Abstract
Background Understanding immunogenicity and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is critical to guide rational use.
Methods We compared the immunogenicity of mRNA-1273, BNT-162b2 or Ad26.COV2.S in ambulatory adults in Massachusetts, USA. To correlate immunogenicity with effectiveness of the three vaccines, we performed an inverse-variance meta-analysis of population level effectiveness from public health reports in >40 million individuals.
Results A single dose of either mRNA vaccine yielded comparable antibody and neutralization titers to convalescent individuals. Ad26.COV2.S yielded lower antibody concentrations and frequently negative neutralization titers. Bulk and cytotoxic T-cell responses were higher in mRNA1273 and BNT162b2 than Ad26.COV2.S recipients, and <50% of vaccinees demonstrate CD8+ T-cell responses to spike peptides. Antibody concentrations and neutralization titers increased comparably after the first dose of either vaccine, and further in recipients of a second dose. Prior infection was associated with high antibody concentrations and neutralization even after a single dose and regardless of vaccine. Neutralization of beta, gamma and delta strains were poorer regardless of vaccine. Relative to mRNA1273, the effectiveness of BNT162b2 was lower against infection and hospitalization; and Ad26COV2.S was lower against infection, hospitalization and death.
Conclusions Variation in the immunogenicity correlates with variable effectiveness of the three FDA EUA vaccines deployed in the USA.
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).
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
1. Includes meta-analysis of public health reports regarding vaccine effectiveness (Figure 5) 2. Includes comparative neutralization of SARS CoV-2 viral variants (Figure 4) 3. Includes CD4 and CD8+ T-cell responses to SARAS CoV-2 Spike peptides (Figure 2)
Data Availability
Primary data is not available per the limited consent obtained from patients. Summary data are available by writing to the authors
