‘Corrigendum to “Immunogenicity of Omicron BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 vaccines: randomized trial, 3-month follow-up” [Clin Microbiol Infect] 29 (7) (2023) 918–923
Authors: Noam Barda, Yaniv Lustig, Victoria Indenbaum, Daniel Zibly, Gili Joseph, Keren Asraf, Yael Weiss-Ottolenghi, Sharon Amit, Limor Kliker, Bian Abu-Kadar, Eytan Ben-Ami, Michal Canetti, Ravit Koren, Shiri Katz-Likvornik, Osnat Halpern, Ella Mendelson, Ram Doolman, Dror Harats, Yitshak Kreiss, Michal Mandelboim, Gili Regev-Yochay
Journal: Clinical Microbiology and Infection (2023)

The authors regret to report that one of the individuals in the study had his arm miscategorized (from arm 3 to arm 1). This has led to minor errors in the study results, though without changing the overall interpretation of the results or the conclusions. The first sentence of the Results section in the Abstract should read "Overall, 122 individuals (21, 19, 21, 20, 20, 20, and 21 in each arm) completed 90-day follow-up." In the Results section of the paper, the data in the last couple of paragraphs are modified as "Spike-specific T cell activation peaked at 1 week, and were then higher for all investigational vaccines compared to BNT162b2/30μg, particularly, 2.42 (95% CI: 1.04, 5.63)-fold higher following monovalent-Omi.BA.1/30μg (Figure S3, Table S5)." "During the study period a BA.2∖5 surge took place in Israel (3). Infection proportions following both monovalent vaccines were similar: 22% (95% CI: 11%, 38%) following BNT162b2, and 29% (95% CI: 16%, 46%) following monovalent-Omi.BA.1. Observed infection proportions following the bivalent-Omi.BA.1 vaccines were lower, 12% (95% CI: 4%, 26%) (Table S6, Figure S4)." Both the tables present in the manuscript have also been updated as below.Table 1Baseline Characteristics of the Study PopulationVariableOverallN = 122BNT162b2 30-μgN = 21BNT162b2 60-μgN = 19BNT162b2 Omi 30-μgN = 21BNT162b2 Omi 60-μgN = 20BNT162b2 15-μg/BNT162B2 Omi 15-μgN = 20BNT162b2 30-μg/BNT162B2 Omi 30-μgN = 21Age, Median (IQR)67.2 (63.7,70.6)66.2 (64.4,72.7)67.2 (63.9,69.6)68.8 (64.8,73.3)66.6 (63.1,70.7)66.5 (63.8,69.0)66.2 (64.0,69.9)Sex, N (%) Female61 (50%)9 (43%)9 (47%)13 (62%)10 (50%)8 (40%)12 (57%) Male61 (50%)12 (57%)10 (53%)8 (38%)10 (50%)12 (60%)9 (43%)BMI, Median (IQR)26.2 (24.0,28.9)27.5 (24.7,28.1)24.2 (23.5,27.0)26.4 (24.2,29.2)25.1 (22.8,27.5)27.5 (25.1,30.8)26.9 (23.9,29.0) Missing1100000Healthcare Workers, N (%)44 (36%)8 (38%)9 (47%)7 (33%)8 (40%)5 (25%)7 (33%)Number of Comorbidities, N (%) 064 (52%)10 (48%)12 (63%)11 (52%)10 (50%)11 (55%)10 (48%) 132 (26%)6 (29%)4 (21%)5 (24%)7 (35%)5 (25%)5 (24%) 226 (21%)5 (24%)3 (16%)5 (24%)3 (15%)4 (20%)6 (29%) Open table in a new tab Table 2Immunological Findings for the Primary OutcomesOutcomeVisitBNT162b2BNT162b2 OmiBNT162b2/BNT162b2 Omi30μg60μg30μg60μg15μg/15μg30μg/30μgGeometric Mean TiterDirect Neutralization – ancestral strain (titer)0541 (345.1-848.3)382.4 (176.3-829.3)437.5 (244-784.2)315.2 (188-528.4)803.4 (347.8-1855.8)256 (135.1-485)11782.9 (1069.2-2972.9)1241.4 (624.3-2468.6)1398.8 (797.7-2452.9)1499.2 (838.6-2680.4)2549.1 (1306.2-4974.9)1845.8 (1087.4-3133.1)24248.2 (2781-6489.3)2048.4 (1007.8-4163.7)3172.9 (1738.1-5792.2)3807.8 (2092.7-6928.6)5287.7 (3205.1-8723.5)2521.4 (1388.9-4577.4)32246.3 (1308.7-3855.7)1166.1 (617.5-2202.1)1765.3 (705.1-4419.6)1949.1 (941.9-4033.4)2314.5 (1229-4358.6)1255.6 (679.3-2320.6)Direct Neutralization – BA.1 (titer)027.5 (9.9-76.2)26.4 (10.8-64.4)13.9 (4-48.2)29.5 (11.4-76.8)63.3 (19.2-208.1)14.2 (6.1-33)1142 (98.2-205.4)101.6 (48.6-212.6)187.4 (86.2-407.5)315.2 (164.6-603.5)330.5 (124.2-879.3)222.9 (125.7-395.1)2355.5 (217.8-580.3)188.1 (88.9-398.2)637.3 (365-1112.8)764.8 (394.6-1482.4)1062 (509.6-2213.2)477.7 (236-967.1)3154 (74-320.2)94.5 (45.7-195.3)327.9 (111-968.6)512 (268-978)435 (191.2-989.2)245.8 (108.1-558.7)Geometric Mean Fold RiseDirect Neutralization – Wild Type13.3 (2.4-4.5)3.1 (1.8-5.2)3.1 (2.1-4.6)4.8 (3-7.5)2.9 (1.2-6.8)6.3 (3.9-10.2)27.5 (4.8-11.7)5 (2.5-10)6.6 (4.4-9.9)12.4 (6.7-22.9)6 (3.4-10.5)8.6 (4.1-17.8)33.4 (2-5.7)2.6 (1.3-5.2)3.4 (1.6-7.2)6.2 (2.7-14.2)3 (1.6-5.6)3.7 (2-6.7)Direct Neutralization – BA.115.6 (2.3-13.4)3.7 (1.9-7.6)14.6 (6-35.2)10.7 (5.1-22.2)4.7 (1.6-13.3)12.3 (7-21.4)213.6 (5.3-35.1)6.9 (3-15.9)38.4 (13.8-106.4)26 (10.7-63.2)15 (6.2-36.7)26.3 (13.8-49.9)35 (1.8-13.9)2.3 (1.2-4.4)17.4 (5.6-53.7)11.3 (4.9-25.9)7.2 (2.7-19.1)12.2 (7.2-20.8)Geometric Mean RatioDirect Neutralization – Wild Type1REF0.82 (0.44-1.53)0.87 (0.48-1.59)1.15 (0.63-2.11)1.08 (0.58-1.98)1.48 (0.81-2.7)2REF0.57 (0.3-1.08)0.81 (0.43-1.53)1.21 (0.63-2.3)1 (0.53-1.9)0.82 (0.43-1.54)3REF0.63 (0.3-1.32)0.9 (0.42-1.92)1.28 (0.6-2.75)0.96 (0.46-1.97)0.79 (0.38-1.63)Direct Neutralization – BA.11REF0.7 (0.33-1.45)1.76 (0.86-3.61)2.08 (1.02-4.26)1.51 (0.73-3.14)1.81 (0.88-3.7)2REF0.52 (0.25-1.09)2.1 (1.02-4.34)2.06 (1-4.25)2.1 (1.01-4.37)1.52 (0.75-3.12)3REF0.54 (0.24-1.2)2.69 (1.17-6.17)2.79 (1.21-6.41)2.07 (0.93-4.58)1.95 (0.88-4.32) Open table in a new tab Similarly, the captions of the 3 figures remain the same but there are modifications in the figure themselves as shown below.Fig. 2Geometric Mean Fold Rise by each vaccine type at each visitShow full captionEstimates of the geometric mean fold rise of neutralization titers, compared to baseline levels, at each visit and their 95% confidence interval. The Y axis is log-scaled. A dashed red line is drawn at the null value of 1. Samples obtained after a COVID-19 infection were excluded.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)Fig. 3Adjusted Geometric Mean Ratio by each vaccine type at each visitShow full captionThe geometric mean ratio of neutralization titers, adjusted for baseline levels, between each vaccine and the reference – BNT162b2/30μg. This was estimated using a separate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model fit at each time point, with the log-transformed antibody levels as the outcome, the vaccination group as the exposure (using the lower dose of the reference strain vaccine as the baseline), and the log-transformed pre-vaccination antibody levels as a covariate. The coefficient and confidence interval for each vaccination group were exponentiated to report the multiplicative change on the original scale. In both panels, a dashed red line is drawn at the null value of 1. Samples obtained after a COVID-19 infection were excluded.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT) Also, the figures and tables in the supplementary material of the article have been updated to reflect the correction now. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Immunogenicity of Omicron BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 vaccines: randomized trial, 3-month follow-upClinical Microbiology and InfectionVol. 29Issue 7PreviewThe capability of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant to escape immunity conferred by mRNA vaccines has led to the development of Omicron-adapted vaccines. In this study, we aimed to compare the immune response with the ancestral strain and with the BA.1 Omicron variant after administration of the original vaccine and the Omicron-adapted vaccine. Full-Text PDF