RESUMEN
The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) contains mutations that mediate escape from infection and vaccine-induced antibody responses, although the extent to which these substitutions in spike and non-spike proteins affect T cell recognition is unknown. Here we show that T cell responses in individuals with prior infection, vaccination, both prior infection and vaccination, and boosted vaccination are largely preserved to Omicron spike and non-spike proteins. However, we also identify a subset of individuals ([~]21%) with a >50% reduction in T cell reactivity to the Omicron spike. Evaluation of functional CD4+ and CD8+ memory T cell responses confirmed these findings and reveal that reduced recognition to Omicron spike is primarily observed within the CD8+ T cell compartment. Booster vaccination substantially enhanced T cell responses to Omicron spike. In contrast to neutralizing immunity, these findings suggest preservation of T cell responses to the Omicron variant, although with reduced reactivity in some individuals.
RESUMEN
Recent surveillance has revealed the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1/B.1.1.529) harboring up to 36 mutations in spike protein, the target of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies. Given its potential to escape vaccine-induced humoral immunity, we measured neutralization potency of sera from 88 mRNA-1273, 111 BNT162b, and 40 Ad26.COV2.S vaccine recipients against wild type, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 pseudoviruses. We included individuals that were vaccinated recently (<3 months), distantly (6-12 months), or recently boosted, and accounted for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Remarkably, neutralization of Omicron was undetectable in most vaccinated individuals. However, individuals boosted with mRNA vaccines exhibited potent neutralization of Omicron only 4-6-fold lower than wild type, suggesting that boosters enhance the cross-reactivity of neutralizing antibody responses. In addition, we find Omicron pseudovirus is more infectious than any other variant tested. Overall, this study highlights the importance of boosters to broaden neutralizing antibody responses against highly divergent SARS-CoV-2 variants.
RESUMEN
Patients with cancer are more likely to have impaired immune responses to SARS CoV-2 vaccines. We studied the breadth of responses against SARS CoV-2 variants followingly primary vaccination in 178 patients with a variety of tumor types, and after booster doses in a subset. Neutralization of alpha, beta, gamma and delta SARS-CoV-2 variants was impaired relative to wildtype (Wuhan), regardless of vaccine type. Regardless of viral variant, mRNA1273 was the most immunogenic, followed by BNT162b2 and then Ad26.COV2.S. Neutralization of more variants (breadth) was associated with higher magnitude of wildtype neutralization, and increase with time since vaccination; increased age associated with lower breadth. Anti-spike binding antibody concentrations were a good surrogate for breadth (PPV=90% at >1000U/ml). Booster SARS-CoV-2 vaccines conferred enhanced breadth. These data suggest that achieving a high antibody titer is desirable to achieve broad neutralization; a single booster dose with current vaccines increases breadth of responses against variants.
RESUMEN
Vaccination elicits immune responses capable of potently neutralizing SARS-CoV-2. However, ongoing surveillance has revealed the emergence of variants harboring mutations in spike, the main target of neutralizing antibodies. To understand the impact of globally circulating variants, we evaluated the neutralization potency of 48 sera from BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients against pseudoviruses bearing spike proteins derived from 10 strains of SARS-CoV-2. While multiple strains exhibited vaccine-induced cross-neutralization comparable to wild-type pseudovirus, 5 strains harboring receptor-binding domain mutations, including K417N/T, E484K, and N501Y, were highly resistant to neutralization. Cross-neutralization of B.1.351 variants was weak and comparable to SARS-CoV and bat-derived WIV1-CoV, suggesting that a relatively small number of mutations can mediate potent escape from vaccine responses. While the clinical impact of neutralization resistance remains uncertain, these results highlight the potential for variants to escape from neutralizing humoral immunity and emphasize the need to develop broadly protective interventions against the evolving pandemic.
RESUMEN
The initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US was marked by limited diagnostic testing, resulting in the need for seroprevalence studies to estimate cumulative incidence and define epidemic dynamics. In lieu of systematic representational surveillance, venue-based sampling was often used to rapidly estimate a communitys seroprevalence. However, biases and uncertainty due to site selection and use of convenience samples are poorly understood. Using data from a SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance study we performed in Somerville, Massachusetts, we found that the uncertainty in seroprevalence estimates depends on how well sampling intensity matches the known or expected geographic distribution of seropositive individuals in the study area. We use GPS-estimated foot traffic to measure and account for these sources of bias. Our results demonstrated that study-site selection informed by mobility patterns can markedly improve seroprevalence estimates. Such data should be used in the design and interpretation of venue-based serosurveillance studies.
RESUMEN
The rapid worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection has propelled the accelerated development of serological tests that can detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. These have been used for studying the prevalence and spread of infection in different populations, helping establish a recent diagnosis of COVID-19, and will likely be used to confirm humoral immunity after infection or vaccination. However, nearly all lab-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 serological assays require a serum sample from venous blood draw, limiting their applications and scalability. Here, we present a method that enables large scale SARS-CoV-2 serological studies by combining self or office collection of fingerprick blood with a volumetric absorptive microsampling device (Mitra, Neoteryx, LLC) with a high-throughput electrochemiluminescence-based SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay (Roche Elecsys, Roche Diagnostics, Inc.) that is EUA approved for use on serum samples and widely used by clinical laboratories around the world. We found that the Roche Elecsys assay has a high dynamic range that allows for accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum samples diluted 1:20 as well as contrived dried blood extracts. Extracts of dried blood from Mitra devices acquired in a community seroprevalence study showed near identical sensitivity and specificity in detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as compared to neat sera using predefined thresholds for each specimen type. Overall, this study affirms the use of Mitra dried blood collection device with the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay for remote or at-home testing as well as large-scale community seroprevalence studies.
RESUMEN
COVID-19 exhibits variable symptom severity ranging from asymptomatic to life-threatening, yet the relationship between severity and the humoral immune response is poorly understood. We examined antibody responses in 113 COVID-19 patients and found that severe cases resulting in intubation or death exhibited increased inflammatory markers, lymphopenia, and high anti-RBD antibody levels. While anti-RBD IgG levels generally correlated with neutralization titer, quantitation of neutralization potency revealed that high potency was a predictor of survival. In addition to neutralization of wild-type SARS-CoV-2, patient sera were also able to neutralize the recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 mutant D614G, suggesting protection from reinfection by this strain. However, SARS-CoV-2 sera was unable to cross-neutralize a highly-homologous pre-emergent bat coronavirus, WIV1-CoV, that has not yet crossed the species barrier. These results highlight the importance of neutralizing humoral immunity on disease progression and the need to develop broadly protective interventions to prevent future coronavirus pandemics.
RESUMEN
IntroductionThe diagnosis of COVID-19 requires integration of clinical and laboratory data. SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assays play a central role in diagnosis and have fixed technical performance metrics. Interpretation becomes challenging because the clinical sensitivity changes as the virus clears and the immune response emerges. Our goal was to examine the clinical sensitivity of two most common SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test modalities, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology, over the disease course to provide insight into their clinical interpretation in patients presenting to the hospital. MethodsA single-center, retrospective study. To derive clinical sensitivity of PCR, we identified 209 PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 patients with multiple PCR test results (624 total PCR tests) and calculated daily sensitivity from date of symptom onset or first positive test. To calculate daily clinical sensitivity by serology, we utilized 157 PCR- positive patients with a total of 197 specimens tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for IgM, IgG, and IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. ResultsClinical sensitivity of PCR decreased with days post symptom onset with >90% clinical sensitivity during the first 5 days after symptom onset, 70-71% from days 9-11, and 30% at day 21. In contrast, serological sensitivity increased with days post symptom onset with >50% of patients seropositive by at least one antibody isotype after day 7, >80% after day 12, and 100% by day 21. ConclusionPCR and serology are complimentary modalities that require time- dependent interpretation. Superimposition of sensitivities over time indicate that serology can function as a reliable diagnostic aid indicating recent or prior infection.
RESUMEN
ObjectivesNumerous serologic immunoassays have been launched to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, including rapid tests. Here, we validate use of a lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) intended for rapid screening and qualitative detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG in serum, plasma, and whole blood, and compare results with ELISA. We also seek to establish the value of LFI testing on blood obtained from a capillary blood sample. MethodsSamples collected by venous blood draw and capillary finger stick were obtained from patients with SARS-CoV-2 detected by RT-qPCR and control patients negative for SARS-CoV-2. Samples were tested with the 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Detection Kit (Colloidal Gold) lateral flow immunoassay, and antibody calls were compared with results obtained by ELISA. ResultsThe Biolidics LFI kit shows clinical sensitivity of 92% at 7 days after PCR diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 on venous blood. Test specificity was 92% for IgM and 100% for IgG. There was no significant difference in detecting IgM and IgG with Biolidics LFI and ELISA at D0 and D7 (p=1.00), except for detection of IgM at D7 (p=0.04). Finger stick whole blood of SARS-CoV-2 patients showed 93% sensitivity for antibody detection. ConclusionsClinical performance of Biolidics 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Detection Kit (Colloidal Gold) is comparable to ELISA and showed consistent results across different sample types. Furthermore, we show that capillary blood obtained by finger stick shows similar sensitivity for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies as venous blood samples. This provides an opportunity for decentralized rapid testing in the community and may allow point-of-care and longitudinal self-testing for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.
RESUMEN
BackgroundSerological tests are crucial tools for assessments of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, infection and potential immunity. Their appropriate use and interpretation require accurate assay performance data. MethodWe conducted an evaluation of 10 lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two ELISAs to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The specimen set comprised 128 plasma or serum samples from 79 symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals; 108 pre-COVID-19 negative controls; and 52 recent samples from individuals who underwent respiratory viral testing but were not diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Samples were blinded and LFA results were interpreted by two independent readers, using a standardized intensity scoring system. ResultsAmong specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals, the percent seropositive increased with time interval, peaking at 81.8-100.0% in samples taken >20 days after symptom onset. Test specificity ranged from 84.3-100.0% in pre-COVID-19 specimens. Specificity was higher when weak LFA bands were considered negative, but this decreased sensitivity. IgM detection was more variable than IgG, and detection was highest when IgM and IgG results were combined. Agreement between ELISAs and LFAs ranged from 75.7-94.8%. No consistent cross-reactivity was observed. ConclusionOur evaluation showed heterogeneous assay performance. Reader training is key to reliable LFA performance, and can be tailored for survey goals. Informed use of serology will require evaluations covering the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infections, from asymptomatic and mild infection to severe disease, and later convalescence. Well-designed studies to elucidate the mechanisms and serological correlates of protective immunity will be crucial to guide rational clinical and public health policies.