3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
3 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels following initial and repeat SARS-CoV-2 infections in a cohort of long-term care facility residents in England (VIVALDI)

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          We have previously demonstrated that older residents of long-term care facilities (LTCF) in the UK show levels of anti-spike antibodies that are comparable to the general population following primary series and booster vaccination for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, data on the humoral response to other SARS-CoV-2 proteins associated with natural infection are scarce in this vulnerable population.

          Methods

          We measured quantitative levels of anti-nucleocapsid antibodies in blood samples taken from LTCF residents and staff after initial and repeat SARS-CoV-2 infections, between December 2020 and March 2023. Data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination were obtained through linkage to national datasets. Linear mixed effects models were used to investigate anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels, using log10 scale, in relation to time from most recent infection. This included evaluation of associations between repeat infection, staff/resident status, age, sex, Omicron infection and vaccination history and peak antibody level and slope of decline with time.

          Results

          We analysed 405 antibody observations from 220 residents and 396 observations from 215 staff. Repeat infection was associated with 8.5-fold (95%CI 4.9-14.8-fold) higher initial (peak) median anti-nucleocapsid antibody level, with steeper subsequent slope of decline. There were no significant differences in antibody level associated with resident (vs. staff) status or age, but Omicron infection was associated with 3.6-fold (95%CI 2.4–5.4-fold) higher levels. There was stronger evidence of waning of antibody levels over time in a sensitivity analysis in which observations were censored in cases with suspected undetected repeat infection.

          Conclusions

          We found similar levels of anti-nucleocapsid antibody in residents and staff of LTCFs. Repeat infection and infection with an Omicron strain were associated with higher peak values. There was evidence of waning of anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels over time.

          Plain Language Summary

          COVID-19 had a severe impact on care homes in the UK early in the pandemic. However, deaths and disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus have decreased over time following successful introduction of vaccinations and resistance linked to prior infection. There has been a lot of research carried out on the body's immune response to the viral spike protein, which was used to create vaccines against the virus. Less is known about our immune response to other proteins produced by the virus, such as nucleocapsid, which have not been used in current vaccines.

          We evaluated antibody levels against the viral nucleocapsid protein in older care home residents following initial and repeat SARS-CoV-2 infection and compared these values to those observed in younger care home staff. This was done through a large established cohort study, in which residents and staff of participating homes could volunteer to provide blood samples for analysis.

          We found similar levels of antibody levels among staff and older residents of care homes. These findings are in line with previous studies, in which we have shown that care home residents who survive SARS-CoV-2 infection can develop robust immunity. Higher peak antibody levels were observed following repeat infection in both residents and staff.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The duration, dynamics and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses in individual healthcare workers

          Abstract Background SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody measurements can be used to estimate the proportion of a population exposed or infected and may be informative about the risk of future infection. Previous estimates of the duration of antibody responses vary. Methods We present 6 months of data from a longitudinal seroprevalence study of 3276 UK healthcare workers (HCWs). Serial measurements of SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid and anti-spike IgG were obtained. Interval censored survival analysis was used to investigate the duration of detectable responses. Additionally, Bayesian mixed linear models were used to investigate anti-nucleocapsid waning. Results Anti-spike IgG levels remained stably detected after a positive result, e.g., in 94% (95% credibility interval, CrI, 91-96%) of HCWs at 180 days. Anti-nucleocapsid IgG levels rose to a peak at 24 (95% credibility interval, CrI 19-31) days post first PCR-positive test, before beginning to fall. Considering 452 anti-nucleocapsid seropositive HCWs over a median of 121 days from their maximum positive IgG titre, the mean estimated antibody half-life was 85 (95%CrI, 81-90) days. Higher maximum observed anti-nucleocapsid titres were associated with longer estimated antibody half-lives. Increasing age, Asian ethnicity and prior self-reported symptoms were independently associated with higher maximum anti-nucleocapsid levels and increasing age and a positive PCR test undertaken for symptoms with longer anti-nucleocapsid half-lives. Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies wane within months, and faster in younger adults and those without symptoms. However, anti-spike IgG remains stably detected. Ongoing longitudinal studies are required to track the long-term duration of antibody levels and their association with immunity to SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Prevalence and duration of detectable SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies in staff and residents of long-term care facilities over the first year of the pandemic (VIVALDI study): prospective cohort study in England

            Background Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have reported high SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and related mortality, but the proportion of infected people among those who have survived, and duration of the antibody response to natural infection, is unknown. We determined the prevalence and stability of nucleocapsid antibodies (the standard assay for detection of previous infection) in staff and residents in LTCFs in England. Methods This was a prospective cohort study of residents 65 years or older and of staff 65 years or younger in 201 LTCFs in England between March 1, 2020, and May 7, 2021. Participants were linked to a unique pseudo-identifier based on their UK National Health Service identification number. Serial blood samples were tested for IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein using the Abbott ARCHITECT i-system (Abbott, Maidenhead, UK) immunoassay. Primary endpoints were prevalence and cumulative incidence of antibody positivity, which were weighted to the LTCF population. Incidence rate of loss of antibodies (seroreversion) was estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves. Findings 9488 samples were included, 8636 (91·0%) of which could be individually linked to 1434 residents and 3288 staff members. The cumulative incidence of nucleocapsid seropositivity was 34·6% (29·6–40·0) in residents and 26·1% (23·0–29·5) in staff over 11 months. 239 (38·6%) residents and 503 women (81·3%) were included in the antibody-waning analysis, and median follow-up was 149 days (IQR 107–169). The incidence rate of seroreversion was 2·1 per 1000 person-days at risk, and median time to reversion was 242·5 days. Interpretation At least a quarter of staff and a third of surviving residents were infected with SAR-CoV-2 during the first two waves of the pandemic in England. Nucleocapsid-specific antibodies often become undetectable within the first year following infection, which is likely to lead to marked underestimation of the true proportion of people with previous infection. Given that natural infection might act to boost vaccine responses, better assays to identify natural infection should be developed. Funding UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Does a humoral correlate of protection exist for SARS-CoV-2? A systematic review

              Background A correlate of protection (CoP) is an immunological marker associated with protection against infection. Despite an urgent need, a CoP for SARS-CoV-2 is currently undefined. Objectives Our objective was to review the evidence for a humoral correlate of protection for SARS-CoV-2, including variants of concern. Methods We searched OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Biosis Previews and Scopus to January 4, 2022 and pre-prints (using NIH iSearch COVID-19 portfolio) to December 31, 2021, for studies describing SARS-CoV-2 re-infection or breakthrough infection with associated antibody measures. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and performed quality assessment. Results Twenty-five studies were included in our systematic review. Two studies examined the correlation of antibody levels to VE, and reported values from 48.5% to 94.2%. Similarly, several studies found an inverse relationship between antibody levels and infection incidence, risk, or viral load, suggesting that both humoral immunity and other immune components contribute to protection. However, individual level data suggest infection can still occur in the presence of high levels of antibodies. Two studies estimated a quantitative CoP: for Ancestral SARS-CoV-2, these included 154 (95% confidence interval (CI) 42, 559) anti-S binding antibody units/mL (BAU/mL), and 28.6% (95% CI 19.2, 29.2%) of the mean convalescent antibody level following infection. One study reported a CoP for the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of concern of 171 (95% CI 57, 519) BAU/mL. No studies have yet reported an Omicron-specific CoP. Conclusions Our review suggests that a SARS-CoV-2 CoP is likely relative, where higher antibody levels decrease the risk of infection, but do not eliminate it completely. More work is urgently needed in this area to establish a SARS-CoV-2 CoP and guide policy as the pandemic continues.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: MethodologyRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: InvestigationRole: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Data CurationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Data CurationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Data CurationRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: Project AdministrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: Project AdministrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2398-502X
                19 February 2024
                2024
                : 9
                : 45
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, England, UK
                [2 ]Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK
                [3 ]Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, England, UK
                [4 ]UK Health Security Agency, London, UK
                [5 ]Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, University College London, London, England, UK
                [6 ]Health Data Research UK, London, England, UK
                [1 ]Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
                [1 ]Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
                Author notes

                Competing interests: LS reports grants from the Department of Health and Social Care during the conduct of the study and is a member of the Social Care Working Group, which reports to the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. AH reports funding from the COVID Core Studies Programme and is a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group at the Department of Health and Environmental Modelling Group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. All other authors declare no competing interests.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8705-3281
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3982-642X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6895-1967
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3549-6232
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1713-2555
                Article
                10.12688/wellcomeopenres.20750.1
                11137476
                38818129
                42153d34-a158-457a-b2fe-b1b97326b54b
                Copyright: © 2024 Stirrup O et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 11 January 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: Department of Health and Social Care
                Award ID: COVID-19surveillancestudies
                Funded by: National Institute for Health and Care Research
                Award ID: 302435
                Funded by: Health Data Research UK
                Award ID: LOND1
                Funded by: Wellcome
                Award ID: 222907
                This work was supported by Wellcome [222907, <a href=https://doi.org/10.35802/222907>https://doi.org/10.35802/222907</a>; a Wellcome Trust Clinical PhD Fellowship award to MK]. It is independent research funded by the Department of Health and Social Care (COVID-19 surveillance studies). LS is funded by a National Institute for Health and Care Research Professorship (302435). AH is supported by Health Data Research UK (LOND1), which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation, and Wellcome.
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Note
                Articles

                sars-cov-2,covid-19,omicron,immunoglobulin g,nucleocapsid
                sars-cov-2, covid-19, omicron, immunoglobulin g, nucleocapsid

                Comments

                Comment on this article