Challenges in Assessing COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Signals-The Case of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine and Corneal Graft Rejection.

The rapid and large-scale roll-out of new COVID-19 vaccines has led to unprecedented challenges in assessing vaccine safety. In 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) processed about 1.7 million safety reports related to COVID-19 vaccines in the EudraVigilance (EV) database and identified more than 900 potential signals. Beyond the large amount of information to be processed, the evaluation of safety signals has faced several difficulties and limitations, both in the assessment of case reports and in the investigation of databases. The evaluation of a signal of corneal graft rejection (CGR) with Vaxzevria® was no exception to this. In this commentary, we present the challenges encountered in making regulatory decisions in the context of evolving evidence and knowledge. The pandemic crisis emphasised the importance of quick and proactive communication to address the many questions and, above all, to ensure the transparency of safety data.

Immunovirological and environmental screening reveals actionable risk factors for fatal COVID-19 during post-vaccination nursing home outbreaks.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination has resulted in excellent protection against fatal disease, including in older adults. However, risk factors for post-vaccination fatal COVID-19 are largely unknown. We comprehensively studied three large nursing home outbreaks (20-35% fatal cases among residents) by combining severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) aerosol monitoring, whole-genome phylogenetic analysis and immunovirological profiling of nasal mucosa by digital nCounter transcriptomics. Phylogenetic investigations indicated that each outbreak stemmed from a single introduction event, although with different variants (Delta, Gamma and Mu). SARS-CoV-2 was detected in aerosol samples up to 52 d after the initial infection. Combining demographic, immune and viral parameters, the best predictive models for mortality comprised IFNB1 or age, viral ORF7a and ACE2 receptor transcripts. Comparison with published pre-vaccine fatal COVID-19 transcriptomic and genomic signatures uncovered a unique IRF3 low/IRF7 high immune signature in post-vaccine fatal COVID-19 outbreaks. A multi-layered strategy, including environmental sampling, immunomonitoring and early antiviral therapy, should be considered to prevent post-vaccination COVID-19 mortality in nursing homes.

Kinetics and ability of binding antibody and surrogate virus neutralization tests to predict neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant following BNT162b2 booster administration.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term humoral immunity induced by booster administration, as well as the ability of binding antibody and surrogate virus neutralization tests (sVNT) to predict neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. METHODS: A total of 269 sera samples were analyzed from 64 healthcare workers who had received a homologous booster dose of BNT162b2. Neutralizing antibodies assessed by sVNT and anti-RBD IgG measured with the sCOVG assay (Siemens Healthineers®) were analyzed at five timepoints; before and up to 6 months following the booster. Antibody titers were correlated with neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron BA.1 variant obtained by pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT) as a reference method. RESULTS: While Wild-type sVNT percentage of inhibition (POI) remained above 98.6% throughout the follow-up period after booster administration, anti-RBD IgG and NAbs assessed by Omicron BA.1 pVNT showed respectively a 3.4-fold and 13.3-fold decrease after 6 months compared to the peak reached at day 14. NAbs assessed by Omicron sVNT followed a steady decline until reaching a POI of 53.4%. Anti-RBD IgG and Omicron sVNT assays were strongly correlated (r=0.90) and performed similarly to predict the presence of neutralizing antibodies with Omicron pVNT (area under the ROC: 0.82 for both assays). In addition, new adapted cut-off values of anti-RBD IgG (>1,276 BAU/mL) and Omicron sVNT (POI>46.6%) were found to be better predictors of neutralizing activity. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a significant drop in humoral immunity 6 months after booster administration. Anti-RBD IgG and Omicron sVNT assays were highly correlated and could predict neutralizing activity with moderate performance.

Clinical performance evaluation of the Fluorecare® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B & RSV rapid antigen combo test in symptomatic individuals

Background : A SARS-CoV-2+Flu A/B+RSV Combo Rapid test may be more relevant than Rapid Antigen Diagnostic (RAD) tests targeting only SARS-CoV-2 since we are facing a concurrent circulation of these viruses during the winter season. Objectives : To assess the clinical performance of a SARS-CoV-2+Flu A/B+RSV Combo test in comparison to a multiplex RT-qPCR. Study Design : Residual nasopharyngeal swabs issued from 178 patients were included. All patients, adults and children, were symptomatic and presented at the emergency department with flu-like symptoms. Characterization of the infectious viral agent was done by RT-qPCR. The viral load was expressed as cycle threshold (Ct). Samples were then tested using the multiplex RAD test Fluorecare®ฏ SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B & RSV Antigen Combo Test. Data analysis was carried out using descriptive statistics. Results : The sensitivity of the test varies according to the virus, with the highest sensitivity observed for Influenza A (80.8.% [95%CI: 67.2 - 94.4]) and the lowest sensitivity observed for RSV (41.5% [95%CI: 26.2 - 56.8]). Higher sensitivities were observed for samples with high viral loads (Ct < 20) and decrease with low viral loads. The specificity for SARS-CoV-2, RSV and Influenza A and B was >95%. Conclusions : The Fluorecare® combo antigenic presents satisfying performance in real-life clinical setting for Influenza A and B in samples with high viral load. This could be useful to allow a rapid (self-)isolation as the transmissibility of these viruses increase with the viral load. According to our results, its use to rule-out SARS-CoV-2 and RSV infection is not sufficient.

Peri-infection titers of neutralizing and binding antibodies as a predictor of COVID-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated healthcare professionals: importance of the timing.

OBJECTIVES: The BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine is highly effective in reducing COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and death. However, many subjects developed a breakthrough infection despite a full vaccination scheme. Since the waned efficacy of mRNA vaccines is correlated with the decrease of antibodies occurring over time, we aimed at evaluating whether lower levels of antibodies were associated with an increased risk of breakthrough infection in a cohort of breakthrough subjects that received three vaccine doses. METHODS: Total binding antibodies against the RBD of the S1 subunit (Roche Diagnostics, Machelen, Belgium) and neutralizing antibodies using the Omicron B.1.1.529 variant pseudovirus were measured. Based on individual kinetic curves, the antibody titer of each subject was interpolated just before the breakthrough infection and compared to a matched-control group that did not develop a breakthrough infection. RESULTS: Lower levels of total binding and neutralizing antibodies were observed compared to the control group (6.900 [95% CI; 5.101-9.470] vs. 11.395 BAU/mL [8.627-15.050] [p=0.0301] and 26.6 [18.0-39.3] vs. 59.5 dilution titer-1 [32.3-110] [p=0.0042], respectively). The difference between breakthrough and control subjects was mostly observed for neutralizing antibodies before three months after the homologous booster administration (46.5 [18.2-119] vs. 381 [285-509] [p=0.0156]). Considering the measurement of total binding antibodies before 3 months, there was no significant difference (p=0.4375). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our results showed that subjects that developed a breakthrough infection had lower levels of neutralizing and total binding antibodies compared to controls. The difference was mostly noticeable considering neutralizing antibodies, especially for infections occurring before 3 months after the booster administration.

Clinical performance evaluation of the Fluorecare® SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B & RSV rapid antigen combo test in symptomatic individuals.

BACKGROUND: A SARS-CoV-2+Flu A/B+RSV Combo Rapid test may be more relevant than Rapid Antigen Diagnostic (RAD) tests targeting only SARS-CoV-2 since we are facing a concurrent circulation of these viruses during the winter season. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical performance of a SARS-CoV-2+Flu A/B+RSV Combo test in comparison to a multiplex RT-qPCR. STUDY DESIGN: Residual nasopharyngeal swabs issued from 178 patients were included. All patients, adults and children, were symptomatic and presented at the emergency department with flu-like symptoms. Characterization of the infectious viral agent was done by RT-qPCR. The viral load was expressed as cycle threshold (Ct). Samples were then tested using the multiplex RAD test Fluorecare®à¸ SARS-CoV-2 & Influenza A/B & RSV Antigen Combo Test. Data analysis was carried out using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the test varies according to the virus, with the highest sensitivity observed for Influenza A (80.8.% [95%CI: 67.2 - 94.4]) and the lowest sensitivity observed for RSV (41.5% [95%CI: 26.2 - 56.8]). Higher sensitivities were observed for samples with high viral loads (Ct < 20) and decrease with low viral loads. The specificity for SARS-CoV-2, RSV and Influenza A and B was >95%. CONCLUSIONS: The Fluorecare® combo antigenic presents satisfying performance in real-life clinical setting for Influenza A and B in samples with high viral load. This could be useful to allow a rapid (self-)isolation as the transmissibility of these viruses increase with the viral load. According to our results, its use to rule-out SARS-CoV-2 and RSV infection is not sufficient.

Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines: Perspective from the European Medicines Agency.

Prior to deployment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in the European Union in 2021, a high vaccine uptake leading to an unprecedented volume of safety data from spontaneous reports and real-world evidence, was anticipated. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) implemented specific activities to ensure enhanced monitoring of emerging vaccine safety information, including intensive monitoring of reports of adverse events of special interest and the use of observed-to-expected analyses. The EMA also commissioned several independent observational studies using a large network of electronic healthcare databases and primary data collection via mobile and web-based applications. This preparedness was key for two high-profile safety signals: thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), a new clinical entity associated with adenovirus-vectored vaccines, and myocarditis/pericarditis with messenger RNA vaccines. With no existing case definition nor background rates, the signal of TTS posed particular challenges. Nevertheless, it was rapidly identified, evaluated, contextualized and the risk minimized thanks to close surveillance and an efficient use of available evidence, clinical expertise and flexible regulatory tools. The two signals illustrated the complementarity between spontaneous and real-world data, the former enabling rapid risk identification and communication, the latter enabling further characterization. The COVID-19 pandemic has tremendously enhanced the development of tools and methods to harness the unprecedented volume of safety data generated for the vaccines. Areas for further improvement include the need for better and harmonized data collection across Member States (e.g., stratified vaccine exposure) to support signal evaluation in all population groups, risk contextualization, and safety communication.

Vaccine-induced binding and neutralizing antibodies against Omicron 6 months after a homologous BNT162b2 booster.

Evidence about the long-term persistence of the booster-mediated immunity against Omicron is mandatory for pandemic management and deployment of vaccination strategies. A total of 155 healthcare professionals (104 COVID-19 naive and 51 with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection) received a homologous BNT162b2 booster. Binding antibodies against the spike protein and neutralizing antibodies against Omicron were measured at several time points before and up to 6 months after the booster. Geometric mean titers of measured antibodies were correlated to vaccine efficacy (VE) against symptomatic disease. Compared to the highest response, a significant 10.2- and 11.5-fold decrease in neutralizing titers was observed after 6 months in participants with and without history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A corresponding 2.5- and 2.9-fold decrease in binding antibodies was observed. The estimated T1/2 of neutralizing antibodies in participants with and without history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 42 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 25-137) and 36 days (95% CI: 25-65). Estimated T1/2 were longer for binding antibodies: 168 (95% CI: 116-303) and 139 days (95% CI: 113-180), respectively. Both binding and neutralizing antibodies were strongly correlated to VE (r = 0.83 and 0.89). However, binding and neutralizing antibodies were modestly correlated, and a high proportion of subjects (36.7%) with high binding antibody titers (i.e., >8434 BAU/ml) did not have neutralizing activity. A considerable decay of the humoral response was observed 6 months after the booster, and was strongly correlated with VE. Our study also shows that commercial assays available in clinical laboratories might require adaptation to better predict neutralization in the Omicron era.

Resistance towards ChadOx1 nCoV-19 in an 83 Years Old Woman Experiencing Vaccine Induced Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: in this report, we describe the case of an 83-year-old woman vaccinated with ChadOx1 nCoV-19 who developed a so-called vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome and who did not develop any antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 at 30 days following the administration of her first dose of ChadOx1 nCoV-19. Experimental section: two serum samples from the patient and 5 serum samples from 5 control individuals having received the two-dose regimen vaccination with ChadOx1 nCoV-19 were evaluated. In order to investigate the lack of response to the vaccination, a cell model was developed. This model permits to evaluate the interaction between responsive cells (A549) possessing the Coxsackievirus and Adenovirus Receptor (CAR), a defined concentration of ChadOx1 nCoV-19 and serial dilution of the patient or the control serum. The aim was to assess the impact of these sera on the production of the spike (S) protein induced by the transfection of the genetic material of ChadOx1 nCoV-19 into the A549 cells. The S protein is measured in the supernatant using an ELISA technique. RESULTS: interestingly, the serum from the patient who developed the vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome impaired the production of S protein by the A549 cells transfected with ChadOx1 nCoV-19. This was not observed with the controls who did not interfere with the transfection of ChadOx1 nCoV-19 into A549 cells since the S protein is retrieved in the supernatant fraction. CONCLUSION: based on the data coming from the clinical and the cell model information, we found a possible explanation on the absence of antibody response in our patient. She has, or has developed, characteristics that prevent the production of the S protein in contrast to control subjects. We were not able to investigate the entire mechanism behind this resistance which deserve further investigations. A link between this resistance and the development of the thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome following vaccination with ChadOx1 nCoV-19 cannot be excluded.

Serum SARS-CoV-2 Antigens for the Determination of COVID-19 Severity.

The diagnostic of SARS-CoV-2 infection relies on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reactions (RT-PCRs) performed on nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Nevertheless, false-negative results can be obtained with inadequate sampling procedures, making the use of other biological matrices worthy of investigation. This study aims to evaluate the kinetics of serum N antigens in severe and non-severe patients and compare the clinical performance of serum antigenic assays with NP RT-PCR. Ninety patients were included in the study and monitored for several days. Disease severity was determined according to the WHO clinical progression scale. Serum N antigen levels were measured with a chemiluminescent assay (CLIA) and the Single Molecular Array (Simoa) assay. Viremia thresholds for severity were determined and proposed. In severe patients, the peak antigen response was observed 7 days after the onset of symptoms, followed by a decline. No real peak response was observed in non-severe patients. Severity thresholds for the Simoa and the CLIA provided positive likelihood ratios of 30.0 and 10.9 for the timeframe between day 2 and day 14, respectively. Sensitive detection of N antigens in serum may thus provide a valuable new marker for COVID-19 diagnosis and evaluation of disease severity. When assessed during the first 2 weeks since the onset of symptoms, it may help in identifying patients at risk of developing severe COVID-19 to optimize better intensive care utilization.

Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody with Pseudotyped Virus-based Test on HEK-293T hACE2 Cells.

Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) are of particular importance because they can prevent binding of the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein (S protein) to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor present at the surface of human cells, preventing virus entry into the host cells. The gold standard method for detection of NAbs is the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). Based on the measurement of cell lysis due to viral infection, this test is able to detect antibodies that prevent cell infection (Muruato et al., 2020; Lau et al., 2021). This technique requires the use of live pathogens, i.e., SARS-CoV-2 in this case, and must be done in a biosafety level 3 (BL3) laboratory. In addition, it requires expensive installations, skillful and meticulous staff, and a high workload, which prevents its wide implementation even in research laboratories. A SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus will express the S protein responsible for cell entrance, but will not express the pathogenic genetic material of the virus, making them less dangerous for laboratory staff and the environment. Graphic abstract.

Analytical Sensitivity of Six SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Tests for Omicron versus Delta Variant.

Rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests are commonly used for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, with the continuous emergence of new variants of concern (VOC), presenting various mutations potentially affecting the nucleocapsid protein, the analytical performances of these assays should be frequently reevaluated. One hundred and twenty samples were selected and tested with both RT-qPCR and six commercial RAD tests that are commonly sold in Belgian pharmacies. Of these, direct whole-genome sequencing identified the strains present in 116 samples, of which 70 were Delta and 46 were Omicron (BA.1 and BA.1.1 sub-lineages, respectively). The sensitivity across a wide range of Ct values (13.5 to 35.7; median = 21.3) ranged from 70.0% to 92.9% for Delta strains and from 69.6% to 78.3% for Omicron strains. When taking swabs with a low viral load (Ct > 25, corresponding to <4.9 log10 copies/mL), only the Roche RAD test showed acceptable performances for the Delta strains (80.0%), while poor performances were observed for the other RAD tests (20.0% to 40.0%). All the tested devices had poor performances for the Omicron samples with a low viral load (0.0% to 23.1%). The poor performances observed with low viral loads, particularly for the Omicron strain, is an important limitation of RAD tests, which is not sufficiently highlighted in the instructions for use of these devices.

Dynamics of Neutralizing Antibody Responses Following Natural SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Correlation with Commercial Serologic Tests. A Reappraisal and Indirect Comparison with Vaccinated Subjects.

Neutralising antibodies (NAbs) represent the real source of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections by preventing the virus from entering target cells. The gold standard in the detection of these antibodies is the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). As these experiments must be done in a very secure environment, other techniques based on pseudoviruses: pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT) or surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) have been developed. Binding assays, on the other hand, measure total antibodies or IgG, IgM, and IgA directed against one epitope of the SARS-CoV-2, independently of their neutralizing capacity. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of six commercial binding assays to the pVNT and sVNT. In this study, we used blood samples from a cohort of 62 RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients. Based on the results of the neutralizing assays, adapted cut-offs for the binding assays were calculated. The use of these adapted cut-offs does not permit to improve the accuracy of the serological assays and we did not find an adapted cut-off able to improve the capacity of these tests to detect NAbs. For a part of the population, a longitudinal follow-up with at least two samples for the same patient was performed. From day 14 to day 291, more than 75% of the samples were positive for NAbs (n = 87/110, 79.1%). Interestingly, 6 months post symptoms onset, the majority of the samples (N = 44/52, 84.6%) were still positive for NAbs. This is in sharp contrast with the results we obtained 6 months post-vaccination in our cohort of healthcare workers who have received the two-dose regimens of BNT162b2. In this cohort of vaccinated subjects, 43% (n = 25/58) of the participants no longer exhibit NAbs activity 180 days after the administration of the first dose of BNT162b2.

Waning of IgG, Total and Neutralizing Antibodies 6 Months Post-Vaccination with BNT162b2 in Healthcare Workers.

Data about the long-term duration of antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are still scarce and are important to design vaccination strategies. In this study, 231 healthcare professionals received the two-dose regimen of BNT162b2. Of these, 158 were seronegative and 73 were seropositive at baseline. Samples were collected at several time points. The neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and antibodies against the nucleocapsid and the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 were measured. At day 180, a significant antibody decline was observed in seronegative (-55.4% with total antibody assay; -89.6% with IgG assay) and seropositive individuals (-74.8% with total antibody assay; -79.4% with IgG assay). The estimated half-life of IgG from the peak humoral response was 21 days (95% CI: 13-65) in seronegative and 53 days (95% CI: 40-79) in seropositive individuals. The estimated half-life of total antibodies was longer and ranged from 68 days (95% CI: 54-90) to 114 days (95% CI: 87-167) in seropositive and seronegative individuals, respectively. The decline of NAbs was more pronounced (-98.6%) and around 45% of the subjects tested were negative at day 180. Whether this decrease correlates with an equivalent drop in the clinical effectiveness against the virus would require appropriate clinical studies.

Persistence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies Depends on the Analytical Kit: A Report for Up to 10 Months after Infection.

Several studies have described the long-term kinetics of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies but long-term follow-up data, i.e., >6 months, are still sparse. Additionally, the literature is inconsistent regarding the waning effect of the serological response. The aim of this study was to explore the temporal dynamic changes of the immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalized and non-hospitalized symptomatic patients over a period of 10 months. Six different analytical kits for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection were used. Positivity rates, inter-assay agreement and kinetic models were determined. A high inter-individual and an inter-methodology variability was observed. Assays targeting total antibodies presented higher positivity rates and reached the highest positivity rates sooner compared with assays directed against IgG. The inter-assay agreement was also higher between these assays. The stratification by disease severity showed a much-elevated serological response in hospitalized versus non-hospitalized patients in all assays. In this 10-month follow-up study, serological assays showed a clinically significant difference to detect past SARS-CoV-2 infection with total antibody assays presenting the highest positivity rates. The waning effect reported in several studies should be interpreted with caution because it could depend on the assay considered.