Immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and the BBV152 Vaccines in Patients with Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases

  1. Padmanabha Shenoy
  2. Sakir Ahmed
  3. Somy Cherian
  4. Aby Paul
  5. Veena Shenoy
  6. Anuroopa Vijayan
  7. Reshma Reji
  8. Arya Thampi
  9. AS Sageer Babu
  10. Manju Mohan

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

There is limited information on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRD).

Methods

136 consecutive patients with rheumatic diseases who never had a diagnosis of COVID-19 previously, and had completed vaccination with either the ChAdOx1 or BBV152 vaccines were recruited. Their IgG antibody titres to the Spike protein were estimated 1 month after the second dose.

Results

102 patients had AIRD while the 34 had non-AIRD. Lesser patients with AIRD (92/102) had positive antibodies titres than ones with non-AIRD(33/34) [p<0.001]. Amongst patients who received the ChAdOX1 vaccine, the AIRD group had lower antibody titres. Although the AIRD patients receiving BBV152 had similarly lower titres numerically, this did not attain statistical significance probably due to lesser numbers. Comparing the two vaccines, 114(95%) of those who received ChAdOx1 (n=120) and 11(68.7%) of those who received BBV152(n=16) had detectable antibodies [p=0.004]. Antibody titres also were higher in ChAdOx1 recipients when compared to BBV152.

To validate the findings, we estimated antibody titres in 30 healthy people each who had received either vaccine. All 30 who had received ChAdOX1 and only 23/30 of those who had received BBV152 had positive antibodies (p=0.011).

Conclusion

In this preliminary analysis, patients with AIRD had lower seroconversion rates as well as lower antibody titres as compared to patients with non-AIRD. Also,the humoral immunogenicity of the BBV152 vaccine appears to be less than that of the ChAdOX1 vaccine. Validation using larger numbers and testing of cellular immunity is urgently required.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.06.21258417: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot 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.

    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 10.1101/2021.06.06.21258417v1 on medRxiv