RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated work on the creation of effective vaccines, both in terms of previously known vector vaccines and new-generation (mRNA) vaccines. The scientific research on vaccination against COVID-19 infection is limited; therefore, understanding how the immune system responds to vaccines is critical. In our study, we conducted a long-term analysis of the presence and persistence of the immune response via chemiluminescence, analyzing the level of IgG antibodies and neutralizing antibodies in subjects vaccinated with two types of mRNA (Comirnaty) and vector (Vaxzevria) vaccines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthcare workers and a group of teachers were recruited for this study according to the 2021 government-launched vaccination calendar. They received two doses of the Comirnaty or Vaxzevria vaccine. SRBD (spike-receptor binding domain) IgG antibody levels were measured monthly for 6 consecutive months with a chemiluminescent assay (CLIA) and neutralizing antibodies for two periods-1 and 5 months from the completion of the vaccination course. RESULTS: 168 people were recruited for this study: 135 people for the mRNA vaccine group and 33 people for the vector vaccine group. Comparing the serum IgG levels between the two types of vaccines, a significant difference in median values can be noted at all time points. In consecutive months, the mRNA-vaccinated group exhibited significantly higher SRBD levels compared to the vector group, with peak concentrations at one month after the complete vaccination cycle (745 AU/mL vs. 15.44 AU/mL; p < 0.001). Peak antibody concentration for the vector vaccine was observed one month later, at the third follow-up visit; however, the median IgG concentration was almost 7.7 times higher for the Comirnaty group. Both products were effective in stimulating neutralizing antibody production after vaccination. Higher median values were observed for the mRNA vaccines in both evaluations. At first evaluation, the median value for NA concentration in the Comirnaty group was 6 times higher than in the Vaxzevria group (median value 12.23 [IQR 27.3] vs. 1.7 [IQR 3.3]; p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: People vaccinated with the mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty) showed a stronger immune response to the vaccination than the group of people administered the vector vaccine (Vaxzevria). The Comirnaty group showed higher levels of IgG, including neutralizing antibodies, at all time points during the follow-up period, and this was independent of having had a SARS-CoV-2 infection. A natural decrease in antibody levels was seen within 6 months. A booster vaccination may be required. No serious side effects were observed in either group.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The fast spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus accelerated efforts to create an effective vaccine, and a novel mRNA vaccine was the first to appear effective. Scientific evidence regarding mRNA vaccination is limited; therefore, understanding how the immune system responds to an mRNA vaccine is critical. Our study was aimed at a long-term analysis of the presence and maintenance of the immune response using the chemiluminescent method by analyzing the level of IgG antibodies in vaccinated people who were and were not infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Healthcare workers with a history of COVID-19 or who were naïve to the infection were recruited for this study and administered two subsequent doses of the Comirnaty vaccine. IgG SRBD antibody levels were evaluated every month for six consecutive months using the chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA). RESULTS: A total of 149 individuals were recruited for this study, 68 had evidence of past COVID-19 infection, with 63 exhibiting elevated IgG SRBD antibody levels at initial evaluation. Statistically significant differences were observed between COVID-19 convalescents and non-convalescents at all study time points, with the convalescent group consequently representing higher antibody levels. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 convalescents showed a stronger immune response to the vaccine after the first dose. This group exhibited higher IgG levels in all examinations during the observation period. The natural waning of antibody levels can be observed within six months. A booster vaccination may be required. No serious side effects were observed.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is substantial evidence that heart rate (HR) is a powerful predictor of mortality in both normal individuals and in patients with cardiovascular disease. The use of ß-adrenoceptor antagonists (ß-blockers) has confirmed the importance of lowering elevated HR in a patient's prognosis. However, these agents can have undesirable adverse effects (AEs) and due to the risk of bronchoconstriction are contraindicated in patients with obstructive airway disease. A selective bradycardic agent, without such undesirable effects, could be of therapeutic interest. Ivabradine, a new I(f) inhibitor that acts specifically on the sino-atrial node, is a pure HR-lowering agent. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess HR-lowering efficacy and respiratory safety of ivabradine in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This was a randomized, single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Enrolment began in May 2009, and the last patient completed the study in January 2011. The study was conducted in an ambulatory setting. A total of 40 patients completed the study (20 asthmatic patients and 20 COPD patients). Inclusion criteria were: documented diagnosis of asthma or COPD according to international guidelines, age 18-75 years, and mean HR on Holter ECG recording of ≥60 beats/min. Exclusion criteria included disease exacerbation in a previous month or inability to understand instructions on the study procedures. All patients received ivabradine 7.5 mg twice daily for 5 days and placebo twice daily for 5 days in a crossover manner, in one of the two arms of the study, with at least 2 days of washout between treatments. The main outcome measures included the difference in HR between ivabradine and placebo treatment and change in HR in comparison with baseline. Other evaluated outcomes were differences in the peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), the daily symptom score, rescue medication consumption, and AEs. RESULTS: Ivabradine produced significantly lower mean HR than placebo in both groups of patients: asthma 67.4 ± 8.38 versus 82.85 ± 11.19 beats/min (p < 0.001) and COPD 69.75 ± 8.9 versus 81.05 ± 9.75 beats/min (p < 0.001). Similar results were observed for the minimal HR as well as for the maximal noted HR. In comparision with baseline, ivabradine significantly reduced HR in both groups of studied patients (all p < 0.05), whereas placebo did not have such an effect. No significant difference, in either the asthma or the COPD group, was found between ivabradine and placebo in morning and evening peak expiratory flow rate, peak expiratory flow diurnal variability, daily symptom scores, and rescue medication usage (all p > 0.05). Both treatments were well tolerated. The incidence of AEs was low and generally similar in both periods of treatment, except for visual symptoms during treatment with ivabradine, which was reported by 5% of the patients. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that selective HR reduction with ivabradine is effective in patients with asthma and COPD, with no alteration in respiratory function or symptoms over the duration of the study. Ivabradine offers an interesting alternative, as an HR-lowering agent, in patients with respiratory disease and contraindications to ß-blockers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01365286).
