Evaluation of two anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassays for monitoring patients on pre-exposure prophylaxis

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is crucial to prevent severe COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients. A reliable method is needed to quantify anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels for personalized monitoring during PrEP. We measured the binding antibody concentrations of 63 immunocompromised patients receiving 300mg or 600mg tixagevimab/cilgavimab on PrEP day and twice during the following 3 months. All blood samples were tested using the Abbott anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay, the Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay, and live virus-based neutralization assays. The results of the two immunoassays were correlated on day 0, 1 month, and 3 months post-PrEP. Passing-Bablok regression demonstrated higher anti-S concentration values measured with the Roche immunoassay compared to those measured with the Abbott immunoassay. Antibody concentrations were higher after 600 mg tixagevimab/cilgavimab prophylaxis than after 300 mg. The neutralizing antibody titers obtained using the omicron BA.5 and BA.2.75 strains were low. Both automated immunoassays are suitable for monitoring immunocompromised patients on PrEP.

Weaker Effects of the Fourth Dose of BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine on the Elderly Human Population

The vaccines presently available are less effective in older people due to senescence of their immune systems. We measured the antibody responses of 42 adults living in nursing homes after the third and the fourth doses of an mRNA vaccine and found that the strain (BA.2 and BA.2.75: from 64 to 128, BA.5: from 16 to 32, BQ.1.1: from 16 to 64 among the uninfected) influenced the effect of the fourth dose of vaccine on neutralizing antibodies. The fourth dose also increased binding antibodies (from 1036 BAU/mL to 5371 BAU/mL among the uninfected, from 3700 BAU/mL to 6773 BAU/mL among the BA.5 infected). This effect was less significant than that of the third dose of vaccine for both neutralizing (BA.2: from 8 to 128, BA.5: from 2 to 16, BA.2.75: from 8 to 64, BQ.1.1: from 2 to 16) and binding antibodies (from 139.8 BAU/mL to 2293 BAU/mL). However, the fourth dose attained the 5000 BAU/mL threshold conferring approximately 80% protection against a SARS-CoV-2 BA.2 infection in most individuals, unlike the third.

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.

Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses of Solid Organ Transplant Patients on Belatacept to Three Doses of mRNA-Based Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

Background: Two doses of anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-based vaccines are poorly immunogenic in solid organ transplant recipients (SOT). Methods: In total, 68 belatacept-treated SOT recipients followed at the Toulouse University Hospital were investigated. They were given three injections of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Their humoral response was assessed by determining anti-spike antibodies and neutralizing antibodies. The T-cell responses were assessed using an enzyme-linked immunospot assay that measured the interferon-γ produced by specific SARS-CoV-2 T-cells in a subgroup of 17 patients. Results: Only 23.5% of these patients developed a detectable anti-spike response. Moreover, the cellular and the humoral responses were well correlated. Patients with no humoral response were also without a detectable cellular response. Those belatacept-treated patients who developed an Anti-SARS-CoV-2 humoral response were younger, had been transplanted for longer, and had a higher lymphocyte count and a better glomerular filtration rate than those with no response. Finally, patients on tacrolimus plus belatacept produced a lower immune response. Conclusions: Belatacept-treated SOT recipients have a reduced immune response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination. The vaccine should be given quite separately from the belatacept infusion to improve immunogenicity. Studies to assess whether switching to another immunosuppressive regimen can improve the post-vaccination immune response would be useful.