Health
Retrospective study of the immunogenicity and safety of the CoronaVac SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in people with underlying medical conditions
Study participants
Between 5 Jul and 30 Dec 2021, we recruited 1302 participants at the 14–28th day after the second dose of inactivate SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and collected safety surveys. Among them we enrolled 1266 who had completed all survey questions including demographic information, underlying medical conditions (disease type, duration, severity, and control status) as well as occurrence of adverse events after each dose of vaccination. 297 individuals were excluded from this analysis due to receiving two different products of inactivated vaccines. The remaining 969 participants comprised the analyzed samples: 740 people with underlying medical conditions and 229 people as the healthy control. All of them formed the safety population. For the immunogenicity analysis, 969 participants had completed the blood sampling in the 14–28th day after the second dose of vaccine. 178 participants failed to be on site and were excluded from the 90 days immunity assessment, and 40 participants with same reason were excluded from the 180 days analysis (Fig. 1). Each disease group was further divided into 40–59 years old and ≥60 years old subgroups. Baseline demographic characteristics of the comorbidities group and healthy control were well-balanced (Table 1) across age groups, except for the age in ≥60 years old subgroups.
Vaccine safety
150 (20.27%) of 740 comorbidities participants had at least one adverse event, compared with 32 (13.97%) of 229 healthy participants (Supplementary Table 2). Most adverse events were mild (grade 1) in severity and participants recovered within 48 h (Supplementary Table 3). The most frequently reported adverse events in healthy and comorbidities group were injection-site pain (20 [8.73%] of 229 versus 94 [12.70%] of 740), fatigue (9 [3.93%] of 229 versus 48 [6.49%] of 740) and fever (0 [0.00%] of 229 versus 4 [0.54%] of 740). There was no significant difference seen between healthy and comorbidities cohort at overall level (Supplementary Table 2). Although 4 cases of grade 3 adverse events have been reported in 4 individuals in the comorbidities group, including acute allergy, skin & mucosa abnormalities and fever, most events occurred 7 days after vaccination except for a fever that occurred at the 1st day post vaccination. Thus, none was considered to be related to the vaccination except for the fever, which recovered at the 2nd day post vaccination (Supplementary note 1).
When inspecting the adverse events after the first and the second dose of vaccination, respectively, the incidence of adverse events were 16 (6.99%) of 229 in the health group versus 97 (13.11%) of 740 in the comorbidities group after the first dose, 19 (8.30%) of 229 versus 99 (13.37%) of 740 after the second dose (Supplementary Table 2), with significant difference between health and comorbidities group in both doses (P = 0.0129, first dose; P = 0.0487, second dose). We then stratified participants by age group: adults (40–59 years old) and seniors (≥60 years old), to explore if seniors exhibit different response to inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In the adults subgroup, 81 (27.27%) of 297 participants in the comorbidities group versus 20 (16.53%) of 121 participants in the healthy control, reported adverse events, with statistically significant difference between groups (P = 0.0231). Moreover, systemic adverse events of the comorbidities group was significantly higher than that of the healthy control (13.47% versus 4.96%, P = 0.0099), while local adverse events showed no significant difference (Table 2). The incidence of adverse events was 54 (18.18%) of 297 in comorbidities people and 9 (7.44%) of 121 in healthy people after the first dose, and 55 (18.52%) of 297 in comorbidities people and 12 (9.92%) of 121 in healthy people after the second dose of vaccine. Both doses showed significant differences between diseases and healthy control (P = 0.0062 and P = 0.0387). In the senior subgroup, comorbidities and healthy group did not show significant difference in the overall (15.58% versus 11.11%, P = 0.2895), the first dose (9.71% versus 6.48%, P = 0.3537) or the second dose (9.93% versus 6.48%, P = 0.3543) vaccination. Thus, the higher incidence of adverse events in the adult comorbidities population was the main driving factor for the difference between the comorbidities cohort and healthy control in the overall incidence of adverse events. More specifically, the major inter-group difference was contributed by the systemic adverse events, mainly fatigue (26 [8.75%] of 297 in comorbidities, 3 [2.48%] of 121 in health, P = 0.0199). Furthermore, the incidence of fatigue in adults group was 20 (6.73%) of 297 in the comorbidities group after the first dose, with significant difference from the health control (1 [0.83%] of 121, P = 0.0115); There was no significant difference between comorbidities and health groups after the second dose with 12 (4.04%) of 297 in the comorbidities group and 2 [1.65%] of 121 in the health control (P = 0.3678).
Next, we compared the incidence of adverse events between comorbidities and healthy control stratified by disease types (Supplementary Table 4). The overall incidence of adverse events was 46 (19.83%) of 232 in the hypertension group, 24 (20.34%) of 118 in the CAD group, 34 (19.21%) of 177 in the DM group, 22 (23.40%) of 94 in the CRD group, 19 (21.59%) of 88 in the cancer group, and 5 (6.13%) of 31 in the obesity group versus 32 (13.97%) of 229 in healthy control. The most frequently reported adverse events in six disease groups were same as those in the health control, mainly injection-site pain, and fatigue (Fig. 2). All adverse events showed no significant difference between six disease subgroups and health control. When focusing on seniors, the CRD group showed significantly higher incidence of injection-site pain (9 [14.29%] of 63 vs. 5 [4.63%] of 108 in the health control, P = 0.0404) than that of the healthy control. Regarding adults, fatigue in the hypertension group (11 [10.89%] of 101 versus 3 [2.48%] of 121 in health group, P = 0.0124), DM group (7 [9.86%] of 71, P = 0.0403) and cancer group (6 [12.77%] of 47, P = 0.0152), and headache in the CRD group (2 [6.45%] of 31 versus 0 [0.00%] of 121 in health group, P = 0.0405) showed significant differences compared to the healthy control.
Humoral immunogenicity
The immunogenicity of people with underlying diseases and healthy control was evaluated at 14–28 days, 3 months, and 6 months after the two-dose vaccination (Table 3). By day 14–28, the seroconversion rates of neutralizing antibodies were 99 (84%) of 118 in the CAD group, 206 (89%) of 232 in the hypertension group, 150 (85%) of 177 in the DM group, 73 (78%) of 94 in the CRD group, 28 (90%) of 31 in the obesity group, and 75 (85%) of 88 in the cancer group versus 204 (89%) of 229 in health group; The neutralizing antibody GMTs were 22.77 (95% CI 18.29–28.35), 33.89 (95% CI 29.08–39.49), 26.45 (95% CI 21.99–31.82), 22.44 (95% CI 17.33–29.06), 32.92 (95% CI 20.89–51.88), 31.96 (95% CI 24.00–42.56) versus 30.50 (95% CI 26.41–35.22), respectively. Most diseases groups showed no difference in seroconversion rates and GMTs from the healthy control, while CAD (P = 0.0287) and CRD group (P = 0.0416) exhibited statistically significant decrease of humoral immune response. By day 90, both the seroconversion rates and GMTs were significantly reduced in all people, with no difference between disease and health groups. By day 180, seroconversion rates and GMTs continued to drop, but declined at a much slower rate. Interestingly, cancer patients showed a significant elevation in the seroconversion rate (68% versus 46%, P = 0.0020) and GMT (11.50 versus 7.42, P = 0.0050) compared to the healthy control (Table 3).
In the adult subgroup (40–59 years old) analyses, GMTs of neutralizing antibodies showed elevations in the cancer (53.71 versus 28.71, P = 0.0016) and hypertension (49.02 versus 28.71, P = 0.0009) patients compared to healthy control (Supplementary Table 5). Interestingly, in the senior subgroup (≥60 years old), cancer patients (18.56 versus 32.44, P = 0.0200) showed the opposite trend with a significantly reduced GMT level. Similarly, senior CAD (20.05, P = 0.0052) and CRD (19.85, P = 0.0144) patients also showed the same trend of immunogenicity reduction (Supplementary Table 6). Notably, these inter-group variations were no longer significant at 3- and 6-months post vaccination.
Comparing across age subgroups, we observed distinct patterns for disease and health groups. In healthy participants, the seroconversion and GMT of neutralizing antibodies were slightly higher in seniors (≥60 years old) than their younger counterpart (40–59 years old) on day 14–28 and 90 after the second dose. Conversely, senior people with chronic diseases had a lower neutralizing antibody level compared to their younger counterpart by day 14–28 post vaccination. These differences between age groups in seroconversion rate and GMT of neutralizing antibodies diminished by 3 and 6 months after the second dose (Fig. 3a). The reverse cumulative distribution plot showed that, at each time point, the overall distribution of neutralizing antibody titers was generally close across diseases in the senior and adult subgroups (Fig. 3b).
Cellular immunogenicity
The SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell response was quantified utilizing an AIM assay at 3 and 6 months post the two-dose vaccination (Fig. 4). By day 90, the SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cell responses (OX40+ CD137+) were detected in 21 (100%) of 21 in the CAD group, 31 (86.1%) of 36 in the hypertension group, 21 (95.5%) of 22 in the DM group, 18 (100%) of 18 in the CRD group, 8 (88.9%) of 9 in the cancer group versus 50 (89.3%) of 56 in health control (Supplementary Table 7). The median fraction of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells among CD4+ T cells were 0.05% (IQR 0.019%–0.1%), 0.04% (IQR 0.012%–0.084%), 0.08% (IQR 0.02%–0.17%), 0.08% (IQR 0.03%–0.12%), 0.03% (IQR 0.01%–0.12%), and 0.05% (IQR 0.02%–0.11%) in the CAD, hypertension, DM, CRD, cancer, and health group, respectively (Supplementary Table 8). There was no significant difference between disease groups and healthy control on either SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cell positive rate or fraction. The SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cell responses (CD69+ CD137+) were detected in 8 (38.1%) of 21 in CAD, 14 (38.9%) of 36 in hypertension, 16 (72.7%) of 22 in DM, 11 (61.1%) of 18 in CRD, 6 (66.7%) of 9 in cancer versus 34 (60.7%) of 56 in the health control (Supplementary Table 7). The median fraction of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cell among CD8+ T cell were 0% (IQR 0%–0.01%), 0% (IQR 0%–0.01%), 0.02% (IQR 0%–0.06%), 0.01% (IQR 0%–0.03%), 0.01% (IQR 0%–0.02%), and 0.01% (IQR 0%–0.03%) in the CAD, hypertension, DM, CRD, cancer, and health group, respectively. There were no significant difference between disease groups and healthy control on either SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8+ T cell positive rate or fraction (Supplementary Table 8); By day 180, the detected positive rate and cell fraction of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were close to that of day 90, with no significant difference between disease groups and healthy control, except for the detected positive rate of the SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cell in the cancer group at day 180 (81.8% versus 97.6% in health control, P = 0.0440), with significant lower than the health control.
Sources 2/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-022-00216-2 The mention sources can contact us to remove/changing this article |
What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online
LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos
to request, modification Contact us at Here or [email protected]