Strong neutralizing antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 variants following a single vaccine dose in subjects with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

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.

Neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant after 3rd mRNA vaccination in health care workers and elderly subjects and response to a single dose in previously infected adults

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

A highly sensitive and specific SARS-CoV-2 spike- and nucleoprotein-based fluorescent multiplex immunoassay (FMIA) to measure IgG, IgA and IgM class antibodies

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.

High secondary attack rate and persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in household transmission study participants, Finland 2020

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.

Persistence of neutralizing antibodies a year after SARS-CoV-2 infection

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.

Analytical and clinical evaluation of antibody tests for SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance studies used in Finland in 2020

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.