Retrospective analysis of 426 donors of a convalescent collective after mild COVID-19

Humoral and cellular immune response levels at a 1-year follow-up after mild COVID-19

The primary objective of this study was to establish a 1-year follow-up of patients after mild COVID-19 with no or only short-term detection of antibodies shortly after disease. At 1 year after disease, cellular memory against SARS-CoV-2, as measured by IFN-γ release by T cells, was detected in 76% (38/50) of participants. The data suggest that even if antibody levels decline after the primary infection has resolved, a cellular immune response may be detectable for longer.

Long-term persistence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein-specific and neutralizing antibodies in recovered COVID-19 patients

Understanding antibody responses after natural severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can guide the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine schedule, especially in resource-limited settings. This study aimed to assess the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, including anti-spike protein 1 (S1) immunoglobulin (Ig)G, anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) total Ig, anti-S1 IgA, and neutralizing antibody against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 over time in a cohort of patients who were previously infected with the wild-type SARS-CoV-2. Between March and May 2020, 531 individuals with virologically confirmed cases of wild-type SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled in our immunological study. Blood samples were collected at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-months post symptom onset or detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR (in asymptomatic individuals). The neutralizing titers against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 95.2%, 86.7%, 85.0%, and 85.4% of recovered COVID-19 patients at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after symptom onset, respectively. The seropositivity rate of anti-S1 IgG, anti-RBD total Ig, anti-S1 IgA, and neutralizing titers remained at 68.6%, 89.6%, 77.1%, and 85.4%, respectively, at 12 months after symptom onset. We observed a high level of correlation between neutralizing and SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-specific antibody titers. The half-life of neutralizing titers was estimated at 100.7 days (95% confidence interval = 44.5–327.4 days, R² = 0.106). These results support that the decline in serum antibody levels over time in both participants with severe disease and mild disease were depended on the symptom severity, and the individuals with high IgG antibody titers experienced a significantly longer persistence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses than those with lower titers.

Immunological Biomarkers in Blood to Monitor the Course and Therapeutic Outcomes of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a great challenge to the medical community because little is known about its clinical course, therapeutic options, and laboratory monitoring tools for diagnosis, prognosis, and surveillance. This review focuses on immune biomarkers that can be measured in peripheral blood in a clinical laboratory under routine conditions to monitor the innate immune system response in the acute phase, as well as the adaptive immune response established both after infection and vaccination.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed covering January 2020 to June 2021 to extract biomarkers suitable for monitoring the immune response and outcome of COVID-19 and therapeutic interventions, including vaccination.

RESULTS

To monitor the innate immune response, cytokines such as interleukin-6 or acute phase reactants such as C-reactive protein or procalcitonin can be measured on autoanalyzers complemented by automated white blood cell differential counts. The adaptive immune response can be followed by commercially available enzyme-linked immune spot assays to assess the specific activation of T cells or by monitoring immunoglobulin A (IgA), IgM, and IgG antibodies in serum to follow B-cell activation. As antigens of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, spike and nucleocapsid proteins are particularly suitable and allow differentiation between the immune response after infection or vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine immune monitoring of COVID-19 is feasible in clinical laboratories with commercially available instruments and reagents. Strategies such as whether biomarkers reflecting the response of the innate and adaptive immune system can be used to make predictions and assist in individualizing therapeutic interventions or vaccination strategies need to be determined in appropriate clinical trials. Promising preliminary data are already available based on single-center reports and completed or ongoing vaccination trials.

Passive Immunity Should and Will Work for COVID-19 for Some Patients

In the absence of effective antiviral chemotherapy and still in the context of emerging vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome-CoV-2 infections, passive immunotherapy remains a key treatment and possible prevention strategy. What might initially be conceived as a simplified donor-recipient process, the intricacies of donor plasma, IV immunoglobulins, and monoclonal antibody modality applications are becoming more apparent. Key targets of such treatment have largely focused on virus neutralization and the specific viral components of the attachment Spike protein and its constituents (e.g., receptor binding domain, N-terminal domain). The cumulative laboratory and clinical experience suggests that beneficial protective and treatment outcomes are possible. Both a dose- and a time-dependency emerge. Lesser understood are the concepts of bioavailability and distribution. Apart from direct antigen binding from protective immunoglobulins, antibody effector functions have potential roles in outcome. In attempting to mimic the natural but variable response to infection or vaccination, a strong functional polyclonal approach attracts the potential benefits of attacking antigen diversity, high antibody avidity, antibody persistence, and protection against escape viral mutation. The availability and ease of administration for any passive immunotherapy product must be considered in the current climate of need. There is never a perfect product, but yet there is considerable room for improving patient outcomes. Given the variability of human genetics, immunity, and disease, and given the nuances of the virus and its potential for change, passive immunotherapy can be developed that will be effective for some but not all patients. An understanding of such patient variability and limitations is just as important as the understanding of the direct interactions between immunotherapy and virus.