T Cell Responses Correlate with Self-Reported Disease Severity and Neutralizing Antibody Responses Predict Protection against SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infection.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this prospective study was to investigate the role of adaptive immunity in response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. DESIGN AND METHODS: A cohort of 677 vaccinated individuals participated in a comprehensive survey of their vaccination status and associated side effects, and donated blood to evaluate their adaptive immune responses by neutralizing antibody (NAb) and T cell responses. The cohort then completed a follow-up survey to investigate the occurrence of breakthrough infections. RESULTS: NAb levels were the highest in participants vaccinated with Moderna, followed by Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. NAb levels decreased with time after vaccination with Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. T cell responses showed no significant difference among the different vaccines and remained stable up to 10 months after the study period for all vaccine types. In multivariate analyses, NAb responses (<95 U/mL) predicted breakthrough infection, whereas previous infection, the type of vaccine, and T cell responses did not. T cell responses to viral epitopes (<0.120 IU/mL) showed a significant association with the self-reported severity of COVID-19 disease. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that NAb responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination correlate with protection against infection, whereas the T cell memory responses may contribute to protection against severe disease but not against infection.

Tolerance for three commonly administered COVID-19 vaccines by healthcare professionals

Importance Most healthcare institutions require employees to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 and many also require at least one booster. Objective We determine the impact of vaccine type, demographics, and health conditions on COVID-19 vaccine side effects in healthcare professionals. Design A COVID-19 immunity study was performed at the 2021 American Association for Clinical Chemistry Annual Scientific meeting. As part of this study, a REDCap survey with cascading questions was administered from September 9, 2021 to October 20, 2021. General questions included participant demographics, past and present health conditions, smoking, exercise, and medications. COVID-19 specific questions asked about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine status and type, vaccine-associated side effects after each dose including any boosters, previous infection with COVID-19, diagnostic testing performed, and type and severity symptoms of COVID-19. Results There were 975 participants (47.1% male, median age of 50 years) who completed the survey. Pfizer was the most commonly administered vaccine (56.4%) followed by Moderna (32.0%) and Johnson & Johnson (7.1%). There were no significant differences in vaccine type received by age, health conditions, smoking, exercise, or type or number of prescription medications. Side effects were reported more frequently after second dose (e.g., Moderna or Pfizer) (54.1%) or single/only dose of Johnson & Johnson (47.8%). Males were significantly more likely to report no side effects (p < 0.001), while females were significantly more likely to report injection site reactions (p < 0.001), fatigue (p < 0.001), headache (p < 0.001), muscle pain (p < 0.001), chills (p = 0.001), fever (p = 0.007), and nausea (p < 0.001). There was a significant upward trend in participants reporting no side effects with increasing age (p < 0.001). There were no significant trends in side effects among different races, ethnicities, health conditions, medications, smoking status or exercise. In multivariate logistic regressions analyses, the second dose of Moderna was associated with a significantly higher risk of side effects than both the second dose of Pfizer and the single dose of Johnson & Johnson. Conclusions and relevance Younger people, females, and those receiving the second dose of Moderna had more COVID-19 vaccine side effects that per self-report led to moderate to severe limitations. As reported in other studies, the increase in side effects from Moderna may be explained by higher viral mRNA concentrations but be associated with additional protective immunity.

Incidence and Durability of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Patients with Cancer and Health Care Workers following the First Wave of the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer and health care workers (HCW) are at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. There are limited data regarding the rate of symptomatic versus asymptomatic infection and subsequent seropositivity in both populations. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of patients and HCW across two institutions during the first wave of the pandemic to analyze the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, the extent of associated symptoms, and durability of serologic response. RESULTS: In 1,953 persons (733 patients and 1,220 HCW), overall seropositivity rates for 3.1% patients (95% CI 2.0-4.7) and 3.7% HCW (95% CI 2.7-4.9, p=0.520), were similar. Each institutions' seropositivity rates were numerically higher in HCW than patients. Non-Hispanic Whites and Asians had lower antibody rates (2.8%, 95% CI 2.0-3.8 and 3.3%, 95% CI 1.2-7.0) compared to Hispanics (6.9%, 95% CI 3.4-12.4) and non-Hispanic Blacks (5.9%, 95% CI 3.3-9.7), p < 0.001. Among persons with a positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody, 87% of patients and 56% of HCW did not recall having had a fever. Among HCW, administrative and technical personnel were most likely to be seropositive. The rate of persistent seropositivity at 3 months was similar between patients and HCW and was not influenced by the reporting of fever, cancer type, or therapy. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that patients are not at higher risk for febrile SARS-CoV-2 infections or more transient immunity than HCWs. Furthermore, racial differences and lack of association with the extent of HCW contact with COVID-19 patients suggest that community rather than hospital virus exposure was a source of many infections.

Performance of 4 Automated SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assay Platforms in a Large Cohort Including Susceptible COVID-19-Negative and COVID-19-Positive Patients.

BACKGROUND: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 serological responses may have a vital role in controlling the spread of the disease. However, the comparative performance of automated serological assays has not been determined in susceptible patients with significant comorbidities. METHODS: In this study, we used large numbers of samples from patients who were negative (n = 2030) or positive (n = 112) for COVID-19 to compare the performance of 4 serological assay platforms: Siemens Healthineers Atellica IM Analyzer, Siemens Healthineers Dimension EXL Systems, Abbott ARCHITECT, and Roche cobas. RESULTS: All 4 serology assay platforms exhibited comparable negative percentage of agreement with negative COVID-19 status ranging from 99.2% to 99.7% and positive percentage of agreement from 84.8% to 87.5% with positive real-time reverse transcriptase PCR results. Of the 2142 total samples, only 38 samples (1.8%) yielded discordant results on one or more platforms. However, only 1.1% (23/2030) of results from the COVID-19-negative cohort were discordant. whereas discordance was 10-fold higher for the COVID-19-positive cohort, at 11.3% (15/112). Of the total 38 discordant results, 34 were discordant on only one platform. CONCLUSIONS: Serology assay performance was comparable across the 4 platforms assessed in a large population of patients who were COVID-19 negative with relevant comorbidities. The pattern of discordance shows that samples were discordant on a single assay platform, and the discordance rate was 10-fold higher in the population that was COVID-19 positive.

Risk Factors Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity Among US Health Care Personnel.

Importance: Risks for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among health care personnel (HCP) are unclear. Objective: To evaluate the risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCP with the a priori hypothesis that community exposure but not health care exposure was associated with seropositivity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted among volunteer HCP at 4 large health care systems in 3 US states. Sites shared deidentified data sets, including previously collected serology results, questionnaire results on community and workplace exposures at the time of serology, and 3-digit residential zip code prefix of HCP. Site-specific responses were mapped to a common metadata set. Residential weekly coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cumulative incidence was calculated from state-based COVID-19 case and census data. Exposures: Model variables included demographic (age, race, sex, ethnicity), community (known COVID-19 contact, COVID-19 cumulative incidence by 3-digit zip code prefix), and health care (workplace, job role, COVID-19 patient contact) factors. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Risk factors for seropositivity were estimated using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with a random intercept to account for clustering by site. Results: Among 24 749 HCP, most were younger than 50 years (17 233 [69.6%]), were women (19 361 [78.2%]), were White individuals (15 157 [61.2%]), and reported workplace contact with patients with COVID-19 (12 413 [50.2%]). Many HCP worked in the inpatient setting (8893 [35.9%]) and were nurses (7830 [31.6%]). Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 per 10 000 in the community up to 1 week prior to serology testing ranged from 8.2 to 275.6; 20 072 HCP (81.1%) reported no COVID-19 contact in the community. Seropositivity was 4.4% (95% CI, 4.1%-4.6%; 1080 HCP) overall. In multivariable analysis, community COVID-19 contact and community COVID-19 cumulative incidence were associated with seropositivity (community contact: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.5; 95% CI, 2.9-4.1; community cumulative incidence: aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6). No assessed workplace factors were associated with seropositivity, including nurse job role (aOR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.3), working in the emergency department (aOR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.3), or workplace contact with patients with COVID-19 (aOR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.3). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US HCP in 3 states, community exposures were associated with seropositivity to SARS-CoV-2, but workplace factors, including workplace role, environment, or contact with patients with known COVID-19, were not. These findings provide reassurance that current infection prevention practices in diverse health care settings are effective in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from patients to HCP.

Clinical Application of Serologic Testing for Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Contemporary Cardiovascular Practice.

In patients with cardiovascular disease, the use of antibody or serological testing is frequently encountered as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to evolve. Antibody testing detects one form of the acquired immunological response to a pathogenic antigen. Once the immune system recognizes a viral antigen or a protein as foreign, a humoral immune response is initiated, which is generally detected by laboratory testing in 5 to 10 days after the initial exposure. While this information is critical from a public health perspective to implement surveillance systems and measures to limit infectivity and transmission rate, the misinterpretation of serologic testing in clinical practice has generated much confusion in the medical community because some attempted to apply these strategies to individual patient's treatment schemes. In this mini-review, we examine the different serologic-based testing strategies, how to interpret their results, and their public health impact at the population level, which are critical to contain the transmission of the virus in the community within a busy cardiovascular practice. Further, this review will also be particularly helpful as vaccination and immune therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 become available to the society as a whole.

Validation of COVID-19 serologic tests and large scale screening of asymptomatic healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: Serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 is an important element in the fight to slow the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to validate two serologic tests for total (IgM, IgG, IgA) SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, (i) the Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total Antibody assay for the Vitros 5600 analyzers and (ii) a manual laboratory developed ELISA (FDA EUA pending), for use in parallel orthogonal testing of asymptomatic healthcare workers and affiliates of the University of Maryland Medical System. DESIGN AND METHODS: Validation and verification of the two tests was performed using samples from hospitalized patients that were found to be PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2, samples pre-COVID-19, and samples from individuals with current/previous infections with other viruses. Healthcare workers and affiliates from across the University of Maryland Health System were provided testing free of charge and their results were reported as reactive or non-reactive if the two tests were concordance, or indeterminate if the results were discordant. RESULTS: Validation testing found the Ortho Vitros test to be 100% (73/73) sensitive, and 99.3% (152/153) specific, while the UMMC ELISA was found to be 97.6% (204/209) sensitive and 100% (288/288) specific. Real world testing among 8399 healthcare workers found that 2.9% (247/8399) of healthcare workers were positive for anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by both tests. An indeterminate rate of 1.1% (91/8399), in which one test reported reactive results, and one as non-reactive was also seen. CONCLUSIONS: Parallel orthogonal testing improves the positive and negative predictive value of serologic testing in populations with low prevalence. The use of an indeterminate result from parallel orthogonal testing allows for the follow-up and re-testing, which helps resolve discrepancies between assays.

A Novel Approach to Hematology Testing at the Point of Care.

BACKGROUND: The need for rapid point-of-care (POC) diagnostics is now becoming more evident due to the increasing need for timely results and improvement in healthcare service. With the recent COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, POC has become critical in managing the spread of disease. Applicable diagnostics should be readily deployable, easy to use, portable, and accurate so that they fit mobile laboratories, pop-up treatment centers, field hospitals, secluded wards within hospitals, or remote regions, and can be operated by staff with minimal training. Complete blood count (CBC), however, has not been available at the POC in a simple-to-use device until recently. The HemoScreen, which was recently cleared by the FDA for POC use, is a miniature, easy-to-use instrument that uses disposable cartridges and may fill this gap. CONTENT: The HemoScreen's analysis method, in contrast to standard laboratory analyzers, is based on machine vision (image-based analysis) and artificial intelligence (AI). We discuss the different methods currently used and compare their results to the vision-based one. The HemoScreen is found to correlate well to laser and impedance-based methods while emphasis is given to mean cell volume (MCV), mean cell hemoglobin (MCH), and platelets (PLT) that demonstrate better correlation when the vision-based method is compared to itself due to the essential differences between the underlying technologies. SUMMARY: The HemoScreen analyzer demonstrates lab equivalent performance, tested at different clinical settings and sample characteristics, and might outperform standard techniques in the presence of certain interferences. This new approach to hematology testing has great potential to improve quality of care in a variety of settings.