Association between reactogenicity and immunogenicity after BNT162b2 booster vaccination: a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: A weak correlation between symptom severity and antibody levels after primary immunization against COVID-19 has already been shown. This study aimed to describe the association between reactogenicity and immunogenicity after booster vaccination. METHODS: This secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study included 484 healthcare workers who received a booster vaccination with BNT162b2. Anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies were assessed at baseline and 28 days after booster vaccination. Side effects were graded (none, mild, moderate, or severe) and reported daily for 7 days after booster vaccination. Spearman correlation coefficient (rho) was used to determine the correlations between the severity of each symptom and anti-RBD levels before vaccination and 28 days after. The Bonferroni method was used to adjust p values for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Most of the 484 participants reported at least one local (451 [93.2%]) or systemic (437 [90.3%]) post-booster symptom. No correlations between the severity of local symptoms and antibody levels were found. Except for nausea, systemic symptoms showed weak but statistically significant correlations with 28-day anti-RBD levels (fatigue [rho = 0.23, p < 0.01], fever [rho = 22, p < 0.01], headache [rho = 0.15, p 0.03], arthralgia [rho = 0.2, p < 0.01], myalgia [rho = 0.17, p < 0.01]). There was no association between post-booster symptoms and pre-booster antibody levels. DISCUSSION: This study showed only a weak correlation between the severity of systemic post-booster symptoms and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels at 28 days. Therefore, self-reported symptom severity cannot be used to predict immunogenicity after booster vaccination.

Early Bacterial Coinfections in Patients Admitted to the ICU With COVID-19 or Influenza: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Previous findings suggest that bacterial coinfections are less common in ICU patients with COVID-19 than with influenza, but evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the rate of early bacterial coinfections in ICU patients with COVID-19 or influenza. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective propensity score matched cohort study. We included patients admitted to ICUs of a single academic center with COVID-19 or influenza (January 2015 to April 2022). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was early bacterial coinfection (i.e., positive blood or respiratory culture within 2 d of ICU admission) in the propensity score matched cohort. Key secondary outcomes included frequency of early microbiological testing, antibiotic use, and 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Out of 289 patients with COVID-19 and 39 patients with influenza, 117 (n = 78 vs 39) were included in the matched analysis. In the matched cohort, the rate of early bacterial coinfections was similar between COVID-19 and influenza (18/78 [23%] vs 8/39 [21%]; odds ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.42-3.45; p = 0.82). The frequency of early microbiological testing and antibiotic use was similar between the two groups. Within the overall COVID-19 group, early bacterial coinfections were associated with a statistically significant increase in 30-day all-cause mortality (21/68 [30.9%] vs 40/221 [18.1%]; hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.01-3.32). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our data suggest similar rates of early bacterial coinfections in ICU patients with COVID-19 and influenza. In addition, early bacterial coinfections were significantly associated with an increased 30-day mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Pulmonary Aspergillosis in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) is a life-threatening fungal infection that mainly affects critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and clinical outcomes of putative CAPA in critically ill COVID-19 patients. This retrospective observational cohort study included 181 cases from 5 ICUs at Vienna General Hospital between January 2020 and April 2022. Patients were diagnosed with putative CAPA according to the AspICU classification, which included a positive Aspergillus culture in a bronchoalveolar lavage sample, compatible signs and symptoms, and abnormal medical imaging. The primary outcome was adjusted 60-day all-cause mortality from ICU admission in patients with vs. without putative CAPA. Secondary outcomes included time from ICU admission to CAPA diagnosis and pathogen prevalence and distribution. Putative CAPA was identified in 35 (19.3%) of 181 COVID-19 patients. The mean time to diagnosis was 9 days. Death at 60 days occurred in 18 of 35 (51.4%) patients with CAPA and in 43 of 146 (29.5%) patients without CAPA (adjusted HR (95%CI) = 2.15 (1.20-3.86, p = 0.002). The most frequently isolated Aspergillus species was Aspergillus fumigatus. The prevalence of putative pulmonary aspergillosis in critically ill COVID-19 patients was high and was associated with significantly higher mortality.

MULTI-PARAMETRIC PREDICTION MODELS FOR COVID-19 VACCINE SELECTION: RESULTS OF A COMPARATIVE POPULATION-BASED COHORT STUDY.

BACKGROUND: Understanding vaccine-dependent effects on protective and sustained humoral immune response are crucial to plan further vaccination strategies against COVID-19. Population-based data comparing different vaccination strategies are lacking. METHODS: This multicenter, population-based cohort study included 4,601 individuals ≥18 years of age after primary vaccination against COVID-19 at least four months ago (full immunization). We compared factors associated with residual antibody levels against SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) across different vaccination strategies (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [ChAdOx1]). RESULTS: Our main model including 3,787 individuals (2xBNT162b2 n = 2,271, 2xmRNA-1273 n = 251, 2xChAdOx1 n = 1,265) predicted significantly lower levels of anti-RBD-antibodies after 6 months in individuals vaccinated with ChAdOx1 (392.7 BAU/ml) compared to those vaccinated with BNT162b2 (1179.5 BAU/ml) or mRNA-1273 (2098.2 BAU/ml). Vaccine-dependent association of antibody levels was found for age with a significant predicted difference in BAU/ml per year for BNT162b2 (-21.5 [95%CI -24.7 to -18.3]) and no significant association for mRNA-1273 (-4.0 [95%CI -20.0 to 12.1]) or ChAdOx1 (1.7 [95%CI 0.2 to 3.1]). The predicted decrease over time since full immunization was highest in mRNA-1273 (-23.4 [95%CI -31.4 to -15.4]) compared to BNT162b2 -5.9 [95%CI -7 to -4.8]). Higher antibody levels were observed for individuals with systemic adverse events upon vaccination and current smoking (BNT162b2), for days between first and second vaccination (BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1) and for absence of comorbidities (all). CONCLUSION: Our study revealed population-based evidence of vaccine-dependent effects of age and time since full immunization on humoral immune response. Findings underline the importance of an individualized vaccine selection, especially in elderly individuals.

Reduced immunogenicity of BNT162b2 booster vaccination in combination with a tetravalent influenza vaccination: results of a prospective cohort study in 838 health workers.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the immunogenicity and safety of BNT162b2 booster vaccination with and without a tetravalent influenza vaccine. METHODS: A prospective, open-label cohort study on immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 booster vaccination with or without a tetravalent influenza vaccine was performed. Eight hundred thirty-eight health care workers were included in the following study arms: BNT162b2 booster-only, influenza-vaccine-only or combination of both. Levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor binding domain, and haemagglutinin inhibition tested for four different influenza strains (A(H1N1)pdm09, A(H3N2), B/Victoria, B/Yamagata) were measured at the time of vaccination and 4 weeks later. RESULTS: After 4 weeks, median (interquartile range) levels of antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the viral spike (S) protein and relative change from baseline were high in individuals who received BNTb162b2 booster vaccination only (absolute: 16 600 [10 980-24 360] vs. 12 630 [8198-18 750] BAU/mL [p < 0.0001]; relative increase: 49% [23.6-95.3] vs. 40% [21.9-80.6] [p 0.048]; booster-only n = 521 vs. combination-arm n = 229 respectively). Results were confirmed after matching for sex, age, body mass index, baseline antibody levels and vaccine compound received for primary immunization (absolute: 13 930 [10 610-22 760] vs. 12 520 [8710-17 940]; [p 0.031]; relative increase: 55.7% [27.8-98.5] vs. 42.2% [22.9-74.5]; p 0.045). Adverse events were almost identical in the booster-only and the combination-arm, but numerically low in the influenza arm (525/536 [97.9%] vs. 235/240 [97.9%] vs. 26/33 [78.8 %]). DISCUSSION: Although no safety concerns occurred, our study provides evidence on reduced immunogenicity of a BNT162b2 booster vaccination in combination with a tetravalent influenza vaccine. Further studies investigating new influenza variants as well as potential differences vaccine effectiveness are needed.

Convalescent Plasma Treatment in Patients with Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Convalescent plasma is a suggested treatment for Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), but its efficacy is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate whether the use of convalescent plasma is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with Covid-19.In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched randomized controlled trials investigating the use of convalescent plasma in patients with Covid-19 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and medRxiv from inception to October 17th, 2021. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021284861. Of the 8874 studies identified in the initial search, sixteen trials comprising 16 317 patients with Covid-19 were included. In the overall population, the all-cause mortality was 23.8% (2025 of 8524) with convalescent plasma and 24.4% (1903 of 7769) with standard of care (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.04) (high-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality did not differ in the subgroups of noncritically ill (21.7% [1288 of 5929] vs. 22.4% [1320 of 5882]) and critically ill (36.9% [518 of 1404] vs. 36.4% [455 of 1247]) patients with Covid-19. The use of convalescent plasma in patients who tested negative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline was not associated with significantly improved survival (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87-1.02). In the overall study population, initiation of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07), time to clinical improvement (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.30), and time to discharge (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.02) were similar between the two groups. In patients with Covid-19, treatment with convalescent plasma, as compared with control, was not associated with lower all-cause mortality or improved disease progression, irrespective of disease severity and baseline antibody status. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021284861).

Sensitivity and Specificity of SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Detection Tests Using Oral, Anterior Nasal, and Nasopharyngeal Swabs: a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

The objective of our study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen detection tests versus those of reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) using oral, anterior nasal, and nasopharyngeal swabs. The underlying prospective, diagnostic case-control-type accuracy study included 87 hospitalized and nonhospitalized participants in a positive and a negative sample cohort between 16 March and 14 May 2021 in two hospitals in Vienna. SARS-CoV-2 infection status was confirmed by RT-PCR. Participants self-performed one oral and one anterior nasal swab for the rapid antigen test, immediately followed by two nasopharyngeal swabs for the rapid antigen test and RT-PCR by the investigator. Test results were read after 15 min, and participants completed a questionnaire in the meantime. Test parameters were calculated based on the evaluation of 87 participants. The overall sensitivity of rapid antigen detection tests versus that of RT-PCR with oral, anterior nasal, and nasopharyngeal samples was 18.18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.19% to 32.71%), 63.04% (95% CI 47.55% to 76.79%), and 73.33% (95% CI 58.06% to 85.4%), respectively. All sampling methods had a test specificity of 100% regardless of the cycle threshold (CT) value. Rapid antigen detection tests using self-collected anterior nasal swabs proved to be as sensitive as and more tolerable than professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs for CT values up to 30 determined by RT-PCR. This finding illustrates the reliability of tests obtained by adequate self-collected anterior nasal specimen. Sensitivity was dependent upon the CT value for each sampling method. While the main advantage of rapid antigen detection tests is the immediate availability of results, PCR should be preferred in crucial settings wherever possible. IMPORTANCE Rapid antigen detection devices for SARS-CoV-2 represent a valuable tool for monitoring the spread of infection. However, the reliability of the tests depends largely on the test performance and the respective sampling method. Nasopharyngeal swabs mark the gold standard for sample collection in suspected respiratory tract infections but are unsuitable for widespread application, as they must be performed by medically trained personnel. With the underlying study, the head-to-head test performance and the usability of self-collected samples for SARS-CoV-2 detection using rapid antigen detection devices were evaluated. The results confirm similar sensitivity of self-collected anterior nasal swabs to that of professionally collected nasopharyngeal swabs for patients with a CT of < 30 determined by RT-PCR.

Anticoagulant Treatment Regimens in Patients With Covid-19: A Meta-Analysis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a hypercoagulable state. It has been hypothesized that higher-dose anticoagulation, including therapeutic-dose and intermediate-dose anticoagulation, is superior to prophylactic-dose anticoagulation in the treatment of COVID-19. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of higher-dose anticoagulation compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. Ten randomized controlled open-label trials with a total of 5,753 patients were included. The risk of death and net adverse clinical events (including death, thromboembolic events, and major bleeding) were similar between higher-dose and prophylactic-dose anticoagulation (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI, 0.79-1.16, P = 0.66 and RR 0.87, 95% CI, 0.73-1.03, P = 0.11, respectively). Higher-dose anticoagulation, compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation, decreased the risk of thromboembolic events (RR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.47-0.84, P = 0.002) but increased the risk of major bleeding (RR 1.76, 95% CI, 1.19-2.62, P = 0.005). The risk of death showed no statistically significant difference between higher-dose anticoagulation and prophylactic-dose anticoagulation in noncritically ill patients (RR 0.87, 95% CI, 0.50-1.52, P = 0.62) and in critically ill patients with COVID-19 (RR 1.04, 95% CI, 0.93-1.17, P = 0.5). The risk of death was similar between therapeutic-dose vs. prophylactic-dose anticoagulation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69-1.21, P = 0.54) and between intermediate-dose vs. prophylactic-dose anticoagulation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63-1.61, P = 0.98). In patients with markedly increased d-dimer levels, higher-dose anticoagulation was also not associated with a decreased risk of death as compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation (RR 0.86, 95% CI, 0.64-1.16, P = 0.34). Without any clear evidence of survival benefit, these findings do not support the routine use of therapeutic-dose or intermediate-dose anticoagulation in critically or noncritically ill patients with COVID-19.

Comparison of Bioelectrical Impedance-Based Methods on Body Composition in Young Patients with Obesity.

(1) Background: The determination of body composition is an important method to investigate patients with obesity and to evaluate the efficacy of individualized medical interventions. Bioelectrical impedance-based methods are non-invasive and widely applied but need to be validated for their use in young patients with obesity. (2) Methods: We compiled data from three independent studies on children and adolescents with obesity, measuring body composition with two bioelectrical impedance-based devices (TANITA and BIACORPUS). For a small patient group, additional data were collected with air displacement plethysmography (BOD POD) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). (3) Results: Our combined data on 123 patients (age: 6-18 years, body mass index (BMI): 21-59 kg/m²) and the individual studies showed that TANITA and BIACORPUS yield significantly different results on body composition, TANITA overestimating body fat percentage and fat mass relative to BIACORPUS and underestimating fat-free mass (p < 0.001 for all three parameters). A Bland-Altman plot indicated little agreement between methods, which produce clinically relevant differences for all three parameters. We detected gender-specific differences with both methods, with body fat percentage being lower (p < 0.01) and fat-free mass higher (p < 0.001) in males than females. (4) Conclusions: Both bioelectrical impedance-based methods provide significantly different results on body composition in young patients with obesity and thus cannot be used interchangeably, requiring adherence to a specific device for repetitive measurements to ascertain comparability of data.