ReviewVaccines2025
Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses Against SARS-CoV-2 Following COVID-19 Vaccination in Older Adults: A Systematic Review.
Review in Vaccines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative immunogenicity of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 bivalent booster vaccines in US nursing home residents.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Longitudinal humoral and memory B-cell responses to repeated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in long-term care facilities residents.Immunity & ageing : I & A · 2026Article
- Effects of Respiratory Vaccines in Older Adults with Cardiovascular Diseases: A Scoping Review.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Impact of Vaccines Across the Lifespan: A New Perspective in Public Health-Conclusions of an Expert Panel-Part 1.Vaccines · 2026Review
- Skeletal muscle as a dynamic immunological niche for vaccination.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence on the humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 following COVID-19 vaccination in older adults is warranted.
aimsTo synthesize and analyze the current evidence on humoral and cellular immune responses to both standard and booster COVID-19 vaccination in individuals aged 60 years and older.
methodsClinical trials and observational studies were included. Reviews, case series, letters to the editor, and similar publications were excluded. A selective literature search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science. The risk of bias and methodological quality of the included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool. Statistical analysis was conducted using Stata version 18 and Review Manager version 5.4.1.
resultsThirteen studies were included: eleven observational studies and two randomized clinical trials, evaluating humoral and cellular immune responses in 782 older adults. Messenger RNA vaccines were the most administered, particularly Pfizer-BioNTech (76.9%) and Moderna mRNA-1273 (23%). In most cases, immune responses were assessed after the second dose and booster doses. Most studies (61.5%) reported increased IgG titers specific to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein, while 23.1% reported a decrease. Regarding cellular immunity, 46.2% of the studies reported low interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) levels post-vaccination, whereas 38.5% showed increases. These findings highlight the need for tailored vaccination strategies to address emerging variants, particularly in vulnerable populations such as older adults.
conclusionsIn older adults receiving COVID-19 vaccination, humoral immunity tends to increase, whereas cellular responses are frequently diminished, reflecting age-related immunosenescence that may limit the durability and breadth of protection following vaccination in older adults.
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.