Response and duration of serum anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies induced by the third dose of an inactivated vaccine: A prospective longitudinal cohort study at 21 serial time points over 641 days.

Given the prevalence of low-pathogenic but highly infectious Omicron variants, a cohort study was conducted to assess the response and duration of novel coronavirus-inactivated vaccine-induced antibodies 1 year after the third dose (Day 641). Blood samples were collected and anti-spike neutralizing antibodies (neutralizing antibody), total antibodies against the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein (total antibody), and immunoglobulin G antibodies against the spike protein (IgG antibody) were determined. Antibody kinetics and attenuation were evaluated. The results showed that the levels of neutralizing, total, and IgG antibodies on Day 641 were 98.05 IU/mL, 152.8 AU/mL, and 7.68 S/CO, respectively. Levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were higher in the younger subgroup than in the older subgroup at several time points after the second and third doses. The seropositive rate of neutralizing antibodies providing protection from infection or severe infection was 46.87% and 87.5%, and the seropositive rates of total antibody and IgG antibody were maintained at 100% and 90.63%, respectively. The half-lives of neutralizing, total, and IgG antibodies were 186.89, 363.04, and 417.50 days, respectively. Collectively, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may provide a certain degree of protection from infection 1 year after the third dose and high protection from severe infection.

Nasal swab is a good alternative sample for detecting SARS-CoV-2 with rapid antigen test: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aim to determine if nasal samples have equivalent detection sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs for RAT and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of nasal swabs with RAT. METHODS: PubMed and Web of Science were searched for eligible studies published before August 23, 2022. A bivariate random effects model was used to perform the quantitative synthesis. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and summary AUC on nasal swabs with RAT were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85), 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99-1.00), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), 298.91 (95% CI, 144.71-617.42) and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.15-0.23), respectively. WHO required RAT kits to perform with a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.97, nasal swabs (0.81) achieved the required sensitivity while nasopharyngeal swabs (0.75) did not. The symptomatic population yielded higher pooled sensitivity than the asymptomatic population (0.86 versus 0.71), with a pooled sensitivity of 0.90 for five days of symptom onset. CONCLUSION: Nasal sampling had a great performance and yielded a high sensitivity in detecting SARS-CoV-2 using RAT, we believe that RAT performed with nasal swabs is a good alternative for detecting SARS-CoV-2, especially early in the onset of symptoms.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM Secondary Response Was Suppressed by Preexisting Immunity in Vaccinees: A Prospective, Longitudinal Cohort Study over 456 Days.

To obtain more insight into IgM in anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity a prospective cohort study was carried out in 32 volunteers to longitudinally profile the kinetics of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM response induced by administration of a three-dose inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine regimen at 19 serial time points over 456 days. The first and second doses were considered primary immunization, while the third dose was considered secondary immunization. IgM antibodies showed a low secondary response that was different from the other three antibodies (neutralizing, total, and IgG antibodies). There were 31.25% (10/32) (95% CI, 14.30-48.20%) of participants who never achieved a positive IgM antibody conversion over 456 days after vaccination. The seropositivity rate of IgM antibodies was 68.75% (22/32) (95% CI, 51.80-85.70%) after primary immunization. Unexpectedly, after secondary immunization the seropositivity response rate was only 9.38% (3/32) (95% CI, 1.30-20.10%), which was much lower than that after primary immunization (p = 0.000). Spearman's correlation analysis indicated a poor correlation of IgM antibodies with the other three antibodies. IgM response in vaccinees was completely different from the response patterns of neutralizing, total, and IgG antibodies following both the primary immunization and the secondary immunization and was suppressed by pre-existing immunity induced by primary immunization.

Evaluating the Value of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody-Based Tests for COVID-19 Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The early detection of COVID-19 patients is fundamental for containing the pandemic. A reverse-transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which detects SARS-CoV-2 RNA, is the gold standard diagnostic test, although it can contribute to false-negative results. Consequently, supplementary diagnostic tests are urgently needed. METHODS: To assess the value of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-based tests for confirming COVID-19, a retrospective study was conducted on 3120 inbound overseas travelers who underwent a 14-day government quarantine in Xiamen from August 2020 to October 2020. The diagnostic accuracy of the total antibody that detected the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody and the RT-PCR that detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA was determined in comparison to the clinical diagnosis. RESULTS: The COVID-19 positive rate was 3.14% (98/3120). The sensitivity and specificity of the RT-PCR test on the first day of quarantine were 14.29% and 100%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity of the total antibody were 93.88% and 99.40%, respectively. The kappa value between an RT-PCR on the first day of quarantine and a clinical diagnosis was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.14-0.35), indicating poor consistency. The kappa value between total antibodies and a clinical diagnosis was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93), indicating perfect consistency. There were no differences in the positive rates of an RT-PCR in symptomatic COVID-19 (7.41% (2/27)) and asymptomatic COVID-19 (16.90 (12/71) (p = 0.338). Similarly, the positive rate of the total antibody tests showed no difference in symptomatic COVID-19 (96.30% (26/27)) and asymptomatic COVID-19 (92.96% (66/71)) (p = 0.676). CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are developed by the body in response to an infection or after vaccination; this can easily lead to a missed diagnosis. In the context of low sensitivity for an RT-PCR, SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection is an effective adjunct to RT-PCR detection, which can improve the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 and provide an effective complement to the false-negative results of an RT-PCR.

Evaluation of the cycle threshold values of RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients in predicting epidemic dynamics and monitoring surface contamination.

To evaluate the application of cycle threshold (Ct) values of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in predicting epidemic dynamics and monitoring surface contamination. The Ct value of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction for SARS­CoV-2 from COVID-19 patients inbound overseas in Xiamen, China was collected from October 2020 to December 2021, and the correlation of patients' Ct values with epidemic dynamics and surface contamination was evaluated. The results showed that there was an extreme inverse correlation of positivity rate in the current calendar month (ORF1ab, r = -0.692, P = 0.004; N,r = -0.629, P = 0.012) and the following calendar month (ORF1ab,r = -0.801, P = 0.001; N,r = -0.620, P = 0.018) with the median Ct values. Ct value showed better performance for monitoring surface contamination, with the area under the curve value 0.808(95 %CI: 0.748-0.869) for ORF1ab and 0.807(95 %CI:0.746-0.868) for the N gene. The patients' ORF1ab Ct value< 29.09 or N Ct value< 28.03 were 11.25 times and 10.48 times more likely to result in surface contamination than those with ORF1ab Ct value ≥ 29.09 or N Ct value≥ 28.03 (OR:11.25,95 % CI: 5.52-22.35; OR:10.48,95 % CI:5.29-20.70). Ct values were associated with the positivity rate in the current or following calendar month and predicted the epidemic dynamics. The Ct values can be used as a predictor for monitoring surface contamination to develop public health responses to COVID-19.

Diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen test for SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 166,943 suspected COVID-19 patients.

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid antigen test (RAT) compared with RT-PCR (reference standard) for SARS-CoV-2, we searched MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science for relevant records. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess study quality, and quantitative synthesis was conducted using a bivariate random-effects model. The meta-analysis included 135 studies (166,943 samples). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.76 (95%CI: 0.73-0.79), 1.00 (95%CI: 1.00-1.00), 276.1 (95% CI, 184.1-414.1), 0.24 (95% CI, 0.21-0.27), and 1171 (95% CI, 782-1755), respectively. Compared to other sample types, nasal samples had the best RAT sensitivity [0.79 (95%CI: 0.71-0.85)]. The sensitivities of the different RAT kits ranged from 0.41 (95%CI: 0.23-0.61) to 0.90 (95%CI: 0.70-0.97). Sensitivity was markedly better in samples with lower Ct, and RAT achieved excellent pooled sensitivity at 1.00 (95%CI: 0.70-1.00) among samples with Ct < 20. Testing within 10 days of symptom onset resulted in a high sensitivity. For ≤ 3, ≤ 7, and ≤ 10 days, the sensitivities were 0.91 (95%CI: 0.83-0.96), 0.89 (95%CI: 0.84-0.93), and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.83-0.92), respectively. RAT kits show high sensitivity and specificity in early infection, especially when the viral load is high. Moreover, using nasal samples for antigen testing, which are moderately sensitive and patient-friendly, is a reliable alternative to nasopharyngeal sampling. RAT might be effective for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic; however, it must be complemented by the careful handling of negative test results.

A 14+7 day quarantine period and a dual nucleic acid testing reagent strategy detect potentially indiscoverable Coronavirus disease 2019 infections in Xiamen, China.

BACKGROUND: Determining what quarantine period and detection strategy are more effective and sustainable remains a challenge for further prevention and social stability. METHODS: From October 2020 to December 2021, 290,547 inbound overseas travelers were subject to government quarantine in Xiamen, China. The detection rate of COVID-19 during different quarantine periods using dual or single nucleic acid testing reagents. RESULTS: The COVID-19 positive rate was 1.79% (519/290,547). The detection rates during the 7-day, 14-day and 14+7-day quarantine periods using the dual reagents were 78.4%, 91.7%, and 100%, respectively. The detection rate of the 7-day, 14-day and 14+7-day quarantine periods were 73.99%, 86.51%, and 94.22%, respectively, using the Liferiver reagent and 72.25%, 84.59%, and 91.91%, respectively, using the Daan reagent. Based on the 14+7 day strategy, dual nucleic acid testing reagent strategy detected all imported cases, but 30 cases (5.78%) were not detected via Liferiver reagent and 42 (8.09%) cases not detected via Daan reagent. CONCLUSION: A 14+7-day quarantine period and dual nucleic acid testing reagent strategy are effective screening methods for COVID-19 among inbound overseas travelers. The superior detection rate of these strategies reduce the risk of secondary transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

A Third Dose of an Inactivated Vaccine Dramatically Increased the Levels and Decay Times of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies, but Disappointingly Declined Again: A Prospective, Longitudinal, Cohort Study at 18 Serial Time Points Over 368 Days.

Background: Due to anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody decay and SARS-CoV-2 variants, vaccine booster doses are a constant concern. It was focused on whether the third dose can quickly evoke and activate immunity and produce a sufficient and durable immune protection. Objectives: To evaluate the responses and durations of five subsets of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and their predictive values for protection after the administration of a three-dose inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines regimens. Methods: A prospective cohort study of five subsets of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (neutralizing antibody, anti-RBD total antibody, anti-Spike IgG, anti-Spike IgM, and anti-Spike IgA) was carried out to evaluate the efficacies and immune characteristics of a three-dose inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines regimen in 32 volunteers. The dynamic response and immune decay were longitudinally profiled at 18 serial time points over 368 days. Results: The neutralizing antibody, anti-RBD total antibody, anti-Spike IgG and anti-Spike IgA levels rapidly increased to 773.60 (380.90-1273.00) IU/mL, 639.30 (399.60-878.60) AU/mL, 34.48 (16.83-44.68) S/CO and 0.91 (0.35-1.14) S/CO, respectively, after the administration of the third dose. Compared to the peak value after the second dose, these values were increased by 4.22-fold, 3.71-fold, 1.01-fold and 0.92-fold. On the other hand, the half-lives of the neutralizing antibody, anti-RBD total antibody, and anti-Spike IgG were 56.26 (95% CI, 46.81 to 70.49) days, 66.37 (95% CI, 54.90 to 83.88) days, and 82.91 (95% CI, 63.65 to 118.89) days, respectively. Compared to the half-lives after the second dose, these values were increased by 1.71-fold, 2.00-fold, and 2.93-fold, respectively. Nevertheless, the positive conversion rate of anti-Spike IgM was decreased to 9.38% (3/32), which was much lower than that after the second dose (65.63% (21/32)). Conclusions: Compared to the second dose, the third dose dramatically increased the antibody levels and decay times. However, the half-life of neutralizing antibody remained unsatisfactory. Due to decay, a fourth dose, and even annual revaccination, might be considered in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination management strategy.