Comparison of safety and immunogenicity of CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 against the SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants of concern (Alpha, Delta, Beta) in Thai healthcare workers

  1. Nasikarn Angkasekwinai
  2. Jaturong Sewatanon
  3. Suvimol Niyomnaitham
  4. Supaporn Phumiamorn
  5. Kasama Sukapirom
  6. Sompong Sapsutthipas
  7. Rujipas Sirijatuphat
  8. Orasri Wittawatmongkol
  9. Sansnee Senawong
  10. Surakameth Mahasirimongkol
  11. Sakalin Trisiriwanich
  12. Kulkanya Chokephaibulkit

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.jvacx.2022.100153
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.03.21264451: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The study protocol was approved by the Siriraj Institutional Review Board (COA no. Si 171/2021).
    Consent: Study Procedures: After providing written informed consent, the participants were randomly assigned to receive either two doses of CoronaVac at 4 weeks interval or two doses of ChAdOx1 at 10 weeks interval.
    Sex as a biological variableThe participants were excluded from the study if they had the following conditions: confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had received current prophylactic treatment or investigational agents against COVID-19 within 90 days, had unstable underlying diseases that may compromise the immune responses, had a history of vaccine hypersensitivity, were pregnant, were immunocompromised or receiving immunosuppressive agent.
    RandomizationStudy Procedures: After providing written informed consent, the participants were randomly assigned to receive either two doses of CoronaVac at 4 weeks interval or two doses of ChAdOx1 at 10 weeks interval.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line Authenticationnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    The level of antibody response (IgG) against receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S1 subunit) was determined by a CMIA using the SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (Abbott, List No. 06S60) on the ARCHITECT i System The anonymous convalescent sera of mildly symptomatic infection from outbreaks in Thailand caused by B.1.36.16 (D614G) strain in late December 2020 collected at 4 or 12 weeks of illness were tested as the reference.
    IgG) against receptor binding domain (RBD
    suggested: None
    Qualitative antibody response against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP) in the plasma samples was determined by CMIA using the SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Abbott, List No. 06R86) on the ARCHITECT i System at baseline and 4 weeks after the second dose.
    SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (NP
    suggested: None
    SARS-CoV-2 IgG
    suggested: None
    50% Plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50) against SARS-CoV-2 strains: Subgroup of subjects in each vaccine group were randomly invited for additional blood collection at two weeks after the second dose for determining the level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBG IgG and the neutralizing antibody titers against original (Wuhan) strain and VOCs, which were Alpha (B1.1.7), Delta (B1.1617.2), and Beta (B.1.351) strains by 50% plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50).
    anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBG IgG
    suggested: None
    Experimental Models: Cell Lines
    SentencesResources
    Briefly, Vero cells were seeded at 2×105 cells/well/3 mL and placed in 37°C, 5% CO2 incubator for 1 day.
    Vero
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    The level of antibody response (IgG) against receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S1 subunit) was determined by a CMIA using the SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (Abbott, List No. 06S60) on the ARCHITECT i System The anonymous convalescent sera of mildly symptomatic infection from outbreaks in Thailand caused by B.1.36.16 (D614G) strain in late December 2020 collected at 4 or 12 weeks of illness were tested as the reference.
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)
    The PRNT50 titer below 10 were arbitrarily assigned a value of 5. GraphPad Prism 9 version 9.2.0 (283) (GraphPad Software, CA, USA) was used for unpaired t-test analyses to compare GM of the IgG concentrations between groups and Pearson‘s correlation coefficient to assess the correlation between log10 of anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG and log10 of PRNT50.
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    The ANOVA was performed to examine the geometric mean of anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG among different age groups using STATA version 17 (StataCorp, LP, College Station, TX, USA).
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)
    StataCorp
    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:
    This study has several limitations. Although the strength of this study is the homogeneity of the population, the population included only healthy HCWs, which may not be able to generalize to other population. In addition, only a subset of participants with small sample size were tested for the PRNT50 against the VOCs; however, the difference was able to be demonstrated. This study also lacks the data of cell-mediated immune responses, which could be another important factor to control the severity of viral infection. This study adds to the limited data available for CoronaVac and ChAdOx1 in the Asian population and provides direct comparison of these two vaccines particularly against the VOCs by using the gold-standard measurement of neutralizing antibody.

    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 10.1101/2021.10.03.21264451v1 on medRxiv