Abstract
Protection offered by COVID-19 vaccines wanes over time, requiring an evaluation of different boosting strategies to revert such a trend and enhance the quantity and quality of Spike-specific humoral and cellular immune responses. These immunological parameters in homologous or heterologous vaccination boosts have thus far been studied for mRNA and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines, but knowledge on individuals who received a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S is lacking.
We studied Spike-specific humoral and cellular immunity in Ad26.COV2.S vaccinated individuals (n=55) who were either primed with Ad26.COV2.S only (n=13), or boosted with a homologous (Ad26.COV2.S, n=28) or heterologous (BNT162b2, n=14) second dose. We compared our findings with the results found in individuals vaccinated with a single (n=16) or double (n=44) dose of BNT162b2. We observed that a strategy of heterologous vaccination enhanced the quantity and breadth of both, Spike-specific humoral and cellular immunity in Ad26.COV2.S vaccinated. In contrast, the impact of homologous boost was quantitatively minimal in Ad26.COV2.S vaccinated and Spike-specific antibodies and T cells were narrowly focused to the S1 region. Although a direct association between quantity and quality of immunological parameters and in vivo protection has not been demonstrated, the immunological features of Spike-specific humoral and cellular immune responses support the utilization of a heterologous strategy of vaccine boost in individuals who received Ad26.COV2.S vaccination.
Competing Interest Statement
N. Le Bert and A. Bertoletti reported a patent for a method to monitor SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in biological samples pending. The other authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.
Funding Statement
This study is partially supported by the Singapore Ministry of Health National Medical Research Council under its COVID-19 Research Fund (COVID19RF3-0060, COVID19RF-001 and COVID19RF-008).
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:
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the NUS Institutional Review Board (NUS-IRB-2021-292), the SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board (CIRB ref.: 2018/2387; 2018/3045; 2021/2014) and the Queen Mary University of London Review Board (REC Ref: 20/EE/0154).
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
↵# These authors share co-senior authorship
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
