Abstract
Background Vaccination is our main strategy to control SARS-CoV-2 infection. Given a decrease in the quantitative SARS-CoV-2 spike 1-2 IgG antibody titers three months following the second BNT162b2 dose, healthcare workers got a third booster dose after six months of completing the original scheme. This study aimed to analyze quantitative SARS-CoV-2 spike 1-2 IgG antibody titers and safety of the third dose.
Material and methods A prospective longitudinal cohort study included healthcare workers who received a third booster dose after six months of the complete BNT162b2 regimen. We assessed the quantitative SARS-CoV-2 spike 1-2 IgG antibody titers 21-28 days after the first and second dose, three months after the complete scheme, 1-7 days following the third dose, and 21-28 days after the boost.
Results The cohort comprised 168 non-immunocompromised participants of 41(10) years old, 67% being women. The third dose was associated with increasing the quantitative antibody titers, regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 history. In negative SARS-CoV-2 history, the median (IQR) antibody titers increased from 379 (645.4) to 2960 (2010), while in positive SARS-CoV-2 history, from 590 (1262) to 3090 (2080). The third dose had less number of total side effects compared to the other two shots. The most common side effect after the third BNT162b2 shot was pain at the injection site (n=82, 84.5%), followed by tiredness (n=45, 46.4%), with a mild severity (n=36, 37.1%). Tiredness, myalgias, arthralgias, fever, and adenopathy were proportionally higher following the third dose than the two-dose regimen (p<0.05).
Conclusion The third dose applied after six months of the original BNT162b2 regimen provided a good humoral immune response by elevating the quantitative SARS-CoV-2 spike 1-2 IgG antibody titers. The booster dose was well tolerated with no severe side effects after the additional BNT162b2 dose.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NA
Funding Statement
The research was supported by private funding provided by the hospital. No external funding was used.
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:
Ethics committee/local Institutional Review Board from the school of Medicine from Universidad de Monterrey gave ethical approval: Ref.:26022021-CN-1e-CI
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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 produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
