Comparable antigen-specific T cell responses in vaccinees with diverse humoral immune responses after the primary and booster BBIBP-CorV vaccination.

BBIBP-CorV exerts efficient protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, waning vaccine-induced humoral immune responses after two-dose vaccination have significantly undermined durable immuno-protection. In this study, we have demonstrated that although anti-spike (S) antibody responses in BBIBP-CorV vaccinees exhibited three serotypes after 6 months, including de novo sero-negative, sero-positive, and sero-decay features, S-specific interferon-γ release as well as Th1 cytokine production in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were comparable, especially in vaccinees without detectable neutralizing antibodies. Notably, regardless of dramatic increases in humoral immunity after booster vaccination, T cell responses targeting S protein from either wild type or Omicron remained stable before and after booster vaccination in all three serotype vaccinees. No severe cases were observed even in the sero-decay group during the Omicron epidemic in Shanghai. Our results thus illustrate that unlike fluctuating humoral responses, viral-specific T cell responses are extremely stable after booster vaccination. Sustained T cell responses might be dedicated to the rapid restoration of antibody responses after booster vaccination.

Neutralizing activity of BBIBP-CorV vaccine-elicited sera against Beta, Delta and other SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

The global pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in the generation of variants that may diminish host immune responses to vaccine formulations. Here we show a registered observational clinical trial (NCT04795414), we assess the safety and immunogenicity of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine BBIBP-CorV in a cohort of 1006 vaccine recipients. No serious adverse events are observed during the term of the study. Detectable virus-specific antibody is measured and determined to be neutralizing in 698/760 (91.84%) vaccine recipients on day 28 post second vaccine dose and in 220/581 (37.87%) vaccine recipients on day 180 post second vaccine dose, whereas vaccine-elicited sera show varying degrees of reduction in neutralization against a range of key SARS-CoV-2 variants, including variant Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Iota, and Delta. Our work show diminished neutralization potency against multiple variants in vaccine-elicited sera, which indicates the potential need for additional boost vaccinations.

Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine does not influence the profile of prothrombotic antibody nor increase the risk of thrombosis in a prospective Chinese cohort.

The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies was shown to be associated with thrombosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Recently, according to reports from several studies, the vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia is mediated by anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4)-polyanion complex in adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccine recipients. It is impendent to explore whether inactivated COVID-19 vaccine widely used in China influences prothrombotic autoantibody production and induces thrombosis. In this prospective study, we recruited 406 healthcare workers who received two doses, 21 days apart, of inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine (BBIBP-CorV, Sinopharm). Paired blood samples taken before vaccination and four weeks after the second vaccination were used in detecting prothrombotic autoantibodies, including anticardiolipin (aCL), anti-ß2 glycoprotein I (aß2GP1), anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin (aPS/PT), and anti-PF4-heparin. The seroconversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies was 95.81% (389/406) four weeks after vaccination. None of the subjects had spontaneous thrombosis or thrombocytopenia over a minimum follow-up period of eight weeks. There was no significant difference in the presence of all ten autoantibodies between samples collected before and after vaccination: for aCL, IgG (7 vs. 8, P = 0.76), IgM (41 vs. 44, P = 0.73), IgA (4 vs. 4, P = 1.00); anti-ß2GP1, IgG (7 vs. 6, P = 0.78), IgM (6 vs. 5, P = 0.76), IgA (3 vs. 5, P = 0.72); aPS/PT IgG (0 vs. 0, P = 1.00), IgM (6 vs. 5, P = 0.76); aPF4-heparin (2 vs. 7, P = 0.18), and antinuclear antibody (ANA) (18 vs. 21, P = 0.62). Notably, seven cases presented with anti-PF4-heparin antibodies (range: 1.18-1.79 U/mL) after vaccination, and none of them exhibited any sign of thrombotic disorder. In conclusion, inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine does not influence the profile of antiphospholipid antibody and anti-PF4-heparin antibody nor increase the risk of thrombosis.

Characterization of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in convalescent COVID-19 patients.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, little is known about the durability of the antibody response during COVID-19 convalescent phase. We investigated the prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies including immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies and the dynamic changes in antibody levels in convalescent COVID-19 patients. A total of 159 blood samples were collected from 52 recovered COVID-19 patients up to six months after symptom onset for longitudinal serological tests. The positive rate of IgG and IgM antibodies was 92.3% and 90.4% in the first month after symptom onset, and the seropositivity of IgG antibody remained high at all follow-up time points, whereas the seropositivity of IgM antibody decreased to 22.73% by the sixth months after symptom onset. The level of IgG antibody was stable, the level of IgM antibody decreased slightly in the early convalescent phase and was detected in only five patients in the sixth month after symptom onset. The level of IgG antibody was higher in the severe and critical group than in the moderate group. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies have a long-term persistence in convalescent COVID-19 patients, whether they have long-term protection need to be further investigated.

The Psychological Health Status of Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study in Guangdong, China.

Background: The sudden outbreak of COVID-19 has caused mental stress on healthcare workers (HCW). This study aimed to assess their psychological health status at the peak of COVID-19 and to identify some coping strategies. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted during the outbreak of COVID-19. The survey was completed by 908/924 HCW (response rate 98.27%) in government-designated hospitals in Guangdong, China. A quality of life (QoL) scale, the Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) were used to evaluate their psychological status. Logistic regression models were used to identify the occupational factors related to anxiety or depression. Results: A total of 221 (24.34%) respondents had varying levels of anxiety, and 299 (32.93%) of them had depression. The mean SAS (42.9) and SDS (47.8) scores of HCW indicated that they were in the normal range for both anxiety and depression. Contact with COVID-19 cases or suspected cases, worry about suffering from COVID-19, worry about their family, and dismission during the COVID-19 period were significant work-related contributing factors to the psychological health problems of HCW (all p<0.01). Conclusions: The overall psychological health status of HCW in Guangdong, China, during the outbreak of COVID-19 was not overly poor. Updating and strengthening training in disease information, the provision of adequate medical supplies, and care about the life and health of medical staff and their family members may reduce their mental stress.

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of three family clusters of COVID-19 transmitted by latent patients in China.

From 21 January 2020 to 9 February 2020, three family clusters involving 31 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 were identified in Wenzhou, China. The epidemiological and clinical characteristics of the family cluster patients were analysed and compared with those of 43 contemporaneous sporadic cases. The three index cases transmitted the infection to 28 family members 2-10 days before illness onset. Overall, 28 of the 41 sporadic cases and three of 31 patients in the family clusters came back from Wuhan (65.12 vs. 9.68%, P< 0.001). In terms of epidemiological characters and clinical symptoms, no significant differences were observed between the family cluster and sporadic cases. However, the lymphocyte counts of sporadic cases were significantly lower than those of family cluster cases ((1.32 ± 0.55) × 109/l vs. (1.63 ± 0.70) × 109/l, P = 0.037), and the proportion of hypoalbuminaemia was higher in sporadic cases (18/43, 41.86%) than in the family clusters (6/31, 19.35%) (P < 0.05). Within the family cluster, the second- and third-generation cases had milder clinical manifestations, without severe conditions, compared with the index and first-generation cases, indicating that the virulence gradually decreased following passage through generations within the family clusters. Close surveillance, timely recognition and isolation of the suspected or latent patient is crucial in preventing family cluster infection.

Retrospective detection of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalized patients with influenza-like illness.

Since the first report of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in late December 2019, the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has now widely spread to more than 187 countries and regions. However, it is unclear whether there has been cryptic transmission before these early officially confirmed cases, we therefore retrospectively screened for the SARS-CoV-2 RNA in 1271 nasopharyngeal swab samples, as well as the prevalence of IgM, IgG, and total antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in 357 matched serum samples collected from hospitalized patients with influenza-like illness between 1 December 2018 and 31 March 2020 in Shanghai Ruijin Hospital. The onset date of the earliest COVID-19 case in this study was 25 January 2020. Before this time point, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 was not observed, which limited the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 has already spread among the population before the large-scale outbreak. Additionally, among 6662 patients with influenza-like illness from 1 December 2017 to 31 March 2020, the overall number of patients positive for influenza and other respiratory viruses during the COVID-19 period decreased significantly when compared with that in the same period of the last two years, reflecting that public health interventions can effectively control the spread of common respiratory viruses.

Effectiveness of convalescent plasma therapy in severe COVID-19 patients.

Currently, there are no approved specific antiviral agents for novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In this study, 10 severe patients confirmed by real-time viral RNA test were enrolled prospectively. One dose of 200 mL of convalescent plasma (CP) derived from recently recovered donors with the neutralizing antibody titers above 1:640 was transfused to the patients as an addition to maximal supportive care and antiviral agents. The primary endpoint was the safety of CP transfusion. The second endpoints were the improvement of clinical symptoms and laboratory parameters within 3 d after CP transfusion. The median time from onset of illness to CP transfusion was 16.5 d. After CP transfusion, the level of neutralizing antibody increased rapidly up to 1:640 in five cases, while that of the other four cases maintained at a high level (1:640). The clinical symptoms were significantly improved along with increase of oxyhemoglobin saturation within 3 d. Several parameters tended to improve as compared to pretransfusion, including increased lymphocyte counts (0.65 × 109/L vs. 0.76 × 109/L) and decreased C-reactive protein (55.98 mg/L vs. 18.13 mg/L). Radiological examinations showed varying degrees of absorption of lung lesions within 7 d. The viral load was undetectable after transfusion in seven patients who had previous viremia. No severe adverse effects were observed. This study showed CP therapy was well tolerated and could potentially improve the clinical outcomes through neutralizing viremia in severe COVID-19 cases. The optimal dose and time point, as well as the clinical benefit of CP therapy, needs further investigation in larger well-controlled trials.