Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population of the Valencian Community (Spain) after the surge of the Omicron BA.1 variant

Studies investigating the cumulative incidence of and immune status against SARS-CoV-2 infection provide valuable information for shaping public health decision-making. A cross-sectional study on 935 participants, conducted in the Valencian Community (VC), measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2-receptor binding domain-RBD-total antibodies and anti-Nucleocapsid (N)-IgGs via electrochemiluminescence assays. Quantitation of neutralizing antibodies (NtAb) against ancestral and Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants and enumeration of SARS-CoV-2-S specific-IFNγ-producing CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells was performed in 100 and 137 participants, respectively. The weighted cumulative incidence was 51.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 48.7–55.1) and was inversely related to age. Anti-RBD total antibodies were detected in 97% of participants; vaccinated and SARS-CoV-2-experienced (VAC-ex; n = 442) presented higher levels (p < 0.001) than vaccinated/naïve (VAC-n; n = 472) and nonvaccinated/experienced (UNVAC-ex; n = 63) subjects. Antibody levels correlated inversely with time elapsed since last vaccine dose in VAC-n (Rho, −0.52; p < 0.001) but not in VAC-ex (rho −0.02; p = 0.57). Heterologous booster shots resulted in increased anti-RBD antibody levels compared with homologous schedules in VAC-n, but not in VAC-ex. NtAbs against Omicron BA.1 were detected in 94%, 75%, and 50% of VAC-ex, VAC-n and UNVAC-ex groups, respectively. For Omicron BA.2, the figures were 97%, 84%, and 40%, respectively. SARS-CoV-2-S-reactive IFN-γ T cells were detected in 73%, 75%, and 64% of VAC-ex, VAC-n and UNVAC-ex, respectively. Median frequencies for both T-cell subsets were comparable across groups. In summary, by April 2022, around half of the VC population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and, due to extensive vaccination, displayed hybrid immunity.     

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of three products of epoetin alfa as single subcutaneous dose in healthy volunteers

Hemax® is an epoetin alfa product developed by Biosidus S.A. in Argentina at the end of the 1980s and has been present in that market since 1991. The initial presentation was a lyophilized powder containing albumin as stabilizer, to best adapt to environmental conditions in developing countries; more recently, a prefilled syringe, albumin-free presentation was developed, since this presentation has become the preferred standard in many markets. The primary objective was to compare the pharmacokinetic profile of different formulations of epoetin alfa after a single subcutaneous administration to healthy volunteers of 40 000 IU of Eprex/Erypo® and Hemax® PFS. This clinical trial was conceived following an open-label, randomized, three-way three-period cross-over balanced, and sequential design. The study was conducted on 24 healthy volunteers. To analyze similarity between Hemax® PFS and the innovator product, Eprex®, area under the curve (AUC) and C_max of both products have been compared. The 90% CI lower limit for the geometric mean ratios was higher than 80% for any comparisons, and the 90% CI upper limit for these geometric ratios was below 125% for all the comparisons made, thus demonstrating equivalence between both products. The comparison between Hemax® PFS and Eprex® resulted in similar 90% CI for C_max, AUC_{(0–120 h)} and AUC_(0-inf) ratios, all of them within the 80–125% interval, with a power above 95% for each ratio. These findings suggest biosimilar patterns for absorption velocity (with T_max close to 15 h), absorption extent, and elimination (with an elimination half-life close to 25–30 h for each formulation).     

A performance comparison of two (electro) chemiluminescence immunoassays for detection and quantitation of serum anti-spike antibodies according to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and infections status

The information provided by SARS-CoV-2 spike (S)-targeting immunoassays can be instrumental in clinical-decision making. We compared the performance of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay (Roche Diagnostics) and the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG assay (DiaSorin) using a total of 1176 sera from 797 individuals, of which 286 were from vaccinated-SARS-CoV-2/experienced (Vac-Ex), 581 from vaccinated/naïve (Vac-N), 147 from unvaccinated/experienced (Unvac-Ex), and 162 from unvaccinated/naïve (Unvac-N) individuals. The Roche assay returned a higher number of positive results (907 vs. 790; p = 0.45; overall sensitivity: 89.3% vs. 77.6%). The concordance between results provided by the two immunoassays was higher for sera from Vac-N (ϰ: 0.58; interquartile ranges [IQR]: 0.50−0.65) than for sera from Vac-Ex (ϰ: 0.19; IQR: −0.14 to 0.52) or Unvac-Ex (ϰ: 0.18; IQR: 0.06−0.30). Discordant results occurred more frequently among sera from Unvac-Ex (34.7%) followed by Vac-N (14.6%) and Vac-Ex (2.7%). Antibody levels quantified by both immunoassays were not significantly different when <250 (p = 0.87) or <1000 BAU/ml (p = 0.13); in contrast, for sera ≥1000 BAU/ml, the Roche assay returned significantly higher values than the DiaSorin assay (p < 0.008). Neutralizing antibody titers (NtAb) were measured in 127 sera from Vac-Ex or Vac-N using a S-pseudotyped virus neutralization assay of Wuhan-Hu-1, Omicron BA.1, and Omicron BA.2. The correlation between antibody levels and NtAb titers was higher for sera from Vac-N than those from Vac-Ex, irrespective of the (sub)variant considered. In conclusion, neither qualitative nor quantitative results returned by both immunoassays are interchangeable. The performance of both assays was found to be greatly influenced by the vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection status of individuals.