COVID-19 Vaccination in Health Care Workers in Italy: A Literature Review and a Report from a Comprehensive Cancer Center
by
, , , , , ,
Chiara Maura Ciniselli
1,†
,
Mara Lecchi
1,†,
Mariangela Figini
2,
Cecilia C. Melani
3,
Maria Grazia Daidone
3,
Daniele Morelli
4,
Emanuela Zito
5,
Giovanni Apolone
3,‡ and
Paolo Verderio
1,*,‡ 1
Bioinformatics and Biostatistics Unit, Department of Applied Research and Technological Development, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, 20133 Milan, Italy
2
Biomarker Unit, Department of Applied Research and Technological Development, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, 20133 Milan, Italy
3
Scientific Directorate, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, 20133 Milan, Italy
4
Laboratory Medicine, Department of Pathology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, 20133 Milan, Italy
5
ICT, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, 20133 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
‡
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Vaccines 2022, 10(5), 734; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10050734
Submission received: 29 March 2022
/
Revised: 28 April 2022
/
Accepted: 5 May 2022
/
Published: 7 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epidemiology, Vaccination and Public Health)
Abstract
:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic still represents a global public health emergency, despite the availability of different types of vaccines that reduced the number of severe cases, the hospitalization rate and mortality. The Italian Vaccine Distribution Plan identified healthcare workers (HCWs) as the top-priority category to receive access to a vaccine and different studies on HCWs have been implemented to clarify the duration and kinetics of antibody response. The aim of this paper is to perform a literature review across a total of 44 studies of the serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines in HCWs in Italy and to report the results obtained in a prospective longitudinal study implemented at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori (INT) of Milan on 1565 HCWs. At INT we found that 99.81% of the HCWs developed an antibody response one month after the second dose. About six months after the first serology evaluation, 100% of the HCWs were still positive to the antibody, although we observed a significant decrease in its levels. Overall, our literature review results highlight a robust antibody response in most of the HCWs after the second vaccination dose. These figures are also confirmed in our institutional setting seven months after the completion of the cycle of second doses of vaccination.
1. Introduction
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) still represents a global public health emergency, despite the availability of different types of vaccine that have dramatically reduced the number of severe cases, hospitalization and mortality [1]. In Italy, the COVID-19 vaccination campaign started on 27 December 2020—the “Vaccine Day”—as in many other European countries. According to the Italian Vaccine distribution plan [2,3,4] health and social health workers as well as residents and staff of long-term care facilities were the categories with the highest priority in the vaccine’s allocation, followed by elderly adults (>80 yrs). Comirnaty (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Pfizer, Mainz, Germany/New York, United States (US)) mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was the first available in Italy, followed by Spikevax (ex-COVID-19 Moderna (Madrid, Spain) mRNA-1273) authorized by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) on 7 January 2021 [3,5]. Although the immune response to mRNA-based vaccines has been widely documented, a declining immunity against SARS-CoV-2 has also been reported, especially four to six months after receiving the primary vaccination series (i.e., two-dose vaccine scheme) [6].
From these premises, many different studies on healthcare workers (HCWs) have been implemented to clarify the duration and the kinetics of antibody response over time. The aim of this literature review is to systematically describe the serologic response to COVID-19 vaccines in healthcare workers in Italy to provide a picture of the state of the art. To provide further insight on this important public health matter, we also report here the results of the prospective longitudinal study on the response to antibodies implemented at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori (INT) of Milan, with a study population composed by HCWs who received the Comirnaty mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Literature Review
2.1.1. Search Strategy
Studies without any publication year limit were retrieved from PubMed on 28 January 2022 using a combination of words selected to capture articles that investigated the antibody response in healthcare workers. The research string was “mRNA vaccine healthcare workers Italy OR COVID-19 vaccine healthcare workers Italy”. The resulting articles were screened by two independent authors (C.M.C., M.L.) and any discrepancy in studies’ inclusion was submitted to the supervisor (P.V.).
2.1.2. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The primary endpoint of the literature review was the definition of the antibody response rate induced by vaccination in HCWs in Italy (i.e., seroconversion rate after two doses). Accordingly, the inclusion criteria for study eligibility were: (i) evaluation of the serologic response after the full cycle of COVID-19 vaccine; (ii) healthcare workers (HCWs) in Italy as target population; and (iii) papers with full text in English languages. Case reports or commentaries without original data or studies publishing the serologic response on HCWs before the COVID-19 vaccine were excluded. During full-text reviews, references of each included study were also checked to identify additional relevant manuscripts that could be included in the study. Additional research using Google was performed to identify other possible articles.
2.1.3. Data Extraction
For each eligible study, different types data were extracted by C.M.C. (with verification by M.L.): source on publication (first author, publication year, journal), study characteristics (setting, study period, sample size, vaccination protocol), assay characteristics (type of serological assay and timeline). HCWs demographics (age, gender, professional category, previous COVID-19 infection exposure) and antibody response were also collected.
2.1.4. Data Synthesis and Analysis
Included studies [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] were evaluated descriptively through percentage or median and range for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Regarding the primary endpoint of the analysis, if no antibody response rates were directly reported, seroconversion rates were calculated from the graphs or the tables reported in the text.
2.2. Antibody Response to BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine at INT-Milan
2.2.1. Study Design
A prospective longitudinal study was activated in April 2020 at INT. The study aimed at screening HCWs without overt symptoms through nasopharyngeal swabs and the monitoring of their IgM/IgG levels every 40–45 days by SARS-CoV-2-specific serology [51]. Following the vaccination campaign of the HCWs in our Institute, the previous study [51] was amended in order to monitor the persistence of the immunization over time. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of INT (protocol code INT 65/20—Part III, date of approval 23 February 2021). A voluntary recruitment among all of the Institute’s staff members was carried out shortly thereafter through an online invitation sent to the institutional mailing lists. Subjects that provided their informed consent for the study and the serological evaluation were included. Only HCWs with both doses (inoculated three weeks apart) of Comirnaty mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and who carried out the vaccination at INT between December 2020 and February 2021 were considered in the subsequent statistical analysis.
2.2.2. Evaluation of Anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike Antibody
The antibody response induced by Comirnaty vaccination was assessed by Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche S tAb, Roche Diagnostics International Ltd., Rotkreuz, Switzerland) following the manufacturer’s instructions. A concentration <0.80 U/mL was interpreted as negative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies, whereas a concentration ≥0.80 U/mL was interpreted as positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies [52]. Blood samples were collected one month (T1) and seven months (T2) after the complete vaccination schedule (i.e., two doses, twenty-one days apart). An on-line questionnaire collecting information about data on possible previous infection by SAS-CoV-2 and serological antibody testing as well as adverse events following the vaccinations was administered.
2.2.3. Statistical Analysis
The anti-spike antibody levels evaluated at T1 and T2 were the primary endpoint of the analysis. Standard descriptive statistics (medians and ranges for continuous variables and frequency tables for categorical variables) were used to describe the main baseline HCWs characteristics (i.e., sex, age classes, existence of a previous infection by SAS-CoV-2 and professional categories) as well as the antibody levels.
To evaluate the role of main baseline HCWs characteristics on the anti-spike antibody levels a one way-ANOVA was carried out on the log-transformed values due to the highly positive skewed distributions of the data. Age was considered on a six-category scale [53]. The log-transformed values of anti-spike antibody levels over time (i.e., at T1 and T2) were compared with the paired t-test. All statistical analyses were performed with SAS software (Version 9.4.; SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA), adopting a nominal significance level of α = 0.05 and graphical representations were performed with R-software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).with the ggplot2 package.
3. Results
3.1. Literature Review
Studies Identification and Characteristics
Results of the literature review are summarized in Figure 1. A total of 160 articles were screened and among them, 107 were excluded based on their title and/or abstract, the fact that the article used a different language than English, and on their publication date when the latter was before 2021. A total of 57 studies, including additional papers found through a reference scanning (n = 3) and a Google search (n = 1), were screened for full-text review. Forty-four studies were eventually considered appropriate [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] for this literature review, as detailed in Figure 1.
Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the 44 included studies. All of the studies were conducted throughout 2021, taking into account the vaccination campaign from December 2020 to April 2021. The studies were carried out in 12 out of the 20 Italian regions, with the highest number of studied performed in Lazio (n = 10) followed by Lombardy and Veneto (n = 8) and Campania (n = 6). One study only considered private hospitals [16] and one was multi-centric [24]; all of the other ones were performed in public or university hospitals. Five were brief reports or short communications [16,35,36,47,49], six were letters to the Editor [11,15,37,42,46] or research letters [50] reporting original results, whereas the remaining 33 were full papers. The median sample size for the considered study populations was equal to 198. Among the single-center studies institutes the target population ranges from 34 HCWs of Bolzano’s hospital [48] to the 3475 of the IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore di Milano [33] followed by the ASST Grande Ospedale di Metropolitano Niguarda [20]. The highest HCWs sample size (n = 4290) corresponds to the multi-center study including the IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital (OSR), IRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi (IOG) and the IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Hospital (CSS) [24]. Overall, 29 institutes were represented across Italy and for 10 of them more than 2 publications are available; two papers had no details about the considered Institute. All but seven studies reported data on HCWs vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 only. In the remaining studies, one included HCWs vaccinated with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 [17], in five studies non-naïve HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2 either only received a single dose of BNT162b2 [14,18,31,43] or the second dose was administered to them more than tjree weeks after the first dose [46].
Regarding the assays used for the serology monitoring, Table S1 summarizes the main information. Briefly, six papers reported results obtained with more than one assay, whereas the other thirty-eight were single-assay-based. Among the latter, in 15 studies the Roche Elecsys kit, an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA), was used for the quantitative determination of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 SRBD protein in human serum and plasma. Six additional studies adopted the LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Trimeric S IgG (Diasorin TrimericS IgG) for the detection of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in human serum and plasma samples; other assays used were the Maglumi SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG (Snibe S-RBD IgG), an indirect chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) for the in vitro quantitative determination of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD protein and the IgG II Quant Assay from Abbot. Details about assay characteristics such as cut-off values and conversion factors are reported in [52]. In over a half of the studies (n = 29, 65.90%) the protocol includes the collection of a blood sample before the administration of the first dose (T0). Overall, post-vaccination sample collection ranges from a minimum of one [9] to a maximum of 6 time points [50], with a modal class of two time points (n = 20 studies), followed by one single time point (n = 12) and ≥3 time points (n = 12). By looking at the specific sampling timelines, 65.90% of the studies assessed the antibody response between the two vaccination doses—Mainly just before the second dose (n = 23)—And 88.64% within one month from the second dose. Few studies evaluated the serology within one to two (11.63%) or three to six months (18.18) after the second dose; only four studies assessed the titer ≥six months after the completion of the vaccination cycle.
Demographic characteristics of the enrolled HCWs are reported in Table 2. The HCWs’ median age was 45, with an age range going from 21 to 77 years. The median percentage of females was 67.9% (range 49.4–88.6%). As for the previous COVID-19 infection, 29 studies included both naïve (Cov−) and previously infected (Cov+) HCWs in the serological monitoring while 14 were focused on naïve COVID-19 HCWs only; among the latter, for nine studies the previous COVID-19 infection/diagnosis was one of the exclusion criteria of the study protocol. The assessment of previous COVID-19 infection/diagnosis was based on multiple aspects such as individual interviews or questionnaires, integrated with results from swabs and serology tests results together with clinical data from regional or hospital registries. Overall, few manuscripts reported details about the included HCWs’ professional profile (n = 9) as well as details about co-morbidities (n = 10) and side effects induced by vaccination (n = 9).
Table S2 reports details about the antibody response (i.e., value higher than the positivity assay’s cut-off threshold) induced by vaccination. A baseline antibody response rate was observed in HCWs with previous COVID-19 infection/diagnosis whereas a negligible or zero response rate was observed for Cov-HCWs (Figure S1). By looking at the antibody response in the timeframe between the two doses (range: 7–21 days after the first dose) at least 50% of HCWs showed an antibody response already after the first vaccination dose. Notably, when reported, the percentages of antibody response were higher in Cov+ compared to Cov− HCWs (Figure S1, Table S2). Studies assessing the antibody response twice before the second dose highlighted a low response rate at seven days [21,29,42] from the first dose, especially in the Cov− groups. Within one month after the second dose, the rate of response exceeds 95% in almost all of the considered studies (Figure 2, Table S2). Similar figures were also retained in the subsequent evaluated time points (range: one to two months after the second dose) and then slightly decreased in the later follow-up times (range: three to six months after the second dose), although these results arise from few studies.
3.2. Antibody Response to BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine at INT-Milan
A total of 1565 HCWs were considered in the study. 68.37% of the study population was female, with a median of 47 years of age (range: 19–76) and a 60% of the included HCWs engaged in direct contacts with patients (i.e., medical doctors, nurses, healthcare personnel, radiology technicians). Most of the staff (85.69%) declared no previous infection by/diagnosis of COVID-19, as recorded in the questionnaire. The evaluation of the antibody response, conducted after an average time of 35 days (range: 25–54 days) after the second dose, highlighted the presence of anti-S-RBD antibodies in 99.81% of the considered HCWs; only 0.19% (3 subjects) showed an antibody response below the cut-off limit of 0.80 U/mL. The anti-S-RBD antibody titer showed an overall median value of 1411 U/mL (range: 0.44–425800 U/mL). We observed higher anti-S-RBD antibody titers in women than men (median values: 1505 U/mL vs. 1258 U/mL) and in younger subjects (median values of 18–24 years: 2324 U/mL–65+: 950 U/mL). The antibody titer was also higher in subjects with a previous COVID-19 infection (median values,10791 U/mL vs. 1233 U/mL). On the other hand, no differences were observed with respect to the job category between staff in contact with patients and not (median values, 1397 U/mL vs. 1433 U/mL). Figure 3A–D reports the anti-S-RBD antibody distributions according to the considered baseline HCWs characteristics (i.e., gender, age classes, previous infection by SAS-CoV-2 and professional category). The above considerations were confirmed by looking at the ANOVA results: gender (p value: 0.02), age classes (p value < 0.01) and previous COVID-19 infection (p value < 0.01).
From a subgroup of 194 employees for which co-morbidity information was available, results show that subjects without co-morbidities manifested higher antibody titers than those with at least one co-morbidity (Figure S2).
About 6 months after the first serology evaluation, a second anti-S-RBD antibody titer was available for 1438 HCWs. Although, 100% of the HCWs were still positive to antibody, we observed a significant decrease of the antibody levels, moving from a median value of 1410 U/mL to 755 U/mL (Figure 3E). Among the three non-responders at T1, two of them showed a positive antibody response to the successive run, whereas the third subject did not carry out the second serology evaluation. Figure S3 depicts the reduction in the antibody titer according to the investigated baseline HCWs characteristics.
4. Discussion
Protein viral components, such as spike and nucleocapsid, are seen as foreign from the host’s immune system and are able to trigger the immune response in the host to eliminate the virus. After infection the immune system acts immediately using the innate response, which evolves in an adaptive response to attain high specificity and affinity to the antigens. In the adaptive phase viral antigens can be either recognized by the B cells or presented to the T cells by major histocompatibility complexes (MHC): this results in an antibody production, an increased cytokine secretion and cytolytic activity. Neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, along with the creation of memory B cells and CD4+ and CD8+memory T cells, which are generated by infection, vaccination, or after reexposure, are key to the path to immunity.
In this paper we focus our attention to antibody kinetics and response rates induced by COVID-19 vaccines. This is still a key issue to the understanding of the immunity elicited by vaccination and its heterogeneity in the general population, which would be crucial in improving vaccination policies and plans [54]. This point represents a major issue in particular for healthcare workers who are more exposed to possible SARS-CoV-2 infections due to their daily activities, such as treating the fragile patients encountered in cancer centers such as our Institute.
To the authors’ knowledge this is the first report summarizing the evidence available at the time of the search (January 2022) about the rates of antibody response in HCWs in Italy after the completion of the vaccine cycle with two doses. Overall, our results highlight a robust antibody response in most of the HCWs after the second vaccination dose (≥95%). These figures are still confirmed in our Institutional setting seven months after the completion of the vaccination cycle with two doses.
Regarding the literature review, the considered 44 studies were conducted throughout 2021 and covered 12 Italian regions, with the highest number of studies performed in Lazio followed by Lombardy, Veneto and Campania. The HCWs involved range from 34 to 3475 per study with the highest size arising from a multi-center study. Differences in study protocols were observed, with serological studies focused on both naïve and previously infected HCWs or on naïve COVID-19 HCWs only. Moreover, the timeframe of serology varies among studies, with the majority of them including a baseline assessment before the first dose’s administration (T0) and two time points after the completion of the vaccination cycle. Notably, more than 60% of the studies assessed the antibody response also between the two vaccination doses, mainly just before the second dose. As expected, antibody titers rise between the first and the second dose, with a greater increase near the second dose (~20–21 days after the first dose). Moreover, individuals exposed to SARS_CoV-2 prior to the vaccination cycle showed a booster antibody response already seven days from the first dose, compared to very low titers observed in the naïve HCWs. Regarding the role of sex and age on the antibody titer, we observed significantly higher values in women and/or young HCWs in line with some studies [7,9,17,19,20,24,26,29,33,35,36,39,40,41,42,44,45], and in contrast with others who did not observe any statistically significant association [13,14,47]. Concerning the antibody titer kinetics, we observed a ~50% decrease of the antibody titer after seven months from the completion of the round of administering the second dose, mainly in previously-infected and elderly HCWs.
Results are in line with a study performed in three German hospitals, which reported a seroconversion rate of 99.8% after two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine [55]. Another study [56] performed in a tertiary care center in Belgium on 1647 HCWs highlighted higher antibody titers in previously infected HCWs as well as a negative correlation with age. Moreover, the authors observed higher antibody titers in HCWs vaccinated with mRNA-1273 compared to BNT162b2. Similar results were obtained on a Japanese population of HCWs employed in a mixed-care hospital in Fukuoka [57]: Authors found higher anti-spike IgG levels one month after receiving the second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine followed by a decrease six months after the vaccination. Similarly, Herzberg et al. [58], reported (in 184 HCWs in Germany) a significantly lower titer nine months after the second dose of BioNTech/Pfizer vaccines compared to the previous evaluation performed in April 2021. Regarding the limitation of the performed literature review, we are aware that additional aspects could be investigated, such as side effects after vaccination and the antibody dynamics after the third dose (i.e., booster dose): side effects recorded after vaccination in HCWs in Italy were specifically investigated by [59,60]; similarly, preliminary results of the antibody response after the booster dose have been reported elsewhere [61,62,63].
Results of our institutional study corroborate the evidence found in literature with a high rate of antibody response in HCWs after the completion of the vaccination cycle. Moreover, in line with results of the literature review, in our INT cohort we observed higher antibody titers in previously infected HCWs as well as in women and a negative correlation with age. The availability of a late serology time point (i.e., seven months after the second dose) represents one of the main strengths of our study. Even if all of the HCWs participating to the study still showed an antibody response above the assay positivity cut-off, a significant decrease in their antibody titer was observed, in line with other reports [57,58]. Another strength of the study is represented by the high numbers of HCWs evaluated (>1400) at both the considered serology time points. Conversely, the study has some limitations, such as only taking into account the evaluation of the antibody response following the BNT162b2 vaccination, the availability of antibodies’ results only from a single assay and the absence of an evaluation of the antibody response after the booster dose or the titer of the neutralizing antibody needed for protection against infection by the various type of COVID-19 strains.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, through this literature review we provided the state of the art about the antibody response in HCWs in Italy during and after the completion of the primary vaccine cycle (i.e., two doses). These data could represent a starting point for further studies aimed at a deeper understanding of the duration of antibody immunity also with respect to new variants and booster dose(s). To this end it is advisable to encourage surveillance programs in the healthcare setting which could be applied to the general population. Similarly, studies focused on specific target populations such as cancer/fragile patients and/or elder subjects should be performed to better understand the dynamics of the immune response induced by vaccination to plan proper public health strategies.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/vaccines10050734/s1. Table S1: Timing of blood collection (s) and serological test (s); Table S2: prevalence of antibody response induced by vaccination; Figure S1. Radar plot depicting the serconversion rates. Each colored dot represents the level of antibody response in the corresponding study included in the literature review on a 0–100% scale (with 20% point increment). Each level of the radar represents a percentage level, from 0% (i.e., center of the radar) to the outermost one (i.e., 100%): the further away from the center, higher is the observed HCW seroconversion rate. (A) and (B) reports the antibody response at baseline, whereas Panel C and D those at the second dose. On the left part are reported the rate in previously infected HCWs (COV+) and on the right side of those of the naive ones (COV−). Studies for which data were reported for COV+ and COV− subjects without any separation are identified by an asterisk *; the colors of the dots are the same of that used In Table S2 to highlight the different timepoints (purple: pre-vaccination antibody assessment; red: antibody assessment before 2nd dose); Figure S2. Distribution of the anti-S-RBD antibody titer at T1 according to the number of co-morbidities (on log10 scale). Boxplot of the antibody titer of the 194 HCWs at T1. Each box indicates the 25th and 75th percentiles. The horizontal line inside the box indicates the median value. Whiskers indicate the extreme measured values. The dashed line indicates the assay positivity cut-off limit; Figure S3. Percentage changes of the antibody levels between T1 and T2. Each bar represents the median percentage change between T2 and T1 in each category of the variables of interest. The black reference line indicates the overall median percentage change for the T2-T1 difference.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: C.M.C., M.L., M.F., C.C.M., M.G.D., G.A. and P.V.; methodology: C.M.C., M.L., C.C.M., D.M., E.Z., G.A. and P.V.; formal analysis and investigation: C.M.C., M.L. and P.V.; writing—original draft preparation, C.M.C., M.L.; writing—review and editing: C.C.M., M.F., M.G.D., D.M., G.A. and P.V.; funding acquisition: G.A.; supervision: M.F., C.C.M., M.G.D., G.A. and P.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Scientific Directorate with Italian Ministry of Health “Ricerca Corrente” funds.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori—Milano (protocol code INT 65/20—Part III, date of approval 23/02/2021).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge Valentina Sinno and Iolanda Pulice, Clinical Trials Center, Silvia Veneroni, Laura Zanesi, Giuseppe Episcopo, Biomarkers Unit, and Silvia De Sanctis, Scientific Directorate, for the management of the clinical study, subject enrollment, biologic samples collection, preparation and storage; Elena Cavadini, Biomarker Unit, for serologic analyses, Valeria Duroni for assisting with statistical data processing.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Tenforde, M.W.; Self, W.H.; Adams, K.; Gaglani, M.; Ginde, A.A.; McNeal, T.; Ghamande, S.; Douin, D.J.; Talbot, H.K.; Casey, J.D.; et al. Association Between MRNA Vaccination and COVID-19 Hospitalization and Disease Severity. JAMA 2021, 326, 2043–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Della Polla, G.; Pelullo, C.P.; Di Giuseppe, G.; Angelillo, I.F. Changes in Behaviors and Attitudes in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic and Vaccination in Healthcare Workers and University Students in Italy. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Circolare 24 Dicembre 2020—Raccomandazioni per L’organizzazione della Campagna Vaccinale contro SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 e Procedure di Vaccinazione. Available online: https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/nuovocoronavirus/dettaglioContenutiNuovoCoronavirus.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=5452&area=nuovoCoronavirus&menu=vuoto&tab=2 (accessed on 26 January 2022).
- Direzione Generale Della Prevenzione Sanitaria. Available online: https://www.trovanorme.salute.gov.it/norme/renderNormsanPdf?anno=2021&codLeg=78398&parte=1%20&serie=null (accessed on 26 January 2022).
- Craxì, L.; Casuccio, A.; Amodio, E.; Restivo, V. Who Should Get COVID-19 Vaccine First? A Survey to Evaluate Hospital Workers’ Opinion. Vaccines 2021, 9, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattiuzzi, C.; Lippi, G. Primary COVID-19 Vaccine Cycle and Booster Doses Efficacy: Analysis of Italian Nationwide Vaccination Campaign. Eur. J. Public Health 2022, 32, 328–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coppeta, L.; Ferrari, C.; Somma, G.; Mazza, A.; D’Ancona, U.; Marcuccilli, F.; Grelli, S.; Aurilio, M.T.; Pietroiusti, A.; Magrini, A.; et al. Reduced Titers of Circulating Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies and Risk of COVID-19 Infection in Healthcare Workers during the Nine Months after Immunization with the BNT162b2 MRNA Vaccine. Vaccines 2022, 10, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milazzo, L.; Pezzati, L.; Oreni, L.; Kullmann, C.; Lai, A.; Gabrieli, A.; Bestetti, G.; Beschi, C.; Conti, F.; Ottomano, C.; et al. Impact of Prior Infection Status on Antibody Response to the BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Healthcare Workers at a COVID-19 Referral Hospital in Milan, Italy. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2021, 17, 4747–4754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greco, M.; Cucci, F.; Portulano, P.; Lazzari, R.A.; Caldararo, C.; Sicuro, F.; Catanese, C.; Lobreglio, G. Effects of Influenza Vaccination on the Response to BNT162b2 Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Healthcare Workers. J. Clin. Med. Res. 2021, 13, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gianfagna, F.; Veronesi, G.; Baj, A.; Dalla Gasperina, D.; Siclari, S.; Drago Ferrante, F.; Maggi, F.; Iacoviello, L.; Ferrario, M.M. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Levels and Kinetics of Vaccine Response: Potential Role for Unresolved Inflammation Following Recovery from SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serraino, C.; Melchio, R.; Badinella Martini, M.; Gerbaudo, L.; Fenoglio, L. Response to BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine among Healthcare Workers in Italy: A 3-Month Follow-up: Comment. Intern. Emerg. Med. 2022, 17, 311–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azzi, L.; Dalla Gasperina, D.; Veronesi, G.; Shallak, M.; Ietto, G.; Iovino, D.; Baj, A.; Gianfagna, F.; Maurino, V.; Focosi, D.; et al. Mucosal Immune Response in BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine Recipients. EBioMedicine 2022, 75, 103788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vietri, M.T.; Albanese, L.; Passariello, L.; D’Elia, G.; Caliendo, G.; Molinari, A.M.; Angelillo, I.F. Evaluation of Neutralizing Antibodies after Vaccine BNT162b2: Preliminary Data. J. Clin. Virol. 2022, 146, 105057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Padoan, A.; Cosma, C.; Bonfante, F.; Della Rocca, F.; Barbaro, F.; Santarossa, C.; Dall’Olmo, L.; Pagliari, M.; Bortolami, A.; Cattelan, A.; et al. Neutralizing Antibody Titers Six Months after Comirnaty Vaccination: Kinetics and Comparison with SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassays. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2022, 60, 456–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mueller, T. Time Course of Antibody Concentrations against the Spike Protein of SARS-CoV-2 among Healthy Hospital Workers up to 200 Days after Their First COVID-19 Vaccination. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 2022, 36, e24175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Forgeschi, G.; Cavallo, G.; Lorini, C.; Balboni, F.; Sequi, F.; Bonaccorsi, G. Investigating Adherence to COVID-19 Vaccination and Serum Antibody Concentration among Hospital Workers—The Experience of an Italian Private Hospital. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brisotto, G.; Muraro, E.; Montico, M.; Corso, C.; Evangelista, C.; Casarotto, M.; Caffau, C.; Vettori, R.; Cozzi, M.R.; Zanussi, S.; et al. IgG Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Decay but Persist 4 Months after Vaccination in a Cohort of Healthcare Workers. Clin. Chim. Acta 2021, 523, 476–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padoan, A.; Cosma, C.; Bonfante, F.; Rocca, F.D.; Barbaro, F.; Santarossa, C.; Dall’Olmo, L.; Pagliari, M.; Bortolami, A.; Cattelan, A.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies after One or Two Doses of Comirnaty (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Pfizer): Kinetics and Comparison with Chemiluminescent Assays. Clin. Chim. Acta 2021, 523, 446–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Firinu, D.; Perra, A.; Campagna, M.; Littera, R.; Fenu, G.; Meloni, F.; Cipri, S.; Sedda, F.; Conti, M.; Miglianti, M.; et al. Evaluation of Antibody Response to BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Patients Affected by Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases up to 5 Months after Vaccination. Clin. Exp. Med. 2021, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pani, A.; Cento, V.; Vismara, C.; Campisi, D.; Di Ruscio, F.; Romandini, A.; Senatore, M.; Schenardi, P.A.; Gagliardi, O.M.; Giroldi, S.; et al. Results of the RENAISSANCE Study: REsponse to BNT162b2 COVID-19 VacciNe—Short- And Long-Term Immune ReSponSe EvAluatioN in Health Care WorkErs. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2021, 96, 2966–2979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piano Mortari, E.; Russo, C.; Vinci, M.R.; Terreri, S.; Fernandez Salinas, A.; Piccioni, L.; Alteri, C.; Colagrossi, L.; Coltella, L.; Ranno, S.; et al. Highly Specific Memory B Cells Generation after the 2nd Dose of BNT162b2 Vaccine Compensate for the Decline of Serum Antibodies and Absence of Mucosal IgA. Cells 2021, 10, 2541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponticelli, D.; Madotto, F.; Conti, S.; Antonazzo, I.C.; Vitale, A.; Della Ragione, G.; Romano, M.L.; Borrelli, M.; Schiavone, B.; Polosa, R.; et al. Response to BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine among Healthcare Workers in Italy: A 3-Month Follow-Up. Intern. Emerg. Med. 2021, 17, 481–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvagno, G.L.; Henry, B.M.; di Piazza, G.; Pighi, L.; de Nitto, S.; Bragantini, D.; Gianfilippi, G.L.; Lippi, G. Anti-Spike S1 IgA, Anti-Spike Trimeric IgG, and Anti-Spike RBD IgG Response after BNT162b2 COVID-19 MRNA Vaccination in Healthcare Workers. J. Med. Biochem. 2021, 40, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ferrari, D.; Mangia, A.; Spanò, M.S.; Zaffarano, L.; Viganò, M.; Di Resta, C.; Locatelli, M.; Ciceri, F.; De Vecchi, E. Quantitative Serological Evaluation as a Valuable Tool in the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2021, 59, 2019–2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cassaniti, I.; Bergami, F.; Percivalle, E.; Gabanti, E.; Sammartino, J.C.; Ferrari, A.; Adzasehoun, K.M.G.; Zavaglio, F.; Zelini, P.; Comolli, G.; et al. Humoral and Cell-Mediated Response against SARS-CoV-2 Variants Elicited by MRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in Healthcare Workers: A Longitudinal Observational Study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2022, 28, 301.e1–301.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coppeta, L.; Somma, G.; Ferrari, C.; Mazza, A.; Rizza, S.; Trabucco Aurilio, M.; Perrone, S.; Magrini, A.; Pietroiusti, A. Persistence of Anti-S Titre among Healthcare Workers Vaccinated with BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19. Vaccines 2021, 9, 947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meschi, S.; Matusali, G.; Colavita, F.; Lapa, D.; Bordi, L.; Puro, V.; Leoni, B.D.; Galli, C.; Capobianchi, M.R.; Castilletti, C. Predicting the Protective Humoral Response to a SARS-CoV-2 MRNA Vaccine. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2021, 59, 2010–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vicenti, I.; Basso, M.; Gatti, F.; Scaggiante, R.; Boccuto, A.; Zago, D.; Modolo, E.; Dragoni, F.; Parisi, S.G.; Zazzi, M. Faster Decay of Neutralizing Antibodies in Never Infected than Previously Infected Healthcare Workers Three Months after the Second BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Dose. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 112, 40–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cocomazzi, G.; Piazzolla, V.; Squillante, M.M.; Antinucci, S.; Giambra, V.; Giuliani, F.; Maiorana, A.; Serra, N.; Mangia, A. Early Serological Response to BNT162b2 MRNA Vaccine in Healthcare Workers. Vaccines 2021, 9, 913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malipiero, G.; Moratto, A.; Infantino, M.; D’Agaro, P.; Piscianz, E.; Manfredi, M.; Grossi, V.; Benvenuti, E.; Bulgaresi, M.; Benucci, M.; et al. Assessment of Humoral and Cellular Immunity Induced by the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Healthcare Workers, Elderly People, and Immunosuppressed Patients with Autoimmune Disease. Immunol. Res. 2021, 69, 576–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ragone, C.; Meola, S.; Fiorillo, P.C.; Penta, R.; Auriemma, L.; Tornesello, M.L.; Miscio, L.; Cavalcanti, E.; Botti, G.; Buonaguro, F.M.; et al. HLA Does Not Impact on Short-Medium-Term Antibody Response to Preventive Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 734689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buonfrate, D.; Piubelli, C.; Gobbi, F.; Martini, D.; Bertoli, G.; Ursini, T.; Moro, L.; Ronzoni, N.; Angheben, A.; Rodari, P.; et al. Antibody Response Induced by the BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in a Cohort of Health-Care Workers, with or without Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Prospective Study. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2021, 27, 1845–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombardi, A.; Consonni, D.; Oggioni, M.; Bono, P.; Uceda Renteria, S.; Piatti, A.; Pesatori, A.C.; Castaldi, S.; Muscatello, A.; Riboldi, L.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Anti-Spike Antibody Titres after Vaccination with BNT162b2 in Naïve and Previously Infected Individuals. J. Infect. Public Health 2021, 14, 1120–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mariani, M.; Acquila, M.; Tripodi, G.; Spiazzi, R.; Castagnola, E. Antibodies against Receptor Binding Domain of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Induced by BNT162b2 Vaccine: Results from a Pragmatic, Real-Life Study. J. Infect. Public Health 2021, 14, 1560–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pellini, R.; Venuti, A.; Pimpinelli, F.; Abril, E.; Blandino, G.; Campo, F.; Conti, L.; De Virgilio, A.; De Marco, F.; Di Domenico, E.G.; et al. Early Onset of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies after First Dose of BNT162b2: Correlation with Age, Gender and BMI. Vaccines 2021, 9, 685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puro, V.; Castilletti, C.; Agrati, C.; Goletti, D.; Leone, S.; Agresta, A.; Cimini, E.; Tartaglia, E.; Casetti, R.; Colavita, F.; et al. Impact of Prior Influenza and Pneumoccocal Vaccines on Humoral and Cellular Response to SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 Vaccination. Vaccines 2021, 9, 615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvagno, G.L.; Henry, B.M.; Pighi, L.; De Nitto, S.; Gianfilippi, G.L.; Lippi, G. Monitoring of the Immunogenic Response to Pfizer BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Healthcare Workers with Snibe SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG Chemiluminescent Immunoassay. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 2021, 59, e377–e379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gallo, A.; Capuano, R.; Donnarumma, G.; Bisecco, A.; Grimaldi, E.; Conte, M.; d’Ambrosio, A.; Coppola, N.; Galdiero, M.; Tedeschi, G. Preliminary Evidence of Blunted Humoral Response to SARS-CoV-2 MRNA Vaccine in Multiple Sclerosis Patients Treated with Ocrelizumab. Neurol. Sci. 2021, 42, 3523–3526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pellini, R.; Venuti, A.; Pimpinelli, F.; Abril, E.; Blandino, G.; Campo, F.; Conti, L.; De Virgilio, A.; De Marco, F.; Di Domenico, E.G.; et al. Initial Observations on Age, Gender, BMI and Hypertension in Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 Vaccine. EClinicalMedicine 2021, 36, 100928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Di Resta, C.; Ferrari, D.; Viganò, M.; Moro, M.; Sabetta, E.; Minerva, M.; Ambrosio, A.; Locatelli, M.; Tomaiuolo, R. The Gender Impact Assessment among Healthcare Workers in the SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination—An Analysis of Serological Response and Side Effects. Vaccines 2021, 9, 522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvagno, G.L.; Henry, B.M.; di Piazza, G.; Pighi, L.; De Nitto, S.; Bragantini, D.; Gianfilippi, G.L.; Lippi, G. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Receptor-Binding Domain Total Antibodies Response in Seropositive and Seronegative Healthcare Workers Undergoing COVID-19 MRNA BNT162b2 Vaccination. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaffina, S.; Alteri, C.; Ruggiero, A.; Cotugno, N.; Vinci, M.R.; Camisa, V.; Santoro, A.P.; Brugaletta, R.; Deriu, G.; Piano Mortari, E.; et al. Induction of Immune Response after SARS-CoV-2 MRNA BNT162b2 Vaccination in Healthcare Workers. J. Virus Erad. 2021, 7, 100046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavalcanti, E.; Isgrò, M.A.; Rea, D.; Di Capua, L.; Trillò, G.; Russo, L.; Botti, G.; Miscio, L.; Buonaguro, F.M.; Bianchi, A.A.M. Vaccination Strategy and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Titers in Healthcare Workers of the INT-IRCCS “Fondazione Pascale” Cancer Center (Naples, Italy). Infect. Agents Cancer 2021, 16, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Watanabe, M.; Balena, A.; Tuccinardi, D.; Tozzi, R.; Risi, R.; Masi, D.; Caputi, A.; Rossetti, R.; Spoltore, M.E.; Filippi, V.; et al. Central Obesity, Smoking Habit, and Hypertension Are Associated with Lower Antibody Titres in Response to COVID-19 MRNA Vaccine. Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 2022, 38, e3465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Padoan, A.; Dall’Olmo, L.; Rocca, F.D.; Barbaro, F.; Cosma, C.; Basso, D.; Cattelan, A.; Cianci, V.; Plebani, M. Antibody Response to First and Second Dose of BNT162b2 in a Cohort of Characterized Healthcare Workers. Clin. Chim. Acta 2021, 519, 60–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gobbi, F.; Buonfrate, D.; Moro, L.; Rodari, P.; Piubelli, C.; Caldrer, S.; Riccetti, S.; Sinigaglia, A.; Barzon, L. Antibody Response to the BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Subjects with Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Viruses 2021, 13, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callegaro, A.; Borleri, D.; Farina, C.; Napolitano, G.; Valenti, D.; Rizzi, M.; Maggiolo, F. Antibody Response to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Is Extremely Vivacious in Subjects with Previous SARS-CoV-2 Infection. J. Med. Virol. 2021, 93, 4612–4615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, T. Antibodies against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Individuals with and without COVID-19 Vaccination: A Method Comparison of Two Different Commercially Available Serological Assays from the Same Manufacturer. Clin. Chim. Acta 2021, 518, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrati, C.; Castilletti, C.; Goletti, D.; Meschi, S.; Sacchi, A.; Matusali, G.; Bordoni, V.; Petrone, L.; Lapa, D.; Notari, S.; et al. Coordinate Induction of Humoral and Spike Specific T-Cell Response in a Cohort of Italian Health Care Workers Receiving BNT162b2 MRNA Vaccine. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponticelli, D.; Antonazzo, I.C.; Caci, G.; Vitale, A.; Della Ragione, G.; Romano, M.L.; Borrelli, M.; Schiavone, B.; Polosa, R.; Ferrara, P. Dynamics of Antibody Response to BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine after 6 Months. J. Travel Med. 2021, 28, taab173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciniselli, C.M.; Micali, A.; De Cecco, L.; Notti, P.; Sinno, V.; Luison, E.; Melani, C.C.; Daidone, M.G.; Apolone, G.; Verderio, P.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Serology Monitoring of a Cancer Center Staff in the Pandemic Most Infected Italian Region. Cancers 2021, 13, 1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riester, E.; Findeisen, P.; Hegel, J.K.; Kabesch, M.; Ambrosch, A.; Rank, C.M.; Pessl, F.; Laengin, T.; Niederhauser, C. Performance Evaluation of the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S Immunoassay. J. Virol. Methods 2021, 297, 114271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apolone, G.; Mosconi, P.; Ware, J.E., Jr. Questionario Sullo Stato di Salute SF-36. Manuale D’uso e Guida All’interpretazione dei Risultati; Guerini e Associati: Milan, Italy, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Infantino, M.; Pieri, M.; Nuccetelli, M.; Grossi, V.; Lari, B.; Tomassetti, F.; Calugi, G.; Pancani, S.; Benucci, M.; Casprini, P.; et al. The WHO International Standard for COVID-19 Serological Tests: Towards Harmonization of Anti-Spike Assays. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2021, 100, 108095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bertram, S.; Blazquez-Navarro, A.; Seidel, M.; Hölzer, B.; Seibert, F.S.; Doevelaar, A.; Rohn, B.; Zgoura, P.; Witte-Lack, A.; Skrzypczyk, S.; et al. Predictors of Impaired SARS-CoV-2 Immunity in Healthcare Workers after Vaccination with BNT162b2. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 6243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steensels, D.; Pierlet, N.; Penders, J.; Mesotten, D.; Heylen, L. Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Response Following Vaccination with BNT162b2 and MRNA-1273. JAMA 2021, 326, 1533–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ikezaki, H.; Nomura, H.; Shimono, N. Dynamics of Anti-Spike IgG Antibody Level after the Second BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccination in Health Care Workers. J. Infect. Chemother. 2022, 28, 802–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzberg, J.; Fischer, B.; Lindenkamp, C.; Becher, H.; Becker, A.-K.; Honarpisheh, H.; Guraya, S.Y.; Strate, T.; Knabbe, C. Persistence of Immune Response in Health Care Workers After Two Doses BNT162b2 in a Longitudinal Observational Study. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 839922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borroni, E.; Consonni, D.; Cugno, M.; Lombardi, A.; Mangioni, D.; Bono, P.; Oggioni, M.; Uceda Renteria, S.; Bordini, L.; Nava, C.D.; et al. Side Effects among Healthcare Workers from a Large Milan University Hospital after Second Dose of BNT162b2 MRNA COVID-19 Vaccine. Med. Lav. 2021, 112, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ripabelli, G.; Tamburro, M.; Buccieri, N.; Adesso, C.; Caggiano, V.; Cannizzaro, F.; Di Palma, M.A.; Mantuano, G.; Montemitro, V.G.; Natale, A.; et al. Active Surveillance of Adverse Events in Healthcare Workers Recipients After Vaccination with COVID-19 BNT162b2 Vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech, Comirnaty): A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Community Health 2022, 47, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skrzat-Klapaczyńska, A.; Bieńkowski, C.; Kowalska, J.; Paciorek, M.; Puła, J.; Krogulec, D.; Stengiel, J.; Pawełczyk, A.; Perlejewski, K.; Osuch, S.; et al. The Beneficial Effect of the COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Dose among Healthcare Workers in an Infectious Diseases Center. Vaccines 2022, 10, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hueda-Zavaleta, M.; Gómez de la Torre, J.C.; Cáceres-Del Aguila, J.A.; Muro-Rojo, C.; De La Cruz-Escurra, N.; Arenas Siles, D.; Minchón-Vizconde, D.; Copaja-Corzo, C.; Bardales-Silva, F.; Benites-Zapata, V.A.; et al. Evaluation of the Humoral Immune Response of a Heterologous Vaccination between BBIBP-CorV and BNT162b2 with a Temporal Separation of 7 Months, in Peruvian Healthcare Workers with and without a History of SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Vaccines 2022, 10, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canaday, D.H.; Oyebanji, O.A.; White, E.; Keresztesy, D.; Payne, M.; Wilk, D.; Carias, L.; Aung, H.; Denis, K.S.; Sheehan, M.L.; et al. Significantly Elevated Antibody Levels and Neutralization Titers in Nursing Home Residents after SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 MRNA Booster Vaccination. medRxiv 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Review’s flow diagram. Study selection strategy.
Figure 2.
Radar plot depicting the seroconversion rates. Each colored dot represents the level of antibody response in the corresponding study included in the literature review on a 0–100% scale (with 20% points increment). Each level of the radar represents a percentage level, from 0% (i.e., center of the radar) to the outermost one (i.e., 100%): the further away from the center, the higher the observed HCW seroconversion rate. (A) reports the antibody response assessed within one month after two doses of vaccine in previously infected HCWs (Cov+) and (B) in the naive ones (Cov−). Studies for which data were reported for Cov+ and Cov− subjects without any separation are identified by an asterisk *; studies for which another time point was reported are identified by a double-asterisk **; the colors of the dots are the same of that used in Table S2 to highlight the different timepoints (blue: antibody assessment within one month after the second dose; orange: antibody assessment at three to six months after the second dose; black: antibody assessment ≥six months after the second dose).
Figure 2.
Radar plot depicting the seroconversion rates. Each colored dot represents the level of antibody response in the corresponding study included in the literature review on a 0–100% scale (with 20% points increment). Each level of the radar represents a percentage level, from 0% (i.e., center of the radar) to the outermost one (i.e., 100%): the further away from the center, the higher the observed HCW seroconversion rate. (A) reports the antibody response assessed within one month after two doses of vaccine in previously infected HCWs (Cov+) and (B) in the naive ones (Cov−). Studies for which data were reported for Cov+ and Cov− subjects without any separation are identified by an asterisk *; studies for which another time point was reported are identified by a double-asterisk **; the colors of the dots are the same of that used in Table S2 to highlight the different timepoints (blue: antibody assessment within one month after the second dose; orange: antibody assessment at three to six months after the second dose; black: antibody assessment ≥six months after the second dose).
Figure 3.
Distribution of the anti-S-RBD antibody titer (on log10 scale). Boxplot of the antibody titer at T1 of the 1565 HCWs according to the baseline HCWs characteristics (A) gender, (B) age-classes, (C) previous infection by SAS-CoV-2 and (D) job category; (E) boxplot of the antibody titer of the 1438 HCWs at T1 and T2. Each box indicates the 25th and 75th percentiles. The horizontal line inside the box indicates the median value. Whiskers indicate the extreme measured values. The dashed line indicates the assay positivity cut-off limit.
Figure 3.
Distribution of the anti-S-RBD antibody titer (on log10 scale). Boxplot of the antibody titer at T1 of the 1565 HCWs according to the baseline HCWs characteristics (A) gender, (B) age-classes, (C) previous infection by SAS-CoV-2 and (D) job category; (E) boxplot of the antibody titer of the 1438 HCWs at T1 and T2. Each box indicates the 25th and 75th percentiles. The horizontal line inside the box indicates the median value. Whiskers indicate the extreme measured values. The dashed line indicates the assay positivity cut-off limit.
Table 1.
Source on publication and study characteristics.
| S. No. | First Author | Journal | Institute | Italian Region | Sample Size | Vaccination Campaign Period | Vaccination Protocol |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Coppeta L | Vaccines (Basel) | Polyclinic of Roma “Tor Vergata” | Lazio | 793 (173 §) | by 15 March 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 8 | Milazzo L | Human Vaccines & Immunotheraoeutics | Luigi Sacco University Hospital | Lombardy | 407 | 28 December 2020– | BNT162b2 (two doses) |
| 9 | Greco M | J Clin Med Res | Vito Fazzi Hospital of Lecce | Puglia | 297 | December 2020–April 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 10 | Gianfagna F | Scientific Reports | ASST Sette Laghi | Lombardy | 175 (137 °) | - | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 11 | Serraino C | Internal and Emergency Medicine | AO Santa Croce & Carle | Piedmont | 2059 | 27 December 2020 and following 3-months | BNT162b2 (ND) |
| 12 | Azzi L | EBioMedicine | ASST dei Sette Laghi | Lombardy | 60 | 30 December 2020–20 January 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 13 | Vietri MT | J Clin Virol | Clinical Pathology Lab—University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli” | Campania | 52 | 7 January 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 14 | Padoan A | Clin Chem Lab Med | Padua University-Hospital Emergency Department, Infectious Disease and Laboratory Medicine wards | Veneto | 189 | 26 December 2020–10 March 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) [n = 179] single dose for non-naïve SARS-CoV-2 HCWs [n = 10] |
| 15 | Muller T a | J Clin Lab Anal | Hospital of Bolzano Department of Clinical Pathology | Trentino Alto Adige | 34 (24 °) | 29 December 2020–14 January 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 16 | Forgeschi G | Vaccines (Basel) | Istituto Fiorentino di Cura e Assistenza | Tuscany | 297 (193 °) | January 2021–March 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses) |
| 17 | Brisotto G | Clin Chim Acta | Centro di Riferimento Oncologico Aviano | Friuli Venezia Giulia | 767 (516 §) | - | BNT162b2 two doses) [n = 722] mRNA-1273 (two doses) [n = 43] unknown [n = 2] |
| 18 | Padoan A | Clin Chim Acta | Padua University-Hospital Emergency Department, Infectious Disease and Laboratory Medicine wards | Veneto | 174 | 26 December 2020–10 March 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) [n = 164] single dose for non-naïve SARS-CoV-2 HCWs [n = 10] |
| 19 | Firinu D | Clin Exp Med | University Hospital of Cagliari | Sardinia | 551 | - | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 20 | Pani A | Mayo Clin Proc | ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda | Lombardy | 2569 (1886 ^) | - | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) * |
| 21 | Piano Mortari E | Cells | Bambino Gesù Children Hospital IRCCS | Lazio | 108 | - | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 22 | Ponticelli D | Intern Emerg Med | Pineta Grande Hospital | Campania | 444 (126 °) | December 2020–January 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 23 | Salvagno GL | J Med Biochem | Pederzoli Hospital | Veneto | 181 | 4–7 January 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 24 | Ferrari D | Clin Chem Lab Med | IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital (OSR) IRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi (IOG) IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Hospital (CSS) | Lombardy Puglia | 4290 [OSR: 3340; IOG: 773; CSS: 177] | 4 January 2021–12 February 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 25 | Cassaniti I | Clin Microbiol Infect | Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo | Lombardy | 145 | 27 December 2020–11 February 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses) |
| 26 | Coppeta L | Vaccines (Basel) | University hospital “Tor Vergata” * | Lazio | 300 | vaccination cycle completion within 15 March 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses) |
| 27 | Meschi S | Clin Chem Lab Med | National Institute for Infectious Diseases “L. Spallanzani”—IRCCS | Lazio | 120 | December–February 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 28 | Vicenti I | Int J Infect Dis | - | - | 62 (36 §§) | - | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 29 | Cocomazzi G | Vaccines (Basel) | IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Hospital | Puglia | 340 | - | BNT162b2 (two doses) |
| 30 | Malipiero G | Immunol Res | - | - | 108 | - | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 31 | Ragone C | Front Immunol | National Cancer Institute “Pascale”—IRCCS | Campania | 56 | - | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) single dose for non-naïve SARS-CoV-2 HCWs and titer > 2500 BAU/mL after 1st dose |
| 32 | Buonfrate D | Clin Microbiol Infect | IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria hospital | Veneto | 1935 | 1 January 2021–30 March 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 33 | Lombardi A | J Infect Public Health | IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Milan | Lombardy | 3475 | - | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 34 | Mariani M | J Infect Public Health | IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini children’s hospital | Liguria | 1675 | 31 December 2020– | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 35 | Pellini R | Vaccines (Basel) | Istituti Fisioterapici Ospitalieri | Lazio | 252 | - | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) * |
| 36 | Puro V | Vaccines (Basel) | National Institute for Infectious Diseases “L. Spallanzani”—IRCCS | Lazio | 710 | 27 December 2020– | BNT162b2 (two doses) |
| 37 | Salvagno GL | Clin Chem Lab Med | Pederzoli Hospital | Veneto | 194 | - | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 38 | Gallo A | Neurol Sci | Neurology Clinic—University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli * | Campania | 55 | 5 January 2021– | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) * |
| 39 | Pellini R | EclincalMedicine | Istituti Fisioterapici Ospitalieri | Lazio | 248 | - | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) * |
| 40 | Di Resta C | Vaccines (Basel) | IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital | Lombardy | 3318 | January 2021–15 February 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 41 | Salvagno GL | Diagnostics | Pederzoli Hospital | Veneto | 925 | 4–15 January 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 42 | Zaffina S | J Virus Erad | Bambino Gesù Children Hospital IRCCS | Lazio | 965 | 27 December 2020– | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 43 | Cavalcanti E | Infect Agent Cancer | IRCCS Fondazione “Pascale” Cancer Center | Campania | 193 | - | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) single dose for non-naïve SARS-CoV-2 HCWs |
| 44 | Watanabe M | Diabetes Metab Res Rev | Policlinico Umberto I of Rome | Lazio | 86 | January/February 2021– | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 45 | Padoan A | Clin Chim Acta | Padua University-Hospital | Veneto | 163 | 26 December 2020–10 March 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 46 | Gobbi F | J Inf | IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria hospital * | Veneto | 1958 (158 °) | 1 January 2021–30 March 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) Concomitant infected with the second dose after a median of 75 days [n = 22] |
| 47 | Callegaro A | J Med Virol | ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII * | Lombardy | 184 | - | BNT162b2 (two doses) |
| 48 | Mueller Y | Clin Chim Acta | Hospital of Bolzano Department of Clinical Pathology | Trentino Alto Adige | 34 | 29 December 2020–14 January 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) |
| 49 | Agati C | Microorganisms | National Institute for Infectious Diseases “L. Spallanzani” | Lazio | 35 + 167 | - | BNT162b2 (two doses) |
| 50 | Ponticelli D | Journal of Travel Medicine | Pineta Grande Hospital | Campania | 162 | December 2020–January 2021 | BNT162b2 (two doses, three weeks apart) single dose for non-naïve SARS-CoV-2 HCWs |
* Extrapolated by affiliation and/or Ethical Committee information; ° size of the HCWs with serology data; § size of the additional blood samples; ^ size of the survey data; §§ number of vaccinated with complete data; a same sample cohort with an additional time.
Table 2.
HCWs demographic characteristics.
| S. No | Age Median | Age Range | Female (%) | Previous Covid19 Infection-Exposure (%) | Assessment of Infection-Exposure | Professional Categories (%) | Comorbidity (≥1) (%) | Side Effect Evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 43.9 ^ | 21–77 | 67.50 | 3.15 * | Documented diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection | 33.0% physicians 33.9% nurses 33.0% other | - | - |
| 8 | 45.5 *^ | NE | 74.20 | 17.93 | Questionnaire with information of previous PCR swabs and/or serology tests + anti-N IgG by Abbott chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay and anti-S IgG SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL, USA) | 38.8% nurses 30.7% medical doctors 20.9% other 9.6% socio-administrative staff | 4.91% (immunosuppressive medications) | Yes |
| 9 | 42 ^ | 0.8 ^^^ | 63.63 | - | exclusion per protocol | - | none | - |
| 10 | 48.05 ^ | NE | 88.57 | 42.90 | PCR swab result or Serological test’s result | 8.0% physicians 63.4% nurses 15.4% nurse assistants 13.1% administrative [38.86% worked in a COVID-19 unit] | 13.71% autoimmune disease 15.43% chronic disease | - |
| 11 | 43.1 ^ | 11.7 ^^^ | 73.77 | 13.6 | Documented history of infection | - | - | - |
| 12 | 41.2 ^ | 26–62 | 66.70 | 16.67 * | Serological testing or NAAT | - | none (exclusion of glucocorticosteroid and/or immunosuppressant drugs, autoimmune disorders) | Yes |
| 13 | - | 25–70 | 55.77 | 9.62 | PCR swab result and serological test’s result (Abbot Architect SARS-Cov-2) | - | - | - |
| 14 | 42.3 ^ | 24–66 | 69.30 | 8.99 * | Diagnosis of infection by swab results and clinical confirmation | - | 8.9% (cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, respiratory diseases, severe obesity, cancer) | - |
| 15 | 50 | 24–62 | 70.59 | - | exclusion per protocol by documented history of infection and confirmed by T0 serology | - | - | - |
| 16 | - | - | - | 21.4 | Questionnaire | 83.5% health workers * 12.7% administrative * 3.8% naïve workers * | - | - |
| 17 | 46 | 35–55 ^^ | 72.60 | 8.30 | molecular swab analysis | - | - | Yes |
| 18 | 41.8 ^ | 24–65 | 69.00 | 5.75 | At least one positive nasopharyngeal swab test and clinical conformation- | - | 9.7% (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, severe obesity, cancer) | - |
| 19 | 49.5 * | 35–58 | 64.75 * | 16.76 * | Interview, cross-matching with hospital/laboratory databases, serological test’s result (IgM and IgG Maglumi) | - | 3.55% diabetes * 14.05% current smokers * | Yes |
| 20 | 48 | 36–56 ^^ | 69.60 | 6.3 | Anti-nucleocapsid (N) total Ig seropositivity at day 14 after the second vaccine dose (history of unrecognized contact with SARS-CoV-2) | 32.4% nurses 23.7% medical staff 18.2% other sanitary staff 13.7% administrative 6.5% laboratory staff 3.4% non sanitary staff 2.1% pharmacy and physics staff | 22.7% (cardiovascular disease, hypertension, endocrine disease, autoimmune disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, allergies, hypercholesterolemia, arrhythmia, immunosuppression, multiple sclerosis, coinfection with HIV, coinfection with hepatitis B virus) a 10.8% (obesity) a | Yes |
| 21 | 46.95 ^ | 11.35 ^^^ | 71.30 | 0 | Demonstrated by molecular (Allplex2019-ncov, Seegene, Seoul, South Korea) and antibody assays (Elecsys® Anti-N, Roche, Basel, Switzerland) | - | - | - |
| 22 | 40.7 ^,b | 11.1 ^^^,b | 61.11 b | 5.6 b | interview (history of symptoms compatible with COVID-19, previous laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) | 12.2% physician 44.4% nurses 6.5% other HCWs 16.7% students 20.3% other c | - | Yes c |
| 23 | 42 | 31–52 ^^ | 59.70 | - | exclusion per protocol by Roche Elecsys AntiSARS-CoV-2 S on Cobas 6000 (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland) [cutoff negativity <0.8 U/L] | - | - | - |
| 24 | OSR:44.4 * IOG + CSS: 47.5 * | NE | OSR: 64.07 IOG + CSS: 54.95 | OSR: 9.43 * IOG + CSS: 21.16 * | OSR: by Roche Elecsys AntiSARS-CoV-2 S on Cobas 6000 (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland), cross-matching with swab tests and serological test’s result (Liaison SARS-CoV-2- S1/S2 IgG), questionnaire IOG + CSS: by SARS-CoV-2 (COV2, Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) | - | - | - |
| 25 | 44 | 21–69 | -- | 12.41 | documented diagnosis | - | - | - |
| 26 | 43 ^ | 21–75 | 61.33 | 0 | interview | 41.7% medical doctors 42.0% nurses 16.3% other HCWs | - | - |
| 27 | 48 | 23–71 | 66.66 | 25.0 | Experienced of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection | - | - | - |
| 28 | 50.5 * | 33–60 * | 69.44 * | 63.89 * | laboratory test’s results by survelliance hospital program | - | - | - |
| 29 | 47.7 ^ | 11.8 ^^^ | 57.30 | 22.1 | Questionnaire, swab and serology test results, clinical data from Regional Registry | - | - | - |
| 30 | 51 ^ | 23–69 | 75.00 | - | exclusion per protocol by PCR swab result | - | NR | - |
| 31 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 32 | 45 | 33–53 ^^ | 63.30 | 16.33 * | confirmed RT-PCR results or any serology positivity at T0 | - | - | Yes |
| 33 | 35–44 § | -- | 71.22 * | 14.59 * | confirmed RT-PCR results or symptoms | - | 7.65% obesity 23.13% current smoking | - |
| 34 | 50 | 36–56 ^^ | 79.30 | 3.52 | confirmed RT-PCR results | - | - | - |
| 35 | 47 ^ | 23–69 | 63.80 * | - | exclusion per protocol by interview, serology or mocrobiological tests by swab | - | 10.31% obesity | - |
| 36 | 43 | 21–75 | 70.00 | - | exclusion per protocol by previous SASR-CoV-2 diagnosis, confirmed RT-PCR result or positive to anti-N and/or anti-S/RBD at T0 or positive to anti-N at T1or T2 | 77.0% direct contact with COVID-19 patients | - | - |
| 37 | 42 | 30–52 ^^ | 59.30 | 15.5 | Snibe IgG anti S-RBD [cutoff > 1 kU/L] | - | - | - |
| 38 | 41.2 | 31.9–55.9 ^^ | 58.00 | 0 | molecular and/or antigenic nasopharyngeal swab and/or (IgM, IgG) antibodies tests) | - | - | - |
| 39 | 47 | 23–69 | 63.70 | - | exclusion per protocol by interview, serology or mocrobiological tests by swab | - | 12.5% hypertension 10.48% obesity | - |
| 40 | NE | NE | 64.40 | 9 | Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay on the Cobas 601 platform [cut-off positivity > 1 COI] | - | - | Yes |
| 41 | 44 ^ | 13 ^^ | 49.40 | 22.3 | total anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD antibodies positive | - | - | - |
| 42 | 46 | 36–56 ^^ | 69.74 | 0 | by molecular (Allplex2019-nCov, Seegene) and antibody assays (Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Roche) | - | - | - |
| 43 | 48.1 ^ | 31–69 | 51.29 | 18.13 | Seropositive for anti-N immunoglobulins | - | - | - |
| 44 | 29 ^ | 17 ^^^ | 60.50 | - | exclusion per protocol by serology | - | 31.7% current smokers 15.3 hypertensive treat 2.4% diabetic 7.1% dysplipidemic 9.5% obesity | Yes |
| 45 | 42.4 ^ | 11.7 ^^^ | 69.90 | 7.98 * | interview | - | - | |
| 46 | 44.5 ^* | ND | 78.48 | 51.26 * | - | - | - | - |
| 47 | 50 | 24–66 | 67.90 | 28.80 | previous SASR-CoV-2 diagnosis, confirmed RT-PCR result | - | - | - |
| 48 | 50 | 24–62 | 70.59 | - | exclusion per protocol by documented history and confirmed by T0 serology | - | - | - |
| 49 | 42 d | 31–52 ^^,d | 71.00 d | 0 | Anti-nucleprotein IgG (AdviseDx, ARCHITECT® Abbott Diagnostics, Chicago, IL, USA) [cut-off positivity S/CO ≥ 1.4] | 86% direct care of COVID19 patients(d) | - | - |
| 50 | 42.5 ^ | 11.9 ^^^ | 58.00 | 17.28 | - | - | - | - |
* extracted from tables/figures; ^ mean value; ^^ interquartile range (IQR); ^^^ standard deviation (SD); § modal class; NR: not reported; a on 1886 HCWs; b on 126 HCWs; c on the whole cohort of 444 HCWs; d on 167 HCWs.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Ciniselli, C.M.; Lecchi, M.; Figini, M.; Melani, C.C.; Daidone, M.G.; Morelli, D.; Zito, E.; Apolone, G.; Verderio, P. COVID-19 Vaccination in Health Care Workers in Italy: A Literature Review and a Report from a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Vaccines 2022, 10, 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10050734
AMA Style
Ciniselli CM, Lecchi M, Figini M, Melani CC, Daidone MG, Morelli D, Zito E, Apolone G, Verderio P. COVID-19 Vaccination in Health Care Workers in Italy: A Literature Review and a Report from a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Vaccines. 2022; 10(5):734. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10050734
Chicago/Turabian StyleCiniselli, Chiara Maura, Mara Lecchi, Mariangela Figini, Cecilia C. Melani, Maria Grazia Daidone, Daniele Morelli, Emanuela Zito, Giovanni Apolone, and Paolo Verderio. 2022. "COVID-19 Vaccination in Health Care Workers in Italy: A Literature Review and a Report from a Comprehensive Cancer Center" Vaccines 10, no. 5: 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines10050734
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
