ABSTRACT
The immune-acquired responses after vaccination vary depending on the type of vaccine and the individual. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the acquisition of immunity and the side effects, health status, and lifestyle after completion of the second dose of AZD1222. Blood samples were collected after a second dose of AZD1222. The Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (IgG) for anti-S1 antibody, the cPASS SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody detection kit for the surrogate virus neutralization test, and the T-spot Discovery SARS-CoV-2 kit were used to identify cellular immunogenicity. Patient experience of adverse effects was investigated using questionnaires. Information on health status and lifestyle were collected from the most recent health checkup data. Generally, females experience more reactogenicity in both intensity and duration. The rash of the first shot and chills of the second shot were associated with humoral immunity. However, comprehensive adverse effects had no correlation with humoral and cellular immunity. The T-spot-positive group had a higher creatinine level, which reflects muscle mass, than the T-spot-negative group. Males presented a higher level of T-spot assays. Body mass index and age were negatively correlated with the T-spot assay and anti-S1 antibody, respectively. Immune acquisition after the second AZD1222 shot was not associated with reactogenicity. However, individuals' sex, age, and BMI were found to be associated with immunogenicity after vaccination.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In Korea, there were issues regarding the use of immunoassays for anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies to detect infection. So, we compared antibody results of eight kinds of commercial immunoassays using clinical remnant specimens. METHODS: We compared the results of several immunoassay kits tested on 40 serum samples from 15 confirmed patients and 86 remnant serum samples from clinical laboratory. Eight kinds of IVD kits-four enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, two lateral flow rapid immunochromatographic assays, and two chemiluminescent immunoassays with one RUO kit were tested. RESULTS: Among 40 serum samples from 15 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, 35 yielded at least one positive result for detecting antibodies in the combined assessment. There were inconsistent results in 12 (28%) samples by single immunoassay. Forty samples collected in 2019 before the first COVID-19 Korean case showed negative results except for one equivocal result. CONCLUSION: The discrepant results obtained with different immunoassay kits in this study show that serological assessment of SARS-CoV-2 by a single immunoassay requires caution not only in detecting infection but also in assessing immunologic status.