RESUMEN
With much of the world infected with or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, understanding the immune responses to the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein in different situations is crucial to controlling the pandemic. We studied the clinical, systemic, mucosal, and cellular responses to two doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in 62 individuals with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure that were divided into three groups based on serostatus and/or degree of symptoms: Antibody negative, Asymptomatic, and Symptomatic. In the previously SARS-CoV-2-infected (SARS2-infected) Asymptomatic and Symptomatic groups, symptoms related to a recall response were elicited after the first vaccination. Anti-S trimer IgA and IgG levels peaked after 1st vaccination in the SARS2-infected groups, and were higher that the in the SARS2-naive group in the plasma and nasal samples at all time points. Neutralizing antibodies titers were also higher against the WA-1 and B.1.617.2 (Delta) variants of SARS-CoV-2 in the SARS2-infected compared to SARS2-naive vaccinees. After the first vaccination, differences in cellular immunity were not evident between groups, but the AIM+ CD4+ cell response correlated with durability of humoral immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 S protein. In those SARS2-infected, the number of vaccinations needed for protection, the durability, and need for boosters are unknown. However, the lingering differences between the SARS2-infected and SARS2-naive up to 10 months post-vaccination could explain the decreased reinfection rates in the SARS2-infected vaccinees recently reported and suggests that additional strategies (such as boosting of the SARS2-naive vaccinees) are needed to narrow the differences observed between these groups.
RESUMEN
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine shortages have led some experts and countries to consider untested dosing regimens. We studied antibody responses to a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines in healthcare workers (HCW) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection and compared to them to antibody responses of HCW who were IgG negative to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. HCW with prior COVID-19 showed clear secondary antibody responses to vaccination with IgG spike binding titers rapidly increasing by 7 days and peaking by days 10 and 14 post-vaccination. At all time points tested, HCW with prior COVID-19 infection showed statistically significant higher antibody titers of binding and functional antibody compared to HCW without prior COVID-19 infection (p<.0001for each of the time points tested). In times of vaccine shortage, and until correlates of protection are identified, our findings preliminarily suggest the following strategy as more evidence-based: a) a single dose of vaccine for patients already having had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19; and b) patients who have had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 can be placed lower on the vaccination priority list.
RESUMEN
There is an urgent need for an accurate antibody test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this paper, we have developed 3 ELISA methods, trimer spike IgA, trimer spike IgG, and nucleocapsid IgG, for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We evaluated their performance in comparison with four commercial ELISAs, EDI Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 ELISA IgG and IgM, Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA IgG and IgA, and one lateral flow assay, DPP(R) COVID-19 IgM/IgG System (Chembio). Both sensitivity and specificity were evaluated and the causes of false-positive reactions were determined. The assays were compared using 300 pre-epidemic samples and 100 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 samples. The sensitivities and specificities of the assays were as follows: 90%/100% (in-house trimer spike IgA), 90%/99.3% (in-house trimer spike IgG), 89%/98.3% (in-house nucleocapsid IgG), 73.7%/100% (EDI nucleocapsid IgM), 84.5%/95.1% (EDI nucleocapsid IgG), 95%/93.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgA), 82.8%/99.7% (Euroimmun S1 IgG), 82.0%/91.7% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgM), 92%/93.3% (Chembio nucleocapsid IgG). The presumed causes of positive signals from pre-epidemic samples in commercial and in-house assays were mixed. In some cases, positivity varied with assay repetition. In other cases, reactivity was abrogated by competitive inhibition (spiking the sample with analyte prior to performing the assay). In other cases, reactivity was consistently detected but not abrogated by analyte spiking. Overall, there was wide variability in assay performance using our samples, with in-house tests exhibiting the highest combined sensitivity and specificity. The causes of "false positivity" in pre-epidemic samples may be due to plasma antibodies apparently reacting with the analyte, or spurious reactivity may be directed against non-specific components in the assay system. Identification of these targets will be essential to improving assay performance.