ArticleVaccines2022
Higher Immunological Response after BNT162b2 Vaccination among COVID-19 Convalescents-The Data from the Study among Healthcare Workers in an Infectious Diseases Center.
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.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamics and Protective Effectiveness of Serological Testing Among Healthcare Workers Vaccinated Against COVID-19.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- The Dynamics of Antibody Titres Against SARS-CoV-2 in Vaccinated Healthcare Workers: A Systemic Literature Review.Vaccines · 2024Review
- Bivalent vaccination against COVID-19 can trigger a humoral response in immunocompromised patients who receive monoclonal antibody prophylaxis.Journal of nephrology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.