Cellular and humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and booster dose in immunosuppressed patients: An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among immunosuppressed patients remain poorly defined, as well as variables associated with poor response. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational cohort study at a large Northern California healthcare system of infection-naïve individuals fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or Ad26.COV2.S) with clinical SARS-CoV-2 interferon gamma release assay (IGRA) ordered between January through November 2021. Humoral and cellular immune responses were measured by anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG ELISA (anti-S1 IgG) and IGRA, respectively, following primary and/or booster vaccination. RESULTS: 496 immunosuppressed patients (54% female; median age 50 years) were included. 62% (261/419) of patients had positive anti-S1 IgG and 71% (277/389) had positive IGRA after primary vaccination, with 20% of patients having a positive IGRA only. Following booster, 69% (81/118) had positive anti-S1 IgG and 73% (91/124) had positive IGRA. Factors associated with low humoral response rates after primary vaccination included anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (P < 0.001), sphingosine 1-phsophate (S1P) receptor modulators (P < 0.001), mycophenolate (P = 0.002), and B cell lymphoma (P = 0.004); those associated with low cellular response rates included S1P receptor modulators (P < 0.001) and mycophenolate (P < 0.001). Of patients who had poor humoral response to primary vaccination, 35% (18/52) developed a significantly higher response after the booster. Only 5% (2/42) of patients developed a significantly higher cellular response to the booster dose compared to primary vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Humoral and cellular response rates to primary and booster SARS-CoV-2 vaccination differ among immunosuppressed patient groups. Clinical testing of cellular immunity is important in monitoring vaccine response in vulnerable populations.

Diagnosis of Dengue in a returning traveler from Pakistan suspected of COVID-19, California, USA.

Dengue and COVID-19 cocirculation presents a diagnostic conundrum for physicians evaluating patients with acute febrile illnesses, both in endemic regions and among returning travelers. We present a case of a returning traveler from Pakistan who, following repeated negative SARS-CoV-2 tests, was found to have a Dengue virus serotype 2 infection.

Case-Control Study of Individuals with Discrepant Nucleocapsid and Spike Protein SARS-CoV-2 IgG Results.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory-based methods for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection vary widely in performance. However, there are limited prospectively-collected data on assay performance, and minimal clinical information to guide interpretation of discrepant results. METHODS: Over a 2-week period, 1080 consecutive plasma samples submitted for clinical SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing were tested in parallel for anti-nucleocapsid IgG (anti-N, Abbott) and anti-spike IgG (anti-S1, EUROIMMUN). Chart review was conducted for samples testing positive or borderline on either assay, and for an age/sex-matched cohort of samples negative by both assays. CDC surveillance case definitions were used to determine clinical sensitivity/specificity and conduct receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. RESULTS: There were 52 samples positive by both methods, 2 positive for anti-N only, 34 positive for anti-S1 only, and 27 borderline for anti-S1. Of the 34 individuals positive for anti-S1 alone, 8 (24%) had confirmed COVID-19. No anti-S1 borderline cases were positive for anti-N or had confirmed/probable COVID-19. The anti-N assay was less sensitive (84.2% [95% CI 72.1-92.5%] vs 94.7% [95% CI 85.4-98.9%]) but more specific (99.2% [95% CI 95.5-100%] vs 86.9% [95% CI 79.6-92.3%]) than anti-S1. Abbott anti-N sensitivity could be improved to 96.5% with minimal effect on specificity if the index threshold was lowered from 1.4 to 0.6. CONCLUSION: Real-world concordance between different serologic assays may be lower than previously described in retrospective studies. These findings have implications for the interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG results, especially with the advent of spike antigen-targeted vaccination, as a subset of patients with true infection are anti-N negative and anti-S1 positive.

Comparison of a laboratory-developed test targeting the envelope gene with three nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Numerous nucleic acid amplification tests, including real-time, reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) and isothermal amplification methods, have been developed to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA, including many that have received emergency use authorization (EUA). There is a need to assess their test performance relative to one another. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the test performance of a high complexity laboratory-developed rRT-PCR EUA from Stanford Health Care (SHC) targeting the SARS-CoV-2 envelope (E) gene with other tests: the Atila isothermal amplification assay targeting the nucleocapsid (N) gene and open reading frame 1ab (ORF1ab), the Altona E and spike (S) multiplex, real-time RT-PCR, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) N1 and N2 rRT-PCRs. STUDY DESIGN: A diagnostic comparison study was performed by testing nasopharyngeal samples from persons under investigation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Assay performance was assessed by percent agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Positive percent agreement with the SHC EUA reference assay was 82.8 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 65.0 to 92.9) for Atila, 86.7 % (95 % CI 69.7 to 95.3) for the Altona E and S targets, and 86.7 % (95 % CI 69.7 to 95.3) and 90.0 % (95 % CI 73.6 to 97.3), for the CDC N1 and N2 targets, respectively. All assays demonstrated 100 % negative percent agreement. Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.86 to 0.92, indicating excellent agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Performance was comparable among the SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification methods tested, with a limited number of discrepancies observed in specimens with low viral loads.