The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has had a tremendous impact on health services; hundreds of thousands of healthcare workers (HCWs) have died from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The introduction of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in Italy provided recipients with significant protection against COVID-19 within one to two weeks after the administration of the second of the two recommended doses. While the vaccine induces a robust T cell response, the protective role of factors and pathways other than those related to memory B cell responses to specific SARS-CoV-2 antigens remains unclear. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the determinants of serological protection in a group of vaccinated HCWs (N = 793) by evaluating circulating levels of antiviral spike receptor-binding domain (S-RBD) antibodies during the nine-month period following vaccination. We found that 99.5% of the HCWs who received the two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine developed protective antibodies that were maintained at detectable levels for as long as 250 days after the second dose of the vaccine. Multivariate analysis was performed on anti-S-RBD titers in a subgroup of participants (n = 173) that were evaluated twice during this period. The results of this analysis reveal that the antibody titer observed at the second time point was significantly related to the magnitude of the primary response, the time that had elapsed between the first and the second evaluation, and a previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of importance is the finding that despite waning antibody titers following vaccination, none of the study participants contracted severe COVID-19 during the observational period.
Background: While the COVID-19 pandemic has spread globally, health systems are overwhelmed by both direct and indirect mortality from other treatable conditions. COVID-19 vaccination was crucial to preventing and eliminating the disease, so vaccine development for COVID-19 was fast-tracked worldwide. Despite the fact that vaccination is commonly recognized as the most effective approach, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), vaccine hesitancy is a global health issue. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of nurses in four different regions in Italy between 20 and 28 December 2020 to obtain data on the acceptance of the upcoming COVID-19 vaccination in order to plan specific interventions to increase the rate of vaccine coverage. Results: A total of 531 out of the 5000 nurses invited completed the online questionnaire. Most of the nurses enrolled in the study (73.4%) were female. Among the nurses, 91.5% intended to accept vaccination, whereas 2.3% were opposed and 6.2% were undecided. Female sex and confidence in vaccine efficacy represent the main predictors of vaccine intention among the study population using a logistic regression model, while other factors including vaccine safety concerns (side effects) were non-significant. Conclusions: Despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine, intention to be vaccinated was suboptimal among nurses in our sample. We also found a significant number of people undecided as to whether to accept the vaccine. Contrary to expectations, concerns about the safety of the vaccine were not found to affect the acceptance rate; nurses’ perception of vaccine efficacy and female sex were the main influencing factors on attitudes toward vaccination in our sample. Since the success of the COVID-19 immunization plan depends on the uptake rate, these findings are of great interest for public health policies. Interventions aimed at increasing employee awareness of vaccination efficacy should be promoted among nurses in order to increase the number of vaccinated people.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to health, social and economic consequences for public health systems. As a result, the development of safe and effective vaccines, in order to contain the infection quickly became a priority. The first vaccine approved by the Italian Agency for Drugs Authorization (AIFA) was the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer (Comirnaty). Comirnaty contains a molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA), which is a nucleoside-modified RNA that encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. Even if data from phase I suggest that vaccine induced antibodies can persist for up to six months following the second shot of BNT vaccine, data regarding the real duration of immunological protection are lacking. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the duration of serological protection by detecting the presence of anti-S-RBD (receptor-binding domain) antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 among a large group of healthcare workers (HCWs) three months after vaccination. 99% of HCWs had a detectable titre of anti-S SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 90 days after the second vaccine shot. Elderly operators showed significantly lower levels of protective antibodies when compared to the younger ones, thus they could become unprotected earlier than other operators.
In China and Italy, many cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have occurred among healthcare workers (HCWs). Prompt identification, isolation and contact tracing of COVID-19 cases are key elements in controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among HCWs exposed to patients with COVID-19 in relation to the main determinants of exposure. To assess the risk of exposure, we performed active symptom monitoring in 1006 HCWs identified as contacts of COVID19 cases. The presence of symptoms was statistically associated with a positive nasopharyngeal swab result. Only one subject was asymptomatic at the time of positive test. These data suggest that clinical history may help in the selection of subjects to be investigated by means of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in the case of a shortage of diagnostic resources. We found that close contact (within 2 m for 15 min or more) was not statistically related to contagion. Regarding the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), only the use of facial masks was inversely related to the chance of becoming infected (p < 0.01). In conclusion, our data show that unprotected contacts between HCWs should be considered a major route of HCW contagion, suggesting that the use of facial masks should be implemented even in settings where known patients with COVID-19 are not present.
Background-The extent to which the prognosis for AIDS and death of patients initiating highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) continues to be affected by their characteristics at the time of initiation (baseline) is unclear.Methods-We analyzed data on 20,379 treatment-naive HIV-1-infected adults who started HAART in 1 of 12 cohort studies in Europe and North America (61,798 person-years of followup, 1844 AIDS events, and 1005 deaths).Results-Although baseline CD4 cell count became less prognostic with time, individuals with a baseline CD4 count <25 cells/µL had persistently higher progression rates than individuals with a baseline CD4 count >350 cells/µL (hazard ratio for AIDS = 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0 to 2.3; mortality hazard ratio = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.2 to 5.5, 4 to 6 years after starting HAART). Rates of AIDS were persistently higher in individuals who had experienced an AIDS event before starting HAART. Individuals with presumed transmission by means of injection drug use experienced substantially higher rates of AIDS and death than other individuals throughout follow-up (AIDS hazard ratio = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.8 to 3.0; mortality hazard ratio = 3.5, 95% CI: 2.2 to 5.5, 4 to 6 years after starting HAART).Conclusions-Compared with other patient groups, injection drug users and patients with advanced immunodeficiency at baseline experience substantially increased rates of AIDS and death up to 6 years after starting HAART.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.