COVID-19 vaccine type-dependent differences in immunogenicity and inflammatory response: BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19

Abstract

Evaluation of the safety and immunogenicity of new vaccine platforms is needed to increase public acceptance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. Here, we evaluated the association between reactogenicity and immunogenicity in healthy adults following vaccination by analyzing blood samples before and after sequential two-dose vaccinations of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Outcomes included anti-S IgG antibody and neutralizing antibody responses, adverse events, and proinflammatory cytokine responses. A total of 59 and 57 participants vaccinated with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, respectively, were enrolled. Systemic adverse events were more common after the first ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 dose than after the second. An opposite trend was observed in BNT162b2 recipients. Although the first ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 dose significantly elevated the median proinflammatory cytokine levels, the second dose did not, and neither did either dose of BNT162b2. Grades of systemic adverse events in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients were significantly associated with IL-6 and IL-1β levels. Anti-S IgG and neutralizing antibody titers resulting from the second BNT162b2 dose were significantly associated with fever. In conclusion, systemic adverse events resulting from the first ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 dose may be associated with proinflammatory cytokine responses rather than humoral immune responses. Febrile reactions after second BNT162b2 dose were positively correlated with vaccine-induced immune responses rather than with inflammatory responses.

Predictive model for BNT162b2 vaccine response in cancer patients based on blood cytokines and growth factors

“…These data suggest that BNT162b2 vaccine administration in cancer patients can generally elicit an anti-SARS-CoV-2-driven immune response that is similar in pattern, but not in magnitude, to healthy individuals. Even though our study is restricted to the BNT162b2 vaccine, we expect to observe similar alterations upon administration of other mRNA COVID-19 vaccines as well as non-mRNA vaccines, although they show a more pronounced upregulation of pro-inflammatory responses at least after the administration of the primer dose ( 30 ).…”

Understanding Regional Trauma Centers and managing a trauma care system in South Korea: a systematic review

“…The Korean healthcare system has used a fee-for-service payment scheme for both inpatient and outpatient services since the introduction of the health insurance program in 1977 [ 33 ]. In this context, Regional Trauma Centers have insisted that the correct fee is subject to meeting the specific features and clinical feasibility of the trauma service [ 34 ]. Thus, a fee for trauma management has been set in accordance with the process of trauma care, along with transportation, patient assessment, and emergency operation hospital care since 2018 [ 34 ].…”

“…In this context, Regional Trauma Centers have insisted that the correct fee is subject to meeting the specific features and clinical feasibility of the trauma service [ 34 ]. Thus, a fee for trauma management has been set in accordance with the process of trauma care, along with transportation, patient assessment, and emergency operation hospital care since 2018 [ 34 ]. Moreover, all trauma fees have been graded according to the result of quality assessment and are paid incentives that are linked to the following levels: (1) level A is subject to an increase of 10% from baseline; (2) level B is a baseline fee; and (3) level C is subject to a 10% reduction from baseline [ 35 ].…”

“…Of 17 Regional Trauma Centers that had been designated for establishment in 5 large regions across South Korea from 2012 through 2017, 5 centers were established in the capital area and Gangwon region, 5 centers in the Jeolla and Jeju region, 3 centers in the Chungcheong and Gyeongnam regions, and 2 centers in the Gyeongbuk region ( Table 1 ) [ 24 34 ]. As of 2021, initial trauma center planning has been completed in 15 of 17 designated Regional Trauma Centers.…”

“…In terms of trauma severity, the number of more severely injured patients visiting trauma centers gradually increased. The number of inpatients with an injury severity score >15 increased by 12.9% on average over 3 years (2016–2018) ( Table 2 ) [ 34 ]. This increase showed that Regional Trauma Centers can provide adequate and effective care for the number of trauma patients in a given region through the application of strict criteria [ 7 ].…”