A Third Dose of the COVID-19 Vaccine, CVnCoV, Increased the Neutralizing Activity against the SARS-CoV-2 Wild-Type and Delta Variant

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

A third dose of CVnCoV, a former candidate mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, was previously shown to boost neutralizing antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type in adults aged 18–60 and >60 years in a phase 2a clinical study. In the present study, we report the neutralizing antibody responses to a wild-type and a variant of concern, Delta, after a third dose of the vaccine on day (D)57 and D180. Neutralization activity was assessed using a microneutralization assay. Comparable levels of neutralizing antibodies against the wild-type and Delta were induced. These were higher than those observed after the first two doses, irrespective of age or pre-SARS-CoV-2-exposure status, indicating that the first two doses induced immune memory. Four weeks after the third dose on D180, the neutralizing titers for wild-type and Delta were two-fold higher in younger participants than in older participants; seroconversion rates were 100% for wild-type and Delta in the younger group and for Delta in the older group. A third CVnCoV dose induced similar levels of neutralizing responses against wild-type virus and the Delta variant in both naïve and pre-exposed participants, aligning with current knowledge from licensed COVID-19 vaccines that a third dose is beneficial against SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.22.22271051: (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.
    RandomizationStudy Design and Participants: The methods for this randomized phase 2a clinical trial assessing the safety and immunogenicity of the first generation CVnCoV vaccine have been described previously [11].
    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: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04515147Active, not recruitingA Dose-Confirmation Study to Evaluate the Safety, Reactogeni…


    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    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.