Dynamics of anti-spike IgG antibody after a third BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in Japanese health care workers

  1. Hiroaki Ikezaki
  2. Hideyuki Nomura
  3. Nobuyuki Shimono

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12125
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.10.22273678: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: All participants provided written informed consent prior to enrollment.
    IRB: This study was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2008, and approved by the Haradoi hospital institutional ethics review committee prior to data collection (Approval No. 2020-08).
    Sex as a biological variableMost of the study participants were nurses, and approximately 85% were women.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    We also performed IgG / immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody qualitative tests against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (positive thresholds: 1.40 index [S/C] for anti-nucleocapsid IgG and 1.00 index [S/C] for anti-nucleocapsid IgM) for all participants to exclude the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
    IgM
    suggested: None
    SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein
    suggested: None
    anti-nucleocapsid IgG
    suggested: None
    anti-nucleocapsid IgM
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    measurements: Levels of anti-spike IgG were quantified using the SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Chicago, IL, USA) [18].
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)
    All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc.
    SAS Institute
    suggested: (Statistical Analysis System, RRID:SCR_008567)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations in this study should be noted. Because the anti-spike IgG titer measured in this study is against the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, it is difficult to estimate the vaccine efficacy against the omicron variant. The observed anti-spike IgG titer might be estimated lower against the omicron variant. Moreover, we did not assess cell-mediated immunity. However, a higher anti-spike IgG titer is still considered protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the omicron variant. Therefore, our results suggest that the third vaccination might restore the vaccine effectiveness against SARAS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, the number of participants was small, and participants were young. Additional research with many participants and a more comprehensive age range is necessary to validate our findings. Finally, we could not assess the effect of the third dose of vaccine on COVID-19 prevention because there was only one participant possibly infected with SRAS-CoV-2, and there was no control group. Further analyses with nationwide surveys are necessary to confirm the efficacy of the additional COVID-19 vaccination. In conclusions, the third dose of BNT162b2 vaccination successfully increased anti-spike IgG titer and the efficacy of vaccination might be maintained longer because the decline rate of anti-spike IgG is slower than after the second vaccination. In addition, the third vaccination may be more effective for those with low immunogenic to the primary immunization.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.04.10.22273678v1 on medRxiv