RESUMEN
Background: Immunodeficient patients (IDPs) are at higher risk of contracting severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Targeted vaccination strategies have been implemented to enhance vaccine-induced protection. In this population, however, clinical effectiveness is variable and the duration of protection unknown. Objective: We sought to better understand the cellular and humoral immune responses to mRNA and adenoviral vectored COVID-19 vaccines in patients with immunodeficiency. Methods: Immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike were assessed after 2 doses of homologous ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccines in 112 infection-naive IDPs and 131 healthy health care workers as controls. Predictors of vaccine responsiveness were investigated. Results: Immune responses to vaccination were low, and virus neutralization by antibody was not detected despite high titer binding responses in many IDPs. In those exhibiting response, the frequency of specific T-cell responses in IDPs was similar to controls, while antibody responses were lower. Sustained vaccine specific differences were identified: T-cell responses were greater in ChAdOx1-nCoV-19- compared to BNT162b2-immunized IDPs, and antibody binding and neutralization were greater in all cohorts immunized with BNT162b2. The positive correlation between T-cell and antibody responses was weak and increased with subsequent vaccination. Conclusion: Immunodeficient patients have impaired immune responses to mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines that appear to be influenced by vaccine formulation. Understanding the relative roles of T-cell- and antibody-mediated protection as well as the potential of heterologous prime and boost immunization protocols is needed to optimize the vaccination approach in these high-risk groups.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: In early 2020, at first surge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many health care workers (HCW) were re-deployed to critical care environments to support intensive care teams looking after patients with severe COVID-19. There was considerable anxiety of increased risk of COVID-19 for these staff. To determine whether critical care HCW were at increased risk of hospital acquired infection, we explored the relationship between workplace, patient facing role and evidence of immune exposure to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within a quaternary hospital providing a regional critical care response. Routine viral surveillance was not available at this time. METHODS: We screened over 500 HCW (25% of the total workforce) for history of clinical symptoms of possible COVID19, assigning a symptom severity score, and quantified SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies as evidence of immune exposure to the virus. RESULTS: Whilst 45% of the cohort reported symptoms that they consider may have represented COVID-19, 14% had evidence of immune exposure. Staffs in patient facing critical care roles were least likely to be seropositive (9%) and staff working in non-patient facing roles most likely to be seropositive (22%). Anosmia and fever were the most discriminating symptoms for seropositive status. Older males presented with more severe symptoms. Of the 12 staff screened positive by nasal swab (10 symptomatic), 3 showed no evidence of seroconversion in convalescence. CONCLUSIONS: Patient facing staff working in critical care do not appear to be at increased risk of hospital acquired infection however the risk of nosocomial infection from non-patient facing staff may be more significant than previous recognised. Most symptoms ascribed to possible COVID-19 were found to have no evidence of immune exposure however seroprevalence may underrepresent infection frequency. Older male staff were at the greatest risk of more severe symptoms.
