ABSTRACT
The evaluation of breakthrough infection and humoral immunity responses are important outcomes for vaccination policy for healthcare staff. This prospective cohort study collected blood samples at 5-time points; before primary vaccine doses, and at 2, 10 and 24 weeks after BNT162b2 vaccination from 551 HCWs, between March and October 2021. We investigated the association between anti-spike-1 protein receptor-binding domain (anti-S1-RBD) antibody geometric mean titre (GMT) and breakthrough infections. Two weeks post-vaccination, the GMT of anti-S1-RBD antibodies was measured at almost maximum detectable value (3115â BAU/ml [95% CI, 3051-3180]); it decreased to 1486â BAU/ml (95% CI, 1371-1610) at 10 weeks; and to 315 BAU/ml (95% CI, 283-349) at 24 weeks. Prior COVID-19 infection and age significantly affected the antibody titres. Fifty-six participants, none of whom were COVID-19 convalescents, had breakthrough infections between 10 and 24 weeks post-vaccination. Before breakthrough infections, the GMT was not different between the breakthrough and non-breakthrough individuals. After infection, the GMT was significantly higher in individuals with breakthrough infections (2038â BAU/ml [95%CI, 1547-2685]), specifically in symptomatic breakthroughs, compared to those without infection (254â BAU/ml [95%CI, 233-278]). A notable surge in breakthrough infections among healthcare workers coincided with the emergence of the Delta variant and when BNT162b2-elicited antibody responses waned in 10-24 weeks (i.e. approximately 3-6 months). Post-breakthrough, the antibody response was boosted in individuals with symptomatic presentations, but not asymptomatic individuals. The study finding supports administering booster vaccination for healthcare staff, including those who recovered from asymptomatic breakthrough infection.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Viral , Asymptomatic Infections , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Health Personnel , Humans , Immunity, Humoral , Malaysia/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The use of lengthy, detailed, and complex informed consent forms (ICFs) is of paramount concern in biomedical research as it may not truly promote the rights and interests of research participants. The extent of information in ICFs has been the subject of debates for decades; however, no clear guidance is given. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the perspectives of research participants about the type and extent of information they need when they are invited to participate in biomedical research. METHODS: This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). RESULTS: Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be 'moderately important' to 'very important' for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.
