SARS-CoV-2 Spike S1-specific IgG kinetic profiles following mRNA or vector-based vaccination in the general Dutch population show distinct kinetics
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
mRNA- and vector-based vaccines are used at a large scale to prevent COVID-19. We compared Spike S1-specific (S1) IgG antibodies after vaccination with mRNA-based (Comirnaty, Spikevax) or vector-based (Janssen, Vaxzevria) vaccines, using samples from a Dutch nationwide cohort. In adults 18–64 years old (n = 2412), the median vaccination interval between the two doses was 77 days for Vaxzevria (interquartile range, IQR: 69–77), 35 days (28–35) for Comirnaty and 33 days (28–35) for Spikevax. mRNA vaccines induced faster inclines and higher S1 antibodies compared to vector-based vaccines. For all vaccines, one dose resulted in boosting of S1 antibodies in adults with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. For Comirnaty, two to four months following the second dose (n = 196), S1 antibodies in adults aged 18–64 years old (436 BAU/mL, IQR: 328–891) were less variable and median concentrations higher compared to those in persons ≥ 80 years old (366, 177–743), but differences were not statistically significant ( p > 0.100). Nearly all participants seroconverted following COVID-19 vaccination, including the aging population. These data confirm results from controlled vaccine trials in a general population, including vulnerable groups.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.25.21265467: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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 did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter:…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.25.21265467: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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 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.
-
