Past SARS-CoV-2 infection elicits a strong immune response after a single vaccine dose

  1. Rossana Elena Chahla
  2. Rodrigo Hernán Tomas-Grau
  3. Silvia Inés Cazorla
  4. Diego Ploper
  5. Esteban Vera Pingitore
  6. Mónica Aguilar López
  7. Patricia Aznar
  8. Malena Alcorta
  9. Eva María del Mar Vélez
  10. Agustín Stagnetto
  11. César Luís Ávila
  12. Carolina Maldonado-Galdeano
  13. Sergio Benjamín Socias
  14. Dar Heinze
  15. Silvia Adriana Navarro
  16. Conrado Llapur
  17. Dardo Costas
  18. Isolina Flores
  19. Gabriela Apfelbaum
  20. Raúl Mostoslavsky
  21. Gustavo Mostoslavsky
  22. Gabriela Perdigón
  23. Rosana Nieves Chehín

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

We hypothesized that in individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, the first vaccine dose would work as a booster, eliciting a faster and more intense immune response. We herein describe antibody responses to the first and second doses of Gam-COVID-Vac (SPUTNIK V) vaccine in health personnel of Tucumán, Argentina, with previous COVID-19 and compared it with uninfected personnel. Individuals with anti-SARS-CoV-2 titers at baseline showed significantly higher responses to the first dose than people with no prior history of disease (p <0.0001), with titers higher to those registered after the second dose in the control group, representing a clear secondary antibody response. This suggests that a single dose of SPUTNIK V for people with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to a better use of available doses.

One-Sentence Summary

First vaccine dose in subjects with prior COVID19 elicits a higher antibody response than two doses in uninfected individuals

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.14.21253039: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot 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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.03.14.21253039 on medRxiv