Usage Information
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the currently prevailing, milder Omicron variant of COVID-19, older adults remain at elevated risk of hospital admission, critical illness, and death. Loss of efficacy of the immune system, including reduced strength, quality, and durability of antibody responses, may render generalized recommendations on booster vaccinations inadequate. There is a lack of data on the efficacy of antibody levels in older adults and on the utility of vaccination status versus antibody levels as a correlate of protection. It is further unclear whether antibody levels may be used to guide the timing of booster vaccinations in older adults.METHODS We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study comprising hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Anti–SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies were measured on hospital admission. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Patients were stratified by age, antibody levels, and vaccination status. Multiple logistic regression and Cox regression analyses were conducted.RESULTS In total, 785 older patients (≥60 years of age [a]) and 367 controls (<60a) were included. After adjusting for confounders, risk of mortality, ICU admission, endotracheal intubation, and oxygen administration was 4.9, 2.6, 6.5, and 2.3 times higher, respectively, if antibody levels were < 1,200 BAU/mL (aOR, 4.92 [95%CI, 2.59–9.34], P < 0.0001; aOR, 2.64 [95%CI, 1.52–4.62], P = 0.0006; aOR, 6.50 [95%CI, 1.48–28.47], P = 0.013; aOR, 2.34 [95%CI, 1.60–3.343], P < 0.0001). Older adults infected with the Omicron variant were approximately 6 times more likely to die if antibody levels were < 1,200 BAU/mL (aOR, 6.3 [95% CI, 2.43–16.40], P = 0.0002).CONCLUSION Antibody levels were a stronger predictor of in-hospital mortality than vaccination status. Monitoring antibody levels may constitute a better and more direct approach for safeguarding older adults from adverse COVID-19 outcomes.
Authors
Sylvia Mink, Christoph H. Saely, Andreas Leiherer, Patrick Reimann, Matthias Frick, Janne Cadamuro, Wolfgang Hitzl, Heinz Drexel, Peter Fraunberger
Usage data is cumulative from December 2024 through December 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 1,217 | 105 |
| 201 | 25 | |
| Figure | 297 | 0 |
| Table | 164 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 136 | 5 |
| Citation downloads | 96 | 0 |
| Totals | 2,111 | 135 |
| Total Views | 2,246 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
