Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37574375›Full record

Observational studyEBioMedicine2023

Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination.

Laura Ziegler, Verena Klemis, Tina Schmidt, Sophie Schneitler, Christina Baum, Jürgen Neumann, Sören L Becker, Barbara C Gärtner, Urban Sester, Martina Sester

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in EBioMedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Laura ZieglerDepartment of Transplant and Infection Immunology, Saarland University, Germany.
Verena KlemisDepartment of Transplant and Infection Immunology, Saarland University, Germany.
Tina SchmidtDepartment of Transplant and Infection Immunology, Saarland University, Germany.
Sophie SchneitlerDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Germany.
Christina BaumOccupational Health Care Center, Saarland University, 66421 Homburg, Germany.
Jürgen NeumannDepartment of Occupational Health, Robert Bosch GmbH, 66424 Homburg, Germany.
Sören L BeckerDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Germany.
Barbara C GärtnerDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Saarland University, Germany.
Urban SesterDepartment of Nephrology, SHG-Klinikum Völklingen, 66333 Völklingen, Germany.
Martina SesterDepartment of Transplant and Infection Immunology, Saarland University, Germany. Electronic address: martina.sester@uks.eu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividual doses of dual-dose vaccine-regimens are sequentially administered into the deltoid muscle, but little attention has so far been paid to the immunological effects of choosing the ipsilateral or the contralateral side for the second dose.

methodsIn an observational study, 303 previously naive individuals were recruited, who received the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 on either the ipsilateral (n = 147) or the contralateral side (n = 156). Spike-specific IgG, IgG-avidity, and neutralizing antibodies were quantified using ELISA and a surrogate assay 2 weeks after dose 2. A subgroup of 143 individuals (64 ipsilateral, 79 contralateral) was analysed for spike-specific CD4 and CD8 T-cells using flow-cytometry.

findingsMedian spike-specific IgG-levels did not differ after ipsilateral (4590 (IQR 3438) BAU/ml) or contralateral vaccination (4002 (IQR 3524) BAU/ml, p = 0.106). IgG-avidity was also similar (p = 0.056). However, neutralizing activity was significantly lower after contralateral vaccination (p = 0.024). Likewise, median spike-specific CD8 T-cell levels were significantly lower (p = 0.004). Consequently, the percentage of individuals with detectable CD8 T-cells was significantly lower after contralateral than after ipsilateral vaccination (43.0% versus 67.2%, p = 0.004). Spike specific CD4 T-cell levels were similar in both groups, but showed significantly higher CTLA-4 expression after contralateral vaccination (p = 0.011). These effects were vaccine-specific, as polyclonally stimulated T-cell levels did not differ.

interpretationBoth ipsilateral and contralateral vaccination induce a strong immune response, but secondary boosting is more pronounced when choosing vaccine administration-routes that allows for drainage by the same lymph nodes used for priming. Higher neutralizing antibody activity and higher levels of spike-specific CD8 T-cells may have implications for protection from infection and severe disease and support general preference for ipsilateral vaccination.

fundingFinancial support was provided in part by the State chancellery of the Saarland to M.S.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralBNT162 VaccineHumansImmunity, CellularImmunoglobulin GSARS-CoV-2VaccinationAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralBNT162 VaccineCOVID-19 VaccinesImmunoglobulin GAntibodiesAvidityContralateralIpsilateralNeutralizing activityT cellsVaccination

Identifiers

PMID37574375
PMCPMC10505826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.