Observational studyJournal of medical virology2025
Longitudinal Follow-Up of the Specific Antibody Response to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Colombia.
Observational study in Journal of medical virology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Longitudinal Exploratory Study of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Dynamics in Young Adults in Bogotá: Lessons from Natural Infection and Post-Vaccination Memory.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Long-Term Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 Variant-Specific Neutralizing Antibodies Following mRNA Vaccination and Infection.Viruses · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A total of 5011 adult volunteers attending vaccination centers in different regions of Colombia were enrolled in a 1-year prospective observational cohort study to evaluate the immunogenicity and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2-based vaccines as part of a National Vaccine Program established to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Following informed consent, 5,011 participants underwent a sociodemographic survey and PCR testing to assess SARS-CoV-2 infection. Blood samples were collected, and serum fractions were obtained from a participant subsample (n = 3441) at six-time points to assess virus-specific IgG responses to the Spike protein, its Receptor Binding Domain, and the Nucleoprotein by ELISA. Additionally, antibody-neutralizing activity was evaluated using a cPass SARS-CoV-2 neutralization kit. Most participants (95.8%; n = 4802) received between one Ad26. COV2.S (Janssen vaccine) and four vaccine doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), AZD1222 (AstraZeneca), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), CoronaVac (Sinovac), with some receiving vaccine combinations; a small group, 4.2% (n = 209), remained unvaccinated. Throughout the study, only 8.76% (n = 439) of the participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR. Notably, all participants seroconverted for IgG antibodies, with high seropositivity rates for S (99.8%; n = 4795), RBD (99.7%; n = 1691), and N (92.7%; n = 3072) proteins. Moreover, significant (92%-97%) neutralizing activity was observed for all four SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants. This study highlights the importance of assessing the duration of the IgG response to SARS-CoV-2 elicited by vaccination and infection, and the antibody neutralizing activity as a potential surrogate marker of protection. These findings provide important insight for further strengthening the vaccination strategies to control COVID-19.
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.