ABSTRACT
This study pictures the humoral response of 100 vaccinees to Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine over a year, with particular focus on the influence of a booster shot administered around 10 months after the primary immunization. The response to the vaccination was assessed with Diasorin's SARS-CoV-2 TrimericSpike IgG. Abbott's SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid IgG immunoassay was used to identify SARS-CoV-2 contact, even asymptomatic. In contrast to the gradual decline of the anti-spike IgG between 30 and 240 days after the first dose, an increase was noted between days 240 and 360 in the whole cohort. However, a statistically significant rise was seen only in boosted individuals, and this effect of the booster decreased over time. An increase was also observed in non-boosted but recently infected participants and a decrease was reported in non-boosted, non-infected subjects. These changes were not statistically significant. On day 360, a percentage of new SARS-CoV-2 infections was statistically lower in the boosted vs. non-boosted subgroups. The booster immunization is the most efficient way of stimulating production of anti-spike, potentially neutralizing antibodies. The response is additionally enhanced by the natural contact with the virus. Individuals with a low level of anti-spike antibodies may benefit the most from the booster dose administration.
ABSTRACT
The immunoassays used to measure anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are widely available on the market. However, their performance in COVID-19 vaccinees is not yet adequately assessed. Our study provides a head-to-head comparison of five methods: Abbott's S1-RBD IgG, Roche's S1-RBD total antibody, Euroimmun's S1 IgG, and DiaSorin's TrimericS IgG and S1/S2 IgG assays. Testing was performed in one hundred vaccinated subjects, at eight timepoints over eight months after vaccination. The results differed substantially between methods; however, they correlated strongly and demonstrated the individuals' responses to both doses of vaccination and the waning of humoral immunity after eight months. Importantly, we encountered a high percentage of results above the assay-specific upper quantitation limit (UQL) for undiluted samples. This was the most pronounced for the Roche's and Euroimmun's assays. The Abbott's assay showed the lowest percentage of results above the UQL. We also attempted to find a common way to establish antibody concentrations that might be classified as high. However, this resulted in between 10% and 100% of such results for different methods on day 240'. This highlights the need for an assay-specific approach for adjusting the cut-offs that may indicate COVID-19 immunity.
ABSTRACT
We intended to assess the humoral response induced by the Pfizer/BioNTech Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine with commercially available immunoassays: anti-spike (S) IgG and IgM, and anti-nucleocapsid (N) IgG antibodies, over a 4-month course. One hundred subjects, including 15 COVID-19 convalescents, comprised the study cohort. The SARS-CoV-2 antibodies concentrations were measured on day 0' and 10', 20', 30', 60', 90', and 120' after the first dose administration. Over the course of the study, 100% of the participants developed and sustained anti-SARS-CoV-2 S IgG antibodies. The highest concentration, exceeding the quantification range of the test (2080 BAU/mL), was reached by 67% of the subjects on day 30'. The concentration of the antibodies remained stable between days 30' and 90' but was followed by a significant decrease between days 90' and 120'. The stronger and more persistent humoral response was noted for women. The COVID-19 convalescents developed higher antibody levels, particularly 10 days after the first Comirnaty dose. Twenty-three out of the eighty-five naïve vaccinees failed to develop a detectable IgM response. LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG (DiaSorin S.p.A, Saluggia, Italy) may be useful in the assessment of the humoral response to the Comirnaty vaccine. In contrast, Abbott's anti-S SARS-CoV-2 IgM has a limited utility in this context.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study was aimed at providing some insights into the real-life performance of the commercial, clinically validated anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. METHODS: The residual, anonymized samples from 97 patients referred for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies testing were included in the study. The initial assessment was performed with the Euroimmun ELISAs, followed by the assays provided by: NovaTec, Snibe, Vircell, Roche, Abbott and DiaSorin. The analyses of the results were performed separately for the antibodies of the early (IgM/IgA) and late (IgG) immune response. RESULTS: We observed a high variability of the results obtained with the investigated immunoassays. The fully concordant results were reported for only 57 out of 97 samples tested for IgG antibodies and for 34 out of 97 samples for IgM/IgA. The highest percentage of positive results was noted for the Euroimmun and Vircell ELISAs and the lowest for Novatec ELISAs.We proposed to distinguish true and false positive results based on the sum of positive results obtained with different methods. We arbitrarily considered reference positive samples reactive in at least half of the assays. The assay that proved to correlate the best with those reference results was the Roche electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. CONCLUSIONS: The differences observed between immunoassays targeting the early phase antibodies were much more pronounced than between IgG assays, suggesting their lower value for clinical use. Our study also showed a high percentage of plausibly false (positive or negative) results obtained with ELISAs, which suggests their inferiority to the automated immunoassays.