Three rounds of a national external quality assessment reveal a link between disharmonic anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody quantifications and the infection stage.

OBJECTIVES: The WHO's standardized measuring unit, "binding antibody units per milliliter (BAU/mL)," should allow the harmonization of quantitative results by different commercial Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. However, multiple studies demonstrate inter-assay discrepancies. The antigenic changes of the Omicron variant affect the performance of Spike-specific immunoassays. This study evaluated the variation of quantitative Anti-SARS-CoV-2-Spike antibody measurements among 46, 50, and 44 laboratories in three rounds of a national external quality assessment (EQA) prior to and after the emergence of the Omicron variant in a diagnostic near-to-real-life setting. METHODS: We analyzed results reported by the EQA participant laboratories from single and sequential samples from SARS-CoV-2 convalescent, acutely infected, and vaccinated individuals, including samples obtained after primary and breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant. RESULTS: The three immunoassays most commonly used by the participants displayed a low intra-assay and inter-laboratory variation with excellent reproducibility using identical samples sent to the participants in duplicates. In contrast, the inter-assay variation was very high with all samples. Notably, the ratios of BAU/mL levels quantified by different immunoassays were not equal among all samples but differed between vaccination, past, and acute infection, including primary infection with the Omicron variant. The antibody kinetics measured in vaccinated individuals strongly depended on the applied immunoassay. CONCLUSIONS: Measured BAU/mL levels are only inter-changeable among different laboratories when the same assay was used for their assessment. Highly variable ratios of BAU/mL quantifications among different immunoassays and infection stages argue against the usage of universal inter-assay conversion factors.

Altered cellular immune response to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients suffering from autoimmunity with B-cell depleting therapy.

B-cell depleting therapies result in diminished humoral immunity following vaccination against COVID-19, but our understanding on the impact on cellular immune responses is limited. Here, we performed a detailed analysis of cellular immunity following mRNA vaccination in patients receiving B-cell depleting therapy using ELISpot assay and flow cytometry. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain antibody assays were performed to elucidate B-cell responses. To complement our cellular analysis, we performed immunophenotyping for T- and B-cell subsets. We show that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination using mRNA vaccines elicits cellular T-cell responses in patients under B-cell depleting therapy. Some facets of this immune response including TNFα production of CD4+ T-cells and granzyme B production of CD8+ T-cells, however, are distinctly diminished in these patients. Consequently, it appears that the finely coordinated process of T-cell activation with a uniform involvement of CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells as seen in HCs is disturbed in autoimmune patients. In addition, we observed that immune cell composition does impact cellular immunity as well as sustainability of anti-spike antibody titers. Our data suggest disturbed cellular immunity following mRNA vaccination in patients treated with B-cell depleting therapy. Immune cell composition may be an important determinant for vaccination efficacy.

Impact of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion on prognosis in soft tissue sarcoma patients. A single-centre study.

BACKGROUND: Perioperatively administered (leukocyte reduced) allogeneic red blood cell transfusions (lrRBCTs) may lead to transfusion-related immunomodulation and reduced overall survival (OS) in cancer patients. Herein, the effect of lrRBCT on local recurrence (LR), distant metastasis (DM), and OS in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients was analysed. METHODS: Retrospective study on 432 STS patients (mean age: 60.0 ± 17.8 years; 46.1% female), surgically treated at a tertiary tumour centre. Uni- and multivariate survival models were calculated to analyse impact of perioperative lrRBCTs on LR, DM, OS. RESULTS: Perioperatively, 75 patients (17.4%) had received lrRBCTs. Older patients, deep, large, lower limb STS rather required lrRBCTs (all p < 0.05). No significant association between lrRBCT administration and LR- (p = 0.582) or DM-risk (p = 0.084) was observed. LrRBCT was associated with worse OS in univariate analysis (HR: 2.222; p < 0.001), with statistical significance lost upon multivariate analysis (HR: 1.658; p = 0.059; including age, histology, size, grading, amputation, depth). Adding preoperative haemoglobin in subgroup of 220 patients with laboratory parameters revealed significant negative impact of low haemoglobin on OS (p = 0.014), whilst effect of lrRBCT was further diminished (p = 0.167). CONCLUSION: Unfavourable prognostic factors prevail in STS patients requiring lrRBCTs. Low haemoglobin levels rather than lrRBCT seem to reduce OS.

Humoral immune response to COVID-19 vaccination in diabetes is age-dependent but independent of type of diabetes and glycaemic control: The prospective COVAC-DM cohort study.

AIMS: To investigate the seroconversion following first and second COVID-19 vaccination in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in relation to glycaemic control prior to vaccination and to analyse the response in comparison to individuals without diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, multicentre cohort study analysed people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes and a glycated haemoglobin level ≤58 mmol/mol (7.5%) or >58 mmol/mol (7.5%), respectively, and healthy controls. Roche's Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay targeting the receptor-binding domain was used to quantify anti-spike protein antibodies 7 to 14 days after the first and 14 to 21 days after the second vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 86 healthy controls were enrolled in the study, as well as 161 participants with diabetes, of whom 150 (75 with type 1 diabetes and 75 with type 2 diabetes) were eligible for the analysis. After the first vaccination, only 52.7% of participants in the type 1 diabetes group and 48.0% of those in the type 2 diabetes group showed antibody levels above the cut-off for positivity. Antibody levels after the second vaccination were similar in participants with type 1 diabetes, participants with type 2 diabetes and healthy controls after adjusting for age, sex and multiple testing (P > 0.05). Age (r = -0.45, P < 0.001) and glomerular filtration rate (r = 0.28, P = 0.001) were significantly associated with antibody response. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S receptor-binding domain antibody levels after the second vaccination were comparable in healthy controls and in participants with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, irrespective of glycaemic control. Age and renal function correlated significantly with the extent of antibody levels.

CD19+IgD+CD27- Naïve B Cells as Predictors of Humoral Response to COVID 19 mRNA Vaccination in Immunocompromised Patients.

Immunocompromised patients are considered high-risk and prioritized for vaccination against COVID-19. We aimed to analyze B-cell subsets in these patients to identify potential predictors of humoral vaccination response. Patients (n=120) suffering from hematologic malignancies or other causes of immunodeficiency and healthy controls (n=79) received a full vaccination series with an mRNA vaccine. B-cell subsets were analyzed prior to vaccination. Two independent anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays targeting the receptor-binding domain (RBD) or trimeric S protein (TSP) were performed three to four weeks after the second vaccination. Seroconversion occurred in 100% of healthy controls, in contrast to 67% (RBD) and 82% (TSP) of immunocompromised patients, while only 32% (RBD) and 22% (TSP) achieved antibody levels comparable to those of healthy controls. The number of circulating CD19+IgD+CD27- naïve B cells was strongly associated with antibody levels (ρ=0.761, P<0.001) and the only independent predictor for achieving antibody levels comparable to healthy controls (OR 1.07 per 10-µL increase, 95%CI 1.02-1.12, P=0.009). Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified a cut-off at ≥61 naïve B cells per µl to discriminate between patients with and without an optimal antibody response. Consequently, measuring of naïve B cells in immunocompromised hematologic patients could be useful in predicting their humoral vaccination response.

Prognostic relevance of ABO blood group system in non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma: An analysis of two independent European cohorts with long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The ABO blood group system has been previously discussed as a risk factor to develop, as well as a prognostic factor in non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Controversial findings have been reported in different populations of RCC patients with rather short follow-up periods. In this study, we aimed to clarify the distribution and prognostic role of ABO blood groups upon 15 years of median follow-up in non-metastatic RCC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the distribution and prognostic significance of ABO blood group system in two independent cohorts (n = 405 and n = 1473) of non-metastatic RCC patients, who underwent curative (partial or total) nephrectomy between 1998 and 2012 at two tertiary academic centers. Cancer-specific survival, metastasis-free survival, as well as overall survival (OS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, univariable- and multivariable Cox regression models were applied, respectively. RESULTS: In the two cohorts, blood groups were not associated with any clinical endpoints (for cohort 2: Cancer-specific survival (HR = 1.233; 95%CI 0.998-1.523, P = 0.052), metastasis-free survival (HR = 1.161; 95%CI 0.952-1.416, P = 0.142) and OS (HR = 1.037; 95%CI 0.890-1.208, P = 0.641), respectively). Compared to 250.298 healthy blood-donors of the Styrian state, the distribution of blood groups was (624 (42.4%) versus 106.861 (42.7%) in group A, 191 (13%) vs. 34.164 (13.7%) in group B, 575 (39%) versus 93.579 (37.4%) in group O and 83 (5.6%) vs. 15.694 (6.3%), P = 0.467). CONCLUSION: In this large study with the longest period of follow-up reported to date, the ABO blood group system could not be validated as a prognostic factor in predicting important clinical endpoints in non-metastatic RCC patients.

Convalescent plasma therapy and mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to quantify the potential survival benefit of convalescent plasma therapy (CVP) in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure related to coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This is a single-center prospective observational cohort study in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Immediately after intensive care unit (ICU) admission patients were allocated to CVP treatment following pre-specified criteria to rapidly identify those patients potentially susceptible for this treatment. A propensity score adjustment [inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) analysis] was implemented to account rigorously for imbalances in prognostic variables between the treatment groups. RESULTS: We included 120 patients of whom 48 received CVP. Thirty percent were female with a median age of 66 years [25th-75th percentile 54-75]. Eighty-eight percent of patients presented with severe acute respiratory failure as displayed by a median paO2/FiO2 ratio (Horowitz Index) of 92 [77-150]. All patients required any kind of ventilatory support with more than half of them (52%) receiving invasive ventilation. Thirty-day ICU overall survival (OS) was 69% in the CVP group and 54% in the non-CVP group (log-rank p = 0.049), respectively. After weighing the time-to-event data for the IPTW, the favorable association between CVP and OS became even stronger (log-rank p = 0.035). Moreover, an exploratory analysis showed an overall survival benefit of CVP therapy for patients with non-invasive ventilation (Hazard ratio 0.12 95% CI 0.03-0.57, p = 0.007) CONCLUSION: Administration of CVP in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19 is associated with improved ICU survival rates.

High-dose intravenously administered iron versus orally administered iron in blood donors with iron deficiency: study protocol for a randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: About 2-3 % of the population participates in blood donation programmes. Each whole blood donation or ten apheresis donations cause a loss of 200-250 mg of iron. As a result, one of the most common risks of regular blood donors is iron deficiency. Although this has been known for decades, in most countries, iron status is currently not assessed or treated in this population. Premenopausal women are particularly affected, as they have lower iron reserves and higher daily requirements. Besides anaemia, iron deficiency may lead to fatigue and impaired cognitive and physical performance. Current iron preparations for intravenous administration are well tolerated and allow for application of large doses up to 1 g in one visit. Our hypothesis is that in blood donors with iron deficiency, intravenously administered iron is more efficient and as safe as oral iron supplementation. Since anaemia is one of the most frequent reasons for permanent or intermittent donor deferral, maintaining an iron-replete donor pool may help to prevent shortages in blood supply and to avoid iron deficiency-related comorbidities. METHODS/DESIGN: In this randomised clinical trial we include male and female blood donors aged ≥18 and ≤65 years with a ferritin value of ≤30 ng/ml. Stratified by gender, participants are randomized with a web-based randomisation tool in a 1:1 ratio to either 1 g of intravenously administered ferric carboxymaltose or 10 g of iron fumarate supplements at one to two daily doses of 100 mg each. Eight to 12 weeks after the first visit, iron status, blood count and symptoms are assessed in both groups. The primary endpoint is the difference in transferrin saturation (%) following the intervention between both groups. Secondary endpoints include other parameters of iron metabolism and red blood cell count, the number of patients with drug-related adverse events, and subjective symptoms including those of the restless legs syndrome, quality of life, and fatigue. DISCUSSION: Iron supplementation administered intravenously in non-anaemic but iron-deficient blood donors could represent an effective strategy to protect blood donors from comorbidities related with iron deficiency and therefore improve blood donor wellbeing. Furthermore, iron supplementation will help to maintain an iron-replete blood donor pool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2013-000327-14, Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT01787526 . Registered on 6 February 2013.

Platelet antibody analysis by three different tests.

BACKGROUND: Platelet-reactive antibodies lead to thrombocytopenia and bleeding disorders, and diverse assays are used for their detection. In this retrospective analysis, the applicability of three different test systems was compared and antibody specificities were assessed. METHODS: Sera of 1,234 patients were tested with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA; Lifecodes PAKPLUS(®) or PAK 12(®), Gen-Probe) and a solid-phase assay (Capture-P Ready Screen(®), Immucor Inc.). In cases of suspected anti-HLA class I antibodies, a specific lymphocytotoxicity test (LCT, Bio-Rad(®)) was performed. RESULTS: Platelet antibodies were detected in 366 of 1,234 samples (29.7%). In 70.3% concordant negative but only in 8.4% concordant positive results were obtained with both the methods; 185 of 1,053 in the solid-phase assay negative samples were positive in the ELISA (15.0%). In samples positive in both methods, most antibodies reacted against HLA class I antigens. Glycoprotein (GP) specific platelet antibodies, mainly against GPIIb/IIIa and GPIa/IIa, were more frequently detectable in the ELISA than in the solid-phase assay, whereas weakly positive results have to be interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSION: ELISA, solid-phase assay, and LCT showed highly divergent results. Due to several limitations, the additional analysis by the "monoclonal antibody-specific immobilization of platelet antigen" (MAIPA)-assay is highly recommended.