5. Efficacy of COVID Vaccines
NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) such as mandatory face masks, national and international travel limitations and marked disinfectant use were somewhat successful in subduing global healthcare downfall, the onus fell upon vaccination strategies to counteract this international threat
[26]. While the levels of neutralizing antibodies do not provide a direct measure of vaccine efficacy against the varied variants of SARS-CoV-2 and certainly do not paint the entire picture, barring the effects of T-cell immunity, complement system, it gives an elementary idea of their efficacy in the real world.
5.1. NVX-CoV2373
B.1.1.7 variant—Efficacy trials undertaken by the biotech firm, Novavax revealed that their vaccine was highly effective in producing antibodies for the B.1.1.7 variant of COVID-19 discovered in the UK
[27]. Shen et al. compared the B.1.1.7 variant to the D614G in neutralization assays with the serum samples collected from 28 people who received NVX-CoV2373 two weeks after the second dose
[28].
B.1.351 variant—Shinde et al. conducted a randomized, double-blind controlled trial among 4387 recipients, which relayed that when participants had been given two doses of the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine, it showed an efficacy of 49.4% (95% (confidence interval) CI, 6.1–72.8) against a COVID-19 infection caused by the variant B.1.351
[29].
B.1.1.529 variant—There is scarce data on the particular effectiveness of NVX-CoV2373 on Omicron. A preprint study reported a decreased response to Omicron compared to Delta and other variants on primary vaccination but cross-reactive antibodies on a three-dose booster regimen
[30].
5.2. Ad26.COV2.S
D164G mutation and original Wuhan-Hu-1—Sadoff et al.’s conduction of a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled phase-three trial relayed that Ad26.COV2.S showed immunity against moderate to severe COVID-19, 14 days post dose. In a study population of 19,630 receiving the vaccine, an efficacy of 66.9% (95% CI, 59.0–73.4), which remained 28 days after the dose at around 66.1% (95% CI, 55.0–74.8), was reported. Effectiveness against severe COVID-19 has risen to 76.7% (95% CI, 54.6–89.1) for ≥14 days and 85.4% (95% CI, 54.2–96.9) for ≥28 days
[31].
B.1.351 variant—In a trial with 19,630 participants who received the vaccine in South Africa, 94.5% of the sequences were of the B.1.351, and vaccine efficacy sustained a 52.0% in moderate, severe as well as critical conditions of COVID-19 and 73.1% in severe to critical COVID-19 disease ≥14 days after administration. At ≥28 days after administration, efficacy had risen to 64.0% in moderate to severe COVID-19 disease and 81.7% in severe COVID-19 disease. In samples collected in Brazil, 69% showed P.2 lineage carrying the E484K mutation. Despite infection from varied variants, the COVID-19 vaccinations, formulated on the Wuhan-Hu-1 strain, vaccine efficacy remained high. From this, it can be inferred that these vaccines show a cross-protective efficacy with the new variants in SA and Brazil
[31].
B.1.1.529—During the Omicron surge, a study was conducted on the population in South Africa in which 162,637 PCR tests were analyzed, of which 93,854 (57.7%) were taken from recipients of both the doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine which were administered forty-two days apart from each other or two doses of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine which were administered four to six months apart from each other. Within this fraction, of the 34% that were positive, 1.6% underwent admission to a hospital and 0.5% were critical with ICU admission. Of the recipients of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, immunity against hospitalization for the disease showed 55% (95% CI, 22–74) after the second dose in less than 13 days, 74% (95% CI, 57–84) at 14 to 27 days, and 72% (95% CI, 59–81) at 1 to 2 months; protection against ICU admission was 69% (95% CI, 26–87) at 14 to 27 days and 82% (95% CI, 57–93) at one to two months post the administration of the second dose
[32].
5.3. BNT162b2
D164G mutation, original Wuhan-Hu-1, B.1.1.7, B.1.351—Tada et al. took sera sampling from people who underwent vaccination with BNT162b2 and analyzed their neutralizing activity against D164G mutation strain, B.1.1.7 lineage and B.1.351 lineage spike proteins. Serum samples of vaccinated individuals neutralized D164G strain with seven-fold raised antibody titer than convalescent serum
[33]. Sera which neutralized the virus with B.1.1.7 spike protein showed equivalent results, which relayed that the vaccine provides a raised immunity against this variant. There was a threefold reduction in the titer when the sera neutralized the virus with B.1.351 spike protein. This can be credited to the E484K mutation present. Correspondingly, a study using a B.1.1.7 pseudo virus showed the vaccine to remain effective against variants with a slight decrease in neutralization
[34]. A study conducted in Qatar, a case–control study of 265,410 persons having received the two-dose regimen, relayed that the vaccine’s efficacy against the B.1.1.7 variant was 89.5% (95% CI, 85.9–92.3) <14 days post the 2nd dose. The efficacy against the B.1.351 variant was 75.0% (95% CI, 70.5–78.9)
[35].
P.1 lineage—Dejnirattisai et al. studied the antibody evasion of the P.1 strain. Sera from 25 BNT162b2 vaccinated individuals were used. They concluded that the neutralization titers against P.1 strain were similar to that of B.1.1.7, thus inferring adequate cross-protection of vaccinated individuals against it. Another observation was that B.1.351, or the South African Variant, had a maximum reduction in titer
[36].
B.1.617.1 and B.1.617.2 lineage—Liu C et al. compared the reduction in neutralization of variants B.1.617.1&2. There was a reduction of 2.7-fold in the sera of 20 BNT162b2 vaccinated individuals for B.1.617.1 and a 2.5-fold decrease for B.1.617.2. These reductions were similar to those of B.1.1.7 and P.1, indicating that there is no sizable escape in neutralization, unlike the reduction seen in B.1.351
[37]. In a similar neutralization assay study, Liu J et al. reported a modest neutralization reduction when compared to wild-type virus of B.1.617 lineage, the reduction more powerful in B.1.617.1 strain. Although reduction was noted, BNT162b2 immune sera still competently neutralized all strains of this lineage
[38]. Zani A et al. studied the neutralization of B.1.525 lineage in addition to other variants. They reported that the virus of said lineage was sufficiently neutralized by the sera of 37 BNT162b2 vaccinated people, as compared neutralization of B.1.1.7 and D164G mutation lineage
[39].
5.4. BBV152A
B.1.1.7—The neutralization assay study by Sapkal et al. using sera of individuals vaccinated with BBV152A showed that the escape of the UK variant from this vaccine is unlikely
[40].
B.1.351 and B.1.617.2—Yadav et al., in their study of neutralization of B.1.351 and B.1.617.2 variants with the serum of 20 recipients of BBV152 A, reported reduction in titers with these variants, but demonstrated that the neutralizing potential of the vaccine remains well established
[41].
B.1.1.28.2—The results of yet another study conducted by Sapkal et al. revealed a 1.92-fold reduction in neutralization titers, when compared to D164G mutation lineage
[42].
B.1.1.529—In a study that explored vaccine efficacy against this VOC, virus shedding and lung viral load, along with less morbid disease were relayed in the vaccinated cohorts as compared to the placebo groups. Presently, it is found that a COVAXIN
® booster dose augments efficacy of the vaccine against the Delta COVID-19 disease and also offers immunity against morbidity caused by the Omicron variant
[43].
5.5. mRNA-1273
B.1.1.7—In a study in Qatar, with 181,304 recipients of the full two-dose regimen, the calculated effectiveness against infection with B.1.1.7 was scarce for the initial two weeks after the first dose, which rose markedly to 81.6% (95% CI, 73.1–87.8%) in the 3rd and 94.4% (95% CI, 89.1–97.5%) in the 4th week and attained 99.2% (95% CI, 95.3–100.0%) in the 2nd week after the subsequent 2nd dose, whereas it was 100% (95% CI, 91.8–100.0%) post 14 days of the second dose
[44].
B.1.351—In the above-mentioned study, PCR positive samples of the B.1.351 variant was also collected, and the effectiveness against COVID 19 with B.1.351 was scarce for the initial 2 weeks after the initial dose but markedly raised at the 3rd week to acquire a 47.9% (95% CI, 39.5–55.2%). Efficacy was 73.7% (95% CI, 67.6–78.8%) in the 4th week prior to the 2nd dose and attained 96.4% (95% CI, 94.3–97.9%) in the 2nd week post the 2nd dose and 96.4% (95% CI, 91.9–98.7%) post 14 days of the second dose
[44].
B.1.1.529—As one would expect, any strain showing minor changes in spike proteins showed increased escape from humoral response induced by primary (two dose) vaccination. Omicron proved to be no different, due to its highly mutated spike proteins, it escaped neutralization in a large proportion of people who had received two doses of mRNA-1273. Interestingly though, people who had received a booster in the three months prior to a study conducted by Garcia-Beltran WF et al., there were cross neutralization responses to Omicron, thus indicating that a booster of mRNA-1273 increased protection against this VOC mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 vaccines offer a significantly better response than the previously established J&J vaccines
[45][46].
5.6. AZD-1222
B.1.1.7—The vaccine showed reduced titers for neutralization with this lineage, but clinical efficacy against features of the disease caused by variant B.1.1.7 was adequate, suggesting that low neutralizing antibody titers are adequate to provide protection
[47].
B.1.351—A randomized control trial, with 2026 participants, conducted in Africa concluded that 2 doses of this vaccine had no effect against mild to moderate disease caused by B.1.351, but notably there were no reports of morbidity from severe disease either. This reduced efficacy should be considered, with the background that the first dose of this vaccine had 75% efficacy (95% CI, 8.7 to 95.5) in protecting against mild to moderate infection of COVID-19 before the emergence of this variant of concern
[48].
B.1.617—The geometric mean neutralization titers against B.1.617.1 were 2.7 times less when compared to the Victoria virus for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine serum and 2.6 times less for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. The reductions were commensurable in scale with those seen with B.1.1.7 and P.1, with no indication of broad abdication from neutralization, contrary to what is seen with B.1.351. From this, researchers can conclude that the current vaccine is sufficient to provide protection against severe infections caused by the B.1.617 variant, although parallelly an increase in breakthrough infections can be expected
[37].
B.1.1.529—In a retrospective analysis, 886,774 Omicron-infected individuals were identified and effectiveness studied; it was found that after two doses of the AZD-1222 vaccine, no effect was seen. The efficacy after an AZD-1222 primary course had increased to 70.1% (95% CI, 69.5–70.7) after 2–4 weeks of an mRNA-1273 booster and reduced to 60.9% (95% CI, 59.7–62.1) after 5–9 weeks
[45].
5.7. Sputnik V
The provisional outcomes of the past 3 Gram-COVID-Vac trials, in which 19,866 received two doses of the vaccine, exhibit that the vaccine is 96.1% (95% CI, 85.6–95.2) effective against disease caused by SARS-CoV2. This includes the period 21 days after the 1st dose to the day of receiving the 2nd dose. However, unlike some other vaccine candidates, the outcomes of the vaccine were not 100% (95% CI, 94.4–100) effective against the severe form of COVID-19; The results were preliminary as this was a secondary outcome
[49].
5.8. CoronVac
In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase I/II clinical trial by Zhang Y et al., examining the safety and efficacy of CoronaVac on healthy adults aged 18–59 (743 participants received at least one dose), it was reported that CoronaVac was well tolerated and induced adequate immune response against a COVID-19 infection. According to the trial, protective efficacy is yet to be determined. The studies on the efficacy of the vaccine against different strains are lacking
[50].
5.9. Sinopharm
According to Huang et al., the 501Y.V2 variant remains under the umbrella of protection offered by vaccines targeting the whole virus (BBIBP-CorV). The potential 1.5–1.6 times reduction in neutralizing GMTs must be considered for their effect on the clinical efficacy of these vaccines. For these vaccines, immune serum samples neutralize both variants 501Y.V2 and D614G
[51].
Two case studies from Brazil reported breakthrough infection in two vaccines: in one, 122 days following administration of the second dose, and in the other, 106 days post administration of the second dose. Both were reported to be infected by the P.1 variant of SARS-CoV2. Both patients recovered fully and did not develop sequelae or severe illness
[52].