RESUMEN
The corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome corona-virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spurred a worldwide race for the development of an efficient vaccine. Various strategies were pursued; however, the first vaccines to be licensed presented the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein either in the context of a non-replicating adenoviral vector or as an mRNA construct. While short-term efficacies have extensively been characterized, the duration of protection, the need for repeated boosting, and reasonable vaccination intervals have yet to be defined. We here describe the adaptive immune response resulting from homologous and heterologous vaccination regimen at 18 months after primary vaccination. To that extent, we monitored 176 healthcare workers, the majority of whom had recovered from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. In summary, we find that differences depending on primary immunization continue to exist 18 months after the first vaccination and these findings hold true irrespective of previous infection with the virus. Homologous primary immunization with BNT162b2 was repeatedly shown to produce higher antibody levels and slower antibody decline, leading to more effective in vitro neutralization capacities. Likewise, cellular responses resulting from in vitro re-stimulation were more pronounced after primary immunization involving BNT162b2. In contrast, IL-2 producing memory T helper and cytotoxic T cells appeared independent from the primary vaccination regimen. Despite these differences, comparable infection rates among all vaccination groups suggest comparable real-life protection.IMPORTANCEVaccination against the severe acute respiratory syndrome corona-virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was shown to avert severe courses of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to mitigate spreading of the virus. However, the duration of protection and need for repeated boosting have yet to be defined. Monitoring and comparing the immune responses resulting from various vaccine strategies are therefore important to fill knowledge gaps and prepare for future pandemics.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/inmunología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Inmunidad Celular , Inmunidad Humoral , ARN , SARS-CoV-2/fisiología , Glicoproteína de la Espiga del CoronavirusRESUMEN
More than a year after the first vaccines against the novel SARS-CoV-2 were approved, many questions still remain about the long-term protection conferred by each vaccine. How long the effect lasts, how effective it is against variants of concern and whether further vaccinations will confer additional benefits remain part of current and future research. For this purpose, we examined 182 health care employees-some of them with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection-12 months after different primary immunizations. To assess antibody responses, we performed an electrochemiluminescence assay (ECLIA) to determine anti-spike IgGs, followed by a surrogate virus neutralization assay against Wuhan-Hu-1 and B.1.1.529/BA.1 (Omicron). T cell response against wild-type and the Omicron variants of concern were assessed via interferon-gamma ELISpot assays and T-cell surface and intracellular cytokine staining. In summary, our results show that after the third vaccination with an mRNA vaccine, differences in antibody quantity and functionality observed after different primary immunizations were equalized. As for the T cell response, we were able to demonstrate a memory function for CD4+ and CD8+ T cells alike. Importantly, both T and antibody responses against wild-type and omicron differed significantly; however, antibody and T cell responses did not correlate with each other and, thus, may contribute differentially to immunity.