ABSTRACT
Background: T 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. Methods: 48 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. Aims: The 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. Findings: The 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%). Conclusion: The 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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Acute DiseaseABSTRACT
Background: T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following infection and vaccination are less characterised than antibody responses, due to a more complex experimental pathway. Methods: We 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. Results: Both 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. Conclusion: The 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.
ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection and mount poor antibody responses to standard vaccines. We addressed whether ESRD patients could mount immune responses that protected against re-infection following natural SARS-CoV-2 infection or 2-dose vaccination.Methods: Haemodialysis (HD and renal transplant patients were recruited following SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=46) or before SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (n=94). SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses, surrogate neutralising antibody (NAb) titres to wildtype and VOCs, T cell responses and viral sequencing in the vaccine-naïve convalescent cohort were serially assessed following infection. Surrogate NAb titres were measured pre-vaccination and 33 days after 2nd vaccine. Incidence of breakthrough infection was assessed 180 days following 1st vaccination. Findings: 22% of vaccine-naive HD (n=9/36) and transplant patients (n=1/10) demonstrated PCR-positive re-infection (RI) at median 212 days (IQR 140-239) post 1st infection. Prior to RI episodes, RI patients demonstrated poor IgG Spike and RBD responses which were equivalent to levels in pre-pandemic sera (median RI titres: Spike 187 AU/ml, IQR 143-3432, p=0.96; RBD 145 AU/ml, IQR 85-938, p>0.99), unlike patients who developed a single infection only (SI) when compared to pre-pandemic sera (median SI titres: Spike 22826 AU/ml, IQR 1255-63811, p<0.0001; RBD 9588 AU/ml, IQR 270-21616, p=0.001). IgG Spike and RBD titres increased following RI compared to pre-pandemic sera (median RI titres: Spike 22611 AU/ml, IQR 4488-75509, p=0.0006; RBD 6354 AU/ml, IQR 1671-20962, p=0.01). T cell analysis revealed no differences between RI and SI cohorts. Following 2-dose vaccination, 5% of the HD cohort who received AZD1222 (n=3/61) developed breakthrough infection at 6 months following 1st vaccination, unlike those who received BNT162b2 (n=0/16). AZD1222-vaccinated, infection-naïve (I-N) HD patients (n=32) and immunosuppressed transplant recipients (n=17) made poor NAb responses to wildtype, alpha, beta and gamma when compared to infection-experienced (I-E) HD patients (n=29) (I-N vs I-E HD wildtype p<0.0001, alpha p=0.0007, beta p<0.0001, gamma p=0.002). NAb responses improved with BNT162b2 vaccination (n=16); RI patients mounted larger NAb responses to AZD1222 vaccination than SI patients (wildtype p=0.01, alpha p=0.02, beta p<0.02). Interpretation: ESRD patients are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 re-infection, or breakthrough infection following vaccination, associated with poor protective antibody responses. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and surrogate NAb responses increase with repeated exposure (infection experience and/or vaccination) in patients who survive infections. Our findings support the case for specific booster regimens in such immune-incompetent patients. Funding Information: Oxford Transplant Foundation, Oxfordshire Health Services Research Committee, UK Department of Health and Social Care, Huo Family Foundation, NIHR (COV19-RECPLAS), UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, WT109965MA.Declaration of Interests: We declare no competing interestsEthics Approval Statement: Haemodialysis (HD) and transplant cohorts: In this prospective, observational cohort study, HD and transplant patients within Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust(OUH) were recruited under Oxford Radcliffe Biobank approved studies, “Biomarkers to stratify risk in Renal Transplant Recipients and Dialysis Patients with Covid-19” (ref: ORB 20/A056), and “Immunological responses to COVID-19 vaccines in transplant and haemodialysis patients” (ref: ORB 21/A014). The Oxford Radcliffe Biobank has a favorable ethics opinion from the South Central Oxford Committee C (REC: 19/SC/0173). Healthcare Worker cohort (HC, PITCH study): PITCH is a sub-study of the SIREN study which was approved by the Berkshire Research Ethics Committee, Health Research 250 Authority (IRAS ID 284460, REC reference 20/SC/0230), with PITCH recognised as a sub-study on 2 December 2020. SIREN is registered with ISRCTN (Trial ID:252 ISRCTN11041050)The study was conducted in compliance with all relevant ethical regulations for work with human participants, and according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (2008) and the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines. Written informed consent was obtained for all patients enrolled in the study.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Kidney Failure, ChronicABSTRACT
Background: There was excess mortality from the first wave of coronavirus 2019 infection (COVID-19), which mainly affected older people. To mitigate risk, the UK government recommended ‘shielding’ of vulnerable people through self-isolation for 12 weeks. We investigated the impact of primary care-reinforced shielding advice on all-cause mortality.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a nationally representative English primary care database. We compare people aged >=40years who were recorded as being advised to shield using a fixed ratio of 1:1, matching (a mixture of exact and propensity score matching) to people with the same diagnoses not advised to shield (n=77,360 per group). Time-to-death was compared using Cox regression, reporting the hazard ratio (HR) of mortality between groups. A sensitivity analysis compared exact matched cohorts (n=24,752 shielded, n=61,566 exact matches). Findings: Over the follow-up period, we found a time-varying HR of mortality between groups. In the first 21 days, the mortality risk in people shielding was half those not (HR=0.50, 95%CI:0.41-0.59. p<0.0001). Over the remaining nine weeks, mortality risk was 54% higher in the shielded group (HR=1.54, 95%CI:1.41-1.70, p<0.0001). Beyond the shielding period, mortality risk was over two-and-a-half times higher in the shielded group (HR=2.61, 95%CI:2.38-2.87, p<0.0001).Interpretation: General practitioner-reinforced advice to shield halved the risk of mortality for 21 days compared to those who were not. Mortality risk became higher across the remainder of the shielding period, rising to two-and-a-half times greater post-shielding. Shielding may be beneficial in the next wave of COVID-19.Funding Statement: NIHR School of Primary Care, Public Health EnglandDeclaration of Interests: SdeL is the director of RCGP RSC. He has unrelated projects funded by GSK, Seqirus and has been a member of Global Advisory Boards for Seqirus and Sanofi. FDRH reports personal fees from Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim and grants from Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: The RCGP RSC’s work concerning SARS-CoV-2 has been approved by Public Health England’s Caldicott Guardian Committee as fitting under Regulation 3 of the Health Service Control Patient Information Regulations 2002. The study was approved by RCGP.