Assessing T-Cell Immunity in Kidney Transplant Recipients with Absent Antibody Production after a 3rd Dose of the mRNA-1273 Vaccine.

The vulnerable population of kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) are low responders to COVID-19 vaccines, so specific immune surveillance is needed. The interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) release assay (IGRA) is effective in assessing T cell-mediated immunity. We assessed SARS-CoV-2-directed T cell responses in KTRs with absent antibody production after a third dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, using two different IGRAs. A cohort of 57 KTRs, who were actively followed up, received a third dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine. After the evaluation of humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2, 14 seronegative patients were tested with two commercial IGRAs (SD Biosensor and Euroimmun). Out of 14 patients, one and three samples were positive by IGRAs with Euroimmun and SD Biosensor, respectively. The overall agreement between the two assays was 85.7% (κ = 0.444). In addition, multivariate linear regression analysis showed no statistically significant association between the IFN-γ concentration, and the independent variables analyzed (age, gender, years since transplant, total lymphocytes cells/mcl, CD3+ cells/mcl, CD3+ CD4+ cells/mcl, CD3+ CD8+ cells/mcl, CD19+ cells/mcl, CD3-CD16+CD56+ cells/mcl) (p > 0.01). In a vulnerable setting, assessing cellular immune response to complement the humoral response may be advantageous. Since the two commercial IGRAs showed a good agreement on negative samples, the three discordant samples highlight the need for further investigations.

Soluble urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor (suPAR) levels are predictive of COVID-19 severity: an Italian experience.

BACKGROUND: The soluble urokinase Plasminogen Activator Receptor (suPAR) has been identified as a reliable marker of COVID-19 severity, helping in personalizing COVID-19 therapy. This study aims to evaluate the correlation between suPAR levels and COVID-19 severity, in relation to the traditional inflammatory markers. METHODS: Sera from 71 COVID-19 patients were tested for suPAR levels using Chorus suPAR assay (Diesse Diagnostica Senese SpA, Italy). suPAR levels were compared with other inflammatory markers: IL-1ß, IL-6, TNF-α, circulating calprotectin, neutrophil and lymphocyte counts, and Neutrophil/Lymphocytes Ratio (NLR). Respiratory failure, expressed as P/F ratio, and mortality rate were used as indicators of disease severity. RESULTS: A positive correlation of suPAR levels with IL-6 (r = 0.479, p = 0.000), TNF-α (r = 0.348, p = 0.003), circulating calprotectin (r = 0.369, p = 0.002), neutrophil counts (r = 0.447, p = 0.001), NLR (r = 0.492, p = 0.001) has been shown. Stratifying COVID-19 population by suPAR concentration above and below 6 ng/mL, we observed higher levels of circulating calprotectin (10.1 µg/mL, SD 7.9 versus 6.4 µg/mL, SD 7.5, p < 0.001), higher levels of P/F ratio (207.5 IQR 188.3 vs 312.0 IQR 127.8, p = 0.013) and higher mortality rate. Median levels of suPAR were increased in all COVID-19 patients requiring additional respiratory support (Nasal Cannula, Venturi Mask, BPAP and CPAP) (6.5 IQR = 4.9) compared to the group at room air (4.6 IQR = 4.2). CONCLUSION: suPAR levels correlate with disease severity and survival rate of COVID-19 patients, representing a promising prognostic biomarker for the risk assessment of the disease.

The role of neutralizing antibodies by sVNT after two doses of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of Italian healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluating anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels is a current priority to drive immunization, as well as to predict when a vaccine booster dose may be required and for which priority groups. The aim of our study was to investigate the kinetics of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike S1 protein IgG (anti-S1 IgG) antibodies and neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in an Italian cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs), following the Pfizer/BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, over a period of up to six months after the second dose. METHODS: We enrolled 57 HCWs, without clinical history of COVID-19 infection. Fluoroenzyme-immunoassay was used for the quantitative anti-S1 IgG antibodies at different time points T1 (one month), T3 (three months) and T6 (six months) following the second vaccine shot. Simultaneously, a commercial surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) was used for the determination of NAbs, expressed as inhibition percentage (% IH). RESULTS: Median values of anti-S1 IgG antibodies decreased from T1 (1,452 BAU/mL) to T6 (104 BAU/mL) with a percent variation of 92.8% while the sVNT showed a percent variation of 34.3% for the same time frame. The decline in anti-S1 IgG antibodies from T1 to T6 was not accompanied by a loss of the neutralizing capacity of antibodies. In fact at T6 a neutralization percentage <20% IH was observed only in 3.51% of HCWs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal that the decrease of anti-S1 IgG levels do not correspond in parallel to a decrease of NAbs over time, which highlights the necessity of using both assays to assess vaccination effectiveness.

Performance evaluation of four surrogate Virus Neutralization Tests (sVNTs) in comparison to the in vivo gold standard test.

BACKGROUND: Several commercial surrogate Virus Neutralization Tests (sVNTs) have been developed in the last year. Neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies through interaction with Spike protein Receptor Binding Domain (S-RBD) can block the virus from entering and infecting host cells. However, there is a lack of information about the functional activity of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies that may be associated with protective responses. For these reasons, to counteract viral infection, the conventional virus neutralization test (VNT) is still considered the gold standard. The aim of this study was to contribute more and detailed information about sVNTs' performance, by determining in vitro the anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody concentration using four different commercial assays and then comparing the obtained data to VNT. METHODS: Eighty-eight samples were tested using two chemiluminescence assays (Snibe and Mindray) and two ELISA assays (Euroimmun and Diesse). The antibody titers were subsequently detected and quantified by VNT. RESULTS: The overall agreement between each sVNT and VNT was 95.45% for Euroimmun and 98.86% for Diesse, Mindray and Snibe. Additionally, we investigated whether the sVNTs were closer to the gold standard than traditional anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays S-RBD or S1 based, finding a higher agreement mean value for sVNTs (98.01 ± 1.705% vs 95.45 ± 1.921%; p < 0.05). Furthermore, Spearman's statistical analysis for the correlation of sVNT versus VNT showed r = 0.666 for Mindray; r = 0.696 for Diesse; r = 0.779 for Mindray and r = 0.810 for Euroimmun. CONCLUSIONS: Our data revealed a good agreement between VNT and sVNTs. Despite the VNT still remains the gold standard, the sVNT might be a valuable tool for screening wider populations.

The WHO International Standard for COVID-19 serological tests: towards harmonization of anti-spike assays.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays are relevant in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, providing valuable data on the immunization status of the population. However, current serology tests are highly variable, due to their different characteristics and to the lack of reference materials. The aim of the World Health Organization (WHO) first International Standard (IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin is to harmonize humoral immune response assessment after natural infection or vaccination, and recommend reporting the results for binding activity in Binding Antibody Units (BAU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study analyzed six commercial quantitative anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-protein assays in a head-to-head comparison, using the manufacturers' conversion factors for the WHO IS to obtain BAU/mL values. RESULTS: Our data showed good alignment up to 1000 BAU/mL, then began to disperse, exhibiting some discrepancies. Moreover, correlations among methods varied with Cohen's Kappa ranging from 0.580 to 1.00, with the lowest agreement values for kits using different target antigens or different antibody isotypes, making it clear that the laboratory report should include this information. Values expressed as BAU/ml showed a reduced between-assays variability compared to AU/ml (median coefficients of variation 0.38 and 0.68, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: On the basis of these data at present anti-SARS CoV-2 serological assays' results are not interchangeable, and, more importantly, individual immune monitoring should be performed with the same method.

An overview on advantages and limitations of serological assays for saRs-coV-2 infectious disease

COVID-19 infection (SARS-CoV-2) is a viral disease first encountered in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, then rapidly spreading around the world. During this current public health emergency of international concern, screening and diagnosing patients quickly in order to aid containment is a priority. Most of our knowledge on diagnostics comes from previous studies on SARSCoV. Since SARS-CoV-2 belongs to the same large family of viruses as those that cause the MERS and SARS outbreak, we could assume that its antibody generation process should be similar. The high contagiousness and the characteristics of high lethality of the epidemic require efficient diagnostics, able to quickly identify the sources of the infection. The identification of patients with active SARS-CoV-2 infection is currently based on the amplification of a viral genome sequence using molecular biology techniques (real-time polymerase chain reaction), which can be subsequently confirmed by gene sequencing. However, the variability linked to the execution of the swab and the limitations of the test (complexity, biosecurity levels, costs and long response times) makes molecular diagnostics unsuitable for use in the field. Consequently, new tools such as serological tests capable of tracking the virus through each phase of the disease are in great demand. Serological antibody tests are already being developed and have already been introduced to the market. To date, however, there is no robust scientific evidence on the clinical-diagnostic reliability of these tests which therefore, at the moment, cannot replace the molecular test. The few studies in the literature are of limited thickness, sometimes discordant with each other and conducted on a small scale mainly on the Chinese population. In the absence of specific references, there is an open debate on the best use of these serological tests and on the ideal moment of their execution. In this review we describe the main characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the diagnostic molecular strategies available today, and the first experimental data on the determination of antibodies directed towards SARS-CoV-2.

Diagnostic accuracy of an automated chemiluminescent immunoassay for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies: an Italian experience.

A pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been spreading throughout the world. Though molecular diagnostic tests are the gold standard for COVID-19, serological testing is emerging as a potential surveillance tool, in addition to its complementary role in COVID-19 diagnostics. Indubitably quantitative serological testing provides greater advantages than qualitative tests but today there is still little known about serological diagnostics and what the most appropriate role quantitative tests might play. Sixty-one COVID-19 patients and 64 patients from a control group were tested by iFlash1800 CLIA analyzer for anti-SARS CoV-2 antibodies IgM and IgG. All COVID-19 patients were hospitalized in San Giovanni di Dio Hospital (Florence, Italy) and had a positive oro/nasopharyngeal swab reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction result. The highest sensitivity with a very good specificity performance was reached at a cutoff value of 10.0 AU/mL for IgM and of 7.1 for IgG antibodies, hence near to the manufacturer's cutoff values of 10 AU/mL for both isotypes. The receiver operating characteristic curves showed area under the curve values of 0.918 and 0.980 for anti-SARS CoV-2 antibodies IgM and IgG, respectively. iFlash1800 CLIA analyzer has shown highly accurate results for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies profile and can be considered an excellent tool for COVID-19 diagnostics.