SARS-CoV-2 convalescence and hybrid immunity elicits mucosal immune responses (preprint)

Mucosal antibodies play a key role in the protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in the upper respiratory tract, and potentially in limiting virus replication and therefore onward transmission. While systemic immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is well understood, little is known about the antibodies present on the nasal mucosal surfaces. In this study, we evaluated SARS-CoV-2 mucosal antibodies in response to infection, vaccination, or a combination of both. Paired nasal fluid and serum samples were collected from 136 individuals, which include convalescent, vaccinated, or breakthrough infections. We detected a high correlation between IgG responses in serum and nasal fluids, which were higher in both compartments in vaccinated compared to convalescent participants. Contrary, nasal and systemic SARS-CoV-2 IgA responses were weakly correlated, indicating a compartmentalization between the local and systemic IgA responses. SARS-CoV-2 secretory component IgA (s-IgA) antibodies, present exclusively on mucosal surfaces, were detected in the nasal fluid only in a minority of vaccinated subjects and were significantly higher in previously infected individuals. s-IgA binding antibodies showed significant correlation with neutralizing activity of nasal fluids against SARS-CoV-2 ancestral B.1 and Omicron-BA.5 variant, indicating that s-IgA is the crucial contributor to neutralization in the nasal mucosa. Neutralization against both SARS-CoV-2 strains was higher in the mucosa of subjects with previous SARS-CoV-2 infections compared to vaccinated participants. In summary, we demonstrate that currently available vaccines elicit strong systemic antibody responses, but SARS-CoV-2 infection generates more potent binding and neutralizing mucosal antibodies. Our results support the importance to develop SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that elicit mucosal antibodies.

Antibody Persistence in the Six Months Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Hospital Workers (preprint)

Background: Little is known about the duration and breadth of humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 to better inform appropriate pandemic control measures.Methods: We measured anti-RBD, -N and neutralizing antibodies at one, three and six months after mostly mild COVID-19 in 200 hospital workers using commercial ELISAs and a surrogate virus neutralization assay.Findings: Anti-RBD antibodies were detected in all participants at each timepoint. Geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) progressively increased between month one (74 . 2 U/ml [95%CI 62 . 7-87 . 8), three (103 . 2 U/ml [95%CI 87 . 9-121 . 2]; p<0 . 001), and six (123 . 3 U/ml [95%CI 103 . 4-147 . 0]; p<0 . 001) in the whole cohort. Anti-N antibodies were detectable in >97% at all times. Neutralizing antibodies were detectable in 92 . 5% (184/199), 94 . 4% (185/196) and 76 . 5% (150/196) participants at one, three and six months, respectively. Their GMC progressively decreased between months one (20 . 1 AU/ml [95%CI 16 . 9-24 . 0]), three (15 . 2 AU/ml [95%CI 13 . 2-17 . 6]; p<0 . 001) and six (9 . 4 AU/ml [95%CI 7 . 7-11 . 4]; p<0 . 001). Neutralizing antibody and anti-RBD concentrations strongly correlated at each timepoint (all r>0 . 86, p<0 . 001). Disease severity was associated with higher initial anti-RBD and neutralizing concentrations, but not with their kinetics.Interpretation: Neutralizing antibodies persisted at six months in most participants, indicating more durability than initially feared. Anti-RBD antibodies persisted better and even increased over time, possibly related to the preferential detection of progressively higher-affinity antibodies. Trial Registration: registered (NCT04329546)Funding: Pictet, Ancrage and Schmidheiny Foundations, Geneva University Hospitals’ Private Foundation, PRD, Center for Vaccinology and Centre for Emerging Viral Diseases.Declaration of Interests: The authors have no conflict of interest.Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the local ethics committee (CCER 2020-00516) and registered (NCT04329546) prior to initiation. All hospital workers provided written informed consent before enrolment.

Repeated seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in a population-based sample from Geneva, Switzerland (preprint)

BackgroundAssessing the burden of COVID-19 based on medically-attended case counts is suboptimal given its reliance on testing strategy, changing case definitions and the wide spectrum of disease presentation. Population-based serosurveys provide one avenue for estimating infection rates and monitoring the progression of the epidemic, overcoming many of these limitations. MethodsTaking advantage of a pool of adult participants from population-representative surveys conducted in Geneva, Switzerland, we implemented a study consisting of 8 weekly serosurveys among these participants and their household members older than 5 years. We tested each participant for anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibodies using a commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Euroimmun AG, Lubeck, Germany). We estimated seroprevalence using a Bayesian regression model taking into account test performance and adjusting for the age and sex of Genevas population. ResultsIn the first three weeks, we enrolled 1335 participants coming from 633 households, with 16% <20 years of age and 53.6% female, a distribution similar to that of Geneva. In the first week, we estimated a seroprevalence of 3.1% (95% CI 0.2-5.99, n=343). This increased to 6.1% (95% CI 2.69.33, n=416) in the second, and to 9.7% (95% CI 6.1-13.11, n=576) in the third week. We found that 5-19 year-olds (6.0%, 95% CI 2.3-10.2%) had similar seroprevalence to 20-49 year olds (8.5%, 95%CI 4.99-11.7), while significantly lower seroprevalence was observed among those 50 and older (3.7%, 95% CI 0.99-6.0, p=0.0008). InterpretationAssuming that the presence of IgG antibodies is at least in the short-term associated with immunity, these results highlight that the epidemic is far from burning out simply due to herd immunity. Further, no differences in seroprevalence between children and middle age adults are observed. These results must be considered as Switzerland and the world look towards easing restrictions aimed at curbing transmission.

Validation of a commercially available SARS-CoV-2 serological Immunoassay (preprint)

Aims: To validate the diagnostic accuracy of a Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA immunoassay for COVID-19 disease. Methods: In this unmatched (1:1) case-control validation study, we used sera of 181 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 176 negative controls collected before the emergence of SARS-CoV-2. Diagnostic accuracy of the immunoassay was assessed against a whole spike protein-based recombinant immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Discrepant cases between ELISA and rIFA were further tested by pseudo-neutralization assay. Results: COVID-19 patients were more likely to be male and older than controls, and 50.3% of them were hospitalized. ROC curve analyses indicated that IgG and IgA had a high diagnostic accuracy with AUCs of 0.992 (95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 0.986-0.996) and 0.977 (95%CI: 0.963-0.990), respectively. IgG assays outperformed IgA assays (p=0.008). Considering optimized cut-offs taking the 15% inter-assay imprecision assessed into account, an IgG ratio cut-off > 1.5 displayed a 100% specificity (95%CI: 98-100) and a 100% positive predictive value (95%CI: 97-100). A 0.5 cut-off displayed a 97% sensitivity (95%CI: 93-99) and a 97% negative predictive value (95%CI: 93-99). Adopting these thresholds, rather than those of the manufacturer, improved assay performance, leaving 12% of IgG ratios ranging between 0.5-1.5 as indeterminate. Conclusions: The Euroimmun assay displays a nearly optimal diagnostic accuracy using IgG against SARS-CoV-2 in a samples of patients, without any obvious gains from considering IgA serology. The optimized cut-offs are fit for rule-in and rule-out purposes, allowing determination of whether individuals have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or not in our study population. They should however not be considered as a surrogate of protection at this stage.