Long-Term Comparison of 7 SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays in the North Zealand Covid-19 Cohort

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Japanese healthcare workers from 2020 to 2022 as assayed by two commercial kits

Antibody tests are used as surveillance tools for informing health policy making. However, results may vary by type of antibody assay and timing of sample collection following infection. Long-term longitudinal cohort studies on antibody assay seropositivity have remained limited, especially among Asian populations. Using blood samples obtained at health physicals (2020-2022) of healthcare workers (mass vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines) at a Japanese medical center, we measured N-specific antibodies using two commercially available systems. Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 measures total antibodies and Abbott Alinity SARS-CoV-2 IgG measures only IgG. Among 2538 participants, seroprevalence was found to be 16.6% via total antibody assay versus 12.9% by IgG-only (including grayzone) by mid-June 2022. For 219 cases with a previous PCR-confirmed infection, positivity was 97.3% using total antibody assay versus 76.3% using IgG-only assay at the 2022 health physical. Using PCR positive test date as day 0, while the positivity of the total antibody assay was retained for the entire study period (until more than 24-months post-infection), the IgG-only assay's positivity declined after month 4. The Mantel-Haenszel test found a significant difference in the two assays' seropositivity, between stratified groups of "within 3 months" and "4 months or more" from infection (P < 0.001). Our study found significant differences in seropositivity over time of total antibody versus IgG-only assays, suggesting an optimal assay for retaining sensitivity over the entire infection period when designing seroprevalence studies.

Immunological responses and adverse reactions of the heterologous second booster dose of BNT162b2 after two-dose CoronaVac for COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers of Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University

BACKGROUND

The first COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Thailand began in April 2020, with healthcare workers receiving two doses of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine (CoronaVac). However, the emergence of the delta and omicron variants raised concerns about vaccine effectiveness. The Thai Ministry of Public Health provided the first booster dose (third dose) and second booster dose (fourth dose) of the mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) for healthcare workers. This study investigated the immunity and adverse reactions elicited by a heterologous second booster dose of BNT162b2 after a two-dose CoronaVac vaccination for COVID-19 in healthcare workers of the Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University.

METHODS

IgG titres against the SARS-CoV-2-spike protein were measured four and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2 in the study participants. Adverse reactions were recorded during the first three days, four weeks and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2.

RESULTS

IgG against the SARS-CoV-2-spike protein was positive (>10 U/ml) in 246 of 247 participants (99.6 %) at both four and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2. The median specific IgG titres at four and 24 weeks after the second booster dose of BNT162b2 were 299 U/ml (min: 2, max: 29,161) and 104 U/ml (min: 1, max: 17,920), respectively. The median IgG level declined significantly 24 weeks after the second booster dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Of the 247 participants, 179 (72.5 %) experienced adverse reactions in the first three days after the second booster dose of BNT162b2. Myalgia, fever, headache, injection site pain and fatigue were the most common adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that a heterologous second booster dose of BNT162b2 after two doses of CoronaVac induced elevated IgG against the SARS-CoV-2-spike protein and caused minor adverse reactions in healthcare workers of the Faculty of Medicine, Naresuan University. This study was registered as Thailand Clinical Trials No. TCTR20221112001.

Assay Harmonization Study To Measure Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccines: a Serology Methods Study

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented the scientific community with an immediate need for accurate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology assays, resulting in an expansion of assay development, some without following a rigorous quality control and validation, and with a wide range of performance characteristics. Vast amounts of data have been gathered on SARS-CoV-2 antibody response; however, performance and ability to compare the results have been challenging. This study seeks to analyze the reliability, sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of a set of widely used commercial, in-house, and neutralization serology assays, as well as provide evidence for the feasibility of using the World Health Organization (WHO) International Standard (IS) as a harmonization tool. This study also seeks to demonstrate that binding immunoassays may serve as a practical alternative for the serological study of large sample sets in lieu of expensive, complex, and less reproducible neutralization assays. In this study, commercial assays demonstrated the highest specificity, while in-house assays excelled in antibody sensitivity. As expected, neutralization assays demonstrated high levels of variability but overall good correlations with binding immunoassays, suggesting that binding may be reasonably accurate as well as practical for the study of SARS-CoV-2 serology. All three assay types performed well after WHO IS standardization. The results of this study demonstrate there are high performing serology assays available to the scientific community to rigorously dissect antibody responses to infection and vaccination. IMPORTANCE Previous studies have shown significant variability in SARS-CoV-2 antibody serology assays, highlighting the need for evaluation and comparison of these assays using the same set of samples covering a wide range of antibody responses induced by infection or vaccination. This study demonstrated that there are high performing assays that can be used reliably to evaluate immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 in the context of infection and vaccination. This study also demonstrated the feasibility of harmonizing these assays against the International Standard and provided evidence that the binding immunoassays may have high enough correlation with the neutralization assays to serve as a practical proxy. These results represent an important step in standardizing and harmonizing the many different serological assays used to evaluate COVID-19 immune responses in the population.

Protective roles and protective mechanisms of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection and their potential clinical implications

Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) are central players in the humoral immunity that defends the body from SARS-CoV-2 infection by blocking viral entry into host cells and neutralizing their biological effects. Even though NAbs primarily work by neutralizing viral antigens, on some occasions, they may also combat the SARS-CoV-2 virus escaping neutralization by employing several effector mechanisms in collaboration with immune cells like natural killer (NK) cells and phagocytes. Besides their prophylactic and therapeutic roles, antibodies can be used for COVID-19 diagnosis, severity evaluation, and prognosis assessment in clinical practice. Furthermore, the measurement of NAbs could have key implications in determining individual or herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2, vaccine effectiveness, and duration of the humoral protective response, as well as aiding in the selection of suitable individuals who can donate convalescent plasma to treat infected people. Despite all these clinical applications of NAbs, using them in clinical settings can present some challenges. This review discusses the protective functions, possible protective mechanisms against SARS-CoV-2, and potential clinical applications of NAbs in COVID-19. This article also highlights the possible challenges and solutions associated with COVID-19 antibody-based prophylaxis, therapy, and vaccination.