Comparison of antibody response durability of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in healthcare workers

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.01.14.22269297: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line AuthenticationAuthentication: Methods for the cPASS surrogate virus neutralization test (SVNT) were previously published, validated, and shown to be 100% sensitive and specific when compared to gold standard, plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT), with qualitative analysis results 100% in agreement.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Anti-S antibody tests were performed by Bassett Medical Center’s Laboratory using the Abbott AdviseDx
    Anti-S
    suggested: None
    Anti-N antibody tests were also performed by Bassett’s laboratory using the SARS-CoV-2 IgG Abbott Architect assay (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park,
    Anti-N
    suggested: None
    The α-RBD nAb test measures a subset of antibodies that can block the interaction between the RBD on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the human host receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2).
    human host receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2
    suggested: None
    ACE2
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Anti-S antibody tests were performed by Bassett Medical Center’s Laboratory using the Abbott AdviseDx
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)
    Anti-N antibody tests were also performed by Bassett’s laboratory using the SARS-CoV-2 IgG Abbott Architect assay (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park,
    Abbott Laboratories
    suggested: None

    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:
    Key study limitations included the following: (1) Our study was observational. We addressed predicted confounders by adjusting for covariates likely to impact results; however, unmeasured confounders (e.g., COVID-19 prevention behavior, vaccine preferences, varying infection rates/exposures, and prevalent variants) may have influenced results. Lack of randomization required standardization of the period during which infection rates and VE were quantified. (2) We did not complete peak antibody assays post-primary vaccination precluding comparisons over time. (3) Analyses of Groups 3-5 were limited by small sample sizes. (4) Significant baseline variable group differences included immunosuppression (higher in Group 5, possibly lowering antibody responses in that group), prior COVID-19 infection rates (higher in Groups 3 and 4, possibly increasing antibody responses in those groups), and time from primary vaccination (higher in Groups 1 and 2, possibly lowering antibody responses in those groups). (5) The study design (with addition of the boosted group) and statistical analysis plan (primary analysis focused on subpopulation of surveyed participants) were modified after initiation of enrollment; however, these changes were prespecified prior to seeing primary outcome data. (6) The boosted group included varying primary vaccination-boosting combinations although BNT162b2-BNT162b2 was predominant (67.9%); and insufficient follow-up time to assess boosting’s effects on VE. (7) Ant...

    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.