Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Turk J Med Sci ; 52(6): 1754-1761, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2207222

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Data on antibody response following COVID-19 in kidney transplant recipients is scarce. This crosssectional study aims to investigate the antibody response to COVID-19 among kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: We recruited 46 kidney transplant recipients with RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and 45 recipients without COVID-19 history. We also constructed two control groups (COVID-19 positive and negative) from a historical cohort of healthcare workers. We used age and sex-based propensity score matching to select the eligible subjects to the control groups. We measured the SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels quantitatively using the Abbott ARCHITECT system. An antibody level above 1.4 S/C was defined as positivity. RESULTS: Transplant recipients with COVID-19 had a higher BMI, and COVID-19 history in a household member was more common than that of the transplant recipient without COVID-19. IgG seropositivity rate (69.6% vs. 78.3%, p = 0.238) and the median IgG level (3.28 [IQR: 0.80-5.85] vs. 4.59 [IQR: 1.61-6.06], p = 0.499) were similar in COVID-19-positive transplant recipients and controls. Kidney transplant recipients who had a longer duration between RT-PCR and antibody testing had lower antibody levels (r = -0.532, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: At the early post-COVID-19 period, kidney transplant recipients have a similar antibody response to controls. However, these patients' antibody levels and immunity should be closely monitored in the long term.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Kidney Transplantation , Humans , Transplant Recipients , Antibody Formation , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Polymerase Chain Reaction , Health Personnel , Antibodies, Viral , Immunoglobulin G , COVID-19 Testing
2.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(11)2022 Nov 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2099908

ABSTRACT

We present the interim results of the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the two-dose schedules of TURKOVAC versus CoronaVac. This was a randomized, observer-blinded, non-inferiority trial (NCT04942405). Volunteers were 18-55 years old and randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive either TURKOVAC or CoronaVac at Day 0 and Day 28, both of which are 3 µg/0.5 mL of inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) adsorbed to aluminum hydroxide. The primary efficacy outcome was the prevention of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at least 14 days after the second dose in the modified per-protocol (mPP) group. Safety analyses were performed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) group. Between 22 June 2021 and 7 January 2022, 1290 participants were randomized. The mITT group consisted of 915 participants, and the mPP group consisted of 732 participants. During a median follow-up of 90 (IQR 86-90) days, the relative risk reduction with TURKOVAC compared to CoronaVac was 41.03% (95% CI 12.95-60.06) for preventing PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19. The incidences of adverse events (AEs) overall were 58.8% in TURKOVAC and 49.7% in CoronaVac arms (p = 0.006), with no fatalities or grade four AEs. TURKOVAC was non-inferior to CoronaVac in terms of efficacy and demonstrated a good safety and tolerability profile.

3.
Lancet ; 398(10296): 213-222, 2021 07 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1598580

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: CoronaVac, an inactivated whole-virion SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, has been shown to be well tolerated with a good safety profile in individuals aged 18 years and older in phase 1/2 trials, and provided a good humoral response against SARS-CoV-2. We present the interim efficacy and safety results of a phase 3 clinical trial of CoronaVac in Turkey. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Volunteers aged 18-59 years with no history of COVID-19 and with negative PCR and antibody test results for SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled at 24 centres in Turkey. Exclusion criteria included (but were not limited to) immunosuppressive therapy (including steroids) within the past 6 months, bleeding disorders, asplenia, and receipt of any blood products or immunoglobulins within the past 3 months. The K1 cohort consisted of health-care workers (randomised in a 1:1 ratio), and individuals other than health-care workers were also recruited into the K2 cohort (randomised in a 2:1 ratio) using an interactive web response system. The study vaccine was 3 µg inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virion adsorbed to aluminium hydroxide in a 0·5 mL aqueous suspension. Participants received either vaccine or placebo (consisting of all vaccine components except inactivated virus) intramuscularly on days 0 and 14. The primary efficacy outcome was the prevention of PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 at least 14 days after the second dose in the per protocol population. Safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04582344) and is active but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Among 11 303 volunteers screened between Sept 14, 2020, and Jan 5, 2021, 10 218 were randomly allocated. After exclusion of four participants from the vaccine group because of protocol deviations, the intention-to-treat group consisted of 10 214 participants (6646 [65·1%] in the vaccine group and 3568 [34·9%] in the placebo group) and the per protocol group consisted of 10 029 participants (6559 [65·4%] and 3470 [34·6%]) who received two doses of vaccine or placebo. During a median follow-up period of 43 days (IQR 36-48), nine cases of PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 were reported in the vaccine group (31·7 cases [14·6-59·3] per 1000 person-years) and 32 cases were reported in the placebo group (192·3 cases [135·7-261·1] per 1000 person-years) 14 days or more after the second dose, yielding a vaccine efficacy of 83·5% (95% CI 65·4-92·1; p<0·0001). The frequencies of any adverse events were 1259 (18·9%) in the vaccine group and 603 (16·9%) in the placebo group (p=0·0108) with no fatalities or grade 4 adverse events. The most common systemic adverse event was fatigue (546 [8·2%] participants in the vaccine group and 248 [7·0%] the placebo group, p=0·0228). Injection-site pain was the most frequent local adverse event (157 [2·4%] in the vaccine group and 40 [1·1%] in the placebo group, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: CoronaVac has high efficacy against PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 with a good safety and tolerability profile. FUNDING: Turkish Health Institutes Association.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/prevention & control , Double-Blind Method , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Turkey , Vaccination , Vaccines, Inactivated/administration & dosage , Vaccines, Inactivated/immunology , Virion/immunology
4.
Lancet ; 398(10314): 1874, 2021 11 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1519991
5.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0247865, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1115305

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 is a global threat with an increasing number of infections. Research on IgG seroprevalence among health care workers (HCWs) is needed to re-evaluate health policies. This study was performed in three pandemic hospitals in Istanbul and Kocaeli. Different clusters of HCWs were screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Seropositivity rate among participants was evaluated by chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. We recruited 813 non-infected and 119 PCR-confirmed infected HCWs. Of the previously undiagnosed HCWs, 22 (2.7%) were seropositive. Seropositivity rates were highest for cleaning staff (6%), physicians (4%), nurses (2.2%) and radiology technicians (1%). Non-pandemic clinic (6.4%) and ICU (4.3%) had the highest prevalence. HCWs in "high risk" group had similar seropositivity rate with "no risk" group (2.9 vs 3.5 p = 0.7). These findings might lead to the re-evaluation of infection control and transmission dynamics in hospitals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/trends , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Hospitals/trends , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/trends , Pandemics , Prevalence , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Turkey/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL