Abstract
Background Understanding variation in immunogenicity may help rationalize use of existing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.
Methods We compared immune responses in ambulatory adults vaccinated with mRNA-1273, BNT-162b2 or Ad26.COV2.S in Massachusetts, USA between February and May 2021. Control groups were pre-pandemic controls (n=1220) and individuals without (n=112) or with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=130) sampled in mid-2020. We measured total anti-spike IgG/M/A antibodies (Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-COV-2 S assay), anti-receptor-binding-domain (RBD) antibodies; neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus; and T-cell responses.
Findings In individuals with prior infection, all vaccines were associated with higher antibody concentrations and neutralization than those in convalescent individuals, even after a single dose. In individuals without prior infection, a single dose of either mRNA vaccine yielded comparable concentrations and neutralization to convalescent unvaccinated individuals, and Ad26.COV2.S yielded lower antibody concentrations and neutralization titers. The second dose of either mRNA vaccine boosted responses. At a median of 24 days after vaccination, two of 21 (9.5%) Ad26.COV2.S recipients had a neutralization titer higher than pre-pandemic controls; repeat sampling at a median 66 days after vaccination found most (11/15 (73%) remained negative. Antibody concentrations and neutralization titers increased similarly after the first dose of either vaccine, and even further in recipients of a second dose of vaccine. T-cell responses were higher in mRNA1273 and BNT162b2 than Ad26.COV2.S recipients.
Interpretation SARS-CoV-2 vaccines vary significantly in immunogenicity in individuals without prior infection. If confirmed in effectiveness studies, public health policy may need to be tailored to each vaccine, or even individual responses.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
D.J.G., M.C.P., and M.N.P. were supported by the VIC Innovation fund. A.J.I. and this study were supported by the Lambertus Family Foundation. G.D.G. is supported by a Burroughs Wellcome Career Award in Medical Sciences. A.B.B. was supported by the National Institutes for Drug Abuse (NIDA) Avenir New Innovator Award DP2DA040254, the MGH Transformative Scholars Program as well as funding from the Charles H. Hood Foundation
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:
Use of human samples was approved by Partners Institutional Review Board (protocol 2020P001081 and 2020P002274).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
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
Data Availability
Primary data is not available per the limited consent obtained from patients. Summary data are available by writing to the authors
