ArticleMemorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz2025
A 20-month longitudinal study to evaluate humoral and cellular immunity after COVID-19 vaccines.
Article in Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is well established; however, the long-term durability of vaccine-induced immunity remains to be fully elucidated.
objectivesThis study longitudinally compared humoral and cellular immune responses in two groups: G1, who received two doses of Sinovac-CoronaVac, and G2, who received two doses of AstraZeneca-Oxford, both subsequently boosted with Pfizer.
methodsImmune responses were assessed at five time points: P1 (prior to the second dose), P2 (90-180 days after the second dose), P3 (pre-booster, six-eight months post-second dose), P4 (90-180 days post-booster), and P5 (180-270 days post-booster). Anti-Spike severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), while IFNγ-producing cells in response to Spike peptides were quantified using enzyme-linked immune absorbent spot (ELISPOT). IgG subclasses were analysed in a subset of samples.
resultsFollowing the first dose, Sinovac-CoronaVac induced lower anti-Spike IgG levels than AstraZeneca-Oxford, though levels equalised after the second dose. After the Pfizer booster, anti-Spike IgG levels remained elevated for up to six months in both groups. IgG1 was predominant in both groups, with occasional expression of IgG2 and IgG4. The mean frequency of IFNγ-producing cells was lower in the Sinovac-CoronaVac group before and up to six months after the second dose, compared to AstraZeneca-Oxford. However, post-Pfizer booster, both means became comparable. Between 90-180 days post-booster, the Sinovac-CoronaVac + Pfizer group exhibited a statistically significant decline in IFNγ-producing cells relative to the AstraZeneca-Oxford + Pfizer group. By P5, over half of individuals in the Sinovac-CoronaVac + Pfizer group demonstrated no detectable cellular response. MAIN
conclusionsHigh antibody levels were maintained for up to six months following both homologous and heterologous vaccination. However, cellular immunity declined more markedly in the Sinovac-CoronaVac + Pfizer group, resulting in a higher proportion of non-responders. These findings underscore the importance of tailored booster strategies to sustain protective immunity against 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.