Immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination: A population-based clinical trial to identify the best vaccination strategy.

Background: Various SARS-CoV-2 variants of concerns (VOCs) characterized by higher transmissibility and immune evasion have emerged. Despite reduced vaccine efficacy against VOCs, currently available vaccines provide protection. Population-based evidence on the humoral immune response after booster vaccination is crucial to guide future vaccination strategies and in preparation for imminent COVID-19 waves.
Methods: This multicenter, population-based cohort study included 4697 individuals ≥18 years of age who received a booster vaccination. Antibody levels against SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) and neutralizing antibodies against wild-type (WT) virus and Omicron variants were assessed at baseline (day of booster vaccination) and after four weeks. Safety was evaluated daily within the first week using a participant-completed electronic diary. Antibody levels were compared across different vaccination strategies, taking into account individual host factors.
Results: Our main model including 3838 participants revealed that individuals who received a booster with mRNA-1273 compared to BNT162b2 vaccine had a significantly higher increase (95 %CI) in anti-RBD-antibody levels (37,707 BAU/mL [34,575-40,839] vs. 27,176 BAU/mL [26,265-28,087]), and of neutralization levels against WT (1,681 [1490-1872] vs. 1141 [1004-1278] and Omicron variant (422 [369-474] vs. 329 [284-374]). Neutralizing antibody titres highly correlated with anti-RBD antibodies, with neutralizing capacity 4.4 fold higher against WT compared to Omicron. No differences in safety were found between the two booster vaccines.
Conclusion: Our study underlines the superiority of a booster vaccination with mRNA-1273, independent of the primary vaccination and therefore provides guidance on the vaccination strategy.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)