Booster vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 induces potent immune responses in people with HIV.

BACKGROUND: People with HIV on antiretroviral therapy with good CD4 T cell counts make effective immune responses following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. There are few data on longer term responses and the impact of a booster dose. METHODS: Adults with HIV were enrolled into a single arm open label study. Two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were followed twelve months later by a third heterologous vaccine dose. Participants had undetectable viraemia on ART and CD4 counts >350 cells/µl. Immune responses to the ancestral strain and variants of concern were measured by anti-spike IgG ELISA, MesoScale Discovery (MSD) anti-spike platform, ACE-2 inhibition, Activation Induced Marker (AIM) assay and T cell proliferation. FINDINGS: 54 participants received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. 43 received a third dose (42 with BNT162b2; 1 with mRNA-1273) one year after the first dose. After the third dose, total anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG titres (MSD), ACE-2 inhibition and IgG ELISA results were significantly higher compared to Day 182 titres (P < 0.0001 for all three). SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4+ T cell responses measured by AIM against SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 peptide pools were significantly increased after a third vaccine compared to 6 months after a first dose, with significant increases in proliferative CD4 + and CD8+ T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 after boosting. Responses to Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants were boosted, although to a lesser extent for Omicron. CONCLUSIONS: In PWH receiving a third vaccine dose, there were significant increases in B and T cell immunity, including to known VOCs.

Durability of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination in people living with HIV.

Duration of protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection in people living with HIV (PWH) following vaccination is unclear. In a substudy of the phase II/III the COV002 trial (NCT04400838), 54 HIV+ male participants on antiretroviral therapy (undetectable viral loads, CD4+ T cells > 350 cells/µL) received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) 4-6 weeks apart and were followed for 6 months. Responses to vaccination were determined by serology (IgG ELISA and Meso Scale Discovery [MSD]), neutralization, ACE-2 inhibition, IFN-γ ELISpot, activation-induced marker (AIM) assay and T cell proliferation. We show that, 6 months after vaccination, the majority of measurable immune responses were greater than prevaccination baseline but with evidence of a decline in both humoral and cell-mediated immunity. There was, however, no significant difference compared with a cohort of HIV-uninfected individuals vaccinated with the same regimen. Responses to the variants of concern were detectable, although they were lower than WT. Preexisting cross-reactive T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike were associated with greater postvaccine immunity and correlated with prior exposure to beta coronaviruses. These data support the ongoing policy to vaccinate PWH against SARS-CoV-2, and they underpin the need for long-term monitoring of responses after vaccination.

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in HIV infection: a single-arm substudy of a phase 2/3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Data on vaccine immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2 are needed for the 40 million people globally living with HIV who might have less functional immunity and more associated comorbidities than the general population. We aimed to explore safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in people with HIV. METHODS: In this single-arm open-label vaccination substudy within the protocol of the larger phase 2/3 trial COV002, adults aged 18-55 years with HIV were enrolled at two HIV clinics in London, UK. Eligible participants were required to be on antiretroviral therapy (ART), with undetectable plasma HIV viral loads (<50 copies per mL), and CD4 counts of more than 350 cells per µL. A prime-boost regimen of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, with two doses was given 4-6 weeks apart. The primary outcomes for this substudy were safety and reactogenicity of the vaccine, as determined by serious adverse events and solicited local and systemic reactions. Humoral responses were measured by anti-spike IgG ELISA and antibody-mediated live virus neutralisation. Cell-mediated immune responses were measured by ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay (ELISpot) and T-cell proliferation. All outcomes were compared with an HIV-uninfected group from the main COV002 study within the same age group and dosing strategy and are reported until day 56 after prime vaccination. Outcomes were analysed in all participants who received both doses and with available samples. The COV002 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Nov 5 and Nov 24, 2020, 54 participants with HIV (all male, median age 42·5 years [IQR 37·2-49·8]) were enrolled and received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Median CD4 count at enrolment was 694·0 cells per µL (IQR 573·5-859·5). No serious adverse events occurred. Local and systemic reactions occurring during the first 7 days after prime vaccination included pain at the injection site (26 [49%] of 53 participants with available data), fatigue (25 [47%]), headache (25 [47%]), malaise (18 [34%]), chills (12 [23%]), muscle ache (19 [36%]), joint pain (five [9%]), and nausea (four [8%]), the frequencies of which were similar to the HIV-negative participants. Anti-spike IgG responses by ELISA peaked at day 42 (median 1440 ELISA units [EUs; IQR 704-2728]; n=50) and were sustained until day 56 (median 941 EUs [531-1445]; n=49). We found no correlation between the magnitude of the anti-spike IgG response at day 56 and CD4 cell count (p=0·93) or age (p=0·48). ELISpot and T-cell proliferative responses peaked at day 14 and 28 after prime dose and were sustained to day 56. Compared with participants without HIV, we found no difference in magnitude or persistence of SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific humoral or cellular responses (p>0·05 for all analyses). INTERPRETATION: In this study of people with HIV, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was safe and immunogenic, supporting vaccination for those well controlled on ART. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for possible use in national covid-19 seroprevalence surveys (React 2): diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of new lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) suitable for use in a national coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) seroprevalence programme (real time assessment of community transmission 2-React 2). DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Laboratory analyses were performed in the United Kingdom at Imperial College, London and university facilities in London. Research clinics for finger prick sampling were run in two affiliated NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Sensitivity analyses were performed on sera stored from 320 previous participants in the React 2 programme with confirmed previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Specificity analyses were performed on 1000 prepandemic serum samples. 100 new participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection attended study clinics for finger prick testing. INTERVENTIONS: Laboratory sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed for seven LFIAs on a minimum of 200 serum samples from participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 500 prepandemic serum samples, respectively. Three LFIAs were found to have a laboratory sensitivity superior to the finger prick sensitivity of the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence studies (84%). These LFIAs were then further evaluated through finger prick testing on participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: two LFIAs (Surescreen, Panbio) were evaluated in clinics in June-July 2020 and the third LFIA (AbC-19) in September 2020. A spike protein enzyme linked immunoassay and hybrid double antigen binding assay were used as laboratory reference standards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The accuracy of LFIAs in detecting immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared with two reference standards. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of seven new LFIAs that were analysed using sera varied from 69% to 100%, and from 98.6% to 100%, respectively (compared with the two reference standards). Sensitivity on finger prick testing was 77% (95% confidence interval 61.4% to 88.2%) for Panbio, 86% (72.7% to 94.8%) for Surescreen, and 69% (53.8% to 81.3%) for AbC-19 compared with the reference standards. Sensitivity for sera from matched clinical samples performed on AbC-19 was significantly higher with serum than finger prick at 92% (80.0% to 97.7%, P=0.01). Antibody titres varied considerably among cohorts. The numbers of positive samples identified by finger prick in the lowest antibody titre quarter varied among LFIAs. CONCLUSIONS: One new LFIA was identified with clinical performance suitable for potential inclusion in seroprevalence studies. However, none of the LFIAs tested had clearly superior performance to the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence surveys, and none showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be considered for routine clinical use.

Clinical and laboratory evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for use in a national COVID-19 seroprevalence survey.

BACKGROUND: Accurate antibody tests are essential to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver testing at scale. However, reported performance varies, and sensitivity analyses have generally been conducted on serum from hospitalised patients. For use in community testing, evaluation of finger-prick self-tests, in non-hospitalised individuals, is required. METHODS: Sensitivity analysis was conducted on 276 non-hospitalised participants. All had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR and were ≥21 days from symptom onset. In phase I, we evaluated five LFIAs in clinic (with finger prick) and laboratory (with blood and sera) in comparison to (1) PCR-confirmed infection and (2) presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on two 'in-house' ELISAs. Specificity analysis was performed on 500 prepandemic sera. In phase II, six additional LFIAs were assessed with serum. FINDINGS: 95% (95% CI 92.2% to 97.3%) of the infected cohort had detectable antibodies on at least one ELISA. LFIA sensitivity was variable, but significantly inferior to ELISA in 8 out of 11 assessed. Of LFIAs assessed in both clinic and laboratory, finger-prick self-test sensitivity varied from 21% to 92% versus PCR-confirmed cases and from 22% to 96% versus composite ELISA positives. Concordance between finger-prick and serum testing was at best moderate (kappa 0.56) and, at worst, slight (kappa 0.13). All LFIAs had high specificity (97.2%-99.8%). INTERPRETATION: LFIA sensitivity and sample concordance is variable, highlighting the importance of evaluations in setting of intended use. This rigorous approach to LFIA evaluation identified a test with high specificity (98.6% (95%CI 97.1% to 99.4%)), moderate sensitivity (84.4% with finger prick (95% CI 70.5% to 93.5%)) and moderate concordance, suitable for seroprevalence surveys.