ABSTRACT
(1) Background: The high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated persons underscores the importance of individualized re-vaccination. PanIg antibodies that act against the S1/-receptor binding domain quantified in serum by a routine diagnostic test (ECLIA, Roche) can be used to gauge the individual ex vivo capacity of SARS-CoV-2 neutralization. However, that test is not adapted to mutations in the S1/-receptor binding domain, having accumulated in SARS-CoV-2 variants. Therefore, it might be unsuited to determine immune-reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 BA.5.1. (2) Method: To address this concern, we re-investigated sera obtained six months after second vaccinations with un-adapted mRNA vaccine Spikevax (Moderna). We related serum levels of panIg against the S1/-receptor binding domain quantified by the un-adapted ECLIA with full virus neutralization capacity against SARS-CoV-2 B.1 or SARS-CoV-2 BA5.1. (3) Results: 92% of the sera exhibited sufficient neutralization capacity against the B.1 strain. Only 20% of the sera sufficiently inhibited the BA5.1 strain. Sera inhibiting BA5.1 could not be distinguished from non-inhibiting sera by serum levels of panIg against the S1/-receptor binding domain quantified by the un-adapted ECLIA. (4) Conclusion: Quantitative serological tests for an antibody against the S1/-receptor binding domain are unsuited as vaccination companion diagnostics, unless they are regularly adapted to mutations that have accumulated in that domain.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We describe a diagnostic procedure suitable for scheduling (re-)vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) according to individual state of humoral immunization. METHODS: To clarify the relation between quantitative antibody measurements and humoral ex vivo immune responsiveness, we monitored 124 individuals before, during and six months after vaccination with Spikevax (Moderna, Cambridge, MA, USA). Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1) protein receptor-binding domain (S1-AB) and against nucleocapsid antigens were measured by chemiluminescent immunoassay (Roche). Virus-neutralizing activities were determined by surrogate assays (NeutraLISA, Euroimmune; cPass, GenScript). Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture (full virus NT) served as an ex vivo correlate for humoral immune responsiveness. RESULTS: Vaccination responses varied considerably. Six months after the second vaccination, participants still positive for the full virus NT were safely determined by S1-AB levels ≥1000 U/mL. The full virus NT-positive fraction of participants with S1-AB levels <1000 U/mL was identified by virus-neutralizing activities >70% as determined by surrogate assays (NeutraLISA or cPas). Participants that were full virus NT-negative and presumably insufficiently protected could thus be identified by a sensitivity of >83% and a specificity of >95%. CONCLUSION: The described diagnostic strategy possibly supports individualized (re-)vaccination schedules based on simple and rapid measurement of serum-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels. Our data apply only to WUHAN-type SARS-CoV-2 virus and the current version of the mRNA vaccine from Moderna (Cambridge, MA, USA). Adaptation to other vaccines and more recent SARS-CoV-2 strains will require modification of cut-offs and re-evaluation of sensitivity/specificity.