Durability of Humoral Responses after the Second Dose of mRNA BNT162b2 Vaccine in Residents of a Long Term Care Facility

An epidemiological survey of COVID-19 serology and its association with clinical infection among older adults- does antibody titer matter?

BACKGROUND

Older adults are at increased risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this study we assessed the response to COVID-19 vaccination and infection rates among nursing homes (NH) and assisted-living care home (ALCH) residents.

METHODS

The study was conducted between August 2021 and January 2022, after widespread population vaccination with the third dose of Pfizer-BioNtech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in Israel. Three groups were addressed: hospitalized older patients; NH and ALCH residents. Demographic data, COVID-19 serology (anti-spike IgG antibodies) and PCR test results were obtained to assess the dynamics of antibody titers and its correlation to infection rates.

RESULTS

Two-hundred eighty-five individuals were evaluated; 92 hospitalized patients; 100 ALCH residents and 93 NH residents. In the latter two groups two serology surveys were conducted three months apart. Hospitalized patients were younger than ALCH and NH residents (mean age 80.4 ± 8 versus 82.6 ± 8 and 83.6 ± 5, respectively, p = 0.01), and had more comorbidities (p = 0.003). The degree of decline in the antibody level overtime was similar in ALCH and NH residents. Infection rates were higher among NH residents than ALCH residents [35/91 (38.4%) versus 11/100 (11%), p < 0.001]. Antibody level was lower among those infected [2113 (1271-3512) Au/ml versus 4113 (3364-5029) Au/ml, p < 0.001]. Adjusted analysis showed that NH residence, but not antibody levels, were significantly associated with infection.

CONCLUSION

Among older adults, infection rates inversely correlated with antibody level. However, only nursing home residence was significantly associated with infection, suggesting that other factors such as crowding considerably contribute to the risk of infection.

Complement and COVID-19: Three years on, what we know, what we don't know, and what we ought to know

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus was identified in China in 2019 as the causative agent of COVID-19, and quickly spread throughout the world, causing over 7 million deaths, of which 2 million occurred prior to the introduction of the first vaccine. In the following discussion, while recognising that complement is just one of many players in COVID-19, we focus on the relationship between complement and COVID-19 disease, with limited digression into directly-related areas such as the relationship between complement, kinin release, and coagulation. Prior to the 2019 COVID-19 outbreak, an important role for complement in coronavirus diseases had been established. Subsequently, multiple investigations of patients with COVID-19 confirmed that complement dysregulation is likely to be a major driver of disease pathology, in some, if not all, patients. These data fuelled evaluation of many complement-directed therapeutic agents in small patient cohorts, with claims of significant beneficial effect. As yet, these early results have not been reflected in larger clinical trials, posing questions such as who to treat, appropriate time to treat, duration of treatment, and optimal target for treatment. While significant control of the pandemic has been achieved through a global scientific and medical effort to comprehend the etiology of the disease, through extensive SARS-CoV-2 testing and quarantine measures, through vaccine development, and through improved therapy, possibly aided by attenuation of the dominant strains, it is not yet over. In this review, we summarise complement-relevant literature, emphasise its main conclusions, and formulate a hypothesis for complement involvement in COVID-19. Based on this we make suggestions as to how any future outbreak might be better managed in order to minimise impact on patients.

Correlates of protection against COVID-19 infection and intensity of symptomatic disease in vaccinated individuals exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in households in Israel (ICoFS): a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Identifying COVID-19 correlates of protection and immunity thresholds is important for policy makers and vaccine development. We aimed to identify correlates of protection of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccination against COVID-19.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, households within a radius of 40 km of the Sheba Medical Center in Israel in which a new SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined as the index case) was detected within the previous 24 h were approached between July 25 and Nov 15, 2021. We included adults (aged >18 years) who had received one or two vaccine doses, had an initial negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR and no previous infection reported, and had a valid IgG and neutralising antibody result. The exposure of interest was baseline immune status, including IgG antibody concentration, neutralising antibody titre, and T-cell activation. The outcomes of interest were PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection between day 2 and day 21 of follow-up and intensity of disease symptoms (self-reported via a telephone questionnaire) among participants who had a confirmed infection. Multivariable logistic and ordered logit ordinal regressions were used for the adjusted analysis. To identify immunological thresholds for clinical protection, we estimated the conditional probability of infection and moderate or severe disease for individuals with pre-exposure IgG and neutralising antibody concentrations above each value observed in the study data.

FINDINGS

From 16 675 detected index cases in the study region, 5718 household members agreed to participate, 1461 of whom were eligible to be included in our study. 333 (22·8%) of 1461 household members who were not infected with SARS-CoV-2 at baseline were infected within 21 days of follow-up. The baseline (pre-exposure) IgG and neutralising antibodies were higher in participants who remained uninfected than in those who became infected (geometric mean IgG antibody concentration 168·2 binding antibody units [BAU] per mL [95% CI 158·3-178·7] vs 130·5 BAU/mL [118·3-143·8] and geometric mean neutralising antibody titre 197·5 [181·9-214·4] vs 136 ·7 [120·3-155·4]). Increasing IgG and neutralising antibody concentrations were also significantly associated with a reduced probability of increasing disease severity. Odds of infection were significantly reduced each time baseline IgG antibody concentration increased by a factor of ten (odds ratio [OR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·26-0·70]) and each time baseline neutralising antibody titre increased by a factor of two (0·82 [0·74-0·92]). In our cohort, the probability of infection if IgG antibody concentrations were higher than 500 BAU/mL was 11% and the probability of moderate disease severity was 1%; the probability of infection if neutralising antibody titres were above or equal to 1024 was 8% and the probability of moderate disease severity was 2%. T-cell activation rates were not significantly associated with reduced probability of infection (OR 1·04, 95% CI 0·83-1·30).

INTERPRETATION

Both IgG and neutralising antibodies are correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our data suggest that IgG concentrations higher than 500 BAU/mL and neutralising antibody titres of 1024 or more are thresholds for immunological protection from SARS-CoV-2 delta variant infection. Potentially, updated protective thresholds against emerging variants of concern could be calculated, which could support decision makers on administration of new vaccination strategies and on the optimal period between vaccine doses.

FUNDING

Israeli Ministry of Health.

A comparative study of the COVID-19 vaccine efficacy among cancer patients: mRNA versus non-mRNA

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients have an increased risk of a severe COVID-19 infection with higher mortality rate. This study aimed to analyze the levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG and NAB among cancer patients who were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines, either with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222/ChAdOx1nCoV-19, or Coronavac/BBIBP-CorV vaccines.

METHOD

A cross-sectional study was conducted among subjects with either solid or hematological cancers who had received two doses of either mRNA or non-mRNA vaccines within 6 months. The levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG and NAb were analyzed using the Mindray Immunoassay Analyzer CL-900i. Statistical analysis was conducted using mean comparison and regression analysis.

RESULT

The mRNA-1273 vaccine had the highest median levels of S-RBD IgG and NAb, followed by BNT162b, ChAdOx1nCoV-19, and BBIBP-CorV/Coronavac. The levels of S-RBD IgG and NAb in subjects vaccinated with mRNA vaccines were significantly higher than those of non-mRNA vaccines when grouped based on their characteristics, including age, type of cancer, chemotherapy regimen, and comorbidity (p<0.05). Furthermore, the S-RBD IgG and NAb levels between the subjects vaccinated with non-mRNA vaccines and the subjects vaccinated with mRNA vaccines were significantly different (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the same types of vaccines. This study demonstrated a very strong correlation between the level of S-RBD IgG and the level of NAb (R = 0.962; p<0.001). The level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG was consistently higher compared to the level of NAb.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, mRNA vaccines produced significantly higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG and NAb levels than non-mRNA vaccines in cancer subjects.

Evaluation of post-vaccination immunoglobulin G antibodies and T-cell immune response after inoculation with different types and doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: A retrospective cohort study

Introduction

The induction and speed of production of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) immune biomarkers may vary by type and number of inoculated vaccine doses. This study aimed to explore variations in SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike (anti-S), anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N), and neutralizing immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies, and T-cell response by type and number of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses received.

Methods

In a naturally exposed and SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated population, we quantified the anti-S, anti-N, and neutralizing IgG antibody concentration and assessed T-cell response. Data on socio-demographics, medical history, and history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination were collected. Furthermore, nasal swabs were collected to test for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Confounder-adjusted association between having equal or more than a median concentration of the three IgG antibodies and T-cell response by number and type of the inoculated vaccines was quantified.

Results

We surveyed 952 male participants with a mean age of 35.5 years ± 8.4 standard deviations. Of them, 52.6% were overweight/obese, and 11.7% had at least one chronic comorbidity. Of the participants, 1.4, 0.9, 20.2, 75.2, and 2.2% were never vaccinated, primed with only one dose, primed with two doses, boosted with only one dose, and boosted with two doses, respectively. All were polymerase chain reaction-negative to SARS-CoV-2. BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm) was the most commonly used vaccine (92.1%), followed by rAd26-S + rAd5-S (Sputnik V Gam-COVID-Vac) (1.5%) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) (0.3%). Seropositivity to anti-S, anti-N, and neutralizing IgG antibodies was detected in 99.7, 99.9, and 99.3% of the study participants, respectively. The T-cell response was detected in 38.2% of 925 study participants. Every additional vaccine dose was significantly associated with increased odds of having ≥median concentration of anti-S [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.76], anti-N (aOR, 1.35; 95% CI: 1.03-1.75), neutralizing IgG antibodies (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI: 1.00-1.66), and a T-cell response (aOR, 1.48; 95% CI: 1.12-1.95). Compared with boosting with only one dose, boosting with two doses was significantly associated with increased odds of having ≥median concentration of anti-S (aOR, 13.8; 95% CI: 1.78-106.5), neutralizing IgG antibodies (aOR, 13.2; 95% CI: 1.71-101.9), and T-cell response (aOR, 7.22; 95% CI: 1.99-26.5) although not with anti-N (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI: 0.16-1.08). Compared with priming and subsequently boosting with BBIBP-CorV, all participants who were primed with BBIBP-CorV and subsequently boosted with BNT162b2 had ≥median concentration of anti-S and neutralizing IgG antibodies and 14.6-time increased odds of having a T-cell response (aOR, 14.63; 95% CI: 1.78-120.5). Compared with priming with two doses, boosting with the third dose was not associated, whereas boosting with two doses was significantly associated with having ≥median concentration of anti-S (aOR, 14.20; 95% CI: 1.85-109.4), neutralizing IgG (aOR, 13.6; 95% CI: 1.77-104.3), and T-cell response (aOR, 7.62; 95% CI: 2.09-27.8).

Conclusion

Achieving and maintaining a high blood concentration of protective immune biomarkers that predict vaccine effectiveness is very critical to limit transmission and contain outbreaks. In this study, boosting with only one dose or with only BBIBP-CorV after priming with BBIBP-CorV was insufficient, whereas boosting with two doses, particularly boosting with the mRNA-based vaccine, was shown to be associated with having a high concentration of anti-S, anti-N, and neutralizing IgG antibodies and producing an efficient T-cell response.

Favipiravir in Patients With Early Mild-to-moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Despite vaccination, many remain vulnerable to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its complications. Oral antivirals to prevent COVID-19 progression are vital. Based on perceived potency and clinical efficacy, favipiravir is widely used to treat COVID-19. Evidence from large randomized controlled trials (RCT) is lacking.

METHODS

In this multicenter double-blinded placebo-controlled RCT, adults with early mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were 1:1 randomized to favipiravir or placebo. The study evaluated time to sustained clinical recovery (TT-SCR), COVID-19 progression, and cessation of viral shedding.

RESULTS

Of 1187 analyzed patients across 40 centers, 83.3% were Hispanic, 89.0% unvaccinated, 70.3% severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seronegative, and 77.8% had risk factors for COVID-19 progression. The median time from symptom presentation and from positive test to randomization was 3 and 2 days, respectively. There was no difference in TT-SCR (median of 7 days for both groups; P = .80), COVID-19 progression [11 patients each (1.9% vs 1.8%); P = .96], time to undetectable virus (median = 6 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] [6-8] vs 7 days, 95% CI [6-9]), or in undetectable virus by end of therapy (73.4% vs 72.3%; P = .94). Outcomes were consistent across the analyzed sub-groups. Adverse events were observed in 13.8% and 14.8% of favipiravir-treated and placebo-treated subjects, respectively. Uric acid elevation was more frequent among favipiravir-treated subjects (19.9% vs 2.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Favipiravir was well tolerated but lacked efficacy in TT-SCR, progression to severe COVID-19, or cessation of viral shedding and should not be used to treat patients with COVID-19. (Supported by Appili Therapeutics).

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04600895.

Humoral Response after Three Doses of mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines in Hemodialysis Patients

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be a worldwide health issue. Among hemodialysis (HD) patients, two-dose immunization schemes with mRNA vaccines have contributed to preventing severe COVID-19 cases; however, some have not produced a sufficient humoral response, and most have developed a rapid decline in antibody levels over the months following vaccination. This observational, prospective, multi-center study evaluated the humoral response in terms of presence and levels of IgG antibodies to the receptor-binding domain of the S1 spike antigen of SARS-CoV-2 (anti-S1-RBD IgG) to the third dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, either the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer), in 153 patients from three dialysis units affiliated to Hospital Clínic of Barcelona (Spain). Most hemodialysis patients responded intensely to this third vaccine dose, achieving the seroconversion in three out of four non- or weak responders to two doses. Moreover, 96.1% maintained the upper limit or generated higher titers than after the second. BNT162b2 vaccine, active cancer, and immunosuppressive treatment were related to a worse humoral response. Every hemodialysis patient should be administered a third vaccine dose six months after receiving the second one. Despite the lack of data, immunosuppressed patients and those with active cancer may benefit from more frequent vaccine boosters.