Comparable cellular and humoral immunity upon homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens in kidney transplant recipients.

Background: Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) are at high risk for a severe course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); thus, effective vaccination is critical. However, the achievement of protective immunogenicity is hampered by immunosuppressive therapies. We assessed cellular and humoral immunity and breakthrough infection rates in KTRs vaccinated with homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens. Method: We performed a comparative in-depth analysis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific T-cell responses using multiplex Fluorospot assays and SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) between three-times homologously (n = 18) and heterologously (n = 8) vaccinated KTRs. Results: We detected SARS-CoV-2-reactive T cells in 100% of KTRs upon third vaccination, with comparable frequencies, T-cell expression profiles, and relative interferon γ and interleukin 2 production per single cell between homologously and heterologously vaccinated KTRs. SARS-CoV-2-specific NAb positivity rates were significantly higher in heterologously (87.5%) compared to homologously vaccinated (50.0%) KTRs (P < 0.0001), whereas the magnitudes of NAb titers were comparable between both subcohorts after third vaccination. SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections occurred in equal numbers in homologously (38.9%) and heterologously (37.5%) vaccinated KTRs with mild-to-moderate courses of COVID-19. Conclusion: Our data support a more comprehensive assessment of not only humoral but also cellular SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity in KTRs to provide an in-depth understanding about the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immune response in a transplant setting.

Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Right from the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic the general public faced the challenge to find reliable and understandable information in the overwhelming flood of information. To enhance informed decision-making, evidence-based information should be provided. Aim was to explore the general public's information needs and preferences on COVID-19 as well as the barriers to accessing evidence-based information. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study. Nine hundred twenty-seven panel members were invited to an online survey (12/2020-02/2021). The HeReCa-online-panel is installed at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg to assess regularly the general public's view on health issues in five regions in Germany. The survey was set up in LimeSurvey, with nine items, multiple-choice and open-ended questions that allowed to gather qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and a content analysis was carried out to categorise the qualitative data. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-six panel members provided data; mean age 52 years, 56.2% female, and 64.9% with higher education qualifications. Asked about relevant topics related to COVID-19, most participants selected vaccination (63.8%), infection control (52%), and long-term effects (47.8%). The following 11 categories were derived from the qualitative analysis representing the topics of interest: vaccination, infection control, long-term effects, therapies, test methods, mental health, symptoms, structures for pandemic control, infrastructure in health care, research. Participants preferred traditional media (TV 70.6%; radio 58.5%; newspaper 32.7%) to social media, but also used the internet as sources of information, becoming aware of new information on websites (28.5%) or via email/newsletter (20.1%). The knowledge question (Which European country is most affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic?) was correctly answered by 7.5% of participants. The Robert Koch Institute (93.7%) and the World Health Organization (78%) were well known, while other organisations providing health information were rarely known (< 10%). Barriers to accessing trustworthy information were lack of time (30.7%), little experience (23.1%), uncertainty about how to get access (22.2%), complexity and difficulties in understanding (23.9%), and a lack of target group orientation (15,3%). CONCLUSIONS: There are extensive information needs regarding various aspects on COVID-19 among the general population. In addition, target-specific dissemination strategies are still needed to reach different groups.

COVID-19 Vaccines: Fear of Side Effects among German Health Care Workers.

(1) Background: Health care workers (HCWs) play a key role in increasing anti-COVID vaccination rates. Fear of potential side effects is one of the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy. We investigated which side effects are of concern to HCWs and how these are associated with vaccine hesitancy. (2) Methods: Data were collected in an online survey in February 2021 among HCWs from across Germany with 4500 included participants. Free-text comments on previously experienced vaccination side effects, and fear of short- and long-term side effects of the COVID-19 vaccination were categorized and analyzed. (3) Results: Most feared short-term side effects were vaccination reactions, allergic reactions, and limitations in daily life. Most feared long-term side effects were (auto-) immune reactions, neurological side effects, and currently unknown long-term consequences. Concerns about serious vaccination side effects were associated with vaccination refusal. There was a clear association between refusal of COVID-19 vaccination in one's personal environment and fear of side effects. (4) Conclusions: Transparent information about vaccine side effects is needed, especially for HCW. Especially when the participants' acquaintances advised against vaccination, they were significantly more likely to fear side effects. Thus, further education of HCW is necessary to achieve good information transfer in clusters as well.