ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The mass vaccination campaign against SARS-CoV-2 was started in Tunisia on 13 March 2021 by using progressively seven different vaccines approved for emergency use. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the humoral and cellular immunity in subjects aged 40 years and over who received one of the following two-dose regimen vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, namely mRNA-1273 or Spikevax (Moderna), BNT162B2 or Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech), Gam-COVID-Vac or Sputnik V (Gamaleya Research Institute), ChAdOx1-S or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca), BIBP (Sinopharm), and Coronavac (Sinovac). MATERIAL AND METHODS: For each type of vaccine, a sample of subjects aged 40 and over was randomly selected from the national platform for monitoring COVID-19 vaccination and contacted to participate to this study. All consenting participants were sampled for peripheral blood at 3-7 weeks after the second vaccine dose to perform anti-S and anti-N serology by the Elecsys® (Lenexa, KS, USA) anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays (Roche® Basel, Switzerland). The CD4 and CD8 T cell responses were evaluated by the QuantiFERON® SARS-CoV-2 (Qiagen® Basel, Switzerland) for a randomly selected sub-group. RESULTS: A total of 501 people consented to the study and, of them, 133 were included for the cellular response investigations. Both humoral and cellular immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 antigens differed significantly between all tested groups. RNA vaccines induced the highest levels of humoral and cellular anti-S responses followed by adenovirus vaccines and then by inactivated vaccines. Vaccines from the same platform induced similar levels of specific anti-S immune responses except in the case of the Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccine, which exhibited contrasting effects on humoral and cellular responses. When analyses were performed in subjects with negative anti-N antibodies, results were similar to those obtained within the total cohort, except for the Moderna vaccine, which gave a better cellular immune response than the Pfizer vaccine and RNA vaccines, which induced similar cellular immune responses to those of adenovirus vaccines. CONCLUSION: Collectively, our data confirmed the superiority of the RNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, in particular that of Moderna, for both humoral and cellular immunogenicity. Our results comparing between different vaccine platforms in a similar population are of great importance since they may help decision makers to adopt the best strategy for further national vaccination programs.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is a major public health issue. In a context of limited diagnostic capacity with the reference technique (real-time RT-PCR), many manufacturers have developed rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). Although very promising in theory, these tests have raised many questions. This article is a rapid review that synthesizes data regarding different types of available RDTs, their performance, their limits and their potential indications in Tunisia as proposed by a multidisciplinary group of experts. METHODS: A literature review was carried out on the websites of international organizations, governmental bodies and on INAHTA database, completed by a search of relevant scientific articles up to 1 June 2020. The synthesis of the data was submitted to a panel of experts to propose recommendations for the Tunisian context. RESULTS: RDTs based on the detection of antigens and antibodies have sensitivity and specificity related issues. Few validation reports are published in the scientific literature. Pending more evidence on their performance and validity, several international organizations recommend their use only for research purposes. TDRs based on antibody detection are not appropriate for the early diagnosis of COVID-19. However, validated and specific tests could provide complementary diagnostic information to reference tests. CONCLUSION: Pending further evidence, the panel recommends the use of RDTs mainly for research purposes at the community level.