COVID-19 clusters in a teaching hospital during the second wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in France: A descriptive study and lessons learned for waves to come.

A total of 92 coronavirus disease 2019 clusters involving 1,156 individuals (729 patients and 427 healthcare workers) occurred in Lyon University Hospital between September 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021, mostly on medical and geriatric wards. The number of clusters was closely correlated to the trend in coronavirus disease 2019 community incidence over time; in-hospital clusters did not persist when community incidence decreased. Recommended preventive measures were not fully applicable due to specific ward-associated determinants and patient characteristics.

Evaluation of commercial Anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody assays in seropositive subjects.

The virus neutralization test (VNT) is the reference for the assessment of the functional ability of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) to block SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells. New competitive immunoassays measuring antibodies preventing interaction between the spike protein and its cellular receptor are proposed as surrogate VNT (sVNT). We tested three commercial sVNT (a qualitative immunochromatographic test and two quantitative immunoassays named YHLO and TECO) together with a conventional anti-spike IgG assay (bioMérieux) in comparison with an in-house plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50) using the original 19A strain and different variants of concern (VOC), on a panel of 306 sera from naturally-infected or vaccinated patients. The qualitative test was rapidly discarded because of poor sensitivity and specificity. Areas under the curve of YHLO and TECO assays were, respectively, 85.83 and 84.07 (p-value >0.05) using a positivity threshold of 20 for PRNT50, and 95.63 and 90.35 (p-value =0.02) using a threshold of 80. However, the performances of YHLO and bioMérieux were very close for both thresholds, demonstrating the absence of added value of sVNT compared to a conventional assay for the evaluation of the presence of NAb in seropositive subjects. In addition, the PRNT50 assay showed a reduction of NAb titers towards different VOC in comparison to the 19A strain that could not be appreciated by the commercial tests. Despite the good correlation between the anti-spike antibody titer and the titer of NAb by PRNT50, our results highlight the difficulty to distinguish true NAb among the anti-RBD antibodies with commercial user-friendly immunoassays.

Evaluation of Commercial Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays and Comparison of Standardized Titers in Vaccinated Health Care Workers.

With the availability of vaccines, commercial assays detecting anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibodies (Ab) evolved toward quantitative assays directed to the spike glycoprotein or its receptor binding domain (RBD). The main objective of the present study was to compare the Ab titers obtained with quantitative commercial binding Ab assays, after one dose (convalescent individuals) or two doses (naive individuals) of vaccine, in health care workers (HCW). Antibody titers were measured in 255 sera (from 150 HCW) with five quantitative immunoassays (Abbott RBD IgG II quant, bioMérieux RBD IgG, DiaSorin Trimeric spike IgG, Siemens Healthineers RBD IgG, Wantai RBD IgG). One qualitative total antibody anti-RBD detection assay (Wantai) was used to detect previous infection before vaccination. The results are presented in binding Ab units (BAU)/mL after application, when possible, of a conversion factor provided by the manufacturers and established from a World Health Organization internal standard. There was a 100% seroconversion with all assays evaluated after two doses of vaccine. With assays allowing BAU/mL correction, Ab titers were correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient, ρ, range: 0.85-0.94). The titer differences varied by a mean of 10.6% between Siemens and bioMérieux assays to 60.9% between Abbott and DiaSorin assays. These results underline the importance of BAU conversion for the comparison of Ab titer obtained with the different quantitative assays. However, significant differences persist, notably, between kits detecting Ab against the different antigens. A true standardization of the assays would be to include the International Standard in the calibration of each assay to express the results in IU/mL.

Immunogenicity and efficacy of          heterologous ChAdOx1-BNT162b2 vaccination.

Following severe adverse reactions to the AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S-nCoV-19 vaccine1,2, European health authorities recommended that patients under the age of 55 years who received one dose of ChAdOx1-S-nCoV-19 receive a second dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine as a booster. However, the effectiveness and the immunogenicity of this vaccination regimen have not been formally tested. Here we show that the heterologous ChAdOx1-S-nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 combination confers better protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection than the homologous BNT162b2 and BNT162b2 combination in a real-world observational study of healthcare workers (n = 13,121). To understand the underlying mechanism, we conducted a longitudinal survey of the anti-spike immunity conferred by each vaccine combination. Both combinations induced strong anti-spike antibody responses, but sera from heterologous vaccinated individuals displayed a stronger neutralizing activity regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. This enhanced neutralizing potential correlated with increased frequencies of switched and activated memory B cells that recognize the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain. The ChAdOx1-S-nCoV-19 vaccine induced a weaker IgG response but a stronger T cell response than the BNT162b2 vaccine after the priming dose, which could explain the complementarity of both vaccines when used in combination. The heterologous vaccination regimen could therefore be particularly suitable for immunocompromised individuals.

Specific detection of memory T-cells in COVID-19 patients using standardized whole-blood Interferon gammarelease assay.

Antigen-specific T-cells are essential for protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. We set up a semi-automated whole-blood Interferon-gamma release assay (WB IGRA) to monitor the T-cell response after stimulation with SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools. We report that the WB IGRA is complementary to serological assays to assess SARS-CoV-2 immunity.

Clinical and laboratory characteristics of symptomatic healthcare workers with suspected COVID-19: a prospective cohort study.

A comprehensive clinical and microbiological assessments of COVID-19 in front-line healthcare workers (HCWs) is needed. Between April 10th and May 28th, 2020, 319 HCWs with acute illness were reviewed. In addition to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR screening, a multiplex molecular panel was used for testing other respiratory pathogens. For SARS-CoV-2 positive HCWs, the normalized viral load, viral culture, and virus neutralization assays were performed weekly. For SARS-CoV-2 negative HCWs, SARS-CoV-2 serological testing was performed one month after inclusion. Among the 319 HCWs included, 67 (21.0%) were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; 65/67 (97.0%) developed mild form of COVID-19. Other respiratory pathogens were found in 6/66 (9.1%) SARS-CoV-2 positive and 47/241 (19.5%) SARS-Cov-2 negative HCWs (p = 0.07). The proportion of HCWs with a viral load > 5.0 log10 cp/mL (Ct value < 25) was less than 15% at 8 days after symptom onset; 12% of HCWs were positive after 40 days (Ct > 37). More than 90% of cultivable virus had a viral load > 4.5 log10 cp/mL (Ct < 26) and were collected within 10 days after symptom onset. Among negative HCWs, 6/190 (3.2%) seroconverted. Our data suggest that the determination of viral load can be used for appreciating the infectiousness of infected HCWs. These data could be helpful for facilitating their return to work.

Assessment of serological techniques for screening patients for COVID-19 (COVID-SER): a prospective, multicentric study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 threatens global public health, and there is an urgent public health need to assess acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Serological tests might provide results that can be complementary to or confirm suspected COVID-19 cases and reveal previous infection. The performance of serological assays (sensitivity and specificity) has to be evaluated before their use in the general population. The neutralisation capacity of the produced antibodies also has to be evaluated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We set up a prospective, multicentric clinical study to evaluate the performance of serological kits among a population of healthcare workers presenting mild symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Four hundred symptomatic healthcare workers will be included in the COVID-SER study. The values obtained from a control cohort included during the prepandemic time will be used as reference. A workflow was set up to study serological response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate antibody neutralisation capacity in patients with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests will be assessed using molecular detection of the virus as a reference. The measurement of IgM and IgG antibodies will be performed once per week for 6 consecutive weeks and then at 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months after the diagnosis. The kinetics of IgM and IgG will determine the optimal period to perform serological testing. The proportion of false negative PCR tests in symptomatic subjects will be determined on the basis of subsequent seroconversions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the national review board for biomedical research in April 2020 (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Méditerranée I, Marseille, France) (ID RCB 2020-A00932-37). Results will be disseminated through presentations at scientific meetings and publications in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04341142.