Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36184633›Full record

ArticleNature communications2022

Spike-antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccination by demographic and clinical factors in a prospective community cohort study.

Madhumita Shrotri, Ellen Fragaszy, Vincent Nguyen, Annalan M D Navaratnam, Cyril Geismar, Sarah Beale, Jana Kovar, Thomas E Byrne, Wing Lam Erica Fong, Parth Patel and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  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

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Madhumita ShrotriInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Ellen FragaszyInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Vincent NguyenInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Annalan M D NavaratnamInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Cyril GeismarInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8486-5890
Sarah BealeInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.
Jana KovarInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0477-2767
Thomas E ByrneInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Wing Lam Erica FongInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Parth PatelInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5207-2776
Anna AryeeInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Isobel BraithwaiteInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Anne M JohnsonInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Alison RodgerInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Andrew C HaywardInstitute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.
Robert W AldridgeInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK. r.aldridge@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0542-0816
University College London · GBHealth Data Research UK · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_PC 19070Medical Research Council MC_PC_19070Medical Research Council MR/N013867/1Medical Research Council MR/V028375/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 206441/Z/17/ZWellcome Trust 206602
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination constitutes the best long-term solution against Coronavirus Disease-2019; however, vaccine-derived immunity may not protect all groups equally, and the durability of protective antibodies may be short. We evaluate Spike-antibody responses following BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S vaccination amongst SARS-CoV2-naive adults across England and Wales enrolled in a prospective cohort study (Virus Watch). Here we show BNT162b2 recipients achieved higher peak antibody levels after two doses; however, both groups experience substantial antibody waning over time. In 8356 individuals submitting a sample ≥28 days after Dose 2, we observe significantly reduced Spike-antibody levels following two doses amongst individuals reporting conditions and therapies that cause immunosuppression. After adjusting for these, several common chronic conditions also appear to attenuate the antibody response. These findings suggest the need to continue prioritising vulnerable groups, who have been vaccinated earliest and have the most attenuated antibody responses, for future boosters.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAdultAntibodies, ViralAntibody FormationBNT162 VaccineCohort StudiesDemographyHumansProspective StudiesRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2VaccinationAntibodies, ViralBNT162 VaccineCOVID-19 VaccinesRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID36184633
PMCPMC9526787
OpenAlexW4299462724

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.