Maternal SARS-CoV-2 sero-surveillance using newborn dried blood spot (DBS) screening specimens highlights extent of low vaccine uptake in pregnant women

Factors modulating maternofetal transfer of IgG antibodies following SARS-CoV-2 gestational infection

Early infant immunity to SARS-CoV-2 depends on maternofetal transfer of antibodies. We aimed to analyze the factors modulating the maternofetal transfer of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies following gestational infection during the pandemic in Brazil (April-August 2021). We conducted a retrospective and prospective cohort study involving 509 mother-child dyads tested simultaneously for IgG anti-nucleocapsid antibodies during universal neonatal screening. There were 341 seronegative dyads and 168 seropositive ones. Seropositive neonates were retested two to three months later. We examined the association of neonatal serological status and IgG concentrations with gestational mRNA vaccination, timing of maternal infection, neonatal conditions, and gender. Gestational SARS-CoV-2 infection predicted neonatal IgG seropositivity (OR=3.97; 95%CI=2.69-5.88). Maternal infection in the first, second, or third trimester was associated with progressively greater seropositivity in neonates (34.4%, 51.6%, and 58.2%, respectively; p=0.03). Among seropositive neonates, IgG concentration was higher when mothers reported they had COVID-19 during pregnancy (p=0.04) and tended to be lower in girls (p=0.06). More than half of the seropositive neonates remained seropositive two to three months later (54.1%), which was associated with both maternal and neonatal IgG concentration at birth (p<0.001). Higher neonatal IgG concentrations at birth were associated with the persistence of anti-N IgG antibodies for two to three months in more than half of the seropositive newborns. This study provides an additional understanding of the dynamics of maternofetal antibody transfer.

Short- and long-term stability of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on dried blood spots under different storage conditions

Dried blood spots (DBS) are broadly used for different serological analyses, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody assessment. In order to biobank DBS samples, an understanding of the preservation of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is needed. Therefore, we assessed the stability of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on DBS during short- and long-term storage under different storage temperatures. Seven sample donors were enrolled, each donating twenty 6 mm DBS to assess anti-spike (S1) SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (EUROIMMUN). Baseline samples were analyzed on the day of collection. The remainder of the samples was stored in grip seal bags kept in a cryobox at room temperature/4°C until 2 months after collection and at -20°C until 2 years after collection. Samples were analyzed at regular intervals within the total storage duration and after one and five freeze-thaw cycles. A pooled coefficient of variation was calculated for each storage temperature. We found that anti-S1 SARS-CoV-2 antibodies collected on DBS saver cards remain stable during short-term storage at RT, 4°C, and -20°C (at least to 2 months) and long-term storage at -20°C (at least 2 years). Moreover, up to five freeze-thaw cycles can occur without impacting the anti-S1 SARS-CoV-2 antibody level. The inter-assay coefficient of variation lies between 10 and 15%. As DBS can be preserved for both shorter periods of time at RT and longer periods of time at -20°C, they are a perfect application for studies that require sample shipment by mail, self-sampling studies, studies in limited resource settings and biobanking.IMPORTANCEDried blood spots (DBS) are currently widely used as a microsampling technique for different qualitative and quantitative serological assessments. Yet, there is a lack of long-term stability and storage condition studies. In our study, first, we assessed the stability of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on DBS up to 2 years post-collection. We believe that our data are not only important for future COVID-19 research but also for studies on other infections/diseases using DBS-based serology.

Use of dried blood spots in the detection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 disease continues to be a global health concern. The current protocol for detecting SARS-CoV-2 requires healthcare professionals to draw blood from patients. Recent studies showed that dried blood spot (DBS) is a valuable sampling procedure that can collect a low blood volume without the need for the presence of medical practitioners. This study synthesized the available literature on using DBS as a blood collection tool to diagnose COVID-19 disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search utilizing OVID, CINAHL, and Scopus databases was done from inception to March 2023. Five reviewers collected, extracted and organized the study data.

RESULTS

This systematic review included 57 articles. DBS was commonly prepared by finger pricking. Most studies showed more favorable results and longer sample stability (more than 1080 days) with lower storage temperature conditions for the DBS. DBS samples were mostly used for serological assays for COVID-19 disease detection. ELISA was the most used detection method (43.66 %). Diagnostic performance of laboratory tests for COVID-19 using DBS sample showed high sensitivity of up to 100 % for immunoassay tests and 100 % specificity in agglutination, PCR, and DELFIA assays.

CONCLUSION

DBS sampling coupled with serological testing can be an alternative method for collecting blood and detecting COVID-19 disease. These tests using DBS samples showed excellent diagnostic performance across various geographic locations and demographics.

Challenges and opportunities in current vaccine technology and administration: A comprehensive survey examining oral vaccine potential in the United States

This study provides a snapshot of the current vaccine business ecosystem, including practices, challenges, beliefs, and expectations of vaccine providers. Our team focused on providers' firsthand experience with administering vaccines to determine if an oral vaccine (e.g. pill or oral-drop) would be well-received. We interviewed 135 healthcare providers and vaccine specialists across the US, focusing questions on routine vaccinations, not COVID-19 vaccines. Improving workflow efficiency is a top concern among vaccine providers due to shrinking reimbursement rates-determined by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)-and the time-intensiveness of injectable vaccines. Administering injectable vaccines takes 23 minutes/patient on average, while dispensing pills takes only 5 minutes/patient. An average of 24% of patients express needle-fear, which further lengthens the processing time. Misaligned incentives between providers and PBMs could reduce the quality and availability of vaccine-related care. The unavailability of single-dose orders prevents some rural providers from offering certain vaccines. Most interviewees (74%) believe an oral vaccine would improve patient-provider experience, patient-compliance, and workflow efficiency, while detractors (26%) worry about the taste, vaccine absorption, and efficacy. Additional research could investigate whether currently non-vaccinating pharmacies would be willing to offer oral vaccines, and the impact of oral vaccines on vaccine acceptance.