Also confirms JJ is a poor booster for JJ, for either "original" D614G or Omicron.
Above, the JJ+Pfizer looked about 2x worse than 3xPfizer. Confidence intervals are wide, but another underreported Omicron study found JJ+Pfizer was ~3x worse than Mod+Mod+Pfizer. So this effect size seems consistent.
The difference between JJ+RNA and 3xRNA was bigger in the @BalazsLab study. I believe those patient samples may have been more heterogeneous. Regardless JJ+RNA is consistently lower than 3xRNA.
Returning to the second paper by the de Vries lab, they also looked at B and T cell responses to original spike, over time after "full vax" (1xJJ or 2xAZ or 2xRNA)
No surprises: we see again that the 2-dose vaccines have higher Ab levels at 1mo than at 6mo.
Peak Mod>Pfiz>AZ>JJ
For those who might have just read press releases or news articles that reiterate press releases, yes JJ (Ad26COV2S) Ab levels go up and then stabilize between 2mo and 6mo. But the whole time it is below the levels of 2xRNA (mRNA or BNT), so there's no net advantage of 1xJJ.
How about T cells, which some people thought would be an advantage of adenovirus (Ad, vectored) vaccines? As measured by IFNgamma release, they're worse for 2xAZ (ChAdOx) or 1xJJ (Ad26COV2s) vs 2xRNA (mRNA1273).
White circles = selected for in-depth analysis
They also looked at unboosted Ab levels against Omicron. This is a measure of breadth of the response. You can see convalescent sera and Moderna had the most Omicron neutralization (look at #'s above), everything else similarly poor.
And they also looked at T cell responses across strains. Again Moderna much better than everything else. Little differences across strains (because T cell epitopes are from anywhere in the protein, and not subject to the same selective pressure)
So the de Vries study is remarkably consistent in showing Moderna to have the broadest B cell responses, and the strongest B and T cell responses. It does seem like the most protective of the vaccines, and Modernites also get to enjoy a 3rd shot of their choice (4 if they are IC)
And finally the de Vries study, like the Balazs study, is a joy to read because of the excellent graphics. Everything is consistently labelled, well organized, and color-coded, and there's a cartoon of the experimental process. You hardly ever have to look at the legend. 🙏👏👏
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The article reveals many things not publicly known earlier.
First, Merck had (like my own lab and others) found boceprevir to have some activity against SARSCoV2. Not too surprising, as boceprevir is a HCV protease inhibitor, and SARSCoV2 protease is homologous to HCV protease.
I had emailed Merck to let them know in case they didn't already. But I expected the to know, and this confirms it. They determined that is was unlikely to work well for COVID19 on its own, but Merck was in a good position to modify it to work better, but they didn't.
A recent study by Novavax suggests it may be able to provide broader protection across variants than other vaccines so far. That has interesting implications for vaccine design, if true.
This seems to have escaped analysis entirely, so we'll take a look.
The study came out on 12/25. It contains the data behind Novavax's 12/22 announcement that 3 shots of their vaccine provided Omicron protection. That got into the news, but nobody came back on Christmas to write about the actual findings (I wonder why). ir.novavax.com/2021-12-22-Nov…
Sorry, Novavax, but you might benefit from hiring a science communication consultant for advice on publication strategy and writing. Besides the poor decision to release your article on 12/25, assuring no one will analyze it, the abstract is a disaster. Because there isn't one.
Well the director does fly in a few times a month. Is that enough time to see everything interesting from 10k staffers? Also doubt much reform/reorg is going to happen remotely
I expected the WH would had made willingness to move to Atlanta a precondition of appointment for the CDC director during our biggest loss of life ever, when access to info and good communication is more important than ever.
If you haven't heard, FDA approved molnupiravir for COVID19. I've been concerned it could create highly mutated SARSCoV2 and make new enhanced viruses more likely. Today a new study supports the idea that letting viruses sample multiple mutations is risky.
It's already known that molnupiravir doesn't kill off all mutant viruses after 5 days, but does introduce mutations into the viral genome. That is after all its only mechanism of action. Some of the mutated viable viruses may then hop to other people.
The pro-MOV argument is that MOV drops levels of viable virus more than it increases mutations in the remaining viruses, which might mean fewer later mutational templates. For several reasons, these arguments are not convincing, which means we're making an unusually dangerous bet
First a quick detour: We're now calling people who are adhering to the most recent recommendation up-to-date on their shots. I think this is a good thing. Unlike "fully vaxxed" it is language that can be continually used even as guidance changes. usnews.com/news/health-ne…
Now back to the studies. The first one, linked in the top post, looked at ER/urgent-care visits, and at hospitalizations. Hospitalization protection against Omicron is also poor after two doses and waning. It's also restored to excellent levels by a third dose.