Abstract
Numerous COVID-19 vaccines are authorized globally. To date, ∼71% of doses are comprised of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, and ∼17% the Moderna/NIH vaccine, both of which are mRNA-based. The chimpanzee Ad-based Oxford/AstraZeneca (AZ) vaccine comprises ∼9%, while the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen (J&J) human adenovirus (Ad26) vaccine ranks 4th at ∼2% [1]. No COVID-19 vaccines are yet available for children 0-4. One method to protect this population may be passive immunization via antibodies (Abs) provided in the milk of a lactating vaccinated person. Our early work [2] and other reports [3-5] have demonstrated that unlike the post-SARS-CoV-2 infection milk Ab profile, which is rich in specific secretory (s)IgA, the vaccine response is highly IgG-dominant. In this report, we present a comparative assessment of the milk Ab response elicited by Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, and AZ vaccines. This analysis revealed 86% -100% of mRNA vaccine recipient milk exhibited Spike-specific IgG endpoint titers, which were 12 – 28-fold higher than those measured for Ad vaccine recipient milk. Ad-based vaccines elicited Spike-specific milk IgG in only 33%-38% of recipients. Specific IgA was measured in 52%-71% of mRNA vaccine recipient milk and 17%-23% of Ad vaccine recipient milk. J&J recipient milk exhibited significantly lower IgA than Moderna recipients, and AZ recipients exhibited significantly lower IgA titers than Moderna and Pfizer. <50% of milk of any group exhibited specific secretory Ab, with Moderna recipient IgA titers measuring significantly higher than AZ. Moderna appeared to most frequently elicit >2-fold increases in specific secretory Ab titer relative to pre-vaccine sample. These data indicate that current Ad-based COVID-19 vaccines poorly elicit Spike-specific Ab in milk compared to mRNA-based vaccines and that mRNA vaccines are preferred for immunizing the lactating population. This study highlights the need to design vaccines better aimed at eliciting an optimal milk Ab response.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Mount Sinai Hospital (IRB 19-01243). And the Imperial College London ethics board (WREC 15/WA/0111, IRAS 165531)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The original version included only Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J vaccine data. This version also includes comparative data on AstraZeneca vaccine data.
Data Availability
All data is provided in the manuscript, and raw data is available upon request.