Kinetics and persistence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation and antibodies after BNT162b2 vaccination in a Swiss cohort

Introduction: Since the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), substantial effort has been made to gain knowledge about the immunity elicited by infection or vaccination. Methods: We studied the kinetics of antibodies and virus neutralisation induced by vaccination with BNT162b2 in a Swiss cohort of SARS-CoV-2 naïve (n = 40) and convalescent (n = 9) persons. Blood sera were analysed in a live virus neutralisation assay and specific IgG and IgA levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunoassay and analysed by descriptive statistics. Results: Virus neutralisation was detected in all individuals 2-4 weeks after the second vaccine. Both neutralisation and antibodies remained positive for >4 months. Neutralisation and antibodies showed positive correlation, but immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin A (IgA) seroconversion took place 2-4 weeks faster than neutralisation. Spike-protein specific IgG levels rose significantly faster and were more stable over time than virus neutralisation titres or IgA responses. For naïve but not convalescent persons, a clear boosting effect was observed. Convalescent individuals showed faster, more robust and longer-lasting immune responses after vaccination compared to noninfected persons. No threshold could be determined for spike protein-specific IgG or IgA that would confer protection in the neutralisation assay, implicating the need for a better correlate of protection then antibody titres alone. Conclusions: This study clearly shows the complex translation of antibody data and virus neutralisation, while supporting the evidence of a single dose being sufficient for effective antibody response in convalescent individuals. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04979871. Keywords: BNT162b2; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; antibody response; mRNA vaccine; neutralisation assay

Intralymphatic Immunotherapy (ILIT) With Bee Venom Allergens: A Clinical Proof-of-Concept Study and the Very First ILIT in Humans

BackgroundSubcutaneous venom immunotherapy (VIT) represents an effective treatment against bee venom allergy. However, it involves long treatment times, high costs, and the risk of adverse events (AEs). Shorter, safer, and cheaper treatment options are therefore pursued.ObjectiveTo determine the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of bee venom intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT).MethodsIn an open pilot study, 12 patients received bee venom ILIT in three sessions with 14-day intervals: 0.1–5 μg/dose. Ultrasound imaging was applied to guide an injection and to document the lymph node structure. In a second study, 67 patients from 15 centers in Europe and Australia were randomized to receive four doses of either 10- or 20-μg bee venom ILIT with 28-day intervals. Clinical endpoints included specific IgE and IgG and protection after a bee sting challenge. These studies were performed in the years 2000–2003.ResultsIn a proof-of-concept study, no serious AEs were observed. An increase in allergen-specific IgG1 but no IgG4 and IgE was observed. ILIT induced the protection against a bee sting challenge in 7 out of 8 challenged patients. In a multicenter study, an increase in allergen-specific IgG and IgE was observed, with the highest increase in patients receiving a higher ILIT dose. The study was terminated due to several serious AEs upon the sting challenge provocation after the completion of treatment. However, out of 45 patients challenged, 15 (65%) and 18 (82%) patients in the 10- and 20-μg group, respectively, showed an improvement of two grades or more. No correlation was observed between antibody levels and sting protection.ConclusionsWhile a pilot study suggested the safety and efficacy of bee venom ILIT, a high number of AEs seen after the sting challenge following a randomized study indicate that the immunology protection offered by bee venom ILIT is insufficient. Of note, the bee venom allergen extract used in the two studies were from the two different providers. While the first study used a formulation approved for use in subcutaneous VIT, the second study used a nonapproved formulation never tested in humans. Further studies on approved formulations should be performed to generate conclusive results regarding the safety and efficacy of bee venom ILIT