PreprintCited by 1,569SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesImmune responses and vaccinations

Phase 1/2 Study to Describe the Safety and Immunogenicity of a COVID-19 RNA Vaccine Candidate (BNT162b1) in Adults 18 to 55 Years of Age: Interim Report

Open access
Mulligan, Mark J., Lyke, Kirsten E., Kitchin, Nicholas, Absalon, Judith, Gurtman, Alejandra, Lockhart, Stephen, Neuzil, Kathleen, Raabe, Vanessa +17 more·2020·Nature

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41586-020-2639-4 · Paper page

Abstract

In March 2020, the WHO declared a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). 1 With >8.8 million cases and >450,000 deaths reported globally, a vaccine is urgently needed. We report the available safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity data from an ongoing placebo-controlled, observer-blinded dose escalation study among healthy adults, 18-55 years of age, randomized to receive 2 doses, separated by 21 days, of 10 μg, 30 μg, or 100 μg of BNT162b1, a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified, mRNA vaccine that encodes trimerized SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein RBD. Local reactions and systemic events were dose-dependent, generally mild to moderate, and transient. RBD-binding IgG concentrations and SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titers in sera increased with dose level and after a second dose. Geometric mean neutralizing titers reached 1.8-to 2.8-fold that of a panel of COVID-19 convalescent human sera. These results support further evaluation of this mRNA vaccine candidate.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2020.06.30.20142570

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The incidence of grade 3 fever of BNT162b1 varied significantly in the same 30 μg group in adults aged 18-55 years, with none (0%) of 12 in the USA, one (8%) of 12 in Germany, and four (17%) of 24 in China, suggesting varying tolerability in different populations.

    “The incidence of grade 3 fever of BNT162b1 varied significantly in the same 30 μg group in adults aged 18–55 years, with none (0%) of 12 in the USA,17 one (8%) of 12 in Germany,18 and four (17%) of 24 in China,16 suggesting varying tolerability in different populations.”

    From Safety and immunogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 ARCoV mRNA vaccine in Chinese adults: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 trial (2022) · cites this paper as [18]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 2 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Together with reports of preserved neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 with key B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 spike mutations and of pseudovirus with the full B.1.1.7 spike mutation set, our data indicate broad BNT162b2-elicited immune recognition.

    “Together with recent reports of the preserved neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 with key S mutations found in the B.1.1.7 and the B.1.351lineage 39,40 , and neutralization of pseudovirus bearing the full set of mutations of B.1.1.7 S 41 , our data indicate broad BNT162b2-elicited immune recognition 2,13,14 .”

    From BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans (2021) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Discussion (p. 5) reports substantial SARS-CoV-2 neutralization after vaccination with BNT162b1, supporting the general point that vaccination elicited an immune response. It does not establish broad BNT162b2-elicited recognition: the study tested a different vaccine candidate, and its Methods describe an assay using the USA_WA1/2020 strain. The variant-neutralization reports in the citing sentence are attached to other citations (39–41), not this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • To allow comparison with previously reported data on BioNTech-Pfizer RNA COVID-19 vaccines, sera for S1- and RBD-binding IgG were analyzed as previously described.

    “To enable the comparison of vaccine-induced S1-and RBD-binding IgG responses to previously reported data on the BioNTech-Pfizer RNA vaccines for COVID-19, sera were analysed as previously described 2,13,14 .”

    From BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans (2021) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Methods describe how vaccine-induced RBD-binding IgG was measured in sera, and Figure 4 reports those responses. Our copy does not describe an S1-binding IgG assay, so this source supports the RBD part of the cited method but not the S1 part. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Among convalescent serum donors, geometric mean neutralizing titers were 90 for symptomatic infections (n=35), 156 for asymptomatic infections (n=3), and 618 for hospitalized individuals (n=1).

    “GMTs in subgroups of the donors were as follows: symptomatic infections, 90 (n = 35); asymptomatic infections, 156 (n = 3); hospitalized, 618 (n = 1).”

    From BNT162b2 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies and poly-specific T cells in humans (2021) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Methods section describes 38 convalescent serum donors, including 35 who had symptomatic infections and one who had been hospitalized; the remaining three were asymptomatic. The Immunogenicity section reports a neutralizing GMT of 94 for the panel as a whole, but our copy does not report subgroup GMTs of 90, 156, or 618. Page numbers are not available for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several studies have reported more frequent and severe solicited systemic adverse events following the second vaccination than we found.

    “Meanwhile, several studies17, 18, 19 have reported more frequent and severe solicited systemic adverse events following the second vaccination than we found.”

    From Safety and immunogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 ARCoV mRNA vaccine in Chinese adults: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 trial (2022) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Results (p. 3) report that solicited systemic events affected more participants after the second BNT162b1 dose, and the Discussion says reactogenicity was generally higher after that dose. The paper does not compare its findings with the citing authors’ findings, so it cannot establish the claim’s “than we found” comparison; the passages also do not establish that systemic events were more severe after the second dose. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mulligan, M. J., Lyke, K. E., Kitchin, N., Absalon, J., Gurtman, A., Lockhart, S., Neuzil, K., Raabe, V., Bailey, R., Swanson, K. A., Li, P., Koury, K., Kalina, W., Cooper, D., Fontes-Garfias, C., Shi, P.-Y., Türeci, Ӧ., Tompkins, K. R., Walsh, E. E., Frenck, R., Falsey, A. R., Dormitzer, P. R., Gruber, W. C., Şahin, U., & Jansen, K. U.
Affiliations
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • Pfizer (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
  • The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
  • Rochester General Hospital (US)
  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
  • BioNTech (Germany) (DE)
Corresponding author
Absalon, Judith
Venue
Nature
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-07-01
Volume
586
Issue
7830
Pages
589-593
ISSN
0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3048620154
Cited by
1,569
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 111 · 2023: 183 · 2022: 355 · 2021: 623 · 2020: 152 · 2019: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
43.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center
  • University of Rochester
  • Georgia Clinical and Translational Science Alliance
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001445)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune responses and vaccinations
Keywords
COVID-19 vaccines, SARS-CoV-2, mRNA vaccines, lipid nanoparticle formulation, dose escalation, vaccine safety, vaccine immunogenicity, neutralizing antibodies, reactogenicity, healthy adults
MeSH terms
COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccines, COVID-19 Serotherapy, Adult, Antibodies, Viral, Female, Humans, Immunoglobulin G, Immunization, Passive, Male, Middle Aged, Pneumonia, Viral, Time Factors, Viral Vaccines, Coronavirus Infections, Young Adult, Antibodies, Neutralizing, Pandemics, Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review