4.7 Article

Development of an Effective Immune Response in Adults With Down Syndrome After Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccination

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 76, 期 3, 页码 E155-E162

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac590

关键词

Down syndrome; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; vaccination; immune system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that individuals with Down syndrome (DS) develop an effective immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The cellular and humoral responses to the vaccine were observed in DS individuals after 1 to 3 months and 6 months, with an effective immune response observed in 98% of DS individuals after 6 months.
Background Immune dysregulation in individuals with Down syndrome (DS) leads to an increased risk for hospitalization and death due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may impair the generation of protective immunity after vaccine administration. Methods The cellular and humoral responses of 55 individuals with DS who received a complete SARS-CoV-2 vaccination regime at 1 to 3 (visit [V 1]) and 6 (V2) months were characterized. Results SARS-CoV-2-reactive CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes with a predominant Th1 phenotype were observed at V1 and increased at V2. Likewise, an increase in SARS-CoV-2-specific circulating Tfh (cTfh) cells and CD8+ CXCR5+ PD-1hi lymphocytes was already observed at V1 after vaccine administration. Specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 S protein were detected in 96% and 98% of subjects at V1 and V2, respectively, although IgG titers decreased significantly between both time points. Conclusions Our findings show that DS individuals develop an effective immune response to usual regimes of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The work shows the cellular and humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of individuals with Down syndrome (DS) after 1 to 3 (V1) and 6 (V2) months. An effective immune response after 6 months was observed in 98% of DS individuals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据