Search

Background: Electronic informed consent (eConsent) usage has expanded in recent years in Europe, especially during the pandemic. Slow recruitment rate and limitations in participant outreach are the challenges often faced in clinical research. Given the benefits of eConsent and group counselling reported in the literature, group eConsent was implemented in recruitment for the SWITCH-ON study. We aim to explore the experience of participants who attended group eConsent for the SWITCH-ON study and evaluate its potential for future use. Methods: SWITCH-ON study aims to analyse the immunogenicity of a healthy population following bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccination. Four hundred thirty-four healthcare workers aged 18–65 were successfully recruited and sent a questionnaire about their experience with group eConsent. Out of 399 completed questionnaires (response rate 92%), 39 participants did not join group eConsent. The remaining 360 responses were included in the final analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were reported using descriptive statistical analysis and thematic analysis respectively. Results: Participants found that group eConsent was an efficient method that it allowed them to hear each other’s questions and concerns and created a sense of togetherness. However, limited privacy, barriers to asking questions in a group, and peer pressure can limit the use of group eConsent. One hundred sixty-five (46%) participants thought that group eConsent was suitable to recruit participants with diseases or conditions, while 87 (24%) reported limitations with this method. The remaining participants suggested that applicability of group eConsent depended on the diseases or conditions of the study population, and one-to-one conversation should always be available. Participants who had experienced both one-to-one and group eConsent shared different preferred consent formats for future studies. Concl

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants raised questions regarding the durability of immune responses after homologous or heterologous boosters after Ad26.COV2.S-priming. We found that SARS-CoV-2-specific binding antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, and T cells are detectable 5 months after boosting, although waning of antibodies and limited cross-reactivity with Omicron BA.1 was observed.

The severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is spreading rapidly, even in vaccinated individuals, raising concerns about immune escape. Here, we studied neutralizing antibodies and T cell responses targeting SARS-CoV-2 D614G [wild type (WT)] and the Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants of concern in a cohort of 60 health care workers after immunization with ChAdOx-1 S, Ad26.COV2.S, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2. High binding antibody levels against WT SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) were detected 28 days after vaccination with both mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2), which substantially decreased after 6 months. In contrast, antibody levels were lower after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination but did not wane. Neutralization assays showed consistent cross-neutralization of the Beta and Delta variants, but neutralization of Omicron was significantly lower or absent. BNT162b2 booster vaccination after either two mRNA-1273 immunizations or Ad26.COV2 priming partially restored neutralization of the Omicron variant, but responses were still up to 17-fold decreased compared with WT. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were detected up to 6 months after all vaccination regimens, with more consistent detection of specific CD4+ than CD8+ T cells. No significant differences were detected between WT- and variant-specific CD4+ or CD8+ T cell responses, including Omicron, indicating minimal escape at the T cell level. This study shows that vaccinated individuals retain T cell immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, potentially balancing the lack of neutralizing antibodies in preventing or limiting severe COVID-19. Booster vaccinations are needed to further restore Omicron cross-neutralization by antibodies.