RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The mass vaccination campaign against SARS-CoV-2 was started in Tunisia on 13 March 2021 by using progressively seven different vaccines approved for emergency use. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the humoral and cellular immunity in subjects aged 40 years and over who received one of the following two-dose regimen vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, namely mRNA-1273 or Spikevax (Moderna), BNT162B2 or Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech), Gam-COVID-Vac or Sputnik V (Gamaleya Research Institute), ChAdOx1-S or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca), BIBP (Sinopharm), and Coronavac (Sinovac). MATERIAL AND METHODS: For each type of vaccine, a sample of subjects aged 40 and over was randomly selected from the national platform for monitoring COVID-19 vaccination and contacted to participate to this study. All consenting participants were sampled for peripheral blood at 3-7 weeks after the second vaccine dose to perform anti-S and anti-N serology by the Elecsys® (Lenexa, KS, USA) anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays (Roche® Basel, Switzerland). The CD4 and CD8 T cell responses were evaluated by the QuantiFERON® SARS-CoV-2 (Qiagen® Basel, Switzerland) for a randomly selected sub-group. RESULTS: A total of 501 people consented to the study and, of them, 133 were included for the cellular response investigations. Both humoral and cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 antigens differed significantly between all tested groups. RNA vaccines induced the highest levels of humoral and cellular anti-S responses followed by adenovirus vaccines and then by inactivated vaccines. Vaccines from the same platform induced similar levels of specific anti-S immune responses except in the case of the Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccine, which exhibited contrasting effects on humoral and cellular responses. When analyses were performed in subjects with negative anti-N antibodies, results were similar to those obtained within the total cohort, except for the Moderna vaccine, which gave a better cellular immune response than the Pfizer vaccine and RNA vaccines, which induced similar cellular immune responses to those of adenovirus vaccines. CONCLUSION: Collectively, our data confirmed the superiority of the RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, in particular that of Moderna, for both humoral and cellular immunogenicity. Our results comparing between different vaccine platforms in a similar population are of great importance since they may help decision makers to adopt the best strategy for further national vaccination programs.
RESUMO
The multitude of national strategies used against the COVID-19 pandemic makes it necessary to review and synthesize them in order to identify potential gaps and shortcomings, and to help prioritize future control efforts. This systematic mapping review is aimed at identifying the coronavirus pandemic management strategies adopted by France, Tunisia, and Germany during the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak. A set of government websites in addition to the PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify scientific articles and institutional documents related to the national strategies of the three countries up until July 2020. The references included were mapped and narratively synthesized based on the pillars of the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of the Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan defined by the World Health Organization. Of the 2765 records screened, 65 documents were included in the study. The analysis of these documents showed that Germany was the first country to implement mass screening of cases and that France was the first country to implement measures to impose general containment at the national level. It also showed that Tunisia was the only country to have imposed the confinement of passengers on repatriation flights in dedicated containment centers and at the expense of the state.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Pandemias , Surtos de Doenças , França/epidemiologia , Alemanha/epidemiologia , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Tunísia/epidemiologiaRESUMO
The internal mammary nodes are often underestimated as breast cancer lymphatic pathway spread. It is yet the first site of lymphatic invasion in central or internal tumors and the second site in external tumors. The intra-thoracic situation of internal mammary nodes explains partly, the difficulty of its exploration. To evaluate the risk of internal mammary node invasion, some predictive factors are established (tumor size, internal or central tumor location, axillary node invasion and young age). Prognostic and therapeutic impact of invasion justifies its systematic research. Without exploring internal mammary nodes status, TNM classification remains, incomplete. CT scanner, magnetic resonnance imaging, positron emission tomography scanner and sentinel node exploration technique are helpful to explore this region and to adapt its irradiation.