Search

Abstract Objective Despite the high vaccine efficacy of mRNA COVID‐19 vaccines, there are individuals who developed excessive reactogenic and/or allergic responses after the first mRNA dose and were considered ineligible for further mRNA doses. CoronaVac, an inactivated SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccine, is recommended in Singapore as an alternative. Methods Individuals, ineligible for further mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 or mRNA‐1273) because of excessive reactive responses to prime mRNA vaccination, were recruited and offered two doses of CoronaVac as booster vaccination 38–224 days post their mRNA vaccine dose. Individuals who did not develop any excessive reactive responses after the prime mRNA vaccination were also recruited and given another mRNA vaccine as booster vaccination. Blood samples were collected at days 0, 21 and 90 post first CoronaVac dose and mRNA dose, respectively, for analysis. Results We showed that two CoronaVac booster doses induced specific immunity in these mRNA vaccine‐primed individuals. Although the spike‐specific antibody response was lower, their memory B cell response against the receptor‐binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein was similar, compared with individuals who received two BNT162b2 injections. The spike‐specific memory T cell response also increased following CoronaVac booster doses. However, specific immunity against the Omicron variant was low, similar to individuals with two BNT162b2 doses. Conclusion Our findings showed that while mRNA vaccine‐primed individuals can opt for two subsequent doses of CoronaVac, an additional dose may be necessary to achieve protection, especially against newly emerging immune escape variants such as Omicron.

Abstract Objectives The emergence of a SARS‐CoV‐2 variant with a point mutation in the spike (S) protein, D614G, has taken precedence over the original Wuhan isolate by May 2020. With an increased infection and transmission rate, it is imperative to determine whether antibodies induced against the D614 isolate may cross‐neutralise against the G614 variant. Methods Antibody profiling against the SARS‐CoV‐2 S protein of the D614 variant by flow cytometry and assessment of neutralising antibody titres using pseudotyped lentiviruses expressing the SARS‐CoV‐2 S protein of either the D614 or G614 variant tagged with a luciferase reporter were performed on plasma samples from COVID‐19 patients with known D614G status (n = 44 infected with D614, n = 6 infected with G614, n = 7 containing all other clades: O, S, L, V, G, GH or GR). Results Profiling of the anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 humoral immunity reveals similar neutralisation profiles against both S protein variants, albeit waning neutralising antibody capacity at the later phase of infection. Of clinical importance, patients infected with either the D614 or G614 clade elicited a similar degree of neutralisation against both pseudoviruses, suggesting that the D614G mutation does not impact the neutralisation capacity of the elicited antibodies. Conclusions Cross‐reactivity occurs at the functional level of the humoral response on both the S protein variants, which suggests that existing serological assays will be able to detect both D614 and G614 clades of SARS‐CoV‐2. More importantly, there should be negligible impact towards the efficacy of antibody‐based therapies and vaccines that are currently being developed.

Abstract Objectives Little is known about the prevalence of febrile illness in the Arabian region as clinical, laboratory and immunological profiling remains largely uncharacterised. Methods A total of 2018 febrile patients from Jazan, Saudi Arabia, were recruited between 2014 and 2017. Patients were screened for dengue and chikungunya virus, Plasmodium, Brucella, Neisseria meningitidis, group A streptococcus and Leptospira. Clinical history and biochemical parameters from blood tests were collected. Patient sera of selected disease‐confirmed infections were quantified for immune mediators by multiplex microbead‐based immunoassays. Results Approximately 20% of febrile patients were tested positive for one of the pathogens, and they presented overlapping clinical and laboratory parameters. Nonetheless, eight disease‐specific immune mediators were identified as potential biomarkers for dengue (MIP‐1α, MCP‐1), malaria (TNF‐α), streptococcal and meningococcal (eotaxin, GRO‐α, RANTES, SDF‐1α and PIGF‐1) infections, with high specificity and sensitivity profiles. Notably, based on the conditional inference model, six of these mediators (MIP‐1α, TNF‐α, GRO‐α, RANTES, SDF‐1α and PIGF‐1) were revealed to be 68.4% accurate in diagnosing different febrile infections, including those of unknown diseases. Conclusions This study is the first extensive characterisation of the clinical analysis and immune biomarkers of several clinically important febrile infections in Saudi Arabia. Importantly, an immune signature with robust accuracy, specificity and sensitivity in differentiating several febrile infections was identified, providing useful insights into patient disease management in the Arabian Peninsula.

Abstract Objectives While the safety of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs in COVID‐19 has been questioned, they may be beneficial given the hyper‐inflammatory immune response associated with severe disease. We aimed to assess the safety and potential efficacy of cyclooxygenase‐2 (COX‐2) selective inhibitors in high‐risk patients. Methods Retrospective study of patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia and aged ≥ 50 years who were admitted to hospital. Adverse outcomes analysed included supplemental oxygen use, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation and mortality, with the primary endpoint a composite of any of these. Plasma levels of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines were measured in a subset. Results Twenty‐two of 168 (13.1%) in the cohort received COX‐2 inhibitors [median duration 3 days, interquartile range (IQR) 3–4.25]. Median age was 61 (IQR 55–67.75), 44.6% were female, and 72.6% had at least one comorbidity. A lower proportion of patients receiving COX‐2 inhibitors met the primary endpoint: 4 (18.2%) versus 57 (39.0%), P = 0.062. This difference was less pronounced after adjusting for baseline difference in age, gender and comorbidities in a multivariate logistic regression model [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.14–1.46]. The level of interleukin‐6 declined after treatment in five of six (83.3%) treatment group patients [compared to 15 of 28 (53.6%) in the control group] with a greater reduction in absolute IL‐6 levels (P‐value = 0.025). Conclusion Treatment with COX‐2 inhibitors was not associated with an increase in adverse outcomes. Its potential for therapeutic use as an immune modulator warrants further evaluation in a large randomised controlled trial.

Abstract Objectives A wide range of duration of viral RNA shedding in patients infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has been observed. We aimed to investigate factors associated with prolonged and intermittent viral RNA shedding in a retrospective cohort of symptomatic COVID‐19 patients. Methods Demographic, clinical and laboratory data from hospitalised COVID‐19 patients from a single centre with two consecutive negative respiratory reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) results were extracted from electronic medical records. Kaplan–Meier survival curve analysis was used to assess the effect of clinical characteristics on the duration and pattern of shedding. Plasma levels of immune mediators were measured using Luminex multiplex microbead‐based immunoassay. Results There were 201 symptomatic patients included. Median age was 49 years (interquartile range 16–61), and 52.2% were male. Median RNA shedding was 14 days (IQR 9–18). Intermittent shedding was observed in 77 (38.3%). We did not identify any factor associated with prolonged or intermittent viral RNA shedding. Duration of shedding was inversely correlated with plasma levels of T‐cell cytokines IL‐1β and IL‐17A at the initial phase of infection, and patients had lower levels of pro‐inflammatory cytokines during intermittent shedding. Conclusions Less active T‐cell responses at the initial phase of infection were associated with prolonged viral RNA shedding, suggesting that early immune responses are beneficial to control viral load and prevent viral RNA shedding. Intermittent shedding is common and may explain re‐detection of viral RNA in recovered patients.