A diagnostic strategy for adjusting Covid-19 vaccination to individual immune state

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1339400/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

A diagnostic strategy for adjusting Covid-19 vaccination to individual immune state

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1339400/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose: We describe a diagnostic procedure suitable for scheduling (re-)vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) according to individual state of humoral immunization.

Methods: To clarify the relation between antibody measurements and immune protection, we monitored 124 individuals before, during and six months after vaccination with Spikevax (Moderna). Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1) protein receptor binding domain (S1-AB) and against nucleocapsid antigen were measured by chemiluminescent immunoassay (Roche). Virus-neutralizing activities were determined by surrogate assays (NeutraLISA, Euroimmune; cPass, GenScript). Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture (full virus NT) served as ex-vivo correlate for humoral immunity.

Results: Vaccination responses varied considerably. Six months after 2^nd vaccination, participants still positive for full virus NT were safely discriminated by S1-AB levels ≥1000 U/ml. The full virus NT-positive fraction of participants with S1-AB levels <1000 U/ml was discriminated by virus-neutralizing activities >70 % as determined by surrogate assays (NeutraLISA or cPas). Participants that were full virus NT-negative and therefore presumably insufficiently immune protected could be identified by the above procedure with a sensitivity of >83 % and a specificity of >95 %.

Conclusion: In summary, the described diagnostic tool strategy enables individualized (re-)vaccination schedules based on simple and rapid measurement of serum-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels. Our data apply only to WUHAN-type SARS-CoV-2 virus and the current version of mRNA vaccine from Moderna. Adaptation to other vaccines and more recent SARS-CoV-2 strains will require modification of cut-offs and re-evaluation of sensitivity/specificity.

Study numbers: 2021-1455 and 2020-1259_1, Ethics Committee Med. Fac. HHU.

Covid 19-serology

SARS-CoV-2-neutralization

SARS-CoV-2-vaccination

SARS-CoV-2-immunity

companion-diagnostic

Since the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in December 2019 more than 300.000.000 cases have been reported globally and nearly six million deaths have been confirmed [1, 2]. The virus is transmitted human-to-human and can affect almost all human organs causing Covid-19, a potentially chronic disease comprising inter alia dry cough, fever, dyspnoea, anosmia, ageusia, and pneumonia [2, 3]. Apart from anti-inflammatory and viro-static approaches for treating manifest COVID-19, vaccination is considered the most crucial measure for stopping the SARS-CoV-2-pandemic [4].

SARS-CoV-2 constitutes a new scientific problem. Over the past two years, many questions were addressed regarding disease management and vaccination very soon came into the focus of interest. It had to be determined which type of vaccine to chose, which part of the virus should be targeted by vaccination, and which immunization schemes should be employed [5]. Several types of vaccines were developed rapidly, but initially limited supply of doses mandated decisions on whom to vaccinate first [6]. By January 2022, nearly ten billion doses have been administered globally [1], and the scientific focus shifts towards surveillance of individual vaccination responses and optimization of renewed immunization.

In the latter context, serological tests for monitoring humoral immune responses to infection and/or vaccination are of central importance. In December 2020, the World Health Organization established an international standard and reference panel allowing calibrated and standardized determinations of circulating levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies [7, 8]. However, scientific guidance is lacking regarding which levels of circulating antibodies are sufficient for protecting vaccinated patients from an infection and which serological tests are suited for surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 immunity following infections or vaccinations [7].

Here, we investigate how the state of functional humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 can be assessed under conditions of routine health care. We monitore the vaccination response of an adult cohort during two cycles of vaccination with mRNA-based Covid-19 Vaccine Spikevax (Moderna Biotech, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA), using immunoassays for antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1) protein receptor binding domain (S1-AB) and the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (N-AB), and with two surrogate assays for the virus-neutralizing activity of SARS-CoV-2-antibodies, for which measurements of suppression of cytopathic effects of SARS-CoV-2 virus in cell culture (full virus neutralization test, full virus NT) serve as reference.

We thus evaluate a set of routine serological tests for circulating SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as Covid-19 companion diagnostics and aim to establish criteria for judging their results quoad functional humoral immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Based on our results we propose a staged diagnostic strategy that may allow laboratories to monitor the functional state of humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2, without having access to a BSL-3 facility required for the full virus neutralization test considered the gold standard.

Study participants

124 study participants (83 female, 41 male, mean age 46 years, median age of 50 years) were recruited at the University Hospital of the Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf. All participants were employees of these institutions and underwent a program of two vaccinations with Covid-19 Vaccine Spikevax (Moderna Biotech, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) spaced exactly four weeks apart. Vaccinations were performed according to the instructions of the manufacturer and the recommendations of the German vaccination commission (STIKO). None of the participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 or exhibited symptoms of Covid-19.

Sampling

Blood samples (18 ml) were collected by antecubital vein puncture 48 h before and four weeks following initial vaccination, and two weeks and six months after the boosting dose (i.e. the second dose). Immune responses to mRNA-based vaccines are known to be reliably detectable 21 days after initial and seven days after the boosting dose [9]. Following centrifugation (20 min, 1650 g), serum was separated and stored at -20°C until testing. Aliquots (1 ml) for reflex testing were stored at -20°C for up to 6 months.

Determination of circulating levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2-antibodies

Antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1) protein receptor binding domain (S1-AB) encompassing all immunoglobulin classes (panIg) were determined by chemiluminescent immunoassay (ECLIA) (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S, Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim Germany) on a COBAS 8000 analyzer (Roche) as prescribed by the manufacturer. Samples were measured at 10-fold dilution (Roche Cobas Universal Diluent) and re-measured at 400-fold dilution when exceeding the upper detection limit (250 U/ml). Results ≥ 0.80 U/ml were considered positive. PanIg-antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (N-AB) were similarly determined by ECLIA (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay, Roche) using a cut-off index based on positive and negative calibrators normalized to WHO-standards [10]. Results presenting a ratio of signal/ cut-off ≥ 1.0 were considered positive.

Surrogate assays for SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing activity

Virus-neutralization activity of SARS-CoV-2-antibodies was measured with NeutraLISA (EUROIMMUN Medizinische Labodiagnostika AG, Lübeck, Germany) and cPass (GenScript Biotech, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA), which both measure binding of recombinant, biotin-labelled ACE2-receptor to recombinant SARS-CoV-2-S1/-receptor binding domain immobilized on microtiter plates. Signals of ACE2-receptor bound in the presence of serum are inversely proportional to the neutralising potency thereof. Following the manufacturers’ instructions, duplicate samples were processed on a semiautomatic ELISA-processor by EUROIMMUN or using ELISA-washer and -reader by Tecan (Männedorf, Switzerland). Inhibition values (%) were derived from raw luminescence at 450 nm referenced to 620–650 nm and normalised to background without antibody. Cut-off values as provided by the manufacturers’ were ≥ 35% (positive) and < 20% (negative) for the NeutraLISA, and ≥ 30% (positive) for the cPass.

Full virus endpoint dilution neutralization test

Neutralization of entire SARSCoV-2 virus B.1 isolate (Wuhan Hu-1 wildtype,GISAID accession number EPI_ISL_425126) served as reference assay for the neutralization capacity of sera. Two-fold serial dilutions (1:10 to 1:5120) of heat inactivated sera (56°C, 30 min,) were prepared with maintenance medium (Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium, Gibco, Ref 11995-065, 100 U/mL Penicillin and 100 µg/mL Streptomycin, Gibco, Ref 11995-065, 2% Fetal Calf Serum, Pan Biotech, Cat P303031). 50 µl of diluted serum samples were incubated (37°C, 1 h) in 96-well cell culture TC-plates (83.3924.005 by Sarstedt AG & Co. KG, Nümbrecht, Germany) with virus solution at an absolute TCID50 of 100). Subsequently, 100 µl cell suspension containing 7×104 VERO cells/ ml (ATCC-CCL-81, obtained from LGC Standards) were added to each sample and incubation continued (37°C, 5% CO2, 96 h). Subsequently, cytopathic effects (CPE) were determined by microscopic inspection. The effective neutralization titre was defined as the highest CPE-negative sample dilution. Titres of ≥ 1:10 were considered positive. Controls included in each test series encompassed neutralization-negative and -positive serum samples (previously determined and stored at -20°C), the effect of virus in the absence of serum, and growth controls of cells exposed neither to virus nor to serum.

Statistical methods

IBM SPSS Statistics 28 software (IBM Corp. Released 2021. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 28.0. Armonk, New York, USA: IBM Corp.) and Graph Pad Prism 9 (Graph Pad Software, Inc., Released 2020. Graph Pad Prism 9 for Windows, San Diego, California, USA: Graph Pad Inc.) were used for analysis. Normal distribution was tested according to Shapiro-Wilk and Q-Q-graphs. Non-normally distributed data was descriptively analysed by mean/median values, interquartile-range and boxplots. Correlations were analysed by Spearman correlation. Friedman’s test was used to detect differences between paired samples within a given dataset over time. Differences between infected and non-infected participants were analysed by the Mann-Whitney-U test. Linear regression analysis was used to analyse relationships between vaccination responses at various time points. Correlation and effect size was assumed to be good at r ≥ 0.5 and moderate at r ≥ 0.3. For all tests statistical significance was assumed at p < 0.05. Missing Data (about 12%) was handled by listwise deletion.

Samples obtained at each timepoint were tested for serum levels of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1) protein receptor binding domain (RBD) (S1-AB) and antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (N) (N-AB). S1-AB served as marker of infection as well as vaccination, whereas N-AB served as marker of infection only [11].

N-AB are not expected to increase upon mRNA-vaccination against spike (S1) protein receptor binding domain (RBD) in the absence of infection. Consequently, N-AB-positive participants were assumed to having undergone asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus before vaccination or during the post-vaccination period monitored in the study. 1.8% (n = 2) of the participants (n = 113, details: Suppl.Table 1) were positive for N-AB and S1-AB in the sample obtained before the first vaccination, indicating that they had already undergone inapparent or unregistered infection(s) with SARS-CoV-2 virus. Another participant was tested positive for a SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR test. According to the vaccination regimen of the institution, all participants were vaccinated irrespective of their serological state. However, in our study, N-AB- and PCR-positive participants were kept separate in statistical analyses.

S1-AB levels before and at various timepoints after vaccination: 99.1% (n = 109) of the N-negative participants (n = 110) and 100% (n = 116, details: Suppl.Table 1) were tested positive after first and second vaccination, respectively. All N-negative participants monitored six months after the second vaccination (n = 95, details: Suppl.Table 1) were still S1-AB-positive. These values are in good agreement with vaccination responses observed elsewhere [12]. Mean-values of S1-AB were 169 U/ml (0.4–1,004 U/ml) after first vaccination, increased to 5704 U/ml (213 − 17,764 U/ml) after second vaccination and dropped again to 1,019 U/ml (69–5,220 U/ml) six months after the second vaccination. A synoptic representation of S1-AB values obtained at the various timepoints of observation is given in Fig. 1A.

Alterations of antibody levels over time where highly significant (p < 0.001), giving rise to highly inhomogeneous timecourses of sero-responses (Fig. 1B). Inter-individual divergence started with immediate vaccination responses: Certain participants showed a huge increase of antibody-levels from an above-median level after the first vaccination to an even higher level above median after the second vaccination (Index Pat. A), whereas other participants responded with sub-median rises in S1-AB to the first vaccination and exhibited no significant further increase following the second vaccination (Index Pat. B) Fig. 1B. Timecourses of S1-AB levels during six months after the second vaccination were even more heterogeneous, encompassing a drop to as low as 2.6% (250 U/ml of 9,724 U/ml, Index Pat. C) as well as maintenance of as much as 67.5% (5.220 of 7.725 U/ml, Index Pat. D) of the initial S1-AB-level reached after the second vaccination. Most notably, S1-AB levels immediately after second vaccination exhibited only a very moderate correlation (r = 0.54, p < 0.001) with corresponding residual S1-AB levels observed six months later. The rather poor linear regression of that data (r² =0.16, p < 0.001) suggests that immediate humoral vaccination response and long-termed maintenance of humoral immunity are not stringently linked in quantitative terms. (Fig. 1C).

Samples of participants having undergone SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination (n = 3, details: Suppl.Table 1) were identified by increased serum levels of N-AB and/or positive virus-PCR. These samples exhibited many-fold higher levels of S1-AB. After first vaccination, the mean value of S1-AB in post-infection samples was 47,738 ± 3,002U/ml as opposed to 169 ± 16.6 U/ml in non-infected samples. After second vaccination, the mean value of S1-AB in post-infection samples was 43,001 ± 1,532 U/ml as opposed to 5,704 ± 322.9 U/ml in non-infected samples. These differences were highly significant (p < 0.001). In the long run, the augmenting effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on vaccination response started to diminish. At six months after the second vaccination the mean value of S1-AB in post-infection samples was 3,070 ± 417 U/ml as opposed to 1.019 ± 88.5 U/ml in non-infected samples. This difference was still significant (p = 0.001) but quantitatively less pronounced than at the timepoints directly after vaccination (see: Fig. 1A and Suppl. Figure 1).

As a next step, we compared S1-AB serum levels with corresponding virus neutralizing activity of the sera. For that purpose, all samples were probed for their potency to inhibit the binding of biotin-labelled ACE2-receptor to immobilised recombinant SARS-CoV-2-S1/-RBD (NeutraLISA, EUROIMMUN), which is considered a practical diagnostic surrogate for the neutralization of cytopathic effects of the full viable virus as determined in cell culture. After first vaccination and six months after second vaccination levels of S1-AB correlated strongly with corresponding virus-neutralization capacity of the sera (r² = 0.774 to 0.845). Immediately after second vaccination, a similar analysis appeared not meaningful since the upper measuring limit of the NeutraLISA at 100% was already attained by sub-median levels of S1-AB. Thus, the limited dynamic range rendered the NeutraLISA uninformative in the situation of recent re-immunisation. Similar results were obtained by cPass (not shown). The two surrogate assays exhibited excellent linear correlations across all time points (r² = 0.774 to 0.932, p < 0.001) (Suppl. Figure 1). It should be noted that the cPass assay appeared slightly more sensitive in the low range (after first vaccination) but yielded similar values (around 98%) after second vaccination.

In summary, the two surrogate assays for virus neutralization capacity fail to provide meaningful additional information regarding immediate vaccination responses. However, they may be useful in long-termed monitoring of humoral vaccination responses. To follow up on the latter notion, NeutraLISA data obtained at six months after second vaccination was scrutinized for relevance. Based on comparisons with WHO-standards and full virus endpoint dilution neutralization test (full virus NT), inhibition values of ≥ 35% obtained by the NeutraLISA in post-infection sera are proposed to indicate effective virus neutralization potency [13]. However, according to own unpublished observations the neutralization potency of antibodies induced by S1-spike protein-directed vaccination may be overestimated by these surrogate assays as compared to the results obtained by full virus NT, currently considered the reference assay. To follow up on this notion, samples collected six months after second vaccination were re-tested with a full virus NT. For 95 samples interpretable results were obtained. Within these samples, the surrogate assays showed strong correlations with full virus NT (r² = 0.79, p < 0,001 for NeutraLISA, r²=0.77, p. < 0,001 for cPass) (Fig. 2A, B), which confirms previous studies [13]. However, in the low range, positive-negative discrimination by the surrogate assays did not sufficiently match the results of full virus NT. Most notably, the surrogate assays yielded a significant number of false-positive results (5/89 in both tests) (Fig. 2A, B, inserts), suggesting that they may not be a safe companion diagnostic for long-termed monitoring of vaccination with mRNA-based vaccines such as Spikevax (Moderna).

Consequently, we addressed the question, which other diagnostic tool or staged strategy could possibly improve the safety of serologic monitoring of long-termed vaccination responses. First, we investigated whether a full virus NT titre ≥ 10 at six months after vaccination could possibly be predicted from the quantitative levels of S1-AB measured either directly or six months after second vaccination. S1-AB levels measured directly after second vaccination were poorly correlated with full virus NT obtained six months later (r² = 0.54, p < 0.001), which is expected given the equally poor correlation with quantitative S1-AB determined six month later (Fig. 1C). However, S1-AB levels measured six months after second vaccination exhibited a reasonably strong correlation with neutralizing capacity determined by full virus NT at the same time (r² = 0.79,

p < 0.001) (Fig. 3A), allowing to define a cut-off at 1000 U/ml discriminating a major portion (35/ 89 of the full virus NT-positive samples from all full virus NT-negative samples (Fig. 3A, insert). Incidentally, the fraction above that cut-off encompassed all samples having undergone infection in addition to double vaccination (Fig. 3B, black circles).

The remaining 63/89 samples below the cut-off (i.e. exhibiting S1-AB levels < 1000 U/ml six months after second vaccination) (Fig. 3B, symbols below dashed line) encompassed all six full virus NT – negative samples (Fig. 3B, closed red circles) but also 57 full virus NT – positive samples (Fig. 3B, open circles below dashed line). In search of a practical diagnostic tool allowing to discriminate within this group NT – negative and – positive samples, we reassessed the corresponding results of the surrogate assays for virus-neutralization. Upon re-adjusting the cut-off level of NeutraLISA and cPass to 64 and 72%, respectively, it was possible to thereby discriminate 5/6 true full virus NT – negative samples within the samples having S1-AB levels < 1000 U/ml (Fig. 4).

In summary, the staged diagnostic strategy applied six months after second vaccination detected five out of six full virus-NT negative samples, i.e., it had a sensitivity for presumably insufficient virus-neutralization capacity of 83.3%. As little as 14/89 (using NeutraLISA) or 6/89 (using cPass) were thereby falsely classified as virus-NT negative, i.e. corresponding specificity values were 84.2 and 96.2% for NeutraLISA and cPass, respectively.

Rational and aim

Currently, SARS-CoV-2-vaccinations follow fixed temporal schedules prescribed by the manufacturers of the vaccines and corroborated by guidelines and recommendations of national and international health agencies [14–17]. Ongoing appearance of new virus mutants and the increasing incidence of SARS-CoV-2-infection and Covid-19 disease in vaccinated people [18–20] demonstrate that vaccinations often fail to convey permanent immunity and regular re-vaccinations are to remain a necessity in routine health care [21].

The rigidly scheduled regimen of re-vaccination currently employed to break the pandemic waves appears safe in terms of undesired side effects [22]. However, a more flexible vaccination-strategy may have to be adopted eventually for the following reasons: (i) The duration of protection conveyed by current mRNA- and vector-based vaccines differs considerably [23]. (ii) The heterogeneity of duration of vaccination protection will further increase as protein- and whole virus-based types of vaccines (such as Nuvaxovid (Novavax, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA)) are introduced [24]. (iii) Individual SARS-CoV-2-immunity and Covid-19-protection of vaccinated people is bound to vary even more due to unknown re-immunization by asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infections [25, 26]. (iv) Ultimately, synchronous pandemic infection waves will convert to continuous asynchronous endemic reinfection, making it even more difficult to select optimal timepoints for re-vaccination [27, 28].

In summary, the above arguments suggest that a rigidly scheduled regimen of SARS-CoV-2-vaccination may soon become obsolete. Instead, it may become necessary to adapt re-vaccination to the individual immune-status. This expectation implies the need to gauge the individual state of SARS-CoV-2-immunity by a diagnostic test [29]. The question is thus raised, which companion diagnostics may possibly be suitable to support an individualized vaccination strategy.

To address this question, we have here evaluated several tests for humoral SARS-CoV-2 immune-responses, which are currently commercially available and practical in the setting of routine health care diagnostics [30–32]. We have investigated which of these tests could be used to monitor the waning of vaccination. In addition, we have compared our results to full virus NT, which is not practical in routine healthcare but considered the serological test most closely reflecting humoral immunity [33, 34].

Salient findings

Humoral vaccination responses exhibited a huge inter-individual heterogeneity in the study collective in terms of (i) maximal serum levels of S1-AB induced by vaccination, (ii) timecourses of S1-AB levels over six months and (iii) residual S1-AB levels after six months. These observations are in line with other studies [35].

Immediate response and long-termed maintenance of vaccination-induced antibodies were not stringently linked in quantitative terms, precluding judgement of durability of vaccination response from antibody levels measured shortly thereafter.

Four types of timecourses of vaccination response could be identified: (i) High initial response followed by rapid decline, (ii) middling initial response followed by slow decline, (iii) middling initial response followed by fast decline, (iv) low initial and over-all response. Types (iii) and (iv) tended to result in sub-average S1-AB levels after six month and comprised about half of the participants.

Surrogate assays for gauging the vaccination-induced serological potential of virus-neutralization failed to provide meaningful information shortly after vaccinations due to limitations of measuring range and upper measuring limits.

At six months after vaccination, the serological potential of virus-neutralization tended to be overestimated by surrogate assays as compared to full virus NT, supporting previous notions that indiscriminate use of these assays would not provide adequate warning from crucial waning of immunity [36].

Lack of functional virus protection (as defined by full virus-NT - negativity) can possibly be detected during prolonged waning periods by a staged strategy employing S1-AB levels, followed below a cut-off of < 1000 U/ml by surrogate assays, which were judged by an elevated cut-off around 70%. At six months after second vaccination, virus-NT – negative samples could thus be detected with a sensitivity of > 80%.and a specificity of between 80 and 90%, depending on which surrogate assay was used.

Limitations

All participants were vaccinated with Spikevax (Moderna Biotech), which rendered the study collective homogenous and produced significant results for this specific kind of vaccine. Our findings cannot be readily applied to other vaccines, especially protein- or vector-based ones.

Our serological tests were not adapted to virus mutants. Thus, our results apply only to SARS-CoV-2 wild type. Existing SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been found to be less efficient against delta, omicron and other SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) [18]. Consequently, application of the proposed strategy to assessment of vaccinations against such VOCs will require adaption of the immunogenic assay target and re-evaluation of sensitivities, specificities, and cut-offs.

Having included only three infected people in our study, we cannot add significantly to previous studies comparing antibody levels in persons with or without SARS-CoV-2 infection before and during vaccination on a larger scale [37, 38]. However, we clearly show that the proposed diagnostic strategy worked similarly for vaccinated persons with and without infection.

Full virus NT is currently considered as the ex vivo - test that most closely reflects functional humoral immune response [34]. However, it is not a direct measure of immunity itself, and it remains unknown how these data are related to real life immunity. The same limitation applies to our data, which have been calibrated to full virus NT.

Concluding remarks

Current epidemiologic studies predict that regular re-vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus will become a future necessity in routine health care [21], which poses a number of challenges: Even a single type of Covid-19 vaccine exhibits considerable inter-individual variability regarding levels and persistence of humoral immune responses thereby induced (shown here and in previous studies [39, 40]). Variance of immune responses further increases when several types of vaccines are in play [23]. Moreover, intercurrent (possibly asymptomatic) infections have to be taken into account, since undesired vaccination effects tend to be more severe following recent infection [41]. In conclusion, it is to be expected that re-vaccination will soon have to be tailored to individual immune status. Serological surveillance of individual SARS-CoV-2 immunity will become even more important when synchronous pandemic infection waves convert to continuous asynchronous endemic re-infection. The diagnostic strategy proposed here may be useful in facing the above challenge, as it provides a reliable way of gauging levels and functionality of circulating SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which so far requires ex vivo-tests of virus neutralization in cell culture impracticable in routine health care [42]. Strictly speaking, the data presented here are already superseded, because they are only valid for the determination of antibody-activity against the original Wuhan type of SARS-CoV-2. However, following re-calibration of the immunological tests and their cut-offs, the procedure can readily be applied to any virus mutant dominating the Covid-19 endemic in future.

Acknowledgements

Technical assistence is gratefully acknowledged to S. Herrmann, S. Förster, P. Meirowski S. Ilhan, A. Müller and N. Scherenschlich.

Funding: This work was supported by the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich Heine University (internal funds of the Central Institute for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Diagnostics).

Conflicts of interests: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Availability of data and material: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors´ Contributions: ASK, KSB, SW, SBB, TXUP, MH, SBR: Sample acquisition; MU, FBa, SBB: Study planning; SW, KSB, DH, LM: Measurements; ASK, KSB, FBo, OA, LM, MU: Data evaluation and discussion; ASK, FBo, MU, KSB: Manuscript writing.

Ethics approval: This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the Heinrich University Düsseldorf, study numbers: 2021-1455 (Apr 23, 2021) and 2020-1259 (Jan 22, 2021).

Consent to participate: Informed written consent was obtained from all individual participants to be included in the study.

Consent to publication: Informed written consent was obtained from all individual participants to publication of their anonymized data.

World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard [updated 30.10.2021. Available from: https://covid19.who.int/table.
Hin Fung Tsang LWCC. William Chi Shing Cho, Allen Chi Shing Yu, Aldrin Kay Yuen Yim, Amanda Kit Ching Chan, Lawrence Po Wah Ng, Yin Kwan Evelyn Wong, Xiao Meng Pei, Marco Jing Woei Li & Sze-Chuen Cesar Wong An update on COVID-19 pandemic: the epidemiology, pathogenesis, prevention and treatment strategies. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy; 2021.
The L. Facing up to long COVID. Lancet. 2020;396(10266):1861.
Pollard CA, Morran MP, Nestor-Kalinoski AL. The COVID-19 pandemic: a global health crisis. Physiol Genomics. 2020;52(11):549–57.
Silveira MM, Moreira G, Mendonça M. DNA vaccines against COVID-19: Perspectives and challenges. Life Sci. 2021;267:118919.
Bubar KM, Reinholt K, Kissler SM, Lipsitch M, Cobey S, Grad YH, et al. Model-informed COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies by age and serostatus. medRxiv. 2021.
Knezevic I, Mattiuzzo G, Page M, Minor P, Griffiths E, Nuebling M, et al. WHO International Standard for evaluation of the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines: call for urgent action by the scientific community. The Lancet Microbe.
Organization WH. Establishment of the WHO International Standard and Reference Panel for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody. Geneva: Expert Committee on Biological Standardization; 2020. pp. 9–10.
Sahin U, Muik A, Derhovanessian E, Vogler I, Kranz LM, Vormehr M, et al. COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b1 elicits human antibody and TH1 T cell responses. Nature. 2020;586(7830):594–9.
Roche. Elecsys® anti-SARS-CoV2 S Quantitativer Assay- abgeglichen am WHO Standard 12. May, 2021 [Available from: https://a.storyblok.com/f/94122/x/f2860942d8/who-standard.pdf.
Narayanan K, Chen CJ, Maeda J, Makino S. Nucleocapsid-independent specific viral RNA packaging via viral envelope protein and viral RNA signal. J Virol. 2003;77(5):2922–7.
Bradley T, Grundberg E, Selvarangan R, LeMaster C, Fraley E, Banerjee D, et al. Antibody Responses after a Single Dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(20):1959–61.
Hofmann N, Grossegesse M, Neumann M, Schaade L, Nitsche A. Detection of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by using a commercial surrogate virus neutralization ELISA: can it substitute the classical neutralization test? medRxiv. 2021:2021.10.12.21264881.
CDC; CfDCaP. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines.html 2021.
Paul-Ehrlich-Institute. https://www.pei.de/EN/newsroom/dossier/coronavirus/coronavirus-content.html?cms_pos=2 2021.
Koch-Institut. Ständige Impfkommission (STIKO) beim Robert Koch-InstitutSISbR. https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Archiv/2022/Ausgaben/02_22.pdf?__blob=publicationFile 13.01.2022.
Germany; BfG. https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateien/3_Downloads/C/Coronavirus/Impfstoff/National_COVID-19_Vaccination_Strategy_June_2021.pdf 2021.
Chia PY, Ong SWX, Chiew CJ, Ang LW, Chavatte J-M, Mak T-M, et al. Virological and serological kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant vaccine-breakthrough infections: a multi-center cohort study. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2021.
Hacisuleyman E, Hale C, Saito Y, Blachere NE, Bergh M, Conlon EG, et al. Vaccine Breakthrough Infections with SARS-CoV-2 Variants. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(23):2212–8.
Wang R, Chen J, Hozumi Y, Yin C, Wei G-W. Emerging vaccine-breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 variants. ArXiv. 2021.
Monto AS. The Future of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination—Lessons from Influenza. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(20):1825–7.
Bar-On YM, Goldberg Y, Mandel M, Bodenheimer O, Freedman L, Kalkstein N, et al. Protection of BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster against Covid-19 in Israel. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(15):1393–400.
Nordström P, Ballin M, Nordström A. Effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccination against risk of symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death up to 9 months: a Swedish total-population cohort study. Hospitalization, and Death Up to. 2021;9.
Mabrouk MT, Huang WC, Lu M-S, Lovell JF. Advanced Materials for SARS‐CoV‐2 Vaccines. Advanced Materials.2107781.
Kosiorek P, Kazberuk D, Hryniewicz A, Milewski R, Stróż S, Stasiak-Barmuta A. Systemic COVID-19 vaccination also enhances the humoral immune response after SARS CoV-2 infection. An approach to criteria for COVID-19 re-immunization is needed. Do we need a third dose? 2021.
Ivanova E, Devlin J, Buus T, Koide A, Cornelius A, Samanovic M, et al. Discrete immune response signature to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination versus infection. 2021.
Kissler SM, Tedijanto C, Goldstein E, Grad YH, Lipsitch M. Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science. 2020;368(6493):860–8.
Phillips N. The coronavirus is here to stay - here's what that means. Nature. 2021;590(7846):382–4.
Criscuolo E, Diotti RA, Strollo M, Rolla S, Ambrosi A, Locatelli M, et al. Weak correlation between antibody titers and neutralizing activity in sera from SARS-CoV‐2 infected subjects. J Med Virol. 2021;93(4):2160–7.
Lumley SF, O’Donnell D, Stoesser NE, Matthews PC, Howarth A, Hatch SB, et al. Antibody status and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(6):533–40.
Buonfrate D, Piubelli C, Gobbi F, Martini D, Bertoli G, Ursini T, et al. Antibody response induced by the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers, with or without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection: a prospective study. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021.
Lustig Y, Sapir E, Regev-Yochay G, Cohen C, Fluss R, Olmer L, et al. BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine and correlates of humoral immune responses and dynamics: a prospective, single-centre, longitudinal cohort study in health-care workers. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2021;9(9):999–1009.
Khoury DS, Cromer D, Reynaldi A, Schlub TE, Wheatley AK, Juno JA, et al. Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nat Med. 2021;27(7):1205–11.
Matusali G, Colavita F, Lapa D, Meschi S, Bordi L, Piselli P, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Serum Neutralization Assay: A Traditional Tool for a Brand-New Virus. Viruses. 2021;13(4).
Ibarrondo FJ, Hofmann C, Fulcher JA, Goodman-Meza D, Mu W, Hausner MA, et al. Primary, Recall, and Decay Kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antibody Responses. ACS Nano. 2021;15(7):11180–91.
Goldberg Y, Mandel M, Bar-On YM, Bodenheimer O, Freedman L, Haas EJ, et al. Waning immunity of the BNT162b2 vaccine: A nationwide study from Israel. medRxiv. 2021:2021.08.24.21262423.
Dittadi R, Seguso M, Bertoli I, Afshar H, Carraro P. Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Time Course in Patients and Vaccinated Subjects: An Evaluation of the Harmonization of Two Different Methods. Diagnostics. 2021;11(9):1709.
Buonfrate D, Piubelli C, Gobbi F, Martini D, Bertoli G, Ursini T, et al. Antibody response induced by the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers, with or without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection: a prospective study. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2021.
de la Monte SM, Long C, Szczepanski N, Griffin C, Fitzgerald A, Chapin K. Heterogeneous Longitudinal Antibody Responses to Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination. Clin Pathol. 2021;14:2632010x211049255.
Collier DA, Ferreira IATM, Kotagiri P, Datir RP, Lim EY, Touizer E, et al. Age-related immune response heterogeneity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine BNT162b2. Nature. 2021;596(7872):417–22.
Efrati S, Catalogna M, Abu Hamad R, Hadanny A, Bar-Chaim A, Benveniste-Levkovitz P, et al. Safety and humoral responses to BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination of SARS-CoV-2 previously infected and naive populations. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):16543.
Valcourt EJ, Manguiat K, Robinson A, Chen JC-Y, Dimitrova K, Philipson C, et al. Evaluation of a commercially-available surrogate virus neutralization test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2021;99(4):115294.

Datasupplement.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

A diagnostic strategy for adjusting Covid-19 vaccination to individual immune state

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Study participants

Sampling

Determination of circulating levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2-antibodies

Surrogate assays for SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing activity

Full virus endpoint dilution neutralization test

Statistical methods

Results

Discussion

Rational and aim

Salient findings

Limitations

Concluding remarks

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1