Literature DB >> 35567394

Long-term effects of homologous and heterologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on humoral and cellular immune responses.

Moritz M Hollstein1, Lennart Münsterkötter2, Michael P Schön1,3, Armin Bergmann1, Thea M Husar1, Anna Abratis4, Abass Eidizadeh4, Sascha Dierks4, Meike Schaffrinski1, Karolin Zachmann1, Anne Schmitz5, Jason S Holsapple5, Hedwig Stanisz-Bogeski1, Julie Schanz4,6, Andreas Fischer4,7, Uwe Groß2, Andreas Leha8, Andreas E Zautner2,9, Moritz Schnelle4, Luise Erpenbeck1,5.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35567394      PMCID: PMC9348463          DOI: 10.1111/all.15373

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Allergy        ISSN: 0105-4538            Impact factor:   14.710


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor, In the last 2 years, several studies investigated the immunological responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 infections and/or COVID‐19 vaccinations, , , , , , but long‐term immunological effects in response to different vaccination combinations are poorly defined. As recently demonstrated, humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines wane with time. , , Correspondingly, epidemiological data show a reduction in protection against (symptomatic) COVID‐19 with increasing time following vaccination. , In the COV‐ADAPT cohort, we recently studied the humoral and cellular immune responses and their interdependencies following different vaccine combinations before (T1) and up to 3 months after the second immunization (T2). This follow‐up investigated the stability of long‐term immune responses and aimed to identify predictive markers. Thus, we assessed humoral (anti‐spike‐RBD‐IgG, neutralization capacity and avidity) and cellular (spike‐induced T‐cell interferon‐γ release) immune responses 3–7 months after the second immunization (T3) in blood samples of 320 healthcare workers of the COV‐ADAPT cohort with previous homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19 (ChAdOx1, n = 26), homologous BNT162b2 (n = 49), heterologous ChAdOx1/BNT162b2 (n = 243) or heterologous ChAdOx1 /mRNA‐1273 (n = 2) vaccinations (Figure S1; all participants provided written informed consent). The last group was not analyzed separately due to the low n‐number (for characterization of study participants see Table S1). The study was approved by the local ethics committee (21/5/21) and registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00026029). We detected no nucleocapsid (NCP)‐IgG seroconversion between T2 and T3 indicating the absence of breakthrough infections (Figure S2). At T3, homologous ChAdOx1 vaccination resulted in significantly lower anti‐spike‐RBD‐IgG vs. heterologous ChAdOx1/BNT162b2 and homologous BNT162b2 (Figure 1A, Table S1). ChAdOx1/BNT162b2 and BNT162b2/BNT162b2 did not significantly differ. Despite the decrease from T2 to T3 in all groups, anti‐spike‐RBD‐IgG was still significantly higher at T3 vs. T1 (Figure 1A). T‐cell interferon‐γ release (i.e., the cellular response) also decreased from T2 to T3 in all regimes. Only the heterologous ChAdOx1/BNT162b2 group still showed significantly higher T‐cell responses at T3 vs. T1 (Figure 1B), and no differences were observed between the regimes at T3 (Figure 1B, Table S1). For the groups with BNT162b2 as a second vaccination, anti‐spike‐RBD‐IgG was negatively associated with the days elapsed since the second vaccination (Figure 1C, left panel) suggesting higher antibody dynamics for vaccination regimes including BNT162b2. Such an association was not found for the cellular response (Figure 1C, right panel). Similar to our previous findings at T1/T2, humoral and cellular immune responses showed significantly positive associations at T3 for the study population as a whole and the ChAdOx1/BNTb162b2 group (Figure S3). Between T2 and T3, strong associations with high predictive power were observed for cellular and humoral immune responses for all groups (Figure S4). The early cellular response (at T1) emerged as a predictor of long‐term immune responses as it was significantly associated with late (T3) humoral (ChAdOx1/BNT162b2 and BNT162b2/BNT162b2) and cellular responses (all groups) (Figure 2). Antibody neutralization and avidity indices were significantly higher at T3 vs. T1 in all groups (Figure S5) indicating durable antibody quality. Neutralization capacity was higher in the groups with a second BNT162b2 vaccination vs. homologous ChAdOx1 at T3. Interestingly, subjects with a negative neutralization index (as per the manufacturer's instructions) did not present generally lower anti‐spike‐RBD‐IgG levels (Table S2). In conclusion, we identified important long‐term interactions between the humoral and the cellular immune systems and observed distinct long‐term dynamics following different SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination regimes. In this regard, vaccination regimes including BNT162b2 elicit strong immune responses with a more rapid decline, whereas vector‐based vaccinations yield lower and comparably stable immunological effects. The immunological drawbacks of either homologous vaccination regime appear to be somewhat mitigated by the combination of both vaccination principles in the form of a heterologous vaccination. We additionally identified the early T‐cell response to predict long‐term immune responses in different vaccination regimes. It will be of utmost importance to determine how the observed interdependencies and long‐term dynamics of immune response react to booster vaccinations and breakthrough infections.
FIGURE 1

Anti‐spike‐RBD‐IgG ≤2 weeks before (T1), 2 weeks–3 months (T2) and 3–7 months following second vaccination (T3) by vaccination regime. (A) Anti‐spike‐RBD‐IgG (IgG) [BAU/ml], (B) spike‐directed IFN‐γ T‐cell responses (TC) [mIU/ml] and (C) log2‐association of IgG (left panels) and TC (right panels) with the duration [days] between second vaccination and T3. b = linear trend effect, p = p‐value (adjusted using Holm's procedure), CI = confidence interval. ChAdOx1 = ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05; n.s.: not significant; calculated using linear mixed effect models with vaccination regime and time and their interaction as predictors, adjusted for age and sex

FIGURE 2

Associations of early and late humoral and cellular immune responses in the different vaccination regimes. (A) Anti‐spike‐RBD‐IgG (IgG) at T1 (≤2 weeks before second vaccination) vs. IgG at T3 (3–7 months following second vaccination), (B) spike‐directed IFN‐γ T‐cell responses (TC) at T1 vs. T3, and (C) TC at T1 vs. IgG at T3, all controlling for age, sex, and time between second vaccination and T3. b=linear trend effect, p=p‐value (adjusted using Holm’s procedure), CI=confidence interval. ChAdOx1=ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19

Anti‐spike‐RBD‐IgG ≤2 weeks before (T1), 2 weeks–3 months (T2) and 3–7 months following second vaccination (T3) by vaccination regime. (A) Anti‐spike‐RBD‐IgG (IgG) [BAU/ml], (B) spike‐directed IFN‐γ T‐cell responses (TC) [mIU/ml] and (C) log2‐association of IgG (left panels) and TC (right panels) with the duration [days] between second vaccination and T3. b = linear trend effect, p = p‐value (adjusted using Holm's procedure), CI = confidence interval. ChAdOx1 = ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19. ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05; n.s.: not significant; calculated using linear mixed effect models with vaccination regime and time and their interaction as predictors, adjusted for age and sex Associations of early and late humoral and cellular immune responses in the different vaccination regimes. (A) Anti‐spike‐RBD‐IgG (IgG) at T1 (≤2 weeks before second vaccination) vs. IgG at T3 (3–7 months following second vaccination), (B) spike‐directed IFN‐γ T‐cell responses (TC) at T1 vs. T3, and (C) TC at T1 vs. IgG at T3, all controlling for age, sex, and time between second vaccination and T3. b=linear trend effect, p=p‐value (adjusted using Holm’s procedure), CI=confidence interval. ChAdOx1=ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Appendix S1 Click here for additional data file.
  12 in total

1.  mRNA vaccines induce durable immune memory to SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern.

Authors:  Rishi R Goel; Mark M Painter; Sokratis A Apostolidis; Divij Mathew; Wenzhao Meng; Aaron M Rosenfeld; Kendall A Lundgreen; Arnold Reynaldi; David S Khoury; Ajinkya Pattekar; Sigrid Gouma; Leticia Kuri-Cervantes; Philip Hicks; Sarah Dysinger; Amanda Hicks; Harsh Sharma; Sarah Herring; Scott Korte; Amy E Baxter; Derek A Oldridge; Josephine R Giles; Madison E Weirick; Christopher M McAllister; Moses Awofolaju; Nicole Tanenbaum; Elizabeth M Drapeau; Jeanette Dougherty; Sherea Long; Kurt D'Andrea; Jacob T Hamilton; Maura McLaughlin; Justine C Williams; Sharon Adamski; Oliva Kuthuru; Ian Frank; Michael R Betts; Laura A Vella; Alba Grifoni; Daniela Weiskopf; Alessandro Sette; Scott E Hensley; Miles P Davenport; Paul Bates; Eline T Luning Prak; Allison R Greenplate; E John Wherry
Journal:  Science       Date:  2021-12-03       Impact factor: 63.714

2.  EAACI statement on the diagnosis, management and prevention of severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

Authors:  Milena Sokolowska; Thomas Eiwegger; Markus Ollert; Maria J Torres; Domingo Barber; Stefano Del Giacco; Marek Jutel; Kari C Nadeau; Oscar Palomares; Ronald L Rabin; Carmen Riggioni; Stefan Vieths; Ioana Agache; Mohamed H Shamji
Journal:  Allergy       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 14.710

3.  A single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine elicits strong humoral response in SARS-CoV-2 seropositive individuals.

Authors:  Teodora Brnjarchevska Blazhevska; Haris Babačić; Olgica Sibinovska; Boban Dobrevski; Meri Kirijas; Gorjan Milanovski; Todor Arsov; Aleksandar Petlichkovski
Journal:  Allergy       Date:  2021-08-21       Impact factor: 14.710

4.  COVID-19 vaccine - Long term immune decline and breakthrough infections.

Authors:  Johad Khoury; Ronza Najjar-Debbiny; Ayman Hanna; Adel Jabbour; Yara Abu Ahmad; Amer Saffuri; Majdole Abu-Sinni; Rashed Shkeiri; Ameer Elemy; Fahed Hakim
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2021-10-30       Impact factor: 3.641

5.  Interdependencies of cellular and humoral immune responses in heterologous and homologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Authors:  Moritz M Hollstein; Lennart Münsterkötter; Michael P Schön; Armin Bergmann; Thea M Husar; Anna Abratis; Abass Eidizadeh; Meike Schaffrinski; Karolin Zachmann; Anne Schmitz; Jason S Holsapple; Hedwig Stanisz-Bogeski; Julie Schanz; Andreas Fischer; Uwe Groß; Andreas Leha; Andreas E Zautner; Moritz Schnelle; Luise Erpenbeck
Journal:  Allergy       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 14.710

6.  Effect of BTN162b2 and CoronaVac boosters on humoral and cellular immunity of individuals previously fully vaccinated with CoronaVac against SARS-CoV-2: A longitudinal study.

Authors:  Zeynep Ece Kuloğlu; Rojbin El; Gulen Guney-Esken; Yeşim Tok; Zeynep Gülçe Talay; Tayfun Barlas; Mert Ahmet Kuskucu; Özgür Albayrak; Özlem Doğan; Serap Şimşek Yavuz; Kenan Midilli; Önder Ergönül; Füsun Can
Journal:  Allergy       Date:  2022-05-02       Impact factor: 14.710

7.  Antibody response after one and two jabs of the BNT162b2 vaccine in nursing home residents: The CONsort-19 study.

Authors:  Hubert Blain; Edouard Tuaillon; Lucie Gamon; Amandine Pisoni; Stéphanie Miot; Yves Rolland; Marie-Christine Picot; Jean Bousquet
Journal:  Allergy       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 14.710

Review 8.  Immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and mechanisms of immunopathological changes in COVID-19.

Authors:  Ahmet Kursat Azkur; Mübeccel Akdis; Dilek Azkur; Milena Sokolowska; Willem van de Veen; Marie-Charlotte Brüggen; Liam O'Mahony; Yadong Gao; Kari Nadeau; Cezmi A Akdis
Journal:  Allergy       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 14.710

9.  Spike-antibody waning after second dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1.

Authors:  Madhumita Shrotri; Annalan M D Navaratnam; Vincent Nguyen; Thomas Byrne; Cyril Geismar; Ellen Fragaszy; Sarah Beale; Wing Lam Erica Fong; Parth Patel; Jana Kovar; Andrew C Hayward; Robert W Aldridge
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2021-07-17       Impact factor: 79.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.