Immune Response to CoronaVac and Its Safety in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Compared with Healthcare Workers.
CoronaVac
Sinovac
anti-RBD
diabetes mellitus
immunoglobulin
Journal
Vaccines
ISSN: 2076-393X
Titre abrégé: Vaccines (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101629355
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Mar 2023
17 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
08
02
2023
revised:
09
03
2023
accepted:
12
03
2023
medline:
31
3
2023
entrez:
30
3
2023
pubmed:
31
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 have been critical for preventing disease. Previous research showed patients with diabetes have impaired immunity. This study aimed to determine the immunity to coronavirus after CoronaVac by comparing patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and healthcare workers (HCW). A prospective cohort study evaluated immune responses and safety after two doses of CoronaVac in T2D and HCW groups at Chulabhorn Hospital. The levels of total antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (anti-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein at baseline and 4 weeks after vaccination were collected. The level of anti-RBD concentrations was reported as geometric mean concentration (GMC) and compared between groups using the geometric mean ratio (GMR). 81 participants were included; 27 had T2D and 54 were HCW. After complete vaccination, anti-RBD concentrations were not significantly different between T2D (57.68 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 29.08; 114.44) and HCW (72.49 BAU/mL, 95% CI = 55.77; 94.22) groups. Subgroup analysis showed the GMC of anti-RBD was significantly lower in T2D patients with dyslipidaemia (50.04 BAU/mL) than in T2D patients without dyslipidaemia (341.64 BAU/mL). The immune response at 4 weeks after two doses of CoronaVac did not significantly differ between patients with T2D and HCW.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 have been critical for preventing disease. Previous research showed patients with diabetes have impaired immunity. This study aimed to determine the immunity to coronavirus after CoronaVac by comparing patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and healthcare workers (HCW).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
A prospective cohort study evaluated immune responses and safety after two doses of CoronaVac in T2D and HCW groups at Chulabhorn Hospital. The levels of total antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (anti-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein at baseline and 4 weeks after vaccination were collected. The level of anti-RBD concentrations was reported as geometric mean concentration (GMC) and compared between groups using the geometric mean ratio (GMR).
RESULTS
RESULTS
81 participants were included; 27 had T2D and 54 were HCW. After complete vaccination, anti-RBD concentrations were not significantly different between T2D (57.68 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 29.08; 114.44) and HCW (72.49 BAU/mL, 95% CI = 55.77; 94.22) groups. Subgroup analysis showed the GMC of anti-RBD was significantly lower in T2D patients with dyslipidaemia (50.04 BAU/mL) than in T2D patients without dyslipidaemia (341.64 BAU/mL).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The immune response at 4 weeks after two doses of CoronaVac did not significantly differ between patients with T2D and HCW.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36992267
pii: vaccines11030684
doi: 10.3390/vaccines11030684
pmc: PMC10052125
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : the Chulabhorn Royal Academy
Références
Diabetol Int. 2022 May 5;13(4):637-643
pubmed: 35528950
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1997 Mar-Apr;21(2):91-5
pubmed: 9084011
Ann Intern Med. 1995 Dec 15;123(12):919-24
pubmed: 7486486
Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Dec 22;11(1):
pubmed: 36679869
J Leukoc Biol. 2001 Sep;70(3):395-404
pubmed: 11527989
Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Jun 25;10(7):
pubmed: 35891184
Immunol Commun. 1978;7(6):669-76
pubmed: 369990
Diabetes. 1974 Jan;23(1):9-15
pubmed: 4809622
Int J Infect Dis. 2022 Apr;117:169-173
pubmed: 35121124
Diabetes. 1978 Jun;27(6):677-81
pubmed: 658613
Int J Gen Med. 2021 Sep 14;14:5573-5579
pubmed: 34548808
Virol J. 2023 Feb 7;20(1):22
pubmed: 36750902
Int Immunopharmacol. 2021 Nov;100:108095
pubmed: 34619529
Anesth Analg. 2002 May;94(5):1113-9, table of contents
pubmed: 11973171
Anesth Analg. 1999 May;88(5):1011-6
pubmed: 10320160
Diabet Med. 1996 May;13(5):457-63
pubmed: 8737028
Diabetes Care. 1980 Jan-Feb;3(1):187-97
pubmed: 6996964
J Clin Virol. 2021 Jun;139:104820
pubmed: 33865031
J Clin Pathol. 1984 Jul;37(7):783-6
pubmed: 6747013
J Infect Dis. 2016 Apr 15;213(8):1224-8
pubmed: 26516142
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Sep 04;9(9):
pubmed: 34579226
J Lipid Atheroscler. 2021 May;10(2):184-201
pubmed: 34095011
J Clin Pathol. 1989 Nov;42(11):1143-7
pubmed: 2584425
J Clin Med. 2021 Nov 24;10(23):
pubmed: 34884205
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Jan 29;9(2):
pubmed: 33572702
Nat Commun. 2022 Apr 28;13(1):2318
pubmed: 35484164
Diabetes Res. 1992 Feb;19(2):77-80
pubmed: 1286542
BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2015 Oct 13;3(1):e000140
pubmed: 26504526
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2023 Jan;17(1):e13078
pubmed: 36535669
Immunology. 2022 Oct;167(2):263-274
pubmed: 35751563
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Oct 21;9(11):
pubmed: 34835153
FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 1999 Dec;26(3-4):259-65
pubmed: 10575137
Life Sci. 2001 Jun 8;69(3):255-62
pubmed: 11441916
N Engl J Med. 1999 Dec 16;341(25):1906-12
pubmed: 10601511
N Engl J Med. 1971 Mar 25;284(12):621-7
pubmed: 5545603
Front Immunol. 2022 Aug 29;13:940357
pubmed: 36105809