Search

Waning of the immune response upon vaccination in SARS-CoV-2 infection is an important subject of evaluation in this pandemic, mostly in healthcare workers (HCW) that are constantly in contact with infected samples and patients. Therefore, our study aimed to establish the specific humoral response of specific IgG and IgA antibodies upon vaccination, during the second year of pandemic and evaluating the booster shot with the same vaccine type. A group of 103 HCW with documented exposure to the virus were monitored for specific IgG and IgA levels prior to vaccination, after the first vaccination round, during the following 8 months and after the booster shot with the same vaccine type. After 8 months post-vaccination the humoral response in both IgG and IgA decreased, 2.4 times for IgG, and 2.7 times for IgA. Although the antibodies levels significantly decreased, no documented infection was registered in the group. After the booster shot, the entire group, displayed IgG increased levels, immediately after booster followed by the increase in specific IgA. IgG levels post-second round of vaccination are statistically higher compared to the first round, while IgA is restored at the same levels. Within the vaccination or booster routine for a multiple waves' pandemic that is generating new virus variants, populational immunity remains an important issue for future implementation of prevention/control measures., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The current COVID-19 pandemic has triggered an accelerated pace in all research domains, including reliable diagnostics methodology. Molecular diagnostics of the virus and its presence in biological samples relies on the RT-PCR method, the most used and validated worldwide. Nonconventional tests with improved parameters that are in the development stages will be presented, such as droplet digital PCR or CRISPR-based assays. These molecular tests were followed by rapid antigen testing along with the development of antibody tests, whether based on ELISA platform or on a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. Less-conventional methods of testing antibodies (e.g., lateral flow immunoassay) are presented as well. Left somewhere in the backstage of COVID-19 research, immune cells and, furthermore, immune memory cells, are gaining the spotlight, more so in the vaccination context. Recently, methodologies using flow-cytometry evaluate circulating immune cells in infected/recovered patients. The appearance of new virus variants has triggered a surge for tests improvement. As the pandemic has entered an ongoing or postvaccination era, all methodologies that are used to monitor public health focus on diagnostic strategies and this review points out where gaps should be filled in both clinical and research settings.

As the current COVID-19 pandemic illustrates, vaccination is the most powerful method of disease prevention and public confidence in vaccines depends on their safety and efficacy. The information gathered in the current pandemic is growing at an accelerated pace. Both the key vital protein DNA/RNA messengers and the delivery carriers are the elements of a puzzle including their interactions with the immune system to suppress SARS-CoV-2 infection. A new nano-era is beginning in the vaccine development field and an array of side applications for diagnostic and antiviral tools will likely emerge. This review focuses on the evolution of vaccine carriers up to COVID-19-aimed nanoparticles and the immune-related adverse effects imposed by these nanocarriers.

Given the current outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) and the development and implementation of mass vaccination, data are being obtained by analyzing vaccination campaigns. In the present study, 69 healthcare workers who were exposed to patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‑2 were monitored for specific immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgA levels at different time periods. Prior to vaccination, after the first round of vaccination at 21 days (when the second dose of vaccine was administrated) and 24 days after the second round of vaccination, with an mRNA‑based vaccine. The basal IgG and IgA levels in previously infected subjects and non‑infected subjects notably differed. Vaccination increased the IgG and IgA levels after the first dose in most subjects from both groups, the levels of which further increased following the second round of vaccination. The associations between IgG and IgA levels following the first and second rounds of vaccination demonstrated that in the entire vaccination group, regardless of prior exposure to the infectious agent, the increment and levels of IgG and IgA were similar. Thus, the levels upon vaccination were statistically similar irrespective of the starting base line prior to vaccination. In the present study, seroconversion was achieved in all subjects following the second round of vaccination, with similar antibodies levels.

The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has gathered 1 year of scientific/clinical information. This informational asset should be thoroughly and wisely used in the coming year colliding in a global task force to control this infection. Epidemiology of this infection shows that the available estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence largely depended on the availability of molecular testing and the extent of tested population. Within molecular diagnosis, the viability and infectiousness of the virus in the tested samples should be further investigated. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 has a genetic normal evolution that is a dynamic process. The immune system participates to the counterattack of the viral infection by pathogen elimination, cellular homoeostasis, tissue repair and generation of memory cells that would be reactivated upon a second encounter with the same virus. In all these stages, we still have knowledge to be gathered regarding antibody persistence, protective effects and immunological memory. Moreover, information regarding the intense pro-inflammatory action in severe cases still lacks and this is important in stratifying patients for difficult to treat cases. Without being exhaustive, the review will cover these important issues to be acknowledged to further advance in the battle against the current pandemia., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine published by Foundation for Cellular and Molecular Medicine and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Herd immunity is a form of indirect protection that is offered to the community when a large proportion of individuals contained in the community are immune to a certain infection. This immunity can be due to vaccination or to the recovery post-disease. Effective herd immunity in SARS-CoV-2 infection has several hurdles upon achievement. Herd immunity cannot be obtained concomitantly in many geographical areas because the areas have different population density and the societal measures to contain the spreading are different. A proportion of 50-66% of the population needs to be immunized naturally or artificially in this SARS-Cov2 pandemic and this percentage is not easily achievable. The duration of herd immunity is another issue while information on the long-term immune response against SARS-CoV2 is yet scarce. Epitope stability, another issue to be solved when achieving herd immunity, is important. Mutation in the viral structure will call upon other sets of neutralizing antibodies and hence for other herd immunity type installment. The societal tactics to achieve the much-needed herd immunity should be developed keeping in mind the welfare of the population. Without being exhaustive, throughout our paper we will elaborate on each of the hurdles encountered in developing herd immunity to SARS-Cov2 infection.

Adriana Gherbon,1– 3 Mirela Frandes,4 Marioara Nicula-Neagu,5 Romulus Timar,1– 3 Bogdan Timar1– 3 1Department VII Internal Medicine - Diabetes, Nutrition, Metabolic Diseases and Systemic Rheumatology, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania; 2Centre of Molecular Research in Nephrology and Vascular Disease, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania; 3Department of Diabetes, Nutrition, and Metabolic Diseases, “Pius Brinzeu” Emergency Hospital, Timisoara, Romania; 4Department of Functional Sciences - Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania; 5Banat’s University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine “King Michael I of Romania”, Timisoara, RomaniaCorrespondence: Mirela Frandes, Department of Functional Sciences - Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2 Eftimie Murgu Sq, Timisoara, 300041, Romania, Email mirela.frandes@umft.roIntroduction: The COVID-19 lockdown influenced the glycemic control and other metabolic parameters in people with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus.Objective: To study the effects of COVID-19 lockdown on glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Material and Methods: Our study group included 120 Romanian people with T2DM from both urban and rural areas. We employed a structured questionnaire with multiple-choice to collect data about DM management during lockdown, the interaction with their diabetologist, the access to treatment, and what other factors influenced their DM management during the lockdown.Results: We did not observe an increase of numbers of hyper or hypoglycemia during the restriction period in people with T2DM. The number of glycemic imbalances was higher in people treated with insulin than those with oral antidiabetics (OAD) (p=0.003, X2=8.91). Regarding the causes of imbalances, we did not obtain a significant difference during the restriction period, neither between patients following treatment with insulin nor with OAD. On the contrary, we observed that only 26.7% of people with T2DM managed to maintain their weight or lost weight vs 73.3% patients who gained several extra kg (p< 0.001, X2=52.26).Conclusion: The findings of this study have demonstrated that in people with T2DM, the COVID-19 lockdown determines better glycemic control among patients treated with OAD compared to those treated with insulin therapy. Anxiety, stress, and emotions were the main reasons that led to the increase in glycemic values of these patients. Also, most patients have gained weight either due to lack of physical activity or due to stress.Keywords: type 2 diabetes, COVID-19, lockdown, diabetes management, body mass index