Performance of the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA Assay for detection of IgA and IgG antibodies in South Africa

Comparable antibody levels in heterologous and homologous mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, with superior neutralizing and IgA antibody responses in mRNA homologous boosting

BACKGROUND

Priming with two doses of AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; ChAd) followed by a third mRNA vaccine boosting is considered in several countries, yet comparisons between heterologous and homologous booster efficacy remain unexplored.

AIM

To evaluate and contrast the immunogenicity of homologous and heterologous boosting regimens.

METHOD

The study examined antibody responses in 1113 subjects, comprising 895 vaccine-naïve individuals across different vaccination strategies (partial, primary series, heterologous booster, homologous booster) and 218 unvaccinated, naturally infected individuals. Assessments included neutralizing total antibodies (NTAbs), total antibodies (TAbs), anti-S-RBD IgG, and anti-S1 IgA levels.

RESULTS

The study found mRNA vaccines to exhibit superior immunogenicity in primary series vaccination compared to ChAd, with mRNA-1273 significantly enhancing NTAbs, TAbs, anti-S-RBD IgG, and anti-S1 IgA levels (p < 0.001). Both booster types improved antibody levels beyond primary outcomes, with no significant difference in TAbs and anti-S-RBD IgG levels between regimens. However, homologous mRNA boosters significantly outperformed heterologous boosters in enhancing NTAbs and anti-S1 IgA levels, with the BNT/BNT/BNT regimen yielding particularly higher enhancements (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study concludes that although TAbs and anti-S-RBD IgG antibody levels are similar for both regimens, homologous mRNA boosting outperform heterologous regimen by enhancing anti-S1 IgA and neutralizing antibody levels.

Follow-Up and Comparative Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 IgA, IgG, Neutralizing, and Total Antibody Responses After BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 Heterologous Booster Vaccination

BACKGROUND

Priming with ChAdOx1 followed by heterologous boosting is considered in several countries. Nevertheless, analyses comparing the immunogenicity of heterologous booster to homologous primary vaccination regimens and natural infection are lacking. In this study, we aimed to conduct a comparative assessment of the immunogenicity between homologous primary vaccination regimens and heterologous prime-boost vaccination using BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273.

METHODS

We matched vaccinated naïve (VN) individuals (n = 673) with partial vaccination (n = 64), primary vaccination (n = 590), and primary series plus mRNA vaccine heterologous booster (n = 19) with unvaccinated naturally infected (NI) individuals with a documented primary SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 206). We measured the levels of neutralizing total antibodies (NTAbs), total antibodies (TAbs), anti-S-RBD IgG, and anti-S1 IgA titers.

RESULTS

Homologous primary vaccination with ChAdOx1 not only showed less potent NTAb, TAb, anti-S-RBD IgG, and anti-S1 IgA immune responses compared to primary BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination regimens (p < 0.05) but also showed ~3-fold less anti-S1 IgA response compared to infection-induced immunity (p < 0.001). Nevertheless, a heterologous booster led to an increase of ~12 times in the immune response when compared to two consecutive homologous ChAdOx1 immunizations. Furthermore, correlation analyses revealed that both anti-S-RBD IgG and anti-S1 IgA significantly contributed to virus neutralization among NI individuals, particularly in symptomatic and pauci-symptomatic individuals, whereas among VN individuals, anti-S-RBD IgG was the main contributor to virus neutralization.

CONCLUSION

The results emphasize the potential benefit of using heterologous mRNA boosters to increase antibody levels and neutralizing capacity particularly in patients who received primary vaccination with ChAdOx1.

SARS-CoV-2 infection triggers more potent antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) responses than mRNA-, vector-, and inactivated virus-based COVID-19 vaccines

Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) are elicited after infection and vaccination and have been well studied. However, their antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) functionality is still poorly characterized. Here, we investigated ADCC activity in convalescent sera from infected patients with wild-type (WT) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) or omicron variant compared with three coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine platforms and postvaccination breakthrough infection (BTI). We analyzed ADCC activity targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) proteins in convalescent sera following WT SARS-CoV-2-infection (n = 91), including symptomatic and asymptomatic infections, omicron-infection (n = 8), COVID-19 vaccination with messenger RNA- (mRNA)- (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, n = 77), adenovirus vector- (n = 41), and inactivated virus- (n = 46) based vaccines, as well as post-mRNA vaccination BTI caused by omicron (n = 28). Correlations between ADCC, binding, and NAb titers were reported. ADCC was elicited within the first month postinfection and -vaccination and remained detectable for ≥3 months. WT-infected symptomatic patients had higher S-specific ADCC levels than asymptomatic and vaccinated individuals. Also, no difference in N-specific ADCC activity was seen between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, but the levels were higher than the inactivated vaccine. Notably, omicron infection showed reduced overall ADCC activity compared to WT SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although post-mRNA vaccination BTI elicited high levels of binding and NAbs, ADCC activity was significantly reduced. Also, there was no difference in ADCC levels across the four vaccines, although NAbs and binding antibody titers were significantly higher in mRNA-vaccinated individuals. All evaluated vaccine platforms are inferior in inducing ADCC compared to natural infection with WT SARS-CoV-2. The inactivated virus-based vaccine can induce N-specific ADCC activity, but its relevance to clinical outcomes requires further investigation. Our data suggest that ADCC could be used to estimate the extra-neutralization level against COVID-19 and provides evidence that vaccination should focus on other Fc-effector functions besides NAbs. Also, the decreased susceptibility of the omicron variant to ADCC offers valuable guidance for forthcoming efforts to identify the specific targets of antibodies facilitating ADCC.

The impact of inaccurate assumptions about antibody test accuracy on the parametrisation and results of infectious disease models of epidemics

The parametrisation of infectious disease models is often done based on epidemiological studies that use diagnostic and serology tests to establish disease prevalence or seroprevalence in the population being modelled. During outbreaks of an emerging infectious disease, tests are often used, both for disease control and epidemiological studies, before studies evaluating their accuracy in the population have concluded, with assumptions made about accuracy parameters like sensitivity and specificity. In this simulation study, we simulated such an outbreak, based on the case study of COVID-19, and found that inaccurate parametrisation of infectious disease models due to assumptions about antibody test accuracy in a seroprevalence study can cause modelling results that inform public health decisions to be inaccurate; for example, in our simulation setup, assuming that antibody test specificity was 0.99 instead of 0.90 when it was in fact 0.90 led to an average relative difference of 0.78 in model-projected peak hospitalisations, even when test sensitivity and all other parameters were accurately characterised. We therefore suggest that methods to speed up test evaluation studies are vitally important in the public health response to an emerging outbreak.

A stronger antibody response in increased disease severity of SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

An assessment of the factors that interfere with serum levels and the persistence of anti-SARs-CoV-2 IgG antibodies is essential in order to estimate the risk of reinfection and to plan vaccination. We analyzed the impact of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the clinical and biological factors regarding the persistence of SARs-CoV-2 anti-spike protein (IgG-S) antibodies at 12 months.

METHODS

This was an observational, longitudinal study with individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 between August 2020 and June 2021. Peripheral blood samples were collected from volunteers who were hospitalized (SERIOUS COVID-19) and those who required no hospitalization (COVID-19 LIGHT). Samples were grouped according to days after symptom onset: up to 90, between 91 and 180, ≥ 180 days after symptom onset. A semiquantitative test for IgG anti-spike protein S1(IgG-S1) was used.

RESULTS

We analyzed 238 individuals who had recovered from COVID-19, of whom 87 had been hospitalized and 151 had not. They provided 148 and 220 samples, respectively. Among those hospitalized, males (65.5%), volunteers aged over 60 years (41.1%), comorbidities such as arterial hypertension (67.8%) and diabetes mellitus (37.9%) were most frequent. We observed higher median serum IgG-S1 titers among those who had recovered from COVID-19 and had been hospitalized, at all collection time intervals (p < 0.001). We observed a weak correlation of increasing age with humoral IgG-S1 response (Spearman correlation = 0.298). There was a greater probability of IgG-S1 antibody persistence over time among samples from hospitalized individuals compared to samples from non-hospitalized participants (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study has revealed higher titers and a higher probability of the persistence of IgG-S1 in severe cases after SARs-CoV-2 primary infection in unvaccinated recovered patients. Thus, in this study, the severe clinical presentation of COVID-19 was the main factor influencing serum levels and the persistence of IgG-S1 antibodies in COVID-19.

The Performance of Diagnostic Tests for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the South African Population: A Scoping Review

To determine the performance and reliability of diagnostic tests for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection in South Africa, we conducted a scoping review to identify published studies undertaken in the English language from March 2020 to August 2022 that evaluated the performance of antigen- and antibody-based diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 in South Africa. We identified 17 relevant peer-reviewed articles; six reported on SARS-CoV-2 gene and/or antigen detection whilst 11 reported on antibody detection. Of the SARS-CoV-2 gene and/or antigen-based tests, sensitivity ranged from 40% to 100%, whilst for the antibody-based tests, sensitivity ranged from 13% to 100%. All tests evaluated were highly dependent on the stage of infection and the timing of sample collection. This scoping review demonstrated that no single SARS-CoV-2 gene and/or antigen- or antibody-based assay was sufficiently sensitive and specific simultaneously. The sensitivity of the tests was highly dependent on the timing of sample collection with respect to SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the case of SARS-CoV-2 gene and/or antigen detection, the earlier the collection of samples, the greater the sensitivity, while antibody detection tests showed better sensitivity using samples from later stages of infection.

Development of practical techniques for simultaneous detection and distinction of current and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants

Countless individuals have fallen victim to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and have generated antibodies, reducing the risk of secondary infection in the short term. However, with the emergence of mutated strains, the probability of subsequent infections remains high. Consequently, the demand for simple and accessible methods for distinguishing between different variants is soaring. Although monitoring viral gene sequencing is an effective approach for differentiating between various types of SARS-CoV-2 variants, it may not be easily accessible to the general public. In this article, we provide an overview of the reported techniques that use combined approaches and adaptable testing methods that use editable recognition receptors for simultaneous detection and distinction of current and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. These techniques employ straightforward detection strategies, including tests capable of simultaneously identifying and differentiating between different variants. Furthermore, we recommend advancing the development of uncomplicated protocols for distinguishing between current and emerging variants. Additionally, we propose further development of facile protocols for the differentiation of existing and emerging variants.

Optimizing SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassays for Specificity in Dengue-Co-Endemic Areas

Introduction The overlap in clinical presentation between COVID-19 and dengue poses challenges for diagnosis in co-endemic regions. Furthermore, there have been reports of antibody cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and dengue. Our research aims to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 antigens for serological testing while reducing the possibility of cross-reactivity with anti-dengue antibodies. Method Two hundred and ten serum samples were collected from 179 patients and divided into four panels. Panels 1 and 2 consisted of COVID-19-negative healthy donors (n=81) and pre-pandemic dengue patients (n=50), respectively. Alternatively, Panel 3 (n=19) was composed of reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)-positive samples collected within two weeks of COVID-19 symptom onset, while Panel 4 (n=60) was composed of positive samples collected after two weeks of symptom onset. Previously developed and characterized in-house SARS-CoV-2 spike-1 (S1), receptor binding domain (RBD), and nucleocapsid (N) immunoglobin G (IgG)-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) assays were used for the study. Results Six dengue-positive sera cross-reacted with the RBD of SARS-CoV-2. However, only one dengue-positive sera cross-reacted with the S1 and N proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Co-immobilization of S1 and RBD in different ratios revealed an 80:20 (S1:RBD) ratio as optimal for achieving an overall 96.2% sensitivity with the least cross-reaction to anti-dengue antibodies. Conclusion Our findings indicated that SARS-CoV-2 RBD-based immunoassays present more cross-reactivity with anti-dengue antibodies than S1 and N proteins. Furthermore, co-immobilization of S1 and RBD reduces the cross-reactivity with anti-dengue antibodies compared to RBD, thereby increasing the immunoassay specificity without affecting overall sensitivity for the dengue-endemic areas.

Assessment of Broadly Reactive Responses in Patients With MERS-CoV Infection and SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination

Importance

In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there remain unanswered questions regarding the nature and importance of the humoral immune response against other coronaviruses. Although coinfection of the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) with the SARS-CoV-2 has not been documented yet, several patients previously infected with MERS-CoV received the COVID-19 vaccine; data describing how preexisting MERS-CoV immunity may shape the response to SARS-CoV-2 following infection or vaccination are lacking.

Objective

To characterize the cross-reactive and protective humoral responses in patients exposed to both MERS-CoV infection and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study involved a total of 18 sera samples collected from 14 patients with MERS-CoV infection before (n = 12) and after (n = 6) vaccination with 2 doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273). Of those patients, 4 had prevaccination and postvaccination samples. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV were assessed as well as cross-reactive responses to other human coronaviruses.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes measured were binding antibody responses, neutralizing antibodies, and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) activity. Binding antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 main antigens (spike [S], nucleocapsid, and receptor-binding domain) were detected using automated immunoassays. Cross-reactive antibodies with the S1 protein of SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and common human coronaviruses were analyzed using a bead-based assay. Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 as well as ADCC activity against SARS-CoV-2 were assessed.

Results

A total of 18 samples were collected from 14 male patients with MERS-CoV infection (mean [SD] age, 43.8 [14.6] years). Median (IQR) duration between primary COVID-19 vaccination and sample collection was 146 (47-189) days. Prevaccination samples had high levels of anti-MERS S1 immunoglobin M (IgM) and IgG (reactivity index ranging from 0.80 to 54.7 for IgM and from 0.85 to 176.3 for IgG). Cross-reactive antibodies with SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 were also detected in these samples. However, cross-reactivity against other coronaviruses was not detected by the microarray assay. Postvaccination samples showed significantly higher levels of total antibodies, IgG, and IgA targeting SARS-CoV-2 S protein compared with prevaccination samples (eg, mean total antibodies: 8955.0 AU/mL; 95% CI, -5025.0 to 22936.0 arbitrary units/mL; P = .002). In addition, significantly higher anti-SARS S1 IgG levels were detected following vaccination (mean reactivity index, 55.4; 95% CI, -9.1 to 120.0; P = .001), suggesting potential cross-reactivity with these coronaviruses. Also, anti-S NAbs were significantly boosted against SARS-CoV-2 (50.5% neutralization; 95% CI, 17.6% to 83.2% neutralization; P < .001) after vaccination. Furthermore, there was no significant increase in antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity against SARS-CoV-2 S protein postvaccination.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found a significant boost in cross-reactive NAbs in some patients exposed to MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 antigens. These findings suggest that isolation of broadly reactive antibodies from these patients may help guide the development of a pancoronavirus vaccine by targeting cross-reactive epitopes between distinct strains of human coronaviruses.

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.

Neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are higher but decline faster in mRNA vaccinees compared to individuals with natural infection

BACKGROUND

Waning protection against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants by pre-existing antibodies elicited because of current vaccination or natural infection is a global concern. Whether this is due to the waning of immunity to SARS-COV-2 remains unclear.

AIM

We aimed to investigate the dynamics of antibody isotype responses amongst vaccinated naïve (VN) and naturally infected (NI) individuals.

METHODS

We followed up antibody levels in COVID-19 messenger RNA (mRNA)-vaccinated subjects without prior infection (VN, n = 100) in two phases: phase-I (P-I) at ~ 1.4 and phase-II (P-II) at ~ 5.3 months. Antibody levels were compared with those of unvaccinated and naturally infected subjects (NI, n = 40) at ~ 1.7 (P-1) and 5.2 (P-II) months post-infection. Neutralizing antibodies (NTAb), anti-S-RBD-IgG, -IgM and anti-S-IgA isotypes were measured.

RESULTS

The VN group elicited significantly greater antibody responses (P < 0.001) than the NI group at P-I, except for IgM. In the VN group, a significant waning in antibody response was observed in all isotypes. There was about an ~ 4-fold decline in NTAb levels (P < 0.001), anti-S-RBD-IgG (~5-fold, P < 0.001), anti-S-RBD-IgM (~6-fold, P < 0.001) and anti-S1-IgA (2-fold, P < 0.001). In the NI group, a significant but less steady decline was notable in S-RBD-IgM (~2-fold, P < 0.001), and a much smaller but significant difference in NTAb (<2-fold, P < 0.001) anti-S-RBD IgG (<2-fold, P = 0.005). Unlike the VN group, the NI group mounted a lasting anti-S1-IgA response with no significant decline. Anti-S1-IgA, which were ~ 3-fold higher in VN subjects compared with NI in P-1 (P < 0.001), dropped to almost the same levels, with no significant difference observed between the two groups in P-II.

CONCLUSION

Whereas double-dose mRNA vaccination boosted antibody levels, vaccinated individuals' 'boost' was relatively short-lived.

Anti SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Zanzibar in 2021 before the Omicron wave

Objectives

For Tanzania, including Zanzibar, the development of the COVID-19 pandemic has remained unclear since the reporting of cases was suspended during 2020/21. Our study was the first to analyze data on COVID-19 seroprevalence in the Zanzibari population before the Omicron variant wave began in late 2021.

Design

During August through October 2021, representative cross-sectional data were collected from randomly selected households in 120 wards of the two main islands, Unguja and Pemba. Participants voluntarily provided blood samples to test their sera for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 using a semiquantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Results

58.9% of the 2051 sera analysed were positive, without significant differences between Unguja and Pemba or between rural and urban areas. The results were in agreement with observations from other sub-Saharan African countries.

Conclusions

The antibody levels observed were most likely due to previous infections with SARS-CoV-2, since vaccination was generally not available before the survey. Therefore, this study offers the first insights into how many Zanzibari had COVID-19 before the Omicron variant emerged. Furthermore, it provides an appropriate basis for a follow-up survey addressing how this seroprevalence has influenced susceptibility to the Omicron variants, given the use of harmonized methodologies.

Sputnik-V reactogenicity and immunogenicity in the blood and mucosa: a prospective cohort study

Sputnik-V (Gam-COVID-Vac) is a heterologous, recombinant adenoviral (rAdv) vector-based, COVID-19 vaccine now used in > 70 countries. Yet there is a shortage of data on this vaccine's performance in diverse populations. Here, we performed a prospective cohort study to assess the reactogenicity and immunologic outcomes of Sputnik-V vaccination in Kazakhstan. COVID-19-free participants (n = 82 at baseline) were followed at day 21 after Sputnik-V dose 1 (rAd5) and dose 2 (rAd26). Self-reported local and systemic adverse events were captured using questionnaires. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected to perform SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic and immunologic assays. We observed that most of the reported adverse events were mild-to-moderate injection site or systemic reactions, no severe or potentially life-threatening conditions were reported, and dose 1 appeared to be more reactogenic than dose 2. The seroconversion rate was 97% post-dose 1, remaining the same post-dose 2. The proportion of participants with detectable virus neutralization was 83% post-dose 1, increasing to 98% post-dose 2, with the largest relative increase observed in participants without prior COVID-19 exposure. Dose 1 boosted nasal S-IgG and S-IgA, while the boosting effect of dose 2 on mucosal S-IgG, but not S-IgA, was only observed in subjects without prior COVID-19. Systemically, vaccination reduced serum levels of growth regulated oncogene (GRO), which correlated with an elevation in blood platelet count. Overall, Sputnik-V dose 1 elicited both blood and mucosal SARS-CoV-2 immunity, while the immune boosting effect of dose 2 was minimal. Thus, adjustments to the current vaccine dosing regimen are necessary to optimize immunization efficacy and cost-effectiveness. While Sputnik-V reactogenicity is similar to that of other COVID-19 vaccines, the induced alterations to the GRO/platelet axis warrant investigation of the vaccine's effects on systemic immunology.

High SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Karaganda, Kazakhstan before the launch of COVID-19 vaccination

COVID-19 exposure in Central Asia appears underestimated and SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data are urgently needed to inform ongoing vaccination efforts and other strategies to mitigate the regional pandemic. Here, in a pilot serologic study we assessed the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody-mediated immunity in a multi-ethnic cohort of public university employees in Karaganda, Kazakhstan. Asymptomatic subjects (n = 100) were recruited prior to their first COVID-19 vaccination. Questionnaires were administered to capture a range of demographic and clinical characteristics. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR testing. Serological assays were performed to detect spike (S)-reactive IgG and IgA and to assess virus neutralization. Pre-pandemic samples were used to validate the assay positivity thresholds. S-IgG and -IgA seropositivity rates among SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative participants (n = 100) were 42% (95% CI [32.2-52.3]) and 59% (95% CI [48.8-69.0]), respectively, and 64% (95% CI [53.4-73.1]) of the cohort tested positive for at least one of the antibodies. S-IgG titres correlated with virus neutralization activity, detectable in 49% of the tested subset with prior COVID-19 history. Serologically confirmed history of COVID-19 was associated with Kazakh ethnicity, but not with other ethnic minorities present in the cohort, and self-reported history of respiratory illness since March 2020. Overall, SARS-CoV-2 exposure in this cohort was ~15-fold higher compared to the reported all-time national and regional COVID-19 prevalence, consistent with recent studies of excess infection and death in Kazakhstan. Continuous serological surveillance provides important insights into COVID-19 transmission dynamics and may be used to better inform the regional public health response.

Seroprevalence and risk factors for COVID-19 in the metropolis of the Brazilian Amazon

The devastating effect of health system overload was observed after cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) peaked in April 2020 in Belém, a capital metropolis in the Brazilian Amazon. Our results showed a high seroprevalence (39.24%) of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies among the population of the capital of the state of Pará after the first wave of the pandemic. Old age, mixed race, a high school education level, low income and contact with infected individuals are risk factors and may be driving seropositivity and exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in this population. This study is one of the first to provide important information to understand the socioeconomic inequalities, behavioral characteristics and viral transmission dynamics associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the capital of the state of Pará, northern Brazil.

Evaluation Protocol for SARS-CoV-2 Serological Assays

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been identified as the causative agent of COVID-19. Accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only important for management of infected individuals but also to break the chain of transmission. Although the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the gold standard for diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, there are a number of limitations of these assays, which include the inability to detect past infection and decline in sensitivity 14 days post-symptom onset. There are several serology tests developed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies including high-throughput serology platforms and lateral flow immunoassays. These tests should be evaluated for their performance to meet local regulations acceptance criteria. To optimize the diagnostic algorithm for SARS-CoV-2, this protocol describes the evaluation of serological antibody testing using various automated serology platforms and lateral flow immunoassays. This protocol was evaluated in both serum and plasma samples. The sample preparation, procedure, and data analysis are described. The protocol can be adapted for any serological testing.

Comparison of antibody immune responses between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in naïve and previously infected individuals

BACKGROUND

Two mRNA vaccines, Pfizer-BNT162b2 and Moderna-mRNA-1273, obtained the Emergency Use Listing by WHO for preventing COVID-19. However, little is known about the difference in antibody responses induced by these two mRNA vaccines in naïve and previously infected (PI) individuals.

METHOD

We investigated the levels of anti-S-RBD (total, IgG and IgA) levels in naïve and PI individuals, 1-13 (median = 6) weeks following the second dose of either vaccine. Results in the naïve-vaccinated group, the mRNA-1273 vaccine induced significantly higher levels of anti-S-RBD total antibodies (3.5-fold; P < 0.001), IgG (2-fold, P < 0.01) and IgA (2.1-fold, P < 0.001) as compared with the BNT162b2 vaccine. In addition, both vaccines produced significantly higher anti-S-RBD total antibody levels in the PI-group compared with naïve-vaccinated group. The PI group elicited a higher level of anti-S-RBD IgG than the naïve-BNT162b2 (P = 0.05), but not more than the naïve-mRNA-1273 (P = 0.9) group. Interestingly, the PI vaccinated group elicited a comparable level of IgA ratio to the naïve-mRNA-1273 group but significantly higher than the naïve-BNT162b2 group (1.6-fold, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that the PI-vaccinated group produces a higher level of antibodies than the naïve vaccinated group, particularly for those vaccinated with BNT162b2.

Rapid, Cheap, and Effective COVID-19 Diagnostics for Africa

BACKGROUND

Although comprehensive public health measures such as mass quarantine have been taken internationally, this has generally been ineffective, leading to a high infection and mortality rate. Despite the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic has been downgraded to epidemic status in many countries, the real number of infections is unknown, particularly in low-income countries. However, precision shielding is used in COVID-19 management, and requires estimates of mass infection in key groups. As a result, rapid tests for the virus could be a useful screening tool for asymptomatic virus shedders who are about to come into contact with sensitive groups. In Africa and other low- and middle-income countries there is high rate of COVID-19 under-diagnosis, due to the high cost of molecular assays. Exploring alternate assays to the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for COVID-19 diagnosis is highly warranted.

AIM

This review explored the feasibility of using alternate molecular, rapid antigen, and serological diagnostic assays to accurately and precisely diagnose COVID-19 in African populations, and to mitigate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR diagnostic challenges in Africa.

METHOD

We reviewed publications from internet sources and searched for appropriate documents available in English. This included Medline, Google Scholar, and Ajol. We included primary literature and some review articles that presented knowledge on the current trends on SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in Africa and globally.

RESULTS

Based on our analysis, we highlight the utility of four different alternatives to RT-PCR. These include two isothermal nucleic acid amplification assays (loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA)), rapid antigen testing, and antibody testing for tackling difficulties posed by SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing in Africa.

CONCLUSION

The economic burden associated COVID-19 mass testing by RT-PCR will be difficult for low-income nations to meet. We provide evidence for the utility and deployment of these alternate testing methods in Africa and other LMICs.

Current diagnostic approaches to detect two important betacoronaviruses: Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are two common betacoronaviruses, which are still causing transmission among the human population worldwide. The major difference between the two coronaviruses is that MERS-CoV is now causing sporadic transmission worldwide, whereas SARS-CoV-2 is causing a pandemic outbreak globally. Currently, different guidelines and reports have highlighted several diagnostic methods and approaches which could be used to screen and confirm MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections. These methods include clinical evaluation, laboratory diagnosis (nucleic acid-based test, protein-based test, or viral culture), and radiological diagnosis. With the presence of these different diagnostic approaches, it could cause a dilemma to the clinicians and diagnostic laboratories in selecting the best diagnostic strategies to confirm MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections. Therefore, this review aims to provide an up-to-date comparison of the advantages and limitations of different diagnostic approaches in detecting MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections. This review could provide insights for clinicians and scientists in detecting MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infections to help combat the transmission of these coronaviruses.