ArticleViruses2022
Six-Month Follow-Up of Immune Responses after a Rapid Mass Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 with BNT162b2 in the District of Schwaz/Austria.
Article in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Age and Cytokine Gene Variants Modulate the Immunogenicity and Protective Effect of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-Based Vaccination.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Retained avidity despite reduced cross-binding and cross-neutralizing antibody levels to Omicron after SARS-COV-2 wild-type infection or mRNA double vaccination.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- High Prevalence of Undocumented SARS-CoV-2 Infections in the Pediatric Population of the Tyrolean District of Schwaz.Viruses · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In response to a large outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 Beta (B.1.351) variant in the district Schwaz, Austria, a rapid mass vaccination campaign with BNT162b2 was carried out in spring 2021, immunizing more than 70% of the adult population within one week. Subsequent analysis revealed that the mass vaccination was associated with a significant reduction in new SARS-CoV-2 infections compared to control districts. Here, we aimed to evaluate both SARS-CoV-2-specific T- and B-cell responses at 35 ± 8 and 215 ± 7 days after the second dose in 600 study subjects who participated at both time points. Overall, a robust antibody and T-cell response was measured at day 35, which waned over time. Nevertheless, all persons preserved seropositivity and T cell response could still be detected in about half of the participants at day 215. Further, antibody response correlated negatively with age; however, in persons who experienced SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to study enrolment, the serum levels of both S- and N-specific antibodies surprisingly increased with age. In contrast, there was no correlation of T cell response with age. We could not detect any sex-related difference in the immune responses. SARS-CoV-2 infections prior to study enrolment or incident infections before day 215 resulted in higher antibody levels and T cell responses at day 215 compared to study participants with no history of infection. Collectively, our data support that vaccination with BNT162b2 against COVID-19 provides a durable immune response and emphasize the usefulness of vaccination even after a natural infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.