Serological response to a third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine according to previous infection history

The IgG antibody titer against SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding protein (RBD) after mRNA vaccine were compared between those with and without previous infection (PI) for up to 48 weeks. Though sustained higher IgG-RBD were observed in the PI group after two doses of vaccines, both groups benefited from the booster shots of the third vaccine. This data supports the necessity of the booster shots to those with PI.

Serological response to a third dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine according to previous infection history.

The IgG antibody titer against SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding protein (RBD) after mRNA vaccine were compared between those with and without previous infection (PI) for up to 48 weeks. Though sustained higher IgG-RBD were observed in the PI group after two doses of vaccines, both groups benefited from the booster shots of the third vaccine. This data supports the necessity of the booster shots to those with PI.

Discrepancy of SARS-CoV-2 PCR results due to the sample collection sites and possible improper sampling.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is necessary for confirming a diagnosis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here we present a COVID-19 case of an elderly woman whose SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests showed false negative repeatedly by evaluating with different sampling sites and procedures. Nasopharyngeal swabs, suctioned sputum, and tongue swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2-PCR. As for tongue swabs, we compared between two different sample conditions; one obtained with dry condition and the other obtained with moistened condition inside the oral cavity. SARS-CoV-2-PCR showed positive for an extended period with suctioned sputum samples compared with nasopharyngeal swabs and tongue swabs. No SARS-CoV-2 from a nasopharyngeal swab sample obtained on day 46 after symptoms onset was isolated despite high viral load (183740.5 copies/5µL). An adequate production of neutralizing antibody in a serum sample on day 46 was also confirmed. The number of RNA copies of the tongue swab samples was higher with moistened condition than with dry condition. The present case suggests that the difference of sampling site or sample condition can affect PCR results. High loads viral RNA detection does not always correlate with infectivity.

Evaluation of four commercial severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 antibody tests.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological tests exists commercially; however, their performance using clinical samples is limited. Although insufficient to detect SARS-CoV-2 in the early phase of infection, antibody assays can be of great use for surveillance studies or for some coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients presenting late to the hospital. METHODS: This study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of four commercial SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow antibody tests using 213 serum specimens from 90 PCR-positive confirmed COVID-19 patients. Of 59 negative control sera, 50 were obtained from patients with other respiratory infectious diseases before COVID-19 pandemic began while nine were from patients infected with other respiratory viruses, including two seasonal coronaviruses. RESULTS: The varied sensitivities for the four commercial kits were 70.9%, 65.3%, 45.1%, and 65.7% for BioMedomics, Autobio Diagnostics, Genbody, and KURABO, respectively, between sick days 1 and 155 in COVID-19 patients. The sensitivities of the four tests gradually increased over time after infection before sick day 5 (15.0%, 12.5%, 15.0%, and 20.0%); from sick day 11-15 (95.7%, 87.2%, 53.2%, and 89.4%); and after sick day 20 (100%, 100%, 68.6%, and 96.1%), respectively. For severe illness, the sensitivities were quite high in the late phase after sick day 15. The specificities were over 96% for all four tests. No cross-reaction due to other pathogens, including seasonal coronaviruses, was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated the large differences in the antibody test performances. This ought to be considered when performing surveillance analysis.