T cell responses have been implicated in reduced risk of HIV acquisition in uninfected persons and control of viral replication in HIV-infected individuals. HIV Gag-specific T cells have been predominantly associated with post-infection control, whereas Env antigens are the target for protective antibodies; therefore, inclusion of both antigens is common in HIV vaccine design. However, inclusion of multiple antigens may provoke antigenic competition, reducing the potential effectiveness of the vaccine. HVTN 084 was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind phase 1 trial to investigate whether adding Env to a Gag/Pol vaccine decreases the magnitude or breadth of Gag/Pol-specific T cell responses. Fifty volunteers each received one intramuscular injection of 1 × 1010 particle units (PU) of rAd5 Gag/Pol and EnvA/B/C (3:1:1:1 mixture) or 5 × 109 PU of rAd5 Gag/Pol. CD4+ T cell responses to Gag/Pol measured 4 weeks after vaccination by cytokine expression were significantly higher in the group vaccinated without Env, whereas CD8+ T cell responses did not differ significantly between the two groups. Mapping of individual epitopes revealed greater breadth of the Gag/Pol-specific T cell response in the absence of Env compared to Env coimmunization. Addition of an Env component to a Gag/Pol vaccine led to reduced Gag/Pol CD4+ T cell response rate and magnitude as well as reduced epitope breadth, confirming the presence of antigenic competition. Therefore, T cell-based vaccine strategies should aim at choosing a minimalist set of antigens to reduce interference of individual vaccine components with the induction of the maximally achievable immune response.

The HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) conducts clinical trials on 4 continents in pursuit of a safe and effective HIV vaccine. Cellular immune responses to vaccination that define vaccine immunogenicity and/or immune correlates of protection can be measured using multiparameter intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) assays. The HVTN cellular immunology laboratory, located in Seattle, WA, conducts ICS assays for vaccine trials according to Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP). In 2013, the HVTN established a second GCLP compliant cellular immunology laboratory in Cape Town, South Africa to assess vaccine immunogenicity for HVTN trials conducted on the African continent. To ensure ICS readouts in the 2 laboratories were directly comparable, we conducted concordance testing using PBMC from healthy controls and vaccine trial participants. Despite standardized procedures and instrumentation, shared quality control measures and quality assurance oversight, several factors impacted our ability to obtain close agreement in T-cell responses measured in the 2 laboratories. One of these was the type of fetal bovine serum (FBS) used in the assay, which impacted lymphocyte cell viability and background responses. In addition, the differences in supernatant removal technique also significantly affected our ability to detect positive responses to vaccine antigens. Standardization of these factors allowed us to achieve and maintain ICS assay concordance across the 2 laboratories over multiple years, accelerating our efforts to evaluate HIV vaccines. The insights gained in this process are valuable for assay transfer efforts by groups of investigators that need to directly compare data generated in different laboratories around the globe.

The COVE trial randomized participants to receive two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine or placebo on Days 1 and 29 (D1, D29). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG binding antibodies (bAbs), anti-receptor binding domain IgG bAbs, 50% inhibitory dilution neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers, and 80% inhibitory dilution nAb titers were measured at D29 and D57. We assessed these markers as correlates of protection (CoPs) against COVID-19 using stochastic interventional vaccine efficacy (SVE) analysis and principal surrogate (PS) analysis, frameworks not used in our previous COVE immune correlates analyses. By SVE analysis, hypothetical shifts of the D57 Spike IgG distribution from a geometric mean concentration (GMC) of 2737 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL (estimated vaccine efficacy (VE): 92.9% (95% CI: 91.7%, 93.9%)) to 274 BAU/mL or to 27,368 BAU/mL resulted in an overall estimated VE of 84.2% (79.0%, 88.1%) and 97.6% (97.4%, 97.7%), respectively. By binary marker PS analysis of Low and High subgroups (cut-point: 2094 BAU/mL), the ignorance interval (IGI) and estimated uncertainty interval (EUI) for VE were [85%, 90%] and (78%, 93%) for Low compared to [95%, 96%] and (92%, 97%) for High. By continuous marker PS analysis, the IGI and 95% EUI for VE at the 2.5th percentile (519.4 BAU/mL) vs. at the 97.5th percentile (9262.9 BAU/mL) of D57 Spike IgG concentration were [92.6%, 93.4%] and (89.2%, 95.7%) vs. [94.3%, 94.6%] and (89.7%, 97.0%). Results were similar for other D29 and D57 markers. Thus, the SVE and PS analyses additionally support all four markers at both time points as CoPs.

Measuring immune correlates of disease acquisition and protection in the context of a clinical trial is a prerequisite for improved vaccine design. We analysed binding and neutralizing antibody measurements 4 weeks post vaccination as correlates of risk of moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 through 83 d post vaccination in the phase 3, double-blind placebo-controlled phase of ENSEMBLE, an international randomized efficacy trial of a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S. We also evaluated correlates of protection in the trial cohort. Of the three antibody immune markers we measured, we found most support for 50% inhibitory dilution (ID50) neutralizing antibody titre as a correlate of risk and of protection. The outcome hazard ratio was 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29, 0.81; P = 0.006) per 10-fold increase in ID50; vaccine efficacy was 60% (43%, 72%) at non-quantifiable ID50 (<2.7 IU50 ml-1) and increased to 89% (78%, 96%) at ID50 = 96.3 IU50 ml-1. Comparison of the vaccine efficacy by ID50 titre curves for ENSEMBLE-US, the COVE trial of the mRNA-1273 vaccine and the COV002-UK trial of the AZD1222 vaccine supported the ID50 titre as a correlate of protection across trials and vaccine types.

Background

While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection.

Methods

In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7-15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures.

Findings

Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05-0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01-0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease.

Interpretation

Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection.

Funding

National Institutes of Health.