This is a live virus neutralisation assay. Neutralisation studies can tell us whether levels of Ab in the blood (convalescent and vaccinated plasma) are high enough to prevent the virus from infecting cells in the lab.
.@sigallab & colleagues tested plasma from those who received vax only (orange) & those who had vax + previous infection (green) and showed a significant (~40x) decline in neutralisation activity, but this was not a complete escape & reduction was less in hybrid anti-sera.
What these results tell us?
📍This doesn't mean vaccines will be 40x less effective
📍 Those who received 2 doses of vax still retained neutralisation
📍Hybrid immunity provides much better neutralisation, which means we could expect fairly good results in boosted individuals
Remember, antibodies are important, but the immune response is so much more than that.
So whilst the ability of a persons sera to neutralise the virus is desirable, it is certainly not essential when it comes to protecting against disease.
We’ve been waiting for these results. I have to say it's better than I expected overall. Yes, it means we will see more breakthrough infections w/ omicron, but hybrid immunity holds pretty well & hopefully we will see similar data w/ boosted antisera.
Caveats: this is a small study, inc 14 samples, so I would want to see results from a larger cohort inc boosted antisera. There are also other limitations of neutralisation studies👇 Remember these results don't say anything about protection from disease.
New neutralisation data by @CiesekSandra et. al. this morning. We are yet to see the full paper, but there is a ~40 fold drop in neutralisation in 2x vaccinated individuals w/ omicron compared to delta.
[The % figures do not equate to vaccine efficacy]
These results indicate that 2 doses of vaccines may not be sufficient enough to prevent *infection* (not severe disease), but sera from those who received booster still showed some neutralisation, meaning that boosters will help restore this decline to an extent.
Remember that we are not back to square one w/ omicron. Immune responses are not all or nothing. Antibodies are important, but the immune response is so much more than that. Protection from severe disease will likely be retained as other defences are less impacted by variants.
So far these two studies show neutralisation can be restored to an extent w/ boosters against omicron, which would align with previous data showing regular boosters (not variant specific) significantly broaden the coverage & breath of antibodies & T cells to address variants.
Yes, we may need omicron specific vaccines, esp if omicron is to outcompete delta globally, which we don't know yet. But, at present Delta remains the dominant variant globally. So, don't wait for an updated vaccine, get your primary 2 doses and/or booster dose immediately.
Omicron is spreading fast, but we don't know how it will play out in different populations. For example, wastewater sampling in Denmark suggests that it's already widespread. This might mean it will be difficult to contain the spread of omicron even with most stringent measures.
Nevertheless, we are certainly in a much better place than at start of the pandemic when the whole population was immune-naive to SARS-CoV-2. So, while we may see more breakthrough infections w/ omicron, this wave may have a low disease burden compared to March 2020.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🦠 There’s a lot we don’t yet understand about Omicron, including its impact on immunity and what it means for vaccines. New data will be emerging over the next few wks, which could be misinterpreted w/o context. What we might expect & how to interpret the emerging data? 🧵(1/n)
1- Genomic data:
The biggest concern with omicron is that it contains >30 mutations in just the spike protein, the part which helps it enter human cells and the target for vaccines. This mutation profile is very different than other VOCs. (2/n)
There are plausible biological consequences of some of these mutations, but we don't really know the combined effect of all these mutations, so full significance of omicron is uncertain.
There is a lot of concern/confusion about vaccine effectiveness against the delta variant. How effective are the vaccines against Delta & how to interpret real-world observational data? So much misinformation is being circulated, so this thread brings key data together. 🧵(1/n)
Vaccine efficacy measures the relative reduction in infection/disease for the vaccinated vs unvaccinated arm. For instance, a vaccine that eliminates all risk would have an efficacy of 100%. Efficacy of 50% means you have a 50% reduced risk compared to an unvaxxed person. (2/n)
All studies assessing the performance of vaccines against Delta are based on real-world data (vaccine effectiveness), which are influenced by variant transmissibility, human behaviour, and immunity status of the population, therefore they require careful interpretation. (3/n)
There is a lot of confusion about the efficacy of AstraZeneca/ChAdOx1 vaccine against COVID19 due to B.1.351 / 501Y.V2 - summarising the results of phase 1b/2a double-blind randomized trial conducted in South Africa (based on @GovernmentZA press conference).🧵(1/6)
Adults aged 18-65 years without severe comorbidities and HIV were recruited. It was designed to show >60% efficacy against symptomatic disease, but because only 2000 participants were recruited with 42 total events, this analysis was not statistically powered. (2/6)
In total, 1749 participants were recruited, the population enrolled was young and generally healthy; the prevalence of hypertension, respiratory disease, and diabetes was low. Therefore, it was not designed to assess efficacy against severe disease. (3/6)
Concerns about outdoor transmission risk seem to be trending again. What is the risk of transmission outdoors and should we be more worried about outdoors with the new more-transmissible variant? 🧵(1/n)
The risk of transmission is complex and multi-dimensional. It depends on many factors: contact pattern (duration, proximity, activity), individual factors, environment (e.g. outdoor, indoor), socioeconomic factors, and mitigation measures in place. (2/n)(gov.uk/government/pub…\)
Transmission is facilitated by close proximity, prolonged contact, and frequency of contacts. So, the longer the time you spend with an infected person and the larger the gathering, the higher the risk is. (3/n) (academic.oup.com/cid/advance-ar…\)
There are several reasons to think that the new UK #SARSCoV2 variant is an important one as it might be more contagious than other variants, but there are also some uncertainties. So much misinformation is being circulated, so this thread brings key data together. 🧵
1- Genomic data
In the UK, COG-UK undertakes sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 samples from ~ 10% of positive cases. This is an enormous effort, and helps scientists to identify mutations and track them over time. Here are some variants being tracked in the UK. 1/ cogconsortium.uk/wp-content/upl…
Over time, scientists have identified this new variant, called B.1.1.7 or VUI – 202012/01 (the first Variant Under Investigation in December 2020), which looked different than others. It has acquired 17 mutations compared to its most recent ancestor. 2/ virological.org/t/preliminary-…
Over the last 6 months, we've learned a lot about how SARS-CoV-2 spreads🦠
What does the evidence so far tell us about SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics, high-risk activities and environments? Thread 🧵 (1/n) papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
The risk of transmission is complex and multi-dimensional. It depends on many factors: contact pattern (duration, proximity, activity), individual factors, environment (i.e. outdoor, indoor) & socioeconomic factors (i.e. crowded housing, job insecurity). (2/n)
Contact pattern:
We now know that sustained close contact drives the majority of infections and clusters. For instance, close family/friend contacts and gatherings are a higher risk for transmission than market shopping or brief community encounters. (3/n)