Trilogy of COVID-19: Infection, Vaccination, and Immunosuppression.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative respiratory pathogen responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In 2020, the power of open science was visible to all, as novel vaccinology led to rapid establishment of vaccine clinical trials, and subsequent authorization of SARS-CoV-2 at an unprecedented pace. This evoked rapid deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and booster doses to keep with the ever-changing landscape of SARS-CoV-2. In this review, we provide an overview of vaccine efficacy studies, which have been well characterized in healthy individuals. Nevertheless, vaccine efficacy within the immunosuppressed is less well characterized, as these individuals were omitted from initial efficacy studies. Consequently, vaccine-induced responses in this group are relatively unknown. Currently, limited evidence investigating vaccine efficacy within the immunosuppressed is available. Here, we provide an overview of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated pathogenesis. Furthermore, we undertake a critical analysis of observed vaccine responses from clinical studies, conducted in healthy and immunosuppressed populations. Whilst vaccine deployment has curbed mortality, there are significant challenges that lie ahead. This includes correlating vaccine responses with protective immunity and ensuring that global vaccine equity is met.

Cellular and humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in immunosuppressed patients.

OBJECTIVE: SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations have demonstrated vaccine-immunogenicity in healthy volunteers, however, efficacy in immunosuppressed patients is less well characterised. There is an urgent need to address the impact of immunosuppression on vaccine immunogenicity. METHODS: Serological, T-cell ELISpot, cytokines and immunophenotyping were used to assess vaccine responses (either BNT162b2 mRNA or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) in double-vaccinated patients receiving immunosuppression for renal transplants or haematological malignancies (n = 13). Immunological responses in immunosuppressed patients (VACC-IS) were compared to immunocompetent vaccinated (VACC-IC, n = 12), unvaccinated (UNVACC, n = 11) and infection-naïve unvaccinated (HC, n = 3) cohorts. RESULTS: No significant different differences in T-cell responses were observed between VACC-IS and VACC-IC (92%) to spike-peptide (S) stimulation. UNVACC had the highest T-cell non-responders (n = 3), whereas VACC-IC and VACC-IS both had one T-cell non-responder. No significant differences in humoral responses were observed between VACC-IC and VACC-IS, with 92% (12/13) of VACC-IS patients demonstrating seropositivity. One VACC-IS failed to seroconvert, however had detectable T-cell responses. All VACC-IC participants were seropositive for anti-spike antibodies. VACC-IS and VACC-IC participants elicited strong Th1 cytokine response with immunodominance towards S-peptide. Differences in T-cell immunophenotyping were seen between VACC-IS and VACC-IC, with lower CD8+ activation and T-effector memory phenotype observed in VACC-IS. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are immunogenic in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy, with responses comparable to vaccinated immunocompetent participants. Lower humoral responses were seen in patients treated with B-cell depleting therapeutics, but with preserved T-cell responses. We suggest further work to correlate both protective immunity and longevity of these responses in both healthy and immunosuppressed patients.

Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Infection-Comparative Determination of Seroprevalence in Two High-Throughput Assays versus a Sensitive Spike Protein ELISA.

Robust assay development for SARS-CoV-2 serological testing requires assessment of asymptomatic and non-hospitalised individuals to determine if assays are sensitive to mild antibody responses. Our study evaluated the performance characteristics of two high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 IgG nucleocapsid assays (Abbott Architect and Roche) and The Binding Site (TBS) Anti-Spike IgG/A/M ELISA kit in samples from healthcare workers (HCWs). The 252 samples were collected from multi-site NHS trusts and analysed for SARS-CoV-2 serology. Assay performance was evaluated between these three platforms and ROC curves were used to redefine the Abbott threshold. Concordance between Abbott and TBS was 66%. Any discrepant results were analysed using Roche, which showed 100% concordance with TBS. Analysis conducted in HCWs within 58 days post-PCR result demonstrated 100% sensitivity for both Abbott and Roche. Longitudinal analysis for >100 days post-PCR led to sensitivity of 77.2% and 100% for Abbott and Roche, respectively. A redefined Abbott threshold (0.64) increased sensitivity to 90%, producing results comparable to TBS and Roche. The manufacturer's threshold set by Abbott contributes to lower sensitivity and elevated false-negative occurrences. Abbott performance improved upon re-optimisation of the cut-off threshold. Our findings provided evidence that TBS can be used as bespoke alternative for SARS-CoV-2 serology analysis where high-throughput platforms are not feasible on site.