Heterogeneity in vaccinal immunity to SARS-CoV-2 can be addressed by a personalized booster strategy

Madison Stoddard, Lin Yuan, Sharanya Sarkar, Shruthi Mangalaganesh, Ryan P. Nolan, Dean Bottino, Greg Hather, Natasha S. Hochberg, Laura F. White, Arijit Chakravarty
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.30.22279397

Abstract

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has placed an unprecedented burden on global health. Crucial for managing this burden, the existing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have substantially reduced the risk of severe disease and death up to this point. The induction of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) by these vaccines leads to protection against both infection and severe disease. However, pharmacokinetic (PK) waning and rapid viral evolution degrade neutralizing antibody binding titers, leading to a rapid loss of vaccinal protection against infection occurring on the order of months after vaccination. Additionally, inter-individual heterogeneity in the strength and durability of the vaccine-induced neutralizing response to SARS-CoV-2 can create a further public-health risk by placing a subset of the population at risk. Here we incorporate the heterogeneity in inter-individual response into a pharmacokinetic/ pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model to project the degree of heterogeneity in immune protection. We extend our model-based approach to examine the impact of evolutionary immune evasion on vaccinal protection. Our findings suggest that viral evolution can be expected to impact the effectiveness of vaccinal protection against severe disease, particularly for individuals with a shorter duration of immune response. One possible solution to immune heterogeneity may be more frequent boosting for individuals with a weaker immune response. We demonstrate a model-based approach to targeted boosting that involves the use of the ECLIA RBD assay to identify individuals whose immune response is insufficient for protection against severe disease. Our work suggests that vaccinal protection against severe disease is not assured and provides a path forward to reducing the risk to immunologically vulnerable individuals.

Introduction

The rapid development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was an unprecedented achievement of modern science. Early reports suggested a high degree of vaccinal efficacy in preventing symptomatic disease [1–3], implying that the vaccines were effective at limiting transmission. This high level of vaccinal efficacy against infection raised the hope that the vaccines could be used to achieve herd immunity. However, this hope was soon undermined by waning antibody titers [4–7] and viral immune evasion [8–11], which predictably [12,13] led to rapid declines in vaccinal efficacy against infection [14,15].

At this point, a substantial body of evidence points to neutralizing antibody titers as a correlate of immune protection [16–18]. In a definitive meta-analysis, neutralizing antibody titers normalized to the mean convalescent titer (from the same study) demonstrated a strong nonlinear relationship that was predictive of reported vaccinal protection across a range of different vaccines [19]. The authors found a neutralizing antibody dose-response relationship between nAb titers and protection against infection, and a second dose-response relationship linking nAb titers to protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes. This relationship has held up across a range of studies [20,21], retaining strong predictive power even in the face of newly emerging variants [22–26]. Concomitant with waning neutralizing antibody titers and viral immune evasion, a number of studies have demonstrated a loss of vaccinal efficacy against severe disease (VEs) [27–30], contradicting a commonly held perception [31,32] that the observed durability of T-cell responses [33–35] would lead to prolonged vaccinal protection against severe disease.

In addition to population-level waning in nAb titers, there is significant inter-individual variation in the strength and durability of the nAb response [36–38]. In previous work, we have quantified this inter-individual heterogeneity by applying a mixed-effects modeling approach to published data characterizing SARS-CoV-2 nAb titers after time following infection [39]. Our results found a wide range of half-lives, with a 95% population interval ranging from 33-320 days. This wide range has significant implications for public-health strategy, as the existence of a subset of individuals who potentially lose immunological protection within a short span of time after infection also raises questions about the breadth and durability of vaccinal protection.

To explore this question in more depth, we use a population PK modeling approach to quantify the population heterogeneity in the durability of the nAb response as a result of vaccination. We then coupled this with the PK/PD dose-response relationships linking nAb titers to protection from mild and severe disease, in order to project the population-level heterogeneity. We examine population heterogeneity in vaccinal protection over time and in response to viral immune evasion. We further formulate and then evaluate a potential strategy for limiting risk for the vulnerable population based on the use of a personalized vaccine booster strategy.

Results

Population pharmacokinetic modeling of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinal immunity

We fitted a two-stage population mixed-effects model to nAb expansion and decay after vaccination. The selected model provides a good fit to nAb kinetics after the second vaccine dose based on the consistency of the observed data with the prediction intervals obtained from the model (Figure 1A). The model provides adequate estimation of population median and variation in all parameters (Table 1). We determined that there is a moderate correlation between Tin and kp. No significant correlations are observed between the initial nAb titer upon administration of the second vaccine dose and any of the model parameters. Additionally, there is no significant correlation between model parameters and age group either (Figure S1).

View this table:
Table 1.

Parameter values for fitted nAb kinetics model with standard errors (SE) and relative standard error (RSE).

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

Visual predictive check (VPC) of nAb kinetics model fit with the 90% prediction intervals. The blue dots represent the observed clinical nAb kinetics data [4]. The red line represents the empirical 50th percentile and the blue lines represent the empirical 10th and 90th percentiles. The shaded regions represent the model’s 90% prediction intervals for the 50th percentile (pink) and 10th and 90th percentiles (blue). The empirical percentiles fall within the model’s prediction intervals, indicating good model agreement with the data.

The model was further validated by verifying agreement between the fitted parameter distributions and individual estimates and performing normality checks for random effects and residuals (Figures S2 - S4). We also note that the median half-life of nAbs significantly exceeds the median half-life of IgG antibodies (64 days vs 45 days, p = 0.005, Figure S5), which is consistent with affinity maturation occurring following vaccination.

Peak nAb titer and half-life are heterogeneous in the general population

The population PK model reveals broad population heterogeneity in peak nAb titer and nAb half-life within the general (non-immunocompromised) population. The mean half-life for nAbs is 75 days (Figure 2A). For the mean, this translates to 29-fold waning of nAb titer one year after vaccination. In the upper 90th percentile, the half-life is 127 days, implying 7.3-fold waning per year. However, the lower 10th percentile has only a 36-day nAb half-life and experiences 1100-fold waning yearly. The mean peak nAb titer after vaccination is 469 (IC50), which is 4.4-fold of the mean convalescent plasma titer after infection (Figure 2B). The 90th percentile for peak titer is 787 (IC50) (7.4-fold convalescent titer), and the 10th percentile is 193 (IC50) (1.8-fold convalescent titer).

Figure 2:
Figure 2:

A. Distribution of model-fitted individual nAb half-lives in the study population after vaccination. B. Distribution of peak neutralizing titers after vaccination.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 nAbs wane after vaccination, with broad interindividual variability

In a model-simulated population, the heterogeneity in individual nAb PK parameters results in differences in nAb titers and persistence over time since infection (Figure 3). For individuals in the 50th percentile, nAb titers are maintained above the peak convalescent level for about 4 months after vaccination. For the 10th percentile, peak vaccine titers exceed the peak convalescent titer for 2 months, while for the 90th percentile, vaccine titers remain above this threshold for approximately 10 months.

Figure 3:
Figure 3:

Pseudovirus neutralization titer over time by percentile. Titer is normalized to the mean peak convalescent level after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Variability in antibody persistence translates to functional differences in protection

Based on the simulated nAb kinetics, we estimated vaccine protection over time against COVID-19. As shown in Figure 4, vaccine protection over time varies based on differences in nAb PK. Protection from wild-type (WT) symptomatic (mild) disease (VEm) ranges from near-complete at the 90th percentile to 90% in the 10th percentile immediately after vaccination. As time progresses after vaccination, the variation increases – six months after the second dose, the 10th percentile receives only 30% WT VEm, while the 90th percentile retains 90% protection. Over this time interval, the population mean WT VEm wanes from 94% to 67%. Across the board, protection from WT severe disease (VEs) is higher and more persistent than VEm (Figure 4A). VEs is near-complete across the population immediately after vaccination, and wanes to 75% after 6-months in the 10th percentile. However, the mean VEs for the population against WT remains 90% at 6 months. Thus, clinically significant differences in long-term vaccine efficacy are expected in the immunocompetent population, with potentially deadly consequences for those with poor nAb persistence.

Figure 4:
Figure 4:

Protection from mild (left) and severe (right) COVID-19 by percentile over time since the second dose of the two-dose Moderna vaccination primary series. Protection is assessed for A. Wild type, B. Delta, C. Omicron.

Immune evasion reduces vaccinal protection from severe disease

Although protection from severe disease remains relatively high throughout the population in the first 6 months after vaccination, immune-evading variants erode this protection, posing the risk of a rapidly-changing vaccinal immunity landscape as viral evolution continues. In Figure 4B, we demonstrate the challenge for vaccines when the more transmissible and modestly immune-evading delta variant emerged [40]. The mean VEm disease immediately after vaccination dropped from about 94% to just over 80%. Although mean protection from delta severe disease is greater than 95% on average shortly after vaccination, it wanes more quickly than WT protection, reaching 80% after 6 months. Individuals with weaker vaccinal immunity are most impacted, with the 10th percentile experiencing less than 50% delta VEm 6 months after vaccination.

The strongly immune-evading omicron variant has had an even greater impact on vaccine efficacy (Figure 4C). On average, recently vaccinated individuals are conferred less than 30% protection from symptomatic omicron infections and 70% protection from severe disease. For the 10th percentile, however, protection from omicron is minimal even shortly after vaccination – less than 20% against mild disease and approximately 55% against severe disease. Six months after vaccination, protection is poor across most of the population: virtually no one is expected to retain more than 30% protection from symptomatic omicron, while the mean and median levels of protection from severe omicron dip below 40%.

Immune evasion erodes vaccine protection across the population

In Figure 5, we explore the relationship between degree of immune evasion – the fold-loss of nAb titer against an immune evading variant compared to the WT virus – and vaccine efficacy. Although mild disease is most impacted by immune evasion, severe disease protection is also predicted to be eroded, especially for strongly immune-evading variants. For example, a 7.5-fold loss of titer is expected to drop VEm to 50% at three months post-vaccination, while a 50.8-fold loss of titer would reduce the median VEs to 50% at three months.

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Protection from mild and severe disease at 3-months post vaccination as a function of immune evasion. Immune evasion is expressed as the fold-loss of vaccine serum titer against an immune-evading variant compared to WT pseudovirus.

Model-based optimization of targeted booster doses

This analysis suggests that nAb waning and potency loss due to immune evasion contribute to substantial losses of protection over time, both from mild and severe disease. This waning is compounded by poorly persistent vaccinal immunity in a significant proportion of the immunocompetent population. Frequent revaccination resulting in boosting of titers is a potential solution to waning immunity and potentially immune evasion. Our results suggest that the optimal revaccination frequency may vary among individuals based on nAb PK. As nAb titer must be assessed by a live viral or pseudoviral assay, it is challenging to evaluate in a healthcare setting. In Figure 6, we demonstrate that RBD-binding IgG titer is a strong predictor of nAb titer above the level required for 90% protection from severe disease. For example, an optimized RBD-binding IgG titer can predict 90% protection from severe disease with 93% sensitivity and 72% specificity (Figure 6A). Thus, this more readily assessed metric could be used to identify patients with poor vaccinal protection who are good candidates for early revaccination.

Figure 6:
Figure 6:

A. Scatter plot demonstrating correlation between RBD-binding titer and neutralizing titer. The red horizontal line represents the threshold for 90% protection from WT severe disease; vertical line represents a chosen threshold for targeted revaccination screening based on RBD-binding titer. B. ROC analysis on the dataset in panel A demonstrates that ECLIA RBD binding can predict whether vaccine protection is sufficient to provide 90% protection from severe disease. Red point represents the chosen threshold with 93% sensitivity and 72% specificity.

Discussion

In this work, we have used a population PK/PD modeling approach to interrogate the impact of inter-individual heterogeneity on the degree and duration of vaccinal protection against both mild and severe disease. Our population model fit provided a good description of the data, as assessed by quality control metrics. The model showed broad heterogeneity in the degree and durability of nAb protection, with the 90% population interval (90% pi) for nAb half-life spanning 30 – 153 days, while the peak nAb level 90% pi spans 169 – 989 ID50.

The dataset used for this analysis was taken from a Moderna Phase 1 trial enrolling 34 participants, with immunocompromised status being an exclusion criterion for the trial. Thus, the broad heterogeneity observed is reflective of the diversity of outcomes that may be expected in the general population upon vaccination. Of particular concern, even though immunocompromised patients were specifically excluded from the underlying study, the outcomes for the 25th percentile of the population and below are poor.. For example, omicron BA.1 VEm and VEs are both estimated to be less than 10% in this population at the six-month mark.

There are several limitations to our work, namely the small size of the Moderna study may not reflect all segments of the population and limits the power of the covariate analyses. The study excludes immunocompromised individuals, and thus our results reflect only the immunocompetent population. The Moderna study only covers the first three months after vaccination, which limits our ability to predict long-term nAb kinetics such as the possibility of biphasic decay. For this reason, we restricted our predictions to the first six months after vaccination and focused on variability in nAb kinetics during this timeframe.

Additionally, the results of the ROC analysis likely depend on a match between the circulating variant and the variant used to assess neutralizing titer and RBD-binding titer. Previous studies have shown that immune evading variants reduce the neutralizing potency of post-vaccination sera and that the relationship between binding and neutralizing titer varies [41]. Thus, as new variants emerge and sweep to dominance, this analysis will require repetition with pseudoviruses matched to the novel variants.

In the early days of the pandemic, there was much optimism expressed about the potential of vaccines to permit a return to normalcy, both in the popular press [42,43] and among public health authorities [44–46]. Much of this optimism was based on the persistence of the T-cell response in vaccinated individuals [35,47,48]. While T-cells remain durable even in the face of the newer immune-evading variants [35,49,50], this durability has not translated into lasting protection against infection or severe disease. At a mechanistic level, it is now known that T-cells are in fact infected by SARS-CoV-2 [51], and they undergo frank apoptosis during viral infection [51–53].

To the extent that neutralizing antibodies are the primary correlate of immune protection against SARS-CoV-2, our work makes several crucial points for public-health strategy. First, repeat annual dosing (at a minimum) of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine may be required to provide population-level protection against severe disease. At present, the consequences of such a boosting strategy have not been fully explored in clinical trials-our work suggests that this is an urgent unmet medical need, and failure to keep providing boosters may lead to the loss of vaccinal protection against severe disease in the population. Understanding the impact of repeated boosting on nAb production as well as vaccinal side-effect profiles is crucial for enabling better use of the existing vaccines, which at present represent our only option for disease control.

Our work also points out a second unmet medical need, as many revaccination strategies may leave a significant portion of the immunocompetent population unprotected against severe disease. In the face of logistical constraints in vaccine production, a rational strategy would require a method to efficiently identify the subpopulation most in need of additional doses of vaccines. Our work further provides a basis for this prioritization. We have demonstrated an approach (based on previously published data [54]) that can be used to convert the ECLIA RBD-binding assay (which is commercially available and in broad use) into a personalized biomarker to determine the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosting interval for individuals in high-risk populations. The optimal threshold from our decision analysis provided 93% sensitivity and 72% specificity for predicting 90% protection from severe disease. Such an analysis would best be repeated in a larger prospective study to optimize the threshold for relevant variants and other experimental systems, but our findings here provide a clear basis for designing such a trial.

We recognize that repeated boosting with mRNA vaccines may present tremendous logistical hurdles on a global basis. However, the first step in solving a problem is to acknowledge its existence. Our work delineates the reality of the current situation-the path that we have chosen for attempting to coexist with SARS-CoV-2 will require us to either keep boosting the population at regular and frequent intervals, or risk losing vaccinal protection altogether. While manufacturing, tolerability, and compliance constraints may make this hard to achieve with the current vaccines, next-generation vaccines should be designed with this target product profile in mind. For example, room temperature-stable, nasally administered vaccines based on low-cost technologies would make it easier for us to achieve the goal of widespread and repeated vaccinal coverage.

A recurrent failing of the public-health strategy over the past two years has been to start with overly optimistic assumptions about the course of the pandemic, and to be slow to react to deviations from those assumptions. In fact, it was easy to predict that rapid viral immune evasion would be a problem [12], and it was easy to predict that the current vaccines alone would not bring the pandemic to an end [55]. At this point, our work suggests that we need to move quickly to bolster the protection provided by vaccines-by exploring dose and schedule effects of existing vaccines thoroughly, as well as by deploying next-generation vaccines. A failure to anticipate and hedge against waning vaccinal efficacy against severe COVID-19 outcomes could have grave consequences.

Methods

Population mixed effects model fit for neutralization potency and IgG levels

We use mixed-effect modeling to determine the population variability in kinetics of binding IgG and neutralizing antibodies generated by anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The clinical data is derived from a phase 1 trial of Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine in 34 healthy adult participants who received two injections of vaccine at 100 μg [4]. We fitted the model to data collected starting on the administration date of the second dose in the two-dose vaccination series (day 0). The model’s initial concentration is set as the concentration on day 0.

To examine the rise and decay of longitudinal immune responses, we applied a two-stage model structure to the neutralizing potency and IgG level dataset. This model contains two phases: antibody production and memory phases. Exponential decay occurs in the whole process, while antibody production only occurs in the production phase. Zero-order or first-order production terms and possible correlation models were selected based on the Akaike information criterion and good parameter estimation (low standard error). Based on these criteria, the zero-order production model was selected for neutralizing potency and 1st-order production model was selected for IgG (See Table S2).

Zero-order production model: Embedded Image

First-order production phase: Embedded Image Embedded Image

Where A is the antibody titer, kp is the antibody production rate, kel is the antibody elimination rate, and T is the duration of antibody production.

The population analysis was implemented in MonolixSuite. The residual error model is determined by whether PWRES (population weighted residuals), IWRES (individual weighted residuals) and NPDE (normalized prediction distribution errors) behave as independent standardized normal random variables. All parameters are lognormally distributed based on the default model structure. For lognormal distributed parameters, the predicted value (p) is represented by the following equation: Embedded Image where □□□□ represents the fixed effect value, which is the median of the distribution in this case and ω the standard deviation of random effects, which is interpreted as the inter-individual variability. These specifications were evaluated using Monolix’s standard goodness of fit metrics including normality checks for distributions of random effects, scatter plots of population and individual weighted residuals, and distributions of individual values for model parameters (see Figures S2 - S4).

Correlation and covariate analysis

Correlation and covariate analyses were implemented in Monolix to test the presence of correlations between model parameters and between model parameters and covariates. Age and initial conditions were assessed as potential covariates.

Half-life and peak calculation

Both half-life and peak antibody titer for individuals in the two studies can be calculated directly from the structural model. Antibody half-life was calculated from individual decay rate as ln(2)/kel. The probability density functions of half-life were visualized for IgG and neutralizing potency from both datasets. Then, we compared the distribution of neutralizing potency and IgG to assess whether there is an affinity maturation. The peak antibody titer for individuals can be calculated by integrating the rate of increase of concentration Embedded Image over the antibody production phase Tin. The variability in individual half-life and peak titer values from the study population were visualized as distributions.

Population variability in nAb titer over time

To visualize the population variability in nAb kinetics, we calculated the percentiles of nAb potencies over time in a bootstrapped synthetic population, considering both uncertainty of the population parameters and inter-individual variability in Simulx. Firstly, we formed a synthetic set of individuals by duplicating the study population 10 times. Parameters for these synthetic individuals were drawn from the uncertainty distributions computed by Monolix for each individual. Thus, the synthetic population reflects the uncertainty of the population parameters. The synthetic population was randomly drawn with resampling to generate a bootstrap population of 340 synthetic individuals. We used Simulx to simulate nAb titers over six months in this population and evaluated the percentile distribution of nAb titer at each day.

Predicting vaccinal protection in the population based on nAb protection model

Based on the relationship between nAb titer and protection from mild or severe COVID-19 established by Davenport et al [19], we translated nAb kinetics in our simulated patient population to an expected level of protection over time. The simulated pseudovirus neutralization titers are normalized to COVID-19 convalescent plasma titers from a relevant dataset using the same assay and methodology [56]. We used the logistic titer-protection model to predict the level of protection based on our kinetic model’s simulated nAb titer normalized to convalescent plasma titer. This analysis reveals changes in risk of mild or severe COVID-19 over time by percentile in the population.

Predicting vaccinal protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants

To estimate protection against SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants, we assumed that these variants increase the nAb titer required for protection from mild and severe disease by a fixed multiple. The fixed multiple is the reduction in nAb potency against the variant compared to WT, as measured in a pseudovirus neutralization assay. According to the literature, delta reduced nAb potency after the Moderna two-dose vaccine series by 3.2-fold relative to WT, whereas omicron reduced potency 43-fold [40].

Assessing IgG titer as a predictor of protective nAb titer

To determine whether IgG titer could be used to predict nAb titers above the EC90 for protection from severe WT disease (27 ID50), we performed a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The ROC curve is formed by calculating the sensitivity and specificity of various IgG titer thresholds for predicting nAb titer above 27 ID50. The dataset for this analysis is sourced from Pegu et al [54], which was also produced by Moderna.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Supplement

Figure S1.
Figure S1.

Diagnostic plot assessing correlations between individual parameters and possible covariates. A. The initial condition, the nAb titer at day 0, and B. age were assessed as potential covariates. No significant correlations were found.

Figure S2:
Figure S2:

Probability distribution of individual parameter estimates and random effects for the nAb kinetics model. A) Probability distribution of individual parameters. The histogram plots represent the empirical distribution. The black line represents the theoretical distribution defined in the statistical model, which is a log-normal distribution for each parameter. B) Probability distribution of standardized random effects. The histogram plots represent the empirical distribution. The black line represents the theoretical distribution defined in the statistical model, which is a normal distribution for each random effect.

Figure S3.
Figure S3.

Goodness-of-fit analysis for nAb kinetics model residuals. A. Scatter plot of the residuals. These plots display the PWRES (population weighted residuals), the IWRES (individual weighted residuals), and the NPDEs (normalized prediction distribution errors) as scatter plots with respect to time and prediction. Residuals should be randomly scattered around the x-axis, which confirms suitability of the proportional error model. B. Distributions of the residuals. Empirical and theoretical probability density function (PDF) of the PWRES, IWRES and NPDE are shown in the top of the panel. Empirical and theoretical cumulative distribution function (CDF) are at the bottom. This normality check confirms suitability of the error model.

Figure S4.
Figure S4.

Correlation between parameters. There is a moderate correlation between Tin and kp.

Figure S5:
Figure S5:

Probability distribution of half-lives for vaccine-induced IgG for individuals in the study population.

Figure S6.
Figure S6.

VPC of IgG kinetics model fit with 90% prediction intervals. Blue dots represent published data characterizing SARS-CoV-2 IgG titers following vaccination. The red line represents the empirical 50th percentile and the blue lines represent the empirical 10th and 90th percentiles. The shaded regions represent the model’s 90% prediction intervals for the 50th percentile (pink) and 10th and 90th percentiles (blue).

View this table:
Table S1.

Parameter values for fitted IgG kinetics model with standard errors (SE) and relative standard error (RSE).

View this table:
Table S2.

AIC values for prospective model structures.

View this table:
Table S3.

Comparison of model-predicted vaccine efficacy over time with clinical data.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints. In: Pfizer [Internet]. 18 Nov 2020 [cited 30 Jul 2022]. Available: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine
  2. 2.
    Baden LR, El Sahly HM, Essink B, Kotloff K, Frey S, Novak R, et al. Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;384: 403–416. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Tenforde MW. Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines Against COVID-19 Among Hospitalized Adults Aged ≥65 Years — United States, January– March 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7018e1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Widge AT, Rouphael NG, Jackson LA, Anderson EJ, Roberts PC, Makhene M, et al. Durability of Responses after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 Vaccination. New England Journal of Medicine. 2021;384: 80–82. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2032195
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    Ibarrondo FJ, Hofmann C, Fulcher JA, Goodman-Meza D, Mu W, Hausner MA, et al. Primary, Recall, and Decay Kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antibody Responses. ACS Nano. 2021. doi:10.1021/acsnano.1c03972
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.
    Levin EG, Lustig Y, Cohen C, Fluss R, Indenbaum V, Amit S, et al. Waning Immune Humoral Response to BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine over 6 Months. N Engl J Med. 2021;385: e84. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2114583
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Notarte KI, Guerrero-Arguero I, Velasco JV, Ver AT, Santos de Oliveira MH, Catahay JA, et al. Characterization of the significant decline in humoral immune response six months post-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Virology. 2022;94: 2939–2961. doi:10.1002/jmv.27688
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    Weisblum Y, Schmidt F, Zhang F, DaSilva J, Poston D, Lorenzi JC, et al. Escape from neutralizing antibodies by SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants. Marsh M, van der Meer JW, Montefiore D, editors. eLife. 2020;9: e61312. doi:10.7554/eLife.61312
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    Li Q, Wu J, Nie J, Zhang L, Hao H, Liu S, et al. The Impact of Mutations in SARS-CoV-2 Spike on Viral Infectivity and Antigenicity. Cell. 2020;182: 1284-1294.e9. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.07.012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.
    Greaney AJ, Loes AN, Crawford KHD, Starr TN, Malone KD, Chu HY, et al. Comprehensive mapping of mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain that affect recognition by polyclonal human plasma antibodies. Cell Host Microbe. 2021;29: 463-476.e6. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2021.02.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Andreano E, Piccini G, Licastro D, Casalino L, Johnson NV, Paciello I, et al. SARS-CoV-2 escape from a highly neutralizing COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118: e2103154118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2103154118
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    Egeren DV, Novokhodko A, Stoddard M, Tran U, Zetter B, Rogers M, et al. Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. PLOS ONE. 2021;16: e0250780. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250780
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. 13.↵
    Cromer D, Juno JA, Khoury D, Reynaldi A, Wheatley AK, Kent SJ, et al. Prospects for durable immune control of SARS-CoV-2 and prevention of reinfection. Nat Rev Immunol. 2021;21: 395–404. doi:10.1038/s41577-021-00550-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    Prunas O, Warren JL, Crawford FW, Gazit S, Patalon T, Weinberger DM, et al. Vaccination with BNT162b2 reduces transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to household contacts in Israel. Science. 2022;375: 1151–1154. doi:10.1126/science.abl4292
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    Tseng HF, Ackerson BK, Luo Y, Sy LS, Talarico CA, Tian Y, et al. Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron and Delta variants. Nat Med. 2022;28: 1063–1071. doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01753-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Addetia A, Crawford KHD, Dingens A, Zhu H, Roychoudhury P, Huang M-L, et al. Neutralizing Antibodies Correlate with Protection from SARS-CoV-2 in Humans during a Fishery Vessel Outbreak with a High Attack Rate. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2020;58: e02107–20. doi:10.1128/JCM.02107-20
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.
    Maier HE, Balmaseda A, Ojeda S, Cerpas C, Sanchez N, Plazaola M, et al. An immune correlate of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severity of reinfections. medRxiv; 2021. p. 2021.11.23.21266767. doi:10.1101/2021.11.23.21266767
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    Hashem AM, Algaissi A, Almahboub SA, Alfaleh MA, Abujamel TS, Alamri SS, et al. Early Humoral Response Correlates with Disease Severity and Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients. Viruses. 2020;12: E1390. doi:10.3390/v12121390
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    Khoury DS, Cromer D, Reynaldi A, Schlub TE, Wheatley AK, Juno JA, et al. Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nature Medicine. 2021; 1–7. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01377-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Gilbert PB, Montefiori DC, McDermott AB, Fong Y, Benkeser D, Deng W, et al. Immune correlates analysis of the mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine efficacy clinical trial. Science. 2022;375: 43–50. doi:10.1126/science.abm3425
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Feng S, Phillips DJ, White T, Sayal H, Aley PK, Bibi S, et al. Correlates of protection against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. medRxiv; 2021. p. 2021.06.21.21258528. doi:10.1101/2021.06.21.21258528
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    Cohen JA, Stuart RM, Rosenfeld K, Lyons H, White M, Kerr CC, et al. Quantifying the role of naturally- and vaccine-derived neutralizing antibodies as a correlate of protection against COVID-19 variants. medRxiv; 2021. p. 2021.05.31.21258018. doi:10.1101/2021.05.31.21258018
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.
    Cele S, Jackson L, Khoury DS, Khan K, Moyo-Gwete T, Tegally H, et al. Omicron extensively but incompletely escapes Pfizer BNT162b2 neutralization. Nature. 2022;602: 654–656. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04387-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    Cromer D, Reynaldi A, Steain M, Triccas JA, Davenport MP, Khoury DS. Relating in vitro neutralisation level and protection in the CVnCoV (CUREVAC) trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2022; ciac075. doi:10.1093/cid/ciac075
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.
    Koutsakos M, Lee WS, Reynaldi A, Tan H-X, Gare G, Kinsella P, et al. The magnitude and timing of recalled immunity after breakthrough infection is shaped by SARS-CoV-2 variants. Immunity. 2022;55: 1316-1326.e4. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2022.05.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    Cromer D, Steain M, Reynaldi A, Schlub TE, Wheatley AK, Juno JA, et al. Neutralising antibody titres as predictors of protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants and the impact of boosting: a meta-analysis. Lancet Microbe. 2022;3: e52–e61. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00267-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    Björk J, Bonander C, Moghaddassi M, Rasmussen M, Malmqvist U, Inghammar M, et al. COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against severe disease from SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 subvariants – surveillance results from southern Sweden, December 2021 to March 2022. Eurosurveillance. 2022;27: 2200322. doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.18.2200322
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Wright BJ, Tideman S, Diaz GA, French T, Parsons GT, Robicsek A. Comparative vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 over time in US hospital administrative data: a case-control study. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10: 557–565. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00042-X
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    Suah JL, Husin M, Tok PSK, Tng BH, Thevananthan T, Low EV, et al. Waning COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness for BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in Malaysia: An Observational Study. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;119: 69–76. doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2022.03.028
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Reynolds S. T cells protect against COVID-19 in absence of antibody response. In: National Institutes of Health (NIH) [Internet]. 6 Jun 2022 [cited 31 Jul 2022]. Available: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/t-cells-protect-against-covid-19-absence-antibody-response
  32. 32.↵
    Leslie M. T cells found in COVID-19 patients ‘bode well’ for long-term immunity. In: Science [Internet]. 14 May 2020 [cited 31 Jul 2022]. Available: https://www.science.org/content/article/t-cells-found-covid-19-patients-bode-well-long-term-immunity
  33. 33.↵
    Guo L, Wang G, Wang Y, Zhang Q, Ren L, Gu X, et al. SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody and T-cell responses 1 year after infection in people recovered from COVID-19: a longitudinal cohort study. The Lancet Microbe. 2022;3: e348–e356. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247(22)00036-2
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. 34.
    Dan JM, Mateus J, Kato Y, Hastie KM, Yu ED, Faliti CE, et al. Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection. Science. 2021;371: eabf4063. doi:10.1126/science.abf4063
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    Tarke A, Coelho CH, Zhang Z, Dan JM, Yu ED, Methot N, et al. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination induces immunological T cell memory able to cross-recognize variants from Alpha to Omicron. Cell. 2022;185: 847-859.e11. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.015
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.↵
    Carrat F, Villarroel PMS, Lapidus N, Fourié T, Blanché H, Dorival C, et al. Heterogeneous SARS-CoV-2 humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination and/or infection in the general population. Sci Rep. 2022;12: 8622. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-11787-4
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.
    de la Monte SM, Long C, Szczepanski N, Griffin C, Fitzgerald A, Chapin K. Heterogeneous Longitudinal Antibody Responses to Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination. Clin Pathol. 2021;14: 2632010×211049255. doi:10.1177/2632010×211049255
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    Collier DA, Ferreira IATM, Kotagiri P, Datir RP, Lim EY, Touizer E, et al. Age-related immune response heterogeneity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine BNT162b2. Nature. 2021; 417–422.
  39. 39.↵
    Bottino D, Hather G, Yuan L, Stoddard M, White L, Chakravarty A. Using mixed-effects modeling to estimate decay kinetics of response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antib Ther. 2021;4: 144–148. doi:10.1093/abt/tbab013
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    Garcia-Beltran WF, Denis KJS, Hoelzemer A, Lam EC, Nitido AD, Sheehan ML, et al. mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine boosters induce neutralizing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. Cell. 2022;185: 457-466.e4. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.12.033
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Mantus G, Nyhoff LE, Edara V-V, Zarnitsyna VI, Ciric CR, Flowers MW, et al. Preexisting SARS-CoV-2 immunity influences potency, breadth, and durability of the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Cell Rep Med. 2022;3: 100603. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100603
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.↵
    Stankiewicz K. ‘We could effectively end this pandemic in 2021’ with Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines. In: CNBC [Internet]. 16 Nov 2020 [cited 31 Jul 2022]. Available: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/16/dr-scott-gottlieb-moderna-covid-vaccine-could-help-end-pandemic-.html
  43. 43.↵
    Randall T. When Will Life Return to Normal? In 7 Years at Today’s Vaccine Rates. Bloomberg.com. 4 Feb 2021. Available: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-04/when-will-covid-pandemic-end-near-me-vaccine-coverage-calculator. Accessed 31 Jul 2022.
  44. 44.↵
    Moss P. The T cell immune response against SARS-CoV-2. Nat Immunol. 2022;23: 186–193. doi:10.1038/s41590-021-01122-w
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.
    Harmon GE. Vaccination is our best chance to end the pandemic. In: American Medical Association [Internet]. 4 Jan 2022 [cited 31 Jul 2022]. Available: https://www.ama-assn.org/about/leadership/vaccination-our-best-chance-end-pandemic
  46. 46.↵
    COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review: Our Shot to End the Pandemic. In: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Internet]. 23 Jul 2021 [cited 1 Aug 2022]. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/past-reports/07232021.html
  47. 47.↵
    Painter MM, Mathew D, Goel RR, Apostolidis SA, Pattekar A, Kuthuru O, et al. Rapid induction of antigen-specific CD4+ T cells is associated with coordinated humoral and cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. Immunity. 2021;54: 2133-2142.e3. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2021.08.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Grifoni A, Weiskopf D, Ramirez SI, Mateus J, Dan JM, Moderbacher CR, et al. Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals. Cell. 2020;181: 1489-1501.e15. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.05.015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    De Marco L, D’Orso S, Pirronello M, Verdiani A, Termine A, Fabrizio C, et al. Assessment of T-cell Reactivity to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant by Immunized Individuals. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5: e2210871. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.10871
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.↵
    Naranbhai V, Nathan A, Kaseke C, Berrios C, Khatri A, Choi S, et al. T cell reactivity to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant is preserved in most but not all individuals. Cell. 2022;185: 1041-1051.e6. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.029
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.↵
    Shen X-R, Geng R, Li Q, Chen Y, Li S-F, Wang Q, et al. ACE2-independent infection of T lymphocytes by SARS-CoV-2. Sig Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7: 1–11. doi:10.1038/s41392-022-00919-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.
    Cizmecioglu A, Akay Cizmecioglu H, Goktepe MH, Emsen A, Korkmaz C, Esenkaya Tasbent F, et al. Apoptosis-induced T-cell lymphopenia is related to COVID-19 severity. J Med Virol. 2021;93: 2867–2874. doi:10.1002/jmv.26742
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.↵
    André S, Picard M, Cezar R, Roux-Dalvai F, Alleaume-Butaux A, Soundaramourty C, et al. T cell apoptosis characterizes severe Covid-19 disease. Cell Death Differ. 2022. doi:10.1038/s41418-022-00936-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  54. 54.↵
    Pegu A, O’Connell SE, Schmidt SD, O’Dell S, Talana CA, Lai L, et al. Durability of mRNA-1273 vaccine–induced antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants. Science. 2021;373: 1372–1377. doi:10.1126/science.abj4176
    OpenUrlAbstract
  55. 55.↵
    Stoddard M, Sarkar S, Yuan L, Nolan RP, White DE, White LF, et al. Beyond the new normal: Assessing the feasibility of vaccine-based suppression of SARS-CoV-2. PLoS One. 2021;16: e0254734. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0254734
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. 56.↵
    Anderson EJ, Rouphael NG, Widge AT, Jackson LA, Roberts PC, Makhene M, et al. Safety and Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273 Vaccine in Older Adults. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;383: 2427–2438. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2028436
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Posted September 01, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Heterogeneity in vaccinal immunity to SARS-CoV-2 can be addressed by a personalized booster strategy
Madison Stoddard, Lin Yuan, Sharanya Sarkar, Shruthi Mangalaganesh, Ryan P. Nolan, Dean Bottino, Greg Hather, Natasha S. Hochberg, Laura F. White, Arijit Chakravarty
medRxiv 2022.08.30.22279397; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.30.22279397
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area