ArticleVaccines2022
Longitudinal Comparison of Neutralizing Antibody Responses to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines after Second and Third Doses.
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody persistence using LFIC: a prevalence study after booster doses.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Tracking Immunity: An Increased Number of COVID-19 Boosters Increases the Longevity of Anti-RBD and Anti-RBD-Neutralizing Antibodies.Vaccines · 2025Article
- Article
- Factors Predicting COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness and Longevity of Humoral Immune Responses.Vaccines · 2024Review
- Magnitude and Duration of Serum Neutralizing Antibody Titers Induced by a Third mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination against Omicron BA.1 in Older Individuals.Infection & chemotherapy · 2024Article
- mRNA-1273 boost after BNT162b2 vaccination generates comparable SARS-CoV-2-specific functional responses in naïve and COVID-19-recovered individuals.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines protect against severe disease and hospitalization. Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) are a first-line defense mechanism, but protective NAb responses are variable. Currently, NAb testing is not widely available. This study employed a lateral flow assay for monitoring NAb levels postvaccination and natural infection, using a finger-stick drop of blood. We report longitudinal NAb data from BNT162b2 (Pfizer) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) recipients after second and third doses. Results demonstrate a third dose of mRNA vaccine elicits higher and more durable NAb titers than the second dose, independent of manufacturer, sex, and age. Our analyses also revealed that vaccinated individuals could be categorized as strong, moderate, and poorly neutralizing responders. After the second dose, 34% of subjects were classified as strong responders, compared to 79% after the third dose. The final months of this study coincided with the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and symptomatic breakthrough infections within our study population. Lastly, we show that NAb levels sufficient for protection from symptomatic infection with early SARS-CoV-2 variants were not protective against Omicron infection and disease. This work highlights the need for accessible vaccine response monitoring for use in healthcare, such that individuals, particularly those in vulnerable populations, can make informed vaccination decisions.
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.