ABSTRACT
Reliable immunoassays are essential to early predict and monitor vaccine efficacy against SARS-CoV-2. The performance of an Interferon Gamma Release Assay (IGRA, QuantiFERON® SARS-CoV-2), and a current anti-spike serological test, compared to a plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) taken as gold standard were compared. Eighty vaccinated individuals, whose 16% had a previous history of COVID-19, were included in a longitudinal prospective study and sampled before and two to four weeks after each dose of vaccine. In non-infected patients, 2 doses were required for obtaining both positive IGRA and PRNT assays, while serology was positive after one dose. Each dose of vaccine significantly increased the humoral and cellular response. By contrast, convalescent subjects needed a single dose of vaccine to be positive on all 3 tests. Both IGRA and current serology assay were found predictive of a positive titer of neutralizing antibodies that is correlated with vaccine protection. Patients over 65 or 80 years old had a significantly reduced response. The response tended to be better with the heterologous scheme (vs. homologous) and with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (vs. BNT162b2) in the homologous group, in patients under 55 and under 65 years old, respectively. Finally, decrease intensity or absence of IGRA response and to a less extent of anti-spike serology were also correlated to reinfection which has occurred during the follow up. In conclusion, both IGRA and current anti-spike serology assays could be used at defined thresholds to monitor the vaccine response against SARS-CoV-2 and to simply identify non-responding individuals after a complete vaccination scheme. Two available specific tests (IGRA and anti-spike antibodies) could early assess the vaccine-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2 at the individual scale, to potentially adapt the vaccination scheme in non-responder patients.
ABSTRACT
Context: After a COVID-19 infection, some patients have persistent symptoms, the most common is fatigue. To prevent it from becoming chronic (post-COVID-19 syndrome), early management before 3 months could be useful. Exercise and education are recommended. Objective: To assess fatigue in patients with prolonged symptoms after COVID-19 infection and who received a mixed program of remote adapted physical activity and therapeutic education. The secondary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this training method thanks to aerobic and anaerobic parameters. Methods: "CoviMouv': From Coaching in Visual to Mouv in real" is a nonrandomized controlled pilot study. Patients in telerehabilitation followed 12 remote exercise sessions and 3 therapeutic education workshops. Patients on traditional rehabilitation followed their program with a community-based physiotherapist. Results: Fatigue was reduced after the one-month intervention in both groups (p = 0.010). The majority of aerobic parameters were significantly improved, e.g., maximal oxygen uptake (p = 0.005), walking distance (p = 0.019) or hyperventilation values (p = 0.035). The anaerobic parameter was not improved (p = 0.400). No adverse event was declared. Discussion: Telerehabilitation is a good alternative when a face-to-face program is not possible. This care at an early stage of the disease could help prevent the chronicity of post-COVID-19 symptoms and the installation of vicious circles of physical deconditioning. A larger study would be necessary.
ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the closure of most cardiac therapy centers. One of the solutions was to adapt the existing cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program in an institute to a remote approach offered by home-based telerehabilitation. The aim of this study was to measure the cardiorespiratory effects of telerehabilitation compared to conventional center-based CR. Methods: Patients were assigned to two 3-week CR programs: telerehabilitation and conventional center-based CR. The telerehabilitation group wore a connected watch to monitor heart rate (HR) and gave their perception of effort according to a modified Borg scale. The exercise training (four sessions/week) consisted of 1-h aerobic endurance and strength training session at the target HR zone determined by results based on cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) and perception of effort, respectively. The exercise protocol was the same for conventional CR participants except the duration of session that lasted 2 h instead of one. The week before and after the training program, peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak), oxygen uptake at first ventilatory threshold (VO2 at VT1), peak workload, percent of predicted maximum HR, and the absolute differences in HR and systolic blood pressure between maximum and recovery at 1 and 3 min were measured using a CPET. A two-way ANOVA with one repeated measure and one independent factor was performed. Results: Fifty-four patients (mean age: 61.5 ± 8.6 years, 10 women) equally split in the two groups were included in this experiment. A significant increase was observed in both groups on VO2 peak (telerehabilitation: 8.1 ± 7.8% vs. conventional: 10.1 ± 9.7%, p < 0.001), VO2 at VT1 (telerehabilitation: 8.8 ± 4.4% vs. conventional: 7.3 ± 19.0%, p = 0.02) and peak workload (telerehabilitation: 16.6 ± 18.9% vs. conventional: 17.2 ± 7.0%, p < 0.001) after the 3-week telerehabilitation and conventional CR, respectively. No significant difference was noticed between both groups. Conclusion: A 3-week exercise program improved patients' cardiorespiratory fitness. Telerehabilitation was as effective and represents a safe alternative CR program during the COVID-19 period. In the future, this approach could facilitate the continuity of care for patients unable to participate in center-based CR.