RESUMEN
JN.1, the dominating SARS-CoV-2 variant, is antigenically distinct from ancestral BA.1, BA.5 and XBB.1.5 variants, raising concern about effectiveness of updated COVID-19 vaccines. Here, we compared the neutralizing antibody response against JN.1, 1-month after receipt of the three available Moderna mRNA vaccines. Sera obtained from 37, 30 and 30 XBB.1.5, BA.1 and BA.4-5 -vaccine recipients, respectively, were tested for anti-RBD IgG and for JN-1 specific neutralizing antibody levels. Geometric mean fold rise (GMFR) in JN.1 specific neutralizing titers was 27 (95 % CI: 17-43.1), 10.1 (95 % CI: 6.48-15.7) and 8.77 (95 % CI: 5.69-13.5) following XBB.1.5, BA.1 and BA.4-5 vaccines, respectively, translating into a 64 % lower adjusted response (geometric mean ratio [GMR] = 0.36, 95 % CI: 0.21-0.6) in the BA.1 arm, and a 75 % lower response (GMR = 0.25, 95 % CI: 0.15-0.43) in the BA.4-5 arm. This suggests that XBB.1.5 vaccination will most likely, result in improved effectiveness against JN.1 compared with other COVID-19 vaccines.
RESUMEN
Although a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron-XBB.1.5 variant is available worldwide and recent infection is protective, the lack of recorded infection data highlights the need to assess variant-specific antibody neutralization levels. We analyzed IgG levels against receptor-binding domain-specific SARS-CoV-2 ancestral strain as a correlate for high neutralizing titers against XBB variants.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Neutralizantes , Anticuerpos Antivirales , COVID-19 , Inmunoglobulina G , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Inmunoglobulina G/sangre , Inmunoglobulina G/inmunología , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , SARS-CoV-2/genética , COVID-19/inmunología , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes/inmunología , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes/sangre , Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , Anticuerpos Antivirales/inmunología , Israel/epidemiología , Glicoproteína de la Espiga del Coronavirus/inmunología , Glicoproteína de la Espiga del Coronavirus/genética , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Masculino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Femenino , Anciano , Pruebas de NeutralizaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pregnant women are at higher risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since the release of the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech), there has been accumulated data about the three vaccine doses. However, information regarding obstetric and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women vaccinated with the third (booster) vaccine is limited and primarily retrospective. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the obstetric and early neonatal outcomes of pregnant women vaccinated during pregnancy with the COVID-19 booster vaccine compared to pregnant women vaccinated only by the first two doses. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of pregnant women who received the BNT162b2 vaccine during pregnancy. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared between pregnant women who received only the first two doses of the vaccine to those who also received the booster dose. RESULTS: Overall, 139 pregnant women were vaccinated during pregnancy with the first two doses of the vaccine and 84 with the third dose. The third dose group received the vaccine earlier during their pregnancy compared to the two doses group (212 vs. 315 weeks, respectively, P < 0.001). No differences in obstetric and early neonatal outcomes between the groups were found except for lower rates of urgent cesarean delivery in the third dose group (adjusted odds ratio 0.21; 95% confidence interval 0.048-0.926, P = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the first two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine given in pregnancy, the booster vaccination is safe and not associated with an increased rate of adverse obstetric and early neonatal outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Embarazo , Recién Nacido , Femenino , Humanos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Estudios Transversales , Estudios Retrospectivos , VacunaciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We studied the extent of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) sink contamination and transmission to patients in a nonoutbreak setting. METHODS: During 2017-2019, 592 patient-room sinks were sampled in 34 departments. Patient weekly rectal swab CPE surveillance was universally performed. Repeated sink sampling was conducted in 9 departments. Isolates from patients and sinks were characterized using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and pairs of high resemblance were sequenced by Oxford Nanopore and Illumina. Hybrid assembly was used to fully assemble plasmids, which are shared between paired isolates. RESULTS: In total, 144 (24%) of 592 CPE-contaminated sinks were detected in 25 of 34 departments. Repeated sampling (n = 7,123) revealed that 52%-100% were contaminated at least once during the sampling period. Persistent contamination for >1 year by a dominant strain was common. During the study period, 318 patients acquired CPE. The most common species were Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, and Enterobacter spp. In 127 (40%) patients, a contaminated sink was the suspected source of CPE acquisition. For 20 cases with an identical sink-patient strain, temporal relation suggested sink-to-patient transmission. Hybrid assembly of specific sink-patient isolates revealed that shared plasmids were structurally identical, and SNP differences between shared pairs, along with signatures for potential recombination events, suggests recent sharing of the plasmids. CONCLUSIONS: CPE-contaminated sinks are an important source of transmission to patients. Although traditionally person-to-person transmission has been considered the main route of CPE transmission, these data suggest a change in paradigm that may influence strategies of preventing CPE dissemination.
Asunto(s)
Enterobacteriaceae Resistentes a los Carbapenémicos , Infecciones por Enterobacteriaceae , Humanos , Enterobacteriaceae Resistentes a los Carbapenémicos/genética , Enterobacteriaceae , beta-Lactamasas/genética , Proteínas Bacterianas/genética , Klebsiella pneumoniae/genética , Escherichia coli , Infecciones por Enterobacteriaceae/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Vaccination against COVID-19 and influenza provides the best defense against morbidity and mortality. Administering both vaccines concurrently may increase vaccination rates and reduce the burden on the healthcare system. This study evaluated the immunogenicity of healthcare workers in Israel who were co-administered with the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 bivalent COVID-19 vaccine and the 2022-2023 quadrivalent influenza vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers were measured via microneutralization while influenza antibody titers were measured via hemagglutination inhibition. No immunogenic interference was observed by either vaccine when co-administered. Antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 variants increased significantly in the cohort receiving the COVID-19 vaccine alone and in combination with the influenza vaccine. Antibody titers against the A/H1N1 influenza strain increased significantly in the cohort receiving the influenza vaccine alone and in combination with the COVID-19 vaccine. Antibody titers against B/Victoria increased significantly in the cohort that received both vaccines. This study has important public health implications for the 2023-2024 winter season, and supports co-administration of both vaccines as a viable immunization strategy.
RESUMEN
Importance: COVID-19 and seasonal influenza vaccines were previously given separately, although their coadministration is warranted for vaccination adherence. Limited data on their coadministration have been published. Objective: To compare the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of COVID-19 and influenza vaccinations administered together with those of COVID-19 vaccination alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included health care workers at a large tertiary medical center in Israel who received the Influvac Tetra (Abbott) influenza vaccine (2022/2023), the Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine, or both. Vaccination began in September 2022, and data were collected until January 2023. Vaccines were offered to all employees and were coadministered or given separately. Adverse reaction questionnaires were sent, and serologic samples were also collected. Exposures: Receiving COVID-19 vaccine, influenza vaccine, or both. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes for the reactogenicity analysis were symptoms following vaccine receipt, assessed by a digital questionnaire: any local symptoms; fever; weakness or fatigue; any systemic symptoms; and their duration. The immunogenicity analysis' outcome was postvaccination anti-spike IgG titer. Results: This study included 2 cohorts for 2 separate analyses. The reactogenicity analysis included 588 participants (of 649 questionnaire responders): 85 in the COVID-19 vaccine-alone group (median [IQR] age, 71 [58-74] years; 56 [66%] female); 357 in the influenza vaccine-alone group (median [IQR] age, 55 [40-65] years; 282 [79%] female); and 146 in the coadministration group (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-71] years; 81 [55%] female). The immunogenicity analysis included 151 participants: 74 participants in the COVID-19 vaccine group (median [IQR] age, 67 [56-73] years; 45 [61%] female) and 77 participants in the coadministration group (median [IQR] age, 60 [49-73] years; 42 [55%] female). Compared with COVID-19 vaccination alone, the risk of systemic symptoms was similar in the coadministration group (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.43-1.56). Geometric mean titers in the coadministration group were estimated to be 0.84 (95% CI, 0.69-1.04) times lower than in the COVID-19 vaccine-alone group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of health care workers who received a COVID-19 vaccine, an influenza vaccine, or both, coadministration was not associated with substantially inferior immune response or to more frequent adverse events compared with COVID-19 vaccine administration alone, supporting the coadministration of these vaccines.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Femenino , Humanos , Anciano , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la Influenza/efectos adversos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has become the most common healthcare-associated infection in the United States, with considerable morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Assessing new preventive strategies is vital. We present a literature review of studies evaluating a strategy of screening and isolation of asymptomatic carriers in hospital settings. Asymptomatic detection of C. difficile is reported in ~ 10-20% of admitted patients. Risk factors for carriage include recent hospitalization, previous antibiotics, older age, lower functional capacity, immunosuppression, and others. Asymptomatic C. difficile carriers of toxigenic strains are at higher risk for progression to CDI. They are also shedders of C. difficile spores and may contribute to the persistence and transmission of this bacterium. Screening for asymptomatic carriers at hospital admission can theoretically reduce CDI by isolating carriers to reduce transmission, and implementing antibiotic stewardship measures targeting carriers to prevent progression to clinical illness. Several observational studies, summarized in this review, have reported implementing screening and isolation strategies, and found a reduction in CDI rates. Nevertheless, the data are still limited to a few observational studies, and this strategy is not commonly practiced. Studies supporting screening were performed in North America, coinciding with the period of dominance of the 027/BI/NAP1 strain. Additional studies evaluating screening, followed by infection control and antibiotic stewardship measures, are needed.
RESUMEN
Evolution of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant has led to the emergence of sublineages with different patterns of neutralizing antibody evasion. We report that Omicron BA.4/BA.5 breakthrough infection of individuals immunized with SARS-CoV-2 wild-type-strain-based mRNA vaccines results in a boost of Omicron BA.4.6, BF.7, BQ.1.1, and BA.2.75 neutralization but does not efficiently boost BA.2.75.2, XBB, or XBB.1.5 neutralization. In silico analyses showed that the Omicron spike glycoprotein lost most neutralizing B cell epitopes, especially in sublineages BA.2.75.2, XBB, and XBB.1.5. In contrast, T cell epitopes are conserved across variants including XBB.1.5. T cell responses of mRNA-vaccinated, SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals against the wild-type strain, Omicron BA.1, and BA.4/BA.5 were comparable, suggesting that T cell immunity against recent sublineages including XBB.1.5 may remain largely unaffected. While some Omicron sublineages effectively evade B cell immunity, spike-protein-specific T cell immunity, due to the nature of polymorphic cell-mediated immune responses, may continue to contribute to prevention/limitation of severe COVID-19 manifestation.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Linfocitos T , Humanos , Glicoproteína de la Espiga del Coronavirus/genética , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes , Anticuerpos AntiviralesRESUMEN
To study the differences in the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the response to vaccination, we characterized the humoral immune kinetics of these situations. In this prospective longitudinal study, we followed unvaccinated COVID-19-recovered individuals (n = 130) and naïve, two-dose BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals (n = 372) who were age- and BMI-matched for six months during the first pandemic year. Anti-RBD-IgG, neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), and avidity were assessed monthly. For recovered patients, data on symptoms and the severity of the disease were collected. Anti-RBD-IgG and NAbs titers at peak were higher after vaccination vs. after infection, but the decline was steeper (peak log IgG: 3.08 vs. 1.81, peak log NAbs: 5.93 vs. 5.04, slopes: -0.54 vs. -0.26). Peak anti-RBD-IgG and NAbs were higher in recovered individuals with BMI > 30 and in older individuals compared to individuals with BMI < 30, younger population. Of the recovered, 42 (36%) experienced long-COVID symptoms. Avidity was initially higher in vaccinated individuals compared with recovered individuals, though with time, it increased in recovered individuals but not among vaccinated individuals. Here, we show that while the initial antibody titers, neutralization, and avidity are lower in SARS-CoV-2-recovered individuals, they persist for a longer duration. These results suggest differential protection against COVID-19 in recovered-unvaccinated vs. naïve-vaccinated individuals.
RESUMEN
Importance: A correlation between antibody levels and risk of infection has been demonstrated for the wild-type, Alpha, and Delta SARS-COV-2 variants. High rates of breakthrough infections by the Omicron variant emphasized the need to investigate whether the humoral response elicited by mRNA vaccines is also associated with reduced risk of Omicron infection and disease. Objective: To investigate whether the high antibody levels in individuals who have received at least 3 doses of an mRNA vaccine are associated with reduced risk of Omicron infection and disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study used serial real time-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and serological test data from January and May 2022 to assess the association of preinfection immunoglobin G (IgG) and neutralizing antibody titers with incidence of Omicron variant infection, incidence of symptomatic disease, and infectivity. Participants included health care workers who had received 3 or 4 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Data were analyzed from May to August 2022. Exposures: Levels of SARS-CoV-2 anti-receptor binding domain IgG and neutralizing antibodies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were incidence of Omicron infection, incidence of symptomatic disease, and infectivity. Outcomes were measured using SARS-COV-2 PCR and antigen testing and daily online surveys regarding symptomatic disease. Results: This study included 3 cohorts for 3 different analyses: 2310 participants were included in the protection from infection analysis (4689 exposure events; median [IQR] age, 50 [40-60] years; 3590 [76.6%] among female health care workers), 667 participants (median [IQR] age, 46.28 (37.44,54.8); 516 [77.4%] female) in the symptomatic disease analysis, and 532 participants (median [IQR] age, 48 [39-56] years; 403 [75.8%] female) in the infectivity analysis. Lower odds of infection were observed for each 10-fold increase in preinfection IgG (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.90) and for each 2-fold increase in neutralizing antibody titers (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.95). The odds of substantial symptomatic disease were reduced for each 10-fold increase in IgG levels (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29-0.78) and for each 2-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies levels (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96). Infectivity, assessed by mean cycle threshold value, was not significantly decreased with increasing IgG or neutralizing antibodies titers. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of vaccinated health care workers, IgG and neutralizing antibody titer levels were associated with protection against infection with the Omicron variant and against symptomatic disease.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Israel , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes , Personal de Salud , Inmunoglobulina GRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The capability of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant to escape immunity conferred by mRNA vaccines has led to the development of Omicron-adapted vaccines. In this study, we aimed to compare the immune response with the ancestral strain and with the BA.1 Omicron variant after administration of the original vaccine and the Omicron-adapted vaccine. METHODS: This is an ongoing phase 3, double-blinded randomized controlled trial, comparing the original BNT161b2 vaccine, monovalent Omicron BA.1-adapted BNT161b2 vaccine, and bivalent combinations. Each vaccine was given at a 30 µg and 60 µg dose. Primary outcomes considered included neutralization titers of SARS-CoV-2 ancestral strain and Omicron BA.1. Exploratory endpoints included neutralization titers for Omicron BA.5, and the incidence of COVID-19 cases. RESULTS: Overall, 122 individuals (22, 19, 20, 20, 20, 20, and 21 in each arm) completed a 90-day follow-up. Three months after vaccination, adjusting for baseline levels, neutralizing antibody titers were 0.63 (95% CI: 0.3-1.32) and 0.54 (0.24-1.2) for monovalent/60 µg, 0.9 (0.42-1.92) and 2.69 (1.17-6.17) times for monovalent-Omi.BA.1/30 µg, 1.28 (0.6-2.75) and 2.79 (1.21-6.41) times for monovalent-Omi.BA.1/60 µg, 0.96 (0.46-1.97) and 2.07 (0.93-4.58) times for bivalent-Omi.BA.1/30 µg, and 0.79 (0.38-1.63) and 1.95 (0.88-4.32) times for bivalent-Omi.BA.1/60 µg when compared with BNT162b2/30 µg against the ancestral strain and BA.1 variant, respectively. DISCUSSION: BA.1-adapted mRNA vaccines lead to a stronger neutralizing antibody response against the Omicron BA.1 sub-variant.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas , Humanos , Vacuna BNT162 , Estudios de Seguimiento , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Vacunas de ARNm , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes , Anticuerpos AntiviralesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Identifying COVID-19 correlates of protection and immunity thresholds is important for policy makers and vaccine development. We aimed to identify correlates of protection of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccination against COVID-19. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, households within a radius of 40 km of the Sheba Medical Center in Israel in which a new SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined as the index case) was detected within the previous 24 h were approached between July 25 and Nov 15, 2021. We included adults (aged >18 years) who had received one or two vaccine doses, had an initial negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR and no previous infection reported, and had a valid IgG and neutralising antibody result. The exposure of interest was baseline immune status, including IgG antibody concentration, neutralising antibody titre, and T-cell activation. The outcomes of interest were PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection between day 2 and day 21 of follow-up and intensity of disease symptoms (self-reported via a telephone questionnaire) among participants who had a confirmed infection. Multivariable logistic and ordered logit ordinal regressions were used for the adjusted analysis. To identify immunological thresholds for clinical protection, we estimated the conditional probability of infection and moderate or severe disease for individuals with pre-exposure IgG and neutralising antibody concentrations above each value observed in the study data. FINDINGS: From 16 675 detected index cases in the study region, 5718 household members agreed to participate, 1461 of whom were eligible to be included in our study. 333 (22·8%) of 1461 household members who were not infected with SARS-CoV-2 at baseline were infected within 21 days of follow-up. The baseline (pre-exposure) IgG and neutralising antibodies were higher in participants who remained uninfected than in those who became infected (geometric mean IgG antibody concentration 168·2 binding antibody units [BAU] per mL [95% CI 158·3-178·7] vs 130·5 BAU/mL [118·3-143·8] and geometric mean neutralising antibody titre 197·5 [181·9-214·4] vs 136 ·7 [120·3-155·4]). Increasing IgG and neutralising antibody concentrations were also significantly associated with a reduced probability of increasing disease severity. Odds of infection were significantly reduced each time baseline IgG antibody concentration increased by a factor of ten (odds ratio [OR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·26-0·70]) and each time baseline neutralising antibody titre increased by a factor of two (0·82 [0·74-0·92]). In our cohort, the probability of infection if IgG antibody concentrations were higher than 500 BAU/mL was 11% and the probability of moderate disease severity was 1%; the probability of infection if neutralising antibody titres were above or equal to 1024 was 8% and the probability of moderate disease severity was 2%. T-cell activation rates were not significantly associated with reduced probability of infection (OR 1·04, 95% CI 0·83-1·30). INTERPRETATION: Both IgG and neutralising antibodies are correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our data suggest that IgG concentrations higher than 500 BAU/mL and neutralising antibody titres of 1024 or more are thresholds for immunological protection from SARS-CoV-2 delta variant infection. Potentially, updated protective thresholds against emerging variants of concern could be calculated, which could support decision makers on administration of new vaccination strategies and on the optimal period between vaccine doses. FUNDING: Israeli Ministry of Health.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Israel/epidemiología , Vacuna BNT162 , Estudios Prospectivos , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes , Inmunoglobulina GRESUMEN
The emergency department (ED) is the initial point of contact between hospital staff and patients potentially infected with SARS-CoV-2, thus, prevention of inadvertent exposure to other patients is a top priority. We aimed to assess whether the introduction of antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) to the ED affected the likelihood of unwanted SARS-CoV-2 exposures. In this retrospective single-center study, we compared the rate of unwarranted exposure of uninfected adult ED patients to SARS-CoV-2 during two separate research periods; one before Ag-RDTs were introduced, and one with Ag-RDT used as a decision-support tool. The introduction of Ag-RDTs to the ED significantly decreased the relative risk of SARS-CoV-2-negative patients being incorrectly assigned to the COVID-19 designated site ("red ED"), by 97%. There was no increase in the risk of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients incorrectly assigned to the COVID-19-free site ("green ED"). In addition, duration of ED admission was reduced in both the red and the green ED. Therefore, implementing the Ag-RDT-based triage protocol proved beneficial in preventing potential COVID-19 nosocomial transmission.
RESUMEN
The immune responses of liver transplant (LT) recipients after the third boost of the BNT162b2mRNA vaccine improved. This study evaluates the durability of the immune response of LT recipients after the third boost, its predictors, and the impact of emerging variants. The receptor-binding domain IgG was determined at median times of 22 (first test) and 133 days (second test) after the administration of the third boost. IgG antibody titers > 21.4 BAU/mL were defined as a positive response. The neutralization efficacies of the vaccine against the wild-type, Omicron, and Delta variants were compared in the first test. The 59 LT recipients were of a median age of 61 years (range 25−82); 53.5% were male. Following administration of the third dose, the positive immune response decreased from 81.4% to 76.3% between the first and second tests, respectively, (p < 0.0001). The multivariate analysis identified CNI monotherapy (p = 0.02) and hemoglobin > 12 g/dL (p = 0.02) as independent predictors of a maintained positive immune response 133 days after the third dose. The geometric mean titers of Omicron neutralization were significantly lower than the wild-type and Delta virus (21, 137, 128, respectively; p < 0.0001). The immune response after the third BNT162b2mRNA vaccine dose decreased significantly in LT recipients. Further studies are required to evaluate the efficacy of the fourth vaccine dose and the durability of the immune response.
Asunto(s)
Trasplante de Hígado , Vacunas , Masculino , Humanos , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Vacuna BNT162 , Análisis Multivariante , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes , Receptores de TrasplantesRESUMEN
The correlation between anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibody levels and infection was reported. Here, we estimated the role of pre-fourth dose levels using data from 1098 healthcare workers. The risk of infection was reduced by 46% (95% confidence interval, 29%-59%) for each 10-fold increase in prebooster levels. Prebooster antibody levels could be used to optimally time boosters.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Vacunación , Inmunización Secundaria , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Personal de SaludRESUMEN
The objective of the study was to compare the maternal and neonatal humoral immune responses among different groups of women, namely those vaccinated by the BNT162b2 vaccine, not vaccinated, and COVID-19-recovered parturient women at the time of delivery. This is a prospective cohort study of pregnant women, divided into four groups: Group A "Recovered"-recovered and not vaccinated. Group B "Second Vaccination"-first and second doses only. Group C "Third Vaccination"-third dose. Group D "No Third Vaccination"-women eligible for the third dose of the vaccine but did not receive it. Maternal and umbilical cord blood were sampled and tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies on admittance to labor and immediately postpartum, respectively. Maternal serum SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were significantly higher among Group C compared to Group B (741.6 (514.5-1069) vs. 333.5 (327-340.2), respectively). Both groups had higher antibody levels compared to Groups A and D (113.5 (61.62-209.1) and 57.99 (32.93-102.1), respectively). Similarly, umbilical cord blood SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were also highest among Group C compared to the other three groups (1269 (953.4-1690) vs. Group B, 322.6 (305.6-340.5), Group A, 109 (49.01-242.6), and Group D, 103.9 (48.59-222), respectively). In conclusion, pregnant women who were fully vaccinated with three dosages before delivery generated the highest levels of maternal and neonatal SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies.
RESUMEN
The immune response of liver transplant (LT) recipients to a third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine significantly waned after four months. We aimed to evaluate the immune response and breakthrough infection rates of a fourth dose against the Omicron variants among LT recipients. LT recipients who had no past or active SARS-CoV-2 infection and received three doses of the BNT162b2mRNA vaccine were included. Of the 73 LT recipients, 50 (68.5%) received a fourth dose. The fourth dose was associated with a significantly higher positive immune response than the third dose. Receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG and Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 neutralizing antibodies were determined at a median of 132 and 29 days after the third and fourth vaccines. They were 345 binding antibody units per milliliter (BAU/mL) vs. 2118 BAU/mL (p < 0.0001), 10 vs. 87 (p < 0.0001), and 15 vs. 149 (p = 0.001), respectively. Breakthrough infections were documented among nine (18%) LT recipients after the fourth dose and among seven (30.4%) patients following the third dose (p = 0.2); 93.5% of breakthrough infections were mild. The infection rate after the fourth dose was higher among diabetic vs. nondiabetic recipients (33.3% vs. 6.9%, respectively; p = 0.02). Further studies are needed to evaluate additional factors influencing the breakthrough infection rate among LT recipients.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trasplante de Hígado , Vacunas , Humanos , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes , Infección Irruptiva , Inmunidad , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Receptores de TrasplantesRESUMEN
Booster doses for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are under consideration in many countries. We report a three-month follow-up of 700 participants in a fourth vaccine dose study, comparing BNT162b2 and mRNA1273, administered four months after a third BNT162b2 dose. The primary outcomes are the levels of IgG, neutralizing antibodies, and microneutralization and the secondary outcomes are the levels of IgA and T cell activation, and clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection and substantial symptomatic disease. Waning of the immune response is evident during follow-up, with an 11% (ß = 0.89, 95% CI, 0.88-0.9) and 21% (ß = 0.79, 95% CI, 0.76-0.82) multiplicative decay per week of IgG and neutralizing antibodies, respectively, in the mRNA1273 group, and of 14% (ß = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.86-0.87) and 26% (ß = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.72-0.76), respectively, in the BNT162b2 group. Direct neutralization of Omicron variants is low relative to ancestral strains. Cumulatively over the study period, both vaccines show little efficacy against infection but were highly efficacious against substantial symptomatic disease [89% [(IRR 0.11, 95% CI, 0.02-0.37) and 71% (IRR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.13-0.57) for mRNA1273 and BNT162b2, respectively]. These results are informative for further boosting policy-making. Trial registration numbers (clinicaltrials.gov): NCT05231005 and NCT05230953.