Search

Introduction: The key to understanding the COVID-19 correlates of protection is assessing vaccine-induced immunity in different demographic groups. Young people are at a lower risk of COVID-19 mortality, females are at a lower risk than males, and females often generate stronger immune responses to vaccination., Methods: We studied immune responses to two doses of BNT162b2 Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in an adolescent cohort (n = 34, ages 12-16), an age group previously shown to elicit significantly greater immune responses to the same vaccine than young adults. Adolescents were studied with the aim of comparing their response to BNT162b2 to that of adults; and to assess the impacts of other factors such as sex, ongoing SARS-CoV-2 infection in schools, and prior exposure to endemic coronaviruses that circulate at high levels in young people. At the same time, we were able to evaluate immune responses to the co-administered live attenuated influenza vaccine. Blood samples from 34 adolescents taken before and after vaccination with COVID-19 and influenza vaccines were assayed for SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and neutralising antibodies and cellular immunity specific for SARS-CoV-2 and endemic betacoronaviruses. The IgG targeting influenza lineages contained in the influenza vaccine were also assessed., Results: Robust neutralising responses were identified in previously infected adolescents after one dose, and two doses were required in infection-naïve adolescents. As previously demonstrated, total IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2 Spike were significantly higher among vaccinated adolescents than among adults (aged 32-52) who received the BNT162b2 vaccine (comparing infection-naïve, 49,696 vs. 33,339; p = 0.03; comparing SARS-CoV-2 previously infected, 743,691 vs. 269,985; p <0.0001) by the MSD v-plex assay. There was no evidence of a stronger vaccine-induced immunity in females compared than in males., Discussion: These findings may result from the introduction of novel mRNA vaccination platforms, generating patterns of immunity divergent from established trends and providing new insights into what might be protective following COVID-19 vaccination., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Jay, Adland, Csala, Lim, Longet, Ogbe, Ratcliff, Sampson, Thompson, Turtle, Barnes, Dunachie, Klenerman, Carroll and Goulder.)

Background: Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 affects the immune response to the first dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We aimed to compare SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell and antibody responses in health-care workers with and without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection following a single dose of the BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA vaccine., Methods: We sampled health-care workers enrolled in the PITCH study across four hospital sites in the UK (Oxford, Liverpool, Newcastle, and Sheffield). All health-care workers aged 18 years or older consenting to participate in this prospective cohort study were included, with no exclusion criteria applied. Blood samples were collected where possible before vaccination and 28 (±7) days following one or two doses (given 3-4 weeks apart) of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Previous infection was determined by a documented SARS-CoV-2-positive RT-PCR result or the presence of positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies. We measured spike-specific IgG antibodies and quantified T-cell responses by interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay in all participants where samples were available at the time of analysis, comparing SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals to those with previous infection., Findings: Between Dec 9, 2020, and Feb 9, 2021, 119 SARS-CoV-2-naive and 145 previously infected health-care workers received one dose, and 25 SARS-CoV-2-naive health-care workers received two doses, of the BNT162b2 vaccine. In previously infected health-care workers, the median time from previous infection to vaccination was 268 days (IQR 232-285). At 28 days (IQR 27-33) after a single dose, the spike-specific T-cell response measured in fresh peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was higher in previously infected (n=76) than in infection-naive (n=45) health-care workers (median 284 [IQR 150-461] vs 55 [IQR 24-132] spot-forming units [SFUs] per 10 6 PBMCs; p<0·0001). With cryopreserved PBMCs, the T-cell response in previously infected individuals (n=52) after one vaccine dose was equivalent to that of infection-naive individuals (n=19) after receiving two vaccine doses (median 152 [IQR 119-275] vs 162 [104-258] SFUs/10 6 PBMCs; p=1·00). Anti-spike IgG antibody responses following a single dose in 142 previously infected health-care workers (median 270 373 [IQR 203 461-535 188] antibody units [AU] per mL) were higher than in 111 infection-naive health-care workers following one dose (35 001 [17 099-55 341] AU/mL; p<0·0001) and higher than in 25 infection-naive individuals given two doses (180 904 [108 221-242 467] AU/mL; p<0·0001)., Interpretation: A single dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine is likely to provide greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, than in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals, including against variants of concern. Future studies should determine the additional benefit of a second dose on the magnitude and durability of immune responses in individuals vaccinated following infection, alongside evaluation of the impact of extending the interval between vaccine doses., Funding: UK Department of Health and Social Care, and UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium., Competing Interests: CD worked on the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial (phase 1–3). AO reports personal fees from Take Two Interactive and personal fees from Genome BC, outside the submitted work. PCM reports grants from the Wellcome Trust during the conduct of the study. SLR-J reports grants from the UK Department of Health and Social Care during the conduct of the study and grants from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and Global Challenges Research Fund outside the submitted work. SD reports grants from the UK Department of Health and Social Care, UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UKRI), the Huo Family Foundation, and the NIHR during the conduct of the study. CJAD reports grants from the Wellcome Trust during the conduct of the study. LT reports personal fees from Eisai outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.)