ABSTRACT
The double dose regimen for mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 presents both a hope and a challenge for global efforts to curb the COVID-19 pandemic. With supply chain logistics impacting the rollout of population-scale vaccination programs, increasing attention has turned to the potential efficacy of single versus double dose vaccine administration for select individuals. To this end, we examined response to Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in a large cohort of healthcare workers including those with versus without prior COVID-19 infection. For all participants, we quantified circulating levels of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike (S) protein IgG at baseline prior to vaccine, after vaccine dose 1, and after vaccine dose 2. We observed that the anti-S IgG antibody response following a single vaccine dose in persons who had recovered from confirmed prior COVID-19 infection was similar to the antibody response following two doses of vaccine in persons without prior infection (P≥0.58). Patterns were similar for the post-vaccine symptoms experienced by infection recovered persons following their first dose compared to the symptoms experienced by infection naïve persons following their second dose (P=0.66). These results support the premise that a single dose of mRNA vaccine could provoke in COVID-19 recovered individuals a level of immunity that is comparable to that seen in infection naïve persons following a double dose regimen. Additional studies are needed to validate our findings, which could allow for public health programs to expand the reach of population wide vaccination efforts.
INTRODUCTION
Rapid development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), offers great promise for curbing spread of infection and accelerating the timeline towards a potential level of herd immunity.1–3 Amidst ongoing efforts to rapidly deploy vaccinations, challenges to the supply chain have prompted queries around whether single rather than double dose administration may suffice for certain individuals – including those recovered from prior COVID-19 infection.4 Emerging data from small studies suggest that individuals who have recovered from either a recent or remote COVID-19 infection may have a sustained immunity that could be assessed via measurable antibody response to a single vaccine dose administration.5,6 To this end, we evaluated the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response following first and second doses of mRNA vaccination administered in a large and diverse cohort of healthcare workers while specifically focusing on the response in persons with confirmed prior COVID-19 compared to those without prior infection.
METHODS
In a cohort of healthcare workers who received Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination at our medical center in Southern California,7 we used the Abbott Architect immunoassays (Abbott Park, IL) to quantify circulating levels of SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid (N) protein IgG and anti-spike (S) protein IgG at 3 time points: before or up to 3 days after dose 1, within 7 to 21 days after dose 1, and within 7 to 21 days after dose 2. The Abbott anti-S IgG assay is CE marked with anticipated near-future emergency use authorization. Given that a conservative high titer plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT) assay of 1:250 has been correlated to the anti-S IgG cutoff of 4160 AU/mL, we additionally examined the proportion of vaccine recipients who achieved this threshold following administration of one dose or two.
All participants provided survey data on medical history, including prior COVID-19 exposures and infection, in addition to data on symptoms experienced after each dose of vaccine. We determined prior COVID-19 infection status and timing in relation to date of the first vaccine dose received, based on concordance of data on COVID-19 diagnosis documented in the electronic health record, presence of anti-N IgG antibodies at baseline pre-vaccination testing, and the self-reported survey information collected. All cases of data discrepancy regarding prior COVID-19 infection status underwent manual physician adjudication.
We compared antibody level and symptom responses between those with and without a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. In addition to between-group comparisons at each time point, we also examined time point shifted levels of antibody response for those with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis (at baseline and following dose 1) compared to those without a prior COVID-19 diagnosis (following dose 1 and dose 2). We log-transformed non-normally distributed values and conducted statistical comparisons using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. We performed sensitivity analyses for those participants with immunoassays at all 3 time points. We conducted all statistical analyses using R (v3.6.1) and defined statistical significance as a two-tailed P value <0.05. All participants provided written informed consent and all protocols were approved by the Cedars-Sinai institutional review board.
RESULTS
A total of N=1089 vaccine recipients provided at least one blood sample for antibody testing, with an average age of 41.8±12.1 years, 60.8% female and 53.4% non-white (Table 1). Of this total sample, N=980 (78 with prior COVID-19 infection) provided baseline (pre-vaccine) samples, N=525 (35 with prior infection) provided samples after dose 1, and 238 (11 with prior infection) provided samples after dose 2. A total of 216 individuals (10 with prior infection) provided blood samples at all 3 time points.
For both anti-N IgG (representing response to prior infection) and anti-S IgG (representing response to either prior infection or vaccine), COVID-19 recovered persons had expectedly higher antibody levels at all time points (P≤0.001) (Tables S1-S2 and Figures S1-S2). Notably, anti-S IgG levels were only slightly lower in COVID-19 recovered persons at baseline, when compared to infection naïve persons who had received a single vaccine dose (log median AU/mL [IQR], 6.0 [4.6, 6.9] vs 7.0 [6.3, 7.6], P<0.001). Moreover, anti-S IgG levels were not significantly different between COVID-19 recovered persons following a single dose and infection naïve persons who had received 2 doses (10.0 [9.2, 10.4] vs 9.9 [9.4, 10.3], P=0.91) (Figure 1). In parallel with analyses of antibody response, we also observed that overall frequency and severity of post-vaccine symptoms were more prominent for COVID-19 recovered after dose 1 compared to infection naïve persons after dose 2 (Figure S3).
Similar results were found in a sensitivity analysis including only individuals who had antibody immunoassays performed at all 3 time points (Tables S3-S4). Specifically, those with prior COVID-19 infection had higher anti-S IgG than those without prior infection at all time points. No difference in anti-S IgG level was detected between those with a prior COVID-19 infection after one dose of vaccine compared with those without prior infection following two doses (10.2 [8.4, 10.5] vs 9.9 [9.4, 10.3], P=0.58). In sensitivity analyses, frequency and severity of post-vaccine symptoms were also similar to those seen in the main analyses.
In the total sample, proportions of anti-S IgG levels at or above the 4160 AU/mL threshold were similar in COVID-19 recovered persons at baseline compared to infection naïve persons after a single dose (P=0.94). Notably, these proportions were lower in COVID recovered after a single dose compared to infection naïve persons after 2 doses (P<0.001), and then no different when both groups were compared after 2 doses (Table S5 and Figure S4).
DISCUSSION
We found that COVID-19 recovered individuals develop a level of provoked antibody response, following a single dose of mRNA vaccine, that is comparable to the provoked antibody response seen after a two-dose vaccination course administered to infection naïve persons. Extending from similar results seen in smaller studies,5,6 our findings in a large and diverse cohort of healthcare workers highlight the potential of a strategy for maximizing vaccine supply that warrants further investigation.
Recent work has demonstrated that COVID-19 specific antibodies are efficiently generated and detectable in the circulation following a single dose of vaccines that were originally intended for complete administration to include an additional booster dose.5 These findings have prompted some organizations to favor prioritizing at least a first vaccine dose to majority segments of the population while considering variable timing for the second dose. In the absence of clinical outcomes data to support any variations from pre-specified vaccination protocols,8–10 there are immuno-biological data suggesting possible alternate strategies for COVID-19 recovered individuals. In fact, detectable presence of naturally acquired anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and measures of discernible T-cell mediated immunity, especially in persons who have successfully recovered from recent versus remote infection, have prompted some experts to suggest delaying any vaccination for these individuals.11–13 However, acknowledging the unclear duration of naturally acquired immunity and the unknown extent to which immunity to one strain of SARS-CoV-2 confers protection from variants, there is general agreement that vaccination strategies for COVID-19 recovered persons warrants careful consideration.
Our data suggest the potential benefit of at least one vaccine dose, given that we observed prevaccine levels of anti-S IgG in COVID-19 recovered persons to be somewhat lower than levels detected among infection naïve persons following a single vaccine dose. In the absence of directly measured neutralizing antibody levels, we secondarily examined the proportion of anti-S IgG values known to correspond with high titers of the PRNT assay and found a comparable albeit slightly lower frequency in COVID-19 recovered persons after a single vaccine dose compared to infection naïve persons after two doses. Notwithstanding the need for further studies with additional serologic phenotyping, this finding may be related to heterogeneity within the COVID-19 recovered persons including variations in timing and severity of prior illness. Although circulating antibody levels alone are not definitive measures of immune status, serial measures of the serological response to either natural or inoculated exposures are known to correlate well with effective immunity14 and our results indicate their potential utility in guiding vaccine deployment strategies for both infection recovered and naïve persons.
Several limitations of our study merit consideration. We examined antibody response within a 7 to 21 day period following administration of each vaccine dose, and longer-term follow up data are likely to provide additionally informative data – particular regarding the putative duration of immunity acquired from receiving a single versus double dose of vaccine administration. Notwithstanding the size of our study cohort, yet larger-sized samples are needed for sufficient statistical power to examine differences across demographic and clinical subgroups that are known to exhibit variation in antibody response following vaccination.15–17
In summary, we found in diverse cohort of mRNA vaccine recipients that anti-S IgG levels are similar between those with and without prior COVID-19 infection after receiving their first and second doses, respectively. These results offer preliminary evidence in support of a middle ground between public health motivated and immunologically supported vaccine strategies. If validated, an approach that involves providing a single dose of vaccine to persons with a confirmed history of COVID-19 infection along with an on-time complete vaccine schedule for infection naïve persons could assist with maximizing the benefit of a limited vaccine supply.
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, upon reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to the contents including information that could compromise research participant privacy/consent.
FUNDING
This work was supported in part by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, the Erika J Glazer Family Foundation, the F. Widjaja Family Foundation, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, and NIH grants U54-CA260591 and K23-HL153888.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to all the front-line healthcare workers in our healthcare system who continue to be dedicated to delivering the highest quality care for all patients. We would like to thank the following people for their collective effort: Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH; Mona Alotaibi, MD; Moshe Arditi, MD; Ani Balmanoukian, MD; James Beekley, MPH; Diana Benliyan; Anders H. Berg, MD, PhD; Aleksandra Binek, PhD; Patrick Botting, MSPH; Gregory J. Botwin, BS; Cindy Chavira, MBA; Peter Chen, MD; Vi Chiu, MD, PhD; Dain Choi; Cathie Chung, MD; Bernice Coleman, PhD, RN; Sandra Contreas, MPH; Rachel Coren, MPH; Donna Costales, RN; Wendy Cozen, DO, MPH; Jennifer Davis; Tod Davis; Jacqueline Diaz; Matthew Driver, MPH; Keren R. Dunn, CIP; Rebecca Ely, RN; Mark Faries, MD; Barbara Fields, RN; Lucia Florindez, PhD; Joslyn Foley; Sarah Francis, RN; Jeffrey A. Golden, MD; Alma Gonzalez; Helen S. Goodridge, PhD; Jonathan D. Grein, MD; Omid Hamid, MD; Mary Hanna; Mallory Heath, MLS; Ergueen Herrera; Amy Hoang, MS; Quyen Hurlburt, RN; Shehnaz K. Hussain, PhD; Carissa A. Huynh; Justina Ibrahim; Ugonna Ihenacho, MPH; Mohit Jain, MD, PhD; Sandy Joung, MHDS; Michael Karin, PhD; Elizabeth H. Kim, MHDS; Linda Kim, PhD; Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD; Edward Kowalski; Catherine N. Le, MD; Nicole A. Leonard, JD, MBA; Yin Li; Yunxian Liu, PhD; John Lloyd; Eric Luong, MPH; Bhavia Malladi; Anzhelya Makaryan; David Marshall, DNP, JD; Gil Y. Melmed, MD; Margo Minissian, PhD; Dermot P.B. McGovern, MD, PhD; Inderjit Mehmi, MD; Emebet Mengesha; Akil Merchant, MD; Noah Merin, MD, PhD; Gail Milan, RN; Peggy B. Miles, MD; Romalisa Miranda-Peats, MPH; Pamela Moore; Janette Moreno, DNP; Angela Mujukian, MD; Nathalie Nguyen, MPH; Trevor Trung Nguyen; Jillian Oft, MD; Elmar Park; Lauren R. Polak, JD; Magali Noval Rivas, PhD; Michelle Offner, NP; Eunice Park; Vipul Patel, PharmD; Lawrence Piro, MD; Koen Raedschelders, PhD; V. Krishnan Ramanujan, PhD; Gerardo Ramirez, Mohamad Rashid, MBChB, Karen Reckamp, MD; Kylie Rhoades, Richard V. Riggs, MD; Celine E. Riera, PhD; Maria Salas; Michelle Schafieh, MS; Rita Shane, PharmD; Sonia Sharma, PhD; Cristina Simons, RN; Muhammad Soomar; Sarah Sternbach; Clive Svendsen, PhD; Brian Tep, Rose O. Tompkins, MD; Warren G. Toutellotte, MD, PhD; Rocio Vallejo; Christy Velasco; Kristopher Wentzel, MD; Shane White; Mahendra Yatawara, MBA; Rachel Zabner, MD; Patrick Zvara, MS.
