Abstract
Background Three SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, two based on mRNA, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, and one based on an adenovirus platform, Ad26.COV2.S, received emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2020/2021. These vaccines displayed clinical efficacy in initial studies against confirmed COVID-19 of 95.0%, 94.1%, and 66.9%, respectively.
Methods Individuals receiving one of these vaccines were invited to participate in a prospective longitudinal comparative study of immune responses elicited by the three vaccines. In this observational cohort study, humoral responses were evaluated using a SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) ELISA and a SARS-CoV-2 virus neutralization assay at mean of 21-31 days and 45-63 days following each initial vaccination. IFN-γ ELISPOT assays were conducted with peripheral blood mononuclear cells obtained at a median of 45-63 days after each initial vaccination.
Results The two mRNA-based platforms elicited similar RBD ELISA responses and neutralizing antibody responses. The adenovirus-based vaccine elicited significantly lower RBD ELISA and SARS-CoV-2 virus neutralization activity. The mRNA-1273 vaccine elicited significantly higher spike glycoprotein-specific T cell responses than either the BNT162b2 or the Ad26.COV2.S vaccines.
Conclusions Both mRNA based vaccines elicited higher magnitude humoral responses than Ad26.COV2.S and mRNA1273 elicited the highest magnitude of T cell response. Neutralizing antibody titers correlated with reported estimates of vaccine efficacy.
Summary of key points We compared antigen specific humoral and T cell responses following vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or Ad26.COV2.S. Both mRNA based vaccines elicited higher magnitude humoral responses than Ad26.COV2.S and mRNA1273 elicited the highest magnitude of T cell response.
Competing Interest Statement
JMM and AH receive funding from NIH/NIAID (UM1AI148452) and are investigators for the adult mRNA1273 and Ad26.COV2.S phase 3 vaccine studies. JVW serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of Quidel and an Independent Data Monitoring Committee for GlaxoSmithKline, neither related to the present work.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by R.K. Mellon Foundation to [JM, AH, TD, WPD], University of Pittsburgh Center for Vaccine Research and Henry L. Hillman Foundation to [WPD], UPMC Childrens Hospital to [JVW, MM, AKM], and Burroughs Wellcome Fund [1013362.02 to AKM].
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Institutional Review Board approval was provided by the University of Pittsburgh Human Research Protection Office.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data are included in the manuscript.
