SARS-CoV-2-antibody response in health care workers after vaccination or natural infection in a longitudinal observational study

  1. Jonas Herzberg
  2. Tanja Vollmer
  3. Bastian Fischer
  4. Heiko Becher
  5. Ann-Kristin Becker
  6. Human Honarpisheh
  7. Salman Yousuf Guraya
  8. Tim Strate
  9. Cornelius Knabbe

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.vaccine.2021.11.081
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.09.21258648: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Written and informed consent was given by all study participants prior to enrolment, and the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Schleswig-Holstein approved this study.
    IRB: Written and informed consent was given by all study participants prior to enrolment, and the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Schleswig-Holstein approved this study.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    The antibody-testing was fully automated performed using the semiquantitative anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA (IgG) from Euroimmun (Lübeck, Germany) detecting the S1 domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein with, according to the manufacturer, a specificity of 99.0% and sensitivity of 93.8% [19].
    anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA (IgG
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    In December 2020, after the first COVID-19-vaccinces were approved, the healthcare workers were offered vaccination using either the mRNA vaccine of BioNTech/Pfizer or the vector-vaccine from AstraZeneca.
    BioNTech/Pfizer
    suggested: None
    Statistical analysis: IBM SPSS Statistics Version 25 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    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:
    Limitation: In this trial, the major limitation is its single-center structure. The study was performed using previously defined timepoints for blood sampling for a longitudinal correlation. Therefore the time frame between vaccination and blood sampling differed between groups of participants. Due to this, one participant after a single dose BioNTech/Pfizer showed no antibody-response, likely because of a short interval between vaccination and blood test (less than 14 days). Even after a rigorous testing schedule in the study center, asymptomatic infections could be possible. This would provide a possible explanation for one participant without reported SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, with a positive antibody response. Besides the humoral immune response, cellular response specifically regarding T-cells should be evaluated, especially in participants without an adequate immune response. Females are highly overrepresented in both groups, representing a common trend in health care workers [30]. Especially in the group of non-vaccinated and non-infected individuals, females are overrepresented. One possibility may be due to the concern of post-vaccination complications regarding fertility. An additional antibody evaluation after the second dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, (depending on whether the booster vaccination was using AstraZeneca or BioNTech/Pfizer) could help provide more details on the differences in humoral immune response. Further evaluations of antibody respo...

    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 10.1101/2021.06.09.21258648v1 on medRxiv