Evaluation of a commercially-available surrogate virus neutralization test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Performance Analysis of Serodiagnostic Tests to Characterize the Incline and Decline of the Individual Humoral Immune Response in COVID-19 Patients: Impact on Diagnostic Management

Serodiagnostic tests for antibody detection to estimate the immunoprotective status regarding SARS-CoV-2 support diagnostic management. This study aimed to investigate the performance of serological assays for COVID-19 and elaborate on test-specific characteristics. Sequential samples (n = 636) of four panels (acute COVID-19, convalescent COVID-19 (partly vaccinated post-infection), pre-pandemic, and cross-reactive) were tested for IgG by indirect immunofluorescence test (IIFT) and EUROIMMUN EUROLINE Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Profile (IgG). Neutralizing antibodies were determined by a virus neutralization test (VNT) and two surrogate neutralization tests (sVNT, GenScript cPass, and EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 NeutraLISA). Analysis of the acute and convalescent panels revealed high positive (78.3% and 91.6%) and negative (91.6%) agreement between IIFT and Profile IgG. The sVNTs revealed differences in their positive (cPass: 89.4% and 97.0%, NeutraLISA: 71.5% and 72.1%) and negative agreement with VNT (cPass: 92.3% and 50.0%, NeutraLISA: 95.1% and 92.5%) at a diagnostic specificity of 100% for all tests. The cPass showed higher inhibition rates than NeutraLISA at VNT titers below 1:640. Cross-reactivities were only found by cPass (57.1%). Serodiagnostic tests, which showed substantial agreement and fast runtime, could provide alternatives for cell-based assays. The findings of this study suggest that careful interpretation of serodiagnostic results obtained at different times after SARS-CoV-2 antigen exposure is crucial to support decision-making in diagnostic management.

Performance of a Point-of-Care Fluorescence Immunoassay Test to Measure the Anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 Spike, Receptor Binding Domain Antibody Level

Quantitative determination of anti-SARS-CoV2-S-RBD is necessary for the evaluation of vaccination effectiveness. The surrogate viral neutralization test (SVNT) is approved for measuring anti-SARS-CoV2-S-RBD, but a point-of-care platform is needed to simplify anti-SARS-CoV-2-S-RBD measurement. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a rapid fluorescent immunoassay-based kit, FastBio-RBDTM, compared to the SVNT. During April-September 2021, we enrolled two groups of subjects, convalescent subjects and subjects without a COVID-19 history. The subjects were tested for the anti-SARS-CoV2-S-RBD antibody using FastBio-RBDTM and the GenScript-cPASSTM SVNT. We measured the correlation coefficient and conducted an ROC analysis to determine the best cut-off value of anti-SARS-CoV2-S-RBD against the SVNT percent inhibition levels of 30% and 60%. We included 109 subjects. Anti-SARS-CoV-2-S-RBD strongly correlated to SVNT % inhibition with an R value of 0.866 (p < 0.0001). The ROC analysis showed that the anti-SARS-CoV-2-S-RBD of 6.71 AU/mL had 95.7% sensitivity and 87.5% specificity to detect a percentage inhibition of 30%. The anti-SARS-CoV-2-S-RBD of 59.76 AU/mL had a sensitivity of 88.1% and specificity of 97.0% to detect a percentage inhibition of 60%. FastBio-RBDTM could determine the presence and level of anti-SARS-CoV-2-S-RBD with good sensitivity and specificity. It has the potential to be deployed in health facilities with limited resources.

Performance Evaluation of Three Antibody Binding Assays, a Neutralizing Antibody Assay, and an Interferon-Gamma Release Assay for SARS-CoV-2 According to Vaccine Type in Vaccinated Group

We evaluated the performance of SARS-CoV-2 assays in the vaccinated group using receptor-binding domain antibody assays (RBD Ab assay), neutralizing antibody assay (nAb assay), and interferon-gamma release assay (IGR assay). We also compared the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 assays based on vaccine type in a large population. We collected 1851 samples from vaccinated individuals with vector, mix-and-match (MM), and mRNA vaccines. The performance of the RBD Ab assays was assessed by SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (Abbott Laboratories, Sligo, Ireland), SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Beckman Coulter, CA, USA), and anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). The nAb assay was assessed by cPass SARS-CoV-2 neutralization antibody detection kits (GenScript, NJ, USA). The IGR assay was assessed by QuantiFERON (Qiagen, Venlo, The Netherlands). Median values of the RBD Ab assays and nAb assay sequentially increased after the first and second vaccinations. RBD Ab assays and nAb assay showed very strong correlations. The median values of the RBD Ab, nAb, and IGR were higher in the mRNA vaccine group than in the vector and MM vaccine groups. The agreement and correlation among the RBD Ab assays, nAb assay, and IGR assay were higher in the mRNA vaccine group than in the vector and MM vaccine groups. We compared the performance of the RBD Ab assay, nAb assay, and IGR assay based on the vaccine types using the RBD Ab, nAb, and IGR assays. This study provides a better understanding of the assessment of humoral and cellular immune responses after vaccination.

SARS-CoV-2 and Epstein-Barr Virus-like Particles Associate and Fuse with Extracellular Vesicles in Virus Neutralization Tests

The successful development of effective viral vaccines depends on well-known correlates of protection, high immunogenicity, acceptable safety criteria, low reactogenicity, and well-designed immune monitoring and serology. Virus-neutralizing antibodies are often a good correlate of protective immunity, and their serum concentration is a key parameter during the pre-clinical and clinical testing of vaccine candidates. Viruses are inherently infectious and potentially harmful, but we and others developed replication-defective SARS-CoV-2 virus-like-particles (VLPs) as surrogates for infection to quantitate neutralizing antibodies with appropriate target cells using a split enzyme-based approach. Here, we show that SARS-CoV-2 and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-derived VLPs associate and fuse with extracellular vesicles in a highly specific manner, mediated by the respective viral fusion proteins and their corresponding host receptors. We highlight the capacity of virus-neutralizing antibodies to interfere with this interaction and demonstrate a potent application using this technology. To overcome the common limitations of most virus neutralization tests, we developed a quick in vitro diagnostic assay based on the fusion of SARS-CoV-2 VLPs with susceptible vesicles to quantitate neutralizing antibodies without the need for infectious viruses or living cells. We validated this method by testing a set of COVID-19 patient serum samples, correlated the results with those of a conventional test, and found good sensitivity and specificity. Furthermore, we demonstrate that this serological assay can be adapted to a human herpesvirus, EBV, and possibly other enveloped viruses.

Safety and efficacy of one and two booster doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in kidney transplant recipients: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplant recipients are at risk for a severe course of COVID-19 with a high mortality rate. A considerable number of patients remains without a satisfactory serological response after the baseline and adjuvant SARS-CoV-2 vaccination schedule.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of one and two booster doses of mRNA vaccines (either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2) in 125 COVID-19 naive, adult kidney transplant recipients who showed an insufficient humoral response (SARS-CoV-2 IgG <10 AU/ml) to the previous 2-dose vaccination schedule. The primary outcome was the difference in the rate of a positive antibody response (SARS-CoV-2 IgG ≥10 AU/ml) between one and two booster doses at 1 month after the final booster dose.

RESULTS

A positive humoral response was observed in 36 (62%) patients receiving two booster doses and in 28 (44%) patients receiving one booster dose (odds ratio [OR], 2.10, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-4.34, p = .043). Moreover, median SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels were higher with two booster doses (p = .009). The number of patients with positive virus neutralizing antibody (VNA) levels was numerically higher with two booster doses compared to one booster dose, but without statistical significance (66% vs. 50%, p = .084). There was no significant difference in positive seroconversions rate and antibody levels between mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2.

CONCLUSION

A higher number of kidney transplant recipients achieved a positive antibody response after two booster doses compared to one booster dose.

Kinetics and ability of binding antibody and surrogate virus neutralization tests to predict neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant following BNT162b2 booster administration

OBJECTIVES

To assess the long-term humoral immunity induced by booster administration, as well as the ability of binding antibody and surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNT) to predict neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.

METHODS

A total of 269 sera samples were analyzed from 64 healthcare workers who had received a homologous booster dose of BNT162b2. Neutralizing antibodies assessed by sVNT and anti-RBD IgG measured with the sCOVG assay (Siemens Healthineers®) were analyzed at five timepoints; before and up to 6 months following the booster. Antibody titers were correlated with neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron BA.1 variant obtained by pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT) as a reference method.

RESULTS

While Wild-type sVNT percentage of inhibition (POI) remained above 98.6% throughout the follow-up period after booster administration, anti-RBD IgG and NAbs assessed by Omicron BA.1 pVNT showed respectively a 3.4-fold and 13.3-fold decrease after 6 months compared to the peak reached at day 14. NAbs assessed by Omicron sVNT followed a steady decline until reaching a POI of 53.4%. Anti-RBD IgG and Omicron sVNT assays were strongly correlated (r=0.90) and performed similarly to predict the presence of neutralizing antibodies with Omicron pVNT (area under the ROC: 0.82 for both assays). In addition, new adapted cut-off values of anti-RBD IgG (>1,276 BAU/mL) and Omicron sVNT (POI>46.6%) were found to be better predictors of neutralizing activity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed a significant drop in humoral immunity 6 months after booster administration. Anti-RBD IgG and Omicron sVNT assays were highly correlated and could predict neutralizing activity with moderate performance.

Correlation between pseudotyped virus and authentic virus neutralisation assays, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

Background

The virus neutralization assay is a principal method to assess the efficacy of antibodies in blocking viral entry. Due to biosafety handling requirements of viruses classified as hazard group 3 or 4, pseudotyped viruses can be used as a safer alternative. However, it is often queried how well the results derived from pseudotyped viruses correlate with authentic virus. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to comprehensively evaluate the correlation between the two assays.

Methods

Using PubMed and Google Scholar, reports that incorporated neutralisation assays with both pseudotyped virus, authentic virus, and the application of a mathematical formula to assess the relationship between the results, were selected for review. Our searches identified 67 reports, of which 22 underwent a three-level meta-analysis.

Results

The three-level meta-analysis revealed a high level of correlation between pseudotyped viruses and authentic viruses when used in an neutralisation assay. Reports that were not included in the meta-analysis also showed a high degree of correlation, with the exception of lentiviral-based pseudotyped Ebola viruses.

Conclusion

Pseudotyped viruses identified in this report can be used as a surrogate for authentic virus, though care must be taken in considering which pseudotype core to use when generating new uncharacterised pseudotyped viruses.

Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients with Autoimmune Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Patients with autoimmune diseases are among the susceptible groups to COVID-19 infection because of the complexity of their conditions and the side effects of the immunosuppressive drugs used to treat them. They might show impaired immunogenicity to COVID-19 vaccines and have a higher risk of developing COVID-19. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis, this research sought to summarize the evidence on COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety in patients with autoimmune diseases following predefined eligibility criteria. Research articles were obtained from an initial search up to 26 September 2022 from PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, MedRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, EuroPMC, and the Cochrane Center of Randomized Controlled Trials (CCRCT). Of 76 eligible studies obtained, 29, 54, and 38 studies were included in systematic reviews of efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively, and 6, 18, and 4 studies were included in meta-analyses for efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety, respectively. From the meta-analyses, patients with autoimmune diseases showed more frequent breakthrough COVID-19 infections and lower total antibody (TAb) titers, IgG seroconversion, and neutralizing antibodies after inactivated COVID-19 vaccination compared with healthy controls. They also had more local and systemic adverse events after the first dose of inactivated vaccination compared with healthy controls. After COVID-19 mRNA vaccination, patients with autoimmune diseases had lower TAb titers and IgG seroconversion compared with healthy controls.

Analysis and comparison of SARS-CoV-2 variant antibodies and neutralizing activity for 6 months after a booster mRNA vaccine in a healthcare worker population

Introduction

In the context of recurrent surges of SARS-CoV-2 infections, a detailed characterization of antibody persistence over a 6-month period following vaccine booster dose is necessary to crafting effective public health policies on repeat vaccination.

Methods

To characterize the SARS-CoV-2 antibody profile of a healthcare worker population over a 6-month period following mRNA vaccination and booster dose. 323 healthcare workers at an academic medical center in Orange County, California who had completed primary vaccination and booster dose against SARS-CoV-2 were recruited for the study. A total of 690 blood specimens over a 6-month period were collected via finger-stick blood and analyzed for the presence of antibodies against 9 SARS-CoV-2 antigens using a coronavirus antigen microarray.

Results

The primary outcome of this study was the average SARS-CoV-2 antibody level as measured using a novel coronavirus antigen microarray. Additional outcomes measured include levels of antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 variants including Delta, Omicron BA.1, and BA.2. We also measured SARS-CoV-2 neutralization capacity for a subset of the population to confirm correlation with antibody levels. Although antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 wane throughout the 6-month period following a booster dose, antibody levels remain higher than pre-boost levels. However, a booster dose of vaccine based on the original Wuhan strain generates approximately 3-fold lower antibody reactivity against Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 as compared to the vaccine strain. Despite waning antibody levels, neutralization activity against the vaccine strain is maintained throughout the 6-month period.

Discussion

In the context of recurrent surges of SARS-CoV-2 infections, our data indicate that breakthrough infections are likely driven by novel variants with different antibody specificity and not by time since last dose of vaccination, indicating that development of vaccinations specific to these novel variants is necessary to prevent future surges of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: Comparison of Enzyme Immunoassay, Surrogate Neutralization and Virus Neutralization Test

BACKGROUND

Since sensitivity and specificity vary widely between tests, SARS-CoV-2 serology results should be interpreted with caution.

METHODS

The study included serum samples from patients who had recovered from COVID-19 (n = 71), individuals vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (n = 84), and asymptomatic individuals (n = 33). All samples were tested for the presence of binding antibodies (enzyme immunoassay; EIA), neutralizing (NT) antibodies (virus neutralization test; VNT), and surrogate NT (sNT) antibodies (surrogate virus neutralization test; sVNT) of SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2-binding antibodies were detected in 71 (100%) COVID-19 patients, 77 (91.6%) vaccinated individuals, and 4 (12.1%) control subjects. Among EIA-positive samples, VNT was positive (titer ≥ 8) in 100% of COVID-19 patients and 63 (75.0%) of the vaccinated individuals, while sVNT was positive (>30% inhibition) in 62 (87.3%) patients and 59 (70.2%) vaccinated individuals. The analysis of antibody levels showed a significant moderate positive correlation between EIA and VNT, a moderate positive correlation between EIA and sVNT, and a strong positive correlation between VNT and sVNT. The proportion of positive sVNT detection rate was associated with VNT titer. The lowest positivity (72.4%/70.8%) was detected in samples with low NT titers (8/16) and increased progressively from 88.2% in samples with titer 32 to 100% in samples with titer 256.

CONCLUSIONS

sVNT appeared to be a reliable method for the assessment COVID-19 serology in patients with high antibody levels, while false-negative results were frequently observed in patients with low NT titers.

Development of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody detection assay by using recombinant plant-produced proteins

Detecting immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is vital for evaluating vaccine response and natural infection, but conventional virus neutralization test (cVNT) requires BSL3 and live viruses, and pseudo-virus neutralization test (pVNT) needs specialized equipment and trained professionals in BSL2. The surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) was developed to overcome these limitations. This study explored the use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE2) produced from Nicotiana benthamiana for the development of an affordable neutralizing antibodies detection assay. The results showed that the plant-produced ACE2-His can bind to the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2, and was used to develop sVNT with plant-produced RBD protein. The sVNT developed using plant-produced proteins showed high sensitivity and specificity when validated with a group of 30 RBD-Fc vaccinated mice sera and the results were correlated with cVNT titer. This preliminary finding suggests that the plants could offer a cost-effective platform for producing diagnostic reagents.

Evaluation of a biotin-based surrogate virus neutralization test for detecting postvaccination antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants in sera

A severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2(SARS-CoV-2) surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) was used to determine the degree of inhibition of binding between human angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (hACE2) and the receptor binding domain (RBD) of spike protein by neutralizing antibodies in a biosafety level 2 facility. Here, to improve the sensitivity and specificity of the commercial sVNT, we developed a new biotin based sVNT using biotinylated RBD and HRP conjugated streptavidin instead of HRP conjugated RBD for direct detection in an ELISA assay that strongly correlated to the FDA approved cPass sVNT commercial kit (R² = 0.8521) and pseudo virus neutralization test (R² = 0.9006) (pVNT). The biotin based sVNT was evaluated in 535 postvaccination serum samples corresponding to second and third boosts of AZD1222 and BNT162b2 vaccines of the wild type strain. We confirmed that the neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants in second vaccination sera decreased after a median of 141.5 days. Furthermore, vaccination sera from BNT162b2-BNT162b2 vaccines maintained neutralizing antibodies for longer than those of AZD1222 only vaccination. In addition, both vaccines maintained high neutralizing antibodies in third vaccination sera against Omicron BA.2 after a median of 27 days, but neutralizing antibodies significantly decreased after a median of 141.5 days. Along with the cPass sVNT commercial kit, biotin based sVNTs may also be suitable for specifically detecting neutralizing antibodies against multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants; however, to initially monitor the neutralizing antibodies in vaccinated sera using high throughput screening, conventional PRNT could be replaced by sVNT to circumvent the inconvenience of a long test time.

Trajectory of Humoral Responses to Two Doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccination in Patients Receiving Maintenance Hemodialysis

The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine is one of the most commonly delivered SARS-CoV-2 vaccines worldwide; however, few clinical studies have investigated its immunogenicity in dialysis patients. We prospectively enrolled 123 patients on maintenance hemodialysis at a medical center in Taiwan. All patients were infection-naive, had received two doses of the AZD1222 vaccine, and were monitored for 7 months. The primary outcomes were anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody concentrations before and after each dose and 5 months after the second dose and neutralization capacity against ancestral SARS-CoV-2, delta, and omicron variants. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD antibody titers significantly increased with time following vaccination, with a peak at 1 month after the second dose (median titer, 498.8 U/mL; interquartile range, 162.5 to 1,050 U/mL), and a 4.7-fold decrease at 5 months. At 1 month after the second dose, 84.6, 83.7, and 1.6% of the participants had neutralizing antibodies against the ancestral virus, delta variant, and omicron variant, respectively, measured by a commercial surrogate neutralization assay. The geometric mean 50% pseudovirus neutralization titers for the ancestral virus, delta variant, and omicron variant were 639.1, 264.2, and 24.7, respectively. The anti-RBD antibody titers correlated well with neutralization capacity against the ancestral virus and delta variant. Transferrin saturation and C-reactive protein were associated with neutralization against the ancestral virus and delta variant. Although two doses of the AZD1222 vaccine initially elicited high anti-RBD antibody titers and neutralization against the ancestral virus and delta variant in hemodialysis patients, neutralizing antibodies against omicron variant were rarely detected, and the anti-RBD and neutralization antibodies waned over time. Additional/booster vaccinations are warranted in this population. IMPORTANCE Patients with kidney failure have worse immune response following vaccination compared to general population, but few clinical studies have investigated immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccination in hemodialysis patients. Here, we showed two doses of AZD1222 vaccines lead to high seroconversion rate of anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies, and more than 80% patients acquired neutralizing antibodies against ancestral virus and delta variant. However, seldom did they obtain neutralizing antibodies against the omicron variant. The geometric mean 50% pseudovirus neutralization titer against the ancestral virus was 25.9-fold higher than that against the omicron variant. Also, there was a substantial decay in anti-RBD titers with time. Our findings provided evidence supporting that more protective measures, including additional/booster vaccinations, is warranted in these patients during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Comprehensive Comparison of Seven SARS-CoV-2-Specific Surrogate Virus Neutralization and Anti-Spike IgG Antibody Assays Using a Live-Virus Neutralization Assay as a Reference

Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are considered a valuable marker for measuring humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2. However, live-virus neutralization tests (NTs) require high-biosafety-level laboratories and are time-consuming. Therefore, surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs) have been widely applied, but unlike most anti-spike (S) antibody assays, NTs and sVNTs are not harmonized, requiring further evaluation and comparative analyses. This study compared seven commercial sVNTs and anti-S-antibody assays with a live-virus NT as a reference, using a panel of 720 single and longitudinal serum samples from 666 convalescent patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of these assays for detecting antibodies ranged from 48 to 94% after PCR-confirmed infection and from 56% to 100% relative to positivity in the in-house live-virus NT. Furthermore, we performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses to determine which immunoassays were most suitable for assessing nAb titers exceeding a specific cutoff (NT titer, ≥80) and found that the NeutraLISA and the cPass assays reached the highest area under the curve (AUC), exceeding 0.91. In addition, when the assays were compared for their correlation with nAb kinetics over time in a set of longitudinal samples, the extent of the measured decrease of nAbs after infection varied widely among the evaluated immunoassays. Finally, in vaccinated convalescent patients, high titers of nAbs exceeded the upper limit of the evaluated assays' quantification ranges. Based on data from this study, we conclude that commercial immunoassays are acceptable substitutes for live-virus NTs, particularly when additional adapted cutoffs are employed to detect nAbs beyond a specific threshold titer. IMPORTANCE While the measurement of neutralizing antibodies is considered a valuable tool in assessing protection against SARS-CoV-2, neutralization tests employ live-virus isolates and cell culture, requiring advanced laboratory biosafety levels. Including a large sample panel (over 700 samples), this study provides adapted cutoff values calculated for seven commercial immunoassays (including four surrogate neutralization assays and a protein-based microarray) that robustly correlate with specific titers of neutralizing antibodies.

Assessing the long-stand antibody response induced by COVID-19 vaccines: A study in an educational cohort in San Luis, Argentina

BACKGROUND

Although there has developed an increased interest in the vaccines BNT1622b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna/NIAID), and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca/University of Oxford), there are still few reports describing the immune response induced by different vaccine platforms in real-world settings of low-income countries. Here, we proposed to analyse the humoral immune response elicited by the primary vaccines used in Argentina from July-December 2021.

METHODS

Anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike-RBD IgG and neutralising antibodies were assayed by ELISA in a total of 871 serum samples obtained from 376 volunteers from an educational staff. The individuals were vaccinated with BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca/University of Oxford, AZ), Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V, SpV) or combined vaccines (mostly SpV and mRNA-1273, Moderna). The antibody response was analysed several days after the initial vaccination (20, 40, 120 and 180 days).

RESULTS

After receiving at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, we detected 93.34% of seroprevalence. Previously SARS-CoV-2 infected showed higher antibody concentrations compared with naïve vaccinees. Six months after the initial vaccination, combined vaccination induced higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels than the other vaccines in naïve volunteers. However, we did not find differences in the neutralising responses after any vaccine from naïve vaccines or between the naïve and previously infected volunteers on day 120 after vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Our long-term analysis of volunteers from the educational system provides data in a real-world context, showing the benefits of a boost dose still in previously infected volunteers, and suggesting the advantages of a heterologous prime-boost schedule.

Diagnostic performance between in-house and commercial SARS-CoV-2 serological immunoassays including binding-specific antibody and surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT)

This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between in-house and commercial binding-specific IgG antibodies and between in-house and commercial SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNT). Samples from healthcare workers who received vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 were tested for RBD-specific antibody, S-specific antibody, and in-house ELISA, commercial sVNT, and in-house sVNT, against wild-type SARS-CoV-2. Three hundred and five samples were included in the analysis. The correlation between S-specific binding antibodies and in-house ELISA was 0.96 (95% CI 0.96-0.97) and between RBD-specific antibodies and in-house ELISA was 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97). The Cohen's kappa between in-house sVNT and the commercial test was 0.90 (95% CI 0.80, 1.00). If using 90% inhibition of sVNT as the reference standard, the optimal cut-off value of RBD-specific antibodies was 442.7 BAU/mL, the kappa, sensitivity, and specificity being 0.99, 99%, and 100%, respectively. The optimal cut-off value of S-specific antibodies was 1155.9 BAU/mL, the kappa, sensitivity, and specificity being 0.99, 100%, and 99%, respectively. This study demonstrated a very strong correlation between in-house ELISA and 2 commercial assays. There was also a very strong correlation between in-house and commercial SARS-CoV-2 sVNT, a finding of particular interest which will inform future research.

Clinical Application of Antibody Immunity Against SARS-CoV-2: Comprehensive Review on Immunoassay and Immunotherapy

The current COVID-19 global pandemic poses immense challenges to global health, largely due to the difficulty to detect infection in the early stages of the disease, as well as the current lack of effective antiviral therapy. Research and understanding of the human immune system can provide important theoretical and technical support for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19, the clinical implementations of which include immunoassays and immunotherapy, which play a crucial role in the fight against the pandemic. This review consolidates the current scientific evidence for immunoassay, which includes multiple methods of detecting antigen and antibody against SARS-CoV-2. We compared the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages, and clinical applications of these three detection techniques. In addition to detecting viral infections, knowledge on the body's immunity against the virus is desirable; thus, the immunotherapy-based neutralizing antibody (nAb) detection methods were discussed. We also gave a brief introduction to the new immunoassay technology such as biosensing. This was followed by an in-depth and extensive review on a variety of immunotherapy methods. It includes convalescent plasma therapy, neutralizing antibody-based treatments targeting different regions of SARS-CoV-2, immunotherapy targeted on the host cell including inhibiting the host cell receptor and cytokine storm, as well as cocktail antibodies, cross-neutralizing antibodies, and immunotherapy based on cross-reactivity between viral epitopes and autoepitopes and autoantibody. Despite the development of various immunological testing methods and antibody therapies, the current global situation of COVID-19 is still tense. We need more efficient detection methods and more reliable antibody therapies. The up-to-date knowledge on therapeutic strategies will likely help clinicians worldwide to protect patients from life-threatening viral infections.

Analysis and comparison of SARS-CoV-2 variant antibodies and neutralizing activity for 6 months after a booster mRNA vaccine in a healthcare worker population

In the context of recurrent surges of SARS-CoV-2 infections, a detailed characterization of antibody persistence over a 6-month period following vaccine booster dose is necessary to crafting effective public health policies on repeat vaccination. To characterize the SARS-CoV-2 antibody profile of a healthcare worker population over a 6-month period following mRNA vaccination and booster dose. 323 healthcare workers at an academic medical center in Orange County, California who had completed primary vaccination and booster dose against SARS-CoV-2 were recruited for the study. A total of 690 blood specimens over a 6-month period were collected via finger-stick blood and analyzed for the presence of antibodies against 9 SARS-CoV-2 antigens using a coronavirus antigen microarray. The primary outcome of this study was the average SARS-CoV-2 antibody level as measured using a novel coronavirus antigen microarray. Additional outcomes measured include levels of antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 variants including Delta, Omicron BA.1, and BA.2. We also measured SARS-CoV-2 neutralization capacity for a subset of the population to confirm correlation with antibody levels. Although antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 wane throughout the 6-month period following a booster dose, antibody levels remain higher than pre-boost levels. However, a booster dose of vaccine generates approximately 3-fold lower antibody reactivity against Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 as compared to the original Wuhan strain. Despite waning antibody levels, neutralization activity against the original Wuhan strain is maintained throughout the 6-month period. In the context of recurrent surges of SARS-CoV-2 infections despite vaccination with booster doses, our data indicate that breakthrough infections are likely driven by novel variants with different antibody specificity and not by time since last dose of vaccination, indicating that development of vaccinations specific to these novel variants is necessary to prevent future surges of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Estimating decay curves of neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection

Estimating the longevity of an individual's immune response to the SARS-Cov-2 virus is vital for future planning, particularly of vaccine requirements. Neutralizing antibodies (Nabs) are increasingly being recognized as a correlate of protection and while there are many studies that follow the response of a cohort of people, each study alone is not enough to predict the long-term response. Studies use different assays to measure Nabs, making them hard to combine. We present a modelling method that can combine multiple datasets and can be updated as more detailed data becomes available. Combining data from seven published datasets we predict that the NAb decay has two phases, an initial fast but short-lived decay period followed by a longer term and slower decay period.

Comparison of three different COVID-19 vaccine platforms (CoronaVac, BTN162b2, and Ad5-nCoV) in individuals with and without prior COVID-19: Reactogenicity and neutralizing antibodies

Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) can be indicators of collective immunity, vaccine efficacy, and the longevity of the humoral response. This study aimed to compare reactogenicity and NAbs generated by three different COVID-19 vaccine platforms in individuals with and without prior COVID-19. 336 individuals vaccinated (112 with CoronaVac [inactivated virus], 112 with BNT162b2 [messenger RNA], and 112 with Ad5-nCoV [non-replicating viral vector]) were included. NAbs were quantified with the cPass SARS-CoV-2 kit. Individuals immunized with the Ad5-nCoV showed higher reactogenicity than those immunized with the other vaccines (p < 0.001). The BTN162b2 vaccine-induced NAbs with higher inhibition capacity than the other platforms in the first dose. In individuals without prior COVID-19, the Ad5-nCoV vaccine generated lower NAbs against SARS-CoV-2 than those induced by two doses of the BTN162b2 (Ad5-nCoV 72.10 [55.6-93.4] vs. BTN162b2 98.41 [98.16-98.56], p < 0.0001). One individual did not generate NAbs (0.89%) after a complete immunization with CoronaVac; in BTN162b2, all generated these antibodies, and in the Ad5-nCoV group, four individuals (3.57%) did not generate NAbs. Comorbidities, gender, age, and reactogenicity did not significantly influence the generation of NAbs (p > 0.05); however, a history of COVID-19 before vaccination was associated with antibodies with greater neutralizing capacity after the first dose (p < 0.01). In conclusion, the mRNA vaccine (BTN162b2) had a remarkable better ability to produce NAbs and lower reactogenicity than the other platforms, whereas the Ad5-nCov vaccine induced the lowest NAbs response in individuals without a history of COVID-19; therefore, we suggest that a booster could benefit these individuals.

Systemic and Mucosal Humoral Immune Response Induced by Three Doses of the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines

BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Pfizer) was the first SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine approved by the European Medicines Agency. We monitored the long-term humoral responses of healthcare workers (HCWs) who received three vaccine doses. A total of 59 healthcare workers were studied: 47 were never SARS-CoV-2-infected (naïve-HCWs), and 12 (infected-HCWs) recovered from COVID-19 before the first vaccine. Serum and saliva were collected at baseline (before the first dose), just before the second dose, 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after the second dose, and 10 days after the third vaccine. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgA were evaluated in serum and saliva, respectively, and the presence of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) was analyzed in serum. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG peaked one month after the second vaccine in naïve-HCWs but right before this timepoint in infected-HCWs. IgG titers significantly decreased during follow-up and at month 9 were still detectable in 50% of naïve-HCWs and 90% of infected-HCWs. NAb were significantly decreased 6 months after the second vaccine in naïve-HCWs and 9 months after this dose in infected-HCWs. Salivary SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA titers were significantly higher in infected-HCWs and were undetectable 9 months after the second vaccine in 43% of the naïve-HCWs alone. The third vaccine greatly increased humoral IgG and mucosal IgA in both groups. Two BNT162b2 doses induced strong systemic and humoral immune responses; to note, these responses weakened over time, although they are more prolonged in individuals who had recovered from COVID-19. The third vaccine dose quickly boosts systemic and mucosal humoral responses.

A Cellular Assay for Spike/ACE2 Fusion: Quantification of Fusion-Inhibitory Antibodies after COVID-19 and Vaccination

Not all antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 inhibit viral entry, and hence, infection. Neutralizing antibodies are more likely to reflect real immunity; however, certain tests investigate protein/protein interaction rather than the fusion event. Viral and pseudoviral entry assays detect functionally active antibodies but are limited by biosafety and standardization issues. We have developed a Spike/ACE2-dependent fusion assay, based on a split luciferase. Hela cells stably transduced with Spike and a large fragment of luciferase were co-cultured with Hela cells transduced with ACE2 and the complementary small fragment of luciferase. Cell fusion occurred rapidly allowing the measurement of luminescence. Light emission was abolished in the absence of Spike and reduced in the presence of proteases. Sera from COVID-19-negative, non-vaccinated individuals or from patients at the moment of first symptoms did not lead to a significant reduction of fusion. Sera from COVID-19-positive patients as well as from vaccinated individuals reduced the fusion. This assay was more correlated to pseudotyped-based entry assay rather than serology or competitive ELISA. In conclusion, we report a new method measuring fusion-inhibitory antibodies in serum, combining the advantage of a complete Spike/ACE2 interaction active on entry with a high degree of standardization, easily allowing automation in a standard bio-safety environment.

A review post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 serological test: Method and antibody titer response

The development of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is one of the most important efforts in controlling the pandemic. Serological tests are used to identify highly reactive human donors for convalescent plasma therapy, measuring vaccine efficacy and durability. This review article presents a review of serology tests and how antibody titers in response to vaccines have been developed. Some of the serological test methods discussed are Plaque Reduction Neutralization Test (PRNT), Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA), chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), and Chemiluminescent Micro-particle Immunoassay (CMIA). This review can provide an understanding of the application of the body's immune response to vaccines to get some new strategies for vaccines.

Changes Over Time in COVID-19 Incidence, Vaccinations, Serum Spike IgG, and Viral Neutralizing Potential Among Individuals From a North American Gaming Venue: December 2020-August 2021

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate COVID-19 cases and vaccine responses among workers in the gaming/entertainment industry.

METHODS

Participants provided detailed information on occupational risk factors, demographics, COVID-19 history, and vaccination status through questionnaire. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays were used to measure serum antiviral antibodies and neutralizing capacity.

RESULTS

Five hundred-fifty individuals participated with n = 228 (41.5%) returning for follow-up. At least 71% of participants were fully vaccinated within 8 months of vaccine availability and COVID-19 rates declined concomitantly. Serum anti-spike IgG levels and neutralizing capacity were significantly (P < 0.001) associated COVID-19 history and vaccine type, but not occupational risk factors, and declined (on average 36%) within 5 months. Few vaccine nonresponders (n = 12) and "breakthrough" infections (n = 1) were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a marked decrease in infections; however, individual humoral responses varied and declined significantly over time.

Evaluation of the performance of multiple immunoassay diagnostic platforms on the National Microbiology Laboratory SARS-CoV-2 National Serology Panel

BACKGROUND

Serological assays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are being used in serological surveys and other specialized applications. As a result, and to ensure that the outcomes of serological testing meet high quality standards, evaluations are required to assess the performance of these assays and the proficiency of laboratories performing them.

METHODS

A panel of 60 plasma/serum samples from blood donors who had reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 21 SARS-CoV-2 negative samples were secured and distributed to interested laboratories within Canada (n = 30) and the United States (n = 1). Participating laboratories were asked to provide details on the diagnostic assays used, the platforms the assays were performed on, and the results obtained for each panel sample. Laboratories were blinded with respect to the expected outcomes.

RESULTS

The performance of the different assays evaluated was excellent, with the high-throughput platforms of Roche, Ortho, and Siemens demonstrating 100% sensitivity. Most other high-throughput platforms had sensitivities of >93%, with the exception of the IgG assay using the Abbott ARCHITECT which had an average sensitivity of only 87%. The majority of the high-throughput platforms also demonstrated very good specificities (>97%).

CONCLUSION

This proficiency study demonstrates that most of the SARS-CoV-2 serological assays utilized by provincial public health or hospital laboratories in Canada have acceptable sensitivity and excellent specificity.

SARS-CoV-2 immunity and vaccine strategies in people with HIV

Current severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, based on the ancestral Wuhan strain, were developed rapidly to meet the needs of a devastating global pandemic. People living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (PLWH) have been designated as a priority group for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in most regions and varying primary courses (two- or three-dose schedule) and additional boosters are recommended depending on current CD4+ T cell count and/or detectable HIV viraemia. From the current published data, licensed vaccines are safe for PLWH, and stimulate robust responses to vaccination in those well controlled on antiretroviral therapy and with high CD4+ T cell counts. Data on vaccine efficacy and immunogenicity remain, however, scarce in PLWH, especially in people with advanced disease. A greater concern is a potentially diminished immune response to the primary course and subsequent boosters, as well as an attenuated magnitude and durability of protective immune responses. A detailed understanding of the breadth and durability of humoral and T cell responses to vaccination, and the boosting effects of natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2, in more diverse populations of PLWH with a spectrum of HIV-related immunosuppression is therefore critical. This article summarizes focused studies of humoral and cellular responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in PLWH and provides a comprehensive review of the emerging literature on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responses. Emphasis is placed on the potential effect of HIV-related factors and presence of co-morbidities modulating responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the remaining challenges informing the optimal vaccination strategy to elicit enduring responses against existing and emerging variants in PLWH.

Validation of a Novel Fluorescent Lateral Flow Assay for Rapid Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Total Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD Binding Antibody Units (BAU) from Plasma or Fingerstick Whole-Blood of COVID-19 Vaccinees

Background: Limited commercial LFA assays are available to provide a reliable quantitative measurement of the total binding antibody units (BAU/mL) against the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S-RBD). Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the fluorescence LFA FinecareTM 2019-nCoV S-RBD test along with its reader (Model No.: FS-113) against the following reference methods: (i) the FDA-approved GenScript surrogate virus-neutralizing assay (sVNT); and (ii) three highly performing automated immunoassays: BioMérieux VIDAS®3, Ortho VITROS®, and Mindray CL-900i®. Methods: Plasma from 488 vaccinees was tested by all aforementioned assays. Fingerstick whole-blood samples from 156 vaccinees were also tested by FinecareTM. Results and conclusions: FinecareTM showed 100% specificity, as none of the pre-pandemic samples tested positive. Equivalent FinecareTM results were observed among the samples taken from fingerstick or plasma (Pearson correlation r = 0.9, p < 0.0001), suggesting that fingerstick samples are sufficient to quantitate the S-RBD BAU/mL. A moderate correlation was observed between FinecareTM and sVNT (r = 0.5, p < 0.0001), indicating that FinecareTM can be used for rapid prediction of the neutralizing antibody (nAb) post-vaccination. FinecareTM BAU results showed strong correlation with VIDAS®3 (r = 0.6, p < 0.0001) and moderate correlation with VITROS® (r = 0.5, p < 0.0001) and CL-900i® (r = 0.4, p < 0.0001), suggesting that FinecareTM can be used as a surrogate for the advanced automated assays to measure S-RBD BAU/mL.

Analysis of Factors Affecting Neutralizing Antibody Production after COVID-19 Vaccination Using Newly Developed Rapid Point-of-Care Test

(1) Objective: To investigate the factors that affect rates of neutralizing antibody production and duration after vaccination using the newly developed SARS-CoV-2 POCT. (2) Methods: The production of immunoglobulin and neutralizing antibody in clinical subjects who completed various vaccines was analyzed using the POCT, the semi-quantitative was interpreted by measurement application, and the quantified neutralizing antibody titers were using the ELISA. (3) Results: According to the clinical performance analysis of the POCT, the clinical sensitivity and the specificity were 96.8% (90/93) and 97.7% (167/171), respectively, for the S1 RBD IgG antibody. The clinical sensitivity was 92.22% (83/90), and the clinical specificity was 100.00% (174/174) for neutralizing antibodies. Factors influencing antibody production were analyzed using the whole blood of the five types of second-completed vaccinators (N = 736, 20−80 years old). General and neutralizing antibody and showed significant differences in age (p < 0.0001), vaccine type (p < 0.0001), inoculation interval (p < 0.0001), pain score (p < 0.0001), diabetes (p < 0.0001), and hypertension (p = 0.002). The gender (p = 0.021) and chronic fatigue (p = 0.02) did not show the significance. (4) Conclusions: An acquisition of immunoglobulin and neutralizing antibody varies according to vaccine type, age, days after vaccination, pain degree after vaccination, and underlying diseases. The POCT used in this study will be utilized for clinical recommendations such as deciding whether to receive additional vaccines through the immediate rapid determination of neutralizing antibody generation in the clinical site.

A Diagnostic Strategy for Gauging Individual Humoral Ex Vivo Immune Responsiveness Following COVID-19 Vaccination

Purpose: We describe a diagnostic procedure suitable for scheduling (re-)vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) according to individual state of humoral immunization. Methods: To clarify the relation between quantitative antibody measurements and humoral ex vivo immune responsiveness, we monitored 124 individuals before, during and six months after vaccination with Spikevax (Moderna, Cambridge, MA, USA). Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1) protein receptor-binding domain (S1-AB) and against nucleocapsid antigens were measured by chemiluminescent immunoassay (Roche). Virus-neutralizing activities were determined by surrogate assays (NeutraLISA, Euroimmune; cPass, GenScript). Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture (full virus NT) served as an ex vivo correlate for humoral immune responsiveness. Results: Vaccination responses varied considerably. Six months after the second vaccination, participants still positive for the full virus NT were safely determined by S1-AB levels ≥1000 U/mL. The full virus NT-positive fraction of participants with S1-AB levels <1000 U/mL was identified by virus-neutralizing activities >70% as determined by surrogate assays (NeutraLISA or cPas). Participants that were full virus NT-negative and presumably insufficiently protected could thus be identified by a sensitivity of >83% and a specificity of >95%. Conclusion: The described diagnostic strategy possibly supports individualized (re-)vaccination schedules based on simple and rapid measurement of serum-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels. Our data apply only to WUHAN-type SARS-CoV-2 virus and the current version of the mRNA vaccine from Moderna (Cambridge, MA, USA). Adaptation to other vaccines and more recent SARS-CoV-2 strains will require modification of cut-offs and re-evaluation of sensitivity/specificity.

Heterogeneity assessment of vaccine-induced effects using point-of-care surrogate neutralization test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Introduction

Coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has become a global pandemic even after vaccination. We aimed to identify immunological heterogeneity over time in vaccinated healthcare workers using neutralization antibodies and neutralizing activity tests.

Methods

Serum samples were collected from 214 healthcare workers before vaccination (pre) and on days 22, 90, and 180 after receiving the first dose of BNT162b2 vaccine (day 0). Neutralization antibody (NAb, SARS‐CoV‐2 S‐RBD IgM/IgG) titers and two kinds of surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs) were analyzed (UMIN000043851).

Results

The NAb (SARS‐CoV‐2 S‐RBD IgG) titer peaked on day 90 after vaccination (30,808.0 μg/ml ± 35,211; p < 0.0001) and declined on day 180 (11,678.0 μg/ml ± 33,770.0; p < 0.0001). The neutralizing activity also peaked on day 90 and declined with larger individual differences than those of IgG titer on day 180 (88.9% ± 15.0%, 64.8% ± 23.7%, p < 0.0001). We also found that the results of POCT‐sVNT (immunochromatography) were highly correlated with those of conventional sVNT (ELISA).

Conclusions

Neutralizing activity is the gold standard for vaccine efficacy evaluation. Our results using conventional sVNT showed large individual differences in neutralizing activity reduction on day 180 (64.8% ± 23.7%), suggesting an association with the difference in vaccine efficacy. POCT‐sVNT is rapid and user‐friendly; it might be used for triage in homes, isolation facilities, and event venues without restrictions on the medical testing environment.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices associated with zoonotic disease transmission risk in North Sulawesi, Indonesia

BACKGROUND

Hunters, vendors, and consumers are key actors in the wildlife trade value chain in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, and potentially face an elevated risk of exposure to zoonotic diseases. Understanding the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) associated with the risk of zoonotic disease transmission in these communities is therefore critical for developing recommendations to prevent or mitigate zoonotic outbreaks in the future.

METHODS

Qualitative and quantitative methods were combined to understand KAP associated zoonotic diseases transmission risk in communities involved in the wildlife trade in North Sulawesi. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured ethnographic interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) while quantitative data were collected using questionnaires. We conducted 46 ethnographic interviews and 2 FGDs in 2016, and 477 questionnaire administrations in 2017-2018 in communities from five districts in North Sulawesi. We also collected biological specimens, including nasal swab, oropharyngeal swab, and blood, from 254 participants. The study sites were targeted based on known wildlife consumption and trade activities. The participants for qualitative data collection were purposively selected while participants for quantitative data collection were randomly selected. Biological samples were tested for five viral families including Coronaviridae, Filoviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae and Paramyxoviridae.

RESULTS

Knowledge regarding disease transmission from animals to humans was similar across the participants in qualitative focus groups, including knowledge of rabies and bird flu as zoonotic diseases. However, only a small fraction of the participants from the quantitative group (1%) considered that contact with wild animals could cause sickness. Our biological specimen testing identified a single individual (1/254, 0.004%) who was sampled in 2018 with serological evidence of sarbecovirus exposure. Overall, participants were aware of some level of risk in working with open wounds while slaughtering or butchering an animal (71%) but most did not know what the specific risks were. However, significant differences in the attitudes or beliefs around zoonotic disease risk and health seeking behaviors were observed across our study sites in North Sulawesi.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed variable levels of knowledge, attitudes, and practices associated with the risk of zoonotic disease transmission among study participants. These findings can be used to develop locally responsive recommendations to mitigate zoonotic disease transmission.

Comparison of Four Systems for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody at Three Time Points after SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination

Background: Immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) wanes over time after vaccination. Methods: We compared SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in serial samples from 350 vaccinated individuals at 3 time points (3 weeks after the first or second dose and before the third dose) with 4 assays: GenScript cPASS SARS-CoV-2 neutralization antibody detection kits (cPASS), Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG (sCOVG), Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (CoV-2 IgG II), and an Immuno-On™ COVID-19 IgG test (Immuno-On IgG). Antibody levels by time, concordance between assays, and values from other tests corresponding to the percent inhibition results in cPASS were assessed. Results: The median values at three time points were 49.31%, 90.87%, and 53.38% inhibition for cPASS, 5.39, 13.65, and 2.24 U/mL for sCOVG, 570.25, 1279.65, and 315.80 AU/mL for CoV-2 IgG II, and 223.22, 362.20, and 62.20 relative units (RU) for Immuno-On IgG. The concordance with cPASS at each time point ranged from 0.735 to 0.984, showing the highest concordance in the second sample and lowest concordance in the third in all comparative tests. The values corresponded to 30% inhibition, and the cutoffs of cPASS, were 2.02 U/mL, 258.6 AU/mL, and 74.2 RU for each test. Those for 50%, 70%, and 90% inhibition were 3.16, 5.66, and 8.26 U/mL for sCOVG, while they were 412.5, 596.9, and 1121.6 AU/mL for CoV-2 IgG II and 141.8, 248.92, and 327.14 RU for Immuno-On IgG. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the dynamic changes in antibody values at different time points using four test systems and is expected to provide useful baseline data for comparative studies and standardization efforts in the future.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity after booster dose with AZD1222 via intradermal route among adult who had received CoronaVac

BACKGROUND

Currently, booster dose is needed after 2 doses of non-live COVID-19 vaccine. With limited resources and shortage of COVID-19 vaccines, intradermal(ID) administration might be a potential dose-sparing strategy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine immunologic response and reactogenicity of ID ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222,Oxford/AstraZeneca) as a booster dose after completion of 2-dose CoronaVac(SV) in healthy adult.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of adult aged 18-59 years who received 2-dose SV at 14-35 days apart for more than 2 months. Participants received ID AZD1222 at fractional low dose(1×10¹⁰ viral particles,0.1 ml). Antibody responses were evaluated by surrogate virus neutralization test(sVNT) against delta variant and wild type, and anti-spike-receptor-binding-domain immunoglobulin G(anti-S-RBD IgG) at prior, day14, 28, 90, and 180 post booster. Solicited reactogenicity was collected for 7 days post-booster. Primary endpoint was the differences of sVNT against delta strain ≥ 80% inhibition at day14 and 90 compared with the parallel cohort study of 0.5-ml intramuscular(IM) route.

RESULTS

From August2021, 100 adults with median age of 46 years(IQR 41-52) participated. Prior to booster, geometric mean(GM) of sVNT against delta strain was 22.4% inhibition(95 %CI 18.7-26.9) and of anti-S-RBD IgG was 109.3 BAU/ml(95.4-125.1). Post ID booster, GMs of sVNT against delta strain were 95.5% inhibition (95%CI 94.2-96.8) at day14, 73.1% inhibition (66.7-80.2) at day90, and 22.7% inhibition (14.9-34.6) at day180. The differences of proportion of participants achieving sVNT against delta strain ≥ 80% inhibition in ID recipients versus IM were + 4.2% (95 %CI -2.0to10.5) at day14, and -37.3%(-54.2to-20.3) at day90. Anti-S-RBD IgG GMs were 2037.1 BAU/ml (95%CI 1770.9-2343.2) at day14 and 744.6 BAU/ml(650.1-852.9) at day90, respectively. Geometric mean ratios(GMRs) of anti-S-RBD IgG were 0.99(0.83-1.20) at day14, and 0.82(0.66-1.02) at day90. Only 18% reported feverish, compared with 37% of IM (p = 0.003). Common reactogenicity was erythema at injection site(53%) while 7% reported blister.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose ID AZD1222 booster enhanced lower neutralizing antibodies at 3 months compared with IM route. Less systemic reactogenicity occurred, but higher local reactogenicity.

Heterologous immunization with BNT162b2 followed by mRNA-1273 in dialysis patients: seroconversion and presence of neutralizing antibodies

INTRODUCTION

The vital renal replacement therapy makes it impossible for dialysis patients to distance themselves socially. This results in a high risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and developing coronavuris disease 2019, with excess mortality due to disease burden and immunosuppression. We determined the efficacy of a 100-µg booster of mRNA-1273 (Moderna, Cambridge, MA, USA) 6 months after two doses of BNT162b2 (BioNTech/Pfizer, Mainz, Germany/New York, USA) in 194 SARS-CoV-2-naïve dialysis patients.

METHODS

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies were measured with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) 4 and 10-12 weeks after two doses of BNT162b2 as well as 4 weeks after the mRNA-1273 booster. The presence of neutralizing antibodies was measured by the SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test (GenScript Biotech, Piscataway, NJ, USA). Two different cut-offs for positivity were used, one according to the manufacturer's specifications and one correlating with positivity in a plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). Receiver operating characteristics analyses were performed to match the anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody cut-offs with the cut-offs in the surrogate neutralization assay accordingly.

RESULTS

Any level of immunoreactivity determined by the anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody assay was found in 87.3% (n = 144/165) and 90.6% (n = 164/181) of patients 4 and 10-12 weeks, respectively, after two doses of BNT162b2. This was reduced to 68.5% or 60.6% 4 weeks and 51.7% or 35.4% 10-12 weeks, respectively, when using the ROC cut-offs for neutralizing antibodies in the surrogate neutralization test (manufacturer's cut-off ≥103 U/mL and cut-off correlating with PRNT ≥196 U/mL). Four weeks after the mRNA-1273 booster, the concentration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies increased to 23 119.9 U/mL and to 97.3% for both cut-offs of neutralizing antibodies.

CONCLUSION

Two doses of BNT162b2 followed by one dose of mRNA-1273 within 6 months in patients receiving maintenance dialysis resulted in significant titres of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies. While two doses of mRNA vaccine achieved adequate humoral immunity in a minority, the third vaccination boosts the development of virus-neutralizing quantities of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies (against wild-type SARS-CoV-2) in almost all patients.

Quantitation of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies with a virus-free, authentic test

Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), and their concentration in sera of convalescents and vaccinees are a correlate of protection from COVID-19. The antibody concentrations in clinical samples that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 are difficult and very cumbersome to assess with conventional virus neutralization tests (cVNTs), which require work with the infectious virus and biosafety level 3 containment precautions. Alternative virus neutralization tests currently in use are mostly surrogate tests based on direct or competitive enzyme immunoassays or use viral vectors with the spike protein as the single structural component of SARS-CoV-2. To overcome these obstacles, we developed a virus-free, safe and very fast (4.5 h) in vitro diagnostic test based on engineered yet authentic SARS-CoV-2 virus-like-particles (VLPs). They share all features of the original SARS-CoV-2 but lack the viral RNA genome and thus are non-infectious. NAbs induced by infection or vaccination, but also potentially neutralizing monoclonal antibodies can be reliably quantified and assessed with ease and within hours with our test, because they interfere and block the ACE2-mediated uptake of VLPs by recipient cells. Results from the VLP neutralization test (VLPNT) showed excellent specificity and sensitivity and correlated very well with a cVNT using fully infectious SARS-CoV-2. The results also demonstrated the reduced neutralizing capacity of COVID-19 vaccinee sera against variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2 including omicron B.1.1.529, BA.1.

Comparison of Six Serological Immunoassays for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Levels in the Vaccinated Population

Neutralizing antibody (NAb) detection is critical for evaluating herd immunity and monitoring the efficacy of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this study, quantitative SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels after vaccination were measured by chemiluminescent immunoassays, enzyme immunoassays, and surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs), as well as plaque reduction neutralization tests (PRNT). Sequential blood samples were collected before and 1 and 3 months after vaccination in 30 healthy participants (two doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca [AZ] or Pfizer-BioNTech [BNT]). After vaccination, all sera tested positive for PRNT, with NAb titers ranging from 1:10 to 1:723. Median NAb titers were higher in the BNT vaccine group than in the AZ vaccine group at both one and three months post-vaccination. Excellent overall concordance rates were observed between serological assays and PRNT. In a quantitative correlation analysis, the results of sVNTs showed a strong correlation with those of PRNT. Results of the four binding antibody assays showed a significant correlation with those of PRNT. The serologic assays evaluated in this study could be used as sVNTs to evaluate the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Detecting SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing immunity: highlighting the potential of split nanoluciferase technology

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has progressed over 2 years since its onset causing significant health concerns all over the world and is currently curtailed by mass vaccination. Immunity acquired against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can be following either infection or vaccination. However, one can never be sure whether the acquired immunity is adequate to protect the individual from subsequent infection because of three important factors: individual variations in humoral response dynamics, waning of protective antibodies over time, and the emergence of immune escape mutants. Therefore, a test that can accurately differentiate the protected from the vulnerable is the need of the hour. The plaque reduction neutralization assay is the conventional gold standard test for estimating the titers of neutralizing antibodies that confer protection. However, it has got several drawbacks, which hinder the practical application of this test for wide-scale usage. Hence, various tests have been developed to detect protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 that directly or indirectly assess the presence of neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a lower biosafety setting. In this review, the pros and cons of the currently available assays are elaborated in detail and special focus is put on the scope of the novel split nanoluciferase technology for detecting SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies.

Evaluation of a commercial ELISA as alternative to plaque reduction neutralization test to detect neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2

High-throughput detection of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 presents a valuable tool for vaccine trials or investigations of population immunity. We evaluate the performance of the first commercial surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT, GenScript Biotech) against SARS-CoV-2 plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) in convalescent and vaccinated individuals. We compare it to five other ELISAs, two of which are designed to detect neutralizing antibodies. In 491 pre-vaccination serum samples, sVNT missed 23.6% of PRNT-positive samples when using the manufacturer-recommended cutoff of 30% binding inhibition. Introducing an equivocal area between 15 and 35% maximized sensitivity and specificity against PRNT to 72.8–93.1% and 73.5–97.6%, respectively. The overall diagnostic performance of the other ELISAs for neutralizing antibodies was below that of sVNT. Vaccinated individuals exhibited higher antibody titers by PRNT (median 119.8, IQR 56.7–160) and binding inhibition by sVNT (median 95.7, IQR 88.1–96.8) than convalescent patients (median 49.1, IQR 20–62; median 52.9, IQR 31.2–76.2). GenScript sVNT is suitable to screen for SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies; however, to obtain accurate results, confirmatory testing by PRNT in a equivocal area is required. This equivocal area may require adaptation for use in vaccinated individuals, due to higher antibody titers.

Comparison of the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Neutralization Assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH-Med with Samples from Vaccinated and Infected Individuals

Anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific serological responses are a topic of ongoing evaluation studies. In the study presented here, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays by TECOmedical and DiaPROPH -Med were assessed in a head-to-head comparison with serum samples of individuals after vaccination as well as after previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. In case of discordant results, a cell culture-based neutralization assay was applied as a reference standard. The TECOmedical assay showed sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 61.3%, respectively, the DiaPROPH-Med assay 95.0% and 48.4%, respectively. As a side finding of the study, differences in the likelihood of expressing neutralizing antibodies could be shown for different exposition types. So, 60 of 81 (74.07%) of the samples with only one vaccination showed an expression of neutralizing antibodies in contrast to 85.71% (60 of 70 samples) of the samples with two vaccinations and 100% (40 of 40) of the samples from previously infected individuals. In conclusion, the both assays showed results similar to previous assessments. While the measured diagnostic accuracy of both assays requires further technical improvement of this diagnostic approach, as the calculated specificity values of 61.3% and 48.4%, respectively, appear acceptable for diagnostic use only in populations with a high percentage of positive subjects, but not at expectedly low positivity rates.

Fast and Accurate Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test Based on Antibody-Mediated Blocking of the Interaction of ACE2 and SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein RBD

The humoral response to the SARS-CoV-2 S protein determines the development of protective immunity against this infection. The standard neutralizing antibodies detection method is a live virus neutralization test. It can be replaced with an ELISA-based surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT), measuring the ability of serum antibodies to inhibit complex formation between the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the S protein and the cellular ACE2 receptor. There are conflicting research data on the sVNT methodology and the reliability of its results. We show that the performance of sVNT dramatically improves when the intact RBD from the Wuhan-Hu-1 virus variant is used as the plate coating reagent, and the HRP-conjugated soluble ACE2 is used as the detection reagent. This design omits the pre-incubation step in separate tubes or separate microplate and allows the simple quantification of the results using the linear regression, utilizing only 3–4 test sample dilutions. When this sVNT was performed for 73 convalescent plasma samples, its results showed a very strong correlation with VNT (Spearman’s Rho 0.83). For the RBD, bearing three amino acid substitutions and corresponding to the SARS-CoV-2 beta variant, the inhibitory strength was diminished for 18 out of 20 randomly chosen serum samples, and the magnitude of this decrease was not similar to the change in overall anti-RBD IgG level. The sVNT assay design with the ACE2-HRP is preferable over the assay with the RBD-HRP reagent and is suitable for mass screening of neutralizing antibodies titers.

Development and utilization of a surrogate SARS-CoV-2 viral neutralization assay to assess mRNA vaccine responses

BACKGROUND

Tests for SARS-CoV-2 immunity are needed to help assess responses to vaccination, which can be heterogeneous and may wane over time. The plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) is considered the gold standard for measuring serum neutralizing antibodies but requires high level biosafety, live viral cultures and days to complete. We hypothesized that competitive enzyme linked immunoassays (ELISAs) based on SARS-CoV-2 spike protein's receptor binding domain (RBD) attachment to its host receptor, the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptor (ACE2r), would correlate with PRNT, given the central role of RBD-ACE2r interactions in infection and published studies to date, and enable evaluation of vaccine responses.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Configuration and development of a competitive ELISA with plate-bound RBD and soluble biotinylated ACE2r was accomplished using pairs of pre/post vaccine serum. When the competitive ELISA was used to evaluate N = 32 samples from COVID-19 patients previously tested by PRNT, excellent correlation in IC50 results were observed (rs = .83, p < 0.0001). When the competitive ELISA was used to evaluate N = 42 vaccinated individuals and an additional N = 13 unvaccinated recovered COVID-19 patients, significant differences in RBD-ACE2r inhibitory activity were associated with prior history of COVID-19 and type of vaccine received. In longitudinal analyses pre and up to 200 days post vaccine, surrogate neutralizing activity increased markedly after primary and booster vaccine doses, but fell substantially, up to <12% maximal levels within 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

A competitive ELISA based on inhibition of RBD-ACE2r attachment correlates well with PRNT, quantifies significantly higher activity among vaccine recipients with prior COVID (vs. those without), and highlights marked declines in surrogate neutralizing activity over a 6 month period post vaccination. The findings raise concern about the duration of vaccine responses and potential need for booster shots.

SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody response after three doses of mRNA1273 vaccine and COVID-19 in hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

In hemodialysis patients, a third vaccination is frequently administered to augment protection against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the newly emerged B.1.1.159 (Omicron) variant may evade vaccinal protection more easily than previous strains. It is of clinical interest to better understand the neutralizing activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants after booster vaccine or COVID-19 infection in these mostly immunocompromised patients.

METHODS

Hemodialysis patients from four dialysis centers were recruited between June 2021 and February 2022. Each patient provided a median of six serum samples. SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) against wild type (WT) or Omicron were measured using the GenScript SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Virus Neutralization Test Kit.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients had three doses of mRNA1273. Compared to levels prior to the third dose, nAb-WT increased 18-fold (peak at day 23) and nAb-Omicron increased 23-fold (peak at day 24) after the third dose. Peak nAb-WT exceeded peak nAb-Omicron 27-fold. Twenty-one patients had COVID-19 between December 24, 2021, and February 2, 2022. Following COVID-19, nAb-WT and nAb-Omicron increased 12- and 40-fold, respectively. While levels of vaccinal and post-COVID nAb-WT were comparable, post-COVID nAb-Omicron levels were 3.2 higher than the respective peak vaccinal nAb-Omicron. Four immunocompromised patients having reasons other than end-stage kidney disease have very low to no nAb after the third dose or COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that most hemodialysis patients have a strong humoral response to the third dose of vaccination and an even stronger post-COVID-19 humoral response. Nevertheless, nAb levels clearly decay over time. These findings may inform ongoing discussions regarding a fourth vaccination in hemodialysis patients.

Evaluation Protocol for SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been identified as the causative agent of COVID-19. Accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only important for management of infected individuals but also to break the chain of transmission. Although the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the gold standard for diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, there are a number of limitations of these assays, which include the inability to detect past infection and decline in sensitivity 14 days post-symptom onset. There are several serology tests developed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies including high-throughput serology platforms and lateral flow immunoassays. These tests should be evaluated for their performance to meet local regulations acceptance criteria. To optimize the diagnostic algorithm for SARS-CoV-2, this protocol describes the evaluation of serological antibody testing using various automated serology platforms and lateral flow immunoassays. This protocol was evaluated in both serum and plasma samples. The sample preparation, procedure, and data analysis are described. The protocol can be adapted for any serological testing.

Persistence of the neutralising antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection

Objective

Neutralizing antibodies are among the factors used to measure an individual's immune status for the control of infectious diseases. We aimed to confirm the persistence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing antibody levels in patients who had recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Plasma donors in South Korea who had completely recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection had follow-up testing to determine the persistence of neutralizing antibodies using a plaque-reduction neutralization test and ELISA.

Results

Of the 111 participants—aged 20–29 years, 37/111 (33.3%); 30–39 years, 17/111 (15.3%); 40–49 years, 23/111 (20.7%); 50–59 years, 21/111 (18.9%); 60–65 years, 13/111 (11.7%); male, 43/111 (38.7%); female, 68/111 (61.3%)—66.1% still had neutralizing antibodies approximately 9 months (range 255–302 days) after confirmation of the diagnosis.

Conclusions

In this study we analysed the titre of neutralizing antibodies associated with predicting immune status in individuals with natural infection. Information about the persistence and change in levels of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 can be utilized to provide evidence for developing vaccination schedules for individuals with previous infection.

Evaluation of Humoral Immune Response after SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Using Two Binding Antibody Assays and a Neutralizing Antibody Assay

Multiple vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been developed and administered to mitigate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We assessed the humoral response of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 using Siemens SARS-CoV-2 IgG (sCOVG; cutoff of ≥1.0 U/ml), Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (CoV-2 IgG II; cutoff of ≥50.0 AU/ml), and GenScript cPASS SARS-CoV-2 neutralization antibody detection kits (cPASS; cutoff of ≥30% inhibition). We collected 710 serum samples (174 samples after BNT162b2 and 536 samples after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19). Venous blood was obtained 3 weeks after first and second vaccinations. In both vaccines, sCOVG, CoV-2 IgG II, and cPASS showed a high seropositive rate (>95.7%) except for cPASS after the first vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (68.8%). Using sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II, the ratios of antibody value (second/first) increased 10.6- and 11.4-fold in BNT162b2 (first 14.1, second 134.8 U/ml; first 1,416.2, second 14,326.4 AU/ml) and 2.3- and 2.0-fold in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (first 4.0, second 9.1 U/ml; first 431.0, second 9,744.0 AU/ml). cPASS-positive results indicated a very high concordance rate with sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II (>98%), whereas cPASS-negative results showed a relatively low concordance rate (range of 22.2% to 66.7%). To predict cPASS positivity, we suggested additional cutoffs for sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II at 2.42 U/ml and 284 AU/ml, respectively. In conclusion, BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 evoked robust humoral responses. sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II showed a very strong correlation with cPASS. sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II may predict the presence of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. IMPORTANCE The Siemens severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG (sCOVG; Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., NY, USA) and Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant (CoV-2 IgG II; Abbott Laboratories, Sligo, Ireland), which are automated, quantitative SARS-CoV-2-binding antibody assays, have been recently launched. This study aimed to evaluate the humoral immune response of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines using sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II and compare the quantitative values with the results of the GenScript surrogate virus neutralization test (cPASS; GenScript, USA Inc., NJ, USA). Our findings demonstrated that both BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 elicited a robust humoral response after the first vaccination and further increased after the second vaccination. sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II showed a strong correlation, and the concordance rates among sCOVG, CoV-2 IgG II, and cPASS were very high in the cPASS-positive results. The additional cutoff sCOVG and CoV-2 IgG II could predict the results of cPASS.

Immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 with 12-dose vials: An interim analysis

Background

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD 1222) is the main vaccine planned for general administration in Thailand. This vaccine is stored in multiple-dose vials meant to be administered to 10 recipients with a volume of 0.5 mL for each dose. However, the vaccine vials were overfilled, which allows the administration of more than 10 doses per vial. We have stipulated the preparation and use of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine using traditional 21 or 25G needles and planned to investigate the immune responses of participants who were administered the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine using this technique.

Methods

We measured anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike RBD IgG and neutralising antibody using a surrogate virus neutralising test (sVNT) among adults aged 18–72 years on average of 8.57 weeks (IQR 6.85–8.93) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. The primary outcome was the antibody level. The secondary outcomes included adverse events, factors affecting antibody levels, and incidence of COVID-19 infection.

Findings

In all, 60 participants comprised 25 males and 35 females. The mean age was 53.70 ± 17.48 years. BMI was 23.45 ± 3.69 kg/m². Tests for the neutralising antibody were positive in 60% of the participants (71.4% among males and 44% among females). The median anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac (anti-spike IgG) level among male and female samples was 111.83 BAU/mL (IQR 73.48–196.74 BAU/mL) and 159.65 BAU/mL (IQR 100.39–371.81), respectively. The positive QuantiVac value of male and female samples was 88.00% and 98.44%, respectively (p-value = 0.382) .A good correlation was observed between neutralising Ab and anti-spike RBD IgG.

Conclusion

Patients receiving 12-dose per vial injections of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 exhibited high levels of immunity without severe side effects. This technique can be adopted to maximise the number of doses per vial while preserving vaccine effectiveness.

Evaluating Humoral Immunity against SARS-CoV-2: Validation of a Plaque-Reduction Neutralization Test and a Multilaboratory Comparison of Conventional and Surrogate Neutralization Assays

The evaluation of humoral protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 remains crucial in understanding both natural immunity and protective immunity conferred by the several vaccines implemented in the fight against COVID-19. The reference standard for the quantification of antibodies capable of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 is the plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT). However, given that it is a laboratory-developed assay, validation is crucial in order to ensure sufficient specificity and intra- and interassay precision. In addition, a multitude of other serological assays have been developed, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), flow cytometry-based assays, luciferase-based lentiviral pseudotype assays, and commercially available human ACE2 receptor-blocking antibody tests, which offer practical advantages in the evaluation of the protective humoral response against SARS-CoV-2. In this study, we validated a SARS-CoV-2 PRNT to assess both 50% and 90% neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 according to guidelines outlined by the World Health Organization. Upon validation, the reference-standard PRNT demonstrated excellent specificity and both intra- and interassay precision. Using the validated assay as a reference standard, we characterized the neutralizing antibody response in specimens from patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Finally, we conducted a small-scale multilaboratory comparison of alternate SARS-CoV-2 PRNTs and surrogate neutralization tests. These assays demonstrated substantial to perfect interrater agreement with the reference-standard PRNT and offer useful alternatives to assess humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2, the causal agent of COVID-19, has infected over 246 million people and led to over 5 million deaths as of October 2021. With the approval of several efficacious COVID-19 vaccines, methods to evaluate protective immune responses will be crucial for the understanding of long-term immunity in the rapidly growing vaccinated population. The PRNT, which quantifies SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies, is used widely as a reference standard to validate new platforms but has not undergone substantial validation to ensure excellent inter- and intraassay precision and specificity. Our work is significant, as it describes the thorough validation of a PRNT, which we then used as a reference standard for the comparison of several alternative serological methods to measure SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies. These assays demonstrated excellent agreement with the reference-standard PRNT and include high-throughput platforms, which can greatly enhance capacity to assess both natural and vaccine-induced protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

Performance comparison of micro-neutralization assays based on surrogate SARS-CoV-2 and WT SARS-CoV-2 in assessing virus-neutralizing capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies

We compared neutralization assays using either the wild-type severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus or surrogate neutralization markers, using characterized sera. We found the results of the neutralization assays 75 % concordant overall and 80 % concordant for samples with high antibody levels. This demonstrates that commercial surrogate SARS-CoV-2 assays offer the potential to assess anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies’ neutralizing capacity outside CL-3 laboratory containment.

Short-Term Immunogenicity Profiles and Predictors for Suboptimal Immune Responses in Patients with End-Stage Kidney Disease Immunized with Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

INTRODUCTION

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) are at risk of severe coronavirus disease and mortality. Immunogenicity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) inactivated whole-virus vaccine in patients with ESKD has never been explored.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of 60 patients with ESKD and 30 healthy controls. All participants received two doses of an inactivated whole-virus SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac Biotech Ltd) 4 weeks apart. SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral and cell-mediated immune responses were investigated and referenced with healthy controls.

RESULTS

After two doses, an anti-receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G of 50 AU/ml or greater was present in 53 of 60 patients (88%) in the ESKD group and all participants (100%) in the control group (P = 0.05). The percentage of patients with ESKD and controls with neutralizing antibodies of 35% threshold or greater was 58% and 88%, respectively (P = 0.01). Furthermore, the proportion of patients with ESKD and S1-specific T cell response was comparable with controls (82% vs. 77%, P = 0.45). Old age, high ferritin level, and low absolute lymphocyte count were independently associated with poor humoral immune responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ESKD could develop similar SARS-CoV-2-specific cell-mediated immune responses compared to healthy controls, although suboptimal humoral immune responses were observed following two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Therefore, patients with ESKD and the abovementioned factors are at risk of generating inadequate humoral immune responses, and a vaccine strategy to elicit greater immunogenicity among these relatively immunocompromised patients is warranted. (Thai Clinical Trials Registry, TCTR20210226002).