Comparison of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 Receptor-Binding Domain Antibody Immunoassays in Health Care Workers Before and After the BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine.

OBJECTIVES: The Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection is now available. This vaccine induces antibody production against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike glycoprotein S1 (S1-RBD). This study evaluated the performance of new immunoassays to measure this type of antibody. METHODS: Blood samples were collected at t0 (prime dose), after 21 days (t1, booster dose), and then after another 15 days (t2) from 70 health care professionals who had tested negative for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and underwent vaccination with BNT162b2. RESULTS: Antibodies against S1-RBD were measured using 4 commercial assays. At t0, t1, and t2, the median antibody concentrations (interquartile range) were, respectively, 0.2 (0.1-0.4), 49.5 (19.1-95.7), and 888.0 (603.6-1,345.8) U/mL by Maglumi SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD immunoglobulin G (IgG) (Shenzen New Industries Biomedical Engineering, Snibe Diagnostics); 0.0 (0.0-0.0), 7.9 (4.2-15.6), and 112.3 (76.4-205.6) U/mL by Atellica IM SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (Siemens Healthineers); 0.0 (0.0-0.0), 59.9 (18.3-122.0), and 2,646.0 (1,351.2-4,124.0) U/mL by Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay (Roche Diagnostics); and 1.8 (1.8-1.8), 184 (94-294), and 1,841.0 (1,080.0-2,900.0) AU/mL by LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG assay (DiaSorin). The differences between medians at t0, t1, and t2 were all statistically significant (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Antibodies against nucleocapsid proteins (N) were also measured using Maglumi 2019-nCoV IgG assay, which showed all negative results. All the considered anti-RBD methods detected response to the vaccine, while the method directed against anti-N failed to show response.

Anti SARS-CoV-2 antibodies monitoring in a group of residents in a long term care facility during COVID-19 pandemic peak.

Objectives Clinical laboratories plays a key role in screening, diagnosis and containment of the Coronavirus 2019 infection epidemic. The etiological diagnosis presupposes the isolation of virus genetic material in the patient's biological sample but laboratory diagnostics also make use of searching possibility for immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgM classes antibodies. The characteristics of the antibody response are not yet completely clear. Methods This study describes a serological monitoring of subjects, elderly nursing care residence guests, interested by a very large infection outbreak. After first nasopharyngeal swab, all the positive subjects (43) were monitored for the persistence of the virus infection through nasopharyngeal swab after 20 days (16-24), 32 days (28-36) and after 49 days (47-50). At the same time, during the second (day 32) and third (day 49) follow up, all the guests were investigated for IgM and IgG anti SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, by using a quantitative chemiluminescence method. Results Thirty two days after performing the first diagnostic swab, 39 of 43 patients (90%) had IgG higher than the cut off value. After 49 days the four patients with negative IgG were still negative. The comparison of the levels of IgG-Ab between the controls shows a significant decrease in concentrations (-10%). Conclusions Our study confirms that in most patients affected by COVID-19 there is a typical antibody response with IgG-Ab present in 90% of nursing care COVID-19 positive residence guests. For IgM-Ab only 23% of tested subjects were positive on the 32nd and 49th day of illness, always in parallel with the IgG-Ab positivity.

Comparison of methods to identify individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular disease in Italian cohorts.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease recommend the use of risk-assessment methods to identify high risk patients who can benefit from lifestyle changes and/or drug treatment. Although all these risk-prediction methods are based on the same principle, they produce different risk estimates. The aim of this study was to compare the most recent and widely used cardiovascular risk-prediction methods and the respective guidelines when applied to Italian cohorts. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seven different risk-assessment methods were applied to two groups of subjects, 536 healthy individuals and 426 diabetic patients. Sensitivity and specificity of Framingham-based risk-assessment methods were calculated using the Framingham full equation as the reference standard. The extent of concordance among the different risk-assessment methods was determined by kappa test. By using NCEP-ATPIII risk calculator, modified Sheffield tables, Joint European Societies charts, Joint British Societies charts, Italian CUORE Project charts, European SCORE charts and New Zealand National Heart Foundation charts in the group of 536 healthy subjects, lipid-lowering treatment would be recommended in 17.5%, 12.7%, 12.1%, 8.6%, 5.0%, 4.7%, and 1.1% subjects, respectively. By using the same risk-assessment methods in the group of 426 diabetic patients, treatment would be recommended for 100%, 82.9%, 66.9%, 77.7%, 43.0%, 74.9%, and 47.4% patients, respectively. The Joint British charts and the modified Sheffield tables showed the closest agreement with the reference standard. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that the use of different risk-assessment methods in clinical practice can substantially change risk estimation and consequently statin prescription rate. The Framingham-based risk-assessment methods and particularly the NCEP-ATPIII guidelines select for lipid-lowering treatment a higher number of subjects than those identified according to European and Italian recommendations.