B and T cell immune responses elicited by the BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) COVID-19 vaccine in nursing home residents
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Objectives
The immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine is understudied in elderly people with comorbidities. We assessed SARS-CoV-2-S-targeted antibody and T cell responses following full vaccination in nursing home residents (NHR).
Methods
We recruited 60 NHR (44 female; median age, 87.5 years), of whom 10 had previously had COVID-19, and 18 healthy controls (15 female; median age, 48.5 years). Pre- and post-vaccination blood specimens were available for quantitation of total antibodies binding RBD and enumeration of SARS-CoV-2-S-reactive IFN-γ CD4 + and CD8 + T cells by flow cytometry.
Results
The seroconversion rate in presumably SARS-CoV-2 naïve NHR (95.3%), either with or without comorbidities, was similar to controls (94.4%). A robust booster effect was documented in NHR with prior COVID-19. Plasma antibody levels were higher in convalescent NHR than in individuals across the other two groups. A large percentage of NHR had SARS-CoV-2 S-reactive IFN-γ CD8 + and/or CD4 + T cells at baseline, in contrast to healthy controls. Either CD8 + and/or CD4 + T-cell responses were documented in all control subjects after vaccination. Contrariwise, the percentage of NHR exhibiting detectable SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ CD8 + or CD4 + T-cell responses (or both), irrespective of their baseline SARS-CoV-2 infection status, dropped consistently after vaccination. Overall, SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ CD8 + and CD4 + T-cell responses in NHR decreased in post-vaccination specimens.
Conclusion
The BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine elicits robust SARS-CoV-2-S antibody responses in NHR. Nevertheless, the frequency and magnitude of detectable SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ T-cell responses after vaccination was lower in NHR compared to controls.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.19.21255723: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: Informed consent was obtained from participants.
IRB: The study was approved by the Hospital Clínico Universitario INCLIVA Research Ethics Committee (February, 2021)Sex as a biological variable Participants and study design: We enrolled a total of 60 subjects (44 female) onto the study, randomly selected from two NH affiliated to the Clínico-Malvarrosa Health Department, Valencia (Spain), which together provide care for 226 residents. Randomization Participants and study design: We enrolled a total of 60 subjects (44 female) onto the study, randomly selected from two NH affiliated to the Clínico-Malvarrosa Health Department, Valencia (Spain), which together provide care for 226 … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.19.21255723: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: Informed consent was obtained from participants.
IRB: The study was approved by the Hospital Clínico Universitario INCLIVA Research Ethics Committee (February, 2021)Sex as a biological variable Participants and study design: We enrolled a total of 60 subjects (44 female) onto the study, randomly selected from two NH affiliated to the Clínico-Malvarrosa Health Department, Valencia (Spain), which together provide care for 226 residents. Randomization Participants and study design: We enrolled a total of 60 subjects (44 female) onto the study, randomly selected from two NH affiliated to the Clínico-Malvarrosa Health Department, Valencia (Spain), which together provide care for 226 residents. 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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:The current study has several limitations that must be underlined. Firstly, the number of participants was relatively limited; second, the possibility that NHR displayed SARS-CoV-2-S-reactive T cells with functional specificities other than IFN-γ production was not explored. Additionally, a whole-blood flow cytometry assay was used to assess T-cell immunity: it is uncertain whether employing isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells instead would increase sensitivity. Finally, no attempt was made to differentiate between truly SARS-CoV-2-specific and cross-reactive T cells, which can be accomplished according to recent reports, although this need further validation [20,21]. In summary, we were able to document robust SARS-CoV-2-S antibody responses equivalent to those of healthy controls in NHR following complete vaccination, irrespective of SARS-CoV-2 infection status and presence or absence of comorbidities. Nevertheless, our data point to differential vaccine effectivity between NHR and controls in terms of eliciting SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ T-cell responses. In this context, the potential detrimental effect of pre-existing bona fide or cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 immunity seen in NHR merits further investigation.
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.
-
