SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccines have shown remarkable efficacy in clinical trials, especially in reducing severe illness and casualty. However, the waning of humoral immunity over time has raised concern over the durability of immune memory following vaccination. Thus, we conducted a nonrandomized trial among the healthcare workers (HCWs) to investigate the long-term sustainability of SARS-CoV-2-specific B cells and T cells stimulated by inactivated vaccines and the potential need for a third booster dose. Although neutralizing antibodies elicited by the standard two-dose vaccination schedule dropped from a peak of 29.3 arbitrary units (AU)/mL to 8.8 AU/mL 5 months after the second vaccination, spike-specific memory B and T cells were still detectable, forming the basis for a quick recall response. As expected, the faded humoral immune response was vigorously elevated to 63.6 AU/mL by 7.2 folds 1 week after the third dose along with abundant spike-specific circulating follicular helper T cells in parallel. Meanwhile, spike-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were also robustly elevated by 5.9 and 2.7 folds respectively. Robust expansion of memory pools by the third dose potentiated greater durability of protective immune responses. Another key finding in this trial was that HCWs with low serological response to two doses were not truly “non-responders” but fully equipped with immune memory that could be quickly recalled by a third dose even 5 months after the second vaccination. Collectively, these data provide insights into the generation of long-term immunological memory by the inactivated vaccine, which could be rapidly recalled and further boosted by a third dose.

SARS-CoV-2 inactivated vaccines have shown remarkable efficacy in clinical trials, especially in reducing severe illness and casualty. However, the waning of humoral immunity over time has raised concern over the durability of immune memory following vaccination. Thus, we conducted a non-randomized trial among the healthcare professionals (HCWs) to investigate the long-term sustainability of SARS-CoV-2-specific B cells and T cells stimulated by inactivated vaccine and the potential need for a third booster dose for the HCWs. Although neutralizing antibodies elicited by the standard two-dose vaccination schedule dropped from a peak of 31.2 AU/ml to 9.2 AU/ml 5 months after the second vaccination, spike-specific memory B and T cells were still detectable, forming the basis for a quick recall response. As expected, the faded humoral immune response was vigorously elevated to 66.8 AU/ml by 7.2 folds 1 week after the third dose along with abundant spike-specific circulating follicular helper T cells in parallel. Meanwhile, spike-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were also robustly elevated by 5.9 and 2.7 folds respectively. Robust expansion of memory pools by the third dose potentiated greater durability of protective immune responses. Another key finding in this trial was that HCWs with low serological response to 2 doses were not truly no responders but fully equipped with immune memory that could be quickly recalled by a third dose even 5 months after the second vaccination. Collectively, these data provide insights into the generation of long-term immunological memory by the inactivated vaccine, which has implications for future booster strategies that the frontline HCWs, individuals with low serological response to 2 dose of vaccine and immune compromised patients could benefit from a third dose of inactivated vaccine.

The effectiveness of a 3rd dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines waned quickly in the Omicron-predominant period. In response to fast-waning immunity and the threat of Omicron variant of concern (VOC) to healthcare workers (HCWs), we conduct a non-randomized trial (ChiCTR2200055564) in which 38 HCWs volunteer to receive a homologous booster of inactivated vaccines (BBIBP-CorV) 6 months after the 3rd dose. The primary and secondary outcomes are neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and the receptor-binding domain (RBD)-directed antibodies, respectively. The 4th dose recalls waned immunity while having distinct effects on humoral responses to different antigens. The peak antibody response to the RBD induced by the 4th dose is inferior to that after the 3rd dose, whereas responses to the N-terminal domain (NTD) of spike protein are further strengthened significantly. Accordingly, the 4th dose further elevates the peak level of NAbs against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron BA.2, but not BA.1 which has more NTD mutations. No severe adverse events related to vaccination are recorded during the trial. Here, we show that redistribution of immune focus after repeated vaccinations may modulate cross-protective immune responses against different VOCs.

Objectives. This study is aimed at developing a risk nomogram of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in a Chinese population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods. A questionnaire survey, biochemical indicator examination, and physical examination were performed on 4170 T2DM patients, and the collected data were used to evaluate the DR risk in T2DM patients. By operating R software, firstly, the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression analysis was used to optimize variable selection by running cyclic coordinate descent with 10 times K cross-validation. Secondly, multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to build a predicting model introducing the predictors selected from the LASSO regression analysis. The nomogram was developed based on the selected variables visually. Thirdly, calibration plot, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and decision curve analysis were used to validate the model, and further assessment was running by external validation. Results. Seven predictors were selected by LASSO from 19 variables, including age, course of disease, postprandial blood glucose (PBG), glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), uric creatinine (UCR), urinary microalbumin (UMA), and systolic blood pressure (SBP). The model built by these 7 predictors displayed medium prediction ability with the area under the ROC curve of 0.700 in the training set and 0.715 in the validation set. The decision curve analysis curve showed that the nomogram could be applied clinically if the risk threshold is between 21% and 57% and 21%-51% in external validation. Conclusion. Introducing age, course of disease, PBG, HbA1c, UCR, UMA, and SBP, the risk nomogram is useful for prediction of DR risk in T2DM individuals.

Background Vaccination is important in influenza prevention but the immune response wanes with age. The circadian nature of the immune system suggests that adjusting the time of vaccination may provide an opportunity to improve immunogenicity. Our previous cluster trial in Birmingham suggested differences between morning and afternoon vaccination for some strains in the influenza vaccine in older adults. Whether this effect is also seen in a younger age group with less likelihood of compromised immunity is unknown. We therefore conducted an individual-based randomized controlled trial in Guangzhou to test the hypothesis that influenza vaccination in the morning induces a stronger immune response in older adults than afternoon vaccination. We included adults in middle age to determine if the effect was also seen in younger age groups. Results Of the 418 participants randomised, 389 (93.1%, 191 middle-aged adults aged 50–60 years and 198 older adults aged 65–75 years) were followed up. Overall, there was no significant difference between the antibody titers (geometric mean /95% CI) after morning vs afternoon vaccination (A/H1N1: 39.9 (32.4, 49.1) vs. 33.0 (26.7, 40.7), p = 0.178; A/H3N2: 92.2 (82.8, 102.7) vs. 82.0 (73.8, 91.2), p = 0.091; B: 15.8 (13.9, 17.9) vs. 14.4 (12.8, 16.3), p = 0.092), respectively. However, in pre-specified subgroup analyses, post-vaccination titers for morning versus afternoon vaccination in the 65–75 years subgroup were (A/H1N1): 49.5 (36.7, 66.6) vs. 32.9 (24.7, 43.9), p = 0.050; (A/H3N2): 93.5 (80.6, 108.5) vs. 73.1 (62.9, 84.9), p = 0.021; (B): 16.6 (13.8, 20.1) vs. 14.4 (12.3, 17.0), p = 0.095, respectively. Among females, antibody titers for morning versus afternoon vaccination were (A/H1N1): 46.9 (35.6, 61.8) vs. 31.1 (23.8, 40.7), p = 0.030; (A/H3N2): 96.0 (83.5, 110.3) vs. 84.7 (74.4, 96.5), p = 0.176; (B): 14.8 (12.7, 17.3) vs. 13.0 (11.3, 14.9), p = 0.061, respectively. In the 50–60 years old subgroup and males, there were no significant differences between morning and afternoon vaccination. Conclusions Morning vaccination may enhance the immunogenicity to influenza vaccine in adults aged over 65 and women. An intervention to modify vaccination programs to vaccinate older individuals in the morning is simple, cost free and feasible in most health systems.