Waning of SARS-CoV-2 booster viral-load reduction effectiveness

  1. Matan Levine-Tiefenbrun
  2. Idan Yelin
  3. Hillel Alapi
  4. Esma Herzel
  5. Jacob Kuint
  6. Gabriel Chodick
  7. Sivan Gazit
  8. Tal Patalon
  9. Roy Kishony

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine has been shown to reduce viral load of breakthrough infections (BTIs), an important factor affecting infectiousness. This viral-load protective effect has been waning with time post the second vaccine and later restored with a booster shot. It is currently unclear though for how long this regained effectiveness lasts. Analyzing Ct values of SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR tests of over 22,000 infections during a Delta-variant-dominant period in Israel, we find that this viral-load reduction effectiveness significantly declines within months post the booster dose. Adjusting for age, sex and calendric date, Ct values of RdRp gene initially increases by 2.7 [CI: 2.3-3.0] relative to unvaccinated in the first month post the booster dose, yet then decays to a difference of 1.3 [CI: 0.7-1.9] in the second month and becomes small and insignificant in the third to fourth months. The rate and magnitude of this post-booster decline in viral-load reduction effectiveness mirror those observed post the second vaccine. These results suggest rapid waning of the booster’s effectiveness in reducing infectiousness, possibly affecting community-level spread of the virus.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41467-022-28936-y
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.27.21268424: (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.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Models were implemented using Python’s statsmodels library, version 0.9.0.
    Python’s
    suggested: (PyMVPA, RRID:SCR_006099)

    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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    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 10.1101/2021.12.27.21268424v1 on medRxiv