ABSTRACT
Background Understanding immunogenicity and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is critical to guide rational use. Methods We compared the immunogenicity of mRNA-1273, BNT-162b2 or Ad26.COV2.S in ambulatory adults in Massachusetts, USA. To correlate immunogenicity with effectiveness of the three vaccines, we performed an inverse-variance meta-analysis of population level effectiveness from public health reports in >40 million individuals. Results A single dose of either mRNA vaccine yielded comparable antibody and neutralization titers to convalescent individuals. Ad26.COV2.S yielded lower antibody concentrations and frequently negative neutralization titers. Bulk and cytotoxic T-cell responses were higher in mRNA1273 and BNT162b2 than Ad26.COV2.S recipients, and <50% of vaccinees demonstrate CD8+ T-cell responses to spike peptides. Antibody concentrations and neutralization titers increased comparably after the first dose of either vaccine, and further in recipients of a second dose. Prior infection was associated with high antibody concentrations and neutralization even after a single dose and regardless of vaccine. Neutralization of beta, gamma and delta strains were poorer regardless of vaccine. Relative to mRNA1273, the effectiveness of BNT162b2 was lower against infection and hospitalization; and Ad26COV2.S was lower against infection, hospitalization and death. Conclusions Variation in the immunogenicity correlates with variable effectiveness of the three FDA EUA vaccines deployed in the USA.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Protein S DeficiencyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND Characterizing the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and developing accurate serologic assays are needed for diagnostic purposes and estimating population-level seroprevalence. METHODS We measured the kinetics of early antibody responses to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of 259 symptomatic North American patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 (up to 75 days after symptom onset) compared to antibody levels in 1548 individuals whose blood samples were obtained prior to the pandemic. RESULTS Between 14-28 days from onset of symptoms, IgG, IgA, or IgM antibody responses to RBD were all accurate in identifying recently infected individuals, with 100% specificity and a sensitivity of 97%, 91%, and 81% respectively. Although the estimated median time to becoming seropositive was similar across isotypes, IgA and IgM antibodies against RBD were short-lived with most individuals estimated to become seronegative again by 51 and 47 days after symptom onset, respectively. IgG antibodies against RBD lasted longer and persisted through 75 days post-symptoms. IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 RBD were highly correlated with neutralizing antibodies targeting the S protein. No cross-reactivity of the SARS-CoV-2 RBD-targeted antibodies was observed with several known circulating coronaviruses, HKU1, OC 229 E, OC43, and NL63. CONCLUSIONS Among symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 cases, RBD-targeted antibodies can be indicative of previous and recent infection. IgG antibodies are correlated with neutralizing antibodies and are possibly a correlate of protective immunity.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Objectives: Numerous serologic immunoassays have been launched to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, including rapid tests. Here, we validate use of a lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) intended for rapid screening and qualitative detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG in serum, plasma, and whole blood, and compare results with ELISA. We also seek to establish the value of LFI testing on blood obtained from a capillary blood sample. Methods: Samples collected by venous blood draw and capillary finger stick were obtained from patients with SARS-CoV-2 detected by RT-qPCR and control patients negative for SARS-CoV-2. Samples were tested with the 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Detection Kit (Colloidal Gold) lateral flow immunoassay, and antibody calls were compared with results obtained by ELISA. Results: The Biolidics LFI kit shows clinical sensitivity of 92% at 7 days after PCR diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 on venous blood. Test specificity was 92% for IgM and 100% for IgG. There was no significant difference in detecting IgM and IgG with Biolidics LFI and ELISA at D0 and D7 (p=1.00), except for detection of IgM at D7 (p=0.04). Finger stick whole blood of SARS-CoV-2 patients showed 93% sensitivity for antibody detection. Conclusions: Clinical performance of Biolidics 2019-nCoV IgG/IgM Detection Kit (Colloidal Gold) is comparable to ELISA and showed consistent results across different sample types. Furthermore, we show that capillary blood obtained by finger stick shows similar sensitivity for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies as venous blood samples. This provides an opportunity for decentralized rapid testing in the community and may allow point-of-care and longitudinal self-testing for the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.