[HTML][HTML] Differences in SARS-CoV-2 specific humoral and cellular immune responses after contralateral and ipsilateral COVID-19 vaccination
L Ziegler, V Klemis, T Schmidt, S Schneitler, C Baum… - …, 2023 - thelancet.com
L Ziegler, V Klemis, T Schmidt, S Schneitler, C Baum, J Neumann, SL Becker, BC Gärtner…
EBioMedicine, 2023•thelancet.comBackground 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 …
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 …
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.
thelancet.com