1. Should SARS-CoV-2 serological testing be used in the decision to deliver a COVID-19 vaccine booster? A pro-con assessment.
- Author
-
Augello M, Wagenhäuser I, Krone M, Dauby N, Ferrara P, Sabbatucci M, Ruta S, Rezahosseini O, Velikov P, Gkrania-Klotsas E, Montes J, Franco-Paredes C, Goodman AL, Küçükkaya S, Tuells J, Harboe ZB, and Epaulard O
- Subjects
- Humans, Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus immunology, Vaccination, COVID-19 Vaccines immunology, COVID-19 Vaccines administration & dosage, Immunization, Secondary, SARS-CoV-2 immunology, COVID-19 prevention & control, COVID-19 immunology, Antibodies, Viral blood, COVID-19 Serological Testing methods
- Abstract
Anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has saved millions of lives in the past few years. To maintain a high level of protection, particularly in at-risk populations, booster doses are recommended to counter the waning of circulating antibody levels over time and the continuous emergence of immune escape variants of concern (VOCs). As anti-spike serology is now widely available, it may be considered a useful tool to identify individuals needing an additional vaccine dose, i.e., to screen certain populations to identify those whose plasma antibody levels are too low to provide protection. However, no recommendations are currently available on this topic. We reviewed the relevant supporting and opposing arguments, including areas of uncertainty, and concluded that in most populations, spike serology should not be used to decide about the administration of a booster dose. The main counterarguments are as follows: correlates of protection are imperfectly characterised, essentially owing to the emergence of VOCs; spike serology has an intrinsic inability to comprehensively reflect the whole immune memory; and booster vaccines are now VOC-adapted, while the commonly available commercial serological assays explore antibodies against the original virus., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Anna L. Goodman reports grants from Novavax to run vaccine trials and non-commercial funding from the INSIGHT network (NIH-TICO trial) to her institution outside of the submitted work; moreover, ALG is named on a patent AstraZeneca vaccine issued to the University of Oxford and has received personal financial contributions for this. Manuel Krone received honoraria from Abbott, GSK and Pfizer outside this work. All other authors have not conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF