4.5 Article

Immunogenicity of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 infection in lung transplant recipients

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 40, Issue 8, Pages 754-758

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2021.05.004

Keywords

COVID-19; mRNA vaccine; antibody response; immunogenicity; lung transplantation

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic [0064203]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Transplant recipients showed weaker antibody response to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine compared to natural infection, with only a subset of patients demonstrating SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cell response. Further research is needed to identify the optimal vaccine type and schedule for immunocompromised transplant patients.
The immunogenicity of the novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in immunocompromised lung transplant recipients is still unknown. We compared the antibody response after the first and second doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) with the response after natural SARS-CoV2 infection in lung transplant recipients. None of the vaccinees tested after two doses of the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine developed anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, while 85% patients presented an antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The absence of antibody response to vaccination led us to investigate the cellular response in a subset of patients. We detected SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cells in 4 out of 12 tested patients. Some patients therefore might have clinical benefit from the vaccine despite an absent antibody response. These results contrast with the excellent antibody response in immunocompetent individuals observed in mRNA BNT162b2 trials and indicate an urgent need to identify the best vaccine type and scheme for immunocompromised transplanted patients. J Heart Lung Transplant 2021;40:754-758 (c) 2021 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available