Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35165669›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Microbe2022

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike receptor binding domain IgG antibody responses after CoronaVac, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines, and a single booster dose: a prospective, longitudinal population-based study.

Burc Barin, Ulus Kasap, Ferda Selçuk, Ender Volkan, Özge Uluçkan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Microbe, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Burc BarinThe Emmes Company, Rockville, MD, USA.
Ulus KasapBiochemistry Laboratory, Etik Hospital, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Ferda SelçukDepartment of Neurology, Dr Burhan Nalbantoğlu State Hospital, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Ender VolkanCyprus International University, Faculty of Pharmacy, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Özge UluçkanBasel, Switzerland.
Cyprus International University · CYEmmes (United States) · USNicosia General Hospital · CY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaccination is an efficient strategy to control the COVID-19 pandemic. In north Cyprus, vaccine distribution started with CoronaVac followed by BNT162b2, and ChAdOx1 vaccines. An option to obtain a third booster dose with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac was later offered to people fully inoculated with CoronaVac. There are few simultaneous and comparative real-world antibody data for these three vaccines as well as boosters after CoronaVac vaccination. Our study was aimed at evaluating antibody responses after these vaccination schemes.

methodsWe did a prospective, longitudinal population-based study to measure SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG concentrations, assessed by assaying blood samples collected, in participants in north Cyprus who had received the BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, or CoronaVac vaccine at 1 month and 3 months after the second dose. Participants were recruited when they voluntarily came to the laboratory for testing after vaccination, solicited from health-care access points, or from the general population. We also evaluated antibody responses 1 month after a booster dose of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac after primary CoronaVac regimen. Demographics, baseline characteristics, vaccination reactions, and percentage of antibody responders were collected by phone interviews or directly from the laboratory summarised by vaccine and age group. Antibody levels were compared between groups over time by parametric and non-parametric methods.

findingsRecruitment, follow-up, and data collection was done between March 1 and Sept 30, 2021. BNT162b2 induced the highest seropositivity and anti-spike RBD IgG antibody titres, followed by ChAdOx1, and then by CoronaVac. In addition, the rate of decline of antibodies was fastest with CoronaVac, followed by ChAdOx1, and then by BNT162b2. For the older age group, the rate of seropositivity at 3 months after the second dose was 100% for BNT162b2, 90% for ChAdOx1, and 60% for CoronaVac. In the multivariate repeated measures model, lower antibody titres were also significantly associated with male sex, older age, and time since vaccination. Boosting a two-dose CoronaVac regimen at 6 months with a single BNT162b2 dose led to significantly increased titres of IgG compared with boosting with CoronaVac; for the 60 years and older age group, the geometric mean fold rise in antibody titre after the booster relative to 1 month post-baseline was 7·9 (95% CI 5·8-10·8) in the BNT162b2 boost group versus 2·8 (1·6-5·0) in the CoronaVac group.

interpretationThese longitudinal data can help shape vaccination strategies. Given the low antibody titres and fast decline in the CoronaVac group in individuals 60 years or older, more potent vaccine options could be considered as the primary vaccination or booster dose in these high-risk populations to sustain antibody responses for longer.

fundingCrowdfunded in north Cyprus.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2AgedAntibodies, ViralAntibody FormationBNT162 VaccineChAdOx1 nCoV-19COVID-19 VaccinesHumansImmunoglobulin GMalePandemicsProspective StudiesAntibodies, ViralBNT162 VaccineChAdOx1 nCoV-19COVID-19 VaccinesImmunoglobulin G

Identifiers

PMID35165669
PMCPMC8828370
OpenAlexW4211259701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.