance with the conditional Marketing Authorisation (CMA) with all remaining Regulation 174 stocks expiring at the end of February 2022.
Do you know who we could contact to get this fixed? Because as I've just said in my previous post, its actually a worse situation than them linking to the current 12+ version, they are actually linking to the old regulation 174 one which doesnt have the language about dose sizes & age.The link to the PIL on this NHS page under the title "Which COVID-19 vaccine will children get?" points to a HTML version of the 12+ leaflet on GOV.UK, whereas it should probably point to a copy of the 5-11 leaflet.