Neutralising antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination in UK haemodialysis patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Carr EJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8360704 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Neutralising antibodies after COVID-19 vaccination in UK haemodialysis patients.
Carr Edward J EJ Wu Mary M Harvey Ruth R Wall Emma C EC Kelly Gavin G Hussain Saira S Howell Michael M Kassiotis George G Swanton Charles C Gandhi Sonia S Bauer David Lv DL Billany Roseanne E RE Graham-Brown Matthew Pm MP Beckett Joseph J Bull Katherine K Shankar Sushma S Henderson Scott S Motallebzadeh Reza R Salama Alan D AD Harper Lorraine L Mark Patrick B PB McAdoo Stephen S Willicombe Michelle M Beale Rupert R
Lancet (London, England) 20210813 10305
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8776276 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8789238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effectiveness and safety of SARS‐CoV‐2‐neutralising mAbs, including mAb fragments, to prevent infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 causing COVID‐19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach.
| S-EPMC8135631 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9205158 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8769665 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8411904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this work was to review and synthesise the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of neutralising monoclonal antibody (nMAB) therapies in individuals exposed to or infected with SARS-CoV-2 and at high risk of developing severe COVID-19. Outcomes of interest were mortality, healthcare utilisation, and safety. A rapid systematic review was undertaken to identify and synthesise relevant RCT evidence using a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis. Relative treatment effects for individual nMABs (compared with placebo and one another) were estimated. Pooled effects for the nMAB class compared with placebo were estimated. Relative effects were combined with baseline natural history models to predict the expected risk reductions per 1000 patients treated. Eight articles investigating four nMABs (bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab, sotrovimab) were identified. All four therapies were associated with a statistically significant reduction in hospitalisation (70-80% reduction in relative risk; absolute reduction of 35-40 hospitalisations per 1000 patients). For mortality, ICU admission, and invasive ventilation, the risk was lower for all nMABs compared with placebo with moderate to high uncertainty due to small event numbers. Rates of serious AEs and infusion reactions were comparable between nMABs and placebo. Pairwise comparisons between nMABs were typically uncertain, with broadly comparable efficacy. In conclusion, nMABs are effective at reducing hospitalisation among infected individuals at high-risk of severe COVID-19, and are likely to reduce mortality, ICU admission, and invasive ventilation rates; the effect on these latter outcomes is more uncertain. Widespread vaccination and the emergence of nMAB-resistant variants make the generalisability of these results to current patient populations difficult.
| S-EPMC9583057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Given the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, identification of immunogenic targets against the coronavirus spike glycoprotein will provide crucial advances towards the development of sensitive diagnostic tools and potential vaccine candidate targets. In this study, using pools of overlapping linear B-cell peptides, we report two IgG immunodominant regions on SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein that are recognised by sera from COVID-19 convalescent patients. Notably, one is specific to SARS-CoV-2, which is located in close proximity to the receptor binding domain. The other region, which is localised at the fusion peptide, could potentially function as a pan-SARS target. Functionally, antibody depletion assays demonstrate that antibodies targeting these immunodominant regions significantly alter virus neutralisation capacities. Taken together, identification and validation of these neutralising B-cell epitopes will provide insights towards the design of diagnostics and vaccine candidates against this high priority coronavirus.
| S-EPMC7264175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimPatients with cancer are at an increased risk for severe coronavirus disease of 2019. We previously reported initial findings from a single centre prospective study evaluating antibody response after BNT162b2 vaccine, showing that adequate antibody response was achieved after two doses, but not after one, in patients with cancer vaccinated during anticancer therapy. Herein, we report a follow-up study, evaluating antibody response six months after the second vaccine dose.MethodsThe study included patients with solid tumours undergoing anticancer treatment, and immunocompetent health-care workers serving as controls. Serum titres of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG and neutralising antibodies (Nabs) were measured approximately six months after the second vaccine dose. Complete blood count values were collected and evaluated as predictors for antibody response.ResultsThe analysis included 93 patients with cancer (66.7% metastatic). Six months after the second vaccine dose (mean 176 ± 20 days), seropositivity rate among patients and controls was 83.9% versus 96.3% (p = 0.0001), respectively. Median RBD-IgG titre was lower among patients compared with controls (2.3 versus 3.2, p = 0.0002). Among seropositive individuals, median Nabs titre was similar between patients with cancer and controls (p = 0.566). Among patients with cancer, lymphocyte and neutrophil counts were not correlated with either RBD-IgG or Nabs titres.ConclusionsSeropositivity rates and RBD-IgG titre at six months after second BNT162b2 vaccine dose are lower among patients with cancer compared with healthy controls. However, Nabs titre is similar, suggesting a comparable protection among seropositive individuals. Lymphocyte count is not predictive of antibody response.
| S-EPMC9013177 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article examines the association between partisanship and vaccination in the UK. The lower vaccination rates among Republicans in the US have been linked to ideology and President Trump's anti-vaccination rhetoric. By contrast, both ruling and opposition parties in the UK promoted the national vaccination program. Using two datasets at constituency and individual levels, we analyse whether there are partisan differences in uptake when vaccination garners cross-party support. Our findings contrast in important ways from the US case. First, the correlation between partisanship and vaccination is the opposite to that of the US: both Conservative constituencies and individuals are associated with higher vaccination rates than Labour across almost all age groups. Thus, right-leaning individuals do not necessarily vaccinate less, at least when their political party is in power and supportive of vaccination. Second, partisanship alone accounts for a large share of variation in vaccination rates, but this association appears largely driven by socio-economic and demographic differences: older and economically better off individuals and constituencies tend to be more vaccinated. Once these controls are included, the correlation between Conservative partisanship and vaccination shrinks substantially. Hence, the ideological source of the partisan gap in vaccination rates appears smaller than in the US.
| S-EPMC9672584 | biostudies-literature