ABSTRACT
We aimed at evaluating quantitative IgG response to BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine among health care workers (HCW), and exploring the role of demographic, clinical, and occupational factors as predictors of IgG levels. On May 2021, among 6687 HCW at the largest tertiary care University-Hospital of Northwestern Italy, at a median of 15 weeks (Interquartile range-IQR 13.6-16.0) after second-dose, serological response was present in 99.8%. Seropositivity was >97% in all the subgroups, except those self-reporting immunodeficiency (94.9%). Overall, the median serological IgG value was 990 BAU/mL (IQR 551-1870), with most of subjects with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or with shorter time lapse (2-8 weeks) between vaccination and serology with values in the highest quintile (>2080). At multivariable analysis, significant predictors of lower values were increasing age, male, current smoking, immunodeficiency, recent occupational contacts, and increasing time lapse from vaccination; conversely, previous infection and recent household contacts were significantly associated with higher IgG levels. Subjects with previous infection kept a very high level (around 2000 BAU/mL) up to 120 days. These results, besides supporting a high serological response up to 4-5 months, suggest predictive factors of faster decay of IgG levels that could be useful in tailoring vaccination strategies.
ABSTRACT
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is associated with a severe respiratory disease in China, that rapidly spread across continents. Since the beginning of the pandemic, available data suggested the asymptomatic transmission and patients were treated with specific drugs with efficacy and safety data not always satisfactory. The aim of this review is to describe the vaccines developed by three companies, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca, in terms of both technological and pharmaceutical formulation, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity. A critical analysis of Phases 1, 2, and 3 clinical trial results available was conducted, comparing the three vaccine candidates, underlining their similarities and differences. All candidates showed consistent efficacy and tolerability; although some differences can be noted, such as their technological formulation, temperature storage, which will be related to logistics and costs. Further studies will be necessary to evaluate long-term effects and to assess the vaccine safety and efficacy in the general population.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Technology , Vaccine DevelopmentABSTRACT
CoViD-19 pandemic heavily impacted most on-going research activities, causing delays and need of re-programming. EASY-NET (NET-2016-02364191) is a network project, started in April 2019, co-funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and the participating regions. Within the general project, centred on the evaluation of Audit and Feedback (A&F) strategies in improving quality and equity in different health care contexts, the Piedmont region is responsible of the work package 3 (WP3) on specific oncology pathways and procedures. After a thorough evaluation of the impact of the CoViD-19 emergency on the WP3 activities, at the beginning of March 2020, the decision was to continue, with some adaptations, the audits already started, and to delay those in the early planning phase. The provisional availability of part of the time-persons involved in EASY-NET on one side, and the urgency of acquiring data on the management of the large number of CoViD-19 patients admitted to the study coordinator hospital on the other side, determined the personnel responsible of the WP3, in accordance with the hospital management, to invest these resources in monitoring the CoViD-19 hospitalized patients with both A&F activity and research objectives. Besides periodic reports, a web site, with restricted access to the involved health care personnel, was developed to allow a direct and timely consultation of graphics describing the flow of the patients, their management, and outcomes. This experience was made possible thanks to a favourable combination of different factors: the presence within the hospital of a group of experienced epidemiologists in A&F, the availability of extra resources, the strong support and collaboration by the hospital management and the readiness for authorisation by the Ethics Committee. We underline the need to provide a certain degree of flexibility in the long-term projects funded by the Ministry of Health, the extraordinary adaptability of the A&F approach also to emergency situations and the possibility of combining audit activities and research objectives in the same project.