RESUMO
BackgroundPrevious SARS-CoV-2 infection primes the immune system and thus individuals who recovered from infection have enhanced immune responses to subsequent vaccination (hybrid immunity). However, it remains unclear how well hybrid immunity induced by severe or mild infection can cross-neutralize emerging variants. We aimed to compare the strength and breadth of antibody responses in vaccinated recovered and uninfected subjects. MethodsWe measured spike-specific IgG and neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) from vaccinated subjects including 320 with hybrid immunity and 20 without previous infection. From 29 subjects with a previous severe or mild infection, we also measured NAb responses against Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351), Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529/BA.1) variants following vaccination. ResultsA single vaccine dose induced 2-fold higher anti-spike IgG concentrations and 3-fold higher neutralizing potency of antibodies in previously infected compared to uninfected fully vaccinated subjects. We found similar IgG concentrations in previously infected subjects after one or two vaccine doses. NAb titers were higher in subjects with severe compared to those with mild infection. This difference remained after vaccination with sequentially decreasing titers against Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants. ConclusionsHybrid immunity induced strong IgG responses, particularly after severe infection. However, the NAb titers were low against heterologous variants, especially against Omicron.
RESUMO
The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant capable of escaping neutralizing antibodies emphasizes the need for prophylactic strategies to complement vaccination in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Nasal epithelium is rich in the ACE2 receptor and important for SARS-CoV-2 transmission by supporting early viral replication before seeding to the lung1. Intranasal administration of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies or antibody fragments has shown encouraging potential as a protective measure in animal models2-5. However, there remains a need for SARS-CoV-2 blocking agents that are more economical to produce in large scale, while less vulnerable to mutational variation in the neutralization epitopes of the viral Spike glycoprotein. Here we describe TriSb92, a highly manufacturable trimeric human nephrocystin SH3 domain-derived antibody mimetic targeted against a conserved region in the receptor-binding domain of the Spike. TriSb92 potently neutralizes SARS-CoV-2 and its variants of concern, including Delta and Omicron. Intranasal administration of a modest dose of TriSb92 (5 or 50 micrograms) as early as eight hours before the challenge with SARS-CoV-2 B.1.351 efficiently protected mice from infection. The target epitope of TriSb92 was defined by cryo-EM, which revealed triggering of a conformational shift in the Spike trimer rather than competition for ACE2 binding as the molecular basis of its strong inhibitory action. Our results highlight the potential of intranasal inhibitors in protecting susceptible individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection, and describe a novel type of inhibitor that could be of use in addressing the challenge posed by the Omicron variant.
RESUMO
The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) with major spike protein mutations has raised concern over potential neutralization escape and breakthrough infections among vaccinated and previously SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects. We measured cross-protective antibodies against variants in health care workers (HCW, n=20) and nursing home residents (n=9) from samples collected 1-2 months following the booster (3rd) dose. We also assessed the antibody responses in prior to Omicron era infected subjects (n=38) with subsequent administration of a single mRNA vaccine dose. Following booster vaccination HCWs had high IgG antibody concentrations to the spike protein and neutralizing antibodies (NAb) were detectable against all variants. IgG concentrations among the elderly remained lower, and some lacked NAbs against the Beta and Omicron variants. NAb titers were significantly reduced against Delta, Beta and Omicron compared to wild-type virus regardless of age. Vaccination induced high IgG concentrations and variable titers of cross-reactive NAbs in previously infected subjects, whereas NAb titers against Omicron were barely detectable 1-month post-infection. High IgG concentrations with cross-protective neutralizing activity were detected after three COVID-19 vaccine doses in HCWs. However, lower NAb titers seen in the frail elderly suggest inadequate protection against Omicron breakthrough infections, yet protection against severe COVID-19 is expected. O_TBL View this table: org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@84f4c4org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@e1a056org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@e5a4ecorg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@ae8370org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@137480e_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_TBL O_FLOATNOTable 1.C_FLOATNO O_TABLECAPTIONGeometric mean IgG concentrations, GMC [95% CI] expressed as BAU/ml for spike proteins (SFL and RBD) and geometric mean titers, GMT [95% CI] of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) against wild-type (WT) virus and three variants of concern Delta (B.1.617.2), Beta (B.1.351) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) in elderly (n=7-9) and health care workers (HCW) 21-42 (n=7) or 43-77 (n=8) days post booster mRNA vaccination (3rd dose of Comirnaty). C_TABLECAPTION C_TBL Clinical trial registrationEudraCT 2021-004788-29
RESUMO
BackgroundValidation and standardization of accurate serological assays are crucial for the surveillance of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and population immunity. MethodsWe describe the analytical and clinical performance of an in-house fluorescent multiplex immunoassay (FMIA) for simultaneous quantification of antibodies against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleoprotein and spike glycoprotein. Furthermore, we calibrated IgG-FMIA against World Health Organisation (WHO) International Standard and compared FMIA results to an in-house enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and a microneutralisation test (MNT). We also compared the MNT results of two laboratories. ResultsIgG-FMIA displayed 100% specificity and sensitivity for samples collected 13-150 days post-onset of symptoms (DPO). For IgA- and IgM-FMIA 100% specificity and sensitivity were obtained for a shorter time window (13-36 and 13-28 DPO for IgA- and IgM-FMIA, respectively). FMIA and EIA results displayed moderate to strong correlation, but FMIA was overall more specific and sensitive. IgG-FMIA identified 100% of samples with neutralising antibodies (NAbs). Anti-spike IgG concentrations correlated strongly ({rho}=0.77-0.84, P<2.2x10-16) with NAb titers. The NAb titers of the two laboratories displayed a very strong correlation ({rho}=0.95, P<2.2x10-16). DiscussionOur results indicate good correlation and concordance of antibody concentrations measured with different types of in-house SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Calibration against WHO international standard did not, however, improve the comparability of FMIA and EIA results.
RESUMO
BackgroundHousehold transmission studies offer the opportunity to assess both secondary attack rate and persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies over time. MethodsWe invited confirmed COVID-19 cases and their household members to attend up to four household visits with collection of nasopharyngeal and serum samples over 28 days after index case onset. We calculated secondary attack rates (SAR) based on the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein IgG antibodies (IgG Ab) and/or neutralizing antibodies (NAb) overall and per households. Three and six months later, we assessed the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. FindingsWe recruited 39 index cases and 90 household members. Among 87 household members evaluated, SAR was 48% (n=42), including 37 symptomatic secondary cases. In total, 80/129 (62%) participants developed both IgG Ab and NAb, while three participants only developed IgG Ab. Among participants who had both IgG Ab and NAb during the initial follow-up, 68/69 (99%) and 63/70 (90%) had IgG Ab and NAb at 3 months, while at 6 months, 59/75 (79%) and 63/75 (84%) had IgG Ab and NAb, respectively. Participants who required hospital care had initially 5-fold IgG Ab concentrations compared to cases with mild symptoms and 8-fold compared to asymptomatic cases. InterpretationFollowing detection of a COVID-19 case in a household, other members had a high risk of becoming infected. Follow-up of participants showed strong persistence of antibodies in most cases. FundingThis study was supported by THL coordinated funding for COVID-19 research (Finnish Governments supplementary budget) and by the Academy of Finland (Decision number 336431). Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSHousehold transmission studies are pivotal to the characterization of transmission dynamics of emerging infectious diseases in a closed setting with homogenous exposure, including proportion of asymptomatic cases using serologic assessment of infection. Additionally, data on long-term persistence of immune response, including neutralizing antibodies following COVID-19 remains scarce. Our search on PubMed for articles published between January 1st 2020, and June 1st, 2021 using the search terms "household" AND "transmission" AND ("COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2") retrieved 381 results including 35 relevant articles: 21 original household transmission studies, 5 reviews and 9 statistical transmission, modelling or register linkage studies. Depending on the diagnosis method and the duration of follow-up, secondary attack rates (SAR) ranged from 4.6% when household contacts were followed for 14 days and tested only in case of symptoms to close to 90%. None of the household transmission studies involved long-term convalescent follow-up. Added value of this studyThis extensive (one month) active follow-up, using RT-PCR diagnosis and serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein IgG antibodies (IgG Ab) and neutralizing antibodies (NAb) showed that household transmission was high, with a 48% (42/87) SAR overall and 50% [IQR: 0-100%] at the level of the household. All but one out of 64 RT-PCR confirmed participants had developed both IgG Ab and NAb after immediate convalescence. Six months after inclusion, majority of previously seropositive (IgG and/or NAb) participants still had IgG Ab (59/75) or NAb (63/75) showing long-term persistence of humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Implications of all the available evidenceThe risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infections within households is considerable. Isolation of the primary case, especially from household contacts with a high risk of severe disease, e.g. due to age or comorbidities, should be considered even though viral shedding might occur before confirmed diagnosis in household contacts. Long-term persistence of antibodies following infection, even in asymptomatic and mild cases, suggests enduring natural immunity and possibly protection from severe COVID-19.
RESUMO
Understanding for how long antibodies persist following Severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection provides important insight into estimating the duration of immunity induced by infection. We assessed the persistence of serum antibodies following wild-type SARS-CoV-2 infection six and twelve months after diagnosis in 367 individuals of whom 13% had severe disease requiring hospitalization. We determined the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S-IgG) and nucleoprotein IgG concentrations and the proportion of subjects with neutralizing antibodies (NAb). We also measured the NAb titers among a smaller subset of participants (n=78) against a wild-type virus (B.1) and three variants of concern (VOCs): Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351) and Delta (B.1.617.2). We found that NAb against the wild-type virus and S-IgG persisted in 89% and 97% of subjects for at least twelve months after infection, respectively. IgG and NAb levels were higher after severe infection. NAb titers were significantly lower against variants compared to the wild-type virus.
RESUMO
Novel SARS coronavirus causing COVID-19 was recognized in late 2019. Diagnostics was quickly ramped up worldwide based on the detection of viral RNA. Based on the scientific knowledge for pre-existing coronaviruses, it was expected that the RNA of this novel coronavirus will be detected from symptomatic and at significant rates also from asymptomatic individuals due to persistence of non-infectious RNA. To increase the efficacy of diagnostics, surveillance, screening and pandemic control, rapid methods, such as antigen tests, are needed for decentralized testing and to assess infectiousness. The objective was to validate the analytical and clinical performance, and usability of a novel automated mariPOC SARS-CoV-2 test, which is based on the detection of structural viral proteins using sophisticated optical laser technology. Clinical performance of the test was evaluated against qRT-PCR with nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected from patients suspected of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Sensitivity of the mariPOC test was 100.0% (13/13) directly from swab specimens and 84.4% (38/45) from swab specimens in undefined transport mediums. Specificity of the test was 100.0% (201/201). The tests limit of detection was 2.7 TCID50/test and had no cross-reactions with the tested respiratory microbes. Our study shows that the mariPOC can detect infectious individuals already in 20 minutes with clinical sensitivity close to qRT-PCR. The test targets conserved epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein, making it robust against strain variations. The new test is a promising and versatile tool for syndromic testing of symptomatic cases and for high capacity infection control screening.
RESUMO
BackgroundSensitive and highly specific antibody tests are critical for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies especially in populations where seroprevalence is low. AimTo set up, optimize and evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of a new in-house microsphere immunoassay for measurement of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein for assessment of population seroprevalence in Finland. MethodsWe set up a new in-house microsphere immunoassay (FMIA) with SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein and optimized its analytical performance. For evaluation of clinical performance, we tested sera collected in a well-characterized cohort of PCR positive-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients (n=89) with mostly mild symptoms, and before the COVID-19 pandemic (n=402), for nucleoprotein specific IgG concentrations by FMIA and a commercial chemiluminescent immunoassay and for neutralizing antibodies by the microneutralization test. ResultsThe analytical performance of FMIA was established in terms of sensitivity, linearity and precision. FMIA discriminated between COVID-19 patient and control samples with high specificity (100%) and sensitivity (100%). We generated FMIA seropositivity cut-offs, 0.46 and 1.71 U/ml, for low- and high-seroprevalence settings, respectively. In addition, we obtained high level of agreement between FMIA results and results by the microneutralization test. ConclusionThe fluorescent microsphere immunoassay showed excellent analytical and clinical performance and is well suited for serosurveillance studies of SARS-CoV-2. However, to optimize analytical sensitivity and clinical specificity of the assay, different seropositivity thresholds depending on the intended use of the assay and the target population, may be needed.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe role of children in SARS-CoV-2 transmission is unclear. We investigated two COVID-19 school exposure incidents in the Helsinki area. MethodsWe conducted two retrospective cohort studies after schools exposures, with a household transmission extension. We defined a case as an exposed person with either a positive RT-PCR, or positive microneutralisation testing (MNT) as confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein IgG antibodies detection via fluorescent microsphere immunoassay (FMIA). We recruited close school contacts and families of school cases, calculated attack rates (AR) on school level and families, and identified transmission chains. FindingsIn incident A, the index was a pupil. Participation rate was 74% (89/121), and no cases were identified. In incident B, the index was a member of school personnel. Participation rate was 81% (51/63). AR was 16% (8/51): 6 pupils and 1 member of school personnel were MNT and FMIA positive; 1 pupil had a positive RT-PCR, but negative serology samples. We visited all school cases families (n=8). The AR among close household contacts was 42% (9/20 in 3/8 families) but other plausible sources were always reported. At three months post-exposure, 6/8 school cases were re-sampled and still MNT positive. InterpretationWhen the index was a child, no school transmission was identified, while the occurrence of an adult case led to a 16% AR. Further cases were evidenced in 3 families, but other transmission chains were plausible. It is likely that transmission from children to adults is limited. FundingThe Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare funded this study. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before the studyC_ST_ABSThe first autochthonous case of COVID-19 in Finland was identified on February 29th. Transmission of the virus has led to more than 7250 cases and over 300 deaths (As of July 12th 2020). On March 16th, assuming that children might have a role in transmission, the Finnish government ordered school closures, to the exclusion of pre-school and grades 1-3. Schools were closed from March 18 and reopened on May 14th. At the stage of closure, a very limited number of reports of school related COVID-19 clusters or exposure incidents had been published, and the potential extent of transmission in a school setting was unknown. Added value of this studyWe investigated two exposure incidents in two different schools from the Helsinki area to assess transmission among pupils, school personnel and household contacts of identified cases. In school A, contact with a COVID-19 pupil did not lead to further transmission, while in school B, out of 51 recruited contacts, eight (16%) were proved to have had COVID-19 infection, including one member of staff. Among the close household contacts of pupils who were tested positive, COVID-19 attack rate was 31% (5/16). However, in all investigated households, other sources of infections were plausible; hence household transmission following a pediatric COVID-19 case appears to be limited. Implications of all of the available evidenceIncidence of COVID-19 infections in children following school related exposure was limited, as well as secondary transmission within their household. We hope our findings will help prioritize mitigation measures as well as reduce worry among parents of school aged children as most EU countries are preparing for the start of a new school year in autumn.
RESUMO
ObjectiveWe compared the clinical characteristics, findings and outcomes of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) or influenza to detect relevant differences. MethodsFrom December 2019 to April 2020, we recruited all eligible hospitalized adults with respiratory infection to a prospective observational study at the HUS Jorvi Hospital, Finland. Influenza and SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed by RT-PCR. Follow-up lasted for at least 30 days from admission. ResultsWe included 61 patients, of whom 28 were COVID-19 and 33 influenza patients with median ages of 53 and 56 years. Majority of both COVID-19 and influenza patients were men (61% vs 67%) and had at least one comorbidity (68% vs 85%). Pulmonary diseases and current smoking were less common among COVID-19 than influenza patients (5 [18%] vs 15 [45%], P=0.03 and 1 [4%] vs 10 [30%], P=0.008). In chest x-ray at admission, ground-glass opacities and consolidations were more frequent among COVID-19 than influenza patients (19 [68%] and 7 [21%], P < 0.001). Severe disease and intensive care unit (ICU) admission occurred more often among COVID-19 than influenza patients (26 [93%] vs 19 [58%], P=0.003 and 8 [29%] vs 2 [6%], P=0.034). COVID-19 patients were hospitalized longer than influenza patients (6 days [IQR 4-21] vs 3 [2-4], P<0.001). ConclusionBilateral ground-glass opacities and consolidations in chest X-ray may help to differentiate COVID-19 from influenza. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients had more severe disease, required longer hospitalization and were admitted to ICU more often than influenza patients, which has important implications for public health policies.
