Variants of concern are overrepresented among post-vaccination breakthrough infections of SARS-CoV-2 in Washington State

Across 20 vaccine breakthrough cases detected at our institution, all 20 (100%) infections were due to variants of concern (VOC) and had a median Ct of 20.2 (IQR=17.1-23.3). When compared to 5174 contemporaneous samples sequenced in our laboratory, VOC were significantly enriched among breakthrough infections (p < .05).

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels are concordant across multiple platforms but are not fully predictive of sterilizing immunity

With the availability of widespread SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, high-throughput quantitative anti-spike serological testing will likely become increasingly important. Here, we investigated the performance characteristics of the recently FDA authorized semi-quantitative anti-spike AdviseDx SARS-CoV-2 IgG II assay compared to the FDA authorized anti-nucleocapsid Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG, Roche elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2-S, EuroImmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA, and GenScript surrogate virus neutralization assays and examined the humoral response associated with vaccination, natural protection, and breakthrough infection. The AdviseDx assay had a clinical sensitivity at 14 days post-symptom onset or 10 days post PCR detection of 95.6% (65/68, 95% CI: 87.8-98.8%) with two discrepant individuals seroconverting shortly thereafter. The AdviseDx assay demonstrated 100% positive percent agreement with the four other assays examined using the same symptom onset or PCR detection cutoffs. Using a recently available WHO International Standard for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody, we provide assay unit conversion factors to international units for each of the assays examined. We performed a longitudinal survey of healthy vaccinated individuals, finding median AdviseDx immunoglobulin levels peaked seven weeks post-first vaccine dose at approximately 4,000 IU/mL. Intriguingly, among the five assays examined, there was no significant difference in antigen binding level or neutralizing activity between two seropositive patients protected against SARS-CoV-2 infection in a previously described fishing vessel outbreak and five healthcare workers who experienced vaccine breakthrough of SARS-CoV-2 infection - all with variants of concern. These findings suggest that protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection cannot currently be predicted exclusively using in vitro antibody assays against wildtype SARS-CoV-2 spike. Further work is required to establish protective correlates of protection for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Occurrence and Timing of Subsequent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR Positivity Among Initially Negative Patients

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing remains the cornerstone of laboratory-based identification of patients with COVID-19. As the availability and speed of SARS-CoV-2 testing platforms improve, results are increasingly relied upon to inform critical decisions related to therapy, use of personal protective equipment, and workforce readiness. However, early reports of RT-PCR test performance have left clinicians and the public with concerns regarding the reliability of this predominant testing modality and the interpretation of negative results. In this work, two independent research teams report the frequency of discordant SARS-CoV-2 test results among initially negative, repeatedly tested patients in regions of the United States with early community transmission and access to testing. MethodsAll patients at the University of Washington (UW) and Stanford Health Care undergoing initial testing by nasopharyngeal (NP) swab between March 2nd and April 7th, 2020 were included. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR was performed targeting the N, RdRp, S, and E genes and ORF1ab, using a combination of Emergency Use Authorization laboratory-developed tests and commercial assays. Results through April 14th were extracted to allow for a complete 7-day observation period and an additional day for reporting. ResultsA total of 23,126 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests (10,583 UW, 12,543 Stanford) were performed in 20,912 eligible patients (8,977 UW, 11,935 Stanford) undergoing initial testing by NP swab; 626 initially test-negative patients were re-tested within 7 days. Among this group, repeat testing within 7 days yielded a positive result in 3.5% (4.3% UW, 2.8% Stanford) of cases, suggesting an initial false negative RT-PCR result; the majority (96.5%) of patients with an initial negative result who warranted reevaluation for any reason remained negative on all subsequent tests performed within this window. ConclusionsTwo independent research teams report the similar finding that, among initially negative patients subjected to repeat SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing, the occurrence of a newly positive result within 7 days is uncommon. These observations suggest that false negative results at the time of initial presentation do occur, but potentially at a lower frequency than is currently believed. Although it is not possible to infer the clinical sensitivity of NP SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing using these data, they may be used in combination with other reports to guide the use and interpretation of this common testing modality.