Effectiveness of Updated 2023–2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB and BA.2.86/JN.1 Lineage Hospitalization and a Comparison of Clinical Severity — IVY Network, 26 Hospitals, October 18, 2023–March 9, 2024

Background: Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) and severity of SARS-CoV-2 variants can inform public health risk assessments and decisions about vaccine composition. BA.2.86 and its descendants, including JN.1 (referred to collectively as “JN lineages”), emerged in late 2023 and exhibited substantial genomic divergence from co-circulating XBB lineages. Methods: We analyzed patients hospitalized with COVID-19–like illness at 26 hospitals in 20 U.S. states admitted October 18, 2023–March 9, 2024. Using a test-negative, case-control design, we estimated the effectiveness of an updated 2023–2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccine dose against sequence-confirmed XBB and JN lineage hospitalization using logistic regression. Odds of severe outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, were compared for JN versus XBB lineage hospitalizations using logistic regression. Results: 585 case-patients with XBB lineages, 397 case-patients with JN lineages, and 4,580 control-patients were included. VE in the first 7–89 days after receipt of an updated dose was 54.2% (95% CI = 36.1%–67.1%) against XBB lineage hospitalization and 32.7% (95% CI = 1.9%–53.8%) against JN lineage hospitalization. Odds of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.80; 95% CI = 0.46–1.38) and IMV or death (aOR 0.69; 95% CI = 0.34–1.40) were not significantly different among JN compared to XBB lineage hospitalizations. Conclusions: Updated 2023–2024 COVID-19 vaccination provided protection against both XBB and JN lineage hospitalization, but protection against the latter may be attenuated by immune escape. Clinical severity of JN lineage hospitalizations was not higher relative to XBB lineage hospitalizations.


Severe in-hospital outcomes
Clinical severity of patients with JN and XBB lineage infection was characterized using the following severe in-hospital outcomes occurring from hospital presentation to hospital discharge, patient death, or hospital day 28: i) COVID-19-associated supplemental oxygen therapy ii) COVID-19-associated advanced respiratory support iii) COVID-19-associated intensive care unit (ICU) admission iv) COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death i) COVID-19-associated supplemental oxygen therapy Patients who met the definition of COVID-19-associated supplemental oxygen therapy either required supplemental oxygen therapy at any time during the hospitalization through day 28 for those not on chronic oxygen or, for patients on chronic supplemental oxygen (Table ), required an escalation in respiratory support.Supplemental oxygen therapy could be delivered at any flow rate and by any device; this included standard flow oxygen (flow rate <30 liters/minute), high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive ventilation (NIV), and IMV.Patients on home IMV prior to the acute illness were not eligible for this outcome.
Classification of in-hospital respiratory outcome based on type of oxygen or respiratory support used chronically (before illness onset) and highest level received through hospital day 28 Chronic preillness oxygen use

Oxygen use during hospital course (highest support)
ii) COVID-19-associated advanced respiratory support Patients were classified as having COVID-19-associated advanced respiratory support if they received any of the following during the hospitalization through day 28: HFNC, NIV, or IMV.HFNC was defined as a supplemental oxygen flow rate ≥30 liters per minute.NIV included both continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) delivered through a mask.Patients were classified as having NIV use if NIV was received for therapy of the acute illness and not only for treatment of sleep apnea.IMV was defined as positive pressure administered through an endotracheal tube or tracheostomy tube.Patients on home NIV before the acute illness met criteria for the COVID-19associated advanced respiratory support outcome if they had escalation of respiratory support to IMV in the hospital.Patients on home IMV prior to the acute illness were not eligible for this outcome.
iii) COVID-19-associated intensive care unit (ICU) admission Patients were classified as having COVID-19-associated ICU admission if they received care in an ICU for any duration of time during the hospitalization through day 28.iv) COVID-19-associated IMV or death Patients were classified as having COVID-19-associated IMV or death if they received IMV or died during the hospitalization through day 28.IMV was defined as positive pressure administered through an endotracheal tube or tracheostomy tube.Patients on home IMV prior to the acute illness could not meet the COVID-19-associated IMV or death outcome through receipt of in-hospital IMV.

Laboratory Testing Methods
At the time of participant enrollment, a nasal swab specimen was collected via a fresh swabbing procedure or collection of a residual aliquot in the clinical laboratory.These specimens were frozen at the enrolling site and shipped to Vanderbilt University Medical Center.Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and RSV was completed at Vanderbilt.Specimens with SARS-CoV-2 detected were then shipped to the University of Michigan for viral whole-genome sequencing.This section describes these laboratory methods.

SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR
Total nucleic acid extract from 100 µl of upper respiratory specimen collected in viral transport medium was prepared using the MagNA Pure LC Total Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit (Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA) and MagNA Pure 96 automated extraction platform (Roche) or QiaCube HT automated extraction system (Qiagen, Germantown, MD) and QIAamp 96 Virus QiaCube HT kit (Qiagen).Extracts (100 µl eluate volume) were tested by RT-PCR on the StepOnePlus, QuantStudio 3, or QuantStudio 6 Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Waltham, MA) for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N)-gene N1 and N2 targets and RNP gene using the CDC protocol, CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel with TaqPath 1-Step RT-qPCR Master Mix, CG (Applied Biosystems) (https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download).The pattern of N1, N2, and RNP Ct values served as a basis to assign a qualitative result of positive, not detected, inconclusive, or invalid specimen with respect to SARS-CoV-2 RNA according to interpretive criteria delineated in the assay protocol.

RSV detection by RT-PCR
Total nucleic acid extract from 100 µl of upper respiratory specimen collected in viral transport medium was prepared using the MagNA Pure LC Total Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit and MagNA Pure 96 automated extraction platform or QiaCube HT automated extraction system and QIAamp 96 Virus QiaCube HT kit.Extracts (100 µl eluate volume) were tested by RT-PCR on the StepOnePlus, QuantStudio 3, or QuantStudio 6 Real-Time PCR System for a pan-RSV matrix gene target using Superscript III Platinum One-Step Quantitative RT-PCR System containing ROX passive reference dye (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA) and a screening set of primers and probe (forward: GGCAAATATGGAAACATACGTGAA; reverse: TCTTTTTCTAGGACATTGTAYTGAACAG; probe: FAM-CTGTGTATGTGGAGCCTTCGTGAAGCT-BHQ-1) (Biosearch Technologies, Petaluma, CA).Subgroup differentiation of RSV screen-positive specimens was performed by RT-PCR using Superscript III, a common set of primers, and unique probes targeting A-and B-specific sequences in the viral polymerase (L) gene (forward: AATACAGCCAAATCTAACCAACTTTACA; reverse: GCCAAGGAAGCATGCAATAAA; RSV-A probe: 6FAM-TGCTATTGTGCACTAAAG-MGBNFQ; RSV-B probe: VIC-CACTATTCCTTACTAAAGATGTC-MGBNFQ) (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, MA).Each specimen also was tested for human RNase P (RNP) gene sequence as a marker of specimen adequacy and sensor for PCR inhibitors using TaqPath 1-Step RT-qPCR Master Mix, CG.PCR reactions consisted of 45 amplification cycles, and Ct values of any magnitude were deemed positive when represented by a characteristic specific amplification curve.A valid A or B subgroup identification was contingent on codetection of the universal RSV target.Absence of RSV detection in specimens registering RNP Ct values ≥40 was considered inconclusive for viral RNA.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA extraction and whole-genome sequencing
Specimen aliquots positive by RT-PCR for N1 and N2 targets with a cycle threshold ≤40 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center laboratory were shipped to the University of Michigan on dry ice.RNA was extracted from 200µl transport media with the Thermo Fisher MagMAX Viral Pathogen II Isolation Kit on a KingFisher instrument and eluted in a 50µl volume.Extracted RNA was reverse transcribed with Lunascript RT Supermix (NEB).For each sample, 2 µl of master-mix was added to 8µl of RNA template and incubated at 25°C for 2 min, 55°C for 10 min, 95˚C for 1 min.Viral cDNA was amplified in two multiplex PCR reactions with the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) Midnight primer pools and protocol using the Q5 Hot Start High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase Master-mix (NEB) with the following thermocycler protocol: 98˚C for 30 s, then 35 cycles of 98˚C for 15 s, 61˚C for 2 min, 65˚C for 3 min.Reaction products for a given sample were pooled together in equal volumes.Sequencing libraries were prepared by adaptor ligation using the ONT Rapid Barcode 96 kit.Three negative control wells (1 HeLa RNA, 2 water) were included on each 96 well RNA harvest plate and carried through the entire process.Barcoded libraries were pooled and sequenced in batches of 96 (GridION instrument).A run was repeated from RNA harvest on if any of the negative controls have >30x read coverage over 10% of the genome.PANGO lineage was assigned on genomes with >80% coverage using Pangolin v4.3.1 (https://pangolin.cog-uk.io,citation in main text).Genomes with >90% coverage were uploaded to GISAID (https://www.gisaid.org/)or NCBI Genbank.Percentages are column percentages.P-values were calculated using Pearson's chi-square test for categorical variables and the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables.

Supplementary
a Patients were classified into two COVID-19 vaccination groups: 1) receipt of an updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine dose ≥7 days before illness onset, and 2) no receipt of an updated dose, comprising

Adjusting for confounding by time in vaccine effectiveness and severity analyses
Confounding by time is a key challenge for vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies particularly when vaccination coverage 1) changes rapidly over time and 2) overlaps with the period when cases of the pathogen of interest are beginning to increase [1,2].Inclusion of test-negative controls during early analysis weeks when vaccination coverage is low could bias unadjusted vaccine effectiveness estimates downwards, leading to more conservative estimates [1].Vaccination coverage among test-negative controls reached approximately ~20% by mid-December, which overlapped in time with substantial increases in JN lineage infection beginning in early December (Supplementary Figure 2, Figure 1).Two approaches have been proposed to address temporal confounding in vaccine effectiveness studies: 1) model-based adjustment (either using a conditional logistic model matched on time or by including time as a covariate in an unconditional logistic regression), and 2) analysis period restriction to timeframes when vaccination coverage is approximately stable (December 14, 2023 and onwards) [1,2]; here, we evaluate the sensitivity of our vaccine effectiveness estimates to these adjustments.
Restriction of the analysis period to timeframes when vaccination coverage is stable is another approach to adjust for temporal confounding that does not require inclusion of time as a covariate in the regression model, but does decrease overall sample sizes.We estimated vaccine effectiveness against JN lineage hospitalization for a shortened analysis period from December 14, 2023-March 9, 2024, coinciding with a period of stable updated vaccination coverage among test-negative controls (Supplementary Figure 2).Vaccine effectiveness was 34.8% (95% CI = 3.5%-56.0%)during this time, which was comparable to the unconditional logistic regression models adjusted for admission week/biweek.Further adjustment for calendar time by including categorical biweek of admission as a covariate did not change estimates, in line with theoretical and simulation results [1,2].
We also evaluated how different adjustments for time affected estimates of severity of JN versus XBB lineage hospitalization.The unadjusted odds ratios comparing case-patients with JN versus XBB lineage infection on the occurrence of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death was 1.07 (95% CI = 0.67-1.73)(Supplementary Figure 5).Odds ratios adjusted for demographic covariates (age group, sex, race/ethnicity, HHS region, and Charlson comorbidity index) and COVID-19 vaccination status were similar.Additionally adjusting for admission date (time) using categorical biweek of admission shifted point estimates lower (0.69; 95% CI = 0.34-1.40).Estimates were similar when instead adjusting for categorical week of admission, admission date as a linear or natural cubic spline variable, and when using a conditional logistic model matching directly on week or biweek of admission (Supplementary Figure 5).
a Supplemental oxygen therapy was defined as supplemental oxygen at any flow rate and by any device for those not on chronic oxygen therapy, or with escalation of oxygen therapy for patients receiving chronic oxygen therapy.
b Advanced respiratory support was defined as new receipt of high-flow nasal cannula, non-invasive ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation.

Assessing biases in selection of specimens to be sequenced and effects on VE
We assessed how exclusion of case-patients without successful whole-genome sequencing could affect VE estimation.First, we observed that clinical and demographic characteristics were similar among casepatients with successful sequencing versus all case-patients (Supplementary Table 1).Second, per WHO guidance on conducting VE evaluations in the setting of new SARS-CoV-2 variants [3], we estimated VE against COVID-19 hospitalization among all case-patients (regardless of whether lineage identification via sequencing was successful) and compared it to VE among case-patients with successful sequencing results (Supplementary Figure 6).VE against COVID-19 hospitalization overall among all case-patients was 36% (95% CI = 24%-46%) and among sequenced case-patients was 41% (95% CI = 27%-52%), with broadly overlapping confidence intervals.Similar results between all case-patients and sequenced casepatients were observed after stratifying VE by receipt of updated doses 7-89 and 90-179 days earlier.
Overall, the comparable estimates suggested that exclusion of the minority of patients without successful sequencing did not result in biases when estimating VE.
Total nucleic acid extract from 100 µl of upper respiratory specimen collected in viral transport medium was prepared using the MagNA Pure LC Total Nucleic Acid Isolation Kit and MagNA Pure 96 automated extraction platform or QiaCube HT automated extraction system and QIAamp 96 Virus QiaCube HT kit.Extracts (100 µl eluate volume) were tested by RT-PCR on the StepOnePlus, QuantStudio 3, or QuantStudio 6 Real-Time PCR System for influenza A and B using the CDC Human Influenza Virus Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, Influenza A/B Typing Kit (VER 2) with Superscript III Platinum One-Step Quantitative RT-PCR System containing ROX passive reference dye.Subtyping and lineage identification of influenza A-and B-positive specimens, respectively, by RT-PCR was performed using the CDC Human Influenza Virus Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, Influenza A Subtyping Kit (VER 3) and CDC Human Influenza Virus Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, Influenza B Lineage Genotyping Kit (VER 1.1) with Superscript III Platinum One-Step Quantitative RT-PCR System containing ROX passive reference dye.Each specimen also was tested for RNP using TaqPath 1-Step RT-qPCR Master Mix, CG.PCR reactions consisted of 45 amplification cycles, and Ct values of any magnitude were deemed positive when represented by a characteristic specific amplification curve.A valid influenza A subtype or influenza B lineage identification was contingent on co-detection of the universal influenza type A or B sequence target, respectively.Absence of influenza A and/or B detection in specimens registering RNP Ct values ≥38 was considered inconclusive for the undetected virus(es).