| Literature DB >> 35891366 |
Gema Fernández-Rivas1,2, Jaume Barallat3, Bibiana Quirant-Sánchez4, Victoria González1,5,6, María Doladé3, Eva Martinez-Caceres4, Monica Piña7, Joan Matllo8, Ignacio Blanco9, Pere-Joan Cardona1,2.
Abstract
The implementation of vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs) allowed the management of the pandemic in a manner that differed from that in the first waves. It has been demonstrated that the mRNA vaccines elicit good humoral responses but that there are still breakthrough infections. In summer 2021, a fifth wave emerged, despite the good coverage of HCWs in Spain. We aimed to study the SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels as a marker to predict the possibility of Delta variant infections after vaccination after a seroepidemiological campaign. Of the 5000 participants, a total of 4902 (98.04%) showed a positive result in the serological anti-S test and only 98 (1.96%) were negative. Among the 4368 fully vaccinated participants, only in five cases was the serology negative. Of the total number of participants that received antibody results during the study, 162 were PCR positive in the subsequent two months. Among these, 151 were fully vaccinated (two doses). Significant differences between antibody BAU/mL levels were found between PCR positive and non-PCR positive participants (p < 0.01). The median of BAU/mL was higher in those vaccinated patients with no infection (1260 BAU/mL; 465-2080) versus infected patients (661 BAU/mL; 361-2080). These data support the idea that vaccines play an important role in the control of the pandemic, especially among HCWs at the time of the Delta variant circulation. More studies with other variants of concern must be performed in order to establish a correlation between the levels of IgG and the new infections.Entities:
Keywords: Delta variant; SARS-CoV-2; humoral response
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35891366 PMCID: PMC9315723 DOI: 10.3390/v14071385
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Viruses ISSN: 1999-4915 Impact factor: 5.818
Figure 1Flowchart of the process of the study.
Demographic and professional characteristics of the study group.
| Participants | |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 959 (19.18) |
| Female | 4019 (80.38) |
| Not informed | 22 (0.44) |
| Age | |
| 18–34 | 1309 (26.18) |
| 35–54 | 2246 (44.92) |
| ≥55 | 961 (19.22) |
| Not informed | 484 (9.68) |
| Job Location | |
| Primary Care * | 2556 (51.12) |
| Tertiary Care ** | 2444 (48.88) |
| Health Care position | |
| Nurse | 1681 (33.62) |
| Physician | 914 (18.28) |
| Health Care Support Services | 755 (15.1) |
| Laboratory Technician | 252 (5.04) |
| Administrative Healthcare | 996 (19.92) |
| Other | 395 (7.9) |
| Not informed | 7 (0.14) |
| Previous COVID-19 Diagnosis | |
| Yes | 828 (16.56) |
| No | 4139 (82.78) |
| N/A | 33 (0.66) |
| Type of vaccine | |
| Pfizer | 4519 (90.38) |
| Moderna | 285 (5.7) |
| Others | 10 (0.2) |
| Not informed | 186 (3.72) |
| Vaccination Dosages | |
| One | 166 (3.32) |
| Complete (2 doses) | 4368 (87.36) |
| Not vaccination | 182 (3.64) |
| Not informed | 284 (5.68) |
* Primary Care: General practitioner facilities. ** Tertiary Care: Hospital facilities.
Figure 2Differences in median BAU/mL SARS-CoV-2 previous antibody levels between 0 = Negative and 1 = Positive HCWs. In both cases the upper range corresponds to the limit of quantification of our assay (2080 BAU/mL).
Figure 3Differences in median BAU/mL SARS-CoV-2 previous antibody levels between infected HCWs that were recorded as not symptomatic (n = 40) and symptomatic (n = 45). All single dots are overlaid on the box and whisker plot, as the number of outliers is remarkable.
Symptoms classification in SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated participants.
| Category |
| % |
|---|---|---|
| No symptoms | 40 | 47.1 |
| ‘Flu-Like’ with fever | 26 | 30.6 |
| ‘Flu-Like’ no fever | 14 | 16.5 |
| Gastrointestinal | 5 | 5.9 |
Figure 4Differences in median BAU/mL SARS-CoV-2 previous antibody levels between four groups. 0: Non-symptomatic (n = 40); 1: ‘Flu Like’ with fever (n = 26); 2: ‘Flu-Like’ no fever (n = 14); 3: Gastrointestinal symptoms (n = 5). All single dots, including outliers, are overlaid on the box and whisker plot.
Lymphocyte subpopulations and immunoglobulin levels in Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG negative participants.
| Participant 1 | Participant 2 | Reference Values | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min. | Max. | |||
| Total lymphocytes (cell/uL) | 1700 | 1200 | 1200 | 3500 |
| CD19+ lymphocytes (cell/uL) | 58 | 58 | 100 | 500 |
| CD19+ lymphocytes (%) | 3.4 | 4.8 | 6 | 19 |
| CD3+ lymphocytes (cell/uL) | 1027 | 628 | 700 | 2100 |
| CD3+ lymphocytes (%) | 60.4 | 52.3 | 55 | 83 |
| CD4+ lymphocytes (cell/uL) | 493 | 416 | 700 | 1800 |
| CD4+ lymphocytes (%) | 29 | 34.7 | 30 | 50 |
| CD8+ lymphocytes (cell/uL) | 332 | 188 | 430 | 1500 |
| CD8+ lymphocytes (%) | 19.5 | 15.7 | 18 | 40 |
| IgG immunoglobulin | 339 | 621 | 700 | 1400 |
| IgA immunoglobulin | 45 | 150 | 70 | 400 |
| IgM immunoglobulin | 41 | 30 | 40 | 230 |
| SARS-CoV-2 T cell reactivity | Positive | Positive | Absence | |