Correction: Tracking the incidence and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection using historical maternal booking serum samples.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273966.].

Rapid, Portable, and Electricity-free Sample Extraction Method for Enhanced Molecular Diagnostics in Resource-Limited Settings.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for rapid and reliable diagnostics that are accessible in resource-limited settings. To address this pressing issue, we have developed a rapid, portable, and electricity-free method for extracting nucleic acids from respiratory swabs (i.e. nasal, nasopharyngeal and buccal swabs), successfully demonstrating its effectiveness for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in residual clinical specimens. Unlike traditional approaches, our solution eliminates the need for micropipettes or electrical equipment, making it user-friendly and requiring little to no training. Our method builds upon the principles of magnetic bead extraction and revolves around a low-cost plastic magnetic lid, called SmartLid, in combination with a simple disposable kit containing all required reagents conveniently prealiquoted. Here, we clinically validated the SmartLid sample preparation method in comparison to the gold standard QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit from QIAGEN, using 406 clinical isolates, including 161 SARS-CoV-2 positives, using the SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assays developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The SmartLid method showed an overall sensitivity of 95.03% (95% CI: 90.44-97.83%) and a specificity of 99.59% (95% CI: 97.76-99.99%), with a positive agreement of 97.79% (95% CI: 95.84-98.98%) when compared to QIAGEN's column-based extraction method. There are clear benefits to using the SmartLid sample preparation kit: it enables swift extraction of viral nucleic acids, taking less than 5 min, without sacrificing significant accuracy when compared to more expensive and time-consuming alternatives currently available on the market. Moreover, its simplicity makes it particularly well-suited for the point-of-care where rapid results and portability are crucial. By providing an efficient and accessible means of nucleic acid extraction, our approach aims to introduce a step-change in diagnostic capabilities for resource-limited settings.

Reduced risk for Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection observed in older adults with hybrid immunity.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid SARS-CoV-2 immunity may provide longer duration protection against severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation than purely vaccine-derived immunity. Older adults represent a high-risk group for severe disease, yet available data is skewed towards younger adults. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal study at a large London long-term care facility (LTCF) was conducted from March 2020 to April 2022 to assess the effect of hybrid versus vaccine-only immunity on SARS-CoV-2 infection in older adults during Omicron variant dominance. Hybrid immunity was assessed by a combination of SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction testing weekly (asymptomatic screening) and as required (symptomatic testing), as well as serial SARS-CoV-2 serology. RESULTS: 280 participants (median age 82 yrs, IQR 76-88 yrs; 95.4% male) were followed up. 168/280 (60%) had evidence of hybrid immunity prior to the Omicron variant wave. Participants with hybrid immunity had substantially lower odds of acquiring COVID-19 infection during the Omicron wave compared to those with vaccine-only immunity (unadjusted odds ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.14-0.47, chi-squared P < .0001). Participants with hybrid immunity had an odds ratio of 0.40 (0.19-0.79) for asymptomatic infection and 0.15 (0.06-0.34) for symptomatic infection (Likelihood ratio test, P < .0001). DISCUSSION: Our data highlight potential opportunities to target ongoing booster vaccination campaigns for those most at risk of severe infection. Reporting of data in older adults will be of particular value to examine the effect of hybrid immunity as new variants continue to emerge and vaccination strategies evolve.

Hybrid immunity in older adults is associated with reduced SARS-CoV-2 infections following BNT162b2 COVID-19 immunisation.

BACKGROUND: Older adults, particularly in long-term care facilities (LTCF), remain at considerable risk from SARS-CoV-2. Data on the protective effect and mechanisms of hybrid immunity are skewed towards young adults precluding targeted vaccination strategies. METHODS: A single-centre longitudinal seroprevalence vaccine response study was conducted with 280 LCTF participants (median 82 yrs, IQR 76-88 yrs; 95.4% male). Screening by SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction with weekly asymptomatic/symptomatic testing (March 2020-October 2021) and serology pre-/post-two-dose Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccination for (i) anti-nucleocapsid, (ii) quantified anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies at three time-intervals, (iii) pseudovirus neutralisation, and (iv) inhibition by anti-RBD competitive ELISA were conducted. Neutralisation activity: antibody titre relationship was assessed via beta linear-log regression and RBD antibody-binding inhibition: post-vaccine infection relationship by Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Here we show neutralising antibody titres are 9.2-fold (95% CI 5.8-14.5) higher associated with hybrid immunity (p < 0.00001); +7.5-fold (95% CI 4.6-12.1) with asymptomatic infection; +20.3-fold, 95% (CI 9.7-42.5) with symptomatic infection. A strong association is observed between antibody titre: neutralising activity (p < 0.00001) and rising anti-RBD antibody titre: RBD antibody-binding inhibition (p < 0.001), although 18/169 (10.7%) participants with high anti-RBD titre (>100BAU/ml), show inhibition <75%. Higher RBD antibody-binding inhibition values are associated with hybrid immunity and reduced likelihood of infection (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid immunity in older adults was associated with considerably higher antibody titres, neutralisation and inhibition capacity. Instances of high anti-RBD titre with lower inhibition suggests antibody quantity and quality as independent potential correlates of protection, highlighting added value of measuring inhibition over antibody titre alone to inform vaccine strategy.

Older adults continue to be at risk of COVID-19, particularly in residential care home settings. We investigated the effect of infection and vaccination on antibody development and subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection in older adults. Antibodies are proteins that the immune system produces on infection or vaccination that can help respond to subsequent infection with SARS-CoV-2. We found that older adults produce antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 after 2-doses of Pfizer BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine. The strongest immune responses were seen among those older adults who also had prior history of infection. The results highlight the importance of both antibody quality and quantity when considering possible indicators of protection against COVID-19 and supports the need for a third, booster, vaccination in this age group..

Characterization of Rare Spontaneous Human Immunodeficiency Virus Viral Controllers Attending a National United Kingdom Clinical Service Using a Combination of Serology and Molecular Diagnostic Assays.

Background: We report outcomes and novel characterization of a unique cohort of 42 individuals with persistently indeterminate human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, the majority of whom are HIV viral controllers. Methods: Eligible individuals had indeterminate or positive HIV serology, but persistently undetectable HIV ribonucleic acid (RNA) by commercial assays and were not taking antiretroviral therapy (ART). Routine investigations included HIV Western blot, HIV viral load, qualitative HIV-1 deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), coinfection screen, and T-cell quantification. Research assays included T-cell activation, ART measurement, single-copy assays detecting HIV-1 RNA and DNA, and plasma cytokine quantification. Human immunodeficiency virus seropositivity was defined as ≥3 bands on Western blot; molecular positivity was defined as detection of HIV RNA or DNA. Results: Human immunodeficiency virus infection was excluded in 10 of 42 referrals, remained unconfirmed in 2 of 42, and was confirmed in 30 of 42, who were identified as HIV elite controllers (ECs), normal CD4 T-cell counts (median 820/mL, range 805-1336), and normal CD4/CD8 ratio (median 1.8, range 1.2-1.9). Elite controllers had a median duration of elite control of 6 years (interquartile range = 4-14). Antiretroviral therapy was undetected in all 23 subjects tested. Two distinct categories of ECs were identified: molecular positive (n = 20) and molecular negative (n = 10). Conclusions: Human immunodeficiency virus status was resolved for 95% of referrals with the majority diagnosed as EC. The clinical significance of the 2 molecular categories among ECs requires further investigation.

Use of cidofovir in a patient with severe mpox and uncontrolled HIV infection.

A 48-year-old man with poorly controlled HIV presented with severe human monkeypox virus (hMPXV) infection, having completed 2 weeks of tecovirimat at another hospital. He had painful, ulcerating skin lesions on most of his body and oropharyngeal cavity, with subsequent Ludwig's angina requiring repeated surgical interventions. Despite commencing a second, prolonged course of tecovirimat, he did not objectively improve, and new lesions were still noted at day 24. Discussion at the UK National Health Service England High Consequence Infectious Diseases Network recommended the use of 3% topical and then intravenous cidofovir, which was given at 5 mg/kg; the patient made a noticeable improvement after the first intravenous dose. He received further intravenous doses at 7 days and 21 days after the dose and was discharged at day 52. Cidofovir is not licensed for use in treatment of hMPXV infection. Data for cidofovir use in hMPXV are restricted to studies in animals. Four other documented cases of cidofovir use against hMPXV have been reported in the USA in 2022, but we present its first use in the UK. The scarcity of studies into the use of cidofovir in this condition clearly shows the need for robust studies to assess efficacy, optimum dosage, timing, and route of administration.

Third primary SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines enhance antibody responses in most patients with haematological malignancies.

SARS-CoV-2 infection, and resulting disease, COVID-19, has a high mortality amongst patients with haematological malignancies. Global vaccine rollouts have reduced hospitalisations and deaths, but vaccine efficacy in patients with haematological malignancies is known to be reduced. The UK-strategy offered a third, mRNA-based, vaccine as an extension to the primary course in these patients. The MARCH database is a retrospective observational study of serological responses in patients with blood disorders. Here we present data on 381 patients with haematological malignancies. By comparison with healthy controls, we report suboptimal responses following two primary vaccines, with significantly enhanced responses following the third primary dose. These responses however are heterogeneous and determined by haematological malignancy sub-type and therapy. We identify a group of patients with continued suboptimal vaccine responses who may benefit from additional doses, prophylactic extended half-life neutralising monoclonal therapies (nMAB) or prompt nMAB treatment in the event of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Early identification of high-risk individuals for monoclonal antibody therapy and prophylaxis is feasible by SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody specific lateral flow assay.

Monoclonal antibody therapy has been approved for prophylaxis and treatment of severe COVID-19 infection. Greatest benefit appears limited to those yet to mount an effective immune response from natural infection or vaccination, but concern exists around ability to make timely assessment of immune status of community-based patients where laboratory-based serodiagnostics predominate. Participants were invited to undergo paired laboratory-based (Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG Quant II chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay) and lateral flow assays (LFA; a split SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG and total antibody test) able to detect SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibodies. LFA band strength was compared with CMIA titer by log-linear regression. Two hundred individuals (median age 43.5 years, IQR 30-59; 60.5% female) underwent testing, with a further 100 control sera tested. Both LFA band strengths correlated strongly with CMIA antibody titers (P < 0.001). LFAs have the potential to assist in early identification of seronegative patients who may demonstrate the greatest benefit from monoclonal antibody treatment.

Tracking the incidence and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection using historical maternal booking serum samples.

The early transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK are unknown but their investigation is critical to aid future pandemic planning. We tested over 11,000 anonymised, stored historic antenatal serum samples, given at two north-west London NHS trusts in 2019 and 2020, for total antibody to SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (anti-RBD). Estimated prevalence of seroreactivity increased from 1% prior to mid-February 2020 to 17% in September 2020. Our results show higher prevalence of seroreactivity to SARS-CoV-2 in younger, non-white ethnicity, and more deprived groups. We found no significant interaction between the effects of ethnicity and deprivation. Derived from prevalence, the estimated incidence of seroreactivity reflects the trends observed in daily hospitalisations and deaths in London that followed 10 and 13 days later, respectively. We quantified community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in London, which peaked in late March / early April 2020 with no evidence of community transmission until after January 2020. Our study was not able to determine the date of introduction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus but demonstrates the value of stored antenatal serum samples as a resource for serosurveillance during future outbreaks.

Clinical and survival differences during separate COVID-19 surges: Investigating the impact of the Sars-CoV-2 alpha variant in critical care patients.

A number of studies have highlighted physiological data from the first surge in critically unwell Covid-19 patients but there is a paucity of data describing emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2, such as B.1.1.7. We compared ventilatory parameters, biochemical and physiological data and mortality between the first and second COVID-19 surges in the United Kingdom, where distinct variants of SARS-CoV-2 were the dominant stain. We performed a retrospective cohort study investigating critically unwell patients admitted with COVID-19 across three tertiary regional ICUs in London, UK. Of 1782 adult ICU patients screened, 330 intubated and ventilated patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were included. In the second wave where B.1.1.7 variant was the dominant strain, patients were had increased severity of ARDS whilst compliance was greater (p<0.05) and d-dimer lower. The 28-day mortality was not statistically significant (1st wave: 42.2% vs 2nd wave: 39.8%). However, when adjusted for key covariates, the hazard ratio for 28-day mortality in those patients with B.1.1.7 was 3.79 (CI 1.04-13.8; p = 0.043) compared to the original strain. During the second surge in the UK, where the COVID-19 variant B.1.1.7 was most prevalent, significantly more patients presented to critical care with severe ARDS. Furthermore, mortality risk was significantly greater in our ICU population during the second wave of the pandemic in those patients with B.1.1.7. As ICUs are experiencing further waves (particularly by the delta (B.1.617.2) variant), we highlight the urgent need for prospective studies describing immunological and pathophysiological differences across novel emerging variants.

Variability in detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses following mild infection: a prospective multicentre cross-sectional study, London, United Kingdom, 17 April to 17 July 2020.

IntroductionImmunoassays targeting different SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies are employed for seroprevalence studies. The degree of variability between immunoassays targeting anti-nucleocapsid (anti-NP; the majority) vs the potentially neutralising anti-spike antibodies (including anti-receptor-binding domain; anti-RBD), particularly in mild or asymptomatic disease, remains unclear.AimsWe aimed to explore variability in anti-NP and anti-RBD antibody detectability following mild symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and analyse antibody response for correlation with symptomatology.MethodsA multicentre prospective cross-sectional study was undertaken (April-July 2020). Paired serum samples were tested for anti-NP and anti-RBD IgG antibodies and reactivity expressed as binding ratios (BR). Multivariate linear regression was performed analysing age, sex, time since onset, symptomatology, anti-NP and anti-RBD antibody BR.ResultsWe included 906 adults. Antibody results (793/906; 87.5%; 95% confidence interval: 85.2-89.6) and BR strongly correlated (ρ = 0.75). PCR-confirmed cases were more frequently identified by anti-RBD (129/130) than anti-NP (123/130). Anti-RBD testing identified 83 of 325 (25.5%) cases otherwise reported as negative for anti-NP. Anti-NP presence (+1.75/unit increase; p < 0.001), fever (≥ 38°C; +1.81; p < 0.001) or anosmia (+1.91; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with increased anti-RBD BR. Age (p = 0.85), sex (p = 0.28) and cough (p = 0.35) were not. When time since symptom onset was considered, we did not observe a significant change in anti-RBD BR (p = 0.95) but did note decreasing anti-NP BR (p < 0.001).ConclusionSARS-CoV-2 anti-RBD IgG showed significant correlation with anti-NP IgG for absolute seroconversion and BR. Higher BR were seen in symptomatic individuals, particularly those with fever. Inter-assay variability (12.5%) was evident and raises considerations for optimising seroprevalence testing strategies/studies.

Detection and quantification of antibody to SARS CoV 2 receptor binding domain provides enhanced sensitivity, specificity and utility.

Accurate and sensitive detection of antibody to SARS-CoV-2 remains an essential component of the pandemic response. Measuring antibody that predicts neutralising activity and the vaccine response is an absolute requirement for laboratory-based confirmatory and reference activity. The viral receptor binding domain (RBD) constitutes the prime target antigen for neutralising antibody. A double antigen binding assay (DABA), providing the most sensitive format has been exploited in a novel hybrid manner employing a solid-phase S1 preferentially presenting RBD, coupled with a labelled RBD conjugate, used in a two-step sequential assay for detection and measurement of antibody to RBD (anti-RBD). This class and species neutral assay showed a specificity of 100 % on 825 pre COVID-19 samples and a potential sensitivity of 99.6 % on 276 recovery samples, predicting quantitatively the presence of neutralising antibody determined by pseudo-type neutralization and by plaque reduction. Anti-RBD is also measurable in ferrets immunised with ChadOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and in humans immunised with both AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines. This assay detects anti-RBD at presentation with illness, demonstrates its elevation with disease severity, its sequel to asymptomatic infection and its persistence after the loss of antibody to the nucleoprotein (anti-NP). It also provides serological confirmation of prior infection and offers a secure measure for seroprevalence and studies of vaccine immunisation in human and animal populations. The hybrid DABA also displays the attributes necessary for the detection and quantification of anti-RBD to be used in clinical practice. An absence of detectable anti-RBD by this assay predicates the need for passive immune prophylaxis in at-risk patients.

Rapid design and implementation of an adaptive pooling workflow for SARS-CoV-2 testing in an NHS diagnostic laboratory: a proof-of-concept study.

Background: Diagnostic laboratories are currently required to provide routine testing of asymptomatic staff and patients as a part of their clinical screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, these cohorts display very different disease prevalence from symptomatic individuals and testing capacity for asymptomatic screening is often limited. Group testing is frequently proposed as a possible solution to address this; however, proposals neglect the technical and operational feasibility of implementation in a front-line diagnostic laboratory. Methods: Between October and December 2020, as a seven-week proof of concept, we took into account scientific, technical and operational feasibility to design and implement an adaptive pooling strategy in an NHS diagnostic laboratory in London (UK). We assessed the impact of pooling on analytical sensitivity and modelled the impact of prevalence on pooling strategy. We then considered the operational constraints to model the potential gains in capacity and the requirements for additional staff and infrastructure. Finally, we developed a LIMS-agnostic laboratory automation workflow and software solution and tested the technical feasibility of our adaptive pooling workflow. Results: First, we determined the analytical sensitivity of the implemented SARS-CoV-2 assay to be 250 copies/mL. We then determined that, in a setting with limited analyser capacity, the testing capacity could be increased by two-fold with pooling, however, in a setting with limited reagents, this could rise to a five-fold increase. These capacity increases could be realized with modest additional resource and staffing requirements whilst utilizing up to 76% fewer plastic consumables and 90% fewer reagents. Finally, we successfully implemented a plate-based pooling workflow and tested 920 patient samples using the reagents that would usually be required to process just 222 samples. Conclusions: Adaptive pooled testing is a scientifically, technically and operationally feasible solution to increase testing capacity in frontline NHS diagnostic laboratories.

The Alpha variant was not associated with excess nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection in a multi-centre UK hospital study.

OBJECTIVES: Recently emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants have been associated with an increased rate of transmission within the community. We sought to determine whether this also resulted in increased transmission within hospitals. METHODS: We collected viral sequences and epidemiological data of patients with community and healthcare associated SARS-CoV-2 infections, sampled from 16th November 2020 to 10th January 2021, from nine hospitals participating in the COG-UK HOCI study. Outbreaks were identified using ward information, lineage and pairwise genetic differences between viral sequences. RESULTS: Mixed effects logistic regression analysis of 4184 sequences showed healthcare-acquired infections were no more likely to be identified as the Alpha variant than community acquired infections. Nosocomial outbreaks were investigated based on overlapping ward stay and SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence similarity. There was no significant difference in the number of patients involved in outbreaks caused by the Alpha variant compared to outbreaks caused by other lineages. CONCLUSIONS: We find no evidence to support it causing more nosocomial transmission than previous lineages. This suggests that the stringent infection prevention measures already in place in UK hospitals contained the spread of the Alpha variant as effectively as other less transmissible lineages, providing reassurance of their efficacy against emerging variants of concern.

Development of a Multiplex Tandem PCR (MT-PCR) Assay for the Detection of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants.

The emergence of variants of SARS-CoV-2 has created challenges for the testing infrastructure. Although large-scale genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 has facilitated hospital and public health responses, access to sequencing facilities globally is variable and turnaround times can be significant, so there is a requirement for rapid and cost-effective alternatives. Applying a polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) approach enables rapid (<4 h) identification of SARS-CoV-2 lineages from nucleic acid extracts, through the presence or absence of a panel of defined of genomic polymorphisms. For example, the B.1.1.7 lineage ("UK", "Alpha", or "Kent" variant) is characterised by 23 mutations compared to the reference strain, and the most biologically significant of these are found in the S gene. We have developed a SARS-CoV-2 typing assay focused on five positions in the S gene (HV69/70, N501, K417, E484 and P681). This configuration can identify a range of variants, including all the "Variants of Concern" currently designated by national and international public health bodies. The panel has been evaluated using a range of clinical isolates and standardised control materials at four UK hospitals and shows excellent concordance with the known lineage information derived from full sequence analysis. The assay has a turnaround time of about three hours for a set of up to 24 samples and has been utilised to identify emerging variants in a clinical setting.

SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 is associated with greater disease severity among hospitalised women but not men: multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 has been associated with an increased rate of transmission and disease severity among subjects testing positive in the community. Its impact on hospitalised patients is less well documented. METHODS: We collected viral sequences and clinical data of patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 and hospital-onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs), sampled 16 November 2020 to 10 January 2021, from eight hospitals participating in the COG-UK-HOCI study. Associations between the variant and the outcomes of all-cause mortality and intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission were evaluated using mixed effects Cox models adjusted by age, sex, comorbidities, care home residence, pregnancy and ethnicity. FINDINGS: Sequences were obtained from 2341 inpatients (HOCI cases=786) and analysis of clinical outcomes was carried out in 2147 inpatients with all data available. The HR for mortality of B.1.1.7 compared with other lineages was 1.01 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.28, p=0.94) and for ITU admission was 1.01 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.37, p=0.96). Analysis of sex-specific effects of B.1.1.7 identified increased risk of mortality (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.78, p=0.096) and ITU admission (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.90, p=0.011) in females infected with the variant but not males (mortality HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10, p=0.177; ITU HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.04, p=0.086). INTERPRETATION: In common with smaller studies of patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2, we did not find an overall increase in mortality or ITU admission associated with B.1.1.7 compared with other lineages. However, women with B.1.1.7 may be at an increased risk of admission to intensive care and at modestly increased risk of mortality.

Humoral and T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients receiving immunosuppression.

OBJECTIVE: There is an urgent need to assess the impact of immunosuppressive therapies on the immunogenicity and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: Serological and T-cell ELISpot assays were used to assess the response to first-dose and second-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (with either BNT162b2 mRNA or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines) in 140 participants receiving immunosuppression for autoimmune rheumatic and glomerular diseases. RESULTS: Following first-dose vaccine, 28.6% (34/119) of infection-naïve participants seroconverted and 26.0% (13/50) had detectable T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2. Immune responses were augmented by second-dose vaccine, increasing seroconversion and T-cell response rates to 59.3% (54/91) and 82.6% (38/46), respectively. B-cell depletion at the time of vaccination was associated with failure to seroconvert, and tacrolimus therapy was associated with diminished T-cell responses. Reassuringly, only 8.7% of infection-naïve patients had neither antibody nor T-cell responses detected following second-dose vaccine. In patients with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (19/140), all mounted high-titre antibody responses after first-dose vaccine, regardless of immunosuppressive therapy. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are immunogenic in patients receiving immunosuppression, when assessed by a combination of serology and cell-based assays, although the response is impaired compared with healthy individuals. B-cell depletion following rituximab impairs serological responses, but T-cell responses are preserved in this group. We suggest that repeat vaccine doses for serological non-responders should be investigated as means to induce more robust immunological response.