Journal of Clinical Medicine

Research

Jump to: Review

10 pages, 1659 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfections in a Prospective Inception Cohort Study: Impact of COVID-19 Vaccination

by José L. Casado, Johannes Haemmerle, Pilar Vizcarra, Gema Ramirez-Alonso, Andrea Salazar-Tosco, Beatriz Romero-Hernandez, Magdalena Blasco, Mario Rodriguez-Dominguez, Itria G. Mirabella, Alejandro Vallejo and Marina Fernandez-Escribano

J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(12), 3352; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123352 - 10 Jun 2022

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 1530

Abstract

The risk of reinfection could be related to the initial SARS-CoV-2 clinical presentation, but there are no data about the risk change after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We evaluated the rate of reinfection in an inception cohort study of 4943 health care workers (HCWs) according [...] Read more.

The risk of reinfection could be related to the initial SARS-CoV-2 clinical presentation, but there are no data about the risk change after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We evaluated the rate of reinfection in an inception cohort study of 4943 health care workers (HCWs) according to symptoms and serologic results during March–May 2020. Incidence rates (IR) and IR ratios (IRR) before and after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were determined by adjusting Poisson models. Overall, 1005 HCWs (20.3%) referred COVID-19 suggestive symptoms during the first surge of disease, and 33.5% and 55% presented a positive PCR or serology result, respectively. Meanwhile, 13% of asymptomatic HCWs had specific antibodies. During a follow up of 3422.2 person-years before vaccination, the rate of reinfection among seropositive individuals was 81% lower for those who were symptomatic compared with those who were asymptomatic (IRR of 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05–0.67; p = 0.003). During the 3100 person-years period after vaccination, an overall 74% decrease in the rate of infection was observed (IRR of 0.26; 95% CI, 0.21–0.32; p < 0.001), with a significant 83% and 70% decrease in seropositive and seronegative HCWs, respectively. In conclusion, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections is closely related to the clinical and serological presentation of COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccination further decreases the risk of reinfection more markedly among seropositive. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology and Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 292 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Importance of Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with Interstitial Lung Disease Associated with Systemic Autoimmune Disease

by Natalia Mena-Vázquez, Aimara García-Studer, Marta Rojas-Gimenez, Carmen María Romero-Barco, Sara Manrique-Arija, Arkaitz Mucientes, María Luisa Velloso-Feijoo, Francisco Javier Godoy-Navarrete, Pilar Morales-Garrido, Rocío Redondo-Rodríguez, MC Ordoñez-Cañizares, Rafaela Ortega-Castro, Jose Manuel Lisbona-Montañez, Ana Hidalgo Conde, Rocío Arnedo Díez de los Ríos, Eva Cabrera César, Francisco Espildora, María Carmen Aguilar-Hurtado, Isabel Añón-Oñate, Inmaculada Ureña-Garnica and Antonio Fernández-Nebro Show full author list Hide full author list

J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(9), 2437; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11092437 - 26 Apr 2022

Cited by 8 | Viewed by 2001

Abstract

Objectives: To describe the frequency of COVID-19 and the effect of vaccination in patients with interstitial lung disease and systemic autoimmune disease (ILD-SAD) and to identify factors associated with infection and severity of COVID-19. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional multicenter study of patients [...] Read more.

Objectives: To describe the frequency of COVID-19 and the effect of vaccination in patients with interstitial lung disease and systemic autoimmune disease (ILD-SAD) and to identify factors associated with infection and severity of COVID-19. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional multicenter study of patients with ILD-SAD followed between June and October 2021. The main variable was COVID-19 infection confirmed by a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) result for SARS-CoV-2. The secondary variables included severity of COVID-19, if the patient had to be admitted to hospital or died of the disease, and vaccination status. Other variables included clinical and treatment characteristics, pulmonary function and high-resolution computed tomography. Two logistic regression was performed to explore factors associated with “COVID-19” and “severe COVID-19”. Results: We included 176 patients with ILD-SAD: 105 (59.7%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 49 (27.8%) systemic sclerosis, and 22 (12.54%) inflammatory myopathies. We recorded 22/179 (12.5%) SARS-CoV-2 infections, 7/22 (31.8%) of them were severe and 3/22 (13.22%) died. As to the vaccination, 163/176 (92.6%) patients received the complete doses. The factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection were FVC (OR (95% CI), 0.971 (0.946–0.989); p = 0.040), vaccination (OR (95% CI), 0.169 (0.030–0.570); p = 0.004), and rituximab (OR (95% CI), 3.490 (1.129–6.100); p = 0.029). The factors associated with severe COVID-19 were the protective effect of the vaccine (OR (95% CI), 0.024 (0.004–0.170); p < 0.001) and diabetes mellitus (OR (95% CI), 4.923 (1.508–19.097); p = 0.018). Conclusions: Around 13% of patients with ILD-SAD had SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was severe in approximately one-third. Most patients with severe infection were not fully vaccinated. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology and Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines)

10 pages, 420 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Favorable Humoral Response to Third Dose of BNT162b2 in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis

by Mineaki Kitamura, Takahiro Takazono, Kosei Yamaguchi, Hideshi Tomura, Kazuko Yamamoto, Takashi Harada, Satoshi Funakoshi, Hiroshi Mukae and Tomoya Nishino

J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(8), 2090; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11082090 - 08 Apr 2022

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 1468

Abstract

Patients undergoing hemodialysis are known to exhibit low humoral responses to vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the humoral response to the third dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer) in patients undergoing hemodialysis. We included 279 [...] Read more.

Patients undergoing hemodialysis are known to exhibit low humoral responses to vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the humoral response to the third dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer) in patients undergoing hemodialysis. We included 279 patients undergoing hemodialysis (69 ± 11 years, 65% male, median dialysis vintage: 69 months) and 189 healthcare workers (45 ± 13 years, 30% male) who received the third dose of BNT162b2. Anti-spike immunoglobulin G (anti-S IgG) antibody levels were measured 3–4.5 months after the second dose and 3 weeks after the third dose and were compared. Despite a significant difference in anti-S IgG antibody levels after the second dose between the two groups (patients: median 215 U/mL and healthcare workers: median 589 U/mL; p < 0.001), no significant difference in anti-S IgG antibody levels after the third dose was observed (patients: median 19,000 U/mL, healthcare workers: median 21,000 U/mL). Except for dialysis vintage (ρ = 0.209, p < 0.001), no other factors correlated with anti-S IgG antibody levels after the third vaccine dose in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Therefore, a favorable response to the third dose of BNT162b2 was observed in patients undergoing hemodialysis, irrespective of their backgrounds. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology and Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 10321 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Impaired Neutralizing Antibody Activity against B.1.617.2 (Delta) after Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Patients Receiving Anti-CD20 Therapy

by Maximilian Töllner, Claudius Speer, Louise Benning, Marie Bartenschlager, Christian Nusshag, Christian Morath, Martin Zeier, Caner Süsal, Paul Schnitzler, Wilhelm Schmitt, Raoul Bergner, Ralf Bartenschlager, Hanns-Martin Lorenz and Matthias Schaier

J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(6), 1739; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061739 - 21 Mar 2022

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 1983

Abstract

Background: To characterize humoral response after standard anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in Rituximab-treated patients and to determine the optimal time point after last Rituximab treatment for appropriate immunization. Methods: Sixty-four patients who received Rituximab within the last seven years prior to the first anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination [...] Read more.

Background: To characterize humoral response after standard anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in Rituximab-treated patients and to determine the optimal time point after last Rituximab treatment for appropriate immunization. Methods: Sixty-four patients who received Rituximab within the last seven years prior to the first anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were recruited in a prospective observational study. Anti-S1 IgG, SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralization, and various SARS-CoV-2 target antibodies were determined. A live virus assay was used to assess neutralizing antibody activity against B.1.617.2 (delta). In Rituximab-treated patients, CD19⁺ peripheral B-cells were quantified using flow cytometry. Results: After second vaccination, all antibodies were significantly reduced compared to healthy controls. Neutralizing antibody activity against B.1.617.2 (delta) was detectable with a median (IQR) ID₅₀ of 0 (0–1:20) compared to 1:320 (1:160–1:320) in healthy controls (for all p < 0.001). Longer time period since last Rituximab administration correlated with higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and a stronger neutralization of B.1.617.2 (delta). With one exception, only patients with a CD19⁺ cell proportion ≥ 1% had detectable neutralizing antibodies. Conclusion: Our data indicate that a reconstitution of the B-cell population to >1% seems crucial in developing neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. We suggest that anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination should be administered at least 8–12 months after the last Rituximab treatment for sufficient humoral responses. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology and Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 2668 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Healthcare Activity in the Regional Hospitals of Andalusia (Spain)

by Antonio Lopez-Villegas, Rafael Jesus Bautista-Mesa, Miguel Angel Baena-Lopez, Antonio Garzon-Miralles, Miguel Angel Castellano-Ortega, Cesar Leal-Costa and Salvador Peiro

J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(2), 363; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11020363 - 12 Jan 2022

Cited by 7 | Viewed by 1348

Abstract

(1) Background: The large global outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has overloaded the public health systems and reduced the regular healthcare activity, leading to a major health crisis. The main objective of this study was to carry out a [...] Read more.

(1) Background: The large global outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has overloaded the public health systems and reduced the regular healthcare activity, leading to a major health crisis. The main objective of this study was to carry out a comparative evaluation of the healthcare activities in the hospitals of Eastern Andalusia, Spain. (2) Methods: In this study, an observational, multicentered, and retrospective approach was adopted to compare the healthcare activities of the Poniente Hospital (PH) and the Alto Guadalquivir Health Agency (AGHA). Data was collected over a period of 24 months, i.e., from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020, and the variables evaluated were: patients seen in the hospital emergency service (HES), X-ray tests performed, patients cited in outpatient consultations, surgical interventions performed, and patients included in the waiting list. (3) Results: The analysis of the above-mentioned variables revealed a significant reduction in the number of patients registered in 2020 at HES as compared to that in 2019 for both PH (p = 0.002) and AGHA (p < 0.001). Moreover, the number of surgical interventions in 2020 was significantly reduced from that in 2019 for both PH (p = 0.001) and AGHA (p = 0.009). Moreover, for PH (p < 0.001), a significant reduction was observed in the waiting list admissions in 2020 compared to that in 2019; however, no significant difference in the waiting list admissions between the years 2020 and 2019 was observed for AGHA (p = 0.446). In 2020, the number of teleconsultations was significantly increased from that in 2019 for both PH (p < 0.001) and AGHA (p = 0.006). (4) Conclusion: The analysis carried out indicates that in 2020, compared to 2019, healthcare activity was significantly reduced in most of the parameters included in this study. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology and Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 1646 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Date of Admission during COVID-19 Pandemic Impacted Patient Outcomes in Addition to the Higher Efficacy of Tocilizumab Plus High-Dose Corticosteroid Therapy Compared to Tocilizumab Alone

by Moncef Belhassen-García, Antonio Sánchez-Puente, Pedro-Ignacio Dorado-Díaz, Amparo López-Bernús, Jesús Sampedro-Gómez, Raúl Azibeiro-Melchor, Edgard Marcano-Millán, Beatriz Rodríguez-Alonso, María-Elisa Sánchez-Barrado, Ignacio Hernández-García, Ignacio Madruga, Guillermo Hernández-Pérez, Cristina Carbonell, Judit García-Aparicio, Laura Burgos, Eugenia López-Sánchez, Carlos Reina, Ana-María Ramón, Laura Cestero-Ramírez, Fátima Boumhir, Daniel Encinas-Sánchez, María Sánchez-Ledesma, Jacinto Herráez, Patricia Araoz, María-José Sánchez-Crespo, Sandra Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Ana-Elisa Rodríguez-Gude, Miguel-Vicente Sánchez-Hernández, Rafael Borrás, Víctor Sagredo-Meneses, Pedro-Luis Sánchez, Miguel Marcos and José-Ángel Martín-Oterino Show full author list Hide full author list

J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(1), 198; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11010198 - 30 Dec 2021

Viewed by 2035

Abstract

Background: The evidence for the efficacy of glucocorticoids combined with tocilizumab (TCZ) in COVID-19 comes from observational studies or subgroup analysis. Our aim was to compare outcomes between hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received high-dose corticosteroid pulse therapy and TCZ and those who received [...] Read more.

Background: The evidence for the efficacy of glucocorticoids combined with tocilizumab (TCZ) in COVID-19 comes from observational studies or subgroup analysis. Our aim was to compare outcomes between hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received high-dose corticosteroid pulse therapy and TCZ and those who received TCZ. Methods: A retrospective single-center study was performed on consecutive hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 between 1 March and 23 April 2020. Patients treated with either TCZ (400–600 mg, one to two doses) and methylprednisolone pulses (MPD-TCZ group) or TCZ alone were analyzed for the occurrence of a combined endpoint of death and need for invasive mechanical ventilation during admission. The independence of both treatment groups was tested using machine learning classifiers, and relevant variables that were potentially different between the groups were measured through a mean decrease accuracy algorithm. Results: An earlier date of admission was significantly associated with worse outcomes regardless of treatment type. Twenty patients died (27.0%) in the TCZ group, and 33 (44.6%) died or required intubation (n = 74), whereas in the MPD-TCZ group, 15 (11.0%) patients died and 29 (21.3%) patients reached the combined endpoint (n = 136; p = 0.006 and p < 0.001, respectively). Machine learning methodology using a random forest classifier confirmed significant differences between the treatment groups. Conclusions: MPD and TCZ improved outcomes (death and invasive mechanical ventilation) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but confounding variables such as the date of admission during the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered in observational studies. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology and Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 918 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Urine by RT-LAMP: A Very Rare Finding

by Juan García-Bernalt Diego, Pedro Fernández-Soto, Juan Luis Muñoz-Bellido, Begoña Febrer-Sendra, Beatriz Crego-Vicente, Cristina Carbonell, Amparo López-Bernús, Miguel Marcos, Moncef Belhassen-García and Antonio Muro

J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(1), 158; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11010158 - 29 Dec 2021

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 2179

Abstract

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 is routinely performed in naso/oropharyngeal swabs samples from patients via RT-qPCR. The RT-LAMP technology has also been used for viral RNA detection in respiratory specimens with both high sensitivity and specificity. Recently, we developed a novel RT-LAMP test for SARS-CoV-2 [...] Read more.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 is routinely performed in naso/oropharyngeal swabs samples from patients via RT-qPCR. The RT-LAMP technology has also been used for viral RNA detection in respiratory specimens with both high sensitivity and specificity. Recently, we developed a novel RT-LAMP test for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in nasopharyngeal swab specimens (named, N15-RT-LAMP) that can be performed as a single-tube colorimetric method, in a real-time platform, and as dry-LAMP. To date, there has been very little success in detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA in urine by RT-qPCR, and the information regarding urine viral excretion is still scarce and not comprehensive. Here, we tested our N15-RT-LAMP on the urine of 300 patients admitted to the Hospital of Salamanca, Spain with clinical suspicion of COVID-19, who had a nasopharyngeal swab RT-qPCR-positive (n = 100), negative (n = 100), and positive with disease recovery (n = 100) result. The positive group was also tested by RT-qPCR for comparison to N15-RT-LAMP. Only a 4% positivity rate was found in the positive group via colorimetric N15-RT-LAMP and 2% via RT-qPCR. Our results are consistent with those obtained in other studies that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in urine is a very rare finding. The absence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in urine in the recovered patients might suggest that the urinary route is very rarely used for viral particle clearance. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology and Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

24 pages, 1851 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Self-Reported Adverse Events of COVID-19 Vaccines in Polish Healthcare Workers and Medical Students. Cross-Sectional Study and Pooled Analysis of CoVaST Project Results in Central Europe

by Arkadiusz Dziedzic, Abanoub Riad, Sameh Attia, Miloslav Klugar and Marta Tanasiewicz

J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(22), 5338; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10225338 - 16 Nov 2021

Cited by 27 | Viewed by 3757

Abstract

Background: Optimization of COVID-19 vaccination rate among healthcare personnel is of utmost priority to secure provision of uninterrupted care and to protect the most vulnerable patients. This study, as part of the global CoVaST project, aimed to assess the occurrence of short-term adverse [...] Read more.

Background: Optimization of COVID-19 vaccination rate among healthcare personnel is of utmost priority to secure provision of uninterrupted care and to protect the most vulnerable patients. This study, as part of the global CoVaST project, aimed to assess the occurrence of short-term adverse events (SRAEs) of two most administered COVID-19 vaccines, mRNA-based (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) and viral vector-based (AstraZeneca) in healthcare sector workers (HWs). Methods: A cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out for the first time among 317 Polish healthcare sector personnel and medical students using a validated and pre-tested questionnaire. The online questionnaire included 25 pre-tested, validated questions concerning demographic data, medical parameters, COVID-19-related anamneses, and local or systemic reactions (reactogenicity) associated with COVID-19 vaccination. Descriptive statistics, inferential tests and binary logistic regression were performed. Results: Out of the 247 participating HWs, 79.8% were females, and 77.5% received mRNA-based vaccines, while 24.5% received a viral vector-based vaccine. Cumulatively, 78.9% and 60.7% of the participants reported at least one local and one systemic SRAE respectively, following their COVID-19 first or second dose of vaccine. A wide array of SRAEs was observed, while pain at injection site (76.9%) was the most common local SRAE, and fatigue (46.2%), headache (37.7%), muscle pain (31.6%) were the most common systemic SRAEs. The vast proportion of local (35.2%) and systemic (44.8%) SRAEs subsided up to 1 day after inoculation with both types of vaccines. The mRNA-based vaccine versions seem to cause higher prevalence of local SRAEs, mainly pain within injection site (81.3% vs. 71.7%; p = 0.435), while the viral vector-based vaccine was linked with increased incidents of mild systemic side effects (76.7% vs. 55.3%; p = 0.004) after both doses. Pooled analysis revealed uniform results while comparing the prevalence of SRAEs in HWs as recipients in four central European countries (OR = 2.38; 95% CI = 2.03–2.79). Conclusions: The study confirmed the safety of commonly administered vaccines against COVID-19, which were associated with mild, self-resolving adverse events. No major vaccine-related incidents were reported which would affect every day functioning, significantly. The younger age group (below 29 y.o.) were associated with an increased risk of adverse events generally. The results enhanced current data regarding COVID-19 vaccination active surveillance in selected occupational groups. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology and Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 2287 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies and Factors Associated with Seropositivity at the University of Salamanca: The DIANCUSAL Study

by Antonio Muro, Moncef Belhassen-García, Juan Luís Muñoz Bellido, Helena Lorenzo Juanes, Belén Vicente, Josué Pendones, José Adserias, Gonzalo Sánchez Hernández, Miguel Rodríguez Rosa, José Luis Vicente Villardón, Javier Burguillo, Javier López Andaluz, Jose Angel Martín Oterino, Francisco Javier García Criado, Fausto Barbero, Ana Isabel Morales, Purificación Galindo Villardón, Rogelio González Sarmiento and on behalf of the DIANCUSAL Team

J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(15), 3214; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10153214 - 21 Jul 2021

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 3485

Abstract

Background: Systematic screening for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is a crucial tool for surveillance of the COVID-19 pandemic. The University of Salamanca (USAL) in Spain designed a project called “DIANCUSAL” (Diagnosis of New Coronavirus, COVID-19, in University of Salamanca) to measure antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 [...] Read more.

Background: Systematic screening for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 is a crucial tool for surveillance of the COVID-19 pandemic. The University of Salamanca (USAL) in Spain designed a project called “DIANCUSAL” (Diagnosis of New Coronavirus, COVID-19, in University of Salamanca) to measure antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among its ~34,000 students and academic staff, as the influence of the university community in the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the city of Salamanca and neighboring towns hosting USAL campuses could be substantial. Objective: The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among USAL students, professors and staff and to evaluate the demographic, academic, clinical and lifestyle and behavioral factors related to seropositivity. Methodology: The DIANCUSAL study is an ongoing university population-based cross-sectional study, with the work described herein conducted from July–October 2020. All USAL students, professors and staff were invited to complete an anonymized questionnaire. Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was detected and quantified by using chemiluminescent assays for IgG and IgM. Principal findings: A total of 8197 (24.71%) participants were included. The mean age was 31.4 (14.5 SD) years, and 66.0% of the participants were female. The seroprevalence was 8.25% overall and was highest for students from the education campus (12.5%) and professors from the biomedical campus (12.6%), with significant differences among faculties (p = 0.006). Based on the questionnaire, loss of smell and fever were the symptoms most strongly associated with seropositivity, and 22.6% of seropositive participants were asymptomatic. Social distancing was the most effective hygiene measure (p = 0.0007). There were significant differences in seroprevalence between participants with and without household exposure to SARS-CoV-2 (p = 0.0000), but not between students who lived in private homes and those who lived in dormitories. IgG antibodies decreased over time in the participants with confirmed self-reported COVID-19 diagnoses. Conclusions: The analysis revealed an overall 8.25% seroprevalence at the end of October 2020, with a higher seroprevalence in students than in staff. Thus, there is no need for tailored measures for the USAL community as the official average seroprevalence in the area was similar (7.8% at 22 June and 12.4 at 15 November of 2020). Instead, USAL members should comply with public health measures. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology and Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

20 pages, 7836 KiB

Open AccessReview

Current and Future Perspectives on the COVID-19 Vaccine: A Scientometric Review

by Alireza Noruzi, Behzad Gholampour, Sajad Gholampour, Somayeh Jafari, Razieh Farshid, Agata Stanek and Ali Akbar Saboury

J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(3), 750; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030750 - 29 Jan 2022

Cited by 22 | Viewed by 3848

Abstract

This study attempted to draw the present and future perspective of the COVID-19 vaccine by identifying the most important scientists and their scientific contexts, trends of research topics, and relationships between different entities. Methods: To achieve this purpose, bibliometric and scientometric techniques were [...] Read more.

This study attempted to draw the present and future perspective of the COVID-19 vaccine by identifying the most important scientists and their scientific contexts, trends of research topics, and relationships between different entities. Methods: To achieve this purpose, bibliometric and scientometric techniques were used to analyze 6288 scientific documents contributing to COVID-19 vaccines from the beginning of 2019 to 13 December 2021, indexed in the Web of Science. Results: The United States (US) had the greatest impact by publishing 2104 documents and receiving 32,958 citations. The US and the UK countries had the highest level of scientific collaborations with 192 collaborative studies. The University of Oxford and the Harvard Medical School were the most active institutions, and the University of Oxford and Emory University were the most influential institutions. Pollard AJ and Lambe T had the most publications and the highest citations and h-index. T Lambe, SC Gilbert, M Voysey, and AJ Pollard from the University of Oxford had the highest number of co-authorships. More than 19% of the research was conducted in the field of immunology. The Vaccines journal had the most publications, with 425 articles. The US Department of Health & Human Services granted the most research. In 2019, studies were focused on the topics of COVID-19 virus identification and ways to deal with it; in 2020, studies focused on the topics of COVID-19 and vaccines, whereas in 2021, they focused on the topics of COVID-19 vaccines and their effects, vaccines hesitancy, the role of healthcare workers in COVID-19, as well as discussions about these vaccines in the social media. Conclusions: Recognition of the most important actors (countries, institutes, researchers, and channels for the release of COVID-19 vaccine studies), research trends, and fields of study on the COVID-19 vaccine can be useful for researchers, countries, and policy makers in the field of science and health to make decisions and better understand these vaccines. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology and Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Epidemiology and Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Published Papers (10 papers)

Research

Review

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI