Chemical Peel At Home Amazon

For at least 24 hours after the chemical peel, you should avoid using any skincare products that contain glycolic acid, salicylic acid, and retinol. These ingredients can further irritate your skin after the peel. Hence, you need to look for a gentle skincare product soon after rubbing the peel. On the other hand, you should avoid touching the area with your hands.

Your hands may contain a lot of bacteria and other pathogens. When you touch the area after the peel, it may cause acne breakouts. The skin becomes more vulnerable to sunlight after applying the peel. Hence, you should avoid going in the sun for the first few hours of applying the peel.

Here are 5 of the best at-home chemical peels for dark spots. The first thing is to look at the ingredients of the product when buying a chemical peel. An effective face peel should include ingredients such as lactic acid, salicylic acid, mandelic acid, glycolic acid, and more. A face peel with lactic acid will do a great job in treating hyperpigmentation. Hence, you should always look for a chemical peel that contains lactic acid. These peels are gentle and light on your skin and will do a great job in treating dark spots.

It contains 25% AHAs including lactic, citric, and glycolic acids. Drunk Elephant T.L.C will gently exfoliate your skin, promote new skin cells, and eliminate dark spots in the process. This product is great for all types of skins even sensitive skins.

This skincare product also contains chickpea flour to stimulate the production of sebum and brighten your complexion. Pumpkin extract has anti-bacterial and anti-oxidant properties. This at-home chemical peel is a blend of glycolic acid, lactic acid, vitamin C, and hyaluronic acid. These ingredients boost the cell turnover rate, exfoliate the skin, and keep it hydrated to prevent irritation. It improves skin texture and reduces hyperpigmentation, acne spots, and scars. Vitamin C helps to tighten the skin pores and brightens the skin.

SkinMedica® Peels address the visible skin imperfections that result from skin aging and sun exposure, such as fine lines and wrinkles, uneven skin tone and texture. Peels also address skin tone unevenness that can be caused by acne scarring or pigmentary changes. SkinMedica® offers a range of different strength chemical peels that licensed medical professionals can select to provide the optimum treatment for their patients.

The Tata Harper face peel is a 100% natural at-home chemical peel. It contains pomegranate extracts and BHA extracted from willow bark to clear dead skin cells and promote hydration. The effective product will help brighten your skin while reducing dark spots and hyperpigmentation. The natural face peel from Tata Harper also contains pink clay and beet extracts to exfoliate the skin and prevent irritation.

The product is a bit expensive compared to most of the other chemical peels on the market today, but it's worth the money. The 30% glycolic acid chemical peel from QRxLabs is another effective at-home face peel for hyperpigmentation. It contains green tea and chamomile extracts to enhance the effectiveness of peeling.

The product is great for reducing acne scars, fine lines, and increasing the amount of collagen in the skin. The product has a gel-like consistency to minimize any mess after rubbing it. It only takes 5 minutes for you to get great-looking skin after using this product. The product also contains a neutralizer to help balance the pH of your skin.

The active ingredients in most peels are alpha or beta hydroxy acids, namely glycolic and lactic acid, which are chemical exfoliants. Lactic acid molecules are larger than glycolic acid molecules, "which means does not penetrate the skin as deeply and may be a suitable option for people with more sensitive skin," Dr. Camp says. Other alpha hydroxy acids that are commonly used in at-home peels include citric, malic, mandelic, and tartaric acids. Unlike full strength at-home chemical peels, the Peter Thomas Roth Un-Wrinkle Peel Pads can be used daily. They contain a 20% proprietary complex of alpha, beta and gamma acids, including glycolic, salicylic and lactic acids.

Together, these work to reveal clear and radiant glowing skin with fewer fine lines and visible pores. Simply apply the pads to clean skin in the morning or evening, leave the solution on for 1 to 3 minutes then rinse thoroughly and pat dry. This chemical peel helps to remove excess oil and dead skin cells. It resurfaces your skin and reduces wrinkles, fine lines, blemishes, and acne scars. This pure 7.5% AHA chemical peel contains a blend of glycolic, lactic, and pyruvic acids. The peel is a mild formulation with a pH of 1.5 and can be used daily to keep your skin clean and reduce breakouts.

It used to be that you'd have to head to your dermatologist's office or local medi-spa to get a proper face peel. But thanks to the plethora of new DIY options, that's no longer necessary. At-home peels save you time and money while still getting you that grade-A glow.

And today's formulas are gentle enough so that you don't have to worry about side effects like redness and excessively dry skin. For a peel that's gentle enough to use daily, many reviewers consider this one well worth the cost ((even reviewers with sensitive skin say it doesn't irritate). The retinol in this at-home chemical peel promotes collagen and re-texturizes skin to address any aging concerns, while 30% glycolic acid penetrates deep into the skin to exfoliate dead skin cells. If you're worried about your skin drying out from peels, soothing ingredients like green tea extract and chamomile provide antioxidant and anti-bacterial benefits while moisturizing and calming skin. The Yeouth Salicylic Acid 20% Gel Peel is ideal for people who suffer from frequent acne breakouts.

This BHA acid works to treat oily skin, blackheads and clogged pores in a gentle and effective manner. In addition, the salicylic acid is mixed with tea tree oil to reduce inflammation and green tea extract for UV sun protection post peel. With each bottle of the Yeouth Gel Peel, you'll get full-face peels. They can be effective at treating a myriad of skin concerns including mild sun damage, fine lines, blackheads and whiteheads, excessive oil, and an overall rough skin texture.

This daily peel formula targets three signs of aging – uneven texture and skin tone, fine lines and wrinkles, and open skin pores. This product is a combination of five acids that nourish your skin and deliver anti-aging benefits. These are pre-soaked pads and ideal for anyone new to at-home chemical peeling. It has a five-acid formula to target all of your acne and texture woes, plus it also brightens dark spots and smooths fine lines and wrinkles.

Also, sensitive skin types can indulge without worry because this body peel was formulated to gently soothe skin ailments like eczema. Stubborn acne, blackheads, and even hormonal cysts respond often well to this 2% Beta Hydroxy Acid chemical peel, which unclogs pores, exfoliates dead skin cells, and refines your skin's texture. Unlike most other peels, this can be used daily as an exfoliant, but only if your skin isn't easily irritated by salicylic acid. Also an AHA, glycolic acid is slightly more intense than lactic acid.

It can treat acne and hyperpigmentation, but glycolic acid is better known for increasing collagen production and therefore refining the texture and brightness of your skin. This is a great acid for a reduction in the appearance of wrinkles, fine lines and acne scars. This chemical peel is a blend of 10% AHA and fruit enzyme. It contains glycolic, malic, and lactic acids that remove dead skin cells, improve surface dullness, and hydrate your skin. Phytic acid, pumpkin, papaya, and pineapple enzymes in the product brighten your skin, and the peptides, honey, and tea extracts prevent irritation and soothe the skin. Less intense than in-office peels, home peels help break down the "glue" that keeps complexion dulling dead skin cells hanging on.

"They are also great for minimizing pores and diminishing the appearance of wrinkles and fine lines." Apply a thin layer of the peel after cleansing and leave it on for 30 to 60 seconds before wiping it off. Chemical exfoliators like glycolic and salicylic acid work in much the same way as they do for a face peel, however the concentrations tend to be stronger and more powerful. The serum solution coated over your feet will sink in and slowly start to loosen dead skin cells, while nourishing ingredients like vitamin E to stave off dryness. If you've used an at-home chemical peel previously, it might be time to move up a level. This level 2 peel is made from 50% lactic acid and is ideal for treating age spots, sun spots, hyper-pigmentations and wrinkles.

Perfect Image has also added green tea extract and cucumber to aid in the healing process post peel. Together, this formula will provide the tough exfoliation you're looking for when used correctly. POWERFUL SKIN EXFOLIATING TREATMENT FOR ACNE AND SCARS- Great for non-sensitive skin types. Resurfaces skin, reducing the appearance of acne scars & pore size while killing acne causing bacteria.

Reduces the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles, reduces sunspots & age spots, improves the texture of rough orange peel skin, evens out skin tone and improves overall texture and complexion. Put theExfoliating Super Peelinto your regular rotation and you can expect smoother, more even texture. Another amazing leave-on chemical peel that cuts down on the work needed on your part, this one is formulated with 2% beta hydroxy acid, salicylic acid, and fruit extracts. This vegan, cruelty-free peel is an exfoliant that you apply after your cleanser and leave on overnight. With a 4.5-star rating, this pick is gentle enough to use daily .

Consider this product your ultimate exfoliation treatment. Created as a two-step system, this peel improves skin tone by resurfacing the outer layer of your face with alphahydroxy acids to dissolve away dead skin cells. While some peelscan be too harsh on the skin, this one is gentle enough to use twice a week, making it perfect for those who feel that their skin needs a more frequent exfoliation.

Talk with your doctor or dermatologist about wearing makeup after a chemical peel treatment. The type of peel you get is an important factor in your after care, and in how soon you can wear makeup and use your other regular skincare, products. For a light peel you should leave your skin alone until the peeling process is complete and then wait a few more days after that.

Make sure to keep your skin as clean as possible following your treatment, and if you have any unexpected symptoms or breakouts follow up with your doctor or dermatologist right away. Most importantly, stay out of the sun as much as you can and be extra precautious about making sure you have sunscreen on at all times. But how do you narrow in on effective products that can help decongest your pores and minimize the appearance of enlarged ones?

To find out, we interviewed board-certified dermatologists about the best blackhead-fighting ingredients and what really happens to blackheads if they're not removed. MDs also discussed the benefits and limitations of blackhead-fighting products, how to safely and effectively remove blackheads at home — we also got their product recommendations. An effective at-home chemical peel will break down the top layers of your skin to reduce discoloration. With the availability of high-quality at-home chemical peels on Amazon, you don't have to visit a dermatologist to treat hyperpigmentation. On the other hand, an at-home face peel will cost only a fraction of the cost of visiting a dermatologist to treat your dark spots. The most important thing is to invest in the right at-home chemical peel because all products are not created the same.

Similar to the ones for your face, most contain alpha hydroxy acids and fruit enzymes to dissolve dead skin until it literally sheds off your feet. (There's a reason people compare Baby Foot to snake skin.) But if you'd rather not spend a week shedding, that's where masks come in. Formulated with hydrating oils and extracts, they penetrate deep into rough spots to soften and repair skin. A unique type of chemical peel formulated by Korean beauty experts, the Neogen Dermalogy Bio-Peel uses a pad to provide gentle exfoliation and improved skin texture.

Rub it along your skin to remove dead skin cells and skin impurities. Then, flip the pad over to the embossed side to clean your skin and wipe away any remaining debris. This form of application makes applying an at-home chemical hassle free. Yaiser recommends exfoliating acids—they'll give you that lit-from-within glow.

"You also want to look for additional ingredient actives that will help target your key concerns," she explains. Ahead, 18 dermatologist- and editor-approved formulas for getting a chemical peel without leaving your house. This is a 70% AHA peel and is prepared with the assistance of American dermatologists to give you the desired results. It is a mix of vitamins A, C, and E and CoQ10, which claims to remove dead skin cells, boost collagen production, and support skin renewal. It helps to keep the skin firm, reduce the appearance of wrinkles and fine lines, and makes the skin smooth and toned. It also claims to clear acne lesions by clearing the skin pores.

This professionally formulated chemical peel contains glycolic acid, an AHA that exfoliates and brightens the skin. It also helps to diminish wrinkles and fine lines and promotes collagen production. It improves the skin texture and makes your skin appear rejuvenated and even-toned.

This chemical peel also contains green tea, cucumber, and chamomile extracts that have antibacterial and anti-inflammatory benefits. This professional-grade, maximum-strength chemical peel contains a complex of phytoactive AHA extracts, lactic acid, and fermented plant enzymes. This speeds up the cell renewal process to make your skin firm and reduce fine lines and wrinkles. It contains pumpkin fruit enzyme and rice bran extract that help even out the skin tone by skin resurfacing. The Australian caviar lime extract brightens your skin and makes it radiant. This is a cult favorite and a holy grail for all those who swear by chemical peels.

This 30% AHA and 2% BHA formula combines three acids – lactic, salicylic, and glycolic acids. It is a 10-minute exfoliating peel that reduces spots and blemishes and the appearance of lines and improves your skin texture with continued use. It is suitable for normal, oily, and combination skin types. Ease into chemical peels with this gentler peel that brightens and softens skin using more mild levels of glycolic acid and fruit enzymes from watermelon, beet, lychee, and purple carrot. The daily peel is ideal for all skin types and is simple to use — apply it after your cleanser, leave it on for two minutes, and then wash it off and apply a moisturizer.

Comparison Of Covid Vaccines Pdf

Current evidence about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines relies mainly on data from phase 1–3 randomized controlled trials and vaccine safety surveillance system in several countries. We found three reviews of the safety of COVID-19 vaccines , which combined study experimental groups, and did not examine the heterogeneity between vaccine platforms and participant age groups. Here, we conduct a rapid review and meta-analysis to summarize the safety data of COVID-19 vaccine candidates.

We aim to comprehensively evaluate the rate of solicited, unsolicited, and serious AEFI in each clinical trial and to estimate the relative risk of AEFI by vaccine platform and participant age group. We also collected post-authorization surveillance data from around the world to look for uncommon and delayed onset reactions. This overview of the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines will support responses to potential safety issues and inform decision-makers evaluating vaccination strategies around the globe. The pooled rates of local and systemic reactions were significantly different between vaccine platforms.

Inactivated vaccines, protein subunit vaccines, and DNA vaccines had lower rates of local and systemic reactions compared to RNA vaccines, non-replicating vector vaccines, and virus-like particle vaccines. The safety profiles of BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1-nCoV, Ad26.COV2.S, and CoronaVac were relatively benign in the elderly, and both the frequency and the intensity of local and systemic reactions decreased with age. The rates of SAE, including non-fatal serious AEFI and death, were similar in vaccine and placebo groups in clinical trials. Reporting rates of common AEFI after mass public vaccination were lower than in clinical trials.

Several unexpected rare adverse events, which resulted in severe outcomes, have been noted in post-authorization surveillance. As of May 9, 2021, about 0.6 billion people around the world had been vaccinated with at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccines, accounting for about 7.8% of the world's population . This mass vaccination should allow for the identification of more uncommon and rare AEFI. According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and V-safe system of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , the rates of non-serious AEFI after public administration of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 were similar to the clinical trials.

Variations in the incidence of anaphylaxis between countries are to be expected, as the numbers vaccinated in most countries to date are relatively small compared with the USA, and the reporting rates of AEFI from passive surveillance are biased. A causal link of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia with adenoviral vector vaccines (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV2.S) was noted after mass public vaccination, including several deaths and severe outcomes . While rare side effects should not derail vaccination efforts , a thorough risk-benefit analysis is required. Several studies have explored the safety profile of two mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) in HIV-positive populations , immunosuppressive patients , and pregnant women , revealing no evidence of unexpected serious adverse events.

Further evaluation of the benefit-risk profile is warranted in these specific populations. Differences in safety profiles of vaccines must be considered in the context of efficacy. Both RNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) reported 95% and 94% vaccine efficacy, respectively (symptomatic PCR-confirmed cases were the primary clinical trial outcomes). This is substantially higher than the reported efficacy of other vaccine platforms.

The efficacy of inactivated vaccines was reported as 78.1% for BBIBP-CorV and 50.7% for CoronaVac . Efficacy of Ad26.COV2.S against moderate to severe critical Covid-19 with onset at least 14 days after administration was 66.9% . Overall efficacy of ChAdOx1-nCoV in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 across both the low dose and standard dose groups was reported as 70.4% .

The efficacy of Gam-COVID-Vac, another non-replicating vector vaccine, was 91.6% . Based on the current evidence, RNA vaccines have both higher rates of adverse reactions and higher efficacy. Due to the relative mild and transient nature of most of these reactions, RNA vaccines should be considered an excellent option to protect against COVID-19, especially in the absence of other viable candidates with similar efficacy.

In addition to safety and efficacy, vaccine candidates must also be assessed in the context of the risk of disease, to determine whether each vaccine supports a favorable benefit-risk ratio or not. Such a determination is undoubtedly more important than comparing safety and efficacy between vaccine candidates as long as vaccine supply is limited and disease is prevalent. These platforms can be classified either as traditional approaches that have previously resulted in licensed vaccines (e.g., inactivated, recombinant proteins, vectored vaccines), or as approaches that have never before been used for a licensed vaccine (e.g., RNA and DNA vaccines) . Common reasons given for not intending to receive these vaccines included "concern about the safety of the vaccine in its development" and "potential side effects" . As mass vaccination has progressed, more occurrences of adverse events following immunization have been reported, especially the rare AEFIs. Demonstrating and summarizing vaccine safety from clinical trials and post-authorization surveillance is critical for public confidence, and for enabling timely, evidence-based policy decisions for population-level use .

If data for the same subjects were presented in multiple publications, these data were only counted once. Due to phase 1 and 2 trials often including multiple differing experimental groups, we focused exclusively on safety data from experimental groups in phase 3 clinical trials. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus or in consultation with a third researcher.

Two researchers (Q.W., X.C.) assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool . Certainty of evidence was assessed by researchers according to the grading recommendations assessment, development and evaluation framework . In conclusion, the available evidence indicates that eligible COVID-19 vaccines have an acceptable short-term safety profile.

Additional studies and long-term population-level surveillance are strongly encouraged to further augment the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines. All reports of suspected adverse reactions should be investigated and warning signals rapidly evaluated, to allow implementation of appropriate risk minimization measures and update the benefit/risk ratio of vaccination. The safety profiles of COVID-19 vaccines are still incomplete, even for those currently in use. The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in certain subpopulations, such as children and adolescents, pregnant woman, and people with multiple underlying conditions, have not yet been fully studied.

Although crude reporting rates of AEFIs from post-authorization safety monitoring have so far been lower than in clinical trials, adverse reactions that are uncommon or have delayed onset require extended post-authorization study to detect. Investigation of safety signals, a lack of epidemiological tools for active surveillance, obstacles at the national regulatory authority level, and a lack of information sharing between countries are still major challenges for most countries. Pharmacovigilance mechanisms must be put in place, with all the necessary training, especially in low- and middle-income countries .

Further study will strengthen and expand upon our knowledge in these areas and enable the refinement of vaccine recommendations and injury compensation programs. Safety issues noted in mass vaccination may have a deleterious impact on the global vaccine supply and the already fragile confidence in vaccines. Government agencies and vaccine developers should continue to take action to encourage vaccination and reduce public vaccine hesitancy.

Our search identified a total of 7231 records after removal of duplicates (Fig.1). After initial title/abstract screening, 157 articles were assessed for eligibility via full-text review. For the safety data among general population, 43 articles reporting on 19 vaccines of 6 different platforms and 10 documents released by WHO , US Food and Drug Administration and UK Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency from clinical trials were included. A total of 123,540 study participants receiving COVID-19 vaccines and 97,944 participants receiving placebos were included in safety set of clinical trials.

Post-authorization safety profiles were assessed through 3 reports released by the European Medicines Agency , 20 reports including large-scale monitoring data , 11 observational studies , and 26 reports from countries' national surveillance systems. For the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines in clinical trials, the primary outcomes were the proportion of vaccine recipients experiencing at least one AEFI and the rates of selected AEFI of COVID-19 candidate vaccines versus placebos. We specified severe versus mild-to-moderate AEFI in our extraction and analyzed these categories separately. For post-authorization safety data, we examined rates of AEFIs, serious adverse events , and adverse events of special interest .

We explored the reasons for variations among eligible vaccines and examined whether rate of AEFI varied by vaccine platform, age group of participants and serostatus of participants against SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. For the purposes of stratifying safety data by age group, we defined younger adults as under 65 years of age and elderly as over 65 years of age. If the age group of the clinical trial was not completely consistent with our study, the safety data of the closest age stratification was extracted.

We classified all participants in the Ad5 nCoV trials as younger adults, since no stratified analyses by age were performed and the proportion of the participants under 55 years old was reported as 86% . English-language articles and results posted on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PMC, official regulatory websites, and post-authorization safety surveillance data were searched through June 12, 2021. Publications disclosing safety data of COVID-19 candidate vaccines in humans were included. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed to estimate the pooled incidence and the pooled rate ratio of safety outcomes of COVID-19 vaccines using different platforms. Firstly, we only included data reported at the study level, due to limited access to individual-level data.

Secondly, there are factors we did not include in the meta-analysis, such as seropositivity against SARS-CoV-2 at baseline and underlying conditions, so the potential effects of such heterogeneity were not quantitatively assessed. Thirdly, in the clinical trials for BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1-nCoV, age groups were divided at 55 years of age, which differed from our subgroup analysis of age divided at 65 years of age. Finally, although we included currently available post-authorization safety monitoring data, such monitoring programs are still in their infancy and often rely on a mix of active and passive surveillance. Three researchers (Q.W., X.C., X.B.) assessed eligible studies, conducted data extraction, and cross-checked. We looked for clinical trials and post-authorization reports that examined safety data of COVID-19 candidate vaccines, and included manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals, preprints, and unpublished data disclosed by regulatory agencies. We excluded study protocols, media news, commentaries, reviews, case reports, reports of non-human clinical trials, reports among specific populations , and abstracts of congress meetings or conference proceedings.

We also excluded interim reports of clinical trials that did not clearly show safety data of specific COVID-19 candidate vaccines selected for further use, and reports on vaccines no longer under clinical evaluation. Post-authorization observational studies with sample sizes less than one thousand were excluded as well. Limitations of this study include the lack of data on cellular immunity and on neutralizing antibodies, as well as the specific focus on health care workers.

Whether the observed difference in antibody level translates to a difference in the duration of protection,4 the protection against variants of concern, and the risk of transmission6 needs further investigation. Future research should also address the relevance for patients with reduced antibody response after vaccination. Based on a random-effect meta-analysis model, we used the inverse variance method to estimate pooled rate by platform, and the Clopper-Pearson method to calculate 95% confidence intervals . Heterogeneity tests (chi-squared test) with Higgins' I2 statistics were used to determine the extent of variation between vaccines.

Multivariate meta-regression models were used to determine the relative contribution of vaccine platform and age of participants to the rate of AEFI. Small study effects were assessed using funnel plots, and formally tested through the rank correlation test for those meta-analyses including more than 10 studies. All statistical analyses were done using R (version 4.0.2), using the "meta" package to conduct the meta-analysis. For all statistical tests, two tailed P-value less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Safety data on Russian vaccines need to be disclosed further so that safety signals can be identified and appropriate risk minimization measures quickly implemented.

Of 2499 health care workers who received 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, 1647 participated in this study. A total of 688 were vaccinated with mRNA-1273 (mean age, 43.2 years; 76.7% women; 21.8% previously infected with SARS-CoV-2), and 959 with BNT162b2 (mean age, 44.7 years; 84.9% women; 13.2% previously infected). Direct comparisons between efficacy data should also be interpreted with caution due to the inconsistency of environmental risk, endpoints, and statistical methods between studies. Current efficacy data show that all authorized vaccines exceed the 50% threshold set by WHO , indicating they prevent substantial disease, especially severe cases. Authorized COVID-19 vaccines can prevent a large proportion of symptomatic cases, hospitalizations, severe diseases, and death . Available evidence indicates that eligible COVID-19 vaccines have an acceptable short-term safety profile.

Additional studies and long-term population-level surveillance are strongly encouraged to further define the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines. The rapid process of research and development and lack of follow-up time post-vaccination aroused great public concern about the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccine candidates. To provide comprehensive overview of the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines by using meta-analysis technique.

Commented on the data and its interpretation and revised the content critically. All authors contributed to review and revision and approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Health care workers at a tertiary care center (Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Belgium) who were scheduled for vaccination with 2 doses of either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 were invited to participate in this prospective cohort.

Serologic testing was performed prior to vaccination as well as 6 to 10 weeks after the second dose . Total immunoglobulin levels to the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were measured with an anti–SARS-CoV-2 S enzyme immunoassay . After vaccination, antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein were determined. Previous infection was defined as anti-nucleocapsid positivity at any point, anti-spike positivity before vaccination, and/or a history of positive polymerase chain reaction results on nasopharyngeal swab.

The SARS-CoV-2 messenger RNA vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA have each shown more than 90% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 illness1,2 but, to our knowledge, humoral immune responses have not been compared directly. Has received research funding from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Yichang HEC Changjiang Pharmaceutical Company, and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical Company. None of those research funding is related to development of COVID-19 vaccines.