| Literature DB >> 34652831 |
Hubert Blain1, Edouard Tuaillon2, Lucie Gamon3, Amandine Pisoni2, Stéphanie Miot1, Valentin Delpui1, Nejm Si-Mohamed1, Clémence Niel2, Yves Rolland4, Brigitte Montes2, Soraya Groc2, Sophia Rafasse5,6, Anne-Marie Dupuy7, Nathalie Gros5,6, Delphine Muriaux5,6, Marie-Christine Picot3, Jean Bousquet8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited information exists on nursing home (NH) residents regarding BNT162b2 vaccine efficacy in preventing SARS-CoV-2 and severe COVID-19, and its association with post-vaccine humoral response.Entities:
Keywords: BNT162b2 vaccine; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; antibody response; efficacy; neutralizing antibodies; nucleocapsid antigenemia; nursing homes; residents; symptoms
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34652831 PMCID: PMC8652754 DOI: 10.1111/all.15142
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Allergy ISSN: 0105-4538 Impact factor: 14.710
Characteristics of the residents depending on their vaccination status
| Non‐vaccinated (a) ( | Vaccinated |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 vaccine dose (b) ( | 2 vaccine doses (c) ( | |||
| Age, mean (SD), year | 87.2 (9.2) | 85.1 (9.2) | 87.6 (9.2) | .22 |
| Sex, | ||||
| Female | 35 (72.9) | 25 (80.7) | 252 (79.5) | .56 |
| Male | 13 (27.1) | 6 (19.3) | 65 (20.5) | |
| Charlson index (median, IGR) [range] |
6.0 (5.0–7.0) 2–15 |
6.0 (5.0–8.0) 3–15 |
6.0 (5.0–7.0) 2–15 | .41 |
| Prior SARS‐CoV−2 positive RT‐qPCR, | 5 (10.4) | 3 (9.7) | 43 (13.6) | .82 |
| Positive RT‐qPCR during the SARS‐CoV‐2 B.1.1.7 outbreak, | 21 (43.7) | 10 (32.3) | 72 (22.7) |
.0059 .005 (a vs c) |
| N‐protein IgG >0.8 signal to cutoff ratio, | 5 (20.0) | 5 (17.9) | 38 (14.0) | .57 |
| RBD‐IgG level, AU/ml, median (IQR) |
n = 26 2 (1–415) |
n =28 534.00 (201.50; 2166.50) |
n =271 1,522.00 (444.00; 5389.00) |
.000001 .001 (a vs b) .01 (a vs c) .08: (b vs c) |
| COVID‐19–related deaths during the SARS‐CoV‐2 B.1.1.7 outbreak, | 5 (10.4) | 2 (6.4) | 3 (0.9) |
.0007 .004 (a vs c) |
Analysis using Kruskal‐Wallis test.
Analysis using chi‐square test.
Analysis using Fisher's exact test.
FIGURE 1Flow Diagram of the sample of residents having faced a COVID‐19 outbreak at least 14 days after a BNT162b2 vaccination campaign
Characteristics of the residents with RT‐qPCR positive results during the SARS‐CoV‐2 B.1.1.7 outbreak
| Non‐vaccinated (a) ( | Vaccinated |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 vaccine dose (b) ( | 2 vaccine doses (c) ( | |||
| Age, mean (SD), year | 90.3 (7.4) | 83.8 (8.4) | 89.1 (7.8) | .06 |
| Sex, | ||||
| Female | 15 (71.4) | 8 (80.0) | 56 (77.8) | .87 |
| Male | 6 (28.6%) | 2 (20.0) | 16 (22.2) | |
| Charlson index (median, IQR) [range] |
6 (6.0–8.0) [4–15] |
7.0 (5.0–8.0) 5–9 |
7.0 (6.0–8.0) 3–15 | .96 |
| Prior SARS‐CoV−2‐positive RT‐qPCR, n (%) | 1 (4.8) | 0 (0) | 3 (4.2) | 1.00 |
| First positive RT‐qPCR cycle threshold, median (IQR) | 26.0 (23.0–32.0) | 24.85 (20.4; 28.0) | 24.00 (19.2; 28.6) | .74 |
| Cycle threshold of the second RT‐qPCR | 30.3 (27–35.2) | 30.7 (23.1; 34.5) | 27.00 (21.0; 31.7) | .21 |
| Symptoms, | .002 | |||
| Asymptomatic | 2 (9.5) | 6 (60.0) | 31 (43.7) | .01 (a vs b), |
| Mild | 4 (19.1) | 2 (20.0) | 23 (31.0) | .002 (a vs c) |
| Severe | 10 (47.6) | 0 | 15 (21.1) | .09 (b vs c) |
| Deaths, | 5 (23.8) | 2 (20.0) | 3 (4.2) | .002 (a vs c) |
| SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG levels |
|
|
| .29 |
| N‐protein IgG >0.8 signal to cutoff ratio, | 2 (20.0) | 1 (14.3) | 4 (8) | |
| SARS‐RBD‐IgG (AU/ml) |
.01 .01 (a vs c) | |||
| <50 | 6 (60.0) | 1 (14.3) | 5 (10.2) | |
| 51–1050 | 3 (30.0) | 5 (71.4) | 22 (44.9) | |
| 1051–4160 | 0 (0) | 1 (14.3) | 15 (30.6) | |
| >4160 | 1 (10) | 0 (0) | 7 (14.3) | |
| Nucleocapide antigenemia titer |
43.0 (2.9–150.2) [0.7–555.2) |
1.8 (0.5–3.0) [0.2–12.5] |
1.5 (−0.4–16–6) [−1.5–328–4] |
.03 .004 (a vs c) |
Analysis using Kruskal‐Wallis test.
Analysis using ANOVA.
Analysis using Fisher's exact test.
The second RT‐qPCR was performed 7 days after the first positive RT‐qPCR result in 47 residents.
Analysis using Mann‐Whitney test.
level of detection of the assay is 2.95 ng/ml. Samples with Nucleocapsid Ag level over 180 pg/ml were diluted. Titer is the number of dilutions possible, still reaching the detection threshold. According to the manufacturer of the SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott Diagnostics), the positive threshold is of 50 AU/ml RBD‐IgG levels. check Based on previous studies, an RBD‐IgG level ≥1050 AU/ml is considered as a significant antibody response to the vaccine, and a level ≥4160 AU/ml indicates a high neutralizing effect against SARS‐CoV‐2.
Incidence rate of positive RT‐qPCR testing and serum neutralizing activity depending on SARS‐CoV‐2 RBD IgG levels
| SARS‐CoV‐2 RBD IgG levels, AU/ml |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <50 | 51–1050 | 1051–4160 | >4160 | ||
| RT‐qPCR testing result, |
|
|
|
| .01 |
| Positive | 5 (41.67) 7 (58.33) | 22 (22.68) | 15 (18.29) | 7 (8.75) | |
| Negative | 5 (41.67) 7 (58.33) | 75 (77.32) | 67 (81.71) | 73 (91.25) | |
| Serum micro‐neutralization titer against SARS‐CoV−2 wild type, median (IQR)[range] |
0 (0–0) [0–0] |
0 (0–0) [0–0] |
10.0 (0–10) [0–20] |
160 (40–320) [20–640] | .005 |
| Serum neutralization against SARS‐CoV−2 B.1.1.7 (VOC α), median (IQR)[range] |
0 (0–0) [0–0] |
0 (0–0) [0–0] |
10.0 (10–20) [0–40] |
320 (80–640) [40–640] | .005 |
Analysis using the Fisher exact test.
Analysis using the Kruskal‐Wallis test; micro‐neutralization titers are expressed as the serial dilution for which 50% neutralization is obtained.
FIGURE 2SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific neutralizing antibody levels against SARS‐CoV‐2 wild type (WT) and VOC‐alpha depending on RBD‐IgG levels in 36 residents. Micro‐neutralization titers are expressed as the serial dilution for which 50% neutralization is measured