Longitudinal evaluation of laboratory-based serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection

Factors influencing adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination

Various novel platform technologies have been used for the development of COVID-19 vaccines. In this nested cohort study among healthcare workers in Australia and Brazil who received three different COVID-19-specific vaccines, we (a) evaluated the incidence of adverse events following immunization (AEFI); (b) compared AEFI by vaccine type, dose and country; (c) identified factors influencing the incidence of AEFI; and (d) assessed the association between reactogenicity and vaccine anti-spike IgG antibody responses. Of 1302 participants who received homologous 2-dose regimens of ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or CoronaVac (Sinovac), 1219 (94%) completed vaccine reaction questionnaires. Following the first vaccine dose, the incidence of any systemic reaction was higher in ChAdOx1-S recipients (374/806, 46%) compared with BNT162b2 (55/151, 36%; p = 0.02) or CoronaVac (26/262, 10%; p < 0.001) recipients. After the second vaccine dose, the incidence of any systemic reaction was higher in BNT162b2 recipients (66/151, 44%) compared with ChAdOx1-S (164/806, 20%; p < 0.001) or CoronaVac (23/262, 9%; p < 0.001) recipients. AEFI risk was higher in younger participants, females, participants in Australia, and varied by vaccine type and dose. Prior COVID-19 did not impact the risk of AEFI. Participants in Australia compared with Brazil reported a higher incidence of any local reaction (170/231, 74% vs 222/726, 31%, p < 0.001) and any systemic reaction (171/231, 74% vs 328/726, 45%, p < 0.001), regardless of vaccine type. Following a primary course of ChAdOx1-S or CoronaVac vaccination, participants who did not report AEFI seroconverted at a similar rate to those who reported local or systemic reactions. In conclusion, we found that the incidence of AEFI was influenced by participant age and COVID-19 vaccine type, and differed between participants in Australia and Brazil.

Specific and off-target immune responses following COVID-19 vaccination with ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 vaccines-an exploratory sub-study of the BRACE trial

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the rapid development and deployment of several highly effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Recent studies suggest that these vaccines may also have off-target effects on the immune system. We sought to determine and compare the off-target effects of the adenovirus vector ChAdOx1-S (Oxford-AstraZeneca) and modified mRNA BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccines on immune responses to unrelated pathogens.

METHODS

Prospective sub-study within the BRACE trial. Blood samples were collected from 284 healthcare workers before and 28 days after ChAdOx1-S or BNT162b2 vaccination. SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were measured using ELISA, and whole blood cytokine responses to specific (SARS-CoV-2) and unrelated pathogen stimulation were measured by multiplex bead array.

FINDINGS

Both vaccines induced robust SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody and cytokine responses. ChAdOx1-S vaccination increased cytokine responses to heat-killed (HK) Candida albicans and HK Staphylococcus aureus and decreased cytokine responses to HK Escherichia coli and BCG. BNT162b2 vaccination decreased cytokine response to HK E. coli and had variable effects on cytokine responses to BCG and resiquimod (R848). After the second vaccine dose, BNT162b2 recipients had greater specific and off-target cytokine responses than ChAdOx1-S recipients.

INTERPRETATION

ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 vaccines alter cytokine responses to unrelated pathogens, indicative of potential off-target effects. The specific and off-target effects of these vaccines differ in their magnitude and breadth. The clinical relevance of these findings is uncertain and needs further study.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Health and Medical Research Council, Swiss National Science Foundation and the Melbourne Children's. BRACE trial funding is detailed in acknowledgements.

Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 seroassay sensitivity: a systematic review and modelling study

BackgroundSerological surveys have been the gold standard to estimate numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections, the dynamics of the epidemic, and disease severity. Serological assays have decaying sensitivity with time that can bias their results, but there is a lack of guidelines to account for this phenomenon for SARS-CoV-2.AimOur goal was to assess the sensitivity decay of seroassays for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections, the dependence of this decay on assay characteristics, and to provide a simple method to correct for this phenomenon.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 serology studies. We included studies testing previously diagnosed, unvaccinated individuals, and excluded studies of cohorts highly unrepresentative of the general population (e.g. hospitalised patients).ResultsOf the 488 screened studies, 76 studies reporting on 50 different seroassays were included in the analysis. Sensitivity decay depended strongly on the antigen and the analytic technique used by the assay, with average sensitivities ranging between 26% and 98% at 6 months after infection, depending on assay characteristics. We found that a third of the included assays departed considerably from manufacturer specifications after 6 months.ConclusionsSeroassay sensitivity decay depends on assay characteristics, and for some types of assays, it can make manufacturer specifications highly unreliable. We provide a tool to correct for this phenomenon and to assess the risk of decay for a given assay. Our analysis can guide the design and interpretation of serosurveys for SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens and quantify systematic biases in the existing serology literature.

Randomized Trial of BCG Vaccine to Protect against Covid-19 in Health Care Workers

BACKGROUND

The bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine has immunomodulatory "off-target" effects that have been hypothesized to protect against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19).

METHODS

In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned health care workers to receive the BCG-Denmark vaccine or saline placebo and followed them for 12 months. Symptomatic Covid-19 and severe Covid-19, the primary outcomes, were assessed at 6 months; the primary analyses involved the modified intention-to-treat population, which was restricted to participants with a negative test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 at baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 3988 participants underwent randomization; recruitment ceased before the planned sample size was reached owing to the availability of Covid-19 vaccines. The modified intention-to-treat population included 84.9% of the participants who underwent randomization: 1703 in the BCG group and 1683 in the placebo group. The estimated risk of symptomatic Covid-19 by 6 months was 14.7% in the BCG group and 12.3% in the placebo group (risk difference, 2.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7 to 5.5; P = 0.13). The risk of severe Covid-19 by 6 months was 7.6% in the BCG group and 6.5% in the placebo group (risk difference, 1.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.2 to 3.5; P = 0.34); the majority of participants who met the trial definition of severe Covid-19 were not hospitalized but were unable to work for at least 3 consecutive days. In supplementary and sensitivity analyses that used less conservative censoring rules, the risk differences were similar but the confidence intervals were narrower. There were five hospitalizations due to Covid-19 in each group (including one death in the placebo group). The hazard ratio for any Covid-19 episode in the BCG group as compared with the placebo group was 1.23 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.59). No safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination with BCG-Denmark did not result in a lower risk of Covid-19 among health care workers than placebo. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; BRACE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04327206.).

Accounting for assay performance when estimating the temporal dynamics in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the U.S

Reconstructing the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection is central to understanding the state of the pandemic. Seroprevalence studies are often used to assess cumulative infections as they can identify asymptomatic infection. Since July 2020, commercial laboratories have conducted nationwide serosurveys for the U.S. CDC. They employed three assays, with different sensitivities and specificities, potentially introducing biases in seroprevalence estimates. Using models, we show that accounting for assays explains some of the observed state-to-state variation in seroprevalence, and when integrating case and death surveillance data, we show that when using the Abbott assay, estimates of proportions infected can differ substantially from seroprevalence estimates. We also found that states with higher proportions infected (before or after vaccination) had lower vaccination coverages, a pattern corroborated using a separate dataset. Finally, to understand vaccination rates relative to the increase in cases, we estimated the proportions of the population that received a vaccine prior to infection.

Lessons learned: A look back at the performance of nine COVID-19 serologic assays and their proposed utility

BACKGROUND

Serologic assays for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been proposed to assist with the acute diagnosis of infection, support epidemiological studies, identify convalescent plasma donors, and evaluate vaccine response.

METHODS

We report an evaluation of nine serologic assays: Abbott (AB) and Epitope (EP) IgG and IgM, EUROIMMUN (EU) IgG and IgA, Roche anti-N (RN TOT) and anti-S (RS TOT) total antibody, and DiaSorin (DS) IgG. We evaluated 291 negative controls (NEG CTRL), 91 PCR positive (PCR POS) patients (179 samples), 126 convalescent plasma donors (CPD), 27 healthy vaccinated donors (VD), and 20 allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients (45 samples).

RESULTS

We observed good agreement with the method performance claims for specificity (93-100%) in NEG CTRL but only 85% for EU IgA. The sensitivity claims in the first 2 weeks of symptom onset was lower (26-61%) than performance claims based on > 2 weeks since PCR positivity. We observed high sensitivities (94-100%) in CPD except for AB IgM (77%), EP IgM (0%). Significantly higher RS TOT was observed for Moderna vaccine recipients then Pfizer (p-values < 0.0001). A sustained RS TOT response was observed for the five months following vaccination. HSCT recipients demonstrated significantly lower RS TOT than healthy VD (p < 0.0001) at dose 2 and 4 weeks after.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggests against the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays to aid in acute diagnosis. RN TOT and RS TOT can readily identify past-resolved infection and vaccine response in the absence of native infection. We provide an estimate of expected antibody response in healthy VD over the time course of vaccination for which to compare antibody responses in immunosuppressed patients.

Dynamics of infection-elicited SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children over time

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection elicits an antibody response that targets several viral proteins including spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N); S is the major target of neutralizing antibodies. Here, we assess levels of anti-N binding antibodies and anti-S neutralizing antibodies in unvaccinated children compared with unvaccinated older adults following infection. Specifically, we examine neutralization and anti-N binding by sera collected up to 52 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and compare these to a cohort of adults, including older adults, most of whom had mild infections that did not require hospitalization. Neutralizing antibody titers were lower in children than adults early after infection, but by 6 months titers were similar between age groups. The neutralizing activity of the children's sera decreased modestly from one to six months; a pattern that was not significantly different from that observed in adults. However, infection of children induced much lower levels of anti-N antibodies than in adults, and levels of these anti-N antibodies decreased more rapidly in children than in adults, including older adults. These results highlight age-related differences in the antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 proteins and, as vaccines for children are introduced, may provide comparator data for the longevity of infection-elicited and vaccination-induced neutralizing antibody responses.