RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody levels following second dose of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in residents of long-term care facilities in England (VIVALDI)
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.01.26.22269885
DO 10.1101/2022.01.26.22269885
A1 Stirrup, Oliver
A1 Krutikov, Maria
A1 Tut, Gokhan
A1 Palmer, Tom
A1 Bone, David
A1 Bruton, Rachel
A1 Fuller, Chris
A1 Azmi, Borscha
A1 Lancaster, Tara
A1 Sylla, Panagiota
A1 Kaur, Nayandeep
A1 Spalkova, Eliska
A1 Bentley, Christopher
A1 Amin, Umayr
A1 Jadir, Azar
A1 Hulme, Samuel
A1 Giddings, Rebecca
A1 Nacer-Laidi, Hadjer
A1 Baynton, Verity
A1 Irwin-Singer, Aidan
A1 Hayward, Andrew
A1 Moss, Paul
A1 Copas, Andrew
A1 Shallcross, Laura
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/27/2022.01.26.22269885.abstract
AB Background General population studies have shown strong humoral response following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with subsequent waning of anti-spike antibody levels. Vaccine-induced immune responses are often attenuated in frail and older populations such as Long-Term Care Facility (LTCF) residents but published data are scarce.Methods VIVALDI is a prospective cohort study in England which links serial blood sampling in LTCF staff and residents to routine healthcare records. We measured quantitative titres of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibodies in residents and staff following second vaccination dose with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech). We investigated differences in peak antibody levels and rates of decline using linear mixed effects models.Results We report on 1317 samples from 402 residents (median age 86 years, IQR 78-91) and 632 staff (50 years, 37-58), ≤280 days from second vaccination dose. Peak antibody titres were 7.9-fold higher after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine compared to Oxford-AstraZeneca (95%CI 3.6-17.0; P<0.01) but rate of decline was increased, and titres were similar at 6 months. Prior infection was associated with higher peak antibody levels in both Pfizer-BioNTech (2.8-fold, 1.9-4.1; P<0.01) and Oxford-AstraZeneca (4.8-fold, 3.2-7.1; P<0.01) recipients and slower rates of antibody decline. Increasing age was associated with a modest reduction in peak antibody levels for Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients.Conclusions Double-dose vaccination elicits robust and stable antibody responses in older LTCF residents, suggesting comparable levels of vaccine-induced immunity to that in the general population. Antibody levels are higher after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination but fall more rapidly compared to Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients and are enhanced by prior infection in both groups.Competing Interest StatementLS and TP report grants from the Department of Health and Social Care during the conduct of the study and LS is a member of the Social Care Working Group, which reports to the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. AIS and VB are employed by the Department of Health and Social Care who funded the study. AH reports funding from the Covid Core Studies Programme is a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group at the Department of Health and Environmental Modelling Group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. All other authors declare no competing interests.Clinical Protocols https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-232 Funding StatementThis work is independent research funded by the Department of Health and Social Care (COVID-19 surveillance studies). MK is funded by a Wellcome Trust Clinical PhD Fellowship (222907/Z/21/Z). LS is funded by a National Institute for Health Research Clinician Scientist Award (CS-2016-007). AH is supported by Health Data Research UK (LOND1), which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation, and Wellcome Trust. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, Public Health England, or the Department of Health and Social Care.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:South Central-Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee (ref:20/SC/0238)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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesDe-identified test results and limited metadata will be made available for use by researchers in future studies, subject to appropriate research ethical approvals once the VIVALDI study cohort has been finalised. These datasets will be accessible via the Health Data Research UK Gateway.