Real-world data on immune responses following heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccination schedule with Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines in England

  1. Samantha J Westrop
  2. Heather J Whitaker
  3. Annabel A Powell
  4. Linda Power
  5. Corinne Whillock
  6. Helen Campbell
  7. Ruth Simmons
  8. Lenesha Warrener
  9. Mary E Ramsay
  10. Shamez N Ladhani
  11. Kevin E Brown
  12. Gayatri Amirthalingam

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.jinf.2022.01.038
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.14.21267562: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Those willing and eligible to participate were asked to sign an electronic consent form online and complete a short online questionnaire, which was developed using SnapSurvey software.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Comparator groups: SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in adults aged 50-74 years who were enrolled in the CONSENSUS study and received homologous vaccination as part of the UK national immunisation programme were used as comparator groups.
    SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    14.2 and graphs created in RStudio or STATA.
    RStudio
    suggested: (RStudio, RRID:SCR_000432)
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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:
    Strengths and Limitations: The strength of this evaluation is the use of national surveillance data to rapidly identify and recruit adults who had received a heterologous vaccine schedule as part of the national COVID-19 immunisation programme. This real-world approach was effective and efficient, facilitating speedy identification, enrolment, and timely sample collection after the second vaccine dose. The use of self-sampling blood collection devices removed the need for phlebotomy and allowed participation of individuals from across the country, increasing the generalisability of our findings to the UK population. The volume of blood collected by self-sampling was sufficient for serological assays but not for additional studies such as cellular immune responses. There are some limitations. The recruited participants may not be representative of the general population since they deviated from the national recommendation to receive the same vaccine product for both doses, usually because of a severe reaction after the first dose. Also, as this was not a clinical trial, we were unable to collect blood samples prior to the second vaccine dose and blood sampling times were more variable, with insufficient sample volume in up to 20% of returned self-sampling devices. Finally, the infection status of the participants was not known at recruitment, leading to the small sample size for previously infected individuals, especially when sub-grouped by vaccine schedule. Implications and ...

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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 10.1101/2021.12.14.21267562v1 on medRxiv