Dataset Information

Immune responses to the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 vaccines and to natural COVID-19 infections over a three-month period.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are limited data directly comparing immune responses to vaccines and to natural infections with COVID-19. This study assessed the immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines over a 3-month period and compared the immune responses with those to natural infections.

Method

We enrolled healthcare workers (HCWs) who received BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines and COVID-19-confirmed patients, and then S1-IgG and neutralizing antibodies and T cell responses were measured.

Results

A total of 121 vaccinees and 26 patients with confirmed COVID-19 were analyzed. After the 2 nd dose, the BNT162b2 vaccine yielded S1-IgG antibody responses similar to natural infections (2241 ± 899 vs. 2601 ± 5039, p=0.676), but significantly stronger than the ChAdOx1 vaccine (174 ± 96, p <0.0001). The neutralizing antibody titer generated by BNT162b2 was 6-fold higher than that generated by ChAdOx1, but lower than that by natural infection. T cell responses persisted for the 3 months in the BNT162b2 and natural infection but decreased in the ChAdOx1.

Conclusions

Antibody responses after the 2 nd dose of BNT162b2 are higher than after the 2 nd dose of ChAdOx1 and like those occurring after natural infection. T cell responses are maintained longer in BNT162b2 vaccinees than in ChAdOx1 vaccinees.

SUBMITTER: Kim JY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8767884 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Both BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) vaccines have shown high efficacy against COVID-19 in randomized controlled trials. However, their comparative effectiveness against COVID-19 is unclear in the real world. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against COVID-19 in the UK general population. Methods We emulated a target trial using IQVIA Medical Research Database (IMRD), an electronic primary care database from the UK (2021). We included 1,311,075 participants, consisting of 637,549 men and 673,526 women age≥18 years, who received vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 between January 1 and August 31, 2021. The outcomes consisted of confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalisation for COVID-19 and death from COVID-19 in the IMRD. We performed a cox-proportional hazard model to compare the risk of each outcome variable between the two vaccines adjusting for potential confounders with time-stratified overlap weighting of propensity score (PS). Results During a mean of 6.7 months of follow-up, 20,070 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in individuals who received BNT162b2 vaccine (PS weighted incidence rate: 3.65 per 1000 person-months), and 31,611 SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in those who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (PS weighted incidence rate: 5.25 per 1000 person-months). The time-stratified PS weighted rate difference of SARS-CoV-2 infection for BNT162b2 group vs. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group was -1.60 per 1000 person-months (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.76 to -1.43 per 1000 person-months), and the hazard ratio was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.71). The results were similar across the stratum of sex, age (<65 and ≥65 years), and study periods (i.e., alpha-variant predominance period and delta-variant predominance period). The PS weighted incidence of hospitalisation for COVID-19 was also lower in the BNT162b2 vaccine group than that in the ChAdOx1 vaccine group (RD: -0.09, 95%CI: -0.13 to -0.05 per 1000 person-months; HR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.57 to 0.74). No significant difference in the risk of death from COVID-19 was observed between the two comparison groups. Conclusions In this population-based study, the BNT162b2 vaccine appears to be more efficacious than the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation for COVID-19 but not death from COVID-19. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-023-02795-w.

Project description:Introduction: The immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on biologic therapies is not well studied. The goal of this study was to measure the serological response to BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines in patients with IBD receiving different biologic therapies. Methods: We performed a multi-center prospective study between 1 August 2021 and 15 September 2021. We measured the seropositivity of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (SARS-CoV-2 IgG) and neutralizing antibody concentrations in patients with IBD receiving biologic therapies 4-10 weeks after their second dose or 3-6 weeks after their first dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines. Results: A total of 126 patients were enrolled (mean age, 31 years; 60% male; 71% Crohn's disease, 29% ulcerative colitis). Of these, 92 patients were vaccinated with the BNT162b2 vaccine (73%) and 34 patients with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (27%). In patients being treated with infliximab and adalimumab, the proportion of patients who achieved positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels after receiving two doses of the vaccine were 44 out of 59 patients (74.5%) and 13 out of 16 patients (81.2%), respectively. In contrast, of those receiving ustekinumab and vedolizumab, the proportion of patients who achieved positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels after receiving two doses of the vaccine were 100% and 92.8%, respectively. In patients receiving infliximab and adalimumab, the proportion of patients who had positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody levels after two-dose vaccination was 40 out of 59 patients (67.7%) and 14 out 16 patients (87.5%), respectively. On the other hand, the proportion of patients who had positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody levels were 12 out of 13 patients (92.3%) and 13 out of 14 patients (92.8%) in patients receiving ustekinumab and vedolizumab, respectively. Conclusions: The majority of patients with IBD who were on infliximab, adalimumab, and vedolizumab seroconverted after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. All patients on ustekinumab seroconverted after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are both likely to be effective after two doses in patients with IBD on biologics. Larger follow-up studies are needed to evaluate if decay of antibodies occurs over time.

Project description:BackgroundThe duration of protection afforded by coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines in the United States is unclear. Whether the increase in postvaccination infections during the summer of 2021 was caused by declining immunity over time, the emergence of the B.1.617.2 (delta) variant, or both is unknown.MethodsWe extracted data regarding Covid-19-related vaccination and outcomes during a 9-month period (December 11, 2020, to September 8, 2021) for approximately 10.6 million North Carolina residents by linking data from the North Carolina Covid-19 Surveillance System and the Covid-19 Vaccine Management System. We used a Cox regression model to estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), and Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) vaccines in reducing the current risks of Covid-19, hospitalization, and death, as a function of time elapsed since vaccination.ResultsFor the two-dose regimens of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines BNT162b2 (30 μg per dose) and mRNA-1273 (100 μg per dose), vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19 was 94.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.1 to 94.9) and 95.9% (95% CI, 95.5 to 96.2), respectively, at 2 months after the first dose and decreased to 66.6% (95% CI, 65.2 to 67.8) and 80.3% (95% CI, 79.3 to 81.2), respectively, at 7 months. Among early recipients of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, effectiveness decreased by approximately 15 and 10 percentage points, respectively, from mid-June to mid-July, when the delta variant became dominant. For the one-dose regimen of Ad26.COV2.S (5 × 1010 viral particles), effectiveness against Covid-19 was 74.8% (95% CI, 72.5 to 76.9) at 1 month and decreased to 59.4% (95% CI, 57.2 to 61.5) at 5 months. All three vaccines maintained better effectiveness in preventing hospitalization and death than in preventing infection over time, although the two mRNA vaccines provided higher levels of protection than Ad26.COV2.S.ConclusionsAll three Covid-19 vaccines had durable effectiveness in reducing the risks of hospitalization and death. Waning protection against infection over time was due to both declining immunity and the emergence of the delta variant. (Funded by a Dennis Gillings Distinguished Professorship and the National Institutes of Health.).