Comparison of the effectiveness and duration of anti-RBD SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody response between different types of vaccines: Implications for vaccine strategies

Background and objectivesLittle is known about the efficacy and durability of anti-RBD IgG antibodies induced by certain SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. It has been shown that neutralizing antibodies are associated with the protection against re-infection. This study aims to compare the mean titers, duration, and efficacy of generating protective anti-RBD IgG antibody response among recipients of Pfizer/BioNTech, AstraZeneca, Sputnik V, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, and Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccines. In addition, we aimed to compare the susceptibility of getting COVID-19 breakthrough infections after various types of vaccines.Materials and methodsSamples from 2065 blood bank donors and healthcare workers at King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC) were collected between February and September 2021. Anti-Spike/RBD IgG levels were measured using Chemiluminescent microparticle-immunoassay (CMIA) (ARCHITECT IgG II Quant test, Abbott, USA).ResultsThe mean titer of anti-RBD IgG levels was significantly diverse among different types of vaccines. The highest titer level was seen in participants who took a third booster vaccine shot, followed by Pfizer/BioNTech, AstraZeneca, and Sinopharm vaccine. The mean titer levels of anti-RBD IgG antibodies in the Pfizer vaccinated group was the highest after vaccination but started to drop after 60 days from vaccination unlike AstraZeneca and Sinopharm vaccine-induced antibodies where the mean titers continued to be stable until 120 days but their levels were significantly lower. Most of the breakthrough infections were among the Sinopharm vaccinated group and these breakthroughs happened at random times for the three main types of vaccines.ConclusionsOur data demonstrate that the mean-titer of anti-RBD IgG levels drop after four months which is the best time to take the additional booster shot from a more potent vaccine type such as mRNA vaccines that might be needed in Jordan and worldwide.     

Assessing COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Effectiveness Through the North West London Vaccination Program: Retrospective Cohort Study

BackgroundOn March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared SARS-CoV-2, causing COVID-19, as a pandemic. The UK mass vaccination program commenced on December 8, 2020, vaccinating groups of the population deemed to be most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 infection.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the early vaccine administration coverage and outcome data across an integrated care system in North West London, leveraging a unique population-level care data set. Vaccine effectiveness of a single dose of the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines were compared.MethodsA retrospective cohort study identified 2,183,939 individuals eligible for COVID-19 vaccination between December 8, 2020, and February 24, 2021, within a primary, secondary, and community care integrated care data set. These data were used to assess vaccination hesitancy across ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic deprivation measures (Pearson product-moment correlations); investigate COVID-19 transmission related to vaccination hubs; and assess the early effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination (after a single dose) using time-to-event analyses with multivariable Cox regression analysis to investigate if vaccination independently predicted positive SARS-CoV-2 in those vaccinated compared to those unvaccinated.ResultsIn this study, 5.88% (24,332/413,919) of individuals declined and did not receive a vaccination. Black or Black British individuals had the highest rate of declining a vaccine at 16.14% (4337/26,870). There was a strong negative association between socioeconomic deprivation and rate of declining vaccination (r=–0.94; P=.002) with 13.5% (1980/14,571) of individuals declining vaccination in the most deprived areas compared to 0.98% (869/9609) in the least. In the first 6 days after vaccination, 344 of 389,587 (0.09%) individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The rate increased to 0.13% (525/389,243) between days 7 and 13, before then gradually falling week on week. At 28 days post vaccination, there was a 74% (hazard ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.19-0.35) and 78% (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.18-0.27) reduction in risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 for individuals that received the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines, respectively, when compared with unvaccinated individuals. A very low proportion of hospital admissions were seen in vaccinated individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (288/389,587, 0.07% of all patients vaccinated) providing evidence for vaccination effectiveness after a single dose.ConclusionsThere was no definitive evidence to suggest COVID-19 was transmitted as a result of vaccination hubs during the vaccine administration rollout in North West London, and the risk of contracting COVID-19 or becoming hospitalized after vaccination has been demonstrated to be low in the vaccinated population. This study provides further evidence that a single dose of either the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine or the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is effective at reducing the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 up to 60 days across all age groups, ethnic groups, and risk categories in an urban UK population.     

SARS-CoV-2-antibody response in health care workers after vaccination or natural infection in a longitudinal observational study

BackgroundFollowing a year of development, several vaccines have been approved to contain the global COVID-19 pandemic. Real world comparative data on immune response following vaccination or natural infection are rare.MethodsWe conducted a longitudinal observational study in employees at a secondary care hospital affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparisons were made about the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunglobulin G (IgG) antibody ratio after natural infection, or vaccination with one or two doses of BioNTech/Pfizer (BNT162b2), or one dose of AstraZenca (Vaxzevria) vaccine.ResultsWe found a 100% humoral response rate in participants after 2 doses of BNT162b2 vaccine. The antibody ratio in participants with one dose BNT162b2 and Vaxzevria did not differ significantly to those with previous PCR-confirmed infection, whereas this was significantly lower in comparison to two doses of BioNTech/Pfizer. We could not identify a correlation with previous comorbidities, obesity or age within this study. Smoking showed a negative effect on the antibody response (p = 0.006)ConclusionOur data provide an overview about humoral immune response after natural SARS-CoV-2 infection or following vaccination, and supports the usage of booster vaccinations, especially in patients after a natural SARS-CoV-2 infection.     

COVID-19 vaccinations in Bhutan – Mix-and-Match to Boosters: An experience

Bhutan – a landlocked least developed country in the Himalayas – vaccinated 94% of its adults with the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine in March-April 2021, 90.2% with second dose in July 2021, and 89.1% with booster (third) dose by March 2022.The country used COVISHIELD (Oxford-Astrazeneca) vaccine for the first dose but decided to pursue a heterologous prime-boost strategy (“mix-and-match”) for the second dose using Moderna’s mRNA vaccine for adults.Bhutan rapidly rolled out Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for 12 to 17-year-olds through a school-based vaccination strategy followed by booster doses: 78.6% of adolescents aged 12–17 years were vaccinated with the first dose by August 2021, 92.8% with second dose by November 2021, and 79.7% with booster (third) dose by March 2022. More than 97% of children aged 5 to 11 years have received Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine for their first dose.Bhutan is steadily vaccinating its population and might soon become one of the few least developed countries to achieve herd immunity-level vaccination coverage with more than 80% of its population fully vaccinated.     

Assessing the long-stand antibody response induced by COVID-19 vaccines: A study in an educational cohort in San Luis,Argentina

BackgroundAlthough there has developed an increased interest in the vaccines BNT1622b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna/NIAID), and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca/University of Oxford), there are still few reports describing the immune response induced by different vaccine platforms in real-world settings of low-income countries. Here, we proposed to analyse the humoral immune response elicited by the primary vaccines used in Argentina from July-December 2021.MethodsAnti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike-RBD IgG and neutralising antibodies were assayed by ELISA in a total of 871 serum samples obtained from 376 volunteers from an educational staff. The individuals were vaccinated with BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca/University of Oxford, AZ), Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V, SpV) or combined vaccines (mostly SpV and mRNA-1273, Moderna). The antibody response was analysed several days after the initial vaccination (20, 40, 120 and 180 days).ResultsAfter receiving at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, we detected 93.34% of seroprevalence. Previously SARS-CoV-2 infected showed higher antibody concentrations compared with naïve vaccinees. Six months after the initial vaccination, combined vaccination induced higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels than the other vaccines in naïve volunteers. However, we did not find differences in the neutralising responses after any vaccine from naïve vaccines or between the naïve and previously infected volunteers on day 120 after vaccination.ConclusionsOur long-term analysis of volunteers from the educational system provides data in a real-world context, showing the benefits of a boost dose still in previously infected volunteers, and suggesting the advantages of a heterologous prime-boost schedule.     

COVID-19 Vaccine Perception in South Korea: Web Crawling Approach

BackgroundThe US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization emphasized vaccination against COVID-19 because physical distancing proved inadequate to mitigate death, illness, and massive economic loss.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate Korean citizens’ perceptions of vaccines by examining their views on COVID-19 vaccines, their positive and negative perceptions of each vaccine, and ways to enhance policies to increase vaccine acceptance.MethodsThis cross-sectional study analyzed posts on NAVER and Instagram to examine Korean citizens’ perception of COVID-19 vaccines. The keywords searched were “vaccine,” “AstraZeneca,” and “Pfizer.” In total 8100 posts in NAVER and 5291 posts in Instagram were sampled through web crawling. Morphology analysis was performed, overlapping or meaningless words were removed, sentiment analysis was implemented, and 3 public health professionals reviewed the results.ResultsThe findings revealed a negative perception of COVID-19 vaccines; of the words crawled, the proportion of negative words for AstraZeneca was 71.0% (476/670) and for Pfizer was 56.3% (498/885). Among words crawled with “vaccine,” “good” ranked first, with a frequency of 13.43% (312/2323). Meanwhile, “side effect” ranked highest, with a frequency of 29.2% (163/559) for “AstraZeneca,” but 0.6% (4/673) for “Pfizer.” With “vaccine,” positive words were more frequently used, whereas with “AstraZeneca” and “Pfizer” negative words were prevalent.ConclusionsThere is a negative perception of AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines in Korea, with 1 in 4 people refusing vaccination. To address this, accurate information needs to be shared about vaccines including AstraZeneca, and the experiences of those vaccinated. Furthermore, government communication about risk management is required to increase the AstraZeneca vaccination rate for herd immunity before the vaccine expires.     

Using the precaution adoption process model to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine in England

BackgroundCOVID-19 continues to pose a threat to public health. Booster vaccine programmes are critical to maintain population-level immunity. Stage theory models of health behaviour can help our understanding of vaccine decision-making in the context of perceived threats of COVID-19.PurposeTo use the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine (CBV) in England.MethodsAn online, cross-sectional survey informed by the PAPM, the extended Theory of Planned Behaviour and Health Belief Model administered to people over the age of 50 residing in England, UK in October 2021. A multivariate, multinomial logistic regression model was used to examine associations with the different stages of CBV decision-making.ResultsOf the total 2,004 participants: 135 (6.7%) were unengaged with the CBV programme; 262 (13.1%) were undecided as to whether to have a CBV; 31 (1.5%) had decided not to have a CBV; 1,415 (70.6%) had decided to have a CBV; and 161 (8.0%) had already had their CBV. Being unengaged was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system to protect against COVID-19, being employed, and low household income; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, subjective norms, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, and higher academic qualifications. Being undecided was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system and having previously received the Oxford/AstraZeneca (as opposed to Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, positive attitudes regarding CBV, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, white British ethnicity, and living in East Midlands (vs London).ConclusionsPublic health interventions promoting CBV may improve uptake through tailored messaging directed towards the specific decision stage relating to having a COVID-19 booster.     

Immunogenicity,efficacy, and safety of CoronaVac and Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccines in patients with psoriasis receiving systemic therapies: A prospective cohort study

Background and objectivesEvidence of immune response to COVID-19 vaccine in psoriasis patients on biological agents is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels following vaccination with CoronaVac or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA in patients using biological agents or methotrexate, high-titer antibody levels achievement rate, and impact of medications on immunogenicity.MethodsThis noninterventional, prospective cohort study included 89 patients and 40 controls vaccinated with two doses of inactivated (CoronaVac) or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccines. Anti-spike and neutralising antibodies were analysed before and three to six weeks after the second dose. Adverse effects and symptomatic COVID-19 were assessed.ResultsMedian anti-spike and neutralising antibody titers after CoronaVac were significantly lower in patients than controls (57.92 U/mL vs 125.4 U/mL, and 1/6 vs 1/32, respectively, p < 0.05). Patients were less likely to achieve high-titer anti-spike antibody levels (25.6 % vs 50 %). Infliximab was associated with attenuated vaccine response.Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine induced comparable median anti-spike (2,080 U/mL vs 2,976.5 U/mL,) and neutralising antibody levels (1/96 vs 1/160) in patients and controls, respectively (p > 0.05). High-titer anti-spike and neutralising antibodies development rates were comparable among patients and controls (95.2 % vs 100 %, and 30.4 % vs 50.0 %, respectively, p > 0.05).Nine (10.1 %) COVID-19 cases- all mild - were identified. Psoriasis flare was seen in 6.74 %, mostly after Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.ConclusionPsoriasis patients treated with biological agents and methotrexate developed similar response to mRNA vaccine but weaker response to inactivated vaccine. Infliximab reduced response to the inactivated vaccine. Adverse effects were more frequent with mRNA vaccine, but none was severe.     

Estimating the cost of COVID-19 vaccine deployment and introduction in Ghana using the CVIC tool

BackgroundThis study estimated cost of COVID-19 vaccine introduction and deployment in Ghana.MethodsUsing the WHO-UNICEF COVID-19 Vaccine Introduction and deployment Costing (CVIC) tool Ghana’s Ministry of Health Technical Working Group for Health Technology Assessment (TWG-HTA) in collaboration with School of Public Health, University of Ghana, organized an initial two-day workshop that brought together partners to deliberate and agree on input parameters to populate the CVIC tool. A further 2–3 days validation with the Expanded Program of Immunization (EPI) and other partners to finalize the analysis was done. Three scenarios, with different combinations of vaccine products and delivery modalities, as well as time period were analyzed. The scenarios included AstraZeneca (40%), Johnson & Johnson (J&J) (30%), Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V at 10% each; with primary schedule completed by second half of 2021 (Scenario 1); AstraZeneca (30%), J&J (40%), Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V at 10% each with primary schedule completed by first half of 2022 (Scenario 2); and equal distribution (20%) among AstraZeneca, J&J, Moderna, Pfizer, and Sputnik V with primary schedule completed by second half of 2022 (Scenario 3).ResultsThe estimated total cost of COVID-19 vaccination ranges between $348.7 and $436.1 million for the target population of 17.5 million. These translate into per person completed primary schedule cost of $20.9–$26.2 and per dose (including vaccine cost) of $10.5–$13.1. Again, per person completed primary schedule excluding vaccine cost was $4.5 and $4.6, thus per dose excluding vaccine also ranged from $2.2 – $2.3. The main cost driver was vaccine doses, including shipping, which accounts for between 78% and 83% of total cost. Further, an estimated 8,437–10,247 vaccinators (non-FTEs) would be required during 2021–2022 to vaccinate using a mix of delivery strategies, accounting for 8–10% of total cost.ConclusionThese findings provide the estimates to inform resource mobilization efforts by government and other partners.     

The correlates and dynamics of COVID-19 vaccine-specific hesitancy

Most work on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has focused on its attitudinal and demographic correlates among individuals, but the characteristics of vaccines themselves also appear to be important. People are more willing to take vaccines with higher reported levels of efficacy and safety. Has this dynamic sparked comparative hesitancy towards specific COVID-19 vaccines? We conduct a series of cross-sectional survey experiments to test for brand-based differences in perceived effectiveness, perceived safety, and vaccination intention. Examining more than 6,200 individuals in a series of cross-sectional surveys, we find considerably more reluctance to take the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines compared to those from Pfizer and Moderna if offered, despite all vaccines being approved and deemed safe and effective by a federal regulator. Comparative hesitancy towards these vaccines grew over the course of fielding as controversy arose over their link to extremely rare, but serious side effects. Comparative vaccine-specific hesitancy is strongest among people who are usually most open to mass vaccination efforts. Its effects are substantial: most respondents reported a willingness to wait months for their preferred vaccine rather than receive either the AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson vaccine immediately. Our findings call for additional research on the determinants and consequences of COVID-19 vaccine-specific hesitancy and communication strategies to minimize this challenge.     

Risk-based cost-benefit analysis of alternative vaccines against COVID-19 in Brazil: Coronavac vs. Astrazeneca vs. Pfizer

We propose a probabilistic model to quantify the cost-benefit of mass Vaccination Scenarios (VSs) against COVID-19. Through this approach, we conduct a six-month simulation, from August 31st, 2021 to March 3rd, 2022, of nine VSs, i.e., the three primary vaccine brands in Brazil (CoronaVac, AstraZeneca and Pfizer), each with three different vaccination rates (2nd doses per week). Since each vaccine has different individual-level effectiveness, we measure the population-level benefit as the probability of reaching herd immunity (HI). We quantify and categorize the cost-benefit of VSs through risk graphs that show: (i) monetary cost vs. probability of reaching HI; and (ii) number of new deaths vs. probability of reaching HI. Results show that AstraZeneca has the best cost-benefit when prioritizing acquisition costs, while Pfizer is the most cost-beneficial when prioritizing the number of deaths. This work provides helpful information that can aid public health authorities in Brazil to better plan VSs. Furthermore, our approach is not restricted to Brazil, the COVID-19 pandemic, or the mentioned vaccine brands. Indeed, the method is flexible so that this study can be a valuable reference for future cost-benefit analyses in other countries and pandemics, especially in the early stages of vaccination, when data is scarce and uncertainty is high.     

Did the temporary suspension of Vaxzveria vaccinations influence COVID-19 vaccination intentions,vaccination perceptions and trust in the vaccination campaign? A repeated survey study in the Netherlands

In spring 2021, several countries, among which the Netherlands, suspended vaccinations against COVID-19 with the Vaxzevria vaccine from AstraZeneca after reports of rare but severe adverse events. This study investigates the influence of this suspension on the Dutch public’s perceptions of COVID-19 vaccinations, trust in the government’s vaccination campaign, and COVID-19 vaccination intentions. We conducted two surveys in a population of general Dutch public (18 + ), one shortly before the pause of AstraZeneca vaccinations and one shortly thereafter (N eligible for analysis = 2628). Our results suggest no changes in perceptions nor intentions regarding the COVID-19 vaccines in general but do suggest a decline in trust in the government’s vaccination campaign. In addition, after the suspension, perceptions of the AstraZeneca vaccines were more negative in comparison to those of COVID-19 vaccinations in general. AstraZeneca vaccination intentions were also considerably lower. These results stress the need to adapt vaccination policies to anticipated public perceptions and responses following a vaccine safety scare, as well as the importance of informing citizens about the possibility of very rare adverse events prior to the introduction of novel vaccines.     

COVID-19 booster vaccination during pregnancy enhances maternal binding and neutralizing antibody responses and transplacental antibody transfer to the newborn

The immune response to COVID-19 booster vaccinations during pregnancy for mothers and their newborns and the functional response of vaccine-induced antibodies against Omicron variants are not well characterized. We conducted a prospective, multicenter cohort study of participants vaccinated during pregnancy with primary or booster mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from July 2021 to January 2022 at 9 academic sites. We determined SARS-CoV-2 binding and live virus and pseudovirus neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers pre- and post-vaccination, and at delivery for both maternal and infant participants. Immune responses to ancestral and Omicron BA.1 SARS-CoV-2 strains were compared between primary and booster vaccine recipients in maternal sera at delivery and in cord blood, after adjusting for days since last vaccination.A total of 240 participants received either Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine during pregnancy (primary 2-dose series: 167; booster dose: 73). Booster vaccination resulted in significantly higher binding and nAb titers, including to the Omicron BA.1 variant, in maternal serum at delivery and in cord blood compared to a primary 2-dose series (range 0.44–0.88 log₁₀ higher, p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Live virus nAb to Omicron BA.1 were present at delivery in 9 % (GMT ID50 12.7) of Pfizer and 22 % (GMT ID50 14.7) of Moderna primary series recipients, and in 73 % (GMT ID50 60.2) of mRNA boosted participants (p < 0.0001), although titers were significantly lower than to the D614G strain. Transplacental antibody transfer was efficient for all regimens with median transfer ratio range: 1.55–1.77 for IgG, 1.00–1.78 for live virus nAb and 1.79–2.36 for pseudovirus nAb. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination during pregnancy elicited robust immune responses in mothers and efficient transplacental antibody transfer to the newborn. A booster dose during pregnancy significantly increased maternal and cord blood binding and neutralizing antibody levels, including against Omicron BA.1. Findings support the use of a booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy.     

Seropositivity to Nucleoprotein to detect mild and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: A complementary tool to detect breakthrough infections after COVID-19 vaccination?

BackgroundWith COVID-19 vaccine roll-out ongoing in many countries globally, monitoring of breakthrough infections is of great importance. Antibodies persist in the blood after a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Since COVID-19 vaccines induce immune response to the Spike protein of the virus, which is the main serosurveillance target to date, alternative targets should be explored to distinguish infection from vaccination.MethodsMultiplex immunoassay data from 1,513 SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR-tested individuals (352 positive and 1,161 negative) without COVID-19 vaccination history were used to determine the accuracy of Nucleoprotein-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) in detecting past SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also described Spike S1 and Nucleoprotein-specific IgG responses in 230 COVID-19 vaccinated individuals (Pfizer/BioNTech).ResultsThe sensitivity of Nucleoprotein seropositivity was 85% (95% confidence interval: 80–90%) for mild COVID-19 in the first two months following symptom onset. Sensitivity was lower in asymptomatic individuals (67%, 50–81%). Participants who had experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 11 months preceding vaccination, as assessed by Spike S1 seropositivity or RT-qPCR, produced 2.7-fold higher median levels of IgG to Spike S1 ≥ 14 days after the first dose as compared to those unexposed to SARS-CoV-2 at ≥ 7 days after the second dose (p = 0.011). Nucleoprotein-specific IgG concentrations were not affected by vaccination in infection-naïve participants.ConclusionsSerological responses to Nucleoprotein may prove helpful in identifying SARS-CoV-2 infections after vaccination. Furthermore, it can help interpret IgG to Spike S1 after COVID-19 vaccination as particularly high responses shortly after vaccination could be explained by prior exposure history.     

Immune thrombocytopenia following immunisation with Vaxzevria ChadOx1-S (AstraZeneca) vaccine,Victoria, Australia

Emerging evidence suggest a possible association between immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and some formulations of COVID-19 vaccine. We conducted a retrospective case series of ITP following vaccination with Vaxzevria ChadOx1-S (AstraZeneca) and mRNA Comirnaty BNT162b2 COVID-19 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccines and compare the incidence to expected background rates for Victoria during the first six months of the Australian COVID-19 vaccination roll-out in 2021. Cases were identified by reports to the Victorian state vaccine safety service, SAEFVIC, of individuals aged 18 years or older presenting with thrombocytopenia following COVID-19 vaccination without evidence of thrombosis. Twenty-one confirmed or probable cases of ITP were identified following receipt of AstraZeneca (n = 17) or Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 4) vaccines. This translates to an observed incidence of 8 per million doses for AstraZeneca vaccine, twice the expected background rate of 4.1 per million. The observed rate for Pfizer-BioNTech was consistent with the expected background rate. The median time to onset for the cases post AstraZeneca vaccination was 10 days (range 1–78) and median platelet nadir 5 × 10⁹/L (range 0–67 × 10⁹/L). Hospital presentations or admissions for management of symptoms such as bleeding occurred in 18 (86%) of the cases. The majority of cases (n = 11) required intervention with at least 2 therapy modalities. In conclusion, we observed a substantially higher than expected rate of ITP following AstraZeneca vaccination. ITP is the second haematological adverse event, distinct from that of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), observed following AstraZeneca vaccination.     

Immunological responses and adverse reactions of the heterologous second booster dose of BNT162b2 after two-dose CoronaVac for COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers of Faculty of Medicine,Naresuan University

BackgroundThe first COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Thailand began in April 2020, with healthcare workers receiving two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac). However, the emergence of the delta and omicron variants raised concerns about vaccine effectiveness. The Thai Ministry of Public Health provided the first booster dose (third dose) and second booster dose (fourth dose) of the mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) for healthcare workers. This study investigated the immunity and adverse reactions elicited by a heterologous second booster dose of BNT162b2 after a two-dose CoronaVac vaccination for COVID-19 in healthcare workers of the Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University.MethodsIgG titres against the SARS-CoV-2-spike protein were measured four and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2 in the study participants. Adverse reactions were recorded during the first three days, four weeks and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2.ResultsIgG against the SARS-CoV-2-spike protein was positive (>10 U/ml) in 246 of 247 participants (99.6 %) at both four and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2. The median specific IgG titres at four and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2 were 299 U/ml (min: 2, max: 29,161) and 104 U/ml (min: 1, max: 17,920), respectively. The median IgG level declined significantly 24 weeks after the second booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Of the 247 participants, 179 (72.5 %) experienced adverse reactions in the first three days after the second booster dose of BNT162b2. Myalgia, fever, headache, injection site pain and fatigue were the most common adverse reactions.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that a heterologous second booster dose of BNT162b2 after two doses of CoronaVac induced elevated IgG against the SARS-CoV-2-spike protein and caused minor adverse reactions in healthcare workers of the Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University.This study was registered as Thailand Clinical Trials No. TCTR20221112001.     

Underserved population acceptance of combination influenza-COVID-19 booster vaccines

Recent data indicates increasing hesitancy towards both COVID-19 and influenza vaccination. We studied attitudes towards COVID-19 booster, influenza, and combination influenza-COVID-19 booster vaccines in a nationally representative sample of US adults between May and June 2021 (n = 12,887). We used pre-qualification quotes to ensure adequate sample sizes for minority populations. Overall vaccine acceptance was 45% for a COVID-19 booster alone, 58% for an influenza vaccine alone, and 50% for a combination vaccine. Logistic regression showed lower acceptance among female, Black/African American, Native American/American Indian, and rural respondents. Higher acceptance was found among those with college and post-graduate degrees. Despite these differences, our results suggest that a combination vaccine may provide a convenient method of dual vaccination that may increase COVID-19 vaccination coverage.     

Efficacy and safety of mRNA and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: A systematic review

BackgroundPatients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARD) are at a potentially higher risk for COVID-19 infection complications. Given their inherent altered immune system and the use of immunomodulatory medications, vaccine immunogenicity could be unpredictable with a suboptimal or even an exaggerated immunological response. The aim of this study is to provide real-time data on the emerging evidence of COVID-19 vaccines' efficacy and safety in patients with ARDs.MethodsWe performed a literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and OVID databases up to 11–13 April 2022 on the efficacy and safety of both types of the mRNA-vaccines and the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines in patients with ARD. The risk of bias in the retrieved studies was evaluated using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. Also, current clinical practice guidelines from multiple international professional societies were reviewed.ResultsWe identified 60 prognostic studies, 69 case reports and case series, and eight international clinical practice guidelines. Our results demonstrated that most patients with ARDs were able to mount humoral and/or cellular responses after two doses of COVID-19 vaccine although this response was suboptimal in patients receiving certain disease-modifying medications including rituximab, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, daily glucocorticoids >10 mg, abatacept, as well as in older individuals, and those with comorbid interstitial lung diseases. Safety reports on COVID-19 vaccines in patients with ARDs were largely reassuring with mostly self-limiting adverse events and very minimal post-vaccination disease flares.ConclusionBoth types of the mRNA-vaccines and the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective and safe in patients with ARD. However, due to their suboptimal response in some patients, alternative mitigation strategies such as booster vaccines and shielding practices should also be followed. Management of immunomodulatory treatment regimens during the peri vaccination period should be individualized through shared decision making with patients and their attending rheumatologists.