No abstract

No abstract

Objectives We assessed the antibody response to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a cohort of health care workers (HCW), comparing subjects with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and naïve subjects. Methods HCW were tested at T0 (day of first dose), T1 (day of second dose), and T2 (2-3 weeks after) for IgG anti nucleocapside protein, IgM anti spike protein and IgG anti receptor binding domain (IgG-RBD-S). The antibody response was compared between 4 main groups: A) Subjects with previous infection and positive antibodies at baseline; B) subjects with same history but negative antibodies; C) subjects with no infection history but positive antibodies; D) naïve subjects. Repeated measures analysis was used to compare results over time points. Results 1,935 HCW were included. Median IgG-RBD-S titre was significantly higher for group A (232 subjects) than for group B (56 subjects) both at T1 (A: 22,763 AU/mL, IQR 14,222-37,204; B: 1,373 AU/mL, IQR 783-3,078, p=0.0003) and T2 (A: 30,765 AU/mL, IQR 19,841-42,813; B:13,171 AU/mL, IQR 2,324-22,688, p=0.0038) and for group D (1563 subjects): 796 AU/mL, IQR 379-1,510 at T1; 15,494 AU/mL, IQR 9,122-23,916 at T2, p<0.0001 both timepoints. T1 values of group A were also significantly higher than T2 values of group D (p<0.0001). Presence of symptoms, younger age and female gender were associated with stronger antibody response. HCW infected in March showed a significantly stronger response (T1: 35,324 AU/mL, IQR 22,003-44,531; T2: 37,648 AU/mL, IQR 27,088-50,451) than those infected in November (T1: 18,499 AU/mL, IQR 11,492-27,283; T2: 23,210 AU/mL, IQR 18,074-36,086): p<0.0001, both timepoints. Conclusions Subjects with past COVID-19 infection had a strong antibody response after one single vaccine shot. A single dose might be sufficient for this group, regardless the time elapsed since infection, however the clinical correlation with antibody response needs to be studied.

Background: We assessed the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) of molecular and serological tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: A total of 346 patients were enrolled in the emergency room. We evaluated three Reverse Transcriptase-real time PCRs (RT-PCRs) including six different gene targets, five serologic rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) and one ELISA. The final classification of infected/non-infected patients was performed using Latent Class Analysis combined with clinical re-assessment of incongruous cases. Results: Out of these, 24.6% of patients were classified as infected. The molecular test RQ-SARS-nCoV-2 showed the highest performance with 91.8% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100.0% PPV and 97.4% NPV respectively. Considering the single gene targets, S and RdRp of RQ-SARS-nCoV-2 had the highest sensitivity (94.1%). The in-house RdRp presented the lowest sensitivity (62.4%). The specificity ranged from 99.2% for in-house RdRp and N2 to 95.0% for E. The PPV ranged from 97.1% of N2 to 85.4% of E and the NPV from 98.1% of S to 89.0% of in-house RdRp. All serological tests had < 50% sensitivity and low PPV and NPV. VivaDiag IgM (RDT) had 98.5% specificity, with 84.0% PPV, but 24.7% sensitivity. Conclusion: Molecular tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection showed excellent specificity, but significant differences in sensitivity. Serological tests have limited utility in a clinical context.