RESUMO
BackgroundT cells are important in preventing severe disease from SARS-CoV-2, but scalable and field-adaptable alternatives to expert T cell assays are needed. The interferon-gamma release assay QuantiFERON platform was developed to detect T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 from whole blood with relatively basic equipment and flexibility of processing timelines. Methods48 participants with different infection and vaccination backgrounds were recruited. Whole blood samples were analysed using the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay in parallel with the well-established Protective Immunity from T Cells in Healthcare workers (PITCH) ELISpot, which can evaluate spike-specific T cell responses. AimsThe primary aims of this cross-sectional observational cohort study were to establish if the QuantiFERON SARS-Co-V-2 assay could discern differences between specified groups and to assess the sensitivity of the assay compared to the PITCH ELISpot. FindingsThe QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 distinguished acutely infected individuals (12-21 days post positive PCR) from naive individuals (p< 0.0001) with 100% sensitivity and specificity for SARS-CoV-2 T cells, whilst the PITCH ELISpot had reduced sensitivity (62.5%) for the acute infection group. Sensitivity with QuantiFERON for previous infection was 12.5% (172-444 days post positive test) and was inferior to the PITCH ELISpot (75%). Although the QuantiFERON assay could discern differences between unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals (55-166 days since second vaccination), the latter also had reduced sensitivity (55.5%) compared to the PITCH ELISpot (66.6%). ConclusionThe QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay showed potential as a T cell evaluation tool soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection but has lower sensitivity for use in reliable evaluation of vaccination or more distant infection. Graphical abstractWith the exception of acute infection group, the PITCH ELISpot S1+S2 had greater sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 specific T cell responses compared with the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay tube Ag3. O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=64 SRC="FIGDIR/small/22279558v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (13K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1913a88org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@199b88corg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@12309cborg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@15807a0_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG
RESUMO
Both infection and vaccination, alone or in combination, generate antibody and T cell responses against SARSCoV2. However, the maintenance of such responses, and hence protection from disease, requires careful characterisation. In a large prospective study of UK healthcare workers (Protective immunity from T cells in Healthcare workers (PITCH), within the larger SARSCoV2 immunity and reinfection evaluation (SIREN) study) we previously observed that prior infection impacted strongly on subsequent cellular and humoral immunity induced after long and short dosing intervals of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. Here, we report longer follow up of 684 HCWs in this cohort over 6-9 months following two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) vaccination and up to 6 months following a subsequent mRNA booster vaccination. We make three observations: Firstly, the dynamics of humoral and cellular responses differ; binding and neutralising antibodies declined whereas T and memory B cell responses were maintained after the second vaccine dose. Secondly, vaccine boosting restored IgG levels, broadened neutralising activity against variants of concern including omicron BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5, and boosted T cell responses above the 6 month level post dose 2. Thirdly, prior infection maintained its impact driving larger as well as broader T cell responses compared with never-infected people, a feature maintained until 6 months after the third dose. In conclusion, broadly cross-reactive T cell responses are well maintained over time, especially in those with combined vaccine and infection-induced immunity (hybrid immunity), and may contribute to continued protection against severe disease.
RESUMO
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.
