Comparative analysis of human immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or Ad26.COV2.S

  1. Dominique J. Barbeau
  2. Judith M. Martin
  3. Emily Carney
  4. Emily Dougherty
  5. Joshua D. Doyle
  6. Terence S. Dermody
  7. Alejandro Hoberman
  8. John V. Williams
  9. Marian G. Michaels
  10. John F. Alcorn
  11. W. Paul Duprex
  12. Anita K. McElroy

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 vaccines BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S received emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2020/2021. Individuals being vaccinated were invited to participate in a prospective longitudinal comparative study of immune responses elicited by the three vaccines. In this observational cohort study, immune responses were evaluated using a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain ELISA, SARS-CoV-2 virus neutralization assays and an IFN- γ ELISPOT assay at various times over six months following initial vaccination. mRNA-based vaccines elicited higher magnitude humoral responses than Ad26.COV2.S; mRNA-1273 elicited the most durable humoral response, and all humoral responses waned over time. Neutralizing antibodies against the Delta variant were of lower magnitude than the wild-type strain for all three vaccines. mRNA-1273 initially elicited the greatest magnitude of T cell response, but this declined by 6 months. Declining immunity over time supports the use of booster dosing, especially in the setting of emerging variants.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41541-022-00504-x
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.09.21.21262927: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: After obtaining written informed consent, whole blood was obtained in cell preparation tubes (BD) on the day of enrollment/first vaccination, and during follow up visits.
    IRB: Institutional Review Board approval was provided by the University of Pittsburgh Human Research Protection Office.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data analysis: Graphpad Prism was used for statistical analysis and to prepare figures.
    Graphpad
    suggested: (GraphPad, RRID:SCR_000306)

    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:
    Limitations of our study include that it was an observational cohort study without randomization, and participants receiving the various vaccines were not matched for demographics. As a result, there were sex and age differences and different racial distributions between the groups. The cohorts were of insufficient size to permit sub-group comparisons. The different dosing regimens between the vaccines resulted in slightly different intervals post vaccination for sampling and could have influenced the observed immunogenicity of the various vaccines. Despite these limitations, our findings are consistent with published efficacy data for these three vaccines and provide a direct side-by-side assessment of the elicited immune responses. Vaccination can provide protection from infection, disease, and/or death. All of these are achievable aims depending on the level and type of immunity induced by the vaccine. Moreover, protection from infection and potentially from disease also is likely to decrease transmission. As all these vaccine effects contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic, a given vaccine can be effective in advancing public health goals without necessarily inducing the highest magnitude of immune response.

    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 10.1101/2021.09.21.21262927v1 on medRxiv