Kinetics of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection according to sex, age, and disease severity

The Challenge of Misleading Information: Does the Interaction between Zinc and Vitamin D Influence the Immune Response against SARS-CoV-2 in the Elderly Population?

Immunization is a challenge for the elderly population and can leave this group more vulnerable to opportunistic pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2. Due to this situation, while vaccines were in the development phase, hypotheses were raised about the role of vitamins and minerals in immunization. In Brazil, there was a controversy regarding the well-known COVID-19 Kit, a standardized prescription for positive cases that contained zinc, and vitamin D, and anti-parasitic drugs. There was great controversy in scientific circles, since COVID-19 brought a major challenge for health professionals and public authorities: misleading information. In this study, we evaluated the role of vitamin D and zinc in the production of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in a group of elderly residents in a nursing home in northeastern Brazil. Serum levels of COVID-19 NAbs were assessed, along with vitamin D and zinc, in two phases. The first (T1) was in August 2022 with 26 elderly people, and the second (T2) was in March 2023 with 21, due to the death of five participants. Overall, we observed satisfactory levels for vitamin D, with no participants showing a deficiency in either test, and zinc, with only two participants having a negative result at T1 and three at T2. However, a drop in the average number of NAbs was observed, especially in women (T1 = 89 ± 19 vs. T2 = 57 ± 44), highlighting the importance of monitoring this immunological parameter in the population studied. Based on the results, we suggest that there is no synergism between the micronutrients studied and NAbs (p > 0.05). Further studies are needed to consolidate the findings of an absence of synergism between vitamin D and zinc in the maintenance of NAbs.

From Detection to Protection: Antibodies and Their Crucial Role in Diagnosing and Combatting SARS-CoV-2

Understanding the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, is crucial to comprehending disease progression and the significance of vaccine and therapeutic development. The emergence of highly contagious variants poses a significant challenge to humoral immunity, underscoring the necessity of grasping the intricacies of specific antibodies. This review emphasizes the pivotal role of antibodies in shaping immune responses and their implications for diagnosing, preventing, and treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. It delves into the kinetics and characteristics of the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 and explores current antibody-based diagnostics, discussing their strengths, clinical utility, and limitations. Furthermore, we underscore the therapeutic potential of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, discussing various antibody-based therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, polyclonal antibodies, anti-cytokines, convalescent plasma, and hyperimmunoglobulin-based therapies. Moreover, we offer insights into antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, emphasizing the significance of neutralizing antibodies in order to confer immunity to SARS-CoV-2, along with emerging variants of concern (VOCs) and circulating Omicron subvariants. We also highlight challenges in the field, such as the risks of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and shed light on the challenges associated with the original antigenic sin (OAS) effect and long COVID. Overall, this review intends to provide valuable insights, which are crucial to advancing sensitive diagnostic tools, identifying efficient antibody-based therapeutics, and developing effective vaccines to combat the evolving threat of SARS-CoV-2 variants on a global scale.

Humoral immune response in people living with HIV after administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine CoronaVac or BNT162b2 or CoronaVac/BNT162b2 booster sequence: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The evidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness in people living with HIV (PLWH) is limited. This study evaluated the humoral immune response to CoronaVac™ (virus inactivated) and BNT162b2 (mRNA- based) vaccines in PLWH and HIV-negative controls, with and without a booster sequence.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study on PLWH and HIV-negative controls who received CoronaVac or BNT162b2, with a subgroup receiving a CoronaVac/BNT162b2 booster. Blood samples were collected 4-6 months after primary vaccination and tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 protein S (aSAb) and neutralizing antibodies (NtAb) using validated assays. Immune response was evaluated by age, sex, previous COVID-19 history, and CD4 + cell count.

FINDINGS

One hundred and eighty nine participants were enrolled with 161 (85%) being PLWH. Among participants without previous known COVID-19, median aSAb levels were significantly lower in PLWH who received CoronaVac compared to BNT162b2 (32 U/mL vs. 587 U/mL, p < 0.001), with similar results in HIV-negative controls. NtAb presence was also significantly lower after CoronaVac compared to BNT162b2 (30% vs. 93%, p < 0.001). The booster sequence group showed a significant increase in aSAb titers in both PLWH and HIV-negative controls (from 33 U/ml to 2500 U/ml, p < 0.001), and NtAb positivity increased from 20% to 95 % in PLWH, and 27% to 100% in HIV-negative controls. Prior COVID-19 led to significantly higher post-vaccine antibody titers particularly in the BNT162b2 group. PLWH with CD4 + count < 200 cells/mL showed a weaker immune response to both vaccines.

INTERPRETATION

CoronaVac resulted in a weaker immune response in both PLWH and HIV-negative controls compared to BNT162b2, particularly in immunosuppressed PLWH without prior COVID-19. Hybrid immunity and heterologous booster vaccination increased antibody levels.

FUNDING

Local funding.

An update on lateral flow immunoassay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

Over the last three years, after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented number of novel diagnostic tests have been developed. Assays to evaluate the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 have been widely considered as part of the control strategy. The lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), to detect both IgM and IgG against SARS-CoV-2, has been widely studied as a point-of-care (POC) test. Compared to laboratory tests, LFIAs are faster, cheaper and user-friendly, thus available also in areas with low economic resources. Soon after the onset of the pandemic, numerous kits for rapid antibody detection were put on the market with an emergency use authorization. However, since then, scientists have tried to better define the accuracy of these tests and their usefulness in different contexts. In fact, while during the first phase of the pandemic LFIAs for antibody detection were auxiliary to molecular tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19, successively these tests became a tool of seroprevalence surveillance to address infection control policies. When in 2021 a massive vaccination campaign was implemented worldwide, the interest in LFIA reemerged due to the need to establish the extent and the longevity of immunization in the vaccinated population and to establish priorities to guide health policies in low-income countries with limited access to vaccines. Here, we summarize the accuracy, the advantages and limits of LFIAs as POC tests for antibody detection, highlighting the efforts that have been made to improve this technology over the last few years.

Understanding the SARS-CoV-2 Virus Neutralizing Antibody Response: Lessons to Be Learned from HIV and Respiratory Syncytial Virus

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic commenced in 2019 and is still ongoing. Neither infection nor vaccination give long-lasting immunity and, here, in an attempt to understand why this might be, we have compared the neutralizing antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 with those specific for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Currently, most of the antibodies specific for the SARS-CoV-2 S protein map to three broad antigenic sites, all at the distal end of the S trimer (receptor-binding site (RBD), sub-RBD and N-terminal domain), whereas the structurally similar HIV-1 and the RSV F envelope proteins have six antigenic sites. Thus, there may be several antigenic sites on the S trimer that have not yet been identified. The epitope mapping, quantitation and longevity of the SARS-CoV-2 S-protein-specific antibodies produced in response to infection and those elicited by vaccination are now being reported for specific groups of individuals, but much remains to be determined about these aspects of the host-virus interaction. Finally, there is a concern that the SARS-CoV-2 field may be reprising the HIV-1 experience, which, for many years, used a virus for neutralization studies that did not reflect the neutralizability of wild-type HIV-1. For example, the widely used VSV-SARS-CoV-2-S protein pseudotype has 10-fold more S trimers per virion and a different configuration of the trimers compared with the SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus. Clarity in these areas would help in advancing understanding and aid countermeasures of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.