Antibody Response to CoronaVac Vaccine in Indonesian COVID-19 Survivor
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Several studies have shown that individuals with previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection had boosted antibody response after single dose of mRNA or adenovirus-vectored vaccines. We wondered whether single dose CoronaVac, a whole-inactivated vaccine, could be considered for COVID-19 survivors in Indonesia. We measured IgG anti-RBD titre among 18 survivors and 37 non-survivors. Among survivors, there were 9 survivors with positive antibody titre (seropositive) before vaccination and 9 seronegative survivors. All respondents received two doses of CoronaVac vaccine at 14-days interval. We found no significant antibody titre difference between non-survivor at 14 or 28 days after second dose as well as seronegative survivor at at 14 days after second dose. Seropositive survivors were rapidly boosted after first dose with higher antibody titer than non-survivors and seronegative survivors after second dose. However, antibody titer did not differ between first and second dose among seropositive survivors. Seropositive COVID-19 survivors could receive single dose of CoronaVac vaccine which could potentially ease the vaccine supply constrain. A long-term follow-up must be conducted to observe difference in antibody response and persistence.
Article Summary Line
Seropositive COVID-19 survivors had significantly higher antibody response after first dose of CoronaVac vaccine compared to non-survivors and seronegative survivors after second dose of vaccine.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.28.21254613: (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 10.1101/2021.05.28.21254613: (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.
-
