Kinetics of immune responses to the AZD1222/Covishield vaccine with varying dose intervals in Sri Lankan individuals
BACKGROUND: To understand the kinetics of immune responses with different dosing gaps of the AZD1222 vaccine, we compared antibody and T cell responses in two cohorts with two different dosing gaps.
METHODS: Antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus were assessed in 297 individuals with a dosing gap of 12 weeks, sampled at 12 weeks post second dose (cohort 1) and in 77 individuals with a median dosing gap of 21.4 weeks (cohort 2) sampled 6 weeks post second dose. ACE2 receptor blocking antibodies (ACE2R-Abs), antibodies to the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the virus and variants of concern (VOC) and ex vivo T cell responses were assessed in a sub cohort.
RESULTS: All individuals (100%) had SARS-CoV-2 specific total antibodies and 94.2% of cohort 1 and 97.1% of cohort 2 had ACE2R-blocking Abs. There was no difference in antibody titres or positivity rates in different age groups in both cohorts. The ACE2R-blocking Abs (p<0.0001) and antibodies to the RBD of the VOCs were significantly higher in cohort 2, compared to cohort 1. 41.2% to 65.8% of different age groups gave a positive response by the haemagglutination assay to the RBD of the ancestral virus and VOCs in cohort 1, while 53.6% to 90% gave a positive response in cohort 2. 17/57 (29.8%) of cohort 1 and 17/29 (58.6%) of cohort 2 had ex vivo IFNγ ELISpot responses above the positive threshold. The ACE2R-blocking antibodies and ex vivo IFNγ ELISpot responses at 12 weeks post-first dose, significantly correlated with levels 12 weeks post second dose (Spearman's r=0.46, p=0.008) and (Spearman's r=0.71, p<0.0001) respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Both dosing schedules resulted in high levels of antibody and T cell responses post vaccination, although those with a longer dosing gap had a higher magnitude of responses, possibly as immune responses were measured 6 weeks post second dose compared to 12 weeks post second dose.
| Errataetall: |
UpdateIn: Immun Inflamm Dis. 2022 Apr;10(4):e592. - PMID 35349749 |
|---|---|
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - year:2021 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences - (2021) vom: 27. Okt. |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Jeewandara, Chandima [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 28.04.2022 published: Electronic UpdateIn: Immun Inflamm Dis. 2022 Apr;10(4):e592. - PMID 35349749 Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1101/2021.10.27.21265561 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM332677362 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM332677362 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225220043.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1101/2021.10.27.21265561 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1108.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM332677362 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)34729569 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)2021.10.27.21265561 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Jeewandara, Chandima |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Kinetics of immune responses to the AZD1222/Covishield vaccine with varying dose intervals in Sri Lankan individuals |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 28.04.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a UpdateIn: Immun Inflamm Dis. 2022 Apr;10(4):e592. - PMID 35349749 | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: To understand the kinetics of immune responses with different dosing gaps of the AZD1222 vaccine, we compared antibody and T cell responses in two cohorts with two different dosing gaps | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: Antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus were assessed in 297 individuals with a dosing gap of 12 weeks, sampled at 12 weeks post second dose (cohort 1) and in 77 individuals with a median dosing gap of 21.4 weeks (cohort 2) sampled 6 weeks post second dose. ACE2 receptor blocking antibodies (ACE2R-Abs), antibodies to the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the virus and variants of concern (VOC) and ex vivo T cell responses were assessed in a sub cohort | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: All individuals (100%) had SARS-CoV-2 specific total antibodies and 94.2% of cohort 1 and 97.1% of cohort 2 had ACE2R-blocking Abs. There was no difference in antibody titres or positivity rates in different age groups in both cohorts. The ACE2R-blocking Abs (p<0.0001) and antibodies to the RBD of the VOCs were significantly higher in cohort 2, compared to cohort 1. 41.2% to 65.8% of different age groups gave a positive response by the haemagglutination assay to the RBD of the ancestral virus and VOCs in cohort 1, while 53.6% to 90% gave a positive response in cohort 2. 17/57 (29.8%) of cohort 1 and 17/29 (58.6%) of cohort 2 had ex vivo IFNγ ELISpot responses above the positive threshold. The ACE2R-blocking antibodies and ex vivo IFNγ ELISpot responses at 12 weeks post-first dose, significantly correlated with levels 12 weeks post second dose (Spearman's r=0.46, p=0.008) and (Spearman's r=0.71, p<0.0001) respectively | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Both dosing schedules resulted in high levels of antibody and T cell responses post vaccination, although those with a longer dosing gap had a higher magnitude of responses, possibly as immune responses were measured 6 weeks post second dose compared to 12 weeks post second dose | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Preprint | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Aberathna, Inoka Sepali |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gomes, Laksiri |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Pushpakumara, Pradeep Darshana |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Danasekara, Saubhagya |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Guruge, Dinuka |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ranasinghe, Thushali |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gunasekera, Banuri |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kamaladasa, Achala |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kuruppu, Heshan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Somathilake, Gayasha |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dissanayake, Osanda |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gamalath, Nayanathara |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ekanayake, Dinithi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jayamali, Jeewantha |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jayathilaka, Deshni |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mudunkotuwa, Anushika |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Harvie, Michael |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Nimasha, Thashmi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wijayamuni, Ruwan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Schimanski, Lisa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rijal, Pramila |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tan, Tiong K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Dong, Tao |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Townsend, Alain |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ogg, Graham S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Malavige, Gathsaurie Neelika |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences |d 2020 |g (2021) vom: 27. Okt. |w (DE-627)NLM310900166 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g year:2021 |g day:27 |g month:10 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.27.21265561 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |j 2021 |b 27 |c 10 | ||