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

      Letter to the Editor with # CTM2‐2023‐10‐2488 entitled ‘Antibody responses as correlates of protection against SARS‐CoV‐2 in the Omicron era: A 5‐month prospective cohort study in Korean healthcare workers’

      letter

      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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Neutralizing antibody levels are highly predictive of immune protection from symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

          Predictive models of immune protection from COVID-19 are urgently needed to identify correlates of protection to assist in the future deployment of vaccines. To address this, we analyzed the relationship between in vitro neutralization levels and the observed protection from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection using data from seven current vaccines and from convalescent cohorts. We estimated the neutralization level for 50% protection against detectable SARS-CoV-2 infection to be 20.2% of the mean convalescent level (95% confidence interval (CI) = 14.4-28.4%). The estimated neutralization level required for 50% protection from severe infection was significantly lower (3% of the mean convalescent level; 95% CI = 0.7-13%, P = 0.0004). Modeling of the decay of the neutralization titer over the first 250 d after immunization predicts that a significant loss in protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection will occur, although protection from severe disease should be largely retained. Neutralization titers against some SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern are reduced compared with the vaccine strain, and our model predicts the relationship between neutralization and efficacy against viral variants. Here, we show that neutralization level is highly predictive of immune protection, and provide an evidence-based model of SARS-CoV-2 immune protection that will assist in developing vaccine strategies to control the future trajectory of the pandemic.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Correlates of protection against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

            The global supply of COVID-19 vaccines remains limited. An understanding of the immune response that is predictive of protection could facilitate rapid licensure of new vaccines. Data from a randomized efficacy trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in the United Kingdom was analyzed to determine the antibody levels associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2. Binding and neutralizing antibodies at 28 days after the second dose were measured in infected and noninfected vaccine recipients. Higher levels of all immune markers were correlated with a reduced risk of symptomatic infection. A vaccine efficacy of 80% against symptomatic infection with majority Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of SARS-CoV-2 was achieved with 264 (95% CI: 108, 806) binding antibody units (BAU)/ml: and 506 (95% CI: 135, not computed (beyond data range) (NC)) BAU/ml for anti-spike and anti-RBD antibodies, and 26 (95% CI: NC, NC) international unit (IU)/ml and 247 (95% CI: 101, NC) normalized neutralization titers (NF50) for pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization, respectively. Immune markers were not correlated with asymptomatic infections at the 5% significance level. These data can be used to bridge to new populations using validated assays, and allow extrapolation of efficacy estimates to new COVID-19 vaccines.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Protection against SARS-CoV-2 after Covid-19 Vaccination and Previous Infection

              Background The duration and effectiveness of immunity from infection with and vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are relevant to pandemic policy interventions, including the timing of vaccine boosters. Methods We investigated the duration and effectiveness of immunity in a prospective cohort of asymptomatic health care workers in the United Kingdom who underwent routine polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) testing. Vaccine effectiveness (≤10 months after the first dose of vaccine) and infection-acquired immunity were assessed by comparing the time to PCR-confirmed infection in vaccinated persons with that in unvaccinated persons, stratified according to previous infection status. We used a Cox regression model with adjustment for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status, vaccine type and dosing interval, demographic characteristics, and workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Results Of 35,768 participants, 27% (9488) had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine coverage was high: 97% of the participants had received two doses (78% had received BNT162b2 vaccine [Pfizer–BioNTech] with a long interval between doses, 9% BNT162b2 vaccine with a short interval between doses, and 8% ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine [AstraZeneca]). Between December 7, 2020, and September 21, 2021, a total of 2747 primary infections and 210 reinfections were observed. Among previously uninfected participants who received long-interval BNT162b2 vaccine, adjusted vaccine effectiveness decreased from 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72 to 92) 14 to 73 days after the second dose to 51% (95% CI, 22 to 69) at a median of 201 days (interquartile range, 197 to 205) after the second dose; this effectiveness did not differ significantly between the long-interval and short-interval BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. At 14 to 73 days after the second dose, adjusted vaccine effectiveness among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine recipients was 58% (95% CI, 23 to 77) — considerably lower than that among BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. Infection-acquired immunity waned after 1 year in unvaccinated participants but remained consistently higher than 90% in those who were subsequently vaccinated, even in persons infected more than 18 months previously. Conclusions Two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were associated with high short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection; this protection waned considerably after 6 months. Infection-acquired immunity boosted with vaccination remained high more than 1 year after infection. (Funded by the U.K. Health Security Agency and others; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN11041050 .)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                manseong.park@gmail.com
                shkimmd@amc.seoul.kr
                Journal
                Clin Transl Med
                Clin Transl Med
                10.1002/(ISSN)2001-1326
                CTM2
                Clinical and Translational Medicine
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2001-1326
                27 January 2024
                January 2024
                : 14
                : 1 ( doiID: 10.1002/ctm2.v14.1 )
                : e1551
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Infectious Diseases Asan Medical Center University of Ulsan College of Medicine Seoul South Korea
                [ 2 ] Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine National Medical Center Seoul South Korea
                [ 3 ] Department of Microbiology Institute for Viral Diseases, Vaccine Innovation Center College of Medicine, Korea University Seoul South Korea
                [ 4 ] Clinical Research Center Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center University of Ulsan College of Medicine Seoul South Korea
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Sung‐Han Kim, Department of Infectious Diseases, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic‐ro‐43‐gil, Songpa‐gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.

                Email: shkimmd@ 123456amc.seoul.kr

                Man‐Seong Park, Department of Microbiology, Institute for Viral Diseases, Vaccine Innovation Center, College of Medicine, Korea University, 73 Goryeodae‐ro, Seongbuk‐gu, Seoul, 02841, South Korea.

                Email: manseong.park@ 123456gmail.com

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7417-0318
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6596-8253
                Article
                CTM21551
                10.1002/ctm2.1551
                10819075
                38279897
                7fc685aa-816f-4fee-a1e5-7c50395de3ba
                © 2024 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Shanghai Institute of Clinical Bioinformatics.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 29 December 2023
                : 13 November 2023
                : 06 January 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Pages: 8, Words: 2647
                Funding
                Funded by: Kyu‐Kang Cho: Research fund donation for COVID-19 research to Asan Medical Center
                Award ID: 2021
                Award ID: R1A6C101C570
                Funded by: National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) from the Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea
                Award ID: NRF‐2022M3A9I2017241
                Award ID: RS‐2023‐00219002
                Categories
                Letter to the Journal
                Letter to the Journal
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                January 2024
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.3.6 mode:remove_FC converted:27.01.2024

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article