Humoral immunity in dually vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals and in booster-vaccinated COVID-19-convalescent subjects.

BACKGROUND: The immune response to COVID-19-vaccination differs between naïve vaccinees and those who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Longitudinal quantitative and qualitative serological differences in these two distinct immunological subgroups in response to vaccination are currently not well studied. METHODS: We investigate a cohort of SARS-CoV-2-naïve and COVID-19-convalescent individuals immediately after vaccination and 6 months later. We use different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) variants and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) to measure IgG serum titers, IgA serum reactivity, IgG serum avidity and neutralization capacity by ACE2 receptor competition. RESULTS: Anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody titers decline over time in dually vaccinated COVID-19 naïves whereas titers in single dose vaccinated COVID-19 convalescents are higher and more durable. Similarly, antibody avidity is considerably higher among boosted COVID-19 convalescent subjects as compared to dually vaccinated COVID-19-naïve subjects. Furthermore, sera from boosted convalescents inhibited the binding of spike-protein to ACE2 more efficiently than sera from dually vaccinated COVID-19-naïve subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term humoral immunity differs substantially between dually vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naïve and COVID-19-convalescent individuals. Booster vaccination after COVID-19 induces a more durable humoral immune response in terms of magnitude and quality as compared to two-dose vaccination in a SARS-CoV-2-naïve background.

Omicron's binding to sotrovimab, casirivimab, imdevimab, CR3022, and sera from previously infected or vaccinated individuals.

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron is the first pandemic variant of concern exhibiting an abrupt accumulation of mutations particularly in the receptor-binding domain that is a critical target of vaccination induced and therapeutic antibodies. Omicron's mutations did only marginally affect the binding of ACE2, and the two antibodies Sotrovimab and CR3022 but strongly impaired the binding of Casirivimab and Imdevimab. Moreover, as compared with Wuhan, there is reduced serum reactivity and a pronounced loss of competitive surrogate virus neutralization (sVN) against Omicron in naïve vaccinees and in COVID-19 convalescents after infection and subsequent vaccination. Finally, although the booster vaccination response conferred higher titers and better sVN, the effect was nonetheless significantly lower compared with responses against Wuhan. Overall, our data suggest that the antigenicity of Omicrons receptor binding motive has largely changed but antibodies such as Sotrovimab targeting other conserved sites maintain binding and therefore hold potential in prophylaxis and treatment of Omicron-induced COVID-19.

Immunity after COVID-19 and vaccination: follow-up study over 1 year among medical personnel.

BACKGROUND: The long-term course of immunity among individuals with a history of COVID-19, in particular among those who received a booster vaccination, has not been well defined so far. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody levels were measured by ELISA over 1 year among 136 health care workers infected during the first COVID-19 wave and in a subgroup after booster vaccination approximately 1 year later. Furthermore, spike-protein-reactive memory T cells were quantified approximately 7 months after the infection and after booster vaccination. Thirty healthy individuals without history of COVID-19 who were routinely vaccinated served as controls. RESULTS: Levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM- and IgA-antibodies showed a rapid decay over time, whereas IgG-antibody levels decreased more slowly. Among individuals with history of COVID-19, booster vaccination induced very high IgG- and to a lesser degree IgA-antibodies. Antibody levels were significantly higher after booster vaccination than after recovery from COVID-19. After vaccination with a two-dose schedule, healthy control subjects developed similar antibody levels as compared to individuals with history of COVID-19 and booster vaccination. SARS-CoV-2-specific memory T cell counts did not correlate with antibody levels. None of the study participants suffered from a reinfection. CONCLUSIONS: Booster vaccination induces high antibody levels in individuals with a history of COVID-19 that exceeds by far levels observed after recovery. SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody levels of similar magnitude were achieved in healthy, COVID-19-naïve individuals after routine two-dose vaccination.

SARS-CoV-2-directed antibodies persist for more than six months in a cohort with mild to moderate COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To follow serological immune responses of front-line healthcare workers after PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for a mean of 30 weeks, describe the time-course of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-specific IgG, IgA and IgM levels and to identify associations of the immune response with symptoms, demographic parameters and severity of disease. METHODS: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S protein-specific IgG, IgA and IgM antibodies were measured at three time points during the 30-week follow-up. COVID-19-specific symptoms were assessed with standardized questionnaires. RESULTS: 95% of the participants mounted an IgG response with only modest decline after week 12. IgG-type antibodies were still detectable in almost 90% of the subjects at 30 weeks. IgA and IgM responses were less robust and antibody titers decreased more rapidly. At 30 weeks, only 25% still had detectable IgA-type and none had IgM-type antibodies. Higher age and higher disease severity were independently associated with higher IgG antibody levels, albeit with wide variations. CONCLUSION: Serological immune responses after COVID-19 show considerable inter-individual variability, but show an association with increasing age and higher severity of disease. IgG-type anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies remain positive in 90% of the individuals 30 weeks after onset of symptoms.

Development and testing of an informative guide about palliative care for family caregivers of people with advanced dementia.

BACKGROUND: Since people with advanced dementia are usually not able to make complex decisions, it is usually the family caregivers, as proxies, who have to decide on treatments and their termination. However, these decisions are difficult for the caregivers to make, as they are often inadequately informed and cannot properly assess the consequences; moreover, they are concerned about harming the sick person. We aimed to first develop an informative booklet about palliative care issues for caregivers of people with advanced dementia. Secondly, we aimed to investigate a change in family caregivers' knowledge regarding palliative care issues and caregivers' involvement in medical and care decisions before and after studying this booklet. METHODS: A first version of the booklet was drafted by an experienced psychiatrist and palliative care specialist based on existing booklets and guidelines; necessary cultural adaptions were taken into consideration. A nominal group process was conducted to develop the informative guide. In order to investigate the acceptance of the booklet and the possibility to implement it, 38 patient-caregiver dyads were recruited, and caregivers were interviewed both before receiving the booklet and after 3 months of receiving the booklet. RESULTS: Experts from various disciplines collaborated on a German booklet for family caregivers of people with advanced dementia as an information aid regarding issues of palliative care. The subsequent test showed that all caregivers had experienced a personal benefit from the booklet. Caregivers had a significant gain of knowledge after provision of the booklet. A large proportion of caregivers who had not previously considered and/or discussed medical topics reported that they had done so within 3 months after obtaining the booklet, or planned to do so in the near future. CONCLUSIONS: The caregivers valued the comprehensible, concise and well-structured information guide on palliative care issues in advanced dementia. They agreed it increases knowledge and prompts decision making and therefore should be developed in many languages and disseminated among family caregivers of people with dementia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrial.gov, NCT03548142. Retrospectively registered 7 June 2018.