Background: Persistence of protective immunity for SARS-CoV-2 is important against reinfection. Knowledge on SARS-CoV-2 immunity in pediatric patients is currently lacking. We opted to assess the SARS-CoV-2 adaptive immunity in recovered children and adolescents, addressing the pediatrics specific immunity towards COVID-19. Method: Two independent assays were performed to investigate humoral and cellular immunological memory in pediatric convalescent COVID-19 patients. Specifically, RBD IgG, CD4+, and CD8+ T cell responses were identified and quantified in recovered children and adolescents. Results: SARS-CoV-2-specific RBD IgG detected in recovered patients had a half-life of 121.6 days and estimated duration of 7.9 months compared with baseline levels in controls. The specific T cell response was shown to be independent of recovery time. Both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells showed robust responses not only to spike (S) peptides (a main target of vaccine platforms) but were also similarly activated when stimulated by membrane (M) and nuclear (N) peptides. Importantly, we found the differences in the adaptive responses were correlated with the age of the recovered patients. The CD4+ T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 S peptide in children aged <12 years correlated with higher SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG levels, whereas higher level of CD8+ T cells in children aged ≥12 years, suggesting the importance of a T cell-dependent humoral response in younger children under 12 years. Conclusion: Both cellular and humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infections can be induced in pediatric patients. Our important findings provide fundamental knowledge on the immune memory responses to SARS-CoV-2 in recovered pediatric patients.

Background Safety and immunogenicity of 3 doses of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in adult and pediatric patients with inborn errors of immunity (IEIs) remain unknown. Intradermal vaccination may improve immunogenicity in immunocompromised patients. Our study (NCT04800133) aimed to determine the safety and immunogenicity in patients with IEIs receiving a 3-dose primary series of mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (age 12+) or inactivated whole-virion vaccine CoronaVac (age 3+) in Hong Kong, including Omicron BA.1 neutralization, in a nonrandomized manner. Intradermal vaccination was also studied. Methods Thirty-nine patients were vaccinated, including 16 with homologous intramuscular 0.3ml BNT162b2 and 17 with homologous intramuscular 0.5ml CoronaVac. Two patients received 3 doses of intradermal 0.5ml CoronaVac, and 4 patients received 2 doses of intramuscular BNT162b2 and the third dose with intradermal BNT162b2. Adverse reactions and adverse events were tracked for 7 and 28 days after each dose. Antibody responses assessed included binding IgG antibody to wild-type (WT) spike receptor-binding domain (S-RBD IgG) and surrogate neutralization activity to WT and BA.1 viruses. T cell responses were examined by intracellular cytokine staining following stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 peptide pool(s). Results No safety concerns were identified. Inadequate antibody responses were found after 2 doses in patients with humoral immunodeficiencies and especially so against BA.1. Dose 3 of either vaccine increased S-RBD IgG response. T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 antigens were detected in vaccinated IEI patients. Intradermal third dose vaccine led to high antibody response in 4 patients. Conclusions The primary vaccination series of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in adults and children with IEIs should include 3 doses for optimal immunogenicity.

Background: Anaphylaxis is a significant health burden in most Western countries but there is little published data on the incidence and pattern of anaphylaxis in Asia. We aim to determine the incidence rate and pattern of anaphylaxis over the past decade among the paediatric population in Hong Kong. Methods: Medical records of patients presenting with allergy-related symptoms during the period 2010 to 2019 were examined. Paediatric patients aged below 18 years who fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis laid out by the NIAID/FAAN were analysed. Incidence rates were calculated using population statistics as the denominator. All information pertaining to the anaphylaxis events and patients’ characteristics were retrieved using standardized data collection forms. Results: The overall 10-year estimated incidence of anaphylaxis was 7.70 per 100,000 person-years, with a rising trend of anaphylaxis incidence across time. Food-induced anaphylaxis accounted for the majority of hospital presentation, of which peanut and shellfish were the top food triggers in our population. Comorbid asthma and young age were risk factors associated with wheeze at presentation. Misdiagnosis of anaphylaxis occurred in up to half the anaphylaxis cases and adrenaline was only utilised in 45% of cases. Conclusions: An increasing trend of anaphylaxis incidence over the past decade is evident in Hong Kong children, with a discrepantly low accuracy in diagnosis and suboptimal management of anaphylaxis. There is a pressing need to heighten public and physicians’ awareness of the distinctive features of anaphylaxis in the paediatric age group.