Background During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many countries experienced infection in healthcare workers (HCW) due to overburdened healthcare systems. However, whether infected HCW acquire protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. Here, we characterized SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses in Norwegian HCW in a prospective cohort study. Methods We enrolled 607 HCW pre- and post-the first COVID-19-pandemic wave. Exposure history, COVID-19-like symptoms and serum samples were collected. SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies were characterized by spike-protein IgG/IgM/IgA enzyme-linked immunosorbent and live-virus neutralization assays. Results Spike-specific IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies increased after the first pandemic wave in HCW with COVID-19-patient exposure, but not in HCW without patient exposure. Thirty-two HCW (5.3%) had spike-specific antibodies (11 seroconverted with ≥4-fold increase, 21 were seropositive at baseline). Neutralizing antibodies were found in 11 HCW that seroconverted, of whom 4 (36.4%) were asymptomatic. Ninety-seven HCW were tested by reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) during follow-up, 8 were positive (7 seroconverted and 1 had undetectable antibodies). Conclusions We found increases in SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies in infected HCW, especially after COVID-19-patient exposure. Our data show a low number of SARS-CoV-2-seropositive HCW in a low prevalence setting, however, the proportion of seropositivity was higher than RT-PCR positivity, highlighting the importance of antibody testing.

Background Evaluation of susceptibility to emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) requires rapid screening tests for neutralising antibodies which provide protection. Methods Firstly, we developed a receptor-binding domain-specific haemagglutination test (HAT) to Wuhan and VOC (alpha, beta, gamma and delta) and compared to pseudotype, microneutralisation and virus neutralisation assays in 835 convalescent sera. Secondly, we investigated the antibody response using the HAT after two doses of mRNA (BNT162b2) vaccination. Sera were collected at baseline, three weeks after the first and second vaccinations from older (80–99 years, n = 89) and younger adults (23–77 years, n = 310) and compared to convalescent sera from naturally infected individuals (1–89 years, n = 307). Results Here we show that HAT antibodies highly correlated with neutralising antibodies (R = 0.72–0.88) in convalescent sera. Home-dwelling older individuals have significantly lower antibodies to the Wuhan strain after one and two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine than younger adult vaccinees and naturally infected individuals. Moverover, a second vaccine dose boosts and broadens the antibody repertoire to VOC in naïve, not previously infected older and younger adults. Most (72–76%) older adults respond after two vaccinations to alpha and delta, but only 58–62% to beta and gamma, compared to 96–97% of younger vaccinees and 68–76% of infected individuals. Previously infected older individuals have, similarly to younger adults, high antibody titres after one vaccination. Conclusions Overall, HAT provides a surrogate marker for neutralising antibodies, which can be used as a simple inexpensive, rapid test. HAT can be rapidly adaptable to emerging VOC for large-scale evaluation of potentially decreasing vaccine effectiveness.

Antibodies to influenza surface protein neuraminidase (NA) have been found to reduce disease severity and may be an independent correlate of protection. Despite this, current influenza vaccines have no regulatory requirements for the quality or quantity of the NA antigen and are not optimized for induction of NA-specific antibodies. Here we investigate the induction and durability of NA-specific antibody titers after pandemic AS03-adjuvanted monovalent H1N1 vaccination and subsequent annual vaccination in health care workers in a five-year longitudinal study. NA-specific antibodies were measured by endpoint ELISA and functional antibodies measured by enzyme-linked lectin assay (ELLA) and plaque reduction naturalisation assay. We found robust induction of NA inhibition (NAI) titers with a 53% seroconversion rate (>4-fold) after pandemic vaccination in 2009. Furthermore, the endpoint and NAI geometric mean titers persisted above pre-vaccination levels up to five years after vaccination in HCWs that only received the pandemic vaccine, which demonstrates considerable durability. Vaccination with non-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccines (TIV) in subsequent influenza seasons 2010/2011 – 2013/2014 further boosted NA-specific antibody responses. We found that each subsequent vaccination increased durable endpoint titers and contributed to maintaining the durability of functional antibody titers. Although the trivalent influenza vaccines boosted NA-specific antibodies, the magnitude of fold-increase at day 21 declined with repeated vaccination, particularly for functional antibody titers. High levels of pre-existing antibodies were associated with lower fold-induction in repeatedly vaccinated HCWs. In summary, our results show that durable NA-specific antibody responses can be induced by an adjuvanted influenza vaccine, which can be maintained and further boosted by TIVs. Although NA-specific antibody responses are boosted by annual influenza vaccines, high pre-existing titers may negatively affect the magnitude of fold-increase in repeatedly vaccinated individuals. Our results support continued development and standardization of the NA antigen to supplement current influenza vaccines and reduce the burden of morbidity and mortality.

This article discusses the fairness of geographically targeted vaccinations (GTVs). During the initial period of local and global vaccine scarcity, health authorities had to enact priority-setting strategies for mass vaccination campaigns against COVID-19. These strategies have in common that priority setting was based on personal characteristics, such as age, health status or profession. However, in 2021, an alternative to this strategy was employed in some countries, particularly Norway. In these countries, vaccine allocation was also based on the epidemiological situations in different regions, and vaccines were assigned based on local incidence rates. The aim of this article is to describe and examine how a geographical allocation mechanism may work by considering Norway as a case study and discuss what ethical issues may arise in this type of priority setting. We explain three core concepts: priority setting, geographical priority setting and GTVs. With a particular focus on Norway, we discuss the potential effects of GTV, the public perception of such a strategy, and if GTV can be considered a fair strategy. We conclude that the most reasonable defence of GTV seems to be through a consequentialist account that values both total health outcomes and more equal outcomes.

BackgroundIn 2009, a novel influenza A/H1N1pdm09 emerged and caused a pandemic. This strain continued to circulate and was therefore included in the seasonal vaccines up to the 2016/2017-season. This provided a unique opportunity to study the long-term antibody responses to H1N1pdm09 in healthcare workers (HCW) with a different vaccination history.MethodsHCW at Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway were immunized with the AS03-adjuvanted H1N1pdm09 vaccine in 2009 (N=55) and divided into groups according to their vaccination history; one vaccination (N=10), two vaccinations (N=15), three vaccinations (N=5), four vaccinations (N=15) and five vaccinations (N=10). HCW are recommended for influenza vaccination to protect both themselves and their patients, but it is voluntary in Norway. Blood samples were collected pre- and at 21 days, 3, 6, and 12 months after each vaccination, or annually from 2010 HCW without vaccination. ELISA, haemagglutination inhibition (HI) and microneutralization (MN) assays were used to determine the antibody response.ResultsPandemic vaccination induced a significant increase in the H1N1-specific antibodies measured by ELISA, HI and MN. Seasonal vaccination boosted the antibody response, both in HCW with only the current vaccination and those with prior and current vaccination during 2010/11-2013/14. We observed a trend of increased antibody responses in HCW with only the current vaccination in 2013/14. A two- and three-year gap before vaccination in 2013/14 provided a more potent antibody response compared to annually vaccinated HCW.ConclusionsOur long term follow up study elucidates the antibody response in HCW with different vaccination histories. Our findings contribute to our understanding of the impact of repeated vaccination upon antibody responses.