RESUMEN
BackgroundT cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following infection and vaccination are less characterised than antibody responses, due to a more complex experimental pathway. MethodsWe measured T cell responses in 108 healthcare workers (HCWs) in an observational cohort study, using the commercialised Oxford Immunotec T-SPOT Discovery SARS-CoV-2 assay (OI T-SPOT) and the PITCH ELISpot protocol established for academic research settings. ResultsBoth assays detected T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike, membrane and nucleocapsid proteins. Responses were significantly lower when reported by OI T-SPOT than by PITCH ELISpot. Four weeks after two doses of either Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 AZD1222 vaccine, the responder rate was 63% for OI T-SPOT Panels1+2 (peptides representing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein excluding regions present in seasonal coronaviruses), 69% for OI T-SPOT Panel 14 (peptides representing the entire SARS-CoV-2 spike), and 94% for the PITCH ELISpot assay. The two OI T-SPOT panels correlated strongly with each other showing that either readout quantifies spike-specific T cell responses, although the correlation between the OI T-SPOT panels and the PITCH ELISpot was moderate. ConclusionThe standardisation, relative scalability and longer interval between blood acquisition and processing are advantages of the commercial OI T-SPOT assay. However, the OI T-SPOT assay measures T cell responses at a significantly lower magnitude compared to the PITCH ELISpot assay, detecting T cell responses in a lower proportion of vaccinees. This has implications for the reporting of low-level T cell responses that may be observed in patient populations and for the assessment of T cell durability after vaccination.
RESUMEN
ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. DesignProspective cohort study. SettingThe UK population-representative longitudinal COVID-19 Infection Survey. Participants373,402 participants aged [≥]16 years contributing 1,610,562 RT-PCR results from nose and throat swabs between 1 December 2020 and 3 April 2021. Main outcome measuresNew RT-PCR-positive episodes for SARS-CoV-2 overall, by self-reported symptoms, by cycle threshold (Ct) value (<30 versus [≥]30), and by gene positivity (compatible with the B.1.1.7 variant versus not). ResultsOdds of new SARS-CoV-2 infection were reduced 65% (95% CI 60 to 70%; P<0.001) in those [≥]21 days since first vaccination with no second dose versus unvaccinated individuals without evidence of prior infection (RT-PCR or antibody). In those vaccinated, the largest reduction in odds was seen post second dose (70%, 95% CI 62 to 77%; P<0.001).There was no evidence that these benefits varied between Oxford-AstraZeneca and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines (P>0.9).There was no evidence of a difference in odds of new SARS-CoV-2 infection for individuals having received two vaccine doses and with evidence of prior infection but not vaccinated (P=0.89). Vaccination had a greater impact on reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections with evidence of high viral shedding Ct<30 (88% reduction after two doses; 95% CI 80 to 93%; P<0.001) and with self-reported symptoms (90% reduction after two doses; 95% CI 82 to 94%; P<0.001); effects were similar for different gene positivity patterns. ConclusionVaccination with a single dose of Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, or two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech, significantly reduced new SARS-CoV-2 infections in this large community surveillance study. Greater reductions in symptomatic infections and/or infections with a higher viral burden are reflected in reduced rates of hospitalisations/deaths, but highlight the potential for limited ongoing transmission from asymptomatic infections in vaccinated individuals. RegistrationThe study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21086382.
RESUMEN
BackgroundSerological tests are widely used in various medical disciplines for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. Unfortunately, the sensitivity and specificity of test systems is often poor, leaving room for false positive and false negative results. However, conventional methods used to increase specificity decrease sensitivity and vice versa. Using SARS-CoV-2 serology as an example, we propose here a novel testing strategy: the "Sensitivity Improved Two-Test" or " SIT2" algorithm. MethodsSIT2 involves confirmatory re-testing of samples with results falling in a predefined retesting-zone of an initial screening test, with adjusted cut-offs to increase sensitivity. We verified and compared the performance of SIT2 to single tests and orthogonal testing (OTA) in an Austrian cohort (1,117 negative, 64 post-COVID positive samples) and validated the algorithm in an independent British cohort (976 negatives, 536 positives). ResultsThe specificity of SIT2 was superior to single tests and non-inferior to OTA. The sensitivity was maintained or even improved using SIT2 when compared to single tests or OTA. SIT2 allowed correct identification of infected individuals even when a live virus neutralization assay could not detect antibodies. Compared to single testing or OTA, SIT2 significantly reduced total test errors to 0.46% (0.24-0.65) or 1.60% (0.94-2.38) at both 5% or 20% seroprevalence. ConclusionFor SARS-CoV-2 serology, SIT2 proved to be the best diagnostic choice at both 5% and 20% seroprevalence in all tested scenarios. It is an easy to apply algorithm and can potentially be helpful for the serology of other infectious diseases.