UVA Health study tracks COVID antibodies over time

[Yonnie3]

Last edited Fri Apr 15, 2022, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

This is an example of poor reporting IMO:

https://www.nbc29.com/2022/04/15/uva-health-study-tracks-covid-antibodies-over-time/

By Dryden Quigley
Published: Apr. 14, 2022 at 10:55 PM EDT|Updated: 12 hours ago

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (WVIR) - A new UVA Health study shows antibodies generated by Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine rise more slowly and decline more quickly than Moderna’s.

More than 200 UVA employees were tracked over a period of ten months after their vaccinations. Six months after their second doses, Pfizer recipients had antibody levels lower than Moderna recipients.

“If you look at a really tight time window after you get the second vaccine, it looks like the antibody levels reach equal levels, basically, between Pfizer and Moderna. But when we look carefully, what we found is that the antibody levels dropped faster in those who got Pfizer,” said UVA Health’s Dr. Jeffrey Wilson.

In the future, Dr. Wilson hopes to conduct another study looking at antibodies in booster shots or third doses.

No more at above link

The actual study is at https://news.virginia.edu/content/pfizer-vaccines-antibodies-fall-faster-modernas-and-age-matters

An excerpt that wasn't quoted in the news article:

It’s important to understand that antibody levels are a relatively crude tool to assess vaccine effectiveness; doctors aren’t even sure there’s a direct correlation between antibody level and COVID-19 protection. Antibody levels naturally decline, whether after vaccination or illness, but the immune system “remembers” how to make the necessary antibodies when again confronted by the virus.

Time has already told the most important story: All three vaccines examined in UVA’s study performed remarkably well in protecting against severe illness, hospitalization and death.

[hlthe2b]

1. "It's important to understand antibody levels are relatively crude tool to assess vaccine efficacy"

It’s important to understand that antibody levels are a relatively crude tool to assess vaccine effectiveness; doctors aren’t even sure there’s a direct correlation between antibody level and COVID-19 protection.

The above point is the most significant source of confusion across the spectrum--even among many (most?) physicians without advanced immunology, epidemiology, and virology training.

So, if you take anything from the summarized articles, take that. Cellular immunity is critically important for long-term protection against COVID-19 (and most infectious diseases) As such it is not directly reflected by the presence or longevity of antibody levels. The latter merely reflects the presence of recent exposure, either naturally or from recent vaccination.

[Yonnie3]

2. In hindsight

Perhaps I should have made the study's excerpt the initial part of the post and the poor reporting example later.

Half a century ago I worked in the research labs at the UVA Medical School. We were studying lipid metabolism in healthy animals.

[stopdiggin]

3. agree. the omission

was a serious lapse (that more or less altered the complete thrust of the piece). Intentional, or just sloppy work? And - within the constraints of modern practice - does anyone (in the newsroom) really care?