Comparative T and B immune responses of four differentanti-COVID-19 vaccine strategies 6 months after vaccination
A study published in the Journal of Infection evaluated the comparative immunogenicity conferred by different coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and vaccination strategies and their durability. In a prospective longitudinal cohort (COVIDIM Study) of healthcare workers (HCWs), researchers led by Benjamin Bonnet, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France, analyzed immune response at 3 and 6 months after full vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with either mRNA-1273 (Moderna), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and/or ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca).
Files (209 downloads):
Two-dose ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine protection against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths over time: a retrospective, population-based cohort study in Scotland and Brazil
Study data published in The Lancet suggest waning vaccine protection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospital admissions and deaths became evident within three months of the second vaccine dose
Files (117 downloads):
Immunogenicity, safety, and reactogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 primary vaccination incorporating mRNA, viral-vector, and protein-adjuvant vaccines in the UK (Com-COV2): a single-blind, randomised, phase 2, non-inferiority trial
Heterologous second dosing with mRNA-1273 ([m1273], Moderna) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, but not NVX-CoV2373 ([NVX], Novavax), increased transient systemic reactogenicity compared with homologous schedules, according to a study published in The Lancet.
“Given the importance of flexible use of different COVID-19 vaccines within the same schedule to facilitate rapid deployment, we studied mixed priming schedules incorporating an adenoviral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [ChAd], AstraZeneca), two mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [BNT], Pfizer–BioNTech, and [m1273]) and a nanoparticle vaccine containing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike glycoprotein and Matrix-M adjuvant [NVX],” wrote Arabella S V Stuart, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and colleagues. “These data are the first from a randomized controlled trial of COVID-19 vaccines of heterologous mRNA boost and protein-subunit boost.”
“[m1273] as a heterologous boost after ChAd or BNT prime induces a higher binding and neutralizing antibody response than either homologous schedule. Heterologous boost with NVX after ChAd prime was superior to homologous ChAd for induction of humoral and cellular immunity. NVX after BNT prime did not meet non-inferiority criteria for binding antibodies when compared with homologous BNT; however, in a non-randomized comparison, binding antibody concentrations were still well above the geometric mean concentration observed following ChAd/ChAd,” the researchers reported.
Files (64 downloads):
-
Pediatrics, Occupational Medicine
Brazil
Interesting and well-documented cases, but those did not modify my opinion in that pregnant women should NOT get covid vaccination, or at least not the ones of Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, and even less during the first trimester. Perhaps the vaccine of Coronavac, made simply of dead virus could be acceptable. The rare severe sequelae of covid in fetus are known, but the frequent abortions related to Pfizer vaccine is also documented (although forcibly hidden under the rug).
__reactions__ -
General Medicine
France
La question porte sur un vaccin à ADN contre la Covid19 si j'ai bien compris. Dans ce cas les vaccins utilisant un adénovirus modifié en vue de produire Spike entrent dans ce cadre : AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, Spoutnik V, etc... Il ne semble pas que leur carrière soit restée spectaculaire.
__reactions__ -
-
General Medicine
France
Madame, nous ne nous comprenons pas... Je ne blâme pas la patiente mais je blâme le médecin qui a fait l'injection. Le médecin est là pour donner une expertise médicale à son patient, et il est responsable éthiquement de ses prescriptions, dont celles de vaccins. Ces "traitements-vaccins" contre la Covid 19, comme les nomme désormais Mr Delfraissy, ne permettent pas de réponse immunitaire au niveau de la sphère respiratoire haute (disons nez et bouche), et cela a été spécifié DES LEUR ANNONCE, donc une personne sans risque de forme grave telle cette patiente ne doit EN AUCUN CAS recevoir ce traitement du fait des risques réels et prouvés depuis des mois de complications graves voire mortelles, certes rares mais très supérieurs à son risque de décès de la Covid 19 évalué à zéro. De plus, nous n'avons aucune étude de teratogénicite ni cancérogenicite faite par les producteurs de ses injections (AstraZeneca, Johnson, Moderna, Pfizer pour la France). On nous a menti sur leur innocuité,sur l'absence de possibilité d'insertion d"ARNm dans L'ADN humain et sur la durée de sa persistance dans le corps humain, sur l'absence de traitement de la Covid 19 permettant une diminution significative du risque d'hospitalisation,de réanimation et de décès. On ne connait pas la composition des vaccins covid. On nous ment encore: un décès avec covid n'est pas un décès de la covid. On modifie les critères de définition d'une épidémie (on passe d'un compte de malades à un compte de tests). On diffame les personnes qui alertent sur les risques démesurés pris. On harcèle les dits "complotistes" qualifiés d'antivax. On rappelle en poste des soignants vaccinés contaminés et donc potentiellement contaminant pour leurs patients, et on suspend des professionnels sans droit au chômage ni au RSA avec interdiction d'exercice de leur profession (contrat suspendu n'est pas rompu, donc impossible de souscrire 1 nouveau contrat de travail dans 1 autre métier si capacité physique et psychique de le faire)= on les affame; ou on les injecte sous contrainte vitale (subvenir à ses besoins vitaux=se nourrir,se loger, se soigner). On ne s'interroge pas sur les décès suivant de quelques jours (disons max 3-4 semaines) les injections chez des personnes jusque là soit en bonne santé, soit âgés mais stables et qui décompensent brutalement et décèdent dans les jours suivant l'injection ("il est vieux, c'est normal"= enregistrement systématique en mort naturelle). On ne compare pas les courbes de décès des pays à fort taux d'injection à ceux à faible taux d'injection à populations comparables (notamment à, fort taux de population âgée fragile); on ne compare pas non plus avec les régions du monde ayant adopté le traitement de la covid par le protocole Ivermectine, Etc...
Au total, on ingurgite le discours du gouvernement et du Conseil scientifique (avec membres avec conflits d'intérêt); on ne pense pas, on ne se questionne pas... Même avec Omicron bien moins mortel qu'1 grippe.
POURQUOI? (déni ? manipulé? trop fatiguant? manque de temps après 1 journée de travail harassante ?indifférence ?...). CETTE GESTION SANITAIRE EST IRRATIONNELLE, OU NON SANITAIRE et dans ce cas dans quel but (toute action humaine vise 1 objectif, de la plus élémentaire type "je me lève pour prendre 1 verre d'eau" à " je combats pour la vérité ").
Le SarSCoV2 ne peut disparaître,c'est 1 coronavirus,multi espèces; il continuera à muter car c'est dans sa nature de virus à ARN.
Je suis médecin, 58 ans, avec "comorbidité", renfort unité covid 1ère vague, 2 injections Pfizer dans les tous premiers (2ème 17/02/21). Je suis devenue complotiste. J'EN APELLE AU REVEIL DES MEDECINS. QUESTIONNEZ-VOUS Y COMPRIS SUR CE QUE VOUS CONSIDEREZ COMME UNE EVIDENCE ( cf Descartes) ET INFORMEZ-VOUS, FERMEZ LA TELE, LA RADIO ET LES JOURNAUX FINANCES PAR DES MILLIARDAIRES OU L'ETAT.
Citation:
"Pour que le mal triomphe, il suffit que les hommes de bien ne fassent rien" Edmund Burke
Cordialement.
__reactions__
Bell Palsy Incidence Higher With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Than Vaccine
TUESDAY, May 2, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- Incidence of Bell palsy is significantly more common following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection than after receipt of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, according to a review published online April 27 in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery.
Ali Rafati, M.D., from Iran University of Medical Sciences in Tehran, and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review to compare the incidence of Bell palsy in people receiving COVID-19 vaccines versus unvaccinated individuals or placebo recipients.
The researchers found that when pooling data from four phase 3 randomized clinical trials, Bell palsy incidence was significantly higher in recipients of COVID-19 vaccines versus placebo recipients (77,525 vaccine recipients versus 66,682 placebo recipients; odds ratio [OR], 3.00; 95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.10 to 8.18). However, there was no significant increase seen in Bell palsy after administration of messenger RNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (eight studies; 13,518,026 doses versus 13,510,701 unvaccinated; OR, 0.70; 95 percent CI, 0.42 to 1.16). There was no significant difference in the incidence of Bell palsy among 22,978,880 first-dose recipients of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine versus 22,978,880 first-dose recipients of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine (OR, 0.97; 95 percent CI, 0.82 to 1.15). Furthermore, Bell palsy was significantly more common after SARS-CoV-2 infection (2,822,072) compared with after COVID-19 vaccinations (37,912,410; relative risk, 3.23; 95 percent CI, 1.57 to 6.62).
"This study shows evidence for the association between SARS-CoV-2 and Bell palsy; however, this finding does not equate to causality, and further research is required to verify this association and investigate possible mechanisms," the authors write.
Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
New COVID-19 Drug Guards Against All Variants in Immunocompromised
FRIDAY, April 28, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- A new antibody drug to help fight COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised people may be available by the end of the year.
AstraZeneca said Thursday that its treatment, called AZD3152, appears to work in all variants to date, potentially providing necessary armor for immunocompromised people whose vaccinations have not given them enough protection, CBS News reported.
"In vitro studies demonstrated that AZD3152 neutralizes all COVID-19 variants, including Arcturus, the latest variant of concern," Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals at AstraZeneca, told investors on an earnings call this week.
Results of the SUPERNOVA trial on the drug could be out by September, and that may lead to an emergency use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CBS News reported.
AstraZeneca had previously announced promising early lab testing results for the drug. It may be helpful in the 2 percent of people whose immune systems are not providing effective resistance after vaccination, the company said.
AZD3152 is considered a replacement for the now-shelved Evusheld. It is based on an antibody derived from donated B cells of previously infected people, CBS News reported. It is "designed to have broader variant coverage" than Evusheld, according to the company.
Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
Transportation Barriers Linked to Worse Outcomes in Cancer Care
WEDNESDAY, April 26, 2023 (HealthDay News) -- For adults with and without cancer history, delayed care due to lack of transportation is associated with increased emergency department use and all-cause mortality, according to a study published online April 25 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Changchuan Jiang, M.D., M.P.H., from the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, and colleagues examined the association between lack of safe, reliable, and affordable transportation and clinical outcomes among 28,640 adults with and 470,024 adults without a cancer history. Transportation barriers were defined as delays in care arising from lack of transportation.
The researchers found that transportation barriers were reported by 2.8 and 1.7 percent of adults with and without a cancer history, respectively. Overall, there were 7,324 and 40,793 deaths, respectively, in adults with and without a cancer history. Compared with adults without a cancer history or transportation barriers, those with a cancer history and transportation barriers reported the highest likelihood of emergency department use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.77) and all-cause mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.28), followed by those without a cancer history and with transportation barriers (emergency department use: aOR, 1.98; all-cause mortality: aHR, 1.57) and those with cancer history but without transportation barriers (emergency department use: aOR, 1.39; all-cause mortality: aHR, 1.59).
"Transportation is a critical health-related social need affecting cancer care quality and equitable access to care," Jiang said in a statement. "Our research shows that value-based, patient-centered approaches are needed to address this critical issue and ensure that no one is left behind in their cancer journey."
One author disclosed financial ties to AstraZeneca.
Abstract/Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)
Copyright © 2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
