ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Studies assessing immune responses following Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 (Pfizer) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 AZD1222 (AstraZeneca) vaccines in patients with hemoglobinopathy are non-existent in the literature despite being thought at high risk of infection. METHODS: Prospectively, we collected serum from patients with hemoglobinopathies at least 14 days post vaccine and measured neutralizing antibodies (nAb) in addition to binding antibodies using in-house assays. RESULTS: All 66 participants mounted a significant binding antibody response (100%), but nAbs were detected in (56/66) post-vaccine with a rate of 84.5%. Age, gender, vaccine type, spleen status, hydroxyurea use, and hyperferritinemia did not affect the rate significantly. While 23/32 (71.8%) patients receiving only one dose of the vaccine were able to mount a positive response, 33/34 (97.05%) of those who had two doses of any vaccine type had a significant nAbs response. Patients who had anti-nucleocapsid (N), signifying asymptomatic infection in the past, were able to produce nAbs (31/31). No nAbs were detected in 10/35 (28.5%) patients with no anti-N antibodies. CONCLUSION: Our results provide supportive data when advising patients with hemoglobinopathy to receive COVID-19 vaccines and ensure booster doses are available for better immunity. Whenever available, measurement of nAb is recommended.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the era of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the race toward shielding the public through vaccination is still going. Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) require special consideration given their medical needs and the common side effects of immunization, affecting their decision. Therefore, we aimed to assess the perception and hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination in this population and explore the possible factors when it comes to vaccination decisions. METHODS: The present cross-sectional phone interview study was conducted between May 10 and 20, 2021. The questionnaire was administered by the medical staff. The participants were all patients with SCD presented to King Abdulaziz University Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Results: Out of 346 patients, 147 patients agreed to participate. Only 52 (35.37%) patients received at least one dose of the nationally available vaccines, and there were no reported serious side effects. Among the unvaccinated participants, 45 patients (47.8%) were undecided. The most reported reasons for hesitancy were the fear of developing complications as their acquaintance had and the fear of developing brain blood clots post vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The number of vaccinated patients with SCD was unfortunately low in our study, secondary to hesitancy. This represents a significant barrier and needs to be tackled appropriately at any proper interaction with a patient with SCD. The absence of major side effects and vaso-occlusive crises is assuring.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The development of anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies is linked to a rare thrombotic complication described now as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). This clinical syndrome with thrombosis and thrombocytopenia was reported after exposure to the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222), and Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson). In the absence of the clinical features, the incidence of positive anti-PF4 antibodies in asymptomatic individuals post-vaccination is unclear. METHODS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the development of anti-PF4 antibodies in asymptomatic individuals 14-21 days after receiving the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) and BNT162b2 vaccine. Prospectively, we collected serum from individuals before and after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and BNT162b2 vaccine and measured anti-PF4 antibodies using the Asserachrom HPIA IgG ELISA (Stago, Asnieres, France). RESULTS: We detected positive anti-PF4 antibodies in 5 of 94 asymptomatic individuals post-vaccine with a rate of 5.3% with low titers (OD 0.3-0.7). Four of 5 individuals who tested positive after the vaccine had also positive anti-PF4 antibodies before the vaccine, which indicates that a majority of the positive results are due to preexisting anti-PF4 antibodies. We did not find a relation between the development of anti-PF4 antibodies and the immune response to the vaccine, status of prior COVID-19 infection, and baseline characteristics of participants. None of the participants developed thrombosis nor thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION: Our results provide new evidence to guide the diagnostic algorithm of suspected cases of VITT. In the absence of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, there is a low utility of testing for anti-PF4 antibodies.