Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
1.
Front Public Health ; 10: 898840, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1952860

ABSTRACT

Introduction: This study analyses how healthcare workers (HCWs) perceived risks, protection and preventive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to medically approved risks and organizational measures. The aim is to explore "blind spots" of pandemic protection and make mental health needs of HCWs visible. Methods: We have chosen an "optimal-case" scenario of a high-income country with a well-resourced hospital sector and low HCW infection rate at the organizational level to explore governance gaps in HCW protection. A German multi-method hospital study at Hannover Medical School served as empirical case; document analysis, expert information and survey data (n = 1,163) were collected as part of a clinical study into SARS-CoV-2 serology testing during the second wave of the pandemic (November 2020-February 2021). Selected survey items included perceptions of risks, protection and preventive measures. Descriptive statistical analysis and regression were undertaken for gender, profession and COVID-19 patient care. Results: The results reveal a low risk of 1% medically approved infections among participants, but a much higher mean personal risk estimate of 15%. The majority (68.4%) expressed "some" to "very strong" fear of acquiring infection at the workplace. Individual protective behavior and compliance with protective workplace measures were estimated as very high. Yet only about half of the respondents felt strongly protected by the employer; 12% even perceived "no" or "little" protection. Gender and contact with COVID-19 patients had no significant effect on the estimations of infection risks and protective workplace behavior, but nursing was correlated with higher levels of personal risk estimations and fear of infection. Conclusions: A strong mismatch between low medically approved risk and personal risk perceptions of HCWs brings stressors and threats into view, that may be preventable through better information, training/education and risk communication and through investment in mental health and inclusion in pandemic preparedness plans.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Hospitals , Humans , Mental Health , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Front Public Health ; 10: 877623, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1911117

ABSTRACT

Immunocompromised persons are at an increased risk for a severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and their safety behaviors may influence their social participation. Vaccinated persons have a lower incidence of infection and severe disease when infected compared to non-vaccinated persons. Therefore, their behavior may change and their social participation may increase after a complete vaccination. The aim of this study was to explore social participation of immunocompromised persons before and after complete COVID-19 vaccination. Between March and September 2021, 274 immunocompromised participants were recruited. Survey data were collected at baseline and follow-up from 194 participants including the Index for the Assessment of Health Impairments [IMET], Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4], subjective health status and quality of life. At baseline, participants were not yet completely vaccinated. Complete vaccination was achieved prior to the follow-up questionnaire. IMET scores decreased significantly at follow-up, indicating a higher social participation after complete vaccination. PHQ-4, subjective health status and quality of life did not differ between baseline and follow-up. There were no significant differences across sociodemographic factors. Significant PHQ-4 differences were observed regarding the population size of the participants' home community. Social participation of immunocompromised persons in our study increased after COVID-19 vaccination. Therefore, social participation should be explored further, especially with regards to the impact of vaccination on groups with a high health risk.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Participation , Vaccination
4.
Oncology ; 100(7): 392-398, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1861726

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is modestly impaired in cancer patients due to a generally weakened immune system. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are expected to enhance immune response. This has already been described to be the case in influenza vaccines, and first data about COVID-19 vaccines show a trend in this direction. AIM: We aimed to investigate the immune response of patients with melanoma under ICI therapy after COVID-19 vaccination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the Skin Cancer Center Hanover (Germany), we recruited 60 patients with advanced melanoma who either received ICI therapy during or before the vaccination period. Serological blood analysis was performed using quantitative ELISA for Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein 1 IgG antibodies. RESULTS: We did not observe an enhanced humoral immune response in patients under active or past ICI therapy after COVID-19 vaccination. Nevertheless, there is a tendency of higher antibody levels when ICI therapy was received within the last 6 months before vaccination. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients in our study population under ongoing targeted therapy during vaccination period had significantly higher median antibody levels than patients without any active antitumor treatment. CONCLUSION: Melanoma patients under ICI therapy show comparable antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination to healthy health care professionals. This finding is independent of the timing of ICI therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Melanoma , Antibodies, Viral/metabolism , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Melanoma/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
5.
Cell Rep ; 39(5): 110754, 2022 05 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1859378

ABSTRACT

Rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants C.1.2 and B.1.621 (Mu variant) in Africa and the Americas, respectively, as well as a high number of mutations in the viral spike proteins raised concerns that these variants might pose an elevated threat to human health. Here, we show that C.1.2 and B.1.621 spike proteins mediate increased entry into certain cell lines but do not exhibit increased ACE2 binding. Further, we demonstrate that C.1.2 and B.1.621 are resistant to neutralization by bamlanivimab but remain sensitive to inhibition by antibody cocktails used for COVID-19 therapy. Finally, we show that C.1.2 and B.1.621 partially escape neutralization by antibodies induced upon infection and vaccination, with escape of vaccine-induced antibodies being as potent as that measured for B.1.351 (Beta variant), which is known to be highly neutralization resistant. Collectively, C.1.2 and B.1.621 partially evade control by vaccine-induced antibodies, suggesting that close monitoring of these variants is warranted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus , Vaccination
6.
Cell Host Microbe ; 30(8): 1103-1111.e6, 2022 Aug 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1821185

ABSTRACT

The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 evades antibody-mediated neutralization with unprecedented efficiency. At least three Omicron sublineages have been identified-BA.1, BA.2, and BA.3-and BA.2 exhibits increased transmissibility. However, it is currently unknown whether BA.2 differs from the other sublineages regarding cell entry and antibody-mediated inhibition. Here, we show that BA.1, BA.2, and BA.3 enter and fuse target cells with similar efficiency and in an ACE2-dependent manner. However, BA.2 was not efficiently neutralized by seven of eight antibodies used for COVID-19 therapy, including Sotrovimab, which robustly neutralized BA.1. In contrast, BA.2 and BA.3 (but not BA.1) were appreciably neutralized by Cilgavimab, which could constitute a treatment option. Finally, all sublineages were comparably and efficiently neutralized by antibodies induced by BNT162b2 booster vaccination after previous two-dose homologous or heterologous vaccination. Collectively, the Omicron sublineages show comparable cell entry and neutralization by vaccine-induced antibodies but differ in susceptibility to therapeutic antibodies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Monoclonal , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Viral/therapeutic use , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Virus Internalization
7.
BMC Infect Dis ; 22(1): 403, 2022 Apr 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1808345

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Immunocompromised people (ICP) and elderly individuals (older than 80 years) are at increased risk for severe coronavirus infections. To protect against serious infection with SARS-CoV-2, ICP are taking precautions that may include a reduction of social contacts and participation in activities which they normally enjoy. Furthermore, for these people, there is an uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the vaccination. The COVID-19 Contact (CoCo) Immune study strives to characterize the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised, elderly people, and patients with hematological or oncological diseases. The study uses blood-based screenings to monitor the humoral and cellular immune response in these groups after vaccination. Questionnaires and qualitative interviews are used to describe the level of social participation. METHODS: The CoCo Immune Study is a mixed methods prospective, longitudinal, observational study at two large university hospitals in Northern Germany. Starting in March 2021, it monitors anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses and collects information on social participation in more than 600 participants, at least 18 years old. Inclusion criteria and subcohorts: Participants with (1) regularly intake of immunosuppressive medication (ICP-cohort) or (2) age ≥ 80 years (80 + -cohort). Additionally, patients with current or former (3) myeloid, (4) lymphatic disease or (5) solid tumor under checkpoint inhibition (3-5: HO-cohort). EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) refusal to give informed consent, (2) contraindication to blood testing, (3) inability to declare consent. Participants complete a questionnaire at four different time points: prior to full vaccination, and 1, 6 and 12 months after completed vaccination. In addition, participants draw blood samples themselves or through a local health care provider and send them with their questionnaires per post at the respective time points after vaccination. Patients of the HO cohort dispense additional blood samples at week 3 to 12 and at month 6 to 9 after 2nd vaccination to gain additional knowledge in B and T cell responses. Selected participants are invited to qualitative interviews about social participation. DISCUSSION: This observational study is designed to gain insight into the immune response of people with weakened immune systems and to find out how social participation is affected after COVID-19 vaccination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with German Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: DRKS00023972) on 30th December 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hematologic Diseases , Neoplasms , Adolescent , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cocos , Humans , Immunity , Observational Studies as Topic , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
9.
Front Immunol ; 13: 863039, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775685

ABSTRACT

Evaluating long-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in convalescing individuals is of high clinical relevance. In this prospective study of a cohort of 46 SARS-CoV-2 patients infected with the Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 we longitudinally analyzed changes in humoral and cellular immunity upon early and late convalescence. Antibody neutralization capacity was measured by surrogate virus neutralization test and cellular responses were investigated with 31-colour spectral flow cytometry. Spike-specific, isotype-switched B cells developed already during the disease phase, showed a memory phenotype and did not decrease in numbers even during late convalescence. Otherwise, no long-lasting perturbations of the immune compartment following COVID-19 clearance were observed. During convalescence anti-Spike (S1) IgG antibodies strongly decreased in all patients. We detected neutralizing antibodies against the Wuhan strain as well as the Alpha and Delta but not against the Beta, Gamma or Omicron variants for up to 7 months post COVID-19. Furthermore, correlation analysis revealed a strong association between sera anti-S1 IgG titers and their neutralization capacity against the Wuhan strain as well as Alpha and Delta. Overall, our data suggest that even 7 month after the clearance of COVID-19 many patients possess a protective layer of immunity, indicated by the persistence of Spike-specific memory B cells and by the presence of neutralizing antibodies against the Alpha and Delta variants. However, lack of neutralizing antibodies against the Beta, Gamma and Omicron variants even during the peak response is of major concern as this indicates viral evasion of the humoral immune response.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Convalescence , Humans , Immunity, Humoral , Immunoglobulin G , Prospective Studies , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics
10.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 28(4): 743-750, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1770999

ABSTRACT

Patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis were among the first to receive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccinations because of their increased risk for severe coronavirus disease and high case-fatality rates. By using a previously reported cohort from Germany of at-risk hemodialysis patients and healthy donors, where antibody responses were examined 3 weeks after the second vaccination, we assessed systemic cellular and humoral immune responses in serum and saliva 4 months after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine using an interferon-γ release assay and multiplex-based IgG measurements. We further compared neutralization capacity of vaccination-induced IgG against 4 SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta) by angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor-binding domain competition assay. Sixteen weeks after second vaccination, compared with 3 weeks after, cellular and humoral responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 isolate and variants of concern were substantially reduced. Some dialysis patients even had no detectable B- or T-cell responses.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Immunity, Humoral , RNA, Messenger , Renal Dialysis , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/genetics , Vaccination
11.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-331537

ABSTRACT

Introduction: This study analyses how healthcare workers (HCWs) perceived risks, protection and preventive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to medically approved risks and organisational measures. The aim is to explore blind spots of pandemic protection and make mental health needs of HCWs visible. Methods. We have chosen an optimal-case scenario of a high-income country with a well-resourced hospital sector and low HCW infection rate at the organisational level to explore governance gaps in HCW protection. A German multi-method hospital study at Hannover Medical School served as empirical case;document analysis, expert information and survey data (n=1163) were collected as part of a clinical study into SARS-CoV-2 serology testing during the second wave of the pandemic (November 2020-February 2021). Selected survey items included perceptions of risks, protection and preventive measures. Descriptive statistical analysis and regression were undertaken for gender, profession and COVID-19 patient care. Results. The results reveal a low risk of 1% medically approved infections among participants, but a much higher mean personal risk estimate of 15%. The majority (68.4%) expressed some to very strong fear of acquiring infection at the workplace. Individual protective behaviour and compliance with protective workplace measures were estimated as very high. Yet only about half of the respondents felt strongly protected by the employer;12% even perceived no or little protection. Gender and contact with COVID-19 patients had no significant effect on the estimations of infection risks and protective workplace behaviour, but nursing was correlated with higher levels of personal risk estimations and fear of infection. Conclusions. A strong mismatch between low medically approved risk and personal risk perceptions of HCWs brings stressors and threats into view, that may be preventable through better information and risk communication and through investment in mental health and inclusion in pandemic preparedness plans.

12.
Z Rheumatol ; 81(2): 157-163, 2022 Mar.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1748494

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine was implemented in outpatient care during the lockdown between March and May 2020. The aim of the study was to assess patients from a private practice and the university outpatient department with respect to patient satisfaction with telemedicine, COVID-19 worries and vaccination behavior and to compare the teleconsultation by a medical assistant for rheumatology (RFA) and a physician. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatric arthropathy or spondylarthritis without treatment modifications since the previous presentation were offered a telemedical replacement appointment within the framework of this study in the case of appointment cancellation by the treating center. Participants were randomized to a telemedicine appointment by a physician or an RFA (RFA university only). The patient history was carried out by telephone and standardized using a questionnaire. The disease activity was determined using the modified clinical disease activity score (CDAI) and the BASDAI. Subsequently, all patients received a pseudonymized evaluation questionnaire. RESULTS: In total 112/116 (96%) patients participated. Of these 88/112 (79%) returned the questionnaire. The RFAs conducted 19/112 (17%) of the telephone calls. The treatment was modified in 19/112 (17%) patients. Concerns about contracting COVID-19 correlated with high disease activity (p = 0.031) including the presence of painful joints (p = 0.001) and high pain levels (VAS ≥7, p = 0.009). These patients would have also cancelled their appointment themselves (p = 0.015). Patient satisfaction with the consultation was good (mean 4.3/5.0 modified FAPI) independent of the institution, the duration of the consultation and the consultation partner. Patients with a high pain intensity were the least satisfied (p = 0.036). Only 42/100 (38.2%) of the patients had been vaccinated against pneumococci and 59/100 (53.6%) against influenza. CONCLUSION: Telemedical care within the framework of a telephone consultation is well-suited for selected patients. With respect to patient satisfaction the delegation of a telemedical consultation to an RFA is possible. There is a need for improvement with respect to the vaccination behavior.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Remote Consultation , Rheumatology , Telemedicine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , Patient Satisfaction , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicine/methods , Telephone , Vaccination
13.
Cell ; 185(3): 447-456.e11, 2022 02 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1712497

ABSTRACT

The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant suggests that the virus might become globally dominant. Further, the high number of mutations in the viral spike protein raised concerns that the virus might evade antibodies induced by infection or vaccination. Here, we report that the Omicron spike was resistant against most therapeutic antibodies but remained susceptible to inhibition by sotrovimab. Similarly, the Omicron spike evaded neutralization by antibodies from convalescent patients or individuals vaccinated with the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine (BNT162b2) with 12- to 44-fold higher efficiency than the spike of the Delta variant. Neutralization of the Omicron spike by antibodies induced upon heterologous ChAdOx1 (Astra Zeneca-Oxford)/BNT162b2 vaccination or vaccination with three doses of BNT162b2 was more efficient, but the Omicron spike still evaded neutralization more efficiently than the Delta spike. These findings indicate that most therapeutic antibodies will be ineffective against the Omicron variant and that double immunization with BNT162b2 might not adequately protect against severe disease induced by this variant.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/pharmacology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Adaptive Immunity , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/metabolism , Animals , Antibodies, Neutralizing/pharmacology , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Cell Line , Chlorocebus aethiops , Female , Humans , Male , Protein Binding , SARS-CoV-2/chemistry , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/chemistry , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/metabolism , Vaccination , Vero Cells
14.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-296719

ABSTRACT

The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant suggests that the virus might become globally dominant. Further, the high number of mutations in the viral spike-protein raised concerns that the virus might evade antibodies induced by infection or vaccination. Here, we report that the Omicron spike was resistant against most therapeutic antibodies but remained susceptible to inhibition by Sotrovimab. Similarly, the Omicron spike evaded neutralization by antibodies from convalescent or BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals with 10- to 44-fold higher efficiency than the spike of the Delta variant. Neutralization of the Omicron spike by antibodies induced upon heterologous ChAdOx1/BNT162b2-vaccination or vaccination with three doses of BNT162b2 was more efficient, but the Omicron spike still evaded neutralization more efficiently than the Delta spike. These findings indicate that most therapeutic antibodies will be ineffective against the Omicron variant and that double immunization with BNT162b2 might not adequately protect against severe disease induced by this variant.

15.
Frontiers in medicine ; 8, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564209

ABSTRACT

Since its declaration as a pandemic in March 2020, SARS-CoV-2 has infected more than 217 million people worldwide and despite mild disease in the majority of the cases, more than 4.5 million cases of COVID-19-associated death have been reported as of September 2021. The question whether recovery from COVID-19 results in prevention of reinfection can be answered with a “no” since cases of reinfections have been reported. The more important question is whether during SARS-CoV-2 infection, a protective immunity is built and maintained afterwards in a way which protects from possibly severe courses of disease in case of a reinfection. A similar question arises with respect to vaccination: as of September 2021, globally, more than 5.2 billion doses of vaccines have been administered. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to study the cellular and humoral immunity toward SARS-CoV-2 in a longitudinal manner. In this study, reconvalescent COVID-19 patients have been followed up for more than 1 year after SARS-CoV-2 infection to characterize in detail the long-term humoral as well as cellular immunity. Both SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells and antibodies could be detected for a period of more than 1 year after infection, indicating that the immune protection established during initial infection is maintained and might possibly protect from severe disease in case of reinfection or infection with novel emerging variants. Moreover, these data demonstrate the opportunity for immunotherapy of hospitalized COVID-19 patients via adoptive transfer of functional antiviral T cells isolated from reconvalescent individuals.

16.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(11): 2000-2008, 2021 12 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1559548

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies are key in combating the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, delays of boost immunization due to limited availability of vaccines may leave individuals vulnerable to infection and prolonged or severe disease courses. The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern (VOC)-B.1.1.7 (United Kingdom), B.1.351 (South Africa), and P.1 (Brazil)-may exacerbate this issue, as the latter two are able to evade control by antibodies. METHODS: We assessed humoral and T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type (WT), VOC, and endemic human coronaviruses (hCoVs) that were induced after single and double vaccination with BNT162b2. RESULTS: Despite readily detectable immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein at day 14 after a single vaccination, inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 S-driven host cell entry was weak and particularly low for the B.1.351 variant. Frequencies of SARS-CoV-2 WT and VOC-specific T cells were low in many vaccinees after application of a single dose and influenced by immunity against endemic hCoV. The second vaccination significantly boosted T-cell frequencies reactive for WT and B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants. CONCLUSIONS: These results call into question whether neutralizing antibodies significantly contribute to protection against COVID-19 upon single vaccination and suggest that cellular immunity is central for the early defenses against COVID-19.


Subject(s)
/immunology , COVID-19 , Immunity, Cellular , Immunity, Humoral , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , T-Lymphocytes/immunology , Vaccination
18.
HIV Med ; 23(5): 558-563, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1494675

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: People living with HIV (PLWH) with low CD4 T-cell counts may be at a higher risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes and in need of efficient vaccination. The World Health Organization (WHO) now recommends prioritizing PLHIV for COVID-19 vaccination. Data on immune responses after messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination in PLHIV in relation to CD4 counts are scarce. We aimed at assessing the humoral immune response in PLHIV after mRNA vaccination against COVID-19. METHODS: We examined a cohort of PLHIV after prime (n = 88) and boost (n = 52) vaccination with BNT162b2. We assessed levels of anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike (S) protein-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG)/IgA and circulating neutralizing antibodies in plasma and correlated results to the cellular immune status. BNT162b2-vaccinated health care workers served as controls. RESULTS: All PLWH had a viral load of ≤ 200 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL and 96.5% had a viral load of < 50 copies/mL. Anti-S IgG and neutralizing antibody responses after BNT162b2 priming were significantly lower in PLHIV having a CD4:CD8 T-cell ratio of < 0.5. However, we observed robust humoral immunity in the majority of PLWH receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) irrespective of CD4 T-cell nadir, current CD4 count or CD4:CD8 ratio after full BNT162b2 vaccination. Nevertheless, HIV-negative controls produced significantly higher mean anti-S IgG concentrations with less variability. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of PLWH mounted robust responses after complete BNT162b2 vaccination but overall amounts of antibodies directed against the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain were variable. The impact on clinical efficacy remains unclear.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , HIV Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Immunity, Humoral , Immunoglobulin G , RNA, Messenger , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL