Comparison of the immunogenicity of five COVID‐19 vaccines in Sri Lanka
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
To determine the antibody responses elicited by different vaccines against SARS‐CoV‐2, we compared antibody responses in individuals 3 months post‐vaccination in those who had received different vaccines in Sri Lanka. Abs to the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the ancestral (wild type) virus (WT) as well as to variants of concern (VoCs), and ACE2 blocking Abs, were assessed in individuals vaccinated with Moderna ( n = 225), Sputnik V ( n = 128) or Sputnik light ( n = 184) and the results were compared with previously reported data on Sinopharm and AZD1222 vaccinees. A total of 99.5% of Moderna, >94% of AZD1222 or Sputnik V and >70% of Sputnik light, >60% of Sinopharm vaccine recipients, had a positive response to ACE2 blocking antibodies. The ACE2 blocking antibody levels were highest to lowest was Moderna > Sputnik V/AZD1222 (had equal levels) > Sputnik light > Sinopharm. All Moderna recipients had antibodies to the RBD of WT, alpha and beta, while positivity rates for delta variant was 80%. The positivity rates for Sputnik V vaccinees for the WT and VoCs were higher than for AZD1222 vaccinees while those who received Sinopharm had the lowest positivity rates (<16.7%). The total antibodies to the RBD were highest for the Sputnik V and AZD1222 vaccinees. The Moderna vaccine elicited the highest ACE2 blocking antibody levels followed by Sputnik V/AZD1222, while those who received Sinopharm had the lowest levels. These findings highlight the need for further studies to understand the effects on clinical outcomes.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.15.21267834: (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 10.1101/2021.12.15.21267834: (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.
-
