Observational studyBMC infectious diseases2025
Neutralizing and binding antibody dynamics following primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers.
Observational study in BMC infectious diseases, 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.
- Surrogate virus neutralization test as a scalable and reliable tool for immune surveillance in booster-vaccinated populations.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 S IgG Antibodies in Children Post-COVID-19 and the Association of Antibody Levels with Vaccination Status.Current microbiology · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) are key for COVID-19 protective-immunity. As the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines declines over time and variants of the virus continue to emerge, the need for booster doses of vaccine remains on the agenda. The aim of this study was to assess NAbs dynamics and its correlation with anti-RBD IgG levels during the nine-month follow-up period after primary-CoronaVac vaccination and booster vaccinations to evaluate vaccination strategies.
methodsThis prospective longitudinal observational study followed 226 healthcare workers who received primary (two doses CoronaVac) and booster (CoronaVac or BNT162b2) immunization. Serum samples were collected at four different time points, two after primary vaccination and two after booster. Anti-RBD IgG antibody levels were assessed with the SARS CoV-2 IgG-II-QUANT kit (Abbott, USA) and neutralizing antibody levels were determined with the ACE2-RBD-Neutralization-Assay (Dia-Pro, Italy) using a surrogate virus neutralization method. Factors affecting antibody response were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed with IBM-SPSS-22.0.
resultsOne month after the second dose of CoronaVac, 79.2% of participants had NAb, but this had decreased to 49.7% by the fourth month and was influenced by smoking, BMI and chronic diseases. Boosters, regardless of type, significantly raised NAb levels. Heterologous vaccination yielded higher NAb and anti-RBD IgG responses. Both single or double-BNT162b2 boosters resulted in similar NAb responses. There was a strong correlation between anti-RBD IgG and NAb levels following CoronaVac vaccination, leading to the identification of predictive IgG threshold for the presence of NAb. The type of booster influenced the correlation strength and threshold-value.
conclusionsNAbs levels decreased rapidly after primary CoronaVac vaccination. Boosters significantly increased levels while the heterologous vaccine combination induced a greater response. Anti-RBD IgG levels were able to predict the NAb response, however the correlation varied by the vaccine type, NAb response strength and the time since vaccination.
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.