Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36560567›Full record

ArticleVaccines2022

Higher Immunological Response after BNT162b2 Vaccination among COVID-19 Convalescents-The Data from the Study among Healthcare Workers in an Infectious Diseases Center.

Agata Skrzat-Klapaczyńska, Justyna Dominika Kowalska, Marcin Paciorek, Joanna Puła, Carlo Bieńkowski, Dominika Krogulec, Jarosław Stengiel, Agnieszka Pawełczyk, Karol Perlejewski, Sylwia Osuch and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Agata Skrzat-KlapaczyńskaDepartment of Adults' Infectious Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6367-5633
Justyna Dominika KowalskaDepartment of Adults' Infectious Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.
Marcin PaciorekDepartment of Adults' Infectious Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.
Joanna PułaDepartment of Adults' Infectious Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.
Carlo BieńkowskiDepartment of Adults' Infectious Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6488-4576
Dominika KrogulecDepartment of Adults' Infectious Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.
Jarosław StengielWard 7th, Hospital for Infectious Diseases, 01-201 Warsaw, Poland.
Agnieszka PawełczykDepartment of Immunopathology of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Medical University in Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.
Karol PerlejewskiDepartment of Immunopathology of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Medical University in Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3782-6442
Sylwia OsuchDepartment of Immunopathology of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Medical University in Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.
Marek RadkowskiDepartment of Immunopathology of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Medical University in Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.
Andrzej HorbanDepartment of Adults' Infectious Diseases, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.
Medical University of Warsaw · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The BNT162b2 vaccination studies did not specifically focus on groups that were heavily exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: Study participants were recruited from hospital employees who received BNT162b2 vaccination at the Hospital for Infectious Diseases in Warsaw. Blood samples were collected before and after each vaccination dose. At each timepoint, the levels of anti-SARS CoV-2 IgM, anti-n SARS-CoV-2 IgG, and S-RBD antibodies were measured. Data on concomitant diseases and the vaccine’s adverse events (VAE) were collected after each vaccination dose. In the statistical analyses, non-parametric tests were used. Results: In total, 170 healthcare workers were included in the analysis. Their median age was 51 years (interquartile range (IQR): 41−60 years); most of them were women (n = 137, 80.6%) working in direct contact with patients (n = 137, 73.2%); and 46 (27.0%) had concomitant diseases. More than one fifth of subjects had COVID-19 before their first dose of vaccination (n = 38, 22.6%). In terms of immunological responses, our investigations showed a high level of efficacy for the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination as measured by S-RBD antibody concentrations: these were positive in 100% of participants 14 days after the second dose of the vaccine. It was also observed that employees with high S-RBD antibodies (>=433 BAU/mL) were more likely to be COVID-19 convalescents before receiving the first vaccine dose (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The BNT162b2 vaccine is safe and effective among HCWs. Vaccine adverse events occurred, but serious events were not observed. Moreover, the BNT162b2 vaccine is effective against symptomatic and severe COVID-19—none of the workers that acquired a SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination required hospitalization or medical care. We also observed higher immunological responses among COVID-19 convalescents.

Indexed as

antibodiesCOVID-19 convalescentCOVID-19 vaccinationhealthcare workersimmunological response

Identifiers

PMID36560567
PMCPMC9785047
OpenAlexW4311687888

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.