Data about the long-term duration of antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are still scarce and are important to design vaccination strategies. In this study, 231 healthcare professionals received the two-dose regimen of BNT162b2. Of these, 158 were seronegative and 73 were seropositive at baseline. Samples were collected at several time points. The neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and antibodies against the nucleocapsid and the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 were measured. At day 180, a significant antibody decline was observed in seronegative (−55.4% with total antibody assay; −89.6% with IgG assay) and seropositive individuals (−74.8% with total antibody assay; −79.4% with IgG assay). The estimated half-life of IgG from the peak humoral response was 21 days (95% CI: 13–65) in seronegative and 53 days (95% CI: 40–79) in seropositive individuals. The estimated half-life of total antibodies was longer and ranged from 68 days (95% CI: 54–90) to 114 days (95% CI: 87–167) in seropositive and seronegative individuals, respectively. The decline of NAbs was more pronounced (−98.6%) and around 45% of the subjects tested were negative at day 180. Whether this decrease correlates with an equivalent drop in the clinical effectiveness against the virus would require appropriate clinical studies.
The development of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) serological tests is massive. The external validation of their performance is needed before use in clinical routine practice. Our study aims at assessing the analytical and clinical performance of two enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay tests detecting antibodies directed against the virus nucleocapsid protein: The NovaLisa SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G (IgG), immunoglobulin A (IgA), and immunoglobulin M (IgM) test (NovaTec) allowing a separate detection of each antibody and the Platelia SARS‐CoV‐2 Total Ab test (Bio‐Rad) detecting total antibodies (IgM, IgA, and IgG). Two‐hundred and eight coronavirus disease 2019 samples from 48 quantitative reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐qPCR) confirmed patients were used to perform the sensitivity analysis. Non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 sera (n = 79) with a potential cross‐reaction to SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoassays were included in the specificity analysis. In addition, using receiver operator characteristic curves, adapted cut‐off for improvement of the performances were proposed. The kinetics of these antibodies was also assessed over 8 weeks. Two weeks after the RT‐qPCR positive detection, the NovaLisa test shows a sensitivity and specificity of 94.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.1%‐98.6%) and 96.2% (95% CI: 89.4%‐98.7%) for IgG, of 89.7% (95% CI: 76.4%‐95.9%) and 98.7% (95% CI: 93.2%‐98.8%) for IgA, and of 48.7% (95% CI: 33.9%‐63.8%) and 98.7% (95% CI: 93.2%‐99.8%) for IgM. With the Platelia system, the specificity and sensitivity were 97.4% (95% CI: 92.1%‐99.7%) and 94.9% (95% CI: 87.7%‐98.0%) for total antibodies using the adapted cut‐offs. The NovaLisa and the Platelia tests have satisfactory analytical performances. The clinical performances are excellent for IgG, IgA, and total antibodies especially if the cut‐off is optimized.
IntroductionExtracellular vesicles (EVs) are shed from cells and carry markers of the parent cells. Vesicles derived from cancer cells reach the bloodstream and locally influence important physiological processes. It has been previously shown that procoagulant vesicles are circulating in patients’ fluids. These EVs are therefore considered as promising biomarkers for the thrombotic risk. Because of their small size, classical methods such as flow cytometry suffer from limitation for their characterisation. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) has been proposed as a promising complementary method for the characterisation of EVs.ObjectivesThe objectives of this study are: (a) to develop and validate AFM with specific antibodies (anti-TF) and (b) to compare air and liquid modes for EVs’ size and number determination as potential biomarkers of the prothrombotic risk.MethodsAFM multimode nanoscope III was used for air tapping mode (TM). AFM catalyst was used for liquid Peak Force Tapping (PFT) mode. Vesicles are generated according to Davila et al.'s protocol. Substrates are coated with various concentrations of antibodies, thanks to ethanolamine and glutaraldehyde.ResultsVesicles were immobilised on antibody-coated surfaces to select tissue factor (TF)-positive vesicles. The size range of vesicles observed in liquid PFT mode is 6–10 times higher than in air mode. This corresponds to the data found in the literature.ConclusionWe recommend liquid PFT mode to analyse vesicles on 5 µg/ml antibody-coated substrates.
A rapid and accurate diagnosis in patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is essential for patient management but remains challenging. Current HIT diagnosis ideally relies on a combination of clinical information, immunoassay and functional assay results. Platelet activation assays or functional assays detect HIT antibodies that are more clinically significant. Several functional assays have been developed and evaluated in the literature. They differ in the activation endpoint studied; the technique or technology used; the platelet donor selection; the platelet suspension (washed platelets, platelet rich plasma or whole blood); the patient sample (serum or plasma); and the heparin used (type and concentrations). Inconsistencies in controls performed and associated results interpretation are common. Thresholds and performances are determined differently among papers. Functional assays suffer from interlaboratory variability. This lack of standardization limits the evaluation and the accessibility of functional assays in laboratories. In the present article, we review all the current activation endpoints, techniques and methodologies of functional assays developed for HIT diagnosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.