SARS-CoV-2-Specific Antibody (Ab) Levels and the Kinetic of Ab Decline Determine Ab Persistence Over 1 Year

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: The Advantage of Mucosal Vaccine Delivery and Local Immunity

Immunity against respiratory pathogens is often short-term, and, consequently, there is an unmet need for the effective prevention of such infections. One such infectious disease is coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), which is caused by the novel Beta coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 that emerged around the end of 2019. The World Health Organization declared the illness a pandemic on 11 March 2020, and since then it has killed or sickened millions of people globally. The development of COVID-19 systemic vaccines, which impressively led to a significant reduction in disease severity, hospitalization, and mortality, contained the pandemic's expansion. However, these vaccines have not been able to stop the virus from spreading because of the restricted development of mucosal immunity. As a result, breakthrough infections have frequently occurred, and new strains of the virus have been emerging. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 will likely continue to circulate and, like the influenza virus, co-exist with humans. The upper respiratory tract and nasal cavity are the primary sites of SARS-CoV-2 infection and, thus, a mucosal/nasal vaccination to induce a mucosal response and stop the virus' transmission is warranted. In this review, we present the status of the systemic vaccines, both the approved mucosal vaccines and those under evaluation in clinical trials. Furthermore, we present our approach of a B-cell peptide-based vaccination applied by a prime-boost schedule to elicit both systemic and mucosal immunity.

Titers of IgG and IgA against SARS-CoV-2 proteins and their association with symptoms in mild COVID-19 infection

Humoral immunity in COVID-19 includes antibodies (Abs) targeting spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Antibody levels are known to correlate with disease severity, but titers are poorly reported in mild or asymptomatic cases. Here, we analyzed the titers of IgA and IgG against SARS-CoV-2 proteins in samples from 200 unvaccinated Hospital Workers (HWs) with mild COVID-19 at two time points after infection. We analyzed the relationship between Ab titers and patient characteristics, clinical features, and evolution over time. Significant differences in IgG and IgA titers against N, S1 and S2 proteins were found when samples were segregated according to time T1 after infection, seroprevalence at T1, sex and age of HWs and symptoms at infection. We found that IgM + samples had higher titers of IgG against N antigen and IgA against S1 and S2 antigens than IgM - samples. There were significant correlations between anti-S1 and S2 Abs. Interestingly, IgM + patients with dyspnea had lower titers of IgG and IgA against N, S1 and S2 than those without dyspnea. Comparing T1 and T2, we found that IgA against N, S1 and S2 but only IgG against certain Ag decreased significantly. In conclusion, an association was established between Ab titers and the development of infection symptoms.

Importance, Applications and Features of Assays Measuring SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies

More than three years ago, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused the unforeseen COVID-19 pandemic with millions of deaths. In the meantime, SARS-CoV-2 has become endemic and is now part of the repertoire of viruses causing seasonal severe respiratory infections. Due to several factors, among them the development of SARS-CoV-2 immunity through natural infection, vaccination and the current dominance of seemingly less pathogenic strains belonging to the omicron lineage, the COVID-19 situation has stabilized. However, several challenges remain and the possible new occurrence of highly pathogenic variants remains a threat. Here we review the development, features and importance of assays measuring SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). In particular we focus on in vitro infection assays and molecular interaction assays studying the binding of the receptor binding domain (RBD) with its cognate cellular receptor ACE2. These assays, but not the measurement of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies per se, can inform us of whether antibodies produced by convalescent or vaccinated subjects may protect against the infection and thus have the potential to predict the risk of becoming newly infected. This information is extremely important given the fact that a considerable number of subjects, in particular vulnerable persons, respond poorly to the vaccination with the production of neutralizing antibodies. Furthermore, these assays allow to determine and evaluate the virus-neutralizing capacity of antibodies induced by vaccines and administration of plasma-, immunoglobulin preparations, monoclonal antibodies, ACE2 variants or synthetic compounds to be used for therapy of COVID-19 and assist in the preclinical evaluation of vaccines. Both types of assays can be relatively quickly adapted to newly emerging virus variants to inform us about the magnitude of cross-neutralization, which may even allow us to estimate the risk of becoming infected by newly appearing virus variants. Given the paramount importance of the infection and interaction assays we discuss their specific features, possible advantages and disadvantages, technical aspects and not yet fully resolved issues, such as cut-off levels predicting the degree of in vivo protection.

Anti-spike IgG antibody kinetics following the second and third doses of BNT162b2 vaccine in nursing home residents

Background

Duration of post‐vaccination protection against COVID‐19 in nursing home (NH) residents is a critical issue. The objective of this study was to estimate the duration of the IgG(S) response to the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine in NH residents with (COV‐Yes) or without (COV‐No) history of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.

Methods

A 574 COV‐Yes and COV‐No NH residents were included in 2 cohorts: Main (n = 115, median age 87 years) or Confirmatory (n = 459, median age 89 years). IgG(S) quantification was carried out at three different time points following the BNT162b2 vaccine: three (1st) and seven (2nd) months after the 2nd dose, and 1 month after the 3rd dose (3rd quantification) in the Main cohort, and twice (2nd and 3rd) in the Confirmatory cohort. The seroneutralization capacity according to COVID‐19 history was also measured in a subgroup of patients.

Results

Neutralization capacity was strongly correlated with IgG(S) levels (R²:76%) without any difference between COV‐Yes and COV‐No groups for the same levels of IgG(S). After the 2nd dose, duration of the assumed robust protection (IgG(S) >264 BAU/ml) was two‐fold higher in the COV‐Yes vs. COV‐No group: 12.60 (10.69–14.44) versus 5.76 (3.91–8.64) months, with this advantage mainly due to the higher IgG(S) titers after the 2nd dose and secondary to a slower decay over time. After the 3rd dose, duration of robust protection was estimated at 11.87 (9.88–14.87) (COV‐Yes) and 8.95 (6.85–11.04) (COV‐No) months. These results were similar in both cohorts.

Conclusions and Relevance

In old subjects living in NH, history of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection provides a clear advantage in the magnitude and duration of high IgG(S) titers following the 2nd dose. Importantly, the 3rd dose induces a much more pronounced IgG(S) response than the 2nd dose in COV‐No subjects, the effect of which should be able to ensure a prolonged protection against severe forms of COVID‐19 in these subjects.