PreprintCited by 69SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchImmune responses and vaccinationsVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

Long-term immunogenicity of BNT162b2 vaccination in the elderly and in younger health care workers

Open access
Tober-Lau, Pinkus, Schwarz, Tatjana, Vanshylla, Kanika, Hillus, David, Gruell, Henning, EICOV/COVIM Study Group, Suttorp, Norbert, Landgraf, Irmgard +7 more·2021·The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

Abstract

COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is highly immunogenic and effective, but recent studies have indicated waning anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses over time. Increasing infection rates has led authorities in several countries to initiate booster campaigns for vulnerable populations, including the elderly. However, the durability of vaccine-induced immunity in the elderly is currently unknown. Here, we describe interim results of a prospective cohort study comparing immune responses in a cohort of vaccinated elderly persons to those in healthcare workers (HCW), measured six months after first immunisation with BNT162b2. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1-, full Spike- and RBD-IgG seropositivity rates and IgG levels at six months were significantly lower in the elderly compared to HCW. Serum neutralization of Delta VOC measured by pseudovirus neutralisation test was detectable in 43/71 (60.6%, 95%CI: 48.9-71.1) in the elderly cohort compared to 79/83 in the HCW cohort (95.2%, 95%CI: 88.3-98.1) at six months post vaccination. Consistent with the overall lower antibody levels, SARS-CoV-2-S1 T cell reactivity was reduced in the elderly compared to HCW (261.6 mIU/ml, IQR:141.5-828.6 vs 1198.0 mIU/ml, IQR: 593.9-2533.6, p<0.0001). Collectively, these findings suggest that the established two-dose vaccination regimen elicits less durable immune responses in the elderly compared to young adults. Given the recent surge in hospitalisations, even in countries with high vaccination rates such as Israel, the current data may support booster vaccinations of the elderly. Further studies to determine long-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in high-risk populations and the safety and effectiveness of additional boosters are needed.

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 · 10.1101/2021.08.26.21262468

Cites

11 of 11 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 efficacy of BNT162b2 at preventing COVID-19 infection in individuals aged 16 was 95%, and over the six subsequent months, vaccine efficacy was 91.3%.

    “The efficacy of the vaccine at preventing COVID-19 infection in individuals aged 16 was 95%, and over the six subsequent months, vaccine efficacy was 91.3%.385–387”

    From Advances in COVID-19 mRNA vaccine development (2022) · cites this paper as [387]

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

1 of the 12 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [6]Goldberg Y Mandel M Bar-On YM Waning immunity of the BNT162b2 vaccine: a nationwide study from Israel medRxiv 2021 published online Aug 30 10.1101/2021.08.24.21262423 (preprint) PMC8609604 34706170 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tober-Lau, P., Schwarz, T., Vanshylla, K., Hillus, D., Gruell, H., EICOV/COVIM Study Group, Suttorp, N., Landgraf, I., Kappert, K., Seybold, J., Drosten, C., Klein, F., Kurth, F., Corman, V. M., & Sander, L. E.
Affiliations
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • University of Cologne (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Kurth, Florian
  • Corman, Victor Max
  • Sander, Leif Erik
Venue
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2021-08-26
Volume
9
Issue
11
Pages
e104-e105
ISSN
2213-2600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3206648736
Cited by
69
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 9
FWCI
5.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Respiratory Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB‐TR84)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
  • Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie
  • Berlin Institute of Health (01KX2021)
  • Berlin University Alliance
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune responses and vaccinations
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Keywords
BNT162b2, COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, immunogenicity, older adults, healthcare workers, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, antibody waning, vaccine efficacy, variants of concern, Delta variant, immune response
MeSH terms
Immunogenicity, Vaccine, COVID-19, BNT162 Vaccine, Aged, Health Personnel, Humans, Vaccination

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