External quality assessments for SARS-CoV-2 genome detection in Austria : A comparison of the first postpandemic round with results from the pandemic era.

BACKGROUND: External quality assessment (EQA) schemes provide objective feedback to participating laboratories about the performance of their analytical systems and information about overall regional analytical performance. The EQAs are particularly important during pandemics as they also assess the reliability of individual test results and show opportunities to improve test strategies. With the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, the testing frequency significantly decreased in Austria. Here, we analyzed whether this decrease had an effect on participation and/or performance in SARS-CoV­2 virus detection EQAs, as compared to the pandemic era. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Identical samples were sent to all participating laboratories, and the EQA provider evaluated the agreement of the reported results with defined targets. The EQA was operated under two schemes with identical samples and therefore we analyzed it as a single EQA round. The performance of testing was reported as true positive ratios, comparing the post-pandemic data to previous rounds. Furthermore, subgroups of participants were analyzed stratified by laboratory type (medical or nonmedical) and the test system format (fully automated or requiring manual steps). RESULTS: While the frequency of false negative results per sample did not change during the 3 years of the pandemic (5.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.1-8.4%), an average per sample false negative ratio of 4.3% was observed in the first post-pandemic EQA (0%, 1.8%, and 11% for the 3 positive samples included in the test panel, n = 109 test results per sample). In this first post-pandemic EQA medical laboratories (average 0.4% false negative across 3 samples, n = 90) and automated test systems (average 1.2% false negative, n = 261) had lower false negative ratios than nonmedical laboratories (22.8%, n = 19) and manual test systems (16.7%, n = 22). These lower average ratios were due to a low concentration sample, where nonmedical laboratories reported 36.8% and manual test systems 54.5% true positive results. CONCLUSION: Overall ratios of true positive results were below the mean of all results during the pandemic but were similar to the first round of the pandemic. A lower post-pandemic true positive ratio was associated with specific laboratory types and assay formats, particularly for samples with low concentration. The EQAs will continue to monitor the laboratory performance to ensure the same quality of epidemiological data after the pandemic, even if vigilance has decreased.

Measuring Variant-Specific Neutralizing Antibody Profiles after Bivalent SARS-CoV-2 Vaccinations Using a Multivariant Surrogate Virus Neutralization Microarray.

The capability of antibodies to neutralize different SARS-CoV-2 variants varies among individuals depending on the previous exposure to wild-type or Omicron-specific immunogens by mono- or bivalent vaccinations or infections. Such profiles of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) usually have to be assessed via laborious live-virus neutralization tests (NTs). We therefore analyzed whether a novel multivariant surrogate-virus neutralization test (sVNT) (adapted from a commercial microarray) that quantifies the antibody-mediated inhibition between the receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and variant-specific receptor-binding domains (RBDs) can assess the neutralizing activity against the SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, and Delta Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5 subvariants after a booster with Omicron-adapted bivalent vaccines in a manner similar to live-virus NTs. Indeed, by using the live-virus NTs as a reference, we found a significant correlation between the variant-specific NT titers and levels of ACE2-RBD binding inhibition (p < 0.0001, r ≤ 0.78 respectively). Furthermore, the sVNTs identified higher inhibition values against BA.5 and BA.1 in individuals vaccinated with Omicron-adapted vaccines than in those with monovalent wild-type vaccines. Our data thus demonstrate the ability of sVNTs to detect variant-specific nAbs following a booster with bivalent vaccines.

Comparison of anti-nucleocapsid antibody assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron vaccine breakthroughs after various intervals since the infection.

Antibody assays with the nucleocapsid (NC) protein as the target antigen can identify severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections when polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analyses are unavailable. Regarding the kinetics of NC-specific antibodies, vaccine breakthroughs with Omicron subvariants may differ from infections with the ancestral wild-type virus. Therefore, we evaluated which assays have the highest sensitivity for detecting NC-specific antibodies after various intervals since breakthrough infections with an Omicron subvariant. The study included 279 samples from vaccinated subjects who experienced PCR-confirmed Omicron breakthrough infections between 21 and 266 days before sampling. The samples were comparatively assessed with the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 N (Roche), the Anti-SARS-CoV-2-NCP-ELISA (Euroimmun), the recomLine SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Mikrogen), and the SARS-CoV-2 ViraChip IgG assays (Viramed). In the whole cohort, the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 N assay displayed the highest sensitivity (93%, p < 0.0001), followed by the recomLine SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay (70%), the SARS-CoV-2 ViraChip IgG assay (41%) and the Anti-SARS-CoV-2-NCP-ELISA (35%). Although measured antibody levels and time-dependent sensitivities differed, the extent of the antibody decrease was similar among all assays. As demonstrated by this study, manufacturer-dependent differences in the sensitivities of NC-specific antibody assays should be considered when serology is applied to link previous SARS-CoV-2 infections with potential post-COVID sequelae.

Performance of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing in Austria as measured by external quality assessment schemes during 3 years of the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of external quality assessment (EQA) schemes is to evaluate the analytical performance of laboratories and test systems in a near-to-real-life setting. This monitoring service provides feedback to participant laboratories and serves as a control measure for the epidemiological assessment of the regional incidence of a pathogen, particularly during epidemics. Using data from EQA schemes implemented as a result of the intensive effort to monitor SARS-CoV-2 infections in Austria, we aimed to identify factors that explained the variation in laboratory performance for SARS-CoV-2 detection over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: For this observational study, we retrospectively analysed 6308 reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) test results reported by 191 laboratories on 71 samples during 14 rounds of three SARS-CoV-2 pathogen detection EQA schemes in Austria between May 18, 2020, and Feb 20, 2023. We calculated the overall rates of false and true-negative, false and true-positive, and inconclusive results. We then assessed laboratory performance by estimating the sensitivity by testing whether significant variation in the odds of obtaining a true-positive result could be explained by virus concentration, laboratory type, or assay format. We also assessed whether laboratory performance changed over time. FINDINGS: 4371 (93·7%) of 4663 qPCR test results were true-positive, 241 (5·2%) were false-negative, and 51 (1·1%) were inconclusive. The mean per-sample sensitivity was 99·7% in samples with high virus concentrations (1383 [99·4%] true-positive, three [0·2%] false-negative, and five [0·4%] inconclusive results for 1391 tests in which the sample cycle threshold was ≤32), whereas detection rates were lower in samples with low virus concentrations (mean per-sample sensitivity 92·5%; 2988 [91·3%] true-positive, 238 [7·3%] false-negative, and 46 [1·4%] inconclusive results for 3272 tests in which the cycle threshold was >32). Of the 1645 results expected to be negative, 1561 (94·9%) were correctly reported as negative, 10 (0·6%) were incorrectly reported as positive, and 74 (4·5%) were reported as inconclusive. Notably, the overall performance of the tests did not change significantly over time. The odds of reporting a correct result were 2·94 (95% CI 1·75-4·96) times higher for a medical laboratory than for a non-medical laboratory, and 4·60 (2·91-7·41) times greater for automated test systems than for manual test systems. Automated test systems within medical laboratories had the highest sensitivity when compared with systems requiring manual intervention in both medical and non-medical laboratories. INTERPRETATION: High rates of false-negativity in all PCR analyses evaluated in comprehensive, multiple, and repeated EQA schemes outline a clear path for improvement in the future. The performance of some laboratories (eg, non-medical laboratories or those using non-automated test systems) should receive additional scrutiny-for example, by requiring additional EQA schemes for certification or accreditation-if the aggregated data from EQA rounds suggest lower sensitivity than that recorded by others. This strategy will provide assurances that epidemiological data as a whole are reliable when testing on such a large scale. Although performance did not improve over time, we cannot exclude extenuating circumstances-such as shortages and weakened supply chains-that could have prevented laboratories from seeking alternative methods to improve performance. FUNDING: None.

ELIMINATE: a PCR record-based macroelimination project for systematic recall of HCV-RNA-positive persons in Austria.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Micro-elimination projects targeted to specific hepatitis C virus (HCV) risk populations have been successful. Systematic identification of persons with HCV viremia, regardless of risk group, based on already available laboratory records may represent an effective macroelimination approach to achieve global HCV elimination. METHODS: Persons with a last positive HCV-RNA PCR result between 2008-2020 in the reference virology laboratories in eastern Austria were identified. First, (i) we described their demographic characteristics, (ii) we systematically recalled persons to the respective centers and (iii) started antiviral treatment if HCV-RNA viremia was confirmed, and (iv) recorded sustained virologic response (SVR). This interim report includes the preliminary results from 8 participating centers. RESULTS: During the study period 22,682 persons underwent HCV-RNA PCR testing, 11,216 (49.4%) were positive at any point in time, and 6006 (26.5%) showed detectable HCV-RNA at the last PCR test, suggesting ongoing HCV viremia. At the time of this interim report, 2546/6006 HCV-RNA PCR(+) persons were evaluated: 443/2546 (17.4%) had died, 852/2546 (33.5%) had invalid contact data, and 547/2546 (21.5%) had achieved SVR between data retrieval and recall. Contact could be established in 236/704 (33.5%) of the remaining target population with 97/236 (41.1%) presenting at the clinic for treatment evaluation. Ultimately, 71/236 (30.1%) started antiviral treatment and SVR was documented in 47/71 (66.2%). CONCLUSION: This ELIMINATE project based on systematic assessment of HCV-RNA PCR-records, identified 6006 persons with potential persisting HCV viremia. Invalid contact data and missed visits for treatment evaluation were the main barriers towards HCV elimination within this project. Importantly, many subjects with HCV viremia lost to follow-up were successfully linked to care and started antiviral treatment.

Monitoring of Sotrovimab-Levels as Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in Kidney Transplant Recipients Not Responding to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines.

Background Sotrovimab, a monoclonal antibody against SARS-CoV-2, is used as a pre-exposition prophylaxis (PrEP) against COVID-19, but monitoring strategies using routine test systems have not been defined. Methods Twenty kidney transplant recipients without antibodies after vaccination received 500 mg Sotrovimab. Antibody levels were quantified over eight weeks using live-virus neutralization (BA1 and BA2), antibody binding assays (TrimericS, Elecsys, QuantiVAC) and surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs; TECOmedical, cPass and NeutraLISA). Results Sotrovimab neutralized both Omicron subvariants (BA1 NT titer 90 (+-50) > BA2 NT titer 33 (+-15) one hour post infusion). Sotrovimab was measurable on all used immunoassays, although a prior 1:100 dilution was necessary for Elecsys due to a presumed prozone effect. The best correlation with live-virus neutralization titers was found for QuantiVAC and TrimericS, with a respective R2 of 0.65/0.59 and 0.76/0.57 against BA1/BA2. Elecsys showed an R2 of 0.56/0.54 for BA1/BA2, respectively. sVNT values increased after infusion but had only a poor correlation with live-virus neutralization titers (TECOmedical and cPass) or did not reach positivity thresholds (NeutraLISA). Conclusion Antibody measurements by the used immunoassays showed differences in antibody levels and only a limited correlation with neutralization capacity. We do not recommend sVNTs for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 neutralization by Sotrovimab.

Bivalent COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination (BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5) increases neutralization of matched Omicron variants.

We report SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody titers in sera of triple-vaccinated individuals who received a booster dose of an original monovalent or a bivalent BA.1- or BA.4/BA.5-adapted vaccine or had a breakthrough infection with Omicron variants BA.1, BA.2 or BA.4/BA.5. A bivalent BA.4/BA.5 booster or Omicron-breakthrough infection induced increased Omicron-neutralization titers compared with the monovalent booster. The XBB.1.5 variant effectively evaded neutralizing-antibody responses elicited by current vaccines and/or infection with previous variants.

Breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 omicron efficiently boost antibodies from previous BNT162b2 vaccinations.

Objective: To investigate whether SARS-CoV-2 omicron breakthrough infection in individuals after three doses of wildtype-based BNT162b2 increases antibody levels measured by a commercially available wildtype-based immunoassay. Methods: 16 of 21 individuals in a BNT162b2 vaccination cohort (recruited 129 [129-135] days after dose 3) experienced a breakthrough infection (BTI) between March and September 2022. Antibodies to the receptor binding domain (RBP) of the spike protein (Anti-S) were quantified using the wildtype-based Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 S assay (Roche). Antibody responses of triple vaccinated BTI cases were compared to triple vaccinated individuals without breakthrough infection and to 16 matched individuals after primary omicron infection. Results: In the 16 individuals with primary Omicron infection, the anti-S assay returned only very low results (2.25 [0.61-5.80] U/mL). However, in individuals with BTI, Anti-S levels rose from 7,135 [5,870-17,470] U/mL to 21,705 (7,750-46,137.5) U/mL. At the same time, Anti-S concentrations decreased from 9,120 [7,480-13,480] U/mL to 3,830 (2,390-4,220) U/mL in those 5 of 21 vaccinated only. Conclusions: Our data suggest that breakthrough infection with omicron can efficiently boost wild-type antibodies in individuals vaccinated with wild-type BNT162b2.

A Multivariant Surrogate Neutralization Assay Identifies Variant-Specific Neutralizing Antibody Profiles in Primary SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection.

Primary infection with the Omicron variant of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can be serologically identified with distinct profiles of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs), as indicated by high titers against the Omicron variant and low titers against the ancestral wild-type (WT). Here, we evaluated whether a novel surrogate virus neutralization assay (sVNT) that simultaneously quantifies the binding inhibition of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) to the proteins of the WT- and Omicron-specific receptor-binding domains (RBDs) can identify nAb profiles after primary Omicron infection with accuracy similar to that of variant-specific live-virus neutralization tests (NTs). Therefore, we comparatively tested 205 samples from individuals after primary infection with the Omicron variant and the WT, and vaccinated subjects with or without Omicron breakthrough infections. Indeed, variant-specific RBD-ACE2 binding inhibition levels significantly correlated with respective NT titers (p < 0.0001, Spearman's r = 0.92 and r = 0.80 for WT and Omicron, respectively). In addition, samples from individuals after primary Omicron infection were securely identified with the sVNT according to their distinctive nAb profiles (area under the curve = 0.99; sensitivity: 97.2%; specificity: 97.84%). Thus, when laborious live-virus NTs are not feasible, the novel sVNT we evaluated in this study may serve as an acceptable substitute for the serological identification of individuals with primary Omicron infection.

Design of external quality assessment schemes and definition of the roles of their providers in future epidemics.

During an epidemic, individual test results form the basis of epidemiological indicators such as case numbers or incidence. Therefore, the accuracy of measures derived from these indicators depends on the reliability of individual results. In the COVID-19 pandemic, monitoring and evaluating the performance of the unprecedented number of testing facilities in operation, and novel testing systems in use, was urgently needed. External quality assessment (EQA) schemes are unique sources of data reporting on testing performance, and their providers are recognised contacts and support for test facilities (for technical-analytical topics) and health authorities (for planning the monitoring of infection diagnostics). To identify information provided by SARS-CoV-2 genome detection EQA schemes that is relevant for public health microbiology, we reviewed the current literature published in PubMed between January, 2020, and July, 2022. We derived recommendations for EQA providers and their schemes for best practices to monitor pathogen-detection performance in future epidemics. We also showed laboratories, test facilities, and health authorities the information and benefits they can derive from EQA data, and from the non-EQA services of their providers.

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.

Comprehensive Comparison of Seven SARS-CoV-2-Specific Surrogate Virus Neutralization and Anti-Spike IgG Antibody Assays Using a Live-Virus Neutralization Assay as a Reference.

Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are considered a valuable marker for measuring humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2. However, live-virus neutralization tests (NTs) require high-biosafety-level laboratories and are time-consuming. Therefore, surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNTs) have been widely applied, but unlike most anti-spike (S) antibody assays, NTs and sVNTs are not harmonized, requiring further evaluation and comparative analyses. This study compared seven commercial sVNTs and anti-S-antibody assays with a live-virus NT as a reference, using a panel of 720 single and longitudinal serum samples from 666 convalescent patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity of these assays for detecting antibodies ranged from 48 to 94% after PCR-confirmed infection and from 56% to 100% relative to positivity in the in-house live-virus NT. Furthermore, we performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses to determine which immunoassays were most suitable for assessing nAb titers exceeding a specific cutoff (NT titer, ≥80) and found that the NeutraLISA and the cPass assays reached the highest area under the curve (AUC), exceeding 0.91. In addition, when the assays were compared for their correlation with nAb kinetics over time in a set of longitudinal samples, the extent of the measured decrease of nAbs after infection varied widely among the evaluated immunoassays. Finally, in vaccinated convalescent patients, high titers of nAbs exceeded the upper limit of the evaluated assays' quantification ranges. Based on data from this study, we conclude that commercial immunoassays are acceptable substitutes for live-virus NTs, particularly when additional adapted cutoffs are employed to detect nAbs beyond a specific threshold titer. IMPORTANCE While the measurement of neutralizing antibodies is considered a valuable tool in assessing protection against SARS-CoV-2, neutralization tests employ live-virus isolates and cell culture, requiring advanced laboratory biosafety levels. Including a large sample panel (over 700 samples), this study provides adapted cutoff values calculated for seven commercial immunoassays (including four surrogate neutralization assays and a protein-based microarray) that robustly correlate with specific titers of neutralizing antibodies.

Limited role of children in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus in households-Immunological analysis of 26 familial clusters.

BACKGROUND: The impact of children on the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remains uncertain. This study provides an insight into distinct patterns of SARS-CoV-2 household transmission in case of pediatric and adult index cases as well as age-dependent susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Immune analysis, medical interviewing, and contact tracing of 26 families with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection cases have been conducted. Blood samples were analyzed serologically with the use of a SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG assay and virus neutralization test (VNT). Uni- and multivariable linear regression and mixed effect logistic regression models were used to describe potential risk factors for higher contagiousness and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 infection could be confirmed in 67 of 124 family members. Fourteen children and 11 adults could be defined as index cases in their households. Forty of 82 exposed family members were defined as secondarily infected. The mean secondary attack rate in households was 0.48 and was significantly higher in households with adult than with pediatric index cases (0.85 vs 0.19; p < 0.0001). The age (grouped into child and adult) of index case, severity of disease, and occurrence of lower respiratory symptoms in index cases were significantly associated with secondary transmission rates in households. Children seem to be equally susceptible to acquire a SARS-CoV-2 infection as adults, but they suffer milder courses of the disease or remain asymptomatic. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 transmission from infected children to other household members occurred rarely in the first wave of the pandemic, despite close physical contact and the lack of hygienic measures.

Viral infections in pediatric brain tumor patients treated with targeted therapies.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumors are the most common solid malignancies and the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in children. While numerous studies report on viral infections in children with hematologic malignancies and solid organ transplantation, epidemiologic data on the incidence and outcome of viral infections in pediatric patients with brain tumors treated with targeted therapies are still lacking. OBJECTIVES/STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed all children with brain tumors receiving targeted therapies in a primary or recurrent setting at the Medical University of Vienna from 2006 to 2021. Demographic variables, quantitative and qualitative parameters of possible infections, and treatment outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: In our cohort (n = 117), 36% of the patients developed at least one PCR-proven viral infection. Respiratory and gastrointestinal tract infections were most common, with 31% and 25%, respectively. Central nervous system (CNS) infections occurred in approximately 10%, with an almost equal distribution of varicella-zoster virus, John Cunningham virus (JCV), and enterovirus. Two patients tested PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, with one virus-related death caused by a SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. Patients receiving bevacizumab or mTOR inhibitors seem to have a greater susceptibility to viral infections. CONCLUSION: Pediatric patients with brain tumors receiving targeted therapies have a higher risk of viral infections when compared to children receiving conventional chemotherapy or the general population, and life-threatening infections can occur. Fast detection and upfront treatment are paramount to prevent life-threatening infections in immunocompromised children suffering from brain tumors receiving targeted therapies.

SARS-CoV-2 IgG Levels Allow Predicting the Optimal Time Span of Convalescent Plasma Donor Suitability.

Convalescent plasma (CP) has been in use for the treatment of numerous infectious diseases for more than a century, recently also for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A major challenge for this treatment is identifying suitable donors with sufficient levels of functional antibodies and to determine the optimal time span for CP donation. In this retrospective study, we analyzed 189 CP donations of 66 donors regarding anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-S IgG antibody levels. We found a significant correlation between the semi-quantitative SARS-CoV-2 IgG ratio values and in vitro antibody functionality. A time-to-event analysis allowed us to predict the optimal time span of COVID-19 CP donor suitability. We found that high IgG ratio values, which significantly correlate with high in vitro antibody functionality, were suitable for CP donation for a median of 134 days after the first CP donation. Donors with lower IgG ratios were suitable for a median of 53 days. Our data support plasma collection centers to determine optimal points in time for CP donation by means of widely used semi-quantitative laboratory IgG ratio values.

Different Neutralization Profiles After Primary SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 Infections.

Background and Methods: The SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant is the antigenically most distinct variant to date. As the heavily mutated spike protein enables neutralization escape, we studied serum-neutralizing activities of naïve and vaccinated individuals after Omicron BA.1 or BA.2 sub-lineage infections in live virus neutralization tests with Omicron BA.1, Omicron BA.2, wildtype (WT, B1.1), and Delta (B.1.617.2) strains. Serum samples obtained after WT infections and three-dose mRNA vaccinations with and without prior infection were included as controls. Results: Primary BA.1 infections yielded reduced neutralizing antibody levels against WT, Delta, and Omicron BA.2, while samples from BA.2-infected individuals showed almost no cross-neutralization against the other variants. Serum neutralization of Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants was detectable after three-dose mRNA vaccinations, but with reduced titers. Vaccination-breakthrough infections with either Omicron BA.1 or BA.2, however, generated equal cross-neutralizing antibody levels against all SARS-CoV-2 variants tested. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that although Omicron variants are able to enhance cross-neutralizing antibody levels in pre-immune individuals, primary infections with BA.1 or BA.2 induced mostly variant-specific neutralizing antibodies, emphasizing the differently shaped humoral immunity induced by the two Omicron variants. These data thus contribute substantially to the understanding of antibody responses induced by primary Omicron infections or multiple exposures to different SARS-CoV-2 variants and are of particular importance for developing vaccination strategies in the light of future emerging variants.