PreprintCited by 3,742SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesAnimal Virus Infections Studies

What level of neutralising antibody protects from COVID-19?

Open access
Khoury, David S, Cromer, Deborah, Reynaldi, Arnold, Schlub, Timothy E, Wheatley, Adam K, Juno, Jennifer A, Subbarao, Kanta, Kent, Stephen J +2 more·2021·Nature Medicine

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41591-021-01377-8 · Paper page

Abstract

Both previous infection and vaccination have been shown to provide potent protection from COVID-19. However, there are concerns that waning immunity and viral variation may lead to a loss of protection over time. Predictive models of immune protection are urgently needed to identify immune correlates of protection to assist in the future deployment of vaccines. To address this, we modelled the relationship between in vitro neutralisation levels and observed protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection using data from seven current vaccines as well as convalescent cohorts. Here we show that neutralisation level is highly predictive of immune protection. The 50% protective neutralisation level was estimated to be approximately 20% of the average convalescent level (95% CI = 14-28%). The estimated neutralisation level required for 50% protection from severe infection was significantly lower (3% of the mean convalescent level (CI = 0.7-13%, p = 0.0004). Given the relationship between in vitro neutralization titer and protection, we then used this to investigate how waning immunity and antigenic variation might affect vaccine efficacy. We found that the decay of neutralising titre in vaccinated subjects over the first 3-4 months after vaccination was at least as rapid as the decay observed in convalescent subjects. Modelling the decay of neutralisation titre over the first 250 days after immunisation predicts a significant loss in protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection will occur, although protection from severe disease should be largely retained. Neutralisation titres against some SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern are reduced compared to the vaccine strain and our model predicts the relationship between neutralisation and efficacy against viral variants. Our analyses provide an evidence-based prediction of SARS-CoV-2 immune protection that will assist in developing vaccine strategies to control the future trajectory of the pandemic.

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 · 10.1101/2021.03.09.21252641

Cites

0 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?

  • There is no evidence that vaccine-induced antibody responses are more durable than convalescent responses.

    “There is no evidence that vaccine-induced responses are more durable than convalescent responses (preprint data, not yet peer reviewed)24.”
  • Combining the protective titre with antibody decay suggests that neutralization-mediated protection may decline substantially over the first year and be affected by reduced neutralization of antigenic variants.

    “Combining data on the protective titre and dynamics of decay of neutralizing antibodies suggest that neutralization-mediated protection may decline substantially over the first year of infection and will also be significantly affected by the reduced neutralization of viral antigenic variants8,24.”
  • A neutralizing titre equal to 20% of the average convalescent titre is sufficient for 50% protection from symptomatic COVID-19.

    “a neutralizing titre equivalent to 20% of the average convalescent titre is sufficient to provide 50% protection from symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; preprint data, not yet peer reviewed)24.”
  • A lower neutralization titre, 3% of the average convalescent titre, is associated with 50% protection from severe COVID-19.

    “a lower neutralization titre (3% of the average convalescent antibody titre) was associated with 50% protection from severe COVID-19 (ref.24).”
  • Neutralizing antibodies are a strong correlate of vaccine-induced immunity in humans.

    “Recent analyses suggest that neutralizing antibodies are a strong correlate of vaccine-induced immunity in humans (preprint data, not yet peer reviewed)24.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Regeneron Reports Positive Interim Data with REGEN-COV™ Antibody Cocktail used as Passive Vaccine to Prevent COVID-19. (Regeneron Press release January 26 2021). https://newsroom.regeneron.com/news-releases/news-release- details/regeneron-reports-positive-interim-data-regen-covtm-antibody. (2021). 405
  2. Bharat Biotech Announces Phase 3 Results of COVAXIN®: India's First COVID-19 Vaccine Demonstrates Interim Clinical Efficacy of 81%. (Bharatbiotech Press release 415 3 March 2021) https://www.bharatbiotech.com/press_releases.html. (2021).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khoury, D. S., Cromer, D., Reynaldi, A., Schlub, T. E., Wheatley, A. K., Juno, J. A., Subbarao, K., Kent, S. J., Triccas, J. A., & Davenport, M. P.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Australian Research Council (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Triccas, James A
  • Davenport, Miles P
Venue
Nature Medicine
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2021-03-11
Volume
27
Issue
7
Pages
1205-1211
ISSN
1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3163785571
Cited by
3,742
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 171 · 2025: 304 · 2024: 431 · 2023: 776 · 2022: 1433 · 2021: 621 · 2020: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
259.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • Fast Grants
  • Department of Health and Aged Care, Australian Government (MRF2005544)
  • State Government of Victoria
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1149990, GNT2002073, 1173027, 1173528, 1123673, 1153493)
  • Medical Research Future Fund
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 › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Virus Infections Studies
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 vaccines, neutralizing antibodies, immunoprotection, correlates of protection, neutralization titers, convalescent sera, vaccine efficacy, waning immunity, variants of concern
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, Antibodies, Viral, Humans, Severity of Illness Index, Logistic Models, Antibodies, Neutralizing

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