ABSTRACT
ObjectivesVarious commercial anti-Spike SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are used for studies and in clinical settings after vaccination. An international standard for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies has been established to achieve comparability of such tests, allowing conversions to BAU/ml. This study aimed to investigate the comparability of antibody tests regarding the timing of blood collection after vaccination. MethodsFor this prospective observational study, antibody levels of 50 participants with homologous AZD1222 vaccination were evaluated at 3 and 11 weeks after the first dose and 3 weeks after the second dose using two commercial anti-Spike binding antibody assays (Roche and Abbott) and a surrogate neutralization assay. ResultsThe correlation between Roche and Abbott changed significantly depending on the time point studied. Although 3 weeks after the first dose, Abbott provided values three times higher than Roche, 11 weeks after the first dose, the values for Roche were twice as high as for Abbott, and 3 weeks after the second dose even 5-6 times higher. ConclusionsThe comparability of quantitative anti-Spike SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests is highly dependent on the timing of blood collection after vaccination. Therefore, standardization of the timing of blood collection might be necessary for the comparability of different quantitative SARS-COV-2 antibody assays. O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=175 SRC="FIGDIR/small/21262426v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (27K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1e789daorg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@b83aforg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1f270daorg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1cf296c_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG
ABSTRACT
ObjectivesOur objective was to determine whether SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels after the first dose can predict the final antibody response and whether this is dependent on the vaccine type. Methods69 BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) and 55 AZD1222 (AstraZeneca) vaccinees without previous infection or immunosuppressive medication were included. Anti-body levels were quantified 3 weeks after dose 1, in case of AZD1222 directly before boostering (11 weeks after dose 1) and 3 weeks after dose 2, with the Roche SARS-CoV-2 S total antibody assay. ResultsPre-booster (BNT162b2: 80.6 [25.5-167.0] BAU/mL, AZD1222: 56.4 [36.4-104.8] BAU/mL, not significant) and post-booster levels (BNT162b2: 2,092.0 [1,216.3-4,431.8] BAU/mL, AZD1222: 957.0 [684.5-1,684.8] BAU/mL, p<0.0001) correlated well in BNT162b2 ({rho}=0.53) but not in AZD1222 recipients. Moreover, antibody levels after the first dose of BNT162b2 correlated inversely with age ({rho}=-0.33, P=0.013), whereas a positive correlation with age was observed after the second dose in AZD1222 recipients ({rho}=0.26, P=0.030). ConclusionsIn conclusion, our data suggest that antibody levels quantified by the Roche Elecsys SARS-CoV-2 S assay before the booster shot could infer post-booster responses to BNT162b2, but not to AZ1222. In addition, we found a vaccine-dependent effect on antibody responses, suggesting a possible link between vaccine response and vector immunity.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has placed a significant burden on health care systems worldwide with health care workers (HCWs) delivering care under unprecedented conditions. This study deals with HCWs physical, mental, emotional and professional challenges of working during the COVID-19 pandemic and seeks to understand structural determinants of those challenges. MethodsWe carried out an exploratory qualitative study in public and private hospitals in Vienna, Austria. HCWs such as medical doctors, qualified nursing staff, nurse assistants, technical and cleaning staff in direct and indirect contact with COVID-19 patients were included. Collected data was analyzed using content analysis. FindingsWe conducted 30 semi-structured interviews in person and per phone from June 2020 to January 2021. Three overall themes resulted as relevant: challenges due to lack of preparedness, structural conditions, and physical and mental health of HCWs. Lack of preparedness included missing or delayed infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines, shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) combined with structural conditions such as staff shortages and overworked personnel. Physical and mental strains resulted from being overworked and working permanently on alert. Further, working in PPE, facing medical uncertainties and the critical conditions of patients were challenging factors. HCWs lacked recognition on multiple levels and dealt with social stigma and avoidance behavior of colleagues, especially in the beginning of the pandemic. InterpretationTo mitigate HCWs occupational health risks and staff turnover, we propose the following context-specific recommendations: Required medical personnel in care of COVID-19 patients, especially nursing staff, should be carefully planned and increased to avert chronic work overload. Intensive training and education in palliative care, as well as in IPC for all HCWs is important. Providing supportive supervision is as essential as appropriate recognition by higher level management and the public. FundingThis article has received funding from The Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) COVID-19 Rapid Response Funding 2020. The funders did not play a role in the decision to publish the article.
