Immunogenicity of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2 and Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccines

BackgroundUnderstanding immunogenicity and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is critical to guide rational use. MethodsWe compared the immunogenicity of mRNA-1273, BNT-162b2 or Ad26.COV2.S in ambulatory adults in Massachusetts, USA. To correlate immunogenicity with effectiveness of the three vaccines, we performed an inverse-variance meta-analysis of population level effectiveness from public health reports in >40 million individuals. ResultsA single dose of either mRNA vaccine yielded comparable antibody and neutralization titers to convalescent individuals. Ad26.COV2.S yielded lower antibody concentrations and frequently negative neutralization titers. Bulk and cytotoxic T-cell responses were higher in mRNA1273 and BNT162b2 than Ad26.COV2.S recipients, and <50% of vaccinees demonstrate CD8+ T-cell responses to spike peptides. Antibody concentrations and neutralization titers increased comparably after the first dose of either vaccine, and further in recipients of a second dose. Prior infection was associated with high antibody concentrations and neutralization even after a single dose and regardless of vaccine. Neutralization of beta, gamma and delta strains were poorer regardless of vaccine. Relative to mRNA1273, the effectiveness of BNT162b2 was lower against infection and hospitalization; and Ad26COV2.S was lower against infection, hospitalization and death. ConclusionsVariation in the immunogenicity correlates with variable effectiveness of the three FDA EUA vaccines deployed in the USA.

Remote fingerstick blood collection for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing

The rapid worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection has propelled the accelerated development of serological tests that can detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. These have been used for studying the prevalence and spread of infection in different populations, helping establish a recent diagnosis of COVID-19, and will likely be used to confirm humoral immunity after infection or vaccination. However, nearly all lab-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 serological assays require a serum sample from venous blood draw, limiting their applications and scalability. Here, we present a method that enables large scale SARS-CoV-2 serological studies by combining self or office collection of fingerprick blood with a volumetric absorptive microsampling device (Mitra, Neoteryx, LLC) with a high-throughput electrochemiluminescence-based SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay (Roche Elecsys, Roche Diagnostics, Inc.) that is EUA approved for use on serum samples and widely used by clinical laboratories around the world. We found that the Roche Elecsys assay has a high dynamic range that allows for accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in serum samples diluted 1:20 as well as contrived dried blood extracts. Extracts of dried blood from Mitra devices acquired in a community seroprevalence study showed near identical sensitivity and specificity in detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as compared to neat sera using predefined thresholds for each specimen type. Overall, this study affirms the use of Mitra dried blood collection device with the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay for remote or at-home testing as well as large-scale community seroprevalence studies.

COVID-19 neutralizing antibodies predict disease severity and survival

COVID-19 exhibits variable symptom severity ranging from asymptomatic to life-threatening, yet the relationship between severity and the humoral immune response is poorly understood. We examined antibody responses in 113 COVID-19 patients and found that severe cases resulting in intubation or death exhibited increased inflammatory markers, lymphopenia, and high anti-RBD antibody levels. While anti-RBD IgG levels generally correlated with neutralization titer, quantitation of neutralization potency revealed that high potency was a predictor of survival. In addition to neutralization of wild-type SARS-CoV-2, patient sera were also able to neutralize the recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 mutant D614G, suggesting protection from reinfection by this strain. However, SARS-CoV-2 sera was unable to cross-neutralize a highly-homologous pre-emergent bat coronavirus, WIV1-CoV, that has not yet crossed the species barrier. These results highlight the importance of neutralizing humoral immunity on disease progression and the need to develop broadly protective interventions to prevent future coronavirus pandemics.

Clinical Sensitivity and Interpretation of PCR and Serological COVID-19 Diagnostics for Patients Presenting to the Hospital

IntroductionThe diagnosis of COVID-19 requires integration of clinical and laboratory data. SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic assays play a central role in diagnosis and have fixed technical performance metrics. Interpretation becomes challenging because the clinical sensitivity changes as the virus clears and the immune response emerges. Our goal was to examine the clinical sensitivity of two most common SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test modalities, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology, over the disease course to provide insight into their clinical interpretation in patients presenting to the hospital. MethodsA single-center, retrospective study. To derive clinical sensitivity of PCR, we identified 209 PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 patients with multiple PCR test results (624 total PCR tests) and calculated daily sensitivity from date of symptom onset or first positive test. To calculate daily clinical sensitivity by serology, we utilized 157 PCR- positive patients with a total of 197 specimens tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for IgM, IgG, and IgA anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. ResultsClinical sensitivity of PCR decreased with days post symptom onset with >90% clinical sensitivity during the first 5 days after symptom onset, 70-71% from days 9-11, and 30% at day 21. In contrast, serological sensitivity increased with days post symptom onset with >50% of patients seropositive by at least one antibody isotype after day 7, >80% after day 12, and 100% by day 21. ConclusionPCR and serology are complimentary modalities that require time- dependent interpretation. Superimposition of sensitivities over time indicate that serology can function as a reliable diagnostic aid indicating recent or prior infection.

Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays

BackgroundSerological tests are crucial tools for assessments of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, infection and potential immunity. Their appropriate use and interpretation require accurate assay performance data. MethodWe conducted an evaluation of 10 lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two ELISAs to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The specimen set comprised 128 plasma or serum samples from 79 symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals; 108 pre-COVID-19 negative controls; and 52 recent samples from individuals who underwent respiratory viral testing but were not diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Samples were blinded and LFA results were interpreted by two independent readers, using a standardized intensity scoring system. ResultsAmong specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals, the percent seropositive increased with time interval, peaking at 81.8-100.0% in samples taken >20 days after symptom onset. Test specificity ranged from 84.3-100.0% in pre-COVID-19 specimens. Specificity was higher when weak LFA bands were considered negative, but this decreased sensitivity. IgM detection was more variable than IgG, and detection was highest when IgM and IgG results were combined. Agreement between ELISAs and LFAs ranged from 75.7-94.8%. No consistent cross-reactivity was observed. ConclusionOur evaluation showed heterogeneous assay performance. Reader training is key to reliable LFA performance, and can be tailored for survey goals. Informed use of serology will require evaluations covering the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infections, from asymptomatic and mild infection to severe disease, and later convalescence. Well-designed studies to elucidate the mechanisms and serological correlates of protective immunity will be crucial to guide rational clinical and public health policies.