Evaluation of antibody kinetics and durability in health individuals vaccinated with inactivated COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac): a cross-sectional and cohort study in Zhejiang, China
Abstract
Background: Although inactivated COVID-19 vaccines are proven to be safe and effective in the general population, the dynamic response and duration of antibodies after vaccination in the real world should be further assessed.
Methods: We enrolled 1067 volunteers who had been vaccinated with one or two doses of CoronaVac in Zhejiang Province, China. Another 90 healthy adults without previous vaccinations were recruited and vaccinated with three doses of CoronaVac, 28 days and 6 months apart. Serum samples were collected from multiple timepoints and analyzed for specific IgM/IgG and neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) for immunogenicity evaluation. Antibody responses to the Delta and Omicron variants were measured by pseudovirus-based neutralization tests.
Results: Our results revealed that binding antibody IgM peaked 14-28 days after one dose of CoronaVac, while IgG and NAbs peaked approximately 1 month after the second dose then declined slightly over time. Antibody responses had waned by month 6 after vaccination and became undetectable in the majority of individuals at 12 months. Levels of NAbs to live SARS-CoV-2 were correlated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and NAbs to pseudovirus, but not IgM. Homologous booster around 6 months after primary vaccination activated anamnestic immunity and raised NAbs 25.5-fold. The neutralized fraction subsequently rose to 36.0% for Delta (p=0.03) and 4.3% for Omicron (p=0.004), and the response rate for Omicron rose from 7.9% (7/89) to 17.8% (16/90).
Conclusions: Two doses of CoronaVac vaccine resulted in limited protection over a short duration. The inactivated vaccine booster can reverse the decrease of antibody levels to prime strain, but it does not elicit potent neutralization against Omicron; therefore, the optimization of booster procedures is vital.
Funding: Key Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province; Key Program of Health Commission of Zhejiang Province/ Science Foundation of National Health Commission; Major Program of Zhejiang Municipal Natural Science Foundation; Explorer Program of Zhejiang Municipal Natural Science Foundation.
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files, or are available in database Dryad (https://datadryad.org/).
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
Key Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province, 2021C03200
- Hangjie Zhang
- Nani Nani Xu
- Bo Chen
- Yuting Liao
- Juan Yang
- Jianmin Jiang
- Huakun Lv
Key Program of Health Commission of Zhejiang Province/ Science Foundation of National Health Commission, WKJ-ZJ-2221
- Jianmin Jiang
- Huakun Lv
Major program of Zhejiang Municipal Natural Science Foundation, LD22H190001
- Hangjie Zhang
Explorer Program of Zhejiang Municipal Natural Science Foundation, LQ23H00001
- Hangjie Zhang
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Reviewing Editor
- Alex Sigal, Africa Health Research Institute, South Africa
Ethics
Human subjects: We state that we conformed with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 (as revised in 2008) concerning Human and Animal Rights, and that we followed out the policy concerning Informed Consent as shown on Springer.com. The study protocol and informed consent form were approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of The Zhejiang Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2021-044-01). Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.
Version history
- Received: October 9, 2022
- Preprint posted: November 4, 2022 (view preprint)
- Accepted: February 20, 2023
- Accepted Manuscript published: March 16, 2023 (version 1)
- Version of Record published: April 17, 2023 (version 2)
Copyright
© 2023, Zhang 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
-
- 684
- views
-
- 116
- downloads
-
- 4
- 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
- Medicine
- Microbiology and Infectious Disease
eLife has published the following articles on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.
-
- 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.