RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike responses to Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines by previous infection status
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.03.21.21254061
DO 10.1101/2021.03.21.21254061
A1 David W Eyre
A1 Sheila F Lumley
A1 Jia Wei
A1 Stuart Cox
A1 Tim James
A1 Anita Justice
A1 Gerald Jesuthasan
A1 Denise O’Donnell
A1 Alison Howarth
A1 Stephanie B Hatch
A1 Brian D Marsden
A1 E Yvonne Jones
A1 David I Stuart
A1 Daniel Ebner
A1 Sarah Hoosdally
A1 Derrick W Crook
A1 Tim EA Peto
A1 Timothy M Walker
A1 Nicole E Stoesser
A1 Philippa C Matthews
A1 Koen B Pouwels
A1 A Sarah Walker
A1 Katie Jeffery
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/26/2021.03.21.21254061.abstract
AB Objectives We investigate determinants of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG responses in healthcare workers (HCWs) following one or two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines.Methods HCWs participating in regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing were invited for serological testing prior to first and second vaccination, and 4 weeks post-vaccination if receiving a 12-week dosing interval. Quantitative post-vaccination anti-spike antibody responses were measured using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (detection threshold: ≥50 AU/ml). We used multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of seropositivity and generalised additive models to track antibody responses over time.Results Vaccine uptake was 80%, but less in lower-paid roles and Black, south Asian and minority ethnic groups. 3570/3610(98.9%) HCWs were seropositive >14 days post-first vaccination and prior to second vaccination, 2706/2720(99.5%) after Pfizer-BioNTech and 864/890(97.1%) following Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines. Previously infected and younger HCWs were more likely to test seropositive post-first vaccination, with no evidence of differences by sex or ethnicity. All 470 HCWs tested >14 days after second vaccine were seropositive. Quantitative antibody responses were higher after previous infection: median(IQR) >21 days post-first Pfizer-BioNTech 14,604(7644-22,291) AU/ml vs. 1028(564-1985) AU/ml without prior infection (p<0.001). Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine recipients had lower readings post-first dose compared to Pfizer-BioNTech, with and without previous infection, 10,095(5354-17,096) and 435(203-962) AU/ml respectively (both p<0.001 vs. Pfizer-BioNTech). Antibody responses post-second vaccination were similar to those after prior infection and one vaccine dose.Conclusions Vaccination leads to detectable anti-spike antibodies in nearly all adult HCWs. Whether differences in response impact vaccine efficacy needs further study.Competing Interest StatementDWE declares lecture fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. No other author has a conflict of interest to declare.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the UK Government's Department of Health and Social Care. This work was also supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Oxford University in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (NIHR200915), the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, and benefactions from the Huo Family Foundation and Andrew Spokes. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health or Public Health England. This study is affiliated with Public Health England's SARS-CoV-2 Immunity & Reinfection EvaluatioN (SIREN) study. DWE is a Robertson Foundation Fellow and an NIHR Oxford BRC Senior Fellow. SFL is a Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Fellow. DIS is supported by the Medical Research Council (MR/N00065X/1). PCM holds a Wellcome Intermediate Fellowship (110110/Z/15/Z). BDM is supported by the Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology Research. TMW is a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellow (214560/Z/18/Z). ASW is an NIHR Senior Investigator. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Deidentified data were obtained from the Infections in Oxfordshire Research Database which has generic Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority and Confidentiality Advisory Group approvals (19/SC/0403, 19/CAG/0144).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe datasets analysed during the current study are not publicly available as they contain personal data but are available from the Infections in Oxfordshire Research Database (https://oxfordbrc.nihr.ac.uk/research-themes-overview/antimicrobial-resistance-and-modernising-microbiology/infections-in-oxfordshire-research-database-iord/), subject to an application and research proposal meeting the ethical and governance requirements of the Database.