ABSTRACT
Humoral immunity after SARS-CoV-2 immunization or natural infection is thought to be evanescent. In our study, we aimed to longitudinally characterize the kinetics of antibody titers after dual BNT162b2 immunization or wild-type infection. Vaccinated and recovered individuals displayed distinct antibody kinetics, as convalescents had detectable RBD-, S1-specific, and neutralizing IgG antibody titers two weeks post-infection that gradually increased longitudinally, while RBD-, S1-specific, and neutralizing IgG were detected in vaccinees after the first dose, increased significantly 3 weeks post the second dose and decreased significantly 4-5 months thereafter. Neutralizing IgG was significantly higher initially in convalescent individuals; however, vaccines displayed significantly higher neutralizing antibodies 4-5 months post the second dose. In both groups, there was a strong negative association between elapsed time and antibody levels. The avidity of anti-RBD antibody titers increased significantly in patients longitudinally, while in vaccinees initially increased, with subsequent decrease, remaining however higher than antibody avidity of recovered individuals at all time-points. Anti-RBD antibodies were strongly correlated with neutralizing and anti-S1 antibodies in both groups at all time-points. This study facilitates our further understanding of immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and vaccines.
ABSTRACT
The most widely used test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is a PCR test. PCR has very high sensitivity and is able to detect very low amounts of RNA. However, many individuals receiving a positive test result in a context of a PCR-based surveillance might be infected with SARS-CoV-2, but they are not contagious at the time of the test. The question arises regards if the cost effective, portable rapid antigen tests (RATs) have a better performance than PCR in identification of infectious individuals. In this direction, we examined the diagnostic performance of RATs from 14 different manufacturers in 400 clinical samples with known rRT-PCR cycles threshold (cT) and 50 control samples. Substantial variability was observed in the limit of detection (LOD) of different RATs (cT = 26.8-34.7). The fluorescence-based RAT exhibited a LOD of cT = 34.7. The use of the most effective RATs leads to true positive rates (sensitivities) of 99.1% and 90.9% for samples with cT ≤ 30 and cT ≤ 33, respectively, percentages that can guarantee a sensitivity high enough to identify contagious patients. RAT testing may also substantially reduce the quarantine period for infected individuals without compromising personal or public safety.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antigens, Viral/analysis , COVID-19/immunology , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Humans , Immunologic Tests , Limit of Detection , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
Prompt COVID-19 diagnosis is urgently required to support infection control measures. Currently available serological tests for measuring SARS-CoV-2 antibodies use different target antigens, although their sensitivity and specificity presents a challenge. We aimed to develop an "in-house" serological ELISA to measure antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by combining different protein antigens. Sera (n = 44) from COVID-19-confirmed patients were evaluated against different SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens and all potential combinations using ELISA. Patients' sera were also evaluated against commercially available ELISA diagnostic kits. The mixture containing RBD 2.5 µg/mL, S2 1 µg/mL and N 1.5 µg/mL was found to be the most potent. Plates were incubated with patients' sera (1:100), and goat anti-human alkaline phosphatase-conjugated IgG, ΙgM and IgA antibody was added. The cut-off value for each assay was determined using the mean optical density plus two standard deviations of pre-pandemic controls. The "in-house" ELISA displayed 91% sensitivity and 97% specificity for IgG antibodies, whereas its sensitivity and specificity for IgM and IgA were 75% and 95% and 73% and 91%, respectively. The "in-house" ELISA developed here combined three SARS-CoV-2 antigens (RBD, S2 and N) as capture antigens and displayed comparable and even higher sensitivity and specificity than otherwise quite reliable commercially available ELISA diagnostic kits.