Seroprevalence of neutralizing antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among healthcare workers in Makkah, Saudi Arabia

Lack of Evidence on Association between Iron Deficiency and COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Neutralizing Humoral Immunity

Iron is a crucial micronutrient for immunity induction in response to infections and vaccinations. This study aimed to investigate the effect of iron deficiency on COVID-19-vaccine-induced humoral immunity. We investigated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx nCov-2019) in iron-deficient individuals (n = 63) and provide a side-by-side comparison to healthy controls (n = 67). The presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) and anti-nucleocapsid (NP) IgG were assessed using in-house S- and NP-based ELISA followed by serum neutralization test (SNT). High concordance between S-based ELISA and SNT results was observed. The prevalence of neutralizing antibodies was 95.24% (60/63) in the study group and 95.52% (64/67) in the controls with no significant difference. The presence/absence of past infection, period since vaccination, vaccine type, and being iron-deficient or having iron-deficiency anemia did not exert any significant effect on the prevalence or titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. NP-based ELISA identified individuals unaware of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, absence of anti-NP IgG was noted in participants who were previously diagnosed with COVID-19 suggesting the unpredictability of after-infection immunity. To sum up, this study demonstrated an initial lack of evidence on the association between iron deficiency and the effectiveness of COVID-19-vaccine-induced neutralizing humoral immunity. Similar studies with larger sample size remain necessary to obtain comprehensive conclusions about the effect or lack of effect of iron on COVID-19-vaccine effectiveness.

A potential association between obesity and reduced effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine-induced neutralizing humoral immunity

Due to the adverse effects of obesity on host immunity, this study investigated the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines (BNT162b2, ChAdOx-nCov-2019, and mRNA-1273) in inducing anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) neutralizing antibodies among individuals with various obesity classes (class I, II, III, and super obesity). Sera from vaccinated obese individuals (n = 73) and normal BMI controls (n = 46) were subjected to S-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and serum-neutralization test (SNT) to determine the prevalence and titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. Nucleocapsid-ELISA was also utilized to distinguish between immunity acquired via vaccination only versus vaccination plus recovery from infection. Data were linked to participant demographics including age, gender, past COVID-19 diagnosis, and COVID-19 vaccination profile. S-based ELISA demonstrated high seroprevalence rates (>97%) in the study and control groups whether samples with evidence of past infection were included or excluded. Interestingly, however, SNT demonstrated a slightly significant reduction in both the rate and titer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies among vaccinated obese individuals (60/73; 82.19%) compared to controls (45/46; 97.83%). The observed reduction in COVID-19 vaccine-induced neutralizing humoral immunity among obese individuals occurs independently of gender, recovery from past infection, and period from last vaccination. Our data suggest that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective in inducing protective humoral immunity. This effectiveness, however, is potentially reduced among obese individuals which highlight the importance of booster doses to improve their neutralizing immunity. Further investigations on larger sample size remain necessary to comprehensively conclude about the effect of obesity on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness on humoral immunity induction.

Risk of COVID-19 in healthcare workers working in intensive care setting

BACKGROUND

The higher risk of COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs) is well-known. However, the risk within HCWs is not fully understood. The objective was to compare the COVID-19 risk in intensive care unit (ICU) vs non-ICU locations.

METHODS

A prospective surveillance study was conducted among HCWs at a large tertiary care facility in Riyadh between March 1st to November 30th, 2020. HCWs included both clinical (provide direct patient care) and nonclinical positions (do not provide direct patient care).

RESULTS

A total 1,594 HCWs with COVID-19 were included; 103 (6.5%) working in ICU and 1,491 (93.5%) working in non-ICU locations. Compared with non-ICU locations, ICU had more nurses (54.4% vs 22.1%, P < .001) and less support staff (2.9% vs 53.1%, P < .001). COVID-19 infection was similar in ICU and non-ICU locations (9.0% vs 9.8%, P = .374). However, it was significantly higher in ICU nurses (12.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001). Support staff had higher risk than other HCWs, irrespective of ICU working status (15.1% vs 7.2%, P < 0.001). The crude relative risk of COVID-19 in ICU vs non-ICU locations was 0.92, 95% confidence interval ( was 0.76-1.11 (P = .374). However, relative risk adjusted for professional category was significantly increased to 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.50 (P = .036).

CONCLUSIONS

ICU had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 infection only after adjusting for the distribution and risk of different professional categories. The latter is probably determined by both exposure level and protection practices. The finding underscores the importance of strict implementation of preventive measures among all HCWs, including those performing nonclinical services.

High seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers 8 months after the first wave in Aden, Yemen

The true burden of COVID-19 in Yemen is underestimated. The healthcare system is dysfunctional and there is a high shortage of health care workers in the country. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 remains limited and official surveillance data is restricted to those who are severe or highly suspected. In this study, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) aimed to conduct serological screening using rapid tests for asymptomatic staff at the MSF Aden Trauma Center to determine the SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity. Four months after the peak of the first wave, we offered all the staff at the MSF Aden Trauma Center PCR if symptomatic, and a baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology screening followed by follow-up screenings. A final round was scheduled four months after the baseline. A rapid serology lateral flow test, NG-Test IgM-IgG was used in all rounds and in the final round, an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify risk factors for seropositivity. The level of agreement between the different serology assays used was investigated. Overall 69 out of 356 participants (19.4%, 95% CI 17.9-20.8) tested positive by NG-Test between September and November 2020. A sub-sample of 161 staff members were retested in January 2021. Of these, the NG-Test detected only 13 positive cases, whereas the ECLIA detected 109 positive cases. The adjusted seroprevalence by ECLIA was 59% (95%CI 52.2-65.9). The non-medical staff had significantly lower odds of seropositivity compared to the medical staff (AOR 0.43, 95% CI 0.15-0.7, p<0.001). The positive percent agreement between the two tests was very low (11%). Our results suggest a very high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in healthcare workers in Yemen, highlighting the need for regular testing and rapid vaccination of all healthcare workers in the country.

Development of Serological Assays and Seroprevalence Studies of the New Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19): Reports from Saudi Arabia

Serological assays are valuable tools for tracking COVID-19 spread, estimation of herd immunity, and evaluation of vaccine effectiveness. Several reports from Saudi Arabia describe optimized in-house protocols that enable detection of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies and measurement of their neutralizing activity. Notably, there were variations in the approaches utilized to develop and validate these immunoassays in term of sample size, validation methodologies, and statistical analyses. The developed enzyme-linked immunoassays (ELISAs) were based on the viral full-length spike (S), S1 subunit, and nucleocapsid (NP), and enabled detection of IgM and/or IgG. ELISAs were evaluated and validated against a microneutralization assay utilizing a local SARS-CoV-2 clinical isolate, FDA-approved commercially available immunoassays, and/or real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Overall, the performance of the described assays was high, reaching up to 100% sensitivity and 98.9% specificity with no cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses. In-house immunoassays, along with commercially available kits, were subsequently applied in a number of sero-epidemiological studies aiming to estimate sero-positivity status among local populations including healthcare workers, COVID-19 patients, non-COVID-19 patients, and healthy blood donors. The reported seroprevalence rates differed widely among these studies, ranging from 0.00% to 32.2%. These variations are probably due to study period, targeted population, sample size, and performance of the immunoassays utilized. Indeed, lack of sero-positive cases were reported among healthy blood donors during the lockdown, while the highest rates were reported when the number of COVID-19 cases peaked in the country, particularly among healthcare workers working in referral hospitals and quarantine sites. In this review, we aim to (1) provide a critical discussion about the developed in-house immunoassays, and (2) summarize key findings of the sero-epidemiological studies and highlight strengths and weaknesses of each study.

Community-Based Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies following the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Jazan Province, Saudi Arabia

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread globally, causing unprecedented effects on global health and economies. Community-based serological data are essential for understanding the true prevalence of infections, specifically the subclinical infections, as COVID-19 asymptomatic infections are common. Such data would also be important for decision making around choosing appropriate epidemiological control measures, as well as for the true estimation of mortality rates in the population. Further, determining the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the population would provide important information on herd immunity. In this study, we conducted a population-based age-stratified serological study to understand the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Jazan Province, Saudi Arabia. Out of 594 participants who were recruited from 29 August to 30 December 2020, just before the vaccination rollout program in Saudi Arabia, about 157 were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2, indicating an estimated seropositivity rate of 26%. Although no significant difference in seropositivity was seen between male and female participants, we found that lower seroprevalence was associated with the younger (below 18 years old) and older populations (older than 56 years) compared with other age groups (19-55 years). These data indicate a high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies following the peak of COVID-19 spread in Jazan province; however, most of the population (three-quarters) remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among high-risk healthcare workers in a MERS-CoV endemic area

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia are a unique population who have had exposures to the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). It follows that HCWs from this country could have pre-existingMERS-CoV antibodies that may either protect from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection or cause false SARS-CoV-2 seropositive results. In this article, we report the seroprevalence of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 among high-risk healthcare workers in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study enrolling 420 high-risk HCWs who are physically in contact with COVID-19 patients in three tertiary hospitals in Riyadh city. The participants were recruited between the 1st of July to the end of December 2020. A 3 ml of the venous blood samples were collected and tested for the presence of IgG antibodies against the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in high-risk HCWs was 14.8% based on SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing while only 7.4% were positive by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for viral RNA. Most of the SARS-CoV-2 seropositive HCWs had symptoms and the most frequent symptoms were body aches, fever, cough, loss of smell and taste, and headache. The seroprevalence of MERS-CoV IgG was 1% (4 participants) and only one participant had dual seropositivity against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Three MERS-CoV positive samples (75%) turned to be negative after using in-house ELISA and none of the MERS-CoV seropositive samples had detectable neutralization activity.

CONCLUSION

Our SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence results were higher than reported regional seroprevalence studies. This finding was expected and similar to other international findings that targeted high-risk HCWs. Our results provide evidence that the SARS-CoV-2- seropositivity in Saudi Arabia similar to other countries was due to exposure to SARS-CoV-2 rather than MERS-CoV antibody.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among rural healthcare workers

The objective of this longitudinal cohort study was to determine the seroprevalence of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) in healthcare workers employed at healthcare settings in three rural counties in eastern South Dakota and western Minnesota from May 13, 2020, through December 22, 2020. Three blood draws were performed at five clinical sites and tested for the presence of antibodies against the SARS‐CoV‐2. Serum samples were tested for the presence of antibodies using a fluorescent microsphere immunoassay (FMIA), neutralization of SARS‐CoV‐2 spike‐pseudotyped particles (SARS‐CoV‐2pp) assay, and serum virus neutralization (SVN) assay. The seroprevalence was determined to be 1/336 (0.29%) for samples collected from 5/13/20 to 7/13/20, 5/260 (1.92%) for samples collected from 8/13/20 to 9/25/20, and 35/235 (14.89%) for samples collected from 10/16/20 to 12/22/20. Eight of the 35 (22.8%) seropositive individuals identified in the final draw did not report a previous diagnosis with COVID‐19. There was a high correlation (>90%) between the FMIA and virus neutralization assays. Each clinical site's seroprevalence was higher than the cumulative incidence for the general public in the respective county as reported by state public health agencies. As of December 2020, there was a high percentage (85%) of seronegative individuals in the study population.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Binding and Neutralizing Antibodies in Healthcare Workers during the Epidemic Peak in Referral Hospitals and Quarantine Sites: Saudi Arabia

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to the general population. Here, we aimed to evaluate and characterize the SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity rate in randomly collected samples among HCWs from the largest referral hospitals and quarantine sites during the peak of the COVID-19 epidemic in the city of Jeddah, the second largest city in Saudi Arabia, using a cross-sectional analytic study design. Out of 693 participants recruited from 29 June to 10 August 2020, 223 (32.2%, 95% CI: 28.8–35.8) were found to be confirmed seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and among those 197 (88.3%) had never been diagnosed with COVID-19. Seropositivity was not significantly associated with participants reporting COVID-19 compatible symptoms as most seropositive HCW participants 140 (62.8%) were asymptomatic. The large proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 cases detected in our study demands periodic testing as a general hospital policy.

A Reliable Indirect ELISA Protocol for Detection of Human Antibodies Directed to SARS-CoV-2 NP Protein

A few months ago, the availability of a reliable and cost-effective testing capacity for COVID-19 was a concern for many countries. With the emergence and circulation of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, another layer of challenge can be added for COVID-19 testing at both molecular and serological levels. This is particularly important for the available tests principally designed to target the S gene/protein where multiple mutations have been reported. Herein, the SARS-CoV-2 NP recombinant protein was utilized to develop a simple and reliable COVID-19 NP human IgG ELISA. The optimized protocol was validated against a micro-neutralization (MN) assay, in-house S-based ELISA, and commercial chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA). The developed assay provides 100% sensitivity, 98.9% specificity, 98.9% agreement, and high overall accuracy with an area under curve equal to 0.9998 ± 0.0002 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.99 to 1.00. The optical density values of positive samples significantly correlated with their corresponding MN titers. The assay specifically detects IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 NP protein and does not cross-detect IgG to the viral S protein. Moreover, it does not cross-react with antibodies related to other coronaviruses (e.g., the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus or human coronavirus HKU1). The availability of this reliable COVID-19 NP IgG ELISA protocol is highly valuable for its diagnostic and epidemiological applications.