Decreased Efficiency of Neutralizing Antibodies from Previously Infected or Vaccinated Individuals against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) SARS-CoV-2 Variant

Study of the cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination

Our understanding of cellular immunity in response to COVID-19 infection or vaccination is limited because of less commonly used techniques. We investigated both the cellular and humoral immune responses before and after the administration of a third dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine among a group of healthcare workers. Cellular immunity was evaluated using the VIDAS interferon-gamma (IFNγ) RUO test, which enables automated measurement of IFNγ levels after stimulating peripheral blood lymphocytes. Booster doses significantly enhanced both cellular and humoral immunity. Concerning cellular response, the booster dose increased the percentage of positive IFNγ release assay (IGRA) results but no difference in IFNγ release was found. The cellular response was not associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interestingly, vaccinated and infected healthcare workers exhibited the highest levels of anti-spike and neutralizing antibodies. In conclusion, the IGRA is a simple method for measuring cellular immune responses after vaccination. However, its usefulness as a complement to the study of humoral responses is yet to be demonstrated in future research.

Clinical and laboratory considerations: determining an antibody-based composite correlate of risk for reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 or severe COVID-19

Much of the global population now has some level of adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 induced by exposure to the virus (natural infection), vaccination, or a combination of both (hybrid immunity). Key questions that subsequently arise relate to the duration and the level of protection an individual might expect based on their infection and vaccination history. A multi-component composite correlate of risk (CoR) could inform individuals and stakeholders about protection and aid decision making. This perspective evaluates the various elements that need to be accommodated in the development of an antibody-based composite CoR for reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 or development of severe COVID-19, including variation in exposure dose, transmission route, viral genetic variation, patient factors, and vaccination status. We provide an overview of antibody dynamics to aid exploration of the specifics of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. We further discuss anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays, sample matrices, testing formats, frequency of sampling and the optimal time point for such sampling. While the development of a composite CoR is challenging, we provide our recommendations for each of these key areas and highlight areas that require further work to be undertaken.

Clinico-epidemiological profile and outcome of infected health care workers during the three consecutive waves of COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal cohort study

Background

Health care workers are considered as high-risk population, who deal with many unknown, undiagnosed, and subclinical infectious diseases in their daily life. Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic posed as an add-on burden for these frontline workers in all aspects. Although, many adverse physical and mental effects of pandemic among health care workers (HCWs) were discussed worldwide, a long-term study for delayed complications needed to be explored.

Aim

The study evaluates and compares three waves of the pandemic in various aspects such as the incidence, prevalence, severity, risk factors, and variations in the pattern of COVID-19 infection, impact of vaccination, and post-infection complications among the HCWs.

Methodology

A longitudinal observational study was carried out over a period of 2 years and another 6 months for follow-up. The study included all HCWs who tested positive in any one wave of COVID-19 pandemic with any one of the confirmed COVID-19 test. Each COVID-19-affected HCW was followed up through telephone calls and direct interviews conducted at the study site. Admission details and other background details of the study population were collected from the hospital records.

Results

A total of 968 HCWs were COVID-19 positive in any of the three waves, and highest incidence (53.00%) was caused by the Omicron variant. High severity and hospitalization was observed in the first wave (no vaccination) and fully immunized personnel were found to be out of danger of being hospitalized during all succeeding waves (chi-square value: 87.04, p < 0.05). Predictors such as female gender, occupational exposure, and comorbid status were identified as possible risk factors for infection. A total of 70 HCWs reported with 104 complications, of which chronic diseases such as new onset of diabetes (n = 3), cardiovascular events (n = 8), worsening of preexisting comorbidities (n = 8), etc. were found out.

Conclusions

This study proves the benefit of being immunized rather than the risk of being infected. This study documents that immunization impacted complication and hospitalization rates of COVID-19 infection. This evidence may help in tackling vaccine hesitancy across the nations.

Current immunoassays and detection of antibodies elicited by Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection

The present study aimed to determine whether current commercial immunoassays are adequate for detecting anti-Omicron antibodies. We analyzed the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response of 23 unvaccinated individuals 1-2 months after an Omicron infection. All blood samples were tested with a live virus neutralization assay using a clinical Omicron BA.1 strain and four commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. We assessed three anti-Spike immunoassays (SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant [Abbott S], Wantaï anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody ELISA [Wantaï], Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay [Roche]) and one anti-Nucleocapsid immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay [Abbott N]). Omicron neutralizing antibodies were detected in all samples with the live virus neutralization assay. The detection rate of the Abbott S, Wantai, Roche, and Abbott N immunoassays were 65.2%, 69.6%, 86.9%, and 91.3%, respectively. The sensitivities of Abbott S and Wantai immunoassays were significantly lower than that of the live virus neutralization assay (p = 0.004, p = 0.009; Fisher's exact test). Antibody concentrations obtained with anti-S immunoassays were correlated with Omicron neutralizing antibody concentrations. These data provide clinical evidence of the loss of performance of some commercial immunoassays to detect antibodies elicited by Omicron infections. It highlights the need to optimize these assays by adapting antigens to the circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains.

Antibody Titers and Protection against Omicron (BA.1 and BA.2) SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern has greatly influenced the immune correlates of protection, and there are little data about the antibody threshold concentrations to protect against infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 or BA.2. We analyzed the antibody responses of 259 vaccinated healthcare workers, some of whom had been previously infected by SARS-CoV-2. The median follow-up was 179 days (IQR: 171-182) after blood collection. We detected 88 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infections during the follow-up period, 55 (62.5%) with SARS-CoV-2 BA.1, and 33 (37.5%) with SARS-CoV-2 BA.2. A neutralizing antibody titer below 8 provided no protection against a BA.1 infection, a titer of 16 or 32 gave 73.2% protection, and a titer of 64 or 128 provided 78.4% protection. Conversely, the BA.2 infection rate did not vary as a function of anti-BA.2 neutralizing antibody titers. Binding antibody concentrations below 6000 BAU/mL provided no protection against Omicron BA.1 infection, 6000-20,000 BAU/mL provided 55.6% protection, and 20,000 or more provided 87.7% protection. There was no difference in BA.2 infection depending on the binding antibody concentration. Further studies are needed to investigate the relationship between antibody concentrations and infection with the Omicron BA.4/5 variants that are becoming predominant worldwide.