Abstract
Limited data exist on antibody responses to mixed vaccination strategies involving inactivated COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in the context of emerging variants. We conducted an open label trial and administered a third vaccine dose of an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Fosun Pharma) in adults aged ≥30 years who had previously received two doses of an inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. We collected blood samples prior to administering the third dose and 28 days later, and tested for antibodies to the ancestral virus using a binding assay (ELISA), a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and a live virus plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT), and to the Omicron variant using PRNT. A third dose of BNT162b2 substantially increased antibody titers on each assay. Mean ELISA levels increased from an optical density (OD) of 0.3 to 2.1 (p<0.01), and mean sVNT levels increased from an inhibition of 17% to 96% (p<0.01). In a random subset of 20 participants, the geometric mean PRNT50 titers rose very substantially by at least 27 fold from Day 0 to Day 28 against the ancestral virus (p<0.01) and rose by at least 14 fold against the Omicron variant (p<0.01). In daily monitoring, post-vaccination reactions subsided within 7 days for over 99% of participants. In conclusion, a third dose of COVID-19 vaccination with an mRNA vaccine substantially improved antibody levels against the ancestral virus and against the Omicron variant with well-tolerated safety profile, in adults who had received two doses of inactivated vaccine 6 months earlier.
INTRODUCTION
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused major loss of life and global disruption since its emergence in late 2019. The accrual of population immunity to COVID-19 will eventually bring an end to the pandemic and allow life to return to normal. Immunity can be acquired through natural infections or, preferably, by vaccination. A number of vaccine technologies are being used for COVID-19, including inactivated virus vaccines, viral vector vaccines and mRNA vaccines (1). We and others have previously shown that antibody responses to two doses of the BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Fosun Pharma) mRNA vaccination give superior antibody responses compared to two doses of the CoronaVac (Sinovac) (aluminium hydroxide-adjuvanted) inactivated virus vaccine (2, 3). Both vaccine types confer similar T cell responses after an initial series of two doses (3).
The emergence of variants of concern (VOCs), such as the Omicron and delta variants, and observed decrease in vaccine-induced immune responses within a few months after the second vaccine dose have resulted in the administration of third doses in some locations (4). Zeng et al. reported a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind phase II trial of three doses of CoronaVac at different vaccination intervals and dosages in adults aged 18-59 years, and another similar trial in older adults aged ≥60 years but with different dosages only were conducted in China (5). In the 3μg group (the same dosage as used in the population), neutralizing antibody titers against the ancestral virus declined to below the seropositivity cut-off 5-8 months after the second dose in both younger and older adults, but administering a third dose 8 months after second dose increased the GMT titer to 143 and 159 respectively; in addition, only grade 1 or 2 solicited local and systemic adverse reactions were reported within 28 days after receiving the third dose with incidence not higher than each previous dose (5). Some studies reported immunogenicity of heterologous third dose COVID-19 vaccination approximately 1-3 months shortly after recipient of two-dose inactivated vaccine, where all three doses were originally designed to be against the ancestral virus (6, 7). Pérez-Then et al. analysed plasma samples from adults collected 28 days after a BNT162b2 third dose was administered at least 4 weeks after receiving the two-dose CoronaVac, who may or may not have been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 (6). They showed that a third dose BNT162b2 vaccination gave rise to a 1.4-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies (PRNT50) against the Omicron variant when compared to two-dose mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273), but was less by 6.3-fold and 2.7-fold when compared to the boost against ancestral virus and the Delta variant respectively. They also reported there was no neutralizing antibodies to Omicron about 3-4 months after the two-dose Coronavac vaccination and prior to the third dose BNT162b2 vaccination. Another study by Intapiboon et al. randomized healthy adults aged 18-60 years who previously received the two-dose CoronaVac about 2.5 months earlier to either administration of a full-dose intramuscularly, half-dose intramuscularly or one-fifth-dose intradermally of a booster dose BNT162b2, and showed a median neutralizing antibody titer (PRNT50) of 563 against the delta variant 14 days after booster vaccination (7). However, no published study has examined the use of an mRNA vaccine administered as a third dose approximately 6 months after receipt of two doses of an inactivated vaccine, a vaccination program strategy being urgently considered around the world for populations who previously received inactivated vaccines especially in the context of emerging variants such as the Omicron variant. We therefore conducted a trial of the immunogenicity and reactogenicity to a third dose of an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) in adults who had previously received two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccination.
RESULTS
Cohort description
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for participant enrolment are described in the Materials and Methods section. From 13 October 2021 through 28 December 2021 we screened 436 individuals, of which 373 (86%) were eligible and 315 (84%) participants enrolled. We collected baseline blood samples and administered BNT162b2 vaccination to 314 (99%) consented participants. Most of the 314 vaccinated study participants are older Chinese adults (median aged 47 years, IQR 47-62), with 35% who were obese, and about one-third who reported at least one chronic medical condition including hypertension (18%), hypercholesterolemia (14%) and diabetes (7%), and almost all (98%) reported receiving two doses of CoronaVac (Sinovac) rather than other inactivated vaccines. Although adults who had received two doses of inactivated virus vaccination at least 90 days ago were eligible to enrol into our study (Fig. S1), 75% of the study participants reported receiving the second dose typically around 6-7 months earlier (Table 1). Characteristics of the 314 participants at enrolment are shown in Table 1. As of 31 December 2021 we have collected Day 28 blood samples from 295 (94%) participants. A detailed flow chart of participant enrolment is provided in Fig. S1. The study is ongoing and Day 182 and 365 samples will be collected in Spring 2022 and Autumn 2022 respectively.
From 13 October 2021 through 28 December 2021, we enrolled and administered BNT162b2 vaccine as a third vaccine dose in 314 participants. ELISA and sVNT were performed in paired Day 0 and Day 28 sera available from 268 participants, and among them we randomly selected 20 participants to also perform PRNT against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus and the Omicron variant. ELISA: enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; sVNT: surrogate virus neutralisation test; PRNT: plaque reduction neutralisation test.
Antibodies to ancestral and Omicron virus after third-dose BNT162b2 vaccination
Antibody levels measured by ELISA and sVNT against the ancestral virus for Day 0 and Day 28 samples are available for 268 participants, with PRNT titers against the ancestral virus and the Omicron variant for Day 0 and Day 28 available for a random subset of 20 of these participants. Figure 1 shows that a third dose of BNT substantially increased antibody titers measured by the various assays. Mean ELISA levels increased from a OD of 0.3 to 2.1 (p<0.01), and mean sVNT levels increased from an inhibition of 17% to 96% (p<0.01). In the subset of 20 participants for whom PRNT titers against the ancestral strain were available, the geometric mean PRNT50 titer against the ancestral strain at Day 0 was 16. We could not estimate the GMT at Day 28 because 18/20 (90%) samples were positive at the highest dilution of 1:320, and we noted that a GMT ≥320 would correspond to a mean-fold titer rise of ≥27 from Day 0 to Day 28 (p<0.01). The geometric mean PRNT90 titer against the ancestral strain at Day 0 was 6. We could not estimate the GMT at Day 28 because 12/20 samples were positive at the highest dilution of 1:320, and we noted that a GMT ≥320 would correspond to a mean-fold titer rise of ≥46 in PRNT90 titers from Day 0 to Day 28 (p<0.01). We also measured antibody titers by PRNT against the Omicron variant. The geometric mean PRNT50 titer against the Omicron strain at Day 0 was 5, and rose to 73 at Day 28, a mean-fold rise of at least 14 given that the Day 0 titers were almost all assigned values of 5 corresponding to the floor of the assay at <10 (p<0.01). The geometric mean PRNT90 titer against the Omicron strain at Day 0 was also 5, and rose to 25 at Day 28, a mean-fold rise of at least 5 (p<0.01). PRNT90 titers against the Omicron variant were weakly correlated with PRNT90 titers against the ancestral virus (Fig. S2).
PRNT titers are measured based on two-fold dilutions and plotted here within an interval, or <10 (plotted on axis) or ≥320 (plotted above 320). r: Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.
(A) ELISA for serum IgG against SARS-CoV-2 Spike receptor binding domain (RBD) of ancestral strain with X indicating the median level. (B) Surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) against ancestral strain with X indicating the median level. Live virus plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) against ancestral strain with endpoints at (C) 50% (PRNT50) or (D) 90% (PRNT90) with X indicating the median level on each assay because GMTs could not be estimated. Live virus plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) against Omicron variant with endpoints at (E) 50% (PRNT50) or (F) 90% (PRNT90) with X indicating the GMTs. PRNT titers are measured based on two-fold dilutions and plotted here within an interval, or <10 (plotted on x-axis) or ≥320 (plotted above 320).
Post-vaccination reactions after third-dose BNT162b2 vaccination
Among the 314 participants, 299 (95%) participants reported health status for at least one day in the week following receipt of the third dose of BNT162b2, including 229 (77%) who reported every day and another 28 (9%) reported for ≥7 days. 191/299 (64%) participants reported feeling unwell for an average of 2.9 days (SD 1.8 days), and only 3 (<1%) participants reported feeling unwell beyond 7 days after third dose BNT162b2 vaccination. Within the 7 days after third dose BNT162b2 vaccination, among the solicited local reactions reported by the participants, the most common were pain (46%), tenderness (44%) and swelling or hardness (23%) at the injection site (Table S1). Among the solicited systemic reactions reported, the most common were headache (24%), feverish (23%), myalgia (18%), fatigue (18%), drowsiness (17%) and malaise (10%) (Table S1). For those who reported fever ≥ 38.0ºC, the median measured highest body temperature within 7 days after vaccination was 38.3ºC (IQR 38.1-38.4). These symptoms usually subsided within 7 days after third dose BNT162b2 vaccination (Fig. 2). Reports of other flu-like symptoms (e.g., cough, runny nose), gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g., nausea and diarrhoea) or systematic symptoms (e.g., skin rash, joint pain and abnormal heart beat) were infrequent (<10%) (Table S1). Among the participants, 6 (2%) reported having sought medical consultation within one month of the third dose but none were hospitalized. Among these 6 participants, 4 reported seeking medical consultation possibly for discomfort associated with vaccination within the week after vaccination, and the remaining two participants sought medical consultation due to back pain or stress outside the 7-day window.
Daily frequencies within 7 days after third dose BNT162b2 vaccination for reactions highlighted in bold are shown in Figure 2.
*For solicited systemic reactions, only feverish/ fever ≥ 38.0ºC/ chills, and those reported in at least 10% of participants are shown.
DISCUSSION
Work by our own research group and others indicates that two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine confer moderate increases in antibody levels at one month after the second dose (2, 3). Antibody levels then gradually decline, but can be boosted by receipt of third doses. Zeng et al. showed that a third dose of inactivated vaccine given to healthy young adults at 8 months after the second dose of the same vaccine was able to boost neutralizing antibodies against the ancestral strain by about 21 fold (5). Here, we show that a third dose of mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) after two doses of inactivated virus vaccine (mostly CoronaVac), all originally formulated against the ancestral virus, was able to boost PRNT50 titers against the ancestral strain by a factor of at least 27 fold, a substantial improvement over a third dose of inactivated vaccine. We also show that a third dose of BNT162b2 conferred moderate rises in PRNT50 titers against the Omicron variant by a factor of at least 14 fold. While there is still a lack of consensus on the antibody threshold for protection (8–11), the PRNT50 titers against Omicron at Day 28 in our study are higher than the PRNT50 titers against ancestral virus after two doses of CoronaVac where the geometric mean PRNT50 titer was estimated to be 27 (2). Given that two doses of inactivated vaccine were estimated to provide at least 50% protection against infection with the ancestral virus (12–14), we would expect the antibody levels against Omicron estimated in our study to correspond to somewhat more than 50% effectiveness in protection against Omicron.
Most of the participants in our study were older adults, and their antibody levels against Omicron were at a very low level at Day 0 prior to the third dose. Almost a third of our participants had underlying medical conditions (Table 1). The substantial boost in neutralizing antibody titers against both the ancestral virus (by at least 27 fold) and Omicron variant (by at least 14 fold) respectively by a third dose of mRNA vaccination after two-dose inactivated virus vaccination will clearly improve protection against the Omicron strain (and potentially other variant strains). Our study and the study by Pérez-Then et al. (6) showed that there was no neutralizing antibodies to Omicron about 3-4 months after the receipt of two doses of Coronavac vaccination. To the authors’ knowledge, there are no published studies so far on the boost in neutralizing antibody titers against the Omicron variant by a third dose of inactivated virus vaccine about 6 months after receipt of two doses of inactivated virus vaccination. A mass vaccination program which targets to vaccinate populations every 6 months is a feasible alternative to annual (re-)vaccination and has been considered for influenza vaccination amid a mismatched vaccine (15), and could be a more efficient and realistic strategy than a mass vaccination program with shorter intervals. Separately, earlier studies suggested that reactogenicity for two doses of mRNA vaccines was greater than for two doses of inactivated vaccines (16). Our study shows that third dose mRNA vaccination about 6 months after second dose in older adults who previously received two doses of inactivated vaccine had higher incidence of any post-vaccination reactions compared to two doses (13) or three doses (5, 17) of inactivated vaccination, but less than two doses (18) or three doses (19) of mRNA vaccination. Earlier studies also suggest fatigue, myalgia and chill were common both after two-dose inactivated (13) or mRNA vaccines (18); nausea was common after two-dose inactivated vaccination (13); and fever and headache after two-dose mRNA vaccination (18). Similar to reactions after two-dose mRNA vaccination, in our study of third dose mRNA vaccination in older adults who previously received two doses of inactivated vaccine, feverishness and headache were commonly reported, while gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea and diarrhoea were less commonly reported. Together, our study suggested that administering a third dose mRNA vaccine about 6-7 months after two doses of inactivated vaccines could substantially boost neutralizing antibodies against ancestral strain and the Omicron variant with well-tolerated safety profile in adults, and should be considered as an alternative to homologous third dose with an inactivated vaccine before vaccines updated with emerging variants are available.
Our study had several limitations. We have only performed PRNT against ancestral strain and Omicron strain up to a dilution of 1:320. However, more than half of our study participants were positive for antibodies to the ancestral strain at this dilution indicating antibody titers ≥320, and we were therefore not able to determine exactly the GMT against ancestral strain after third dose mRNA vaccination but only confirm that it was ≥320. Similarly, Day 0 samples were typically negative even at the starting dilution of 1:10, limiting our assessment of pre-vaccination GMTs. Nevertheless, we were able to conclude that third dose of mRNA vaccination would provide substantial benefits against both ancestral and Omicron strains by comparing the lower bound of the antibody boosting with the antibody level boosted after two doses of inactivated vaccination. Our results on immunogenicity may be subjected to selection bias including volunteer bias, since in Hong Kong older adults are more inclined to receive the inactivated vaccines and younger adults to mRNA vaccines (20). Indeed, while our study aimed to enrol adults aged ≥ 30 years, over 75% of study participants were ≥ 47 years old. Individuals who have received a self-funded commercial antibody test before enrolment with identified low antibody level might also have been more inclined to join studies on third dose vaccination, although only 6% of our study participants reported this as one of the major reasons for joining our study (data not shown). Separately, while we aimed to describe post-vaccination reactions comprehensively by including an exhaustive list of solicited local and systemic symptoms, our results on reactogenicity may be subjected to information bias as this was an open-label trial and it is generally perceived that there would be more post-vaccination reactions after mRNA vaccination compared to inactivated vaccination.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design
This was an open-label single-arm clinical trial with allocation concealment, to measure the antibody responses and reactogenicity of an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) given as a third vaccine dose in adults ≥30 years of age who have previously received two doses of an inactivated COVID-19 vaccine. Note that the two-dose inactivated vaccine CoronaVac (Sinovac) and the two-dose mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Fosun Pharma) are available under the Hong Kong government’s mass vaccination programme since the first quarter of 2021. Some Hong Kong citizens could have received two doses of inactivated vaccine BIBP (Sinopharm) instead if they have travelled to mainland China or overseas during the same period. The BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Fosun Pharma) vaccine used in Hong Kong, commonly known as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in other parts of the world, are distributed solely by Fosun Pharma in Greater China including Hong Kong. Invitations to participate in the trial were extended to community-dwelling adults in Hong Kong through mass promotion efforts including advertisements in social media and newspapers, and invitation to and referrals from members of existing cohorts. Interested adults were invited to visit the study website where enrollment eligibility criteria were listed and to complete an online screening form for initial assessment of eligibility, and eligible individuals were invited to visit the HKUMed Community Vaccination Centre to confirm eligibility and for enrollment and vaccination. This is a single-arm study with no need for randomization, and the participants and the study staff were aware of the type of vaccination received by the participants (no blinding). The duration of participation for each participant is 12 months from the administration of the booster dose of BNT162b2. Participants were provided with a free tympanic thermometer at enrolment, and a gift voucher of HK$100 (US$13) at the blood draws on Days 28, 182 and 365.
Individuals were eligible to participate in this trial if they had previously received two doses of an inactivated COVID-19 vaccine, for example CoronaVac (Sinovac) or BIBP (Sinopharm), with the most recent dose at least 90 days prior to enrolment. We excluded potential participants who reported a history of COVID-19 infection, who had received any dose of COVID-19 vaccine other than an inactivated vaccine, or who were unsuitable to receive an mRNA vaccine including but not limited to allergies to the active substance or other ingredients of the vaccine. We also excluded potential participants with diagnosed medical conditions related to their immune system, use of medication that impairs immune system in the last 6 months except topical steroids or short-term oral steroids (course lasting ≤14 days), those who had used immunoglobulins and/or any blood products within 90 days prior to enrolment, and any females who were pregnant or intending to become pregnant in the coming 3 months.
We collected 20 ml clotted blood specimens at the day of enrolment and vaccination (day 0) and again after 28 days, with additional blood draws planned after 182 and 365 days, to assess serum neutralizing antibody responses. After vaccination, participants were observed for 30 minutes to record any immediate events. We then asked participants to report information on immediate and delayed local or systematic events, as well as the body temperature measured using the tympanic thermometer that we provided to them after vaccination as incentive, daily within the first 7 days after receipt of BNT162N2 using an online e-diary. If the participant was still reporting any reaction on Day 7, additional daily monitoring continued for up to three additional weeks until symptoms resolved. Participants were also interviewed at 28, 182 and 365 days after vaccination to collect information on medical attention required including any hospitalizations or other serious health conditions during the study. Separately, participants were interviewed at enrolment, and at 182 and 365 days after enrolment to collect information on existing medical conditions, vaccination history, reasons for choosing this type of vaccine and any confirmed COVID-19 infection during the study. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong (21, 22).
Ethics
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong/ Hospital Authority Hong Kong West Cluster. The study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov prior to commencement (trial number NCT05057182).
Outcome measures
The primary outcome measure is the vaccine (humoral) immunogenicity at 28 days after receipt of third-dose BNT162b2 vaccine, measured by the as geometric mean titer (GMT) of SARS-CoV-2 serum neutralizing antibodies using plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). The secondary outcome measures include: (1) the GMT of SARS-CoV-2 serum antibody titers after the third dose at Days 182 and 365 (these timepoints have not yet been reached by participants); (2) the geometric mean fold rise of SARS-CoV-2 serum neutralizing antibody titers from baseline to each post-vaccination timepoint (Day 28, 182 and 365); (3) the incidence of solicited local and systemic adverse events (post-vaccination reactions) after receipt of BNT162b2 vaccine given as a third vaccine dose; (4) the incidence of hospitalizations during the year after receipt of third-dose BNT162b2 vaccine.
Sample size justification
We aimed to enroll 300 participants into our study. While our primary outcome is the GMT at day 28 and not a comparison, we also compared the mean fold rise in GMT at day 28 versus day 0 (the “strength” of the boost). Based on our preliminary data, assuming a GMT of 27 at Day 0 with a standard deviation of 0.85, a sample size of 300 individuals would provide 80% power to detect a mean fold rise of 1.1 or greater at the 5% significance level.
Laboratory methods
Blood samples were delivered to our study laboratory at the University of Hong Kong as soon as possible, with the optimal delivery time within 24 hours after collection for further processing. Sera were extracted from the clotted blood within 48 hours after collection, divided into 2-4 aliquots, and stored at −80°C until subsequent serologic testing. We tested sera heat inactivated at 56°C for 30 minutes with three assays, our in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein, a surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT), and a plaque reduction neutralisation test (PRNT) as previously described (23–25). ELISA and sVNT were performed in all paired Day 0 and Day 28 sera available as described in the Results, and PRNT against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus and the Omicron variant were performed in paired Day 0 and Day 28 sera from 20 participants randomly selected from these participants using statistical program. PRNT assays were carried out using ancestral SARS-CoV-2 BetaCoV/Hong Kong/VM20001061/2020 isolated in Hong Kong in January 2020 in Vero-E6 cells (ATCC CRL-1586) and the Pango lineage B.1.1.529 Omicron variant designated hCoV-19/Hong Kong/VM21044713_WHP5047-S5/2021 was isolated in Vero-E6 TMRSS2 cells (Vero E6 cells overexpressing TMPRSS2, kindly provided by Dr S Matsuyama and colleagues), and the passage level 3 virus aliquots were used. Cells were maintained in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) medium (ThermoFisher Scientific), Waltham, MA, USA) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (ThermoFisher Scientific), Waltham, MA, USA) and 100 U/ml of penicillin–streptomycin (ThermoFisher Scientific), Waltham, MA, USA). The virus sequences of these viruses are available in GISAID as EPI_ISL_412028 and EPI_ISL_6716902. The highest serum dilution neutralizing ≥50% and ≥90% of input plaques was regarded as the 50% plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT50) and 90% plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT90) titers, respectively.
Statistical analysis
We assessed the GMT of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies and the mean concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 Spike RBD IgG (proxy by OD450) and surrogate virus neutralization percentages at Day 28. PRNT titers were interval censored, e.g. a sample that was able to neutralise virus at a 1:20 dilution but not at a 1:40 dilution was reported as 20 but indicating the titer was ≥20 and <40. We therefore used midpoints on the log scale for measured titers. For example a measured titer of ≥20 to <40 was imputed as 28. We imputed titers <10 with the value 5 and titers ≥320 with the value 452 for estimation of GMTs. We compared ratios of baseline antibody levels to different time points after receipt of BNT162b2 using Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Correlation of PRNT90 titers measured at Day 28 against ancestral strain and the Omicron variant was estimated by Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Reactogenicity endpoints were described as frequency (%) for local and systemic reactions or events. The denominator used for frequency calculations was the total number of participants who reported health status for at least one day in the week following receipt of the third dose of BNT162b2. Statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.1.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Data Availability
Anonymized raw data and R syntax to reproduce all the analyses, figures and tables in the published article will be made available after publication.
Funding
This project was supported by the Theme-based Research Scheme T11-712/19-N of the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (BJC). BJC is supported by a RGC Senior Research Fellow Scheme grant (HKU SRFS2021-7S03) from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. The funding bodies had no role in the design of the study, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or writing of the manuscript.
Author contributions
All authors meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship. Each author’s contributions to the paper are listed below according to the CRediT model:
Conceptualization: NHLL, GML, BJC Methodology: NHLL, SMSC
Formal analysis: NHLL, MM-S
Investigation: NYMA, YYN, LLHL, KCKC, JKCL, YWYL, LCHT, SC, KKHK
Funding acquisition: BJC
Project administration: NHLL, SMSC, JSMP, BJC
Supervision: NHLL, SMSC, DKMI, LLMP, GML, JSMP, BJC
Writing – original draft: NHLL, MM-S, JSMP, BJC
Writing – review & editing: NHLL, SMSC, MM-S, NYMA, YYN, LLHL, KCKC, JKCL, YWYL, LCHT, SC, KKHK, DKMI, LLMP, GML, JSMP, BJC.
Competing interests
BJC consults for AstraZeneca, Fosun Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Moderna, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi Pasteur. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest.
Data and materials availability
Anonymized raw data and R syntax to reproduce all the analyses, figures and tables in the published article will be made available after publication.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge colleagues including Eileen Yu, Teresa So and Zacary Chai for technical support in preparing and conducting this study; Anson Ho for setting up the database; Julie Au and Lilly Wang for administrative support; Hetti Cheung, Victoria Wong, Bobo Yeung at HKU Health System; Cindy Man and other colleagues at the HKU Community Vaccination Centres at Gleneagles Hospital; and all the study participants for facilitating the study.
References
