Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35610643›Full record

ArticleImmunity & ageing : I & A2022

Neutralizing antibody and T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern following ChAdOx-1 or BNT162b2 boosting in the elderly previously immunized with CoronaVac vaccine.

Chalerm Liwsrisakun, Supansa Pata, Witida Laopajon, Nuchjira Takheaw, Warawut Chaiwong, Juthamas Inchai, Chaicharn Pothirat, Chaiwat Bumroongkit, Athavudh Deesomchok, Theerakorn Theerakittikul and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Immunity & ageing : I & A, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Chalerm Liwsrisakun *Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Supansa Pata *Division of Clinical Immunology, Department of Medical Technology, Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Witida LaopajonDivision of Clinical Immunology, Department of Medical Technology, Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Nuchjira TakheawDivision of Clinical Immunology, Department of Medical Technology, Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Warawut ChaiwongDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Juthamas InchaiDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Chaicharn PothiratDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Chaiwat BumroongkitDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Athavudh DeesomchokDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Theerakorn TheerakittikulDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Atikun LimsukonDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Pattraporn TajarernmuangDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Nutchanok NiyatiwatchanchaiDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Konlawij TrongtrakulDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Allergy, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Kantinan ChuensirikulchaiDivision of Clinical Immunology, Department of Medical Technology, Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Watchara KasinrerkDivision of Clinical Immunology, Department of Medical Technology, Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Watchara.k@cmu.ac.th.
Chiang Mai University · THNational Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology · THNational Science and Technology Development Agency · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe existence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) in association with evidence of breakthrough infections despite vaccination resulted in the need for vaccine boosting. In elderly individuals, information on the immunogenicity of booster vaccinations is limited. In countries where the CoronaVac inactivated vaccine is the primary vaccine, the appropriate boosting regimen is not clear. Immunologic studies of the effects of booster vaccination against VOCs, particularly Delta and Omicron, following CoronaVac in elderly individuals are helpful for policy makers. In this study, we determined the immune responses against VOCs following ChAdOx-1 or BNT162b2 boosting in elderly individuals previously immunized with CoronaVac.

resultsBefore boosting, the median % inhibition of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against the wild-type (WT), Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron variants in the ChAdOx-1 and BNT162b2 groups was 52.8% vs. 53.4, 36.6% vs. 39.9, 5.2% vs. 13.7, 34.3% vs. 44.9, and 20.8% vs. 18.8%, respectively. After boosting with ChAdOx-1 or BNT162b2, the % inhibition of NAbs were increased to 97.3% vs. 97.4, 94.3% vs. 97.3%, 79.9 vs. 93.7, 95.5% vs. 97.5, and 26.9% vs. 31.9% for WT, Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron variants, respectively. Boosting with BNT162b2 induced significantly higher NAb levels than boosting with ChAdOx-1 against the Alpha, Beta and Delta variants but not the WT and Omicron variants. NAb levels against Omicron variant were not significantly different before and after boosting with ChAdOx-1 or BNT162b2. To evaluate T-cell responses, S peptides of the WT, Alpha, Beta and Delta variants were used to stimulate T cells. Upon stimulation, the expression of IL-17A in CD8 T cells was higher in the BNT162b2 group than in the ChAdOx-1 boosting group. However, IFN-γ production in CD4 and CD8 T cells did not significantly differ under all vaccination regimens. The expression of FasL in CD4 T cells, but not CD8 T cells, was higher in the BNT162b2-boosted group.

conclusionBoosting with either ChAdOx-1 or BNT162b2 in CoronaVac-primed healthy elderly individuals induced high NAb production against all examined VOCs except Omicron. BNT162b2 stimulated higher NAb and some T-cell responses than ChAdOx-1. Vaccine boosting is, therefore, recommended for elderly individuals previously immunized with CoronaVac.

Indexed as

Booster vaccineCOVID-19COVID-19 vaccineElderlySARS-CoV-2Variants of concern

Identifiers

PMID35610643
PMCPMC9126751
OpenAlexW4281392048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.