In the present study, humoral and T cell-mediated immune responses elicited by BBIBP-CorV (inactivated virus) and BNT162b2 (mRNA-based) vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 virus were compared. Convalescent volunteers were also investigated to evaluate adaptive immunity induced by live virus. Although both vaccines induced antibody- and T cell-mediated immune responses, our analysis revealed significant quantitative and qualitative differences between the two types of challenges. The BBIBP-CorV vaccine elicited antireceptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG, as well as anti-spike protein (S) IgG and IgA antibodies in healthy individuals, the levels of which were much lower than after BNT162b2 vaccination but still higher than in the convalescent patients. The cumulative IFNγ-positive T cell response, however, was only twofold higher in participants injected with BNT162b2 compared to those who were primed and boosted with BBIBP-CorV vaccine. Moreover, the inactivated virus vaccine induced T cell response that targets not only the S but also the nucleocapsid (N) and membrane (M) proteins, whereas the mRNA vaccine was able to elicit a much narrower response that targets the S protein epitopes only. Thus, the pattern of BBIBP-CorV-induced T cell response in virus-naive participants was similar to the cell-mediated anti-SARS-CoV-2 response observed in convalescent patients. Based on these data, we can conclude that the BBIBP-CorV inactivated virus vaccine is immunologically effective. However, the duration of BBIBP-CorV-induced integrated, antibody, and T cell-mediated, immune responses needs further investigation.

In the present study, antibody and T cell-mediated immune responses elicited by BBIBP-CorV and BNT162b2 vaccines were compared 6 months after the two-dose immunization of healthy individuals. Additionally, antibody and T cell responses after the third dose of BBIBP-CorV or BNT162b2 were compared using a homologous or heterologous vaccination strategy. The third dose was consistently administered 6 months after the second dose. Six months following the two-dose vaccination, the cumulative IFNγ-positive T cell response was almost identical in participants immunized with either two doses of BNT162b2 or BBIBP-CorV vaccines; however, significant differences were revealed regarding humoral immunity: the two-dose BNT162b2 vaccine maintained a significantly higher antireceptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG, anti-spike (S1/S2) IgG, and IgA antibody levels. The BNT162b2 + BNT162b2 + BBIBP-CorV vaccine series elicited significantly lower anti-RBD IgG and anti-S1/S2 IgG levels than three doses of BNT162b2, while the anti-S IgA level was equally negligible in both groups. Importantly, the cumulative IFNγ-positive T cell response was highly similar in both groups. Surprisingly, the BBIBP-CorV + BBIBP-CorV + BNT162b2 vaccination series provided a much higher cumulative IFNγ-positive T cell response than that elicited by three doses of BNT162b2; moreover, the levels of anti-RBD IgG and anti-S IgA were almost identical. Only the mean anti-S1/S2 IgG levels were higher after receiving three mRNA vaccines. Based on these data, we can conclude that administering a third dose of BNT162b2 after two doses of BBIBP-CorV is an effective strategy to significantly enhance both humoral and T cell-mediated immune response, and its effectiveness is comparable to that of three BNT162b2 vaccines.

Common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) patients have markedly decreased immune response to vaccinations. In this study we evaluated humoral and T cell-mediated responses against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-Cov-2) with additional flow cytometric changes in CVID patients receiving booster vaccination with BNT162b2 after two ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. The BNT162b2 vaccine raised the anti-spike protein S immunoglobulin G over the cut-off value from 70% to 83% in CVID, anti-neutralizing antibody had been raised over a cut-off value from 70% to 80% but levels after boosting were significantly less in both tests than in healthy controls (*p=0.02; **p=0.009 respectively). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin A became less positive in CVID after boosting, but the difference was not significant. The cumulative interferon-γ positive T cell response by ELISpot was over the cut-off value in 53% of the tested individuals and raised to 83% after boosting. This and flow cytometric control of cumulative CD4+ and CD8+ virus-specific T cell absolute counts in CVID were also statistically not different from healthy individuals after boosting. Additional flow cytometric measures for CD45+ lymphocytes, CD3+, and CD19+ cells have not shown significant differences from controls except for lower CD4+T cell counts at both time points (**p=0.003; **p=0.002), in parallel CD4+ virus-specific T-cell ratio was significantly lower in CVID patients at the first time point (*p: 0.03). After boosting, in more than 33% of both CVID patients and also in their healthy controls we detected a decrease in absolute CD45+, CD3+, CD3+CD4+, and CD3+CD8+, CD19+, and CD16+56+ cell counts. CD16+CD56+ cell counts were significantly lower compared to controls before and after boosting (*p=0.02, *p=0.02). CVID patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy throughout the previous year or autologous stem cell transplantation two years before vaccination had worse responses in anti-spike, anti-neutralizing antibody, CD3+CD4+T, CD19+ B, and natural killer cell counts than the whole CVID group. Vaccinations had few side effects. Based on these data, CVID patients receiving booster vaccination with BNT162b2 after two ChadOx1 can effectively elevate the levels of protection against COVID-19 infection, but the duration of the immune response together with COVID-19 morbidity data needs further investigation among these patients.

No abstract