Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Infectious Diseases 1/2022

Open Access 01.12.2022 | COVID-19 | Research

Comparison of the safety and immunogenicity of the BNT-162b2 vaccine and the ChAdOx1 vaccine for solid organ transplant recipients: a prospective study

verfasst von: Aziza A. Ajlan, Tariq Ali, Hassan Aleid, Khalid Almeshari, Edward DeVol, Morad Ahmed Alkaff, Layal Fajji, Ali Alali, Dani Halabi, Sahar Althuwaidi, Saad Alghamdi, Asad Ullah, Abdulrahman Alrajhi, Khalid Bzeizi, Reem Almaghrabi, Kris Ann Hervera Marquez, Bilal Elmikkaoui, Eid Albogumi, Haifa Aldakhil, Moheeb Al-Awwami, Dieter C. Broering

Erschienen in: BMC Infectious Diseases | Ausgabe 1/2022

Abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and its resulting disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has spread to millions of people worldwide. Preliminary data from organ transplant recipients have shown reduced seroconversion rates after the administration of different SARS-CoV-2 vaccination platforms. However, it is unknown whether different vaccination platforms provide different levels of protection against SARS-CoV-2. To answer this question, we prospectively studied 431 kidney and liver transplant recipients (kidney: n = 230; liver: n = 201) who received either the ChAdOx1 vaccine (n = 148) or the BNT-162b2 vaccine (n = 283) and underwent an assessment of immunoglobulin M/immunoglobulin G spike antibody levels. The primary objective of the study is to directly compare the efficacy of two different vaccine platforms in solid organ transplant recipients by measuring of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against the RBD of the spike protein (anti-RBD) two weeks after first and second doses. Our secondary endpoints were solicited specific local or systemic adverse events within 7 days after the receipt of each dose of the vaccine. There was no difference in the primary outcome between the two vaccine platforms in patients who received two vaccine doses. Unresponsiveness was mainly linked to diabetes. The rate of response after the first dose among younger older patients was significantly larger; however, after the second dose this difference did not persist (p = 0.079). Side effects were similar to those that were observed during the pivotal trials.
Hinweise

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12879-022-07764-x.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
ANC
Absolute neutrophil count
AE
Adverse event
ALT
Alanine aminotransferase
ANOVA
Analysis of variance
AST
Aspartate aminotransferase
AZA
Azathioprine
β − ηΧΓ
Beta-human chorionic gonadotropin
BCAR
Biopsy-proven acute rejection
BP
Blood pressure
BMI
Body mass index
CNI
Calcineurin inhibitor
CRF
Case report form
CI
Confidence interval
COVID-19
Coronavirus disease 2019
CIOMS
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences
CSA
Cyclosporine
CMV
Cytomegalovirus
DNA
Deoxyribonucleic acid
ECG
Electrocardiogram
eCRF
Electronic case report form
EBV
Epstein-Barr virus
eGFR
Estimated glomerular filtration rate
EMA
European Medicines Agency
FSH
Follicle-stimulating hormone
GCP
Good clinical practice
HBc Ab
Hepatitis B core antibody
HBV
Hepatitis B virus
HIV
Human immunodeficiency virus
HIV
Human immunodeficiency virus
ICU
Intensive care unit

Introduction

Since the emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several vaccine platforms have evolved and emergency use authorization has been filed for their use. Key platforms of these vaccines include mRNA and adenovirus vectors. Adenoviruses, retroviruses, and vaccinia viruses are typically used as carrier vehicles in viral vector vaccines [1].
Transplant recipients remain vulnerable to the development of severe COVID-19, with higher reported morbidity and mortality than the general population [2]. Solid organ transplant recipients and immunosuppressed individuals were excluded from phase 3 trials of all COVID-19 vaccines [38]. Studies have looked at the response of mRNA vaccines across solid organ transplant recipients, and showed diminished response. Which has led to recommending a third dose of the vaccine [9, 10]. Furthermore, the immune responsiveness across platforms may vary. No studies have explored the impact of different vaccine platforms on the generated immunity, especially in immunocompromised hosts. The primary objective of the study is to directly compare the efficacy and safety of two different vaccine platforms (i.e., BNT-162b2 vaccine versus ChAdOx1) in solid organ transplant recipients by measuring of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against the RBD of the spike protein (anti-RBD) two weeks after first and second doses. During this prospective study, we compared the immunogenicity of the two COVID-19 vaccine platforms prospectively.

Materials and methodS

Patient population and study design

Patients followed-up at the King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre who received two doses of either the BNT-162b2 vaccine or the ChAdOx1 vaccine were included in this study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and blood samples were obtained according to the follow-up schedule (Additional file 1: Appendix A).
The institutional ethics committee approved this study (RAC# 2211022). The key exclusion criterion for patients was known COVID-19 infection, multi-organ transplant and age < 18 years, receipt of the vaccine before transplant and history of rejection within 6 months preceding vaccine administration.

Antibody responses

The primary outcome was the measurement of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against the RBD of the spike protein (anti-RBD) two weeks after first and second doses (Additional file 1: Appendix A). The two-week time point was selected based on previous studies that indicated that antibody titers are expected to peak at those time points [1113]. The anti-RBD was measured by semi-quantitative anti-spike serologic testing using the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike enzyme immunoassay [14, 15]. Testing was performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions at a certified biochemistry testing hospital laboratory. The lower limit of detection of the assay was 0.4 U/mL; according to the test instructions, any level > 0.8 U/mL was considered positive. For the purposes of this study, we regarded any subject at or below 0.8 as negative. According to the manufacturer’s specifications, neutralizing antibodies were assessed via the SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test assay (GenScript). Horseradish peroxidase-conjugated spike RBD was incubated with serum and then moved to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2-coated wells. Interactions of RBD and angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 were blocked if neutralizing antibodies [16]were present in the serum. The surrogate virus neutralization test measures the total quantity of neutralizing antibodies in the sera [17]. A positive result was defined based on a neutralizing antibody limit of ≥ 30% neutralization/inhibition. At this limit, the negative and positive percent agreement with the conventional plaque reduction neutralization test 50 and plaque reduction neutralization test 90 assays was approximately 100%. The sensitivity and specificity of these assays were 93.80% and 99.4%, respectively, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. According to the kit specifications, individuals with neutralization less than 30% were considered negative for neutralizing antibodies.

Safety and adverse events

Our secondary endpoints were solicited specific local or systemic adverse events within 7 days after the receipt of each dose of the vaccine, and unsolicited adverse events within 30 days after the receipt of the second dose of the vaccine (Additional file 11: Appendix A).
The study team members contacted all participants within 1 week of the receipt of each dose by phone to collect any adverse events. The data were collected at each scheduled visit (Additional file 1: Appendix A) to assess episodes of acute allograft rejection, hospitalization, other adverse events, or COVID-19 infection during the entire duration of the study.

Statistical analysis

The immunogenicity analysis was performed two weeks after the receipt of the first dose and 2 weeks after the receipt of the second dose for patients who received both vaccine doses and returned for follow-up. A safety analysis was performed for all patients, regardless of the number of doses administered. Demographic and safety analyses were performed using descriptive statistics. The primary outcome was vaccine immunogenicity assessed according to the anti-RBD titer two weeks after each dose of the vaccine, and will be further adjusted using propensity score analysis. A positive anti-RBD response was defined as > 0.8 U/mL. Univariate analyses were performed to determine factors impacting the development of a positive anti-RBD titer using the χ2 or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables and we analyzed for changes in the lab parameters between screening and before the 2nd dose, and between screening and after the 2nd dose via t-tests. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 17.0 (College Station, TX, USA).
The primary immunogenicity endpoint was considered the most important factor determining the necessary number of participants for this study. Furthermore, the endpoint was assumed to be binary for sample size calculations; that is, the recruited participant either did or did not achieve a sufficient antibody titer level 2 weeks after the second dose.
Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to simultaneously investigate the relationship between subgroups and the rate of immunogenicity. Similar analyses were performed to determine the efficacy outcomes (i.e., infection).

Results

Patient characteristics

Our cohort included 431 participants. Of these, 283 received the BNT-162b2 vaccine and 148 patients received the ChAdOx1 vaccine (230 kidney transplant recipients and 201 liver transplant recipients). The median age was 51.3 (± 16.2) years and 295 (68.4) were male. None reported a known history of COVID-19 prior to vaccination. All patient had stable graft function at the time of the vaccine. The baseline characteristics of the patients are described in Table 1. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were noted except for age (p > 0.00001) (Table 1).
Table 1
Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the population
Characteristic
 
Before propensity score matching
  
After propensity score matching
  
Total
N = 431 (%)
Pfizer
(n = 283)
AstraZeneca
(n = 148)
p-value
Pfizer
(n = 148)
AstraZeneca
(n = 148)
p-value
Age (years)
51.3 ± 16.2
53.2 ± 16
47.7 ± 15.9
0.0008
46.9 ± 15.9
47.7 ± 15.9
0.675
Sex
 Male
295 (68.4)
197 (69.6)
98 (66.2)
0.504
102 (68.9)
98 (66.2)
0.619
BMI
28.2 ± 5.6
28.1 ± 5.5
28.2 ± 5.7
0.930
27.5 ± 5.9
28.2 ± 5.7
0.345
Hypertension
205 (47.5)
126 (44.5)
79 (53.3)
0.080
87 (58.7)
79 (53.3)
0.349
Diabetes
191 (44.3)
126 (44.5)
65 (43.9)
0.905
52 (35.1)
65 (43.9)
0.122
Type of Tx
   
0.000
  
0.898
 Liver
 Kidney
201 (46.6)
230 (53.3)
158 (55.8)
125 (44.1)
43 (29)
105 (70.9)
 
44(29.7)
104 (70.2)
43 (29.05)
105 (70.95)
 
Time since TX (years)
7.35 [0.13–33.4]
7.22 [0.13–33.4]
7.62 [0.5–22.7]
0.489
7.1 [0.13–33.4]
7.6 [0.5–22.7]
0.470
Tx < 1 year
9 (2)
8 (2.8)
1 (0.6)
0.138
3 (2.03)
1 (0.68)
0.314
Deaths
6 (1.3)
5 (1.7)
1 (0.6)
0.708
2 (1.35)
1 (0.68)
1.00
Prednisone
289 (67)
179 (63.2)
110 (74.3)
0.020
116 (78.3)
110 (74.3)
0.412
Tacrolimus
408 (94.6)
268 (94.7)
140 (94.5)
0.963
141 (95.2)
140 (94.9)
0.791
Mycophenolate
305 (70.7)
197 (69.6)
108 (72.9)
0.466
111 (75)
108 (72.9)
0.691
Triple regimen (TMP)a
235 (54.5)
146 (51.9)
89 (60.14)
0.091
94 (63.5)
89 (60.1)
0.550
Thymoglobulinb
133 (57.8)
76 (60.8)
57 (54.2)
0.31
64 (61.5)
57 (54.2)
0.288
Basiliximab
45 (10.4)
26 (9.1)
19 (12.8)
0.23
17 (11.4)
19 (12.8)
0.72
aTMP: tacrolimus, mycophenolate and prednisone
bKidney Tx recipients

Immunosuppression

The primary immunosuppressive regimen in the majority of the cohort composed of tacrolimus, mycophenolate and prednisone 235 (54.5%). With 408 (94.6%) of the patients were on tacrolimus as the cornerstone immunosuppressant. The immunosuppression intensity had the same impact on the vaccine response rate according to the neutralizing antibody (Table 1).

Vaccine immunogenicity according to the neutralizing antibody

All patients were screened for COVID-19 before enrollment. Baseline laboratory test results and graft function were also assessed. There was no difference between patient’s laboratory parameters from baseline and two weeks following each dose of the vaccine (Table 2).
Table 2
A: Changes in patients laboratory value:
Overall
 
Screening
Before 2nd dose
After 2nd dose
Parameter
Mean (SE)
Mean (SE)
P-value
Mean (SE)
P-value
HB
137.26 (0.96)
135.56 (1.56)
0.712
138.28 (1.93)
0.772
Platelet
242.04 (3.78)
238.71 (6.43)
0.349
227.92 (7.51)
0.90
INR
1.05 (0.01)
1.07 (0.02)
0.083
1.03 (0.01)
0.0425
Serum Creatinine
102.59 (2.79)
103.54 (4.57)
0.251
106.41 (7.12)
0.618
ALT
21.6 (0.68)
23.34 (1.13)
0.237
23.36 (3.3)
0.768
AST
19.3 (0.36)
21.04 (0.96)
0.611
18.87 (1.03)
0.889
ALK
98.56 (2.74)
109.92 (5.29)
0.722
94.62 (4.29)
0.817
GGT
57.27 (4.79)
74.17 (9.62)
0.918
62.03 (9.75)
0.436
Bilirubin total
10.17 (0.59)
10.39 (1.33)
0.734
9.09 (0.47)
0.083
Tacrolimus level
6.17 (0.16)
6.31 (0.31)
0.842
6.1 (0.36)
0.812
Pfizer
 HB
137.23 (1.2)
135.56 (1.82)
0.980
136.98 (2.22)
0.517
 Platelet
235.24 (4.61)
236.95 (7.45)
0.709
224.96 (8.61)
0.69
 INR
1.04 (0.01)
1.06 (0.02)
0.033
1.03 (0.01)
0.08
 Serum creatinine
102.82 (3.79)
103.71 (6.03)
0.527
108.57 (8.34)
0.477
 ALT
21.6 (0.83)
23.18 (1.34)
0.409
23.51 (3.91)
0.763
 AST
19.49 (0.43)
21.13 (1.1)
0.541
18.89 (1.21)
0.844
 ALK
100.59 (3.58)
113.85 (6.72)
0.727
92.95 (4.58)
0.778
 GGT
62.7 (6.14)
75.36 (10.86)
0.972
56.22 (8.82)
0.138
 Bilirubin total
10.71 (0.81)
11.04 (1.77)
0.647
9.33 (0.54)
0.047
 Tacrolimus level
6.07 (0.19)
5.82 (0.32)
0.139
6.09 (0.38)
0.858
AstraZeneca
 HB
137.31 (1.62)
135.58 (3.08)
0.4106
143.73 (3.51)
0.629
 Platelet
254.98 (6.46)
243.87 (12.84)
0.231
241.05 (14.49)
0.22
 INR
1.1 (0.04)
1.12 (0.09)
0.455
1.03 (0.04)
0.1723
 Serum creatinine
102.14 (3.69)
103.06 (4.23)
0.228
96 (10.02)
0.7632
 ALT
21.59 (1.18)
23.84 (2.06)
0.365
22.7 (4.2)
0.986
 AST
18.93 (0.64)
20.78 (1.96)
0.968
18.8 (1.55)
0.784
 ALK
94.69 (4.13)
98.64 (6.69)
0.943
102.3 (11.72)
0.909
 GGT
44.44 (6.8)
68.7 (20.7)
0.73
97.56 (43.91)
0.236
 Bilirubin total
9.16 (0.75)
8.5 (0.65)
0.611
7.98 (0.85)
0.315
 Tacrolimus level
6.35 (0.26)
7.63 (0.71)
0.032
6.12 (1.12)
0.8714
B: After propensity score matching
Overall (n = 296)
 
Screening
Before 2nd dose
After 2nd dose
Parameter
Mean (SE)
Mean (SE)
P-value
Mean (SE)
P-value
HB
137.19 (1.17)
136.39 (2.05)
0.750
139.9 (2.55)
0.311
Platelet
248.62 (4.67)
246.83 (9.2)
0.345
240.13 (10.59)
0.124
INR
1.07 (0.02)
1.05 (0.04)
0.868
1.03 (0.02)
0.055
Serum Creatinine
103.69 (2.94)
103.2 (3.72)
0.167
98.16 (4.26)
0.525
ALT
20.84 (0.81)
21.7 (1.21)
0.104
20.13 (1.83)
0.140
AST
18.63 (0.42)
19.7 (0.96)
0.877
18.16 (0.91)
0.115
ALK
96.57 (3.07)
105.28 (6.39)
0.280
100.69 (6.94)
0.420
GGT
51.92 (5.78)
78.15 (15.36)
0.993
86.65 (20.66)
0.6311
Bilirubin total
9.53 (0.52)
9.45 (0.56)
0.501
9.39 (0.66)
0.350
Tacrolimus level
6.35 (0.18)
6.67 (0.42)
0.286
6.11 (0.42)
0.9926
Pfizer
HB
137.06 (1.68)
137.02 (2.76)
0.932
137.68 (3.47)
0.370
Platelet
242.18 (6.73)
249.12 (13.04)
0.778
239.64 (14.43)
0.296
INR
1.04 (0.01)
1.01 (0.02)
0.663
1.03 (0.02)
0.197
Serum Creatinine
105.23 (4.58)
103.3 (5.77)
0.401
99.21 (4.16)
0.33
ALT
20.09 (1.11)
20.12 (1.43)
0.162
18.82 (1.76)
0.057
AST
18.33 (0.54)
18.9 (0.85)
0.765
17.84 (1.14)
0.021
ALK
98.46 (4.56)
110.32 (10.02)
0.252
99.87 (8.72)
0.273
GGT
59.79 (9.43)
85.15 (22.14)
0.911
79.64 (20.34)
0.339
Bilirubin total
9.91 (0.73)
10.17 (0.85)
0.612
10.09 (0.89)
0.90
Tacrolimus level
6.36 (0.26)
5.91 (0.46)
0.389
6.11 (0.38)
0.888
AstraZeneca
 HB
137.31 (1.62)
135.58 (3.08)
0.4106
143.73 (3.51)
0.629
 Platelet
254.98 (6.46)
243.87 (12.84)
0.231
241.05 (14.49)
0.22
 INR
1.1 (0.04)
1.12 (0.09)
0.455
1.03 (0.04)
0.1723
 Serum creatinine
102.14 (3.69)
103.06 (4.23)
0.228
96 (10.02)
0.7632
 ALT
21.59 (1.18)
23.84 (2.06)
0.365
22.7 (4.2)
0.986
 AST
18.93 (0.64)
20.78 (1.96)
0.968
18.8 (1.55)
0.784
 ALK
94.69 (4.13)
98.64 (6.69)
0.943
102.3 (11.72)
0.909
 GGT
44.44 (6.8)
68.7 (20.7)
0.73
97.56 (43.91)
0.236
 Bilirubin total
9.16 (0.75)
8.5 (0.65)
0.611
7.98 (0.85)
0.315
 Tacrolimus level
6.35 (0.26)
7.63 (0.71)
0.032
6.12 (1.12)
0.8714

Factors associated with a lack of response to the vaccine

Factors previously reported to have affected seroresponse such as younger age, gender and time from transplantation were not clearly associated with response in our cohort. However, diabetes and triple immunosuppressive therapy appears to have significantly affected the response (Table 3).
Table 3
Anti-RBD levels: demographic factors (univariable analyses of factors associated with dose response)
 
Before propensity score matching
   
After propensity score matching
   
Characteristic
Response to dose-1 (%)
p-value
Response to dose-2 (%)
p-value
Response to dose-1 (%)
p-value
Response to dose-2 (%)
p-value
Male
59 (71.08)
0.198
78 (71.56)
0.295
32 (71.1)
0.365
46 (67.6)
0.759
Hypertension
38 (45.78)
0.194
53 (48.62)
0.252
29 (64.4)
0.430
38 (55.8)
0.419
Diabetes
35 (42.17)
0.898
49 (44.95)
0.040
12 (26.6)
0.108
25 (36.7)
0.023
Triple regimen (TMP)
27 (32.53)
0.000
52 (47.71)
0.000
21 (46.6)
0.000
41 (60.2)
0.003
Agea
1.02
0.018
0.979
0.079
0.99
0.985
0.96
0.028
Time since Txa
0.99
0.740
1.007
0.831
0.99
0.907
0.96
0.377
HBVb
13 (24.53)
0.605
17 (32.08)
0.036
5 (33.3)
0.201
6 (31.5)
0.254
aOdds ratio
bIn liver transplant patients only
A multivariable logistic regression was used including the same factors and demonstrated a pseudo R-square value of 0.23. Triple immunosuppressive therapy and age were identified as significant contributors for lack of response to the vaccine after the second dose with those receiving triple therapy having 92% reduced odds of a response and the per unit (year) increase in age associated with a 5% reduction in the odds of a response (Table 4).
Table 4
Multivariable logistic regression: factors associated with lack of response to the vaccine
Variable
Coefficient
OR (95% CI)
p-value
Female
− 0.618466
0.53 [0.22–1.30]
0.169
Hypertension
− 0.6821834
0.50 [0.18–1.40]
0.189
Diabetes
− 0.7022861
0.49 [0.21–1.19]
0.117
Triple regimen (TMP)
− 2.495359
0.08 [0.02–0.34]
0.000
Vaccine type: AstraZeneca
− 0.084671
0.91 [0.35–2.39]
0.862
Organ: Kidney
− 0.682618
0.50 [0.12–2.19]
0.362
Age
− 0.0488491
0.95 [0.92–0.98]
0.003
Time since Tx
0.0196044
1.01 [0.93.12]
0.683

Anti-RBD levels by vaccine type

In our cohort, the response rate after the first vaccine dose appeared to be higher with Pfizer vaccine (P < 0.0001). However, this elevation did not persist until after the second dose (P = 0.863) (Table 5).
Table 5
Anti-RBD levels by vaccine type:
  
Before propensity score matching
  
After propensity score matching
  
Vaccine response
Total
N = 431(%)
Pfizer
(n = 283)
AstraZeneca
(n = 148)
p-value
Pfizer
(n = 148)
AstraZeneca
(n = 148)
p-value
Post dose-1
Response after dose-1
33.20
41.61
17.98
0.000
31.8
17.98
0.031
Post dose-2
Response after dose-2
70.32
70.69
69.23
0.863
68.3
69.23
0.925
Kidney Tx
Post dose-1
Response to dose-1
19.11
23.17
14.67
0.176
   
Kidney Tx
Post dose-2
Response to dose-2
60.87
59.38
64.29
0.657
   
Liver Tx
Post dose-1
Response to dose-1
56.99
60.76
35.71
0.081
   
Liver Tx
Post dose-2
Response to dose-2
84.13
84.62
81.82
0.818
   
However, type of organ transplant significantly affected the response rate in our cohort (p = 0.002) (Table 6).
Table 6
Anti-RBD levels by type of Tx
 
Kidney Tx: %
Liver Tx: %
p-value
Total
   
 Response to dose-1
19.11
56.99
0.000
 Response to dose-2
60.87
84.13
0.002
Pfizer
   
 Response to dose-1
23.17
60.76
0.000
 Response to dose-2
59.38
84.62
0.003
AstraZeneca
   
 Response to dose-1
14.67
35.71
0.060
 Response to dose-2
64.29
81.82
0.286

Change in spike antibody serology

The median antibody level before the second dose was 0.4 and after the second dose was 82.2. The median change in antibodies from before the second dose to after the second dose was 10.1

Incidence of COVID-19

A total of 45 cases of COVID-19 were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in this cohort; these cases occurred in 19 of 148 participants who received the AstraZeneca vaccine and in 26 of the 283 participants who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. P = 0.213 (Fig. 1; Table 7).
Table 7
Anti-RBD levels by infection:
  
Before propensity score matching
  
After propensity score matching
  
 
Total
n (%)
Breakthrough
n (%)
No breakthrough n (%)
p-value
Breakthrough
n (%)
No breakthrough n (%)
p-value
Post dose-1
Response after dose-1
33.20
41.6
32.3
0.354
27.7
24.6
0.774
Post dose-2
Response after dose-2
70.32
90
68.97
0.159
100
66.6
0.088
Kidney Tx
Post dose-1
Response to dose-1
19.11
25
18.4
0.527
   
Kidney Tx
Post dose-2
Response to dose-2
60.87
80
59.77
0.367
   
Liver Tx
Post dose-1
Response to dose-1
56.99
75
55.2
0.282
   
Liver Tx
Post dose-2
Response to dose-2
84.13
100
82.76
0.311
   

Vaccine safety and other outcomes

No evidence of graft dysfunction or rejection, or any other form of abnormality was observed in the entire cohort as evident by routine laboratory monitoring (Table 2). There were no significant changes in liver enzymes or liver function test results in the liver transplant population throughout the study period. There were no changes in serum creatinine levels in the kidney transplant population that necessitated any kidney allograft biopsy or further investigation. All side effects that occurred were grade 1 (mild) [18, 19], no medical intervention/therapy required. in this study were consistent with what’s been reported previously. Pain at injection site and fatigue occurred mainly with ChAdOx1 vaccine (Table 8).
Table 8
A: Adverse Drug Reactions
 
Overall
Frequency
 
 
Freq
Percent
Pfizer
AstraZeneca
Signif
Following first vaccine dose (n = 431)
 Hypersensitivity
1
0.23
0
1
0.343
 Bells palsy
0
0
0
 
 Gastrointestinal
2
0.46
0
2
0.117
 Local pain at site
162
37.59
133
29
0.000
 Headache/Fatigue
221
51.28
139
82
0.215
 Neuromuscular skeletal
1
0.23
0
1
0.343
 Dermatologic
0
0
0
 
 Miscellaneous
171
39.68
110
61
0.636
 None
186
43.16
125
61
0.557
Following second dose (n = 410)
 Hypersensitivity
1
0.24
1
0
1.000
 Bells palsy
0
0
0
 
 Gastrointestinal
1
0.24
1
0
1.000
 Local pain at site
72
17.56
62
10
0.000
 Headache/Fatigue
61
14.88
51
10
0.002
 Dermatologic
0
-
0
0
 
 Miscellaneous
65
15.85
54
11
0.001
 None
315
76.83
191
124
0.000
B: Adverse drug reactions after propensity score matching
 
Overall
Frequency
 
 
Freq
Percent
Pfizer
AstraZeneca
Signif
Following first vaccine dose (n = 269)
 Hypersensitivity
1
0.34
0
1
1.00
 Bells palsy
0
0
0
 
 Gastrointestinal
2
0.68
0
2
0.498
 Local pain at site
79
26.6
50
29
0.006
 Headache/Fatigue
131
44.26
49
82
0.00
 Neuromuscular skeletal
1
0.34
0
1
1.00
 Dermatologic
0
0
0
 
 Miscellaneous
96
32.4
35
61
0.001
 None
144
48.6
65
87
0.01
Following second dose (n = 277)
 Hypersensitivity
0
0
0
 
 Bell’s palsy
0
0
0
 
 Gastrointestinal
1
0.36
1
0
0.495
 Local pain at site
31
11.19
21
10
0.031
 Headache/Fatigue
28
10.11
18
10
0.098
 Dermatologic
0
-
0
0
 
 Miscellaneous
32
11.5
21
11
0.052
 None
230
83.03
106
124
0.013

Discussion

A key strength of our study is the head-to-head evaluation and comparison of the serologic response to the BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 vaccines against COVID-19 in a large transplant cohort in a prospective fashion. Our key finding is that both vaccine platforms provide comparable anti-Spike levels against COVID19 infection, even after adjusting with propensity score matching. On the other hand, previously reported factors that may have an impact on vaccine responsiveness were not evident in our cohort [20, 21].
It is not yet clear whether these antibody responses will be adequate to protect transplant recipients from symptomatic COVID-19. Associations between neutralizing activity and clinical protection were not evaluable in this study due to the small number of breakthrough infection in the cohort.
Another point of originality of our study is that, we showed that both vaccine platforms were safe, and have comparable side effect profile. We have also noticed that BNT-162b2 vaccine may produce higher titers numerically, especially after first dose, this effect did not persist after the second dose. A previous study examined the outcomes of the Ad26.COV2. S vaccine compared to those of the mRNA vaccine; only 2 of 12 participants who received a single dose of the Ad26.COV2. S vaccine had a detectable anti-RBD antibody response, which was significantly fewer than the observed number of recipients with a detectable anti-RBD antibody response who received the mRNA vaccine series. Additionally, the titers achieved by the Ad26.COV2. S groups were significantly lower than those achieved by the mRNA group [22]. One potential explanation of the lower titer level after the first dose in the ChAdOx1 arm is that, in clinical trials, antibody titers usually peak at 21 days after receipt of the first dose [23], our study protocol measures the titers two week after each dose of the vaccine.
During SARS-CoV-2 mRNA and virus vector vaccine studies involving the general population, seroconversion was observed in almost all patients [3, 4, 68, 15, 24]. However, as expected, the response rate was lower in our cohort than it was in the general population; this finding is consistent with the available data in the field [2528]. Considering only the humoral response, spike-specific antibodies developed in only 29.9% of patients in our population, which is a bit lower than general population, and those with other immunocompromising conditions [29]. However, studies have reported a 37.5% antibody response rate after the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Boyarsky et al. reported a higher seroconversion rate of 54% for patients who received either the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna®) or the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer), both of which are mRNA vaccines [30]. Although no consensus on what threshold should be considered as protective immunity. In general, antibody levels were well below what has been reported in immunocompetent subjects.
It has been reported that the immune response to the vaccines was also impacted by the immunosuppressive protocol used [31, 32]. Some studies have addressed that anti-metabolite use (mycophenolate and azathioprine) are linked to poorer humoral responses to COVID-19 vaccines after SOT [33, 34]. Yet, the impact was consistent across vaccination platforms in our cohort. Moreover, we found that the odds of seropositivity among SOT patients receiving triple immunosuppressive regimen was lower compared to those receiving only 1 drug, irrespective of the pharmacological class. This implicates that the net state of immunosuppression, is the main predictor of poor humoral responses after SOT rather than a particular medication. We also found that seropositivity in kidney transplant recipients was lower than that of liver transplant recipients, which could also be explained by the intensity of immunosuppressive regimen used across organs.
It has also been observed that, in SOT recipients, the odds of seropositivity in patients who were vaccinated within 1 year after transplantation was lower than those who received the vaccines after the 1st year of transplantation [21]. This effect was not evident in our population, and was consistent across vaccine platforms.
The safety of both vaccine platforms especially vector vaccines in solid organ transplant recipients was another point of concern amongst healthcare providers. Our findings match those reported in the original trials of the BNT162b2 vaccines. Pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache were the most common symptoms experienced by healthy adults and those with stable, chronic medical conditions [31, 32]. None of the subjects in our large cohort experienced serious adverse events such as thrombocytopenia nor severe hypersensitivity reaction similar to what have been published [32, 3538] Those findings shall eliminate hesitancy or preference of a particular vaccine platform over the other.
However, the concern remains whether the antibody titers correlate with the clinically meaningful protection. Therefore, the clinicians should inform the patients that the immune response following vaccination may not provide a full protection against COVID19 infection.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that directly compared the efficacy of different vaccine platforms in solid organ transplant recipients. Our results suggest that solid organ transplant recipients should not be limited to COVID-19 vaccinations with mRNA platforms despite of the observed of the suppressed efficacy of viral vector vaccines, and that their antibody titers should be routinely checked to assess the response. At this point, the focus should continue to be vaccinating the family members and caregivers of solid organ transplant recipients as part of a cocooning strategy, which is a well-known method of protection when the target population cannot be vaccinated or is at risk for having a low response rate.
Limitations of this study include, lack of an immunocompetent control group, and lack of exploration of memory B-cell or T-cell responses. We also did not evaluate neutralizing antibody titers against the Delta or Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants. Given that those variants were not reported at the time of the conduct of the study. Moreover, vaccine efficacy against these two variants is likely reduced [3944].

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Disclosure

The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the Transplant International.

Declarations

The study has been reviewed and approved by institutional review board of Office of research affairs (ORA) and Research Ethics Committee (REC) of King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre with RAC # 2211022. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects/participants.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Rauch S, Jasny E, Schmidt KE, et al. New vaccine technologies to combat outbreak situations. Front Immunol. 2018;9:1963.CrossRef Rauch S, Jasny E, Schmidt KE, et al. New vaccine technologies to combat outbreak situations. Front Immunol. 2018;9:1963.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Caillard S, Chavarot N, Francois H, et al. Is COVID-19 infection more severe in kidney transplant recipients? Am J Transplant. 2021;21(3):1295–303.CrossRef Caillard S, Chavarot N, Francois H, et al. Is COVID-19 infection more severe in kidney transplant recipients? Am J Transplant. 2021;21(3):1295–303.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Sadoff J, Le Gars M, Shukarev G, et al. Interim results of a phase 1–2a trial of Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(19):1824–35.CrossRef Sadoff J, Le Gars M, Shukarev G, et al. Interim results of a phase 1–2a trial of Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(19):1824–35.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Folegatti PM, Ewer KJ, Aley PK, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10249):467–78.CrossRef Folegatti PM, Ewer KJ, Aley PK, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10249):467–78.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Frater J, Ewer KJ, Ogbe A, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in HIV infection: a single-arm substudy of a phase 2/3 clinical trial. Lancet HIV. 2021;8(8):e474–85.CrossRef Frater J, Ewer KJ, Ogbe A, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in HIV infection: a single-arm substudy of a phase 2/3 clinical trial. Lancet HIV. 2021;8(8):e474–85.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Baden LR, El Sahly HM, Essink B, et al. Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(5):403–16.CrossRef Baden LR, El Sahly HM, Essink B, et al. Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(5):403–16.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Skowronski DM, De Serres G. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(16):1576–7.CrossRef Skowronski DM, De Serres G. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(16):1576–7.CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(27):2603–15.CrossRef Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, et al. Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(27):2603–15.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Karaba AH, Zhu X, Liang T, et al. A third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine increases neutralizing antibodies against variants of concern in solid organ transplant recipients. Am J Transpl. 2021. Karaba AH, Zhu X, Liang T, et al. A third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine increases neutralizing antibodies against variants of concern in solid organ transplant recipients. Am J Transpl. 2021.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Karaba AH, Zhu X, Liang T, et al. A Third Dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine increases neutralizing antibodies against variants of concern in solid organ transplant recipients. medRxiv. 2021. Karaba AH, Zhu X, Liang T, et al. A Third Dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine increases neutralizing antibodies against variants of concern in solid organ transplant recipients. medRxiv. 2021.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Almendro-Vazquez P, Laguna-Goya R, Ruiz-Ruigomez M, et al. Longitudinal dynamics of SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular and humoral immunity after natural infection or BNT162b2 vaccination. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17(12): e1010211.CrossRef Almendro-Vazquez P, Laguna-Goya R, Ruiz-Ruigomez M, et al. Longitudinal dynamics of SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular and humoral immunity after natural infection or BNT162b2 vaccination. PLoS Pathog. 2021;17(12): e1010211.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Sadeq DW, Shurrab FM, Ismail A, et al. Comparison of antibody immune responses between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in naive and previously infected individuals. J Travel Med. 2021;28(8). Al-Sadeq DW, Shurrab FM, Ismail A, et al. Comparison of antibody immune responses between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in naive and previously infected individuals. J Travel Med. 2021;28(8).
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Arbel R, Hammerman A, Sergienko R, et al. BNT162b2 vaccine booster and mortality due to COVID-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(26):2413–20.CrossRef Arbel R, Hammerman A, Sergienko R, et al. BNT162b2 vaccine booster and mortality due to COVID-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(26):2413–20.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Patel EU, Bloch EM, Clarke W, et al. comparative performance of five commercially available serologic assays to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and identify individuals with high neutralizing titers. J Clin Microbiol. 2021;59(2). Patel EU, Bloch EM, Clarke W, et al. comparative performance of five commercially available serologic assays to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and identify individuals with high neutralizing titers. J Clin Microbiol. 2021;59(2).
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Patel EU, Bloch EM, Clarke W, et al. Comparative performance of five commercially available serologic assays to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and identify individuals with high neutralizing titers. medRxiv. 2020. Patel EU, Bloch EM, Clarke W, et al. Comparative performance of five commercially available serologic assays to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and identify individuals with high neutralizing titers. medRxiv. 2020.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Tan CW, Chia WN, Qin X, et al. A SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test based on antibody-mediated blockage of ACE2-spike protein-protein interaction. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38(9):1073–8.CrossRef Tan CW, Chia WN, Qin X, et al. A SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test based on antibody-mediated blockage of ACE2-spike protein-protein interaction. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38(9):1073–8.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Le Bert N, Clapham HE, Tan AT, et al. Highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. J Exp Med. 2021;218(5). Le Bert N, Clapham HE, Tan AT, et al. Highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. J Exp Med. 2021;218(5).
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Helling M, Venulet J. Drug recording and classification by the WHO research centre for international monitoring of adverse reactions to drugs. Methods Inf Med. 1974;13(3):169–78.CrossRef Helling M, Venulet J. Drug recording and classification by the WHO research centre for international monitoring of adverse reactions to drugs. Methods Inf Med. 1974;13(3):169–78.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2000;356(9237):1255–9.CrossRef Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2000;356(9237):1255–9.CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Sasaki S, Sullivan M, Narvaez CF, et al. Limited efficacy of inactivated influenza vaccine in elderly individuals is associated with decreased production of vaccine-specific antibodies. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(8):3109–19.CrossRef Sasaki S, Sullivan M, Narvaez CF, et al. Limited efficacy of inactivated influenza vaccine in elderly individuals is associated with decreased production of vaccine-specific antibodies. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(8):3109–19.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Haidar G, Agha M, Bilderback A, et al. Prospective evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine responses across a broad spectrum of immunocompromising conditions: the COVICS study. Clin Infect Dis. 2022. Haidar G, Agha M, Bilderback A, et al. Prospective evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine responses across a broad spectrum of immunocompromising conditions: the COVICS study. Clin Infect Dis. 2022.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Boyarsky BJ, Chiang TP, Ou MT, et al. Antibody response to the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients. Transplantation. 2021;105(8):e82–3.CrossRef Boyarsky BJ, Chiang TP, Ou MT, et al. Antibody response to the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients. Transplantation. 2021;105(8):e82–3.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Barros-Martins J, Hammerschmidt SI, Cossmann A, et al. Immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants after heterologous and homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 vaccination. Nat Med. 2021;27(9):1525–9.CrossRef Barros-Martins J, Hammerschmidt SI, Cossmann A, et al. Immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants after heterologous and homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 vaccination. Nat Med. 2021;27(9):1525–9.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhu FC, Li YH, Guan XH, et al. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a recombinant adenovirus type-5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine: a dose-escalation, open-label, non-randomised, first-in-human trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10240):1845–54.CrossRef Zhu FC, Li YH, Guan XH, et al. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a recombinant adenovirus type-5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine: a dose-escalation, open-label, non-randomised, first-in-human trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10240):1845–54.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Cucchiari D, Egri N, Bodro M, et al. Cellular and humoral response after MRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2021;21(8):2727–39.CrossRef Cucchiari D, Egri N, Bodro M, et al. Cellular and humoral response after MRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2021;21(8):2727–39.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Benotmane I, Gautier G, Perrin P, et al. Antibody response after a third dose of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients with minimal serologic response to 2 doses. JAMA. 2021. Benotmane I, Gautier G, Perrin P, et al. Antibody response after a third dose of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients with minimal serologic response to 2 doses. JAMA. 2021.
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Benotmane I, Gautier-Vargas G, Gallais F, et al. Strong antibody response after a first dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based vaccine in kidney transplant recipients with a previous history of COVID-19. Am J Transpl. 2021. Benotmane I, Gautier-Vargas G, Gallais F, et al. Strong antibody response after a first dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based vaccine in kidney transplant recipients with a previous history of COVID-19. Am J Transpl. 2021.
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Benotmane I, Gautier-Vargas G, Cognard N, et al. Weak anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response after the first injection of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients. Kidney Int. 2021;99(6):1487–9.CrossRef Benotmane I, Gautier-Vargas G, Cognard N, et al. Weak anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response after the first injection of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients. Kidney Int. 2021;99(6):1487–9.CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Benotmane I, Gautier-Vargas G, Gallais F, et al. Strong antibody response after a first dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based vaccine in kidney transplant recipients with a previous history of COVID-19. Am J Transpl. 2021;21(11):3808–10.CrossRef Benotmane I, Gautier-Vargas G, Gallais F, et al. Strong antibody response after a first dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based vaccine in kidney transplant recipients with a previous history of COVID-19. Am J Transpl. 2021;21(11):3808–10.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Boyarsky BJ, Werbel WA, Avery RK, et al. Antibody response to 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine series in solid organ transplant recipients. JAMA. 2021;325(21):2204–6.CrossRef Boyarsky BJ, Werbel WA, Avery RK, et al. Antibody response to 2-dose SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine series in solid organ transplant recipients. JAMA. 2021;325(21):2204–6.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Werbel WA, Boyarsky BJ, Ou MT, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients: a case series. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(9):1330–2.CrossRef Werbel WA, Boyarsky BJ, Ou MT, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of a third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients: a case series. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(9):1330–2.CrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Grupper A, Katchman H. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: safety and immunogenicity in solid organ transplant recipients and strategies for improving vaccine responses. Curr Transpl Rep. 2022;9:35–47.CrossRef Grupper A, Katchman H. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: safety and immunogenicity in solid organ transplant recipients and strategies for improving vaccine responses. Curr Transpl Rep. 2022;9:35–47.CrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Grupper A, Rabinowich L, Schwartz D, et al. Reduced humoral response to mRNA SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients without prior exposure to the virus. Am J Transpl. 2021;21(8):2719–26.CrossRef Grupper A, Rabinowich L, Schwartz D, et al. Reduced humoral response to mRNA SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 vaccine in kidney transplant recipients without prior exposure to the virus. Am J Transpl. 2021;21(8):2719–26.CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Rabinowich L, Grupper A, Baruch R, et al. Low immunogenicity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among liver transplant recipients. J Hepatol. 2021;75(2):435–8.CrossRef Rabinowich L, Grupper A, Baruch R, et al. Low immunogenicity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among liver transplant recipients. J Hepatol. 2021;75(2):435–8.CrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Strobel D, Haberkamp S, Zundler S. Portal vein thrombosis due to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) after COVID vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Ultraschall Med. 2021;42(5):551–2.CrossRef Strobel D, Haberkamp S, Zundler S. Portal vein thrombosis due to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) after COVID vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Ultraschall Med. 2021;42(5):551–2.CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Choi PY. Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(3): e11.CrossRef Choi PY. Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(3): e11.CrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Lai KY, Au SY, Fong KM. Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(3): e11.CrossRef Lai KY, Au SY, Fong KM. Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(3): e11.CrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Greinacher A, Thiele T, Warkentin TE, et al. Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(22):2092–101.CrossRef Greinacher A, Thiele T, Warkentin TE, et al. Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(22):2092–101.CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Ma C, Sun W, Tang T, et al. Effectiveness of adenovirus type 5 vectored and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic COVID-19, COVID-19 pneumonia, and severe COVID-19 caused by the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant: Evidence from an outbreak in Yunnan, China, 2021. Vaccine. 2022. Ma C, Sun W, Tang T, et al. Effectiveness of adenovirus type 5 vectored and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic COVID-19, COVID-19 pneumonia, and severe COVID-19 caused by the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant: Evidence from an outbreak in Yunnan, China, 2021. Vaccine. 2022.
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Pormohammad A, Zarei M, Ghorbani S, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against delta (B.1.617.2) variant: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;10(1). Pormohammad A, Zarei M, Ghorbani S, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against delta (B.1.617.2) variant: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. Vaccines (Basel). 2021;10(1).
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Emani VR, Reddy R, Goswami S. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(25):e92.CrossRef Emani VR, Reddy R, Goswami S. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(25):e92.CrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Kodera S, Rashed EA, Hirata A. Estimation of real-world vaccination effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against delta and omicron variants in Japan. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(3). Kodera S, Rashed EA, Hirata A. Estimation of real-world vaccination effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against delta and omicron variants in Japan. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10(3).
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Lauring AS, Tenforde MW, Chappell JD, et al. Clinical severity of, and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against, COVID-19 from omicron, delta, and alpha SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2022;376: e069761.CrossRef Lauring AS, Tenforde MW, Chappell JD, et al. Clinical severity of, and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against, COVID-19 from omicron, delta, and alpha SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2022;376: e069761.CrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Thompson MG, Natarajan K, Irving SA, et al. Effectiveness of a third dose of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Adults During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Predominance—VISION Network, 10 States, August 2021–January 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(4):139–45.CrossRef Thompson MG, Natarajan K, Irving SA, et al. Effectiveness of a third dose of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-Associated Emergency Department and Urgent Care Encounters and Hospitalizations Among Adults During Periods of Delta and Omicron Variant Predominance—VISION Network, 10 States, August 2021–January 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(4):139–45.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Comparison of the safety and immunogenicity of the BNT-162b2 vaccine and the ChAdOx1 vaccine for solid organ transplant recipients: a prospective study
verfasst von
Aziza A. Ajlan
Tariq Ali
Hassan Aleid
Khalid Almeshari
Edward DeVol
Morad Ahmed Alkaff
Layal Fajji
Ali Alali
Dani Halabi
Sahar Althuwaidi
Saad Alghamdi
Asad Ullah
Abdulrahman Alrajhi
Khalid Bzeizi
Reem Almaghrabi
Kris Ann Hervera Marquez
Bilal Elmikkaoui
Eid Albogumi
Haifa Aldakhil
Moheeb Al-Awwami
Dieter C. Broering
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2022
Verlag
BioMed Central
Schlagwort
COVID-19
Erschienen in
BMC Infectious Diseases / Ausgabe 1/2022
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2334
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07764-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

BMC Infectious Diseases 1/2022 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Notfall-TEP der Hüfte ist auch bei 90-Jährigen machbar

26.04.2024 Hüft-TEP Nachrichten

Ob bei einer Notfalloperation nach Schenkelhalsfraktur eine Hemiarthroplastik oder eine totale Endoprothese (TEP) eingebaut wird, sollte nicht allein vom Alter der Patientinnen und Patienten abhängen. Auch über 90-Jährige können von der TEP profitieren.

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

25.04.2024 Hypotonie Nachrichten

Wenn unter einer medikamentösen Hochdrucktherapie der diastolische Blutdruck in den Keller geht, steigt das Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse: Darauf deutet eine Sekundäranalyse der SPRINT-Studie hin.

Bei schweren Reaktionen auf Insektenstiche empfiehlt sich eine spezifische Immuntherapie

Insektenstiche sind bei Erwachsenen die häufigsten Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor schweren anaphylaktischen Reaktionen bietet die allergenspezifische Immuntherapie. Jedoch kommt sie noch viel zu selten zum Einsatz.

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

25.04.2024 Hypertonie Nachrichten

Beginnen ältere Männer im Pflegeheim eine Antihypertensiva-Therapie, dann ist die Frakturrate in den folgenden 30 Tagen mehr als verdoppelt. Besonders häufig stürzen Demenzkranke und Männer, die erstmals Blutdrucksenker nehmen. Dafür spricht eine Analyse unter US-Veteranen.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.