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. Clinically relevant sub-variants (BA.1, BA.1.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.3, and BA.4/5) 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 153 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 21.9-fold for BA.4/5; in boosted participants fold-reduction was similar for all sub-variants (5.9-fold to 7.1-fold) except for BA.4/5 which was 12.7-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 1.2-fold) except for BA.4/5 which was higher (2.0-fold). Omicron sub-variant specific responder rates were low post-primary vaccination (range median 33.5% to 56.7%) compared to the prototype (median 96.0%), but improved post-booster (range median 85.4% to 92.6%).
Conclusion Fold-reductions in neutralization titers among Omicron sub-variants compared to the prototype strain varied widely post-primary vaccination but were comparable post-booster, except for BA.4/5 which had higher fold-reduction (2-fold relative to BA.1). Considering large fold-decreases in neutralization titers 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 Omicron BA.4/5.
Competing Interest Statement
MMH reports research grants from Pfizer for unrelated work; MDK reports research grants from Pfizer and Merck and consultancy fees from Merck, all for unrelated work; NBZ reports research grants from Merck, from Johnson & Johnson and from Serum Institute of India, all for unrelated work; and consulting fees from Merck for unrelated work.
Funding Statement
This project was funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript