4.7 Article

Longitudinal observation of antibody responses for 14 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection

Journal

CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 230, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clim.2021.108814

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; Covid19; Coronavirus; Humoral immunity; neutralizing antibodies

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the long-term antibody responses in recovered COVID-19 patients, finding that anti-S-RBD IgG can persist for 14 months. It highlighted the correlation between individual symptoms and antibody titers, as well as the higher false-negative rate of antibody tests based on NCP protein.
Better understanding of antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection might provide valuable insights into the future implementation of vaccination policies. Longitudinal analysis of IgG antibody titers was carried out in 32 recovered COVID-19 patients based in the Umbria region of Italy for 14 months after Mild and Moderately-Severe infection.Two FDA-approved immunoassays against SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid protein (NCP) and anti-spike-receptor binding domain (S-RBD) were used for sequential serological tests at different time points. The demographics,clinical history and symptom profile associated with the magnitude and longevity of antibody responses were also analyzed. Anti-S-RBD IgG persisted in 96.8% (31 of 32) subjects at 14 months. Patients reporting loss of smell and taste during the clinical course of the disease developed significantly higher antibody titers. Anti-NCP IgG seronegative patients(n=7) at 10 months, tested positive for anti-S-RBD IgG at 12,13 and 14 months emphasizing on a higher false-negative rate for NCP protein-based antibody assays. This study also highlights the importance of adopting specific immunoassays for routine estimation of antibody titers and the decreased rate of re-infections in recovered patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available