如果将不同的新冠疫苗混合使用,例如第一针和第二针接种的是不同公司的疫苗,会有什么后果?科学家也想知道答案。
为什么?因为疫苗的混合接种可能会让政府在现有疫苗的使用方面变得更灵活,能够确保更多的人接种疫苗,而且不会浪费。还有人猜测,至少对某些疫苗来说,在第二针使用不同公司的疫苗可能会导致更强烈的免疫应答。
最终,如果新冠肺炎成为一种地方流行病(这在很多专家看来都是可能的),而且人们需要频繁进行后续注射来保持其免疫力,那么,人们可能需要使用不同于初次接种的疫苗来进行加强。
英国政府正在赞助的疫苗混合使用临床试验便是其中最早和最大试验之一,专家将这类试验称之为“异源性用药”。这一研究最初的调查结果已经出来了:相对于那些接种同一种疫苗的人来说,那些接种辉瑞(Pfizer)疫苗然后接种阿里斯康(AstraZeneca)疫苗或接种顺序相反的人群,更有可能在接种第二剂时出现不适反应,牛津大学(University of Oxford)的研究人员在一篇发布于同行评议医疗杂志《柳叶刀》(The Lancet)的研究纪要中写道。
这些反应包括类流感症状,例如发热、肌肉疼痛、嗜睡和普通的不适感。科学家称,这些副作用并不严重,只是“轻度到中度”。他们还称这些症状持续时间很短,最多持续数天的时间,而且辉瑞和阿斯利康疫苗的混合接种到目前为止没有安全顾虑。
更加频繁和明显的反应可能会导致第二针接种之后第二天旷工率的增加。负责混合用药临床试验的牛津大学的儿科与疫苗学教授马修•斯内普称,这可能是一个重要的考虑因素,尤其是政府在给医疗工作者接种的时候。科学家还警告称,该研究仅涵盖50岁以上的人士,而年轻人的反应有可能会不同。
研究仍然处于早期
研究人员称,目前还没有得到有关混合接种是否可以让接种者产生可比或更好免疫应答的数据。然而他们还表示,他们“希望在接下来几个月中公布这些数据。”
与此同时,他们称已经调整了临床试验,为志愿者提供处方止疼药扑热息痛(paracetamol),以研究此举是否能够减轻第二剂疫苗的副作用。
英国的这项研究由英国国家健康研究所(National Institute for Health Research)开展。阿斯利康和辉瑞疫苗最初的研究涉及超过800名志愿者,他们来自于英格兰8个不同的城市。4月,科学家扩大了研究范围,纳入了Moderna和Novavax的疫苗,并额外招募了1050名志愿者。这些志愿者首先将注射阿斯利康或辉瑞的疫苗,然后后续要么注射同样的疫苗,要么注射Moderna或Novavax的疫苗。
阿斯利康正在单独开展一项临床实验,以观察将自家疫苗与俄罗斯的Sputnik V疫苗混合使用的效果。
科学家称,这类混合与匹配是可行的,因为到目前为止,大多数获批使用的新冠病毒疫苗都将冠状病毒的同一部分作为免疫应答目标:棘突蛋白。
研究人员最希望了解的是,对那些使用改构后的腺病毒来引发人体细胞生产棘突蛋白的疫苗来说,混合接种疗法是否可以带来更好的免疫应答。阿斯利康的疫苗、强生的疫苗和Sputnik V疫苗均使用不同类型的腺病毒。
科学家推测,在最初注射了腺病毒疫苗之后,人类机体会对腺病毒和冠状病毒棘突蛋白产生免疫应答。未参与上述临床试验的利兹大学(University of Leeds)的医学副教授史蒂芬•格里芬表示,这种免疫应答存在问题,因为它可能意味着,当人们在接受第二针腺病毒疫苗时,免疫系统会在向人体细胞下达制造冠状病毒棘突蛋白指令之前,针对并防护腺病毒,因此会降低第二针接种的效用。通过在第二针接种不同的腺病毒或使用不同的疫苗科技,科学家希望能够规避这种现象。
但似乎并非所有的疫苗都存在同样的问题,例如使用信使RNA(mRNA)向人体细胞下达制造冠状病毒棘突蛋白指令的辉瑞和Moderna疫苗。这种mRNA封存于一小团名为脂质纳米粒的脂肪体中,人类机体的免疫系统似乎无法将其识别为外来侵略者。(财富中文网)
译者:冯丰
审校:夏林
如果将不同的新冠疫苗混合使用,例如第一针和第二针接种的是不同公司的疫苗,会有什么后果?科学家也想知道答案。
为什么?因为疫苗的混合接种可能会让政府在现有疫苗的使用方面变得更灵活,能够确保更多的人接种疫苗,而且不会浪费。还有人猜测,至少对某些疫苗来说,在第二针使用不同公司的疫苗可能会导致更强烈的免疫应答。
最终,如果新冠肺炎成为一种地方流行病(这在很多专家看来都是可能的),而且人们需要频繁进行后续注射来保持其免疫力,那么,人们可能需要使用不同于初次接种的疫苗来进行加强。
英国政府正在赞助的疫苗混合使用临床试验便是其中最早和最大试验之一,专家将这类试验称之为“异源性用药”。这一研究最初的调查结果已经出来了:相对于那些接种同一种疫苗的人来说,那些接种辉瑞(Pfizer)疫苗然后接种阿里斯康(AstraZeneca)疫苗或接种顺序相反的人群,更有可能在接种第二剂时出现不适反应,牛津大学(University of Oxford)的研究人员在一篇发布于同行评议医疗杂志《柳叶刀》(The Lancet)的研究纪要中写道。
这些反应包括类流感症状,例如发热、肌肉疼痛、嗜睡和普通的不适感。科学家称,这些副作用并不严重,只是“轻度到中度”。他们还称这些症状持续时间很短,最多持续数天的时间,而且辉瑞和阿斯利康疫苗的混合接种到目前为止没有安全顾虑。
更加频繁和明显的反应可能会导致第二针接种之后第二天旷工率的增加。负责混合用药临床试验的牛津大学的儿科与疫苗学教授马修•斯内普称,这可能是一个重要的考虑因素,尤其是政府在给医疗工作者接种的时候。科学家还警告称,该研究仅涵盖50岁以上的人士,而年轻人的反应有可能会不同。
研究仍然处于早期
研究人员称,目前还没有得到有关混合接种是否可以让接种者产生可比或更好免疫应答的数据。然而他们还表示,他们“希望在接下来几个月中公布这些数据。”
与此同时,他们称已经调整了临床试验,为志愿者提供处方止疼药扑热息痛(paracetamol),以研究此举是否能够减轻第二剂疫苗的副作用。
英国的这项研究由英国国家健康研究所(National Institute for Health Research)开展。阿斯利康和辉瑞疫苗最初的研究涉及超过800名志愿者,他们来自于英格兰8个不同的城市。4月,科学家扩大了研究范围,纳入了Moderna和Novavax的疫苗,并额外招募了1050名志愿者。这些志愿者首先将注射阿斯利康或辉瑞的疫苗,然后后续要么注射同样的疫苗,要么注射Moderna或Novavax的疫苗。
阿斯利康正在单独开展一项临床实验,以观察将自家疫苗与俄罗斯的Sputnik V疫苗混合使用的效果。
科学家称,这类混合与匹配是可行的,因为到目前为止,大多数获批使用的新冠病毒疫苗都将冠状病毒的同一部分作为免疫应答目标:棘突蛋白。
研究人员最希望了解的是,对那些使用改构后的腺病毒来引发人体细胞生产棘突蛋白的疫苗来说,混合接种疗法是否可以带来更好的免疫应答。阿斯利康的疫苗、强生的疫苗和Sputnik V疫苗均使用不同类型的腺病毒。
科学家推测,在最初注射了腺病毒疫苗之后,人类机体会对腺病毒和冠状病毒棘突蛋白产生免疫应答。未参与上述临床试验的利兹大学(University of Leeds)的医学副教授史蒂芬•格里芬表示,这种免疫应答存在问题,因为它可能意味着,当人们在接受第二针腺病毒疫苗时,免疫系统会在向人体细胞下达制造冠状病毒棘突蛋白指令之前,针对并防护腺病毒,因此会降低第二针接种的效用。通过在第二针接种不同的腺病毒或使用不同的疫苗科技,科学家希望能够规避这种现象。
但似乎并非所有的疫苗都存在同样的问题,例如使用信使RNA(mRNA)向人体细胞下达制造冠状病毒棘突蛋白指令的辉瑞和Moderna疫苗。这种mRNA封存于一小团名为脂质纳米粒的脂肪体中,人类机体的免疫系统似乎无法将其识别为外来侵略者。(财富中文网)
译者:冯丰
审校:夏林
What happens if you mix COVID-19 vaccines, receiving a first dose of one jab and a second dose of a different inoculation? Scientists want to know.
Why? Because mixing doses might give governments more flexibility to stretch available vaccine supplies across populations, ensuring more people get vaccinated and doses won’t go to waste. There’s also speculation that, at least for some of the vaccines, receiving a second dose of a different vaccine might produce a stronger immune response.
Finally, if COVID-19 becomes endemic —as many experts think is likely— and people need frequent booster shots to retain immunity, then it is possible people will need to receive boosters of a different shot than they received initially.
The U.K. government is sponsoring one of the earliest and largest clinical trials of this kind of mixing, which experts call “heterologous dosing.” And the very first preliminary results from that study are in: People who received the Pfizer vaccine followed by the AstraZeneca jab or vice versa, were more likely to experience uncomfortable reactions to the second dose than people who received two doses of the same vaccine, researchers at the University of Oxford reported in a research note published in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet.
These reactions included flu-like symptoms, such as fever, muscle aches, lethargy, and a general feeling of being unwell. The scientists said that none of these side effects were severe, describing them as “mild to moderate.” They also said the symptoms were short-lived, lasting at most a few days and that there had been no other safety concerns so far with mixing the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines.
More frequent and pronounced reactions could lead to higher rates of absenteeism from work on the day after the second inoculation. This could be an important consideration, especially when governments were vaccinating healthcare workers, according to Matthew Snape, a University of Oxford professor of paediatrics and vaccinology who is leading the mixed dose clinical trial. The scientists also cautioned that the study only included people over the age of 50 and that it is possible that younger people might react differently.
Early days yet
Data on whether the mixed dosages produced a comparable or better immune response in those vaccinated is not yet available, the researchers said, adding that they “hope to report these data in the coming months.”
In the meantime, they said they had adapted the trials to study if offering volunteers the over-the-counter pain medication paracetamol (acetaminophen) reduced the side effects experienced with the second dose.
The British study is being carried out by the National Institute for Health Research. The initial study of the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines involved more than 800 volunteers recruited across eight different sites in England. In April, scientists expanded the research to look at the Moderna and Novavax vaccines too, with a further 1,050 volunteers recruited. These volunteers would receive either the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine first, followed either by the same vaccine for their second dose, or a dose of either the Moderna or Novavax jabs.
Separately, AstraZeneca is conducting a clinical trial to look at the effect of mixing doses of its vaccine with the Russian Sputnik V vaccine.
Scientists say this kind of mixing-and-matching is possible because most of the COVID-19 vaccines approved for use so far all elicit an immune response to the same part of the coronavirus: the spike protein.
Researchers are particularly interested in seeing if mixed dosing regimens confer a better immune response for the vaccines that use a modified adenovirus to deliver instructions to the body’s cells to produce the spike protein. The AstraZeneca vaccine, Johnson & Johnson vaccine, and the Sputnik V vaccine each use a different kind of adenovirus.
Scientists speculate that, after the initial injection of the adenovirus-based vaccines, a person’s body develops an immune response to the adenovirus as well as the coronavirus spike protein. This immune response is problematic because it may mean that when the person receives the second dose of an adenovirus-based vaccine, the immune system targets and disables the adenovirus before it can deliver the instructions to the body’s cells to make the coronavirus spike protein, making the second jab less effective, according to Stephen Griffin, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Leeds who is not affiliated with the clinical trial. By using a different adenovirus for the second dose or a different vaccine technology, it is hoped this can be avoided.
This same issue does not seem to affect vaccines, such as Pfizer’s and Moderna’s, that use messenger RNA (mRNA) to deliver instructions to the body’s cells to make the coronavirus spike protein. That mRNA is delivered encased in a tiny envelope of fat, called a lipid nanoparticle, that the body’s immune system does not seem to recognize as a foreign invader.