Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
medrxiv; 2022.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2022.05.25.22274904


Background. Variant-adaptated vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as boosters are needed to increase a broader protection against SARS CoV-2 variants. New adjuvanted recombinant protein vaccines as heterologous boosters could maximize the response. Methods. In this randomized, single-blinded, multicenter trial, adults who had received two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) 3 to7 months before were randomly assigned to receive a boost of BNT162b2, Sanofi/GSK SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV D614 (monovalent parental formulation) or SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV B.1.351 vaccine (monovalent Beta formulation). The primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects with a [≥] 10-fold increase in neutralizing antibody titers for the Wuhan (D614) and B.1.351 (Beta) SARS-CoV-2 viral strains between day 0 and day 15. Findings. The percentages of participants whose neutralizing antibody titers against the Wuhan (D614) SARS-CoV-2 strain increased by a factor [≥]10 between day 0 and day 15 was 55.3% (95% CI 43.4-66.7) in MV D614 group (n=76), 76.1% (64.5-85.4) in MV B.1.351 (Beta) group (n=71) and 63.2% (51.3-73.9) in BNT162b2 group (n=76). These percentages were 44.7% (33.3-56.6), 84.5% (74.0-92.0) and 51.3% (39.6-63.0) for the B.1.351 (Beta) viral strain, respectively. Higher neutralizing antibodies rates against Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants were also elicited after Sanofi/GSK MV Beta vaccine compared to the other vaccines. Comparable reactogenicity profile was observed with the three vaccines. Interpretation. Heterologous boosting with the Sanofi/GSK Beta formulation vaccine resulted in a higher neutralizing antibody response against Beta variant but also the original strain and Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants, compared with mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine or the Sanofi/GSK MVD614 formulation. New vaccines containing Beta spike protein may represent an interesting strategy for broader protection against SARS CoV-2 variants.

medrxiv; 2021.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2021.05.07.21256823


Assessment of the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is essential to predict protection against reinfection and durability of vaccine protection. Here, we longitudinally measured Spike (S) and Nucleocapsid (N)-specific antibodies in 1,309 healthcare workers (HCW) including 393 convalescent COVID-19 and 916 COVID-19 negative HCW up to 405 days. From M1 to M7-9 after infection, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies decreased moderately in convalescent HCW in a biphasic model, with men showing a slower decay of anti-N (p=0.02), and a faster decay of anti-S (p=0.0008) than women. At M11-13, anti-N antibodies dramatically decreased (half-life: 210 days) while anti-S stabilized (half-life: 630 days) at a median of 2.41 log Arbitrary Units (AU)/mL (Interquartile Range (IQR): 2.11 -2.75). One case of reinfection was recorded in convalescent HCW (0.47 per 100 person-years) versus 50 in COVID-19 negative HCW (10.11 per 100 person-years). Correlation with live-virus neutralization assay revealed that variants D614G and B.1.1.7, but not B.1.351, were sensitive to anti-S antibodies at 2.3 log AU/mL, while IgG [≥] 3 log AU/mL neutralized all three variants. After SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, anti-S levels reached 4 logs regardless of pre-vaccination IgG levels, type of vaccine, and number of doses. Our study demonstrates a long-term persistence of anti-S IgG antibodies that may protect against reinfection. By significantly increasing cross-neutralizing antibody titers, a single-dose vaccination strengthens protection against escape mutants.

medrxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.11.12.20230466


The evolution of SARS-CoV-2 humoral response in infected individuals remains poorly characterized. Here, we performed a longitudinal study of sera from 308 RT-qPCR+ individuals with mild disease, collected at two time-points, up to 6 months post-onset of symptoms (POS). We performed two anti-S and one anti-N serology assays and quantified neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). At month 1 (M1), males, individuals > 50 years of age or with a body mass index (BMI) > 25 exhibited higher levels of antibodies. Antibody levels decreased over time. At M3-6, anti-S antibodies persisted in 99% of individuals while anti-N IgG were measurable in only 59% of individuals. The decline in anti-S and NAbs was faster in males than in females, independently of age and BMI. Our results show that some serology tests are less reliable overtime and suggest that the duration of protection after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination will be different in women and men.

biorxiv; 2020.
Preprint in English | bioRxiv | ID: ppzbmed-10.1101.2020.06.16.156166


Rapid and accurate diagnosis is crucial for successful outbreak containment. During the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency, the gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosis is the detection of viral RNA by reverse transcription (RT)-PCR. Additional diagnostic methods enabling the detection of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection would be highly beneficial to ensure the timely diagnosis of all infected and recovered patients. Here, we investigated several serological tools, i.e., two immunochromatographic lateral flow assays (LFA-1 (Biosynex COVID-19 BSS) and LFA-2 (COVID-19 Sign IgM/IgG)) and two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) detecting IgA (ELISA-1 Euroimmun), IgM (ELISA-2 EDI) and/or IgG (ELISA-1 and ELISA-2) based on well-characterized panels of serum samples from patients and healthcare workers with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and from SARS-CoV-2-negative patients. A total of 272 serum samples were used, including 62 serum samples from hospitalized patients (panel 1 and panel 3), 143 serum samples from healthcare workers (panel 2) diagnosed with COVID-19 and 67 serum samples from negative controls. Diagnostic performances of each assay were assessed according to days after symptom onset (dso) and the antigenic format used by manufacturers. We found overall sensitivities ranging from 69% to 93% on panels 1 and 2 and specificities ranging from 83% to 98%. The clinical sensitivity varied greatly according to the panel tested and the dso. The assays we tested showed poor mutual agreement. A thorough selection of serological assays for the detection of ongoing or past infections is advisable.

Infections , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , COVID-19