Safety and Immunogenicity of a Fourth Dose of Omicron BA.1-Adapted BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccines in Adults 18-55 Years Old
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Adults aged 18-55 years who had previously received three 30 μg doses of BNT162b2 vaccine |
| I — Intervention | Fourth dose of bivalent Omicron BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 (30 μg or 60 μg) or monovalent Omicron BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 (60 μg) |
| C — Comparator | Different dosing strategies of BA.1-adapted vaccines (head-to-head comparison) |
| O — Outcomes | Primary: Safety (local reactions, systemic events, adverse events, serious adverse events). Secondary: Neutralizing antibody responses against Omicron BA.1, BA.4, BA.5 subvariants and ancestral strain |
Bottom Line
This phase 3 trial demonstrates that fourth-dose Omicron BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 vaccines maintain an acceptable safety profile while generating substantial neutralizing antibody responses against both BA.1 and ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strains. The bivalent formulations (30 μg and 60 μg) showed similar immunogenicity to the 60 μg monovalent BA.1 vaccine, with slightly better tolerability. All formulations provided modest cross-neutralization against BA.4 and BA.5 variants. For Australian clinicians, these findings support the use of variant-adapted boosters in adults 18-55 years, particularly during periods of Omicron circulation. The similar efficacy between bivalent doses suggests the 30 μg bivalent formulation may offer optimal benefit-risk balance. However, longer-term effectiveness data and real-world protection against severe outcomes remain needed to fully inform clinical recommendations.
Key Findings
P Value: Not reported in abstract
Effect Size: Geometric mean fold rises for BA.1 neutralization: 15.4-24.6 across vaccine groups
Primary Outcome: Safety profile similar to original BNT162b2 with slightly higher local reactions and systemic events for 60 μg monovalent BA.1
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Substantial neutralizing responses achieved in all vaccine groups with variant-specific enhancement
Confidence Interval: 95% CI ranges from 12.4-31.4 for BA.1 responses
Clinical Application
Highly feasible given existing mRNA vaccine infrastructure and cold chain capabilities Relevant for TGA consideration of variant-adapted boosters. Aligns with ATAGI recommendations for updated vaccines targeting circulating variants. Cost-effectiveness would need PBS evaluation. Australian adults aged 18-55 years who have received primary COVID-19 vaccination series
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 sublineages warrants the use of sequence-adapted vaccines to provide protection against coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, adults 18‒55 years old who had previously received three 30 μg doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were randomized to receive a 60 or 30 μg dose of bivalent Omicron BA.1‒adapted BNT162b2 comprising equal amounts of ancestral and monovalent messenger RNA BA.1 (bivalent BA.1) or a 60 μg dose of monovalent Omicron BA.1‒adapted BNT162b2 (monovalent BA.1). Safety (local reactions, systemic events, adverse events [AEs], and serious AEs) was the primary objective. Exploratory analyses assessed immune responses against Omicron BA.1, BA.4, and BA.5 subvariants and ancestral strain. RESULTS: Among the 1054 randomized participants who received monovalent BA.1 or bivalent BA.1, frequencies of local reactions, systemic events, and AEs were slightly higher with 60 µg monovalent BA.1 than either bivalent BA.1 dose level. One month after vaccination, bivalent BA.1 (30 and 60 μg) and monovalent BA.1 (60 μg) induced substantial neutralizing responses against Omicron BA.1 (50% neutralizing titer geometric mean fold rises [GMFRs], 15.4 [95% CI 12.4-19.2], 17.1 [13.7-21.4], and 24.6 [19.3-31.4], respectively) and ancestral strain (GMFRs, 6.2 [5.1-7.6], 7.3 [6.0-8.9], and 7.0 [5.7-8.7], respectively). In a smaller (n = 30/treatment arm) sentinel cohort, all study vaccines modestly neutralized Omicron BA.4 and BA.5. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent and monovalent BA.1‒adapted vaccines had a safety profile similar to the original BNT162b2 30 μg and induced substantial neutralizing responses against Omicron BA.1 and ancestral strains. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04955626.
References
- 1.Winokur, P., Diya, O., Fitz-Patrick, D., Dever, M., Gayed, J., Lockhart, S., Xu, X., Zhang, Y., Bangad, V., Wadsworth, L. T., Cannon, K., Cardona, J. F., Usdan, L., Ginis, J., Mensa, F. J., Zou, J., Xie, X., Lu, C., Buitrago, S., Scully, I. L., Cooper, D., Koury, K., Jansen, K. U., Türeci, Ö., Şahin, U., Swanson, K. A., Gruber, W. C., & Kitchin, N. (2026). Safety and immunogenicity of a fourth dose of Omicron BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines in adults 18-55 years old. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciag026
Related Research
Journal of medical Internet research
Advancing Human-Centered AI in Clinical Decision Support: Sociocognitive Human-in-the-Loop Study in HIV Care
2 Aug 2026
JBJS reviews
One-Stage or Two-Stage Revision for Infected Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Head-to-Head Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies
30 July 2026
Signal transduction and targeted therapy
Mucosal immunity and vaccine development
27 July 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service