Evaluation of the antibody response and adverse reactions of the BNT162b2 vaccine of participants with prior COVID-19 infection in Japan

Objective Vaccination programs are important to preventing COVID-19 infection. BNT162b2 is new type of vaccine, and previous studies have shown that the antibody response was significantly elevated in patients with prior COVID-19 infection after the first dose of BNT162b2 vaccination. However, no study has evaluated the efficacy of the vaccination or the adverse reactions of people with prior COVID-19 infection in Japan. The aim of this study is to evaluate the antibody titer and adverse reactions of BNT162b2 vaccine among participants with prior COVID-19 infection in Japan. Methods The data for this prospective study was collected between April 15, 2021, and June 9, 2021. All of the hospital staff who received the BNT162b2 vaccine were included in this study and were sorted into either the prior infection group or the control group. We collected the data of adverse reactions through self-reporting and calculated the anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibody titer for all participants. Results The antibody titer of the prior-infection group in first antibody test was significantly higher than that of the control group in the second antibody test. There was no significant difference in adverse reactions between the prior infection group receiving its first vaccination and the control group receiving its second vaccination. Furthermore, the history of prior infection was not related to local and systemic adverse reactions in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Our study shows that the antibody response following the first vaccination in the prior COVID-19 infection group was found to be comparable to that of the second vaccination in the control group; however, the evaluation of adverse reactions was inadequate and further, large-scale studies are needed.

Introduction systemic adverse reactions. Odds ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. 145 A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Data were analyzed 146 with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 26.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). 147 148

Results 149
Overall, 501 participants met the inclusion criteria. However, 96 participants were excluded because 150 they did not provide their consent to the study, one participant was excluded because of a new 151 COVID-19 infection after vaccination, and twenty-one participants were excluded because they did 152 not provide a blood sample within the deadline. Finally, 383 (76.4%) participants, who were divided 153 into a nine-person prior COVID-19 infection group and a 374-person control group, were analyzed 154 (Fig 1). 155 The data of the antibody titer of the second antibody test in the prior COVID-19 infection group was 156 missing for one case, and the data of adverse reactions was missing for two cases in the prior 157

COVID-19 infection group and for fifteen cases in control group. 158
The baseline characteristics for the prior COVID-19 infection group and control group are 159 demonstrated in Table 1. The median age (interquartile range) of the participants was younger in the 160 prior COVID-19 infection Group than in the Control Group (26 (16.0) vs 36 (16.0): p = 0.12), but 161 there were no other significant differences. The proportion of males was slightly smaller in the prior 162 COVID-19 infection group, but the difference was not significant (p = 0.46). Moreover, there was no 163 obesity and only a few participants with a previous medical history in the prior COVID-19 infection 164

group. 165
The comparison of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibody response between the prior COVID-19 166 infection group and the control group is demonstrated in Fig 2. The log anti-SARS-CoV-2 167 spike-specific antibody titers of the prior COVID-19 infection group were higher than that of the 168 control group in the pre-vaccination, first antibody, and second antibody tests (p < 0.001). The log 169 antibody titer of the prior COVID-19 infection group in the first antibody test was significantly 170 higher than that of control group in second antibody test (p < 0.001), whereas there was no 171 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 22, 2021. ;https://doi.org/10.1101https://doi.org/10. /2021 was larger than that of the first vaccination in the control group (p < 0.001). 179 The proportion of adverse reactions for each day after vaccination is demonstrated in Fig 3. The 180 injection site symptoms and headaches were confirmed in both groups four days after the first and 181 second vaccinations. Fever was confirmed in the early days after the second vaccination in both 182 groups. Fatigue was confirmed after four days of the first and second vaccination doses in the control 183 group, whereas that was confirmed in the early days after both doses in the prior COVID-19 184 infection group. Myalgia and arthralgia were confirmed after four days of the first and second 185 vaccination in the control group, whereas they were confirmed only within three days after receiving 186 the second dose of the vaccination in the prior COVID-19 infection group. 187 The total days of adverse reactions is recorded in Fig 4. The length of the days of systemic symptoms 188 was approximately half the length of the local symptoms, and the mean of days was shorter than 1.5 189 days. The total days of fever and fatigue after the second vaccination was significantly longer than 190 after the first vaccination in both groups (p < 0.05, p < 0.001). In the control group, the total number 191 of days of myalgia and arthralgia was significantly longer after the second dose of the vaccination 192 than that after the first vaccination (p < 0.001), whereas the total number of days of myalgia and 193 arthralgia was longer after the first vaccination than after the second vaccination in the prior 194 COVID-19 infection group. 195 Table 3  In our study, the antibody titer dramatically increased in the prior COVID-19 infection group after 203 first vaccination among Japanese people. This is the first study that evaluated the antibody response 204 after administration of the BNT162b2 vaccine in the prior COVID-19 infection group in Japan. 205 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 22, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10. 1101/2021 According to previous studies, the median antibody titers after the first dose of vaccination was 206 significantly higher in participants who had been previously infected with the COVID-19 virus than 207 that in uninfected participants [5,6]. A study carried out by Ebinger et al. shows that the antibody 208 titer reached a plateau after the first dose of the vaccination and that there was no significant 209 difference of antibody titers after the first dose of the vaccination and after the second dose of the 210 vaccination [6]. In our study, the antibody titer of the prior COVID-19 infection group reached a 211 plateau after receiving first dose of the vaccination, and it was significantly higher than that of the 212 control group after receiving the second dose of the vaccination as demonstrated in previous studies. 213 In contrast to the results of previous studies, in our study, the antibody titer of the prior COVID-19 214 infection group after receiving the first dose of the vaccination was significantly higher than that of 215 the control group after receiving the second dose of the vaccination. 216 Based on the results of previous studies, age and gender can be considered to be factors that 217 increased the antibody titer. A study carried by Gustafson et al. showed that the immune response to 218 vaccination is controlled by a delicate balance of effector T cells and follicular T cells and aging 219 disturbs this balance. Multiple changes in T cells have been identified as contributing to the 220 age-related defects of post-transcriptional regulation, metabolic function, and T-cell receptor 221 signaling [8]. In this study, there was no significant difference in age between the prior COVID-19 222 infection group and the control group, but the median age was higher in the prior COVID-19 223 infection group, which may have increased the antibody titer. 224 Differences in sex hormones are associated with gender differences in vaccine-induced immunity. 225 For example, testosterone levels and the antibody titer of the influenza vaccine have been shown to 226 be inversely correlated [9][10][11]. Genetic differences, as well as sex hormone differences, affect 227 vaccine-induced immunity. The X-chromosome expresses ten times more genes than the 228 Y-chromosome, and the differences in gene expression between the X-and Y-chromosomes promote 229 differences in vaccine-induced immunity by gender [12]. In contrast to this widely held belief, in our 230 previous study, gender was not a significant factor in the differences in antibody titers, and it is 231 possible that gender differences did not contribute much to the increases in antibody titers in this 232 study as well [7]. 233 The antibody titer level does not necessarily reflect the immune function against the BNT162b2 234 vaccine as a whole. However, our study showed that prior COVID-19 infection may increase the 235 immune response after receiving the first dose of the vaccination, and this fact is especially important 236 for vaccine delivery systems in Japan. 237 There are very few studies that evaluate the adverse reactions of the BNT162b2 vaccine. The 238 proportion of adverse reactions to the first and second doses of the vaccination in the control group 239 . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 22, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10. 1101/2021 was similar to previous studies [4,13]. Few studies have shown the adverse reactions to receiving the 240 first and second doses of the vaccination with and without prior 14,15], and 241 they have described the number of days and cases after vaccination, but the range of days were two 242 days or fewer, two to seven days, and seven days or more. On the other hand, the number of adverse 243 reactions were recorded on a daily basis up to the seventh day after vaccination in our study. The 244 trend of fever and fatigue in our study was similar to that of the previous study, whereas 245 injection-site symptoms after the first and second vaccinations in both groups, headache in the prior 246 COVID-19 infection group after both doses, and myalgia and arthralgia after the first vaccination in 247 the prior COVID-19 infection group lasted longer than those of previous study [6]. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 22, 2021.  CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 22, 2021.  . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not certified by peer review)
The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted July 22, 2021.