Dataset Information

Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Individual doses of dual-dose vaccine-regimens are sequentially administered into the deltoid muscle, but little attention has so far been paid to the immunological effects of choosing the ipsilateral or the contralateral side for the second dose.

Methods

In an observational study, 303 previously naive individuals were recruited, who received the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 on either the ipsilateral (n = 147) or the contralateral side (n = 156). Spike-specific IgG, IgG-avidity, and neutralizing antibodies were quantified using ELISA and a surrogate assay 2 weeks after dose 2. A subgroup of 143 individuals (64 ipsilateral, 79 contralateral) was analysed for spike-specific CD4 and CD8 T-cells using flow-cytometry.

Findings

Median spike-specific IgG-levels did not differ after ipsilateral (4590 (IQR 3438) BAU/ml) or contralateral vaccination (4002 (IQR 3524) BAU/ml, p = 0.106). IgG-avidity was also similar (p = 0.056). However, neutralizing activity was significantly lower after contralateral vaccination (p = 0.024). Likewise, median spike-specific CD8 T-cell levels were significantly lower (p = 0.004). Consequently, the percentage of individuals with detectable CD8 T-cells was significantly lower after contralateral than after ipsilateral vaccination (43.0% versus 67.2%, p = 0.004). Spike specific CD4 T-cell levels were similar in both groups, but showed significantly higher CTLA-4 expression after contralateral vaccination (p = 0.011). These effects were vaccine-specific, as polyclonally stimulated T-cell levels did not differ.

Interpretation

Both ipsilateral and contralateral vaccination induce a strong immune response, but secondary boosting is more pronounced when choosing vaccine administration-routes that allows for drainage by the same lymph nodes used for priming. Higher neutralizing antibody activity and higher levels of spike-specific CD8 T-cells may have implications for protection from infection and severe disease and support general preference for ipsilateral vaccination.

Funding

Financial support was provided in part by the State chancellery of the Saarland to M.S.

SUBMITTER: Ziegler L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10505826 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination.

Ziegler Laura L Klemis Verena V Schmidt Tina T Schneitler Sophie S Baum Christina C Neumann Jürgen J Becker Sören L SL Gärtner Barbara C BC Sester Urban U Sester Martina M

EBioMedicine 20230811

<h4>Background</h4>Individual doses of dual-dose vaccine-regimens are sequentially administered into the deltoid muscle, but little attention has so far been paid to the immunological effects of choosing the ipsilateral or the contralateral side for the second dose.<h4>Methods</h4>In an observational study, 303 previously naive individuals were recruited, who received the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 on either the ipsilateral (n = 147) or the contralateral side (n = 156). Spike-s ...[more]

PMID: 37574375

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHomologous and heterologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations yield different spike protein-directed humoral and cellular immune responses. This study aimed to explore their currently unknown interdependencies.MethodsCOV-ADAPT is a prospective, observational cohort study of 417 healthcare workers who received vaccination with homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, homologous BNT162b2 or with heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2. We assessed humoral (anti-spike-RBD-IgG, neutralizing antibodies, and avidity) and cellular (spike-induced T-cell interferon-γ release) immune responses in blood samples up to 2 weeks before (T1) and 2-12 weeks following secondary immunization (T2).ResultsInitial vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 resulted in lower anti-spike-RBD-IgG compared with BNT162b2 (70 ± 114 vs. 226 ± 279 BAU/ml, p < .01) at T1. Booster vaccination with BNT162b2 proved superior to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at T2 (anti-spike-RBD-IgG: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 2387 ± 1627 and homologous BNT162b2 3202 ± 2184 vs. homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 413 ± 461 BAU/ml, both p < .001; spike-induced T-cell interferon-γ release: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 5069 ± 6733 and homologous BNT162b2 4880 ± 7570 vs. homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 1152 ± 2243 mIU/ml, both p < .001). No significant differences were detected between BNT162b2-boostered groups at T2. For ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, no booster effect on T-cell activation could be observed. We found associations between anti-spike-RBD-IgG levels (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 and homologous BNT162b2) and T-cell responses (homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2) from T1 to T2. Additionally, anti-spike-RBD-IgG and T-cell response were linked at both time points (all groups combined). All regimes yielded neutralizing antibodies and increased antibody avidity at T2.ConclusionsInterdependencies between humoral and cellular immune responses differ between common SARS-CoV-2 vaccination regimes. T-cell activation is unlikely to compensate for poor humoral responses.

Project description:BackgroundFew studies have compared SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity by ethnic group. We sought to establish whether cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination differ according to ethnicity in UK Healthcare workers (HCWs).MethodsIn this cross-sectional analysis, we used baseline data from two immunological cohort studies conducted in HCWs in Leicester, UK. Blood samples were collected between March 3, and September 16, 2021. We excluded HCW who had not received two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at the time of sampling and those who had serological evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcome measures were SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific total antibody titre, neutralising antibody titre and ELISpot count. We compared our outcome measures by ethnic group using univariable (t tests and rank-sum tests depending on distribution) and multivariable (linear regression for antibody titres and negative binomial regression for ELISpot counts) tests. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for age, sex, vaccine type, length of interval between vaccine doses and time between vaccine administration and sample collection and expressed as adjusted geometric mean ratios (aGMRs) or adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs). To assess differences in the early immune response to vaccination we also conducted analyses in a subcohort who provided samples between 14 and 50 days after their second dose of vaccine.FindingsThe total number of HCWs in each analysis were 401 for anti-spike antibody titres, 345 for neutralising antibody titres and 191 for ELISpot. Overall, 25.4% (19.7% South Asian and 5.7% Black/Mixed/Other) were from ethnic minority groups. In analyses including the whole cohort, neutralising antibody titres were higher in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs (aGMR 1.47, 95% CI [1.06-2.06], P = 0.02) as were T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 S1 peptides (aIRR 1.75, 95% CI [1.05-2.89], P = 0.03). In a subcohort sampled between 14 and 50 days after second vaccine dose, SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibody and neutralising antibody geometric mean titre (GMT) was higher in South Asian HCWs compared to White HCWs (9616 binding antibody units (BAU)/ml, 95% CI [7178-12,852] vs 5888 BAU/ml [5023-6902], P = 0.008 and 2851 95% CI [1811-4487] vs 1199 [984-1462], P < 0.001 respectively), increments which persisted after adjustment (aGMR 1.26, 95% CI [1.01-1.58], P = 0.04 and aGMR 2.01, 95% CI [1.34-3.01], P = 0.001). SARS-CoV-2 ELISpot responses to S1 and whole spike peptides (S1 + S2 response) were higher in HCWs from South Asian ethnic groups than those from White groups (S1: aIRR 2.33, 95% CI [1.09-4.94], P = 0.03; spike: aIRR, 2.04, 95% CI [1.02-4.08]).InterpretationThis study provides evidence that, in an infection naïve cohort, humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are stronger in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs. These differences are most clearly seen in the early period following vaccination. Further research is required to understand the underlying mechanisms, whether differences persist with further exposure to vaccine or virus, and the potential impact on vaccine effectiveness.FundingDIRECT and BELIEVE have received funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) through the COVID-19 National Core Studies Immunity (NCSi) programme (MC_PC_20060).

Project description:ObjectiveSARS-CoV-2 vaccinations have demonstrated vaccine-immunogenicity in healthy volunteers, however, efficacy in immunosuppressed patients is less well characterised. There is an urgent need to address the impact of immunosuppression on vaccine immunogenicity.MethodsSerological, T-cell ELISpot, cytokines and immunophenotyping were used to assess vaccine responses (either BNT162b2 mRNA or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) in double-vaccinated patients receiving immunosuppression for renal transplants or haematological malignancies (n = 13). Immunological responses in immunosuppressed patients (VACC-IS) were compared to immunocompetent vaccinated (VACC-IC, n = 12), unvaccinated (UNVACC, n = 11) and infection-naïve unvaccinated (HC, n = 3) cohorts.ResultsNo significant different differences in T-cell responses were observed between VACC-IS and VACC-IC (92%) to spike-peptide (S) stimulation. UNVACC had the highest T-cell non-responders (n = 3), whereas VACC-IC and VACC-IS both had one T-cell non-responder. No significant differences in humoral responses were observed between VACC-IC and VACC-IS, with 92% (12/13) of VACC-IS patients demonstrating seropositivity. One VACC-IS failed to seroconvert, however had detectable T-cell responses. All VACC-IC participants were seropositive for anti-spike antibodies. VACC-IS and VACC-IC participants elicited strong Th1 cytokine response with immunodominance towards S-peptide. Differences in T-cell immunophenotyping were seen between VACC-IS and VACC-IC, with lower CD8+ activation and T-effector memory phenotype observed in VACC-IS.ConclusionSARS-CoV-2 vaccines are immunogenic in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy, with responses comparable to vaccinated immunocompetent participants. Lower humoral responses were seen in patients treated with B-cell depleting therapeutics, but with preserved T-cell responses. We suggest further work to correlate both protective immunity and longevity of these responses in both healthy and immunosuppressed patients.

Project description:Cancer patients are at risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes due to impaired immune responses. However, the immunogenicity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination is inadequately characterized in this population. We hypothesized that cancer vs non-cancer individuals would mount less robust humoral and/or cellular vaccine-induced immune SARS-CoV-2 responses. Receptor binding domain (RBD) and SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibody levels and T-cell responses were assessed in immunocompetent individuals with no underlying disorders (n = 479) and immunocompromised individuals (n = 115). All 594 individuals were vaccinated and of varying COVID-19 statuses (i.e., not known to have been infected, previously infected, or "Long-COVID"). Among immunocompromised individuals, 59% (n = 68) had an underlying hematologic malignancy; of those, 46% (n = 31) of individuals received cancer treatment <30 days prior to study blood collection. Ninety-eight percentage (n = 469) of immunocompetent and 81% (n = 93) of immunocompromised individuals had elevated RBD antibody titers (>1,000 U/mL), and of these, 60% (n = 281) and 44% (n = 41), respectively, also had elevated T-cell responses. Composite T-cell responses were higher in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 or those diagnosed with Long-COVID compared to uninfected individuals. T-cell responses varied between immunocompetent vs carcinoma (n = 12) cohorts (P < 0.01) but not in immunocompetent vs hematologic malignancy cohorts. Most SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated individuals mounted robust cellular and/or humoral responses, though higher immunogenicity was observed among the immunocompetent compared to cancer populations. The study suggests B-cell targeted therapies suppress antibody responses, but not T-cell responses, to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Thus, vaccination continues to be an effective way to induce humoral and cellular immune responses as a likely key preventive measure against infection and/or subsequent more severe adverse outcomes.ImportanceThe study was prompted by a desire to better assess the immune status of patients among our cancer host cohort, one of the largest in the New York metropolitan region. Hackensack Meridian Health is the largest healthcare system in New Jersey and cared for more than 75,000 coronavirus disease 2019 patients in its hospitals. The John Theurer Cancer Center sees more than 35,000 new cancer patients a year and performs more than 500 hematopoietic stem cell transplants. As a result, the work was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of vaccination in inducing humoral and cellular responses within this demographic.

Dataset Information

Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets