Despite delayed kinetics, people living with HIV achieve equivalent antibody function after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination.

The kinetics of Fc-mediated functions following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) are not known. We compared SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific Fc functions, binding, and neutralization in PLWH and people without HIV (PWOH) during acute infection (without prior vaccination) with either the D614G or Beta variants of SARS-CoV-2, or vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Antiretroviral treatment (ART)-naïve PLWH had significantly lower levels of IgG binding, neutralization, and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP) compared with PLWH on ART. The magnitude of antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), complement deposition (ADCD), and cellular trogocytosis (ADCT) was differentially triggered by D614G and Beta. The kinetics of spike IgG-binding antibodies, ADCC, and ADCD were similar, irrespective of the infecting variant between PWOH and PLWH overall. However, compared with PWOH, PLWH infected with D614G had delayed neutralization and ADCP. Furthermore, Beta infection resulted in delayed ADCT, regardless of HIV status. Despite these delays, we observed improved coordination between binding and neutralizing responses and Fc functions in PLWH. In contrast to D614G infection, binding responses in PLWH following ChAdOx-1 nCoV-19 vaccination were delayed, while neutralization and ADCP had similar timing of onset, but lower magnitude, and ADCC was significantly higher than in PWOH. Overall, despite delayed and differential kinetics, PLWH on ART develop comparable responses to PWOH, supporting the prioritization of ART rollout and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in PLWH.

Dynamics of anti-RBD (anti-receptor binding domain) levels in diabetes patients following the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in the Thai population.

The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) was used in Thailand during the early outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A previous study showed a low immune response in diabetes patients after the first dose of the AZD1222 vaccine. Furthermore, humoral immune responses after the second vaccination were inconsistent. This study evaluated the immunogenicity following the first and second doses of the AZD1222 vaccine in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with the general population of Thailand. This was a prospective, single-center cohort study. 59 adults with T2D and 118 age- and sex-matched healthcare personnel were eligible. The participants received two doses of AZD1222 12 weeks apart. Antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (anti-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, using an automated electrochemiluminesence immunoassay (ECLIA), were measured at baseline, 8 and 12 weeks after the first dose of vaccine, and 4 weeks after the second dose of vaccine. The anti-RBD levels were reported as the geometric mean concentration (GMC) and compared between groups using the geometric mean ratio (GMR). A total of 177 participants were included: The average age of 59 T2D patients was 60.1 years (SD: 11.4), and 31 (52.5%) of them were female. The GMC of anti-RBD 8 and 12 weeks after the first vaccination were significantly lower in T2D (week 8 60; 17.05 BAU/mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] 11.1-26.19, P = 0.035, week 12; 24.68 BAU/mL, 95% CI 16.4-37.0, P = 0.002) than in those without diabetes (week 8; 29.79 BAU/mL, 95% CI 22.07-40.42, week 12; 50.67 BAU/mL, 95% CI 40.62-63.20). However, there was no difference in the GMC of anti-RBD 4 weeks after the second vaccination among groups (T2D; 687.95 BAU/mL, 95% CI 462.7-1022.7, Normal; 697.95 BAU/mL, 95% CI 583.7-834.5, P = 0.947). In both groups, the GMC of anti-RBD was persistently high without decline 12 weeks after the first vaccination. Albuminuria was a major factor related to low humoral immune responses in T2D patients after the second dose of AZD122 vaccine (the GMR was 0.29, 95% CI 0.08-0.98, P = 0.047) whereas the HbA1C level and age were not. Immunogenicity in T2D cases was lower than in the normal population after the first dose of the AZD1222 vaccine. The two doses of AZD122 vaccine induced immunity in T2D equal to that of normal individuals in Thailand. People with diabetes should be boosted as soon as possible to induce adequate immunity to prevent COVID-19 infection.

Impaired humoral and cellular response to primary COVID-19 vaccination in patients less than 2 years after allogeneic bone marrow transplant.

Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients remain at high risk of adverse outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and emerging variants. The optimal prophylactic vaccine strategy for this cohort is not defined. T cell-mediated immunity is a critical component of graft-versus-tumour effect and in determining vaccine immunogenicity. Using validated anti-spike (S) immunoglobulin G (IgG) and S-specific interferon-gamma enzyme-linked immunospot (IFNγ-ELIspot) assays we analysed response to a two-dose vaccination schedule (either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1) in 33 HSCT recipients at ≤2 years from transplant, alongside vaccine-matched healthy controls (HCs). After two vaccines, infection-naïve HSCT recipients had a significantly lower rate of seroconversion compared to infection-naïve HCs (25/32 HSCT vs. 39/39 HCs no responders) and had lower S-specific T-cell responses. The HSCT recipients who received BNT162b2 had a higher rate of seroconversion compared to ChAdOx1 (89% vs. 74%) and significantly higher anti-S IgG titres (p = 0.022). S-specific T-cell responses were seen after one vaccine in HCs and HSCT recipients. However, two vaccines enhanced S-specific T-cell responses in HCs but not in the majority of HSCT recipients. These data demonstrate limited immunogenicity of two-dose vaccination strategies in HSCT recipients, bolstering evidence of the need for additional boosters and/or alternative prophylactic measures in this group.

Adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination in Iran.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is a key intervention to prevent COVID-19. Many vaccines are administered globally, yet there is not much evidence regarding their safety and adverse effects. Iran also faces this challenge, especially as data regarding the Sputnik V vaccine is sparse. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the adverse effects of the most commonly used vaccines in Iran. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort study design, 6600 subjects aged 18 years or older who had received two doses of any of the three COVID-19 vaccines (Sinopharm, AstraZeneca, and Sputnik V) were selected using a random sampling method between March and August 2021. Subjects were asked about any adverse effects of the vaccines by trained interviewers via telephone interview. Vaccine-related adverse effects in individuals during the first 72 h and subsequently following both doses of the vaccines were determined. The demographic variables, type of administered vaccine, adverse effects, and history of the previous infection with COVID-19 were collected. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) and analytical statistics (Chi-squared and Wilcoxon tests) were performed at a 95% significance level using STATA software version 15 (STATA Corp, College Station, TX, USA). RESULTS: From 6600 participants, 4775 responded (response rate = 72.3%). Of the participants, 1460 (30.6%) received the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1564 (32.8%) received the Sinopharm vaccine and 1751 (36.7%) received the Sputnik V vaccine. 2653 participants (55.56%) reported adverse effects after the first dose and 1704 (35.7%) after the second dose. Sputnik V caused the most adverse effects with 1449 (82.7%) vaccine recipients reporting symptoms after the first or second dose, compared with 1030 (70.5%) for AstraZeneca and only 585 (37.4%) for the Sinopharm vaccine. The most common adverse effects after the first dose were fatigue (28.37%), chill/fever (26.86%), and skeletal pain (22.38%). These three adverse effects were the same for the second dose, although their prevalence was lower. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we demonstrate that the Sputnik V vaccine has the highest rate of adverse effects, followed by the AstraZeneca and Sinopharm vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines used in Iran are safe and there were no reports of serious adverse effects.

Comparison of antibody responses after the 1st and 2nd doses of COVID-19 vaccine with those of patients with mild or severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Data comparing the antibody responses of different coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine platforms according to dose with natural severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection-induced antibody responses are limited. METHODS: Blood samples from adult patients with mild and severe COVID-19 and healthcare workers who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (2nd dose at 12-week intervals) and BNT162b2 vaccine (2nd dose at 3-week intervals) were collected and compared by immunoglobulin G immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 specific spike protein using an in-house-developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients, including 12 and 41 with mild and severe COVID-19, respectively, were analyzed. In addition, a total of 73 healthcare workers, including 37 who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 36 who received BNT162b2, were enrolled. Antibody responses after the first and second doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or the first dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine were similar to those in convalescent patients with mild COVID-19, but lower than those in convalescent patients with severe COVID-19, respectively. However, after the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine, the antibody response was comparable to that in convalescent patients with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the second dose of mRNA vaccination may be more beneficial in terms of long-term immunity and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 variant infection than a single dose of COVID-19 vaccination or homologous second challenge ChAdOx1 nCoV-19.

Adverse events and breakthrough infections associated with COVID-19 vaccination in the Indian population.

Vaccines against COVID-19 provide immunity to deter severe morbidities associated with the infection. However, it does not prevent infection altogether in all exposed individuals. Furthermore, emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 impose a threat concerning the competency of the vaccines in combating the infection. This study aims to determine the variability in adverse events and the extent of breakthrough infections in the Indian population. A retrospective study was conducted using a pre-validated questionnaire encompassing social, demographic, general health, the status of SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination, associated adverse events, and breakthrough infections in the Indian population. Informed consent and ethical approval were obtained as per Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) guidelines. Participants, who provided the complete information, were Indian citizens, above 18 years, and if vaccinated, administered with either Covishield or Covaxin, were considered for the study. Data have been compiled in Microsoft Excel and analyzed for statistical differences using STATA 11. The responses from 2051 individuals fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Among 2051, 1119 respondents were vaccinated and 932 respondents were non-vaccinated. Among 1119 vaccinated respondents, 7 were excluded because of missing data. Therefore, out of 1112 vaccinated, 413 experienced adverse events with a major fraction of younger individuals, age 18-40 years, getting affected (74.82%; 309/413). Furthermore, considerably more females than males encountered adverse consequences to vaccination (p < 0.05). Among vaccinated participants, breakthrough infections were observed in 7.91% (88/1112; 57.96% males and 42.04% females) with the older age group, 61 years and above (odds ratio, 3.25 [1.32-8.03]; p = 0.011), and males were found to be at higher risk. Further research is needed to find the age and sex-related factors in determining vaccine effectiveness and adverse events.

Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant.

BACKGROUND: A rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) cases due to the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in highly vaccinated populations has aroused concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines. METHODS: We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated after primary immunization with two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine and after a booster dose of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or mRNA-1273. RESULTS: Between November 27, 2021, and January 12, 2022, a total of 886,774 eligible persons infected with the omicron variant, 204,154 eligible persons infected with the delta variant, and 1,572,621 eligible test-negative controls were identified. At all time points investigated and for all combinations of primary course and booster vaccines, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease was higher for the delta variant than for the omicron variant. No effect against the omicron variant was noted from 20 weeks after two ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 doses, whereas vaccine effectiveness after two BNT162b2 doses was 65.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.9 to 67.0) at 2 to 4 weeks, dropping to 8.8% (95% CI, 7.0 to 10.5) at 25 or more weeks. Among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% (95% CI, 61.8 to 63.0) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before decreasing to 39.6% (95% CI, 38.0 to 41.1) at 10 or more weeks. Among BNT162b2 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% (95% CI, 66.5 to 67.8) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before declining to 45.7% (95% CI, 44.7 to 46.7) at 10 or more weeks. Vaccine effectiveness after a ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course increased to 70.1% (95% CI, 69.5 to 70.7) at 2 to 4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster and decreased to 60.9% (95% CI, 59.7 to 62.1) at 5 to 9 weeks. After a BNT162b2 primary course, the mRNA-1273 booster increased vaccine effectiveness to 73.9% (95% CI, 73.1 to 74.6) at 2 to 4 weeks; vaccine effectiveness fell to 64.4% (95% CI, 62.6 to 66.1) at 5 to 9 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Primary immunization with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine provided limited protection against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron variant. A BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster after either the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 primary course substantially increased protection, but that protection waned over time. (Funded by the U.K. Health Security Agency.).

Comparative effectiveness and safety of homologous two-dose ChAdOx1 versus heterologous vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2.

Small trials have suggested that heterologous vaccination with first-dose ChAdOx1 and second-dose BNT162b2 may generate a better immune response than homologous vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1. In this cohort analysis, we use linked data from Catalonia (Spain), where those aged <60 who received a first dose of ChAdOx1 could choose between ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 for their second dose. Comparable cohorts were obtained after exact-matching 14,325/17,849 (80.3%) people receiving heterologous vaccination to 14,325/149,386 (9.6%) receiving homologous vaccination by age, sex, region, and date of second dose. Of these, 464 (3.2%) in the heterologous and 694 (4.8%) in the homologous groups developed COVID-19 between 1st June 2021 and 5th December 2021. The resulting hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) is 0.66 [0.59-0.74], favouring heterologous vaccination. The two groups had similar testing rates and safety outcomes. Sensitivity and negative control outcome analyses confirm these findings. In conclusion, we demonstrate that a heterologous vaccination schedule with ChAdOx1 followed by BNT162b2 was more efficacious than and similarly safe to homologous vaccination with two doses of ChAdOx1. Most of the infections in our study occurred when Delta was the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant in Spain. These data agree with previous phase 2 randomised trials.

Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after Covid-19 Vaccination and Previous Infection.

BACKGROUND: The duration and effectiveness of immunity from infection with and vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are relevant to pandemic policy interventions, including the timing of vaccine boosters. METHODS: We investigated the duration and effectiveness of immunity in a prospective cohort of asymptomatic health care workers in the United Kingdom who underwent routine polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) testing. Vaccine effectiveness (≤10 months after the first dose of vaccine) and infection-acquired immunity were assessed by comparing the time to PCR-confirmed infection in vaccinated persons with that in unvaccinated persons, stratified according to previous infection status. We used a Cox regression model with adjustment for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status, vaccine type and dosing interval, demographic characteristics, and workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Of 35,768 participants, 27% (9488) had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine coverage was high: 95% of the participants had received two doses (78% had received BNT162b2 vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech] with a long interval between doses, 9% BNT162b2 vaccine with a short interval between doses, and 8% ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine [AstraZeneca]). Between December 7, 2020, and September 21, 2021, a total of 2747 primary infections and 210 reinfections were observed. Among previously uninfected participants who received long-interval BNT162b2 vaccine, adjusted vaccine effectiveness decreased from 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72 to 92) 14 to 73 days after the second dose to 51% (95% CI, 22 to 69) at a median of 201 days (interquartile range, 197 to 205) after the second dose; this effectiveness did not differ significantly between the long-interval and short-interval BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. At 14 to 73 days after the second dose, adjusted vaccine effectiveness among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine recipients was 58% (95% CI, 23 to 77) - considerably lower than that among BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. Infection-acquired immunity waned after 1 year in unvaccinated participants but remained consistently higher than 90% in those who were subsequently vaccinated, even in persons infected more than 18 months previously. CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were associated with high short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection; this protection waned considerably after 6 months. Infection-acquired immunity boosted with vaccination remained high more than 1 year after infection. (Funded by the U.K. Health Security Agency and others; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN11041050.).

Reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous prime-boost immunization with COVID-19 vaccine.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the present work was to assess the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens in clinical trials and observational studies. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, MedRxiv, BioRxiv databases were searched in September 29, 2021. The PRISMA instruction for systemic review was followed. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. The quality of studies was evaluated using the New Castle-Ottawa and Cochrane risk of instrument. The characteristics and study outcome (e.g., adverse events, immune response, and variant of concern) were extracted. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included in the final data synthesis with 5 clinical trials and 14 observational studies. Heterologous vaccine administration showed a trend toward more frequent systemic reactions. However, the total reactogenicity was tolerable and manageable. Importantly, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination regimens provided higher immunogenic effect either vector/ mRNA-based vaccine or vector/ inactivated vaccine in both humoral and cellular immune response. Notably, the heterologous regimens induced the potential protection against the variant of concern, even to the Delta variant. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings provided evidence about the higher induction of robust immunogenicity and tolerated reactogenicity of heterologous vaccination regimens (vector-based/mRNA vaccine or vector-based/inactivated vaccine). Also, this study supports the application of heterologous regimens against COVID-19 which may provide more opportunities to speed up the global vaccination campaign and maximize the capacity to control the pandemic.

COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy: coverage and safety.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised regarding a potential surge of COVID-19 in pregnancy, secondary to the rising numbers of COVID-19 in the community, easing of societal restrictions, and vaccine hesitancy. Although COVID-19 vaccination is now offered to all pregnant women in the United Kingdom; limited data exist on its uptake and safety. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the uptake and safety of COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cohort study of pregnant women who gave birth at St George's University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom, between March 1, 2020, and July 4, 2021. The primary outcome was uptake of COVID-19 vaccination and its determinants. The secondary outcomes were perinatal safety outcomes. Data were collected on COVID-19 vaccination uptake, vaccination type, gestational age at vaccination, and maternal characteristics, including age, parity, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation score, and comorbidities. Further data were collected on perinatal outcomes, including stillbirth (fetal death at ≥24 weeks' gestation), preterm birth, fetal and congenital abnormalities, and intrapartum complications. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of women who received the vaccine were compared with that of a matched cohort of women with balanced propensity scores. Effect magnitudes of vaccination on perinatal outcomes were reported as mean differences or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Factors associated with antenatal vaccination were assessed with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Data were available for 1328 pregnant women of whom 140 received at least 1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine before giving birth and 1188 women who did not; 85.7% of those vaccinated received their vaccine in the third trimester of pregnancy and 14.3% in the second trimester of pregnancy. Of those vaccinated, 127 (90.7%) received a messenger RNA vaccine and 13 (9.3%) a viral vector vaccine. There was evidence of reduced vaccine uptake in younger women (P=.001), women with high levels of deprivation (ie, fifth quintile of the index of multiple deprivation; P=.008), and women of Afro-Caribbean or Asian ethnicity compared with women of White ethnicity (P<.001). Women with prepregnancy diabetes mellitus had increased vaccine uptake (P=.008). In the multivariable model the fifth deprivation quintile (most deprived) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.10; P=.003) and Afro-Caribbean ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.85; P=.044) were significantly associated with lower antenatal vaccine uptake, whereas prepregnancy diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with higher antenatal vaccine uptake (adjusted odds ratio, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.74-83.2; P=.014). In a propensity score-matched cohort, the rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes of 133 women who received at least 1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in pregnancy were similar to that of unvaccinated pregnant women (P>.05 for all): stillbirth (0.0% vs 0.2%), fetal abnormalities (2.2% vs 2.5%), postpartum hemorrhage (9.8% vs 9.0%), cesarean delivery (30.8% vs 34.1%), small for gestational age (12.0% vs 12.8%), maternal high-dependency unit or intensive care admission (6.0% vs 4.0%), or neonatal intensive care unit admission (5.3% vs 5.0%). Intrapartum pyrexia (3.7% vs 1.0%; P=.046) was significantly increased but the borderline statistical significance was lost after excluding women with antenatal COVID-19 infection (P=.079). Mixed-effects Cox regression showed that vaccination was not significantly associated with birth at <40 weeks' gestation (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.23; P=.624). CONCLUSION: Of pregnant women eligible for COVID-19 vaccination, less than one-third accepted COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, and they experienced similar pregnancy outcomes with unvaccinated pregnant women. There was lower uptake among younger women, non-White ethnicity, and lower socioeconomic background. This study has contributed to the body of evidence that having COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy does not alter perinatal outcomes. Clear communication to improve awareness among pregnant women and healthcare professionals on vaccine safety is needed, alongside strategies to address vaccine hesitancy. These strategies include postvaccination surveillance to gather further data on pregnancy outcomes, particularly after first-trimester vaccination, and long-term infant follow-up.

COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy, Paediatrics, Immunocompromised Patients, and Persons with History of Allergy or Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Overview of Current Recommendations and Pre- and Post-Marketing Evidence for Vaccine Efficacy and Safety.

To date, four vaccines have been authorised for emergency use and under conditional approval by the European Medicines Agency to prevent COVID-19: Comirnaty, COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen, Spikevax (previously COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna) and Vaxzevria (previously COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca). Although the benefit-risk profile of these vaccines was proven to be largely favourable in the general population, evidence in special cohorts initially excluded from the pivotal trials, such as pregnant and breastfeeding women, children/adolescents, immunocompromised people and persons with a history of allergy or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, is still limited. In this narrative review, we critically overview pre- and post-marketing evidence on the potential benefits and risks of marketed COVID-19 vaccines in the above-mentioned special cohorts. In addition, we summarise the recommendations of the scientific societies and regulatory agencies about COVID-19 primary prevention in the same vaccinee categories.

What gastroenterologists should know about SARS-CoV 2 vaccine: World Endoscopy Organization perspective.

BACKGROUND: The novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has caused almost 2 million deaths worldwide. Both Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency have recently approved the first COVID-19 vaccines, and a few more are going to be approved soon. METHODS: Several different approaches have been used to stimulate the immune system in mounting a humoral response. As more traditional approaches are under investigation (inactivated virus vaccines, protein subunit vaccines, recombinant virus vaccines), more recent and innovative strategies have been tried (non-replicating viral vector vaccines, RNA based vaccines, DNA based vaccines). RESULTS: Since vaccinations campaigns started in December 2020 in both the US and Europe, gastroenterologists will be one of the main sources of information regarding SARS-CoV 2 vaccination for patients in their practice, including vulnerable patients such as those with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), patients with chronic liver disease, and GI cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, we must ourselves be well educated and updated in order to provide unambiguous counseling to these categories of vulnerable patients. In this commentary, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of both approved COVID-19 vaccines and the ones still under development, and explore potential risks, benefits and prioritization of vaccination.