新冠并不是“感染一次就能夠免疫”的疾病。
藥品開發(fā)商Fractal Therapeutics的模擬顯示,未接種疫苗和不戴口罩的人可能一年左右感染一次新冠,未接種疫苗但在公共場合經(jīng)常配戴“優(yōu)質(zhì)”口罩的人可能每兩年感染一次新冠。
新冠研究人員、Fractal Therapeutics公司的首席執(zhí)行官阿里吉特·查克拉瓦蒂表示,已經(jīng)接種疫苗的人群,無論是否配戴口罩,預(yù)計感染新冠的“頻率低得多”,盡管無法準(zhǔn)確預(yù)測感染頻率。
他說:“總之,如果你計劃不戴口罩,像往常一樣生活,那么你可能每年至少感染一次新冠。如果你計劃在除家以外的其他地方都配戴口罩,就可以將感染風(fēng)險降低一半?!?/p>
該團(tuán)隊的最新模型考慮到了疫苗和之前感染帶來的免疫力逐漸下降的情況,以及一定程度的免疫逃逸。目前,奧密克戎亞變異株出現(xiàn)免疫逃逸的情況越來越多。團(tuán)隊還假設(shè)患者每一次感染,都能夠臨時獲得對于有時會致命的新冠病毒某種程度的保護(hù)力。
查克拉瓦蒂稱,其團(tuán)隊并未考慮到出現(xiàn)完全免疫逃逸的變異株的可能。
查克拉瓦蒂指出,模擬之所以以未接種疫苗者為重點,是因為對美國大多數(shù)人而言,盡管疫苗可以避免重癥和死亡,但“目前并沒有提供防止感染的保護(hù)力”。
美國接種過一劑加強(qiáng)針的人口比例很小,據(jù)美國疾病控制與預(yù)防中心(CDC)統(tǒng)計只有46.5%,而接種第二劑加強(qiáng)針的人口比例更是只有19.7%。他表示,無論如何,“加強(qiáng)針只能夠提供防止感染的短期保護(hù)力?!币呙绾椭案腥舅a(chǎn)生的免疫力被認(rèn)為會在三四個月后逐漸減弱,只是實際情況因人而異。
開發(fā)鼻噴疫苗的理由
查克拉瓦蒂的團(tuán)隊還模擬了疫苗依舊受到免疫逃逸的影響,但公眾可以“一遍一遍使用”現(xiàn)有疫苗的情況。
他說:“我們假設(shè)每一輪接種疫苗能夠使抗體滴度增加15倍,事實上,如果你頻繁接種疫苗確實可以做到,就能夠大幅降低感染的風(fēng)險?!?/p>
他表示,這種假設(shè)“可能很值得在現(xiàn)實世界中進(jìn)行測試。”雖然很少有人愿意每八周左右接種一劑疫苗,承受現(xiàn)有疫苗的副作用,但更多人可能愿意使用已經(jīng)上市的鼻噴霧疫苗,因為這種疫苗的副作用更少。
病毒變異的速度超過了現(xiàn)有疫苗技術(shù)發(fā)展的速度,可能導(dǎo)致現(xiàn)有疫苗未來徹底失效。查克拉瓦蒂稱,但“我們并沒有充分探索”這種技術(shù)可以提供保護(hù)力的范圍。
“除了開發(fā)能夠更有效預(yù)防現(xiàn)有變異病毒株的疫苗以及鼻噴霧疫苗以外,這方面還需要進(jìn)行更多的研究,探索接種疫苗的頻率,以及通過頻繁接種疫苗來增加中和抗體的效果?!?/p>
查克拉瓦蒂表示,這項研究可能不需要完整的臨床試驗,但首先可以分析中和抗體滴度,并思考一個問題:“哪一種疫苗劑量能夠提供更高的抗體滴度,并且從安全性角度是可以接受的?”
“這方面研究的成本相對較低,即便在研究下一代疫苗的過程中,也能夠帶來收益?!彼f。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:劉進(jìn)龍
審校:汪皓
新冠并不是“感染一次就能夠免疫”的疾病。
藥品開發(fā)商Fractal Therapeutics的模擬顯示,未接種疫苗和不戴口罩的人可能一年左右感染一次新冠,未接種疫苗但在公共場合經(jīng)常配戴“優(yōu)質(zhì)”口罩的人可能每兩年感染一次新冠。
新冠研究人員、Fractal Therapeutics公司的首席執(zhí)行官阿里吉特·查克拉瓦蒂表示,已經(jīng)接種疫苗的人群,無論是否配戴口罩,預(yù)計感染新冠的“頻率低得多”,盡管無法準(zhǔn)確預(yù)測感染頻率。
他說:“總之,如果你計劃不戴口罩,像往常一樣生活,那么你可能每年至少感染一次新冠。如果你計劃在除家以外的其他地方都配戴口罩,就可以將感染風(fēng)險降低一半。”
該團(tuán)隊的最新模型考慮到了疫苗和之前感染帶來的免疫力逐漸下降的情況,以及一定程度的免疫逃逸。目前,奧密克戎亞變異株出現(xiàn)免疫逃逸的情況越來越多。團(tuán)隊還假設(shè)患者每一次感染,都能夠臨時獲得對于有時會致命的新冠病毒某種程度的保護(hù)力。
查克拉瓦蒂稱,其團(tuán)隊并未考慮到出現(xiàn)完全免疫逃逸的變異株的可能。
查克拉瓦蒂指出,模擬之所以以未接種疫苗者為重點,是因為對美國大多數(shù)人而言,盡管疫苗可以避免重癥和死亡,但“目前并沒有提供防止感染的保護(hù)力”。
美國接種過一劑加強(qiáng)針的人口比例很小,據(jù)美國疾病控制與預(yù)防中心(CDC)統(tǒng)計只有46.5%,而接種第二劑加強(qiáng)針的人口比例更是只有19.7%。他表示,無論如何,“加強(qiáng)針只能夠提供防止感染的短期保護(hù)力?!币呙绾椭案腥舅a(chǎn)生的免疫力被認(rèn)為會在三四個月后逐漸減弱,只是實際情況因人而異。
開發(fā)鼻噴疫苗的理由
查克拉瓦蒂的團(tuán)隊還模擬了疫苗依舊受到免疫逃逸的影響,但公眾可以“一遍一遍使用”現(xiàn)有疫苗的情況。
他說:“我們假設(shè)每一輪接種疫苗能夠使抗體滴度增加15倍,事實上,如果你頻繁接種疫苗確實可以做到,就能夠大幅降低感染的風(fēng)險?!?/p>
他表示,這種假設(shè)“可能很值得在現(xiàn)實世界中進(jìn)行測試?!彪m然很少有人愿意每八周左右接種一劑疫苗,承受現(xiàn)有疫苗的副作用,但更多人可能愿意使用已經(jīng)上市的鼻噴霧疫苗,因為這種疫苗的副作用更少。
病毒變異的速度超過了現(xiàn)有疫苗技術(shù)發(fā)展的速度,可能導(dǎo)致現(xiàn)有疫苗未來徹底失效。查克拉瓦蒂稱,但“我們并沒有充分探索”這種技術(shù)可以提供保護(hù)力的范圍。
“除了開發(fā)能夠更有效預(yù)防現(xiàn)有變異病毒株的疫苗以及鼻噴霧疫苗以外,這方面還需要進(jìn)行更多的研究,探索接種疫苗的頻率,以及通過頻繁接種疫苗來增加中和抗體的效果?!?/p>
查克拉瓦蒂表示,這項研究可能不需要完整的臨床試驗,但首先可以分析中和抗體滴度,并思考一個問題:“哪一種疫苗劑量能夠提供更高的抗體滴度,并且從安全性角度是可以接受的?”
“這方面研究的成本相對較低,即便在研究下一代疫苗的過程中,也能夠帶來收益?!彼f。(財富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:劉進(jìn)龍
審校:汪皓
COVID is not a "one and done" thing—far from it.
Those who are unvaccinated and don't mask can expect to come down with COVID once a year or so—once every other year for the unvaccinated who regularly use a "good quality" mask in public, according to modeling by drug developer Fractal Therapeutics.
As for the vaccinated, both masked and unmasked, they can expect to get COVID "a lot less frequently," though it's impossible to say just how often, said Arijit Chakravarty, a COVID researcher and Fractal Therapeutics CEO.
"The bottom line is if you are planning not to use a mask and live your life as usual, expect to get infected at least once a year, if not more," he said. "If you're planning to mask everywhere but at home, that probably cuts the risk in half."
The team's latest models accounts for waning immunity from vaccines and prior infection, and a certain degree of immune evasion, as has been increasingly seen in Omicron subvariants. It also assumes that with each round of infection, a person gains some measure of protection against the sometimes deadly virus, albeit temporary.
It does not account for the possible evolution of a variant that completely evades immunity, he cautioned.
The modeling focuses on the unvaccinated because "vaccines are not currently providing protection against infection" for the majority of the U.S. population, though they are providing protection against severe illness and death, Chakravarty said.
The percentage of Americans who've received one booster is small—46.5%, according to the CDC—and smaller yet for a second booster: 19.7%. Regardless, "boosters only provide a short duration of protection against infection," he said. Immunity, whether from vaccine or prior infection, is thought to wane after three or four months, though it varies by person.
The case for a nasal vaccine
Chakravarty's team also ran simulations in which the vaccine is still undermined by immune evasion, but the public is able to "dose over and over again" with current vaccines.
"If we assume that each new round of vaccine gives you a 15-fold jump in antibody titers—yes, in fact, if you vaccinate very often, you can probably massively reduce the risk of being infected," he said.
The hypothesis "might well be worth testing in the real world," he said. While few would want to deal with a jab and current vaccine side effects every eight weeks or so, more might be willing to take a readily available nasal-mist vaccine, which may cause fewer side effects.
Variants are outpacing current vaccine technology, potentially rendering it completely ineffective in the future. But "we haven't fully explored the range" of what that technology can provide in the way of protection, Chakravarty said—not yet.
"More research needs to be done on this—in addition to coming up with vaccines that work better against the current viral variants, vaccines that can be used nasally—exploring how often vaccines can be given, and how much of a boost to our neutralizing antibodies we could get from frequent administration.”
Such research might not require full clinical trials, but could start by looking at neutralizing antibody titers and asking the question, "What course of vaccine doses provide higher titers while still being acceptable from a safety standpoint?" Chakravarty said.
"It's a relatively low-cost thing to fund and could yield benefit, even as we're exploring next-generation vaccines."