Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
5.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(11): 1672-1677, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1281403

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The immunogenicity of the Comirnaty® vaccine against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has not been adequately studied in elderly people with comorbidities. We assessed antibody and T-cell responses targeted to the S protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) following full vaccination in nursing-home residents. METHODS: Sixty nursing-home residents (44 female, age 53-100 years), of whom ten had previously been diagnosed with COVID-19, and 18 healthy controls (15 female, age 27-54 years) were recruited. Pre- and post-vaccination blood specimens were available for quantification of total antibodies binding the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and for enumeration of SARS-CoV-2 S-reactive IFN-γ CD4+ and CD8+ T cells by flow cytometry. RESULTS: The seroconversion rate in (presumably) SARS-CoV-2-naïve nursing-home residents (41/43, 95.3%) was similar to that in controls (17/18, 94.4%). A booster effect was documented in post-vaccination samples of nursing-home residents with prior COVID-19. Plasma antibody levels were higher (p < 0.01) in recovered nursing-home residents (all 2500 IU/mL) than in individuals across the other two groups (median 1120 IU/mL in naïve nursing-home residents and 2211 IU/ml in controls). A large percentage of nursing-home residents had SARS-CoV-2 S-reactive IFN-γ CD8+ (naïve 31/49, 63.2%; recovered 8/10, 80%) or CD4+ T cells (naïve 35/49, 71.4%; recovered 7/10, 70%) at baseline, in contrast to healthy controls (3/17, 17.6% and 5/17, 29%, respectively). SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell responses were documented in 88% (15/17) and all control subjects after vaccination, respectively, but only in 65.5% (38/58) and 22.4% (13/58) of nursing-home residents. Overall, the median frequency of SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ CD8+ and CD4+ T cells in nursing-home residents decreased in post-vaccination specimens, whereas it increased in controls. CONCLUSION: The Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine elicits robust SARS-CoV-2 S antibody responses in nursing-home residents. Nevertheless, the rate and frequency of detectable SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ T-cell responses after vaccination was lower in nursing-home residents than in controls.


Subject(s)
B-Lymphocytes/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , T-Lymphocytes , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Female , Humans , Immunity , Interferon-gamma/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Nursing Homes , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , T-Lymphocytes/immunology
6.
J Med Virol ; 93(4): 2301-2306, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1217381

ABSTRACT

Assessment of commercial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunoassays for their capacity to provide reliable information on sera neutralizing activity is an emerging need. We evaluated the performance of two commercially available lateral flow immunochromatographic assays (LFIC; Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody test and the INNOVITA 2019-nCoV Ab test) in comparison with a SARS-CoV-2 neutralization pseudotyped assay for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosis in hospitalized patients and investigate whether the intensity of the test band in LFIC associates with neutralizing antibody (NtAb) titers. Ninety sera were included from 51 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. A green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporter-based pseudotyped neutralization assay (vesicular stomatitis virus coated with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) was used. Test line intensity was scored using a 4-level scale (0 to 3+). The overall sensitivity of LFIC assays was 91.1% for the Wondfo SARS-CoV-2 Antibody test, 72.2% for the INNOVITA 2019-nCoV IgG, 85.6% for the INNOVITA 2019-nCoV IgM, and 92.2% for the NtAb assay. Sensitivity increased for all assays in sera collected beyond day 14 after symptoms onset (93.9%, 79.6%, 93.9%, and 93.9%, respectively). Reactivities equal to or more intense than the positive control line (≥2+) in the Wondfo assay had a negative predictive value of 100% and a positive predictive value of 96.4% for high NtAb50 titers (≥1/160). Our findings support the use of LFIC assays evaluated herein, particularly the Wondfo test, for COVID-19 diagnosis. We also find evidence that these rapid immunoassays can be used to predict high SARS-CoV-2-S NtAb50 titers.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/immunology , Immunoassay/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Green Fluorescent Proteins , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology
8.
J Med Virol ; 93(2): 1141-1144, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1196421

ABSTRACT

Knowledge of the precise timing of SARS-CoV-2 infection may be of clinical and epidemiological relevance. The presence of low-avidity IgGs has conventionally been considered an indicator of recent infection. Here, we carried out qualitative assessment of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody avidity using an urea (6M) dissociation test performed on a lateral flow immunochromatographic IgG/IgM device. We included a total of 76 serum specimens collected from 57 COVID-19 patients, of which 39 tested positive for both IgG and IgM and 37 only for IgG. Sera losing IgG reactivity after urea treatment (n = 28) were drawn significantly earlier (P = .04) after onset of symptoms than those which preserved it (n = 48). This assay may be helpful to estimate the time of acquisition of infection in patients with mild to severe COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibody Affinity , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoassay , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Qualitative Research , SARS-CoV-2/immunology
11.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(3): 472.e7-472.e10, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-959702

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To our knowledge no previous study has assessed the performance of a rapid antigen diagnostic immunoassay (RAD) conducted at the point of care (POC). We evaluated the Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device for diagnosis of coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) in symptomatic patients (n = 412) attending primary healthcare centres. METHODS: RAD was performed immediately after sampling following the manufacturer's instructions (reading at 15 min). RT-PCRs were carried out within 24 h of specimen collection. Samples displaying discordant results were processed for culture in Vero E6 cells. Presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in cell cultures was confirmed by RT-PCR. RESULTS: Out of 412 patients, 43 (10.4%) tested positive by RT-PCR and RAD, and 358 (86.9%) tested negative by both methods; discordant results (RT-PCR+/RAD-) were obtained in 11 patients (2.7%). Overall specificity and sensitivity of rapid antigen detection (RAD) was 100% (95%CI 98.7-100%) and 79.6% (95%CI 67.0-88.8%), respectively, taking RT-PCR as the reference. Overall RAD negative predictive value for an estimated prevalence of 5% and 10% was 99% (95%CI 97.4-99.6%) and 97.9% (95%CI 95.9-98.9), respectively. SARS-CoV-2 could not be cultured from specimens yielding RT-PCR+/RAD- results (n = 11). CONCLUSION: The Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device performed well as a POC test for early diagnosis of COVID-19 in primary healthcare centres. More crucially, the data suggested that patients with RT-PCR-proven COVID-19 testing negative by RAD are unlikely to be infectious.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Ambulatory Care Facilities , Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Child , Child, Preschool , Early Diagnosis , Female , Humans , Immunoassay , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Nasopharynx/virology , Reagent Kits, Diagnostic , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL