Trajectories of humoral and cellular immunity and responses to a third dose of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with a history of anti-CD20 therapy.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with B-cell-depleting therapies show compromised vaccination-induced immune responses. Herein, we report on the trajectories of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in patients of the RituxiVac study compared with healthy volunteers and investigate the immunogenicity of a third vaccination in previously humoral non-responding patients. METHODS: We investigated the humoral and cell-mediated immune response after SARS-CoV-2 messanger RNA vaccination in patients with a history with anti-CD20 therapies. Coprimary outcomes were antispike and SARS-CoV-2-stimulated interferon-γ concentrations in vaccine responders 4.3 months (median; IQR: 3.6-4.8 months) after first evaluation, and humoral and cell-mediated immunity (CMI) after a third vaccine dose in previous humoral non-responders. Immunity decay rates were compared using analysis of covariance in linear regression. RESULTS: 5.6 months (IQR: 5.1-6.7) after the second vaccination, we detected antispike IgG in 88% (29/33) and CMI in 44% (14/32) of patients with a humoral response after two-dose vaccination compared with 92% (24/26) healthy volunteers with antispike IgG and 69% (11/16) with CMI 6.8 months after the second vaccination (IQR: 6.0-7.1). Decay rates of antibody concentrations were comparable between patients and controls (p=0.70). In two-dose non-responders, a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine elicited humoral responses in 19% (6/32) and CMI in 32% (10/31) participants. CONCLUSION: This study reveals comparable immunity decay rates between patients with anti-CD20 treatments and healthy volunteers, but inefficient humoral or CMI after a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in most two-dose humoral non-responders calling for individually tailored vaccination strategies in this population.Trial registration numberNCT04877496; ClinicalTrials.gov number.

[CME: Rational Laboratory Diagnostics in the Context of COVID-19]. / CME: Rationale Labordiagnostik im Kontext von COVID-19.

CME: Rational Laboratory Diagnostics in the Context of COVID-19 Abstract. In the management of COVID-19, a variety of laboratory tests are available to the general practitioner. The choice is difficult, and some of these laboratory tests are discussed controversially in the lay press. In this article, we discuss the important clinical questions and the contribution of laboratory tests to answering these questions. We describe the most common test principles and discuss their diagnostic value. In doing so, we provide the practicing physician with a simple overview for the clinical practice.

Humoral Responses to Repetitive Doses of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Patients with CAR-T-Cell Therapy.

Background: Due to B-cell aplasia following CAR-T-cell therapy, patients are at risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 course. Methods: COVID-19 vaccines were assessed by IgG antibody tests against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (anti-S1/S2). Vaccination procedures: group (1): CAR-T-cells followed by two to four vaccine doses; group (2): Two vaccine doses prior to CAR-T-cells, followed by doses 3 or 4. Results: In group 1 (n = 32), 7/30 patients (23.2%) had positive antibody tests after a second dose, 9/23 (39.1%) after a third dose, and 3/3 patients after a fourth dose. A third dose led to seroconversion in 5 of 21 patients (23.8%) with available data, while a fourth dose did so in 2/3 patients. Higher B-cells (AUC: 96.2%, CI: 89-100, p = 0.0006) and lower CAR-T-cell copies (AUC: 77.3%, CI: 57-97, p = 0.0438) were predictive of positive humoral vaccine response. In group 2 (n = 14), 6/14 patients (42.9%) had a positive antibody test after a second dose, 3/8 patients (37.5%) after a third dose, and 3/4 patients after a fourth dose. A third dose led to seroconversion in 1/8 patients (12.5%), while a fourth dose did so in 3/4 patients. Conclusion: Additional vaccine doses increased seroconversion rates whilst high B-cell counts and low CAR-T-cell copy numbers were associated with positive antibody response.

Diagnostic accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen testing in a real-life clinical setting.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests with saliva facilitate examination in settings that lack trained personnel. However, little is known about the diagnostic accuracy in real-life clinical settings. Therefore, we studied the diagnostic accuracy of a saliva antigen test in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection in a primary/secondary care testing facility. METHODS: Individuals who presented at a COVID-19 testing facility affiliated with a Swiss university hospital were prospectively recruited (n=377). Saliva specimen was obtained, and the PCL Inc. COVID19 Gold antigen test was conducted in parallel with 2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays from a nasopharyngeal swab. RESULTS: RT-PCR results were positive in 53 individuals, corresponding to a prevalence of 14.1% (missing material in 1 individual). The PCL saliva antigen test was positive in 22 individuals (5.8%) and negative in 354 (93.9%). The sensitivity of the saliva antigen test was 30.2% (95% confidence interval 18.3, 44.3), both overall and in symptomatic individuals. The specificity was 98.1% (96.0, 99.3). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 saliva antigen test in a primary/secondary care testing facility was remarkably lower than that reported in the manufacturer's specifications.

Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in clinical practice: A comparative diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Serological tests are a powerful tool in the monitoring of infectious diseases and the detection of host immunity. However, manufacturers often provide diagnostic accuracy data generated through biased studies, and the performance in clinical practice is essentially unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various serological testing strategies for (a) identification of patients with previous coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and (b) prediction of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in real-life clinical settings. METHODS: We prospectively included 2573 consecutive health-care workers and 1085 inpatients with suspected or possible previous COVID-19 at a Swiss University Hospital. Various serological immunoassays based on different analytical techniques (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, ELISA; chemiluminescence immunoassay, CLIA; electrochemiluminescence immunoassay, ECLIA; and lateral flow immunoassay, LFI), epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 (nucleocapsid, N; receptor-binding domain, RBD; extended RBD, RBD+; S1 or S2 domain of the spike [S] protein, S1/S2), and antibody subtypes (IgG, pan-Ig) were conducted. A positive real-time PCR test from a nasopharyngeal swab was defined as previous COVID-19. Neutralization assays with live SARS-CoV-2 were performed in a subgroup of patients to assess neutralization activity (n = 201). RESULTS: The sensitivity to detect patients with previous COVID-19 was ≥85% in anti-N ECLIA (86.8%) and anti-S1 ELISA (86.2%). Sensitivity was 84.7% in anti-S1/S2 CLIA, 84.0% in anti-RBD+LFI, 81.0% in anti-N CLIA, 79.2% in anti-RBD ELISA, and 65.6% in anti-N ELISA. The specificity was 98.4% in anti-N ECLIA, 98.3% in anti-N CLIA, 98.2% in anti-S1 ELISA, 97.7% in anti-N ELISA, 97.6% in anti-S1/S2 CLIA, 97.2% in anti-RBD ELISA, and 96.1% in anti-RBD+LFI. The sensitivity to detect neutralizing antibodies was ≥85% in anti-S1 ELISA (92.7%), anti-N ECLIA (91.7%), anti-S1/S2 CLIA (90.3%), anti-RBD+LFI (87.9%), and anti-RBD ELISA (85.8%). Sensitivity was 84.1% in anti-N CLIA and 66.2% in anti-N ELISA. The specificity was ≥97% in anti-N CLIA (100%), anti-S1/S2 CLIA (97.7%), and anti-RBD+LFI (97.9%). Specificity was 95.9% in anti-RBD ELISA, 93.0% in anti-N ECLIA, 92% in anti-S1 ELISA, and 65.3% in anti-N ELISA. Diagnostic accuracy measures were consistent among subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies varied remarkably in clinical practice, and the sensitivity to identify patients with previous COVID-19 deviated substantially from the manufacturer's specifications. The data presented here should be considered when using such tests to estimate the infection burden within a specific population and determine the likelihood of protection against re-infection.

Diagnostic accuracy of a SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test in real-life clinical settings.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory tests are a mainstay in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, and high hopes are placed on rapid antigen tests. However, the accuracy of rapid antigen tests in real-life clinical settings is unclear because adequately designed diagnostic accuracy studies are essentially lacking. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of a rapid antigen test in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection in a primary/secondary care testing facility. METHODS: Consecutive individuals presenting at a COVID-19 testing facility affiliated to a Swiss University Hospital were recruited (n = 1465%). Nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained, and the Roche/SD Biosensor rapid antigen test was conducted in parallel with two real-time PCR tests (reference standard). RESULTS: Among the 1465 patients recruited, RT-PCR was positive in 141 individuals, corresponding to a prevalence of 9.6%. The Roche/SD Biosensor rapid antigen test was positive in 94 patients (6.4%), and negative in 1368 individuals (93.4%; insufficient sample material in 3 patients). The overall sensitivity of the rapid antigen test was 65.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 56.8-73.1), the specificity was 99.9% (95% CI 99.5-100.0). In asymptomatic individuals, the sensitivity was 44.0% (95% CI 24.4-65.1). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of the SARS-CoV-2 Roche/SD Biosensor rapid antigen test in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections in a primary/secondary care testing facility was considerably lower compared with the manufacturer's data. Widespread application in such a setting might lead to a considerable number of individuals falsely classified as SARS-CoV-2 negative.

Accuracy of serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: First results of a large mixed-method evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Serological immunoassays that can identify protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 are needed to adapt quarantine measures, assess vaccination responses, and evaluate donor plasma. To date, however, the utility of such immunoassays remains unclear. In a mixed-design evaluation study, we compared the diagnostic accuracy of serological immunoassays that are based on various SARS-CoV-2 proteins and assessed the neutralizing activity of antibodies in patient sera. METHODS: Consecutive patients admitted with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were prospectively followed alongside medical staff and biobank samples from winter 2018/2019. An in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay utilizing recombinant receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was developed and compared to three commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) targeting the nucleoprotein (N), the S1 domain of the spike protein (S1), and a lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) based on full-length spike protein. Neutralization assays with live SARS-CoV-2 were performed. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and seventy-seven individuals were included comprising 112 SARS-CoV-2 positives (defined as a positive real-time PCR result; prevalence 7.6%). IgG seroconversion occurred between day 0 and day 21. While the ELISAs showed sensitivities of 88.4% for RBD, 89.3% for S1, and 72.9% for N protein, the specificity was above 94% for all tests. Out of 54 SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals, 96.3% showed full neutralization of live SARS-CoV-2 at serum dilutions ≥ 1:16, while none of the 6 SARS-CoV-2-negative sera revealed neutralizing activity. CONCLUSIONS: ELISAs targeting RBD and S1 protein of SARS-CoV-2 are promising immunoassays which shall be further evaluated in studies verifying diagnostic accuracy and protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2.