Cited by 21SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

Post-Vaccination Neutralization Responses to Omicron Sub-Variants

Open access
Jacobsen, Henning, Katzmarzyk, Maeva, Higdon, Melissa M., Jiménez, Viviana Cobos, Sitaras, Ioannis, Bar-Zeev, Naor, Knoll, Maria Deloria·2022·Vaccines

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: The emergence of the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529), which correlated with dramatic losses in cross-neutralization capacity of post-vaccination sera, raised concerns about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against infection and disease. Several clinically relevant sub-variants subsequently emerged rapidly. Methods: We evaluated published and pre-print studies reporting sub-variant specific reductions in cross-neutralization compared to the prototype strain of SARS-CoV-2 and between sub-variants. Median fold-reduction across studies was calculated by sub-variant and vaccine platform. Results: Among 178 studies with post-vaccination data, after primary vaccination the sub-variant specific fold-reduction in neutralization capacity compared to the prototype antigen varied widely, from median 4.2-fold for BA.3 to 40.1-fold for BA.2.75; in boosted participants fold-reduction was similar for most sub-variants (5.3-fold to 7.0-fold); however, a more pronounced fold-change was observed for sub-variants related to BA.4 and BA.5 (10.4-fold to 14.2-fold). Relative to BA.1, the other Omicron sub-variants had similar neutralization capacity post-primary vaccination (range median 0.8-fold to 1.1-fold) and post-booster (0.9-fold to 1.4-fold) except for BA.4/5-related sub-variants which was higher (2.1-fold to 2.7-fold). Omicron sub-variant-specific responder rates were low post-primary vaccination (range median 28.0% to 65.9%) compared to the prototype (median 100%) but improved post-booster (range median 73.3% to 100%). Conclusions: Fold-reductions in neutralization titers were comparable post-booster except for sub-variants related to BA.4 and BA.5, which had higher fold-reduction. Assessment after primary vaccination was not possible because of overall poor neutralization responses causing extreme heterogeneity. Considering large fold-decreases in neutralization titers relative to the parental strain for all Omicron sub-variants, vaccine effectiveness is very likely to be reduced against all Omicron sub-variants, and probably more so against variants related to BA.4 or BA.5.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/vaccines10101757

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Neutralization titers against BA.4/5 subvariants were lower compared to BA.1, with a median 2.1 fold reduction (IQR 1.5-3.1).

    “However, neutralization titers against BA.4/5 subvariants were lower compared to BA.1 (median 2.1 fold reduction, IQR 1.5-3.1).”
  • In a recent review of 178 studies, BA.2 subvariants had similar neutralization capacity after booster dose vaccination compared to BA.1 across all vaccines tested, with a relative fold reduction in neutralization of BA.2 compared to BA.1 of 0.9 (IQR 0.7-1.2).

    “A recent review of 178 studies that summarized post-vaccination neutralization against multiple Omicron subvariants showed that in general BA.2 subvariants had similar neutralization capacity after booster dose vaccination compared to BA.1, across all vaccines tested (i.e., mRNA, vectorbased, inactivated, protein subunit); the relative fold reduction in neutralization of BA.2 compared to BA.1 was”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 42 · Cited by 21

Authors
Jacobsen, H., Katzmarzyk, M., Higdon, M. M., Jiménez, V. C., Sitaras, I., Bar-Zeev, N., & Knoll, M. D.
Affiliations
  • Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (DE)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Independent Consultant, Bogota 111111, Colombia
  • International Vaccine Access Center, Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
Corresponding author
Knoll, Maria Deloria
Venue
Vaccines
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-10-20
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
1757
ISSN
2076-393X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4306969029
Cited by
21
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Vaccines (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (138587)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 vaccines, neutralizing antibodies, cross-neutralization, vaccine effectiveness, BA.4, BA.5, BA.2, BA.3, booster vaccination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review