Assessment of Diagnostic Specificity of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Tests and Their Application for Monitoring of Seroconversion and Stability of Antiviral Antibody Response in Healthcare Workers in Moscow

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is an efficient tool to assess the proportion of seropositive population due to infection and/or vaccination. Numerous test systems utilizing various antigen composition(s) are routinely used for detection and quantitation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We determined their diagnostic specificity using archived true-negative samples collected before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using test systems demonstrating 98.5–100% specificity, we assessed the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion and durability of anti-spike (S) antibodies in healthcare professionals (n = 100) working in Moscow during the first two cycles of the pandemic (May 2020 to June 2021) outside of the “red zone”. Analysis revealed a rapid increase in anti-SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity from 19 to 80% (19/100 and 80/100, respectively) due to virus exposition/infection; only 16.3% of seroconversion cases (13/80) were due to vaccination, but not the virus exposure, although massive COVID-19 vaccination of healthcare workers was performed beginning in December 2020. In total, 12.7% (8/63) remained positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM for >6 months, indicating unsuitability of IgM for identification of newly infected individuals. All except one remained seropositive for anti-S antibodies for >9 months on average. Significant (>15%) declines in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations were observed in only 18% of individuals (9/50). Our data on the high seropositivity rate and stability of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in healthcare personnel working outside of the “red zone” indicate their regular exposition to SARS-CoV-2/an increased risk of infection, while a low frequency of vaccine-induced antibody response acquired after the start of vaccination points to vaccine hesitancy

Revaccination in Age-Risk Groups with Sputnik V Is Immunologically Effective and Depends on the Initial Neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibodies Level

Vaccination against COVID-19 has occurred in Russia for more than two years. According to the Russian official clinical guidelines to maintain tense immunity in the conditions of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is necessary to use booster immunization six months after primary vaccination or a previous COVID-19 contraction. It is especially important to ensure the maintenance of protective immunity in the elderly, who are at risk of severe courses of COVID-19. Meanwhile, the immunological effectiveness of the booster doses has not been sufficiently substantiated. To investigate the immunogenicity of Sputnik V within the recommended revaccination regimen and evaluate the effectiveness of booster doses, we conducted this study on 3983 samples obtained from individuals previously vaccinated with Sputnik V in Moscow. We analyzed the level of antibodies in BAU/mL three times: (i) six months after primary immunization immediately before the booster (RV), (ii) 3 weeks after the introduction of the first component of the booster (RV1), and (iii) 3 weeks after the introduction of the second component of the booster (RV2). Six months after the primary vaccination with Sputnik V, 95.5% of patients maintained a positive level of IgG antibodies to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2. The degree of increase in the specific virus-neutralizing antibodies level after revaccination increased with a decrease in their initial level just before the booster dose application. In the group of people with the level of antibodies up to 100 BAU/mL six months after the vaccination, a more than eightfold increase (p p p p < 0.05), regardless of the previous COVID-19 infection. Thus, revaccination is most effective in individuals with an antibody level below 500 BAU/mL, regardless of the vaccinee age and COVID-19 contraction. For the first time, it has been shown that a single booster dose of the Sputnik vaccine is sufficient to form a protective immunity in most vaccinees regardless of age and preexisting antibody level

Impact of pathogen reduction methods on immunological properties of the COVID-19 convalescent plasma

Background and objectives: COVID-19 convalescent plasma is an experimental treatment against SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of different pathogen reduction methods on the levels and virus neutralizing activity of the specific antibodies against SARS-CoV2 in convalescent plasma. Materials and methods: A total of 140 plasma doses collected by plasmapheresis from COVID-19 convalescent donors were subjected to pathogen reduction by three methods: methylene blue (M)/visible light, riboflavin (R)/UVB and amotosalen (A)/UVA. To conduct a paired comparison, individual plasma doses were divided into 2 samples that were subjected to one of these methods. The titres of SARS-CoV2 neutralizing antibodies (NtAbs) and levels of specific immunoglobulins to RBD, S- and N-proteins of SARS-CoV-2 were measured before and after pathogen reduction. Results: The methods reduced NtAbs titres differently: among units with the initial titre 80 or above, 81% of units remained unchanged and 19% decreased by one step after methylene blue; 60% were unchanged and 40% decreased by one step after amotosalen; after riboflavin 43% were unchanged and 50% (7%, respectively) had a one-step (two-step, respectively) decrease. Paired two-sample comparisons (M vs. A, M vs. R and A vs. R) revealed that the largest statistically significant decrease in quantity and activity of the specific antibodies resulted from the riboflavin treatment. Conclusion: Pathogen reduction with methylene blue or with amotosalen provides the greater likelihood of preserving the immunological properties of the COVID-19 convalescent plasma compared to riboflavin