For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
4
views
28
references
 Top references
cited by
26
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      213
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Comprehensive assessment of humoral response after Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccination: a three-case series

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Since universal vaccination is a pillar against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), monitoring anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies is essential for deciphering post-vaccination immune response.

          Methods

          Three healthcare workers received 30 μg BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Pfizer Vaccine, followed by a second identical dose, 21 days afterwards. Venous blood was drawn at baseline and at serial intervals, up to 63 days afterwards, for assessing total immunoglobulins (Ig) anti-RBD (receptor binding domain), anti-S1/S2 and anti-RBD IgG, anti-RBD and anti-N/S1 IgM, and anti-S1 IgA.

          Results

          All subjects were SARS-CoV-2 seronegative at baseline. Total Ig anti-RBD, anti-S1/S2 and anti-RBD IgG levels increased between 91 and 368 folds until 21 days after the first vaccine dose, then reached a plateau. The levels raised further after the second dose (by ∼30-, ∼8- and ∼8-fold, respectively), peaking at day 35, but then slightly declining and stabilizing ∼50 days after the first vaccine dose. Anti-S1 IgA levels increased between 7 and 11 days after the first dose, slightly declined before the second dose, after which levels augmented by ∼24-fold from baseline. The anti-RBD and anti-N/S1 IgM kinetics were similar to that of anti-S1 IgA, though displaying substantially weaker increases and modest peaks, only 4- to 7-fold higher than baseline. Highly significant inter-correlation was noted between total Ig anti-RBD, anti-S1/S2 and anti-RBD IgG (all r=0.99), whilst other anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies displayed lower, though still significant, correlations. Serum spike protein concentration was undetectable at all-time points.

          Conclusions

          BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination generates a robust humoral immune response, especially involving anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgG and IgA, magnified by the second vaccine dose.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

          Fernando P Polack, Stephen J. Thomas, Nicholas R.E. Kitchin … (2023)
          Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
          Article 0 comments Cited 6908 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

            Lindsey Baden, Hana El Sahly, Brandon Essink … (2020)
            Abstract Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)
            Article 0 comments Cited 4742 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

              Derek K. Chu, Elie A. Akl, Stephanie Duda … (2020)
              Summary Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p interaction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; p interaction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization.
              Article 0 comments Cited 1738 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
                Publisher: Walter de Gruyter GmbH
                ISSN (Electronic): 1437-4331
                ISSN (Print): 1434-6621
                Publication date Created: March 18 2021
                Publication date (Electronic): April 12 2021
                Volume: 0
                Issue: 0
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Section of Clinical Biochemistry , University of Verona , Verona , Italy
                [2 ]Service of Laboratory Medicine, Pederzoli Hospital , Peschiera del Garda , Italy
                [3 ]The Heart Institute, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center , Cincinnati , OH , USA
                [4 ]Section of Occupational Medicine , University of Verona , Verona , Italy
                Article
                DOI: 10.1515/cclm-2021-0339
                PubMed ID: 33838087
                SO-VID: 2b7d86c7-5d38-49c3-973e-a67263e02c83
                Copyright © © 2021
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content213

                See all similar

                Cited by26

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,038

                See all reference authors