Evaluation of QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 interferon-γ release assay following SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination (preprint)

Background: T cells are important in preventing severe disease from SARS-CoV-2, but scalable and field-adaptable alternatives to expert T cell assays are needed. The interferon-gamma release assay QuantiFERON platform was developed to detect T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 from whole blood with relatively basic equipment and flexibility of processing timelines. Methods: 48 participants with different infection and vaccination backgrounds were recruited. Whole blood samples were analysed using the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay in parallel with the well-established Protective Immunity from T Cells in Healthcare workers (PITCH) ELISpot, which can evaluate spike-specific T cell responses. Aims: The primary aims of this cross-sectional observational cohort study were to establish if the QuantiFERON SARS-Co-V-2 assay could discern differences between specified groups and to assess the sensitivity of the assay compared to the PITCH ELISpot. Findings: The QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 distinguished acutely infected individuals (12-21 days post positive PCR) from naive individuals (p< 0.0001) with 100% sensitivity and specificity for SARS-CoV-2 T cells, whilst the PITCH ELISpot had reduced sensitivity (62.5%) for the acute infection group. Sensitivity with QuantiFERON for previous infection was 12.5% (172-444 days post positive test) and was inferior to the PITCH ELISpot (75%). Although the QuantiFERON assay could discern differences between unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals (55-166 days since second vaccination), the latter also had reduced sensitivity (55.5%) compared to the PITCH ELISpot (66.6%). Conclusion: The QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay showed potential as a T cell evaluation tool soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection but has lower sensitivity for use in reliable evaluation of vaccination or more distant infection.

Evolution of long-term hybrid immunity in healthcare workers after different COVID-19 vaccination regimens: a longitudinal observational cohort study (preprint)

Both infection and vaccination, alone or in combination, generate antibody and T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2. However, the maintenance of such responses - and hence protection from disease - requires careful characterisation. In a large prospective study of UK healthcare workers (PITCH, within the larger SIREN study) we previously observed that prior infection impacted strongly on subsequent cellular and humoral immunity induced after long and short dosing intervals of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. Here, we report longer follow up of 684 HCWs in this cohort over 6-9 months following two doses of BNT162b2 or AZ1222 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) vaccination and following a subsequent BNT162b2 booster vaccination. We make three important observations: Firstly, the dynamics of humoral and cellular responses differ; binding and neutralising antibodies declined whereas T and B cell responses were better maintained after the second vaccine dose. Secondly, vaccine boosting restored IgG levels to post second dose levels and broadened neutralising activity against variants of concern including omicron BA.1, alongside further boosting of T cell responses. Thirdly, prior infection maintained its impact driving larger T cell responses compared to never infected people, including after the third dose. In conclusion, the maintenance of T cell responses in time and against variants of concern may account for continued protection against severe disease.

Comparison of two T cell assays to evaluate T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination in naive and convalescent healthcare workers (preprint)

Background: T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following infection and vaccination are less characterised than antibody responses, due to a more complex experimental pathway. Methods: We measured T cell responses in 108 healthcare workers (HCWs) in an observational cohort study, using the commercialised Oxford Immunotec T-SPOT Discovery SARS-CoV-2 assay (OI T-SPOT) and the PITCH ELISpot protocol established for academic research settings. Results: Both assays detected T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike, membrane and nucleocapsid proteins. Responses were significantly lower when reported by OI T-SPOT than by PITCH ELISpot. Four weeks after two doses of either Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 AZD1222 vaccine, the responder rate was 63% for OI T-SPOT Panels1+2 (peptides representing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein excluding regions present in seasonal coronaviruses), 69% for OI T-SPOT Panel 14 (peptides representing the entire SARS-CoV-2 spike), and 94% for the PITCH ELISpot assay. The two OI T-SPOT panels correlated strongly with each other showing that either readout quantifies spike-specific T cell responses, although the correlation between the OI T-SPOT panels and the PITCH ELISpot was moderate. Conclusion: The standardisation, relative scalability and longer interval between blood acquisition and processing are advantages of the commercial OI T-SPOT assay. However, the OI T-SPOT assay measures T cell responses at a significantly lower magnitude compared to the PITCH ELISpot assay, detecting T cell responses in a lower proportion of vaccinees. This has implications for the reporting of low-level T cell responses that may be observed in patient populations and for the assessment of T cell durability after vaccination.