Antibody levels following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: associations with post-vaccination infection and risk factors in two UK longitudinal studies
Abstract
Background: SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels can be used to assess humoral immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, and may predict risk of future infection. Higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 anti-Spike antibodies are known to be associated with increased protection against future SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, variation in antibody levels and risk factors for lower antibody levels following each round of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have not been explored across a wide range of socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, and health factors within population-based cohorts.
Methods: Samples were collected from 9,361 individuals from TwinsUK and ALSPAC UK population-based longitudinal studies and tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Cross-sectional sampling was undertaken jointly in April-May 2021 (TwinsUK, N = 4,256; ALSPAC, N = 4,622), and in TwinsUK only in November 2021-January 2022 (N = 3,575). Variation in antibody levels after first, second, and third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables were analysed. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we tested associations between antibody levels following vaccination and: (1) SARS-CoV-2 infection following vaccination(s); (2) health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables.
Results: Within TwinsUK, single-vaccinated individuals with the lowest 20% of anti-Spike antibody levels at initial testing had 3-fold greater odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection over the next six to nine months (OR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.4, 6.0), compared to the top 20%. In TwinsUK and ALSPAC, individuals identified as at increased risk of COVID-19 complication through the UK 'Shielded Patient List' had consistently greater odds (2- to 4-fold) of having antibody levels in the lowest 10%. Third vaccination increased absolute antibody levels for almost all individuals, and reduced relative disparities compared with earlier vaccinations.
Conclusions: These findings quantify the association between antibody level and risk of subsequent infection, and support a policy of triple vaccination for the generation of protective antibodies.
Funding: Antibody testing was funded by UK Health Security Agency. The National Core Studies program is funded by COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing - National Core Study (LHW-NCS) HMT/UKRI/MRC (MC_PC_20030 & MC_PC_20059). Related funding was also provided by the NIHR 606 (CONVALESCENCE grant COV-LT-0009). TwinsUK is funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation (CDRF), Zoe Ltd and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London. The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: 217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC.
Data availability
Data from all analyses presented in figures and tables herein are tabulated and available as a supplementary spreadsheet file. Original antibody test data are available within the UK Longitudinal Linkage Collaboration upon application (see https://ukllc.ac.uk/apply/). UK LLC houses COVID-19 related datasets from over 20 UK longitudinal population studies (see https://ukllc.ac.uk/datasets/). Original TwinsUK data are available to researchers on application. Access to original TwinsUK data is managed by the TwinsUK Resource Executive Committee (see https://twinsuk.ac.uk/resources-for-researchers/access-our-data/) and access to original ALSPAC data via an online proposal system (see http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/alspac/documents/researchers/data-access/ALSPAC_Access_Policy.pdf). This is to ensure privacy and protect against misuse. ALSPAC study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the University of Bristol. REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) is a secure, web-based software platform designed to support data capture for research studies (doi:10.1016/J.JBI.2008.08.010). The study website contains details of all the data that is available through a fully searchable data dictionary and variable search tool on the study website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/our-data/). Analysis code will be made openly available via GitHub at: https://github.com/nathan-cheetham.
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
NIHR (COV-LT-0009)
- Nathan J Cheetham
- Milla Kibble
- Andrew Wong
- Richard J Silverwood
- Anika Knuppel
- Dylan M Williams
- Olivia KL Hamilton
- Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi
- George B Ploubidis
- Ellen J Thompson
- Ruth CE Bowyer
- Maria Paz Garcia
- Nishi chaturvedi
- Nicholas J Timpson
- Claire J Steves
NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-2001)
- Nicholas J Timpson
MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (MC_UU_00011/1)
- Nicholas J Timpson
Medical Research Council (MR/W021315/1)
- Milla Kibble
NRS (SCAF/15/02)
- Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi
Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2)
- Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi
Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17)
- Olivia KL Hamilton
- Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi
Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/11)
- Olivia KL Hamilton
Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/3)
- Olivia KL Hamilton
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Reviewing Editor
- Joshua T Schiffer, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, United States
Ethics
Human subjects: The ethics statements for each of the longitudinal studies involved in this study are outlined below. TwinsUK: All waves of TwinsUK have received ethical approval associated with TwinsUK Biobank (19/NW/0187), TwinsUK (EC04/015) or Healthy Ageing Twin Study (H.A.T.S) (07/H0802/84) studies from HRA/NHS Research Ethics Committees. The TwinsUK Resource Executive Committee (TREC) oversees management, data sharing and collaborations involving the TwinsUK registry (for further details see https://twinsuk.ac.uk/resources-forresearchers/access-our-data/), in consultation with the TwinsUK Volunteer Advisory Panel (VAP) where needed. ALSPAC: Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees. Informed consent for the use of data collected via questionnaires and clinics was obtained from participants following the recommendations of the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee at the time. Consent for biological samples has been collected in accordance with the Human Tissue Act (2004). USoc: The University of Essex Ethics Committee has approved all data collection for the Understanding Society main study and COVID-19 web and telephone surveys (ETH1920-1271). The March 2021 web survey was reviewed and ethics approval granted by the NHS Health Research Authority, London - City & East Research Ethics Committee (reference 21/HRA/0644). No additional ethical approval was necessary for this secondary data analysis. 1958 NCDS, 1970 BCS70, Next Steps, MCS: The most recent sweeps of 1958 NCDS, 1970 BCS, Next Steps and MCS have all been granted ethical approval by the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee and all participants have given informed consent. ELSA: Waves 1-9 of ELSA were approved by the London Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (approval number MREC/01/2/91),and the COVID-19 sub-study was approved by the University College London Research Ethics Committee (0017/003). All participants provided informed consent. 1946 NSHD: Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the NHS Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1774). All participants provided informed consent. SABRE: Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the NHS Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1774). All participants provided informed consent. EXCEED: The original EXCEED study was approved by the Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 13/EM/0226). Substantial amendments have been approved by the same Research Ethics Committee for the collection of new data relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the COVID-19 questionnaires and antibody testing.
Version history
- Received: May 20, 2022
- Preprint posted: May 22, 2022 (view preprint)
- Accepted: December 22, 2022
- Accepted Manuscript published: January 24, 2023 (version 1)
- Version of Record published: February 20, 2023 (version 2)
Copyright
© 2023, Cheetham et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 2,867
- views
-
- 246
- downloads
-
- 10
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Further reading
-
- Epidemiology and Global Health
We discuss 12 misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes concerning the use of covariates in observational or nonrandomized research. Additionally, we offer advice to help investigators, editors, reviewers, and readers make more informed decisions about conducting and interpreting research where the influence of covariates may be at issue. We primarily address misperceptions in the context of statistical management of the covariates through various forms of modeling, although we also emphasize design and model or variable selection. Other approaches to addressing the effects of covariates, including matching, have logical extensions from what we discuss here but are not dwelled upon heavily. The misperceptions, misstatements, or mistakes we discuss include accurate representation of covariates, effects of measurement error, overreliance on covariate categorization, underestimation of power loss when controlling for covariates, misinterpretation of significance in statistical models, and misconceptions about confounding variables, selecting on a collider, and p value interpretations in covariate-inclusive analyses. This condensed overview serves to correct common errors and improve research quality in general and in nutrition research specifically.
-
- Ecology
- Epidemiology and Global Health
Zoonotic disease dynamics in wildlife hosts are rarely quantified at macroecological scales due to the lack of systematic surveys. Non-human primates (NHPs) host Plasmodium knowlesi, a zoonotic malaria of public health concern and the main barrier to malaria elimination in Southeast Asia. Understanding of regional P. knowlesi infection dynamics in wildlife is limited. Here, we systematically assemble reports of NHP P. knowlesi and investigate geographic determinants of prevalence in reservoir species. Meta-analysis of 6322 NHPs from 148 sites reveals that prevalence is heterogeneous across Southeast Asia, with low overall prevalence and high estimates for Malaysian Borneo. We find that regions exhibiting higher prevalence in NHPs overlap with human infection hotspots. In wildlife and humans, parasite transmission is linked to land conversion and fragmentation. By assembling remote sensing data and fitting statistical models to prevalence at multiple spatial scales, we identify novel relationships between P. knowlesi in NHPs and forest fragmentation. This suggests that higher prevalence may be contingent on habitat complexity, which would begin to explain observed geographic variation in parasite burden. These findings address critical gaps in understanding regional P. knowlesi epidemiology and indicate that prevalence in simian reservoirs may be a key spatial driver of human spillover risk.