Evolution of long-term vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity in healthcare workers after different COVID-19 vaccine regimens.

BACKGROUND: Both infection and vaccination, alone or in combination, generate antibody and T cell responses against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, the maintenance of such responses-and hence protection from disease-requires careful characterization. In a large prospective study of UK healthcare workers (HCWs) (Protective Immunity from T Cells in Healthcare Workers [PITCH], within the larger SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation [SIREN] study), we previously observed that prior infection strongly affected subsequent cellular and humoral immunity induced after long and short dosing intervals of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. METHODS: Here, we report longer follow-up of 684 HCWs in this cohort over 6-9 months following two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) vaccination and up to 6 months following a subsequent mRNA booster vaccination. FINDINGS: We make three observations: first, the dynamics of humoral and cellular responses differ; binding and neutralizing antibodies declined, whereas T and memory B cell responses were maintained after the second vaccine dose. Second, vaccine boosting restored immunoglobulin (Ig) G levels; broadened neutralizing activity against variants of concern, including Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5; and boosted T cell responses above the 6-month level after dose 2. Third, prior infection maintained its impact driving larger and broader T cell responses compared with never-infected people, a feature maintained until 6 months after the third dose. CONCLUSIONS: Broadly cross-reactive T cell responses are well maintained over time-especially in those with combined vaccine and infection-induced immunity ("hybrid" immunity)-and may contribute to continued protection against severe disease. FUNDING: Department for Health and Social Care, Medical Research Council.

Impact of vaccination on hospitalization and mortality from COVID-19 in patients with primary and secondary immunodeficiency: The United Kingdom experience.

Background: Individuals with primary and secondary immunodeficiency (PID/SID) were shown to be at risk of poor outcomes during the early stages of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines demonstrate reduced immunogenicity in these patients. Objectives: To understand whether the risk of severe COVID-19 in individuals with PID or SID has changed following the deployment of vaccination and therapeutics in the context of the emergence of novel viral variants of concern. Methods: The outcomes of two cohorts of patients with PID and SID were compared: the first, infected between March and July 2020, prior to vaccination and treatments, the second after these intervention became available between January 2021 and April 2022. Results: 22.7% of immunodeficient patients have been infected at least once with SARS-CoV-2 since the start of the pandemic, compared to over 70% of the general population. Immunodeficient patients were typically infected later in the pandemic when the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant was dominant. This delay was associated with receipt of more vaccine doses and higher pre-infection seroprevalence. Compared to March-July 2020, hospitalization rates (53.3% vs 17.9%, p<0.0001) and mortality (Infection fatality rate 20.0% vs 3.4%, p=0.0003) have significantly reduced for patients with PID but remain elevated compared to the general population. The presence of a serological response to vaccination was associated with a reduced duration of viral detection by PCR in the nasopharynx. Early outpatient treatment with antivirals or monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalization during the Omicron wave. Conclusions: Most individuals with immunodeficiency in the United Kingdom remain SARS-CoV-2 infection naïve. Vaccination, widespread availability of outpatient treatments and, possibly, the emergence of the B.1.1.529 variant have led to significant improvements in morbidity and mortality followings SARS-CoV-2 infection since the start of the pandemic. However, individuals with PID and SID remain at significantly increased risk of poor outcomes compared to the general population; mitigation, vaccination and treatment strategies must be optimized to minimize the ongoing burden of the pandemic in these vulnerable cohorts.

Vitamin D status: a U-shaped relationship for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in UK healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that vitamin D (VD) deficiency may increase individuals' risk of COVID-19 infection and susceptibility. We aimed to determine the relationship between VD deficiency and sufficiency and COVID-19 seropositivity within healthcare workers. METHODS: The study included an observational cohort of healthcare workers who isolated due to COVID-19 symptoms from 12 May to 22 May 2020, from the University Hospitals Birmingham National Health Service Foundation Trust. Data collected included SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion status, serum 25(OH)D3 levels, age, body mass index (BMI), sex, ethnicity, job role and comorbidities. Participants were grouped into four VD categories: (1) Severe VD deficiency (VD<30 nmol/L); (2) VD deficiency (30 nmol/L ≤VD<50 nmol/L); (3) VD insufficiency (50 nmol/L ≤VD<75 nmol/L); (4) VD sufficiency (VD≥75 nmol/L). RESULTS: When VD levels were compared against COVID-19 seropositivity rate, a U-shaped curve was identified. This trend repeated when participants were split into subgroups of age, sex, ethnicity, BMI and comorbidity status. Significant difference was identified in the COVID-19 seropositivity rate between VD groups in the total population and between groups of men and women; black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) group; BMI<30 (kg/m2); 0 and +1 comorbidities; the majority of which were differences when the severely VD deficient category were compared with the other groups. A larger proportion of those within the BAME group (vs white ethnicity) were severely VD deficient (p<0.00001). A larger proportion of the 0 comorbidity subgroup were VD deficient in comparison to the 1+ comorbidity subgroup (p=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Our study has shown a U-shaped relationship for COVID-19 seropositivity in UK healthcare workers. Further investigation is required to determine whether high VD levels can have a detrimental effect on susceptibility to COVID-19 infection. Future randomised clinical trials of VD supplementation could potentially identify 'optimal' VD levels, allowing for targeted therapeutic treatment for those at risk.

Increased Seroprevalence and Improved Antibody Responses Following Third Primary SARS-CoV-2 Immunisation: An Update From the COV-AD Study.

Background: Patients with primary and secondary antibody deficiency are vulnerable to COVID-19 and demonstrate diminished responses following two-dose SARS-CoV-2 vaccine schedules. Third primary vaccinations have been deployed to enhance their humoral and cellular immunity. Objectives: To determine the immunogenicity of the third primary SARS-CoV-2 immunisation in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with antibody deficiency. Methods: Participants enrolled in the COV-AD study were sampled before and after their third vaccine dose. Serological and cellular responses were determined using ELISA, live-virus neutralisation and ELISPOT assays. Results: Following a two-dose schedule, 100% of healthy controls mounted a serological response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, however, 38.6% of individuals with antibody deficiency remained seronegative. A third primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccine significantly increased anti-spike glycoprotein antibody seroprevalence from 61.4% to 76.0%, the magnitude of the antibody response, its neutralising capacity and induced seroconversion in individuals who were seronegative after two vaccine doses. Vaccine-induced serological responses were broadly cross-reactive against the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 variant of concern, however, seroprevalence and antibody levels remained significantly lower than healthy controls. No differences in serological responses were observed between individuals who received AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Pfizer BioNTech 162b2 during their initial two-dose vaccine schedule. SARS-CoV-2 infection-naive participants who had received a heterologous vaccine as a third dose were significantly more likely to have a detectable T cell response following their third vaccine dose (61.5% vs 11.1%). Conclusion: These data support the widespread use of third primary immunisations to enhance humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in individuals with antibody deficiency.

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Responses in Individuals with Antibody Deficiency: Findings from the COV-AD Study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination prevents severe morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in the general population. The immunogenicity and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with antibody deficiency is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 in patients with antibody deficiency (COV-AD) is a multi-site UK study that aims to determine the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in patients with primary or secondary antibody deficiency, a population that suffers from severe and recurrent infection and does not respond well to vaccination. METHODS: Individuals on immunoglobulin replacement therapy or with an IgG less than 4 g/L receiving antibiotic prophylaxis were recruited from April 2021. Serological and cellular responses were determined using ELISA, live-virus neutralisation and interferon gamma release assays. SARS-CoV-2 infection and clearance were determined by PCR from serial nasopharyngeal swabs. RESULTS: A total of 5.6% (n = 320) of the cohort reported prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, but only 0.3% remained PCR positive on study entry. Seropositivity, following two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, was 54.8% (n = 168) compared with 100% of healthy controls (n = 205). The magnitude of the antibody response and its neutralising capacity were both significantly reduced compared to controls. Participants vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine were more likely to be seropositive (65.7% vs. 48.0%, p = 0.03) and have higher antibody levels compared with the AstraZeneca vaccine (IgGAM ratio 3.73 vs. 2.39, p = 0.0003). T cell responses post vaccination was demonstrable in 46.2% of participants and were associated with better antibody responses but there was no difference between the two vaccines. Eleven vaccine-breakthrough infections have occurred to date, 10 of them in recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines demonstrate reduced immunogenicity in patients with antibody deficiency with evidence of vaccine breakthrough infection.

T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 is critical to vaccine development, epidemiological surveillance and disease control strategies. This systematic review critically evaluates and synthesises the relevant peer-reviewed and pre-print literature published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020. METHODS: For this systematic review, keyword-structured literature searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Papers were independently screened by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements by a third researcher. Data were independently extracted into a pre-designed Excel template and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the MetaQAT tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: 61 articles were included. 55 (90%) studies used observational designs, 50 (82%) involved hospitalised patients with higher acuity illness, and the majority had important limitations. Symptomatic adult COVID-19 cases consistently show peripheral T cell lymphopenia, which positively correlates with increased disease severity, duration of RNA positivity, and non-survival; while asymptomatic and paediatric cases display preserved counts. People with severe or critical disease generally develop more robust, virus-specific T cell responses. T cell memory and effector function has been demonstrated against multiple viral epitopes, and, cross-reactive T cell responses have been demonstrated in unexposed and uninfected adults, but the significance for protection and susceptibility, respectively, remains unclear. CONCLUSION: A complex pattern of T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection has been demonstrated, but inferences regarding population level immunity are hampered by significant methodological limitations and heterogeneity between studies, as well as a striking lack of research in asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic individuals. In contrast to antibody responses, population-level surveillance of the T cell response is unlikely to be feasible in the near term. Focused evaluation in specific sub-groups, including vaccine recipients, should be prioritised.

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Progress in characterising the humoral immune response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been rapid but areas of uncertainty persist. Assessment of the full range of evidence generated to date to understand the characteristics of the antibody response, its dynamics over time, its determinants and the immunity it confers will have a range of clinical and policy implications for this novel pathogen. This review comprehensively evaluated evidence describing the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020. METHODS: Systematic review. Keyword-structured searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Articles were independently screened on title, abstract and full text by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements. Data were double-extracted into a pre-designed template, and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the Public Health Ontario Meta-tool for Quality Appraisal of Public Health Evidence (MetaQAT) tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: 150 papers were included. Most studies (113 or 75%) were observational in design, were based wholly or primarily on data from hospitalised patients (108, 72%) and had important methodological limitations. Few considered mild or asymptomatic infection. Antibody dynamics were well described in the acute phase, up to around three months from disease onset, but the picture regarding correlates of the antibody response was inconsistent. IgM was consistently detected before IgG in included studies, peaking at weeks two to five and declining over a further three to five weeks post-symptom onset depending on the patient group; IgG peaked around weeks three to seven post-symptom onset then plateaued, generally persisting for at least eight weeks. Neutralising antibodies were detectable within seven to 15 days following disease onset, with levels increasing until days 14-22 before levelling and then decreasing, but titres were lower in those with asymptomatic or clinically mild disease. Specific and potent neutralising antibodies have been isolated from convalescent plasma. Cross-reactivity but limited cross-neutralisation with other human coronaviridae was reported. Evidence for protective immunity in vivo was limited to small, short-term animal studies, showing promising initial results in the immediate recovery phase. CONCLUSIONS: Literature on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 is of variable quality with considerable heterogeneity of methods, study participants, outcomes measured and assays used. Although acute phase antibody dynamics are well described, longer-term patterns are much less well evidenced. Comprehensive assessment of the role of demographic characteristics and disease severity on antibody responses is needed. Initial findings of low neutralising antibody titres and possible waning of titres over time may have implications for sero-surveillance and disease control policy, although further evidence is needed. The detection of potent neutralising antibodies in convalescent plasma is important in the context of development of therapeutics and vaccines. Due to limitations with the existing evidence base, large, cross-national cohort studies using appropriate statistical analysis and standardised serological assays and clinical classifications should be prioritised.

COVID-19 in patients with primary and secondary immunodeficiency: The United Kingdom experience.

BACKGROUND: As of November 2020, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has resulted in 55 million infections worldwide and more than 1.3 million deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Outcomes following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in individuals with primary immunodeficiency (PID) or symptomatic secondary immunodeficiency (SID) remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: We sought to document the outcomes of individuals with PID or symptomatic SID following COVID-19 in the United Kingdom. METHODS: At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Kingdom Primary Immunodeficiency Network established a registry of cases to collate the nationwide outcomes of COVID-19 in individuals with PID or symptomatic SID and determine risk factors associated with morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 in these patient groups. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients had been enrolled by July 1, 2020, 60 with PID, 7 with other inborn errors of immunity including autoinflammatory diseases and C1 inhibitor deficiency, and 33 with symptomatic SID. In individuals with PID, 53.3% (32 of 60) were hospitalized, the infection-fatality ratio was 20.0% (12 of 60), the case-fatality ratio was 31.6% (12 of 38), and the inpatient mortality was 37.5% (12 of 32). Individuals with SID had worse outcomes than those with PID; 75.8% (25 of 33) were hospitalized, the infection-fatality ratio was 33.3% (11 of 33), the case-fatality ratio was 39.2% (11 of 28), and inpatient mortality was 44.0% (11 of 25). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to the general population, adult patients with PID and symptomatic SID display greater morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. This increased risk must be reflected in public health guidelines to adequately protect vulnerable patients from exposure to the virus.

Sensitive Detection of SARS-CoV-2-Specific Antibodies in Dried Blood Spot Samples.

Dried blood spot (DBS) samples can be used for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike antibodies. DBS sampling is comparable to matched serum samples with a relative 98.1% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Thus, DBS sampling offers an alternative for population-wide serologic testing in the coronavirus pandemic.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and asymptomatic viral carriage in healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of asymptomatic viral carriage and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of asymptomatic healthcare workers undertaken on 24/25 April 2020. SETTING: University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHBFT), UK. PARTICIPANTS: 545 asymptomatic healthcare workers were recruited while at work. Participants were invited to participate via the UHBFT social media. Exclusion criteria included current symptoms consistent with COVID-19. No potential participants were excluded. INTERVENTION: Participants volunteered a nasopharyngeal swab and a venous blood sample that were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein antibodies, respectively. Results were interpreted in the context of prior illnesses and the hospital departments in which participants worked. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of participants demonstrating infection and positive SARS-CoV-2 serology. RESULTS: The point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 viral carriage was 2.4% (n=13/545). The overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 24.4% (n=126/516). Participants who reported prior symptomatic illness had higher seroprevalence (37.5% vs 17.1%, χ2=21.1034, p<0.0001) and quantitatively greater antibody responses than those who had remained asymptomatic. Seroprevalence was greatest among those working in housekeeping (34.5%), acute medicine (33.3%) and general internal medicine (30.3%), with lower rates observed in participants working in intensive care (14.8%). BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) ethnicity was associated with a significantly increased risk of seropositivity (OR: 1.92, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.23, p=0.01). Working on the intensive care unit was associated with a significantly lower risk of seropositivity compared with working in other areas of the hospital (OR: 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We identify differences in the occupational risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 between hospital departments and confirm asymptomatic seroconversion occurs in healthcare workers. Further investigation of these observations is required to inform future infection control and occupational health practices.