ABSTRACT
The medical community is interested in the duration of immune protection and the level of specific antibodies (AB) that can pre-vent reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. Objective. To perform a comparative evaluation of efficacy and immunogenicity of Gam-COVID-Vac and CoviVac vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in a prospective observational study. Material and methods. The following vaccines were used for the vaccination of subjects (n=3322) aged 18 years and older: Gam-COVID-Vac - 1,622 (48.8%) subjects (group I), CoviVac - 1,700 (51.2%) subjects (group II). Vaccinated subjects were fol-lowed up for 6 study visits: before the 1st component of the vaccine, before the 2nd component of the vaccine, 42 days, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after the 1st component of the vaccine. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels of AB to S protein were compared after the injection of Gam-COVID-Vac and CoviVac vaccines using an enzyme immunoassay. Statistical processing of the obtained data was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics v. 24 and MedCalc v. 20.104 software. Results. Group I subjects showed an increase in specific AB (IgG) levels to SARS-CoV-2 S protein from visit 1 to visits 2 and 3 (p<0.05). In more extended follow-up periods (visits 5, 6), AB levels in groups I and II did not differ significantly and remained sufficiently high by visit 6. Within one year of follow-up, the incidence of COVID-19 (confirmed by polymerase chain reaction) was significantly (p<0.01) lower in the Gam-COVID-Vac group (group I): 22.2% vs. 45.2% in the CoviVac group (group II). The maximum number of days (p<0.05) before the COVID-19 infection was observed in those vaccinated with Gam-COVID-Vac (221 days) compared to those immunized with CoviVac (159 days). Conclusion. The Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine is more effective against COVID-19 and induces a more rapid response of the hu-moral immune system than the CoviVac vaccine. However, the duration of the humoral immune response after administration of Gam-COVID-Vac and CoviVac was similar. Copyright © 2022, Media Sphera Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Difficulties in the differential diagnosis of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and acute myopericarditis during the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) pandemic appear to be a relevant and interesting issue. We present a clinical case of a 55-year-old female patient with an atypical presentation of NSTEMI. Initially, the disease resembles an acute viral infection. It was known that the patient came in contact with COVID-19 infection. Taking into account that the patient had dull left chest pain unrelated to physical activities, low-grade fever, elevated levels of troponin T and acute phase reactants, absence of wall motion abnormalities, the patient was assessed as having acute viral myopericarditis. Contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed signs of myocardial infarction. Coronary angiography confirmed myocardial infarction and the patient underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In the article we discuss the value of electrocardiography (ECG), echocardiography and MRI in the NSTEMI diagnosis, and also additional difficulties in the COVID-19 pandemic era. Due to high probability of myopericarditis the patient received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs instead of optimal medical therapy and early PCI. Our clinical case demonstrates that despite of COVID-19 pandemic significant elevation of troponin level requires adherence to the acute myocardial infarction algorithm. © 2021, Remedium Group Ltd. All rights reserved.