Immunogenicity of heterologous prime/boost inactivated and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine

  1. Nasamon Wanlapakorn
  2. Ritthideach Yorsaeng
  3. Harit Phowatthanasathian
  4. Nungruthai Suntronwong
  5. Sitthichai Kanokudom
  6. Natthinee Sudhinaraset
  7. Yong Poovorawan

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction

In August 2021, Thailand imported the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The prioritised group to receive the BNT162b2 vaccine were health professionals. The BNT162b2 vaccine scheduled for healthcare workers were two-dose regimen administered three weeks apart, the third dose booster in two-dose inactivated CoronaVac vaccine recipients or as a second dose in health professionals who had received the CoronaVac or adenoviral-vectored (ChAdOx1-S) vaccine as the first dose regardless of the interval between the first and second dose.

Methods

This study aims to evaluate the immunogenicity of the heterologous prime boost CoronaVac followed by BNT162b2 in health professionals.

Results

The CoronaVac/BNT162b2 vaccine recipients elicited higher neutralizing activity against the original Wuhan and all variants of concern than in the recipients of the two-dose CoronaVac.

Conclusions

The heterologous CoronaVac/BNT162b2 could be used as an alternative regimen in countries experiencing the vaccine shortages and in individuals experiencing the adverse events following CoronaVac.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.20.21266644: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University (IRB 870/64).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Venous blood samples were collected between 21-35 days after the second dose vaccination and tested for SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG by SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Abbott Park, IL), SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD total immunoglobulin (Ig) by Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), and anti-spike protein 1 (S1) IgA by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany).
    Abbott
    suggested: (Abbott, RRID:SCR_010477)

    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:
    Our study had a few noteworthy limitations. Firstly, the demographic discrepancies of the short and long-interval heterologous regimen cohorts heavily favour young females. Cohort sizes were relatively small, therefore requiring further studying with a larger sample size. Secondly, this study did not investigate the reactogenicity of the heterologous schedule. Lastly, efficacy data from more extensive trials are needed to comprehensively determine the benefits of heterologous CoronaVac followed by BNT162b2 regimen across all age groups in different countries facing different emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.

    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 10.1101/2021.11.20.21266644v1 on medRxiv