Mok Chris Ka Pun, Tang Yun Sang, Tan Chee Wah, Chong Ka Chun, Chen Chunke, Sun Yuanxin, Yiu Karen, Ling Kwun Cheung, Chan Ken Kp, Hui David S
The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; SH Ho Research Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; School of Biomedical Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
J Infect. 2025 Jan;90(1):106374. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2024.106374. Epub 2024 Dec 8.
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants necessitates ongoing evaluation of vaccine performance. This study evaluates and compares the safety and immunogenicity of the Comirnaty and Spikevax monovalent XBB.1.5 COVID-19 vaccines in an elderly population.
Altogether, 129 elderly individuals were recruited between 2 January and 3 February 2024, and received a booster dose of either Comirnaty (n=59) or Spikevax (n=70) monovalent XBB.1.5 COVID-19 vaccine. Blood samples were collected at before and one month after vaccination. Immunogenicity was assessed by measuring the percentage of IFNγCD4 and IFNγCD8 T cells, and neutralizing antibody titers (NT50) using a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT). Adverse reactions were recorded and analyzed.
Both vaccines significantly increased the percentage of IFNγCD8 T cells against XBB.1.5 and wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV-2 at one-month post-vaccination. Spikevax induced a significantly higher percentages of IFNγCD8 and CD4 T cells against XBB.1.5 than Comirnaty (p<0.001). The proportion of participants showing a positive T cell response to XBB1.5 after vaccination was higher in the Spikevax group (64.3% CD8, 71.4% CD4) than in the Comirnaty group (42.4% CD8, 57.6% CD4). Spikevax also elicited higher NT50 levels against XBB1.5, JN.1 and the latest variant KP.2 than Comirnaty (XBB1.5: p<0.01; KP.2: p<0.05). Fever was more common in the Spikevax group (fever: p=0.006). However, all side effects were short-term and resolved on their own.
Both vaccines induce neutralizing antibody to XBB1.5, JN.1 and KP.2. Specifically, Spikevax induces higher cellular and humoral immune responses than Comirnaty in the elderly, but it is also associated with a higher incidence of fever. These findings can guide public health strategies for vaccinating the elderly population.
严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2（SARS-CoV-2）变异株的出现使得对疫苗性能的持续评估成为必要。本研究评估并比较了老年人群中辉瑞新冠疫苗（Comirnaty）和莫德纳单价XBB.1.5新冠疫苗（Spikevax）的安全性和免疫原性。
2024年1月2日至2月3日期间共招募了129名老年人，他们接受了一剂辉瑞新冠疫苗（n = 59）或莫德纳单价XBB.1.5新冠疫苗（n = 70）的加强针。在接种前和接种后一个月采集血样。通过测量IFNγCD4和IFNγCD8 T细胞的百分比以及使用替代病毒中和试验（sVNT）检测中和抗体滴度（NT50）来评估免疫原性。记录并分析不良反应。
两种疫苗在接种后一个月均显著提高了针对XBB.1.5和野生型（WT）SARS-CoV-2的IFNγCD8 T细胞百分比。莫德纳单价XBB.1.5新冠疫苗诱导产生的针对XBB.1.5的IFNγCD8和CD4 T细胞百分比显著高于辉瑞新冠疫苗（p < 0.001）。接种后对XBB1.5呈现T细胞阳性反应的参与者比例，莫德纳单价XBB.1.5新冠疫苗组（CD8为64.3%，CD4为71.4%）高于辉瑞新冠疫苗组（CD8为42.4%，CD4为57.6%）。莫德纳单价XBB.1.5新冠疫苗针对XBB1.5、JN.1和最新变异株KP.2诱导产生的NT50水平也高于辉瑞新冠疫苗（XBB1.5：p < 0.01；KP.2：p < 0.05）。发热在莫德纳单价XBB.1.5新冠疫苗组中更为常见（发热：p = 0.006）。然而，所有副作用都是短期的，且可自行缓解。
两种疫苗均能诱导产生针对XBB1.5、JN.1和KP.2的中和抗体。具体而言，在老年人中，莫德纳单价XBB.1.5新冠疫苗诱导产生的细胞免疫和体液免疫反应高于辉瑞新冠疫苗，但发热发生率也更高。这些发现可为老年人群的疫苗接种公共卫生策略提供指导。
