Serological responses to COVID-19 booster vaccine in England

  1. Georgina Ireland
  2. Heather Whitaker
  3. Shamez N Ladhani
  4. Frances Baawuah
  5. Vani Subbarao
  6. Ezra Linley
  7. Lenesha Warrener
  8. Michelle O’Brien
  9. Corinne Whillock
  10. Paul Moss
  11. Mary E Ramsay
  12. Gayatri Amirthalingam
  13. Kevin E Brown

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Introduction

There are limited data on immune responses after COVID-19 vaccine boosters in individuals receiving primary immunisation with BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or AZD1222 (AstraZeneca).

Methods

A prospective, cohort study to assess SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses before and after booster vaccination with BNT162b2 in adults receiving either (i) two BNT162b2 doses <30 days apart (BNT162b2-control), (ii) two BNT162b2 doses ≥30 days apart (BNT162b2-extended) or (iii) two AZD1222 doses ≥30 days apart (AZD1222-extended) in London, England. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody geometric mean titres (GMTs) before and 2-4 weeks after booster were compared.

Results

Of 750 participants, 626 provided serum samples for up to 38 weeks after their second vaccine dose. Antibody GMTs peaked at 2-4 weeks after the second dose, before declining by 68% at 36-38 weeks after dose 2 for BNT162b2-control participants, 85% at 24-29 weeks for BNT162b2-extended participants and 78% at 24-29 weeks for AZD1222-extended participants. Antibody GMTs was highest in BNT162b2-extended participants (942 [95%CI, 797-1113]) than AZD1222-extended (183 [124-268]) participants at 24-29 weeks or BNT162b2-control participants at 36-38 weeks (208; 95%CI, 150-289). At 2-4 weeks after booster, GMTs were significantly higher than after primary vaccination in all three groups: 18,104 (95%CI, 13,911-23,560; n=47) in BNT162b2-control (76.3-fold), 13,980 (11,902-16,421; n=118) in BNT162b2-extended (15.9-fold) and 10,799 (8,510-13,704; n=43) in AZD1222-extended (57.2-fold) participants. BNT162b2-control participants (median:262 days) had a longer interval between primary and booster doses than BNT162b2-extended or AZD1222-extended (both median:186 days) participants.

Conclusions

We observed rapid serological responses to boosting with BNT162b2, irrespective of vaccine type or schedule used for primary immunisation, with higher post-booster responses with longer interval between primary immunisation and boosting. Boosters will not only provide additional protection for those at highest risk of severe COVID-19 but also prevent infection and, therefore, interrupt transmission, thereby reducing infections rates in the population. Ongoing surveillance will be important for monitoring the duration of protection after the booster.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.11.22.21266692: (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

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Serum samples were tested for nucleoprotein (N) antibodies as a marker of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay, Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland: positive ≥1 COI) and spike (S) protein antibodies, which could be infection-or vaccine-derived (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S total antibody assay, Roche Diagnostics: positive⍰≥⍰0.8 arbitrary units (au)/mL to assess vaccine response).
    Anti-SARS-CoV-2
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analyses were performed using STATA v.14.2.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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 10.1101/2021.11.22.21266692v1 on medRxiv