Jean-Michel Dogné

Maternal immunization protects pregnant individuals and infants. However, evidence on vaccine safety during pregnancy remains variable across vaccine products and maternal, fetal, neonatal, and infant outcomes. Debate has often focused on whether pregnant individuals should be included in randomized controlled trials, overlooking the complementary roles of other study designs. Trials are indispensable for assessing immunogenicity, reactogenicity, efficacy, and common short-term outcomes, but are rarely powered to exclude modest increases in uncommon obstetric, congenital, neonatal, or delayed childhood outcomes. This Perspective examines a coordinated approach to maternal vaccine safety assessment before and after authorization, including randomized trials, spontaneous reporting, pregnancy vaccine exposure registries, linked maternal-infant databases, near-real-time surveillance, and international research networks. Lessons from influenza, pertussis, COVID-19, and maternal respiratory syncytial virus vaccination show why authorization should initiate sustained pregnancy-specific safety monitoring. We discuss the limitations of real-world evidence, including confounding, healthy-vaccinee effects, gestational timing, conditioning on live birth, outcome misclassification, and background rate estimation, as well as methods to strengthen causal interpretation. Regulators and vaccine developers should prespecify pregnancy-specific post-authorization studies, harmonize outcome definitions and exposure windows, and distinguish the absence of a detected signal from the exclusion of a clinically relevant risk. Coordinated surveillance is essential to provide timely, precise, and clinically meaningful evidence for pregnant individuals and their children.

Background: The detection of neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is important since they represent the subset of antibodies able to prevent the virus to invade human cells. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical performances of an in-house pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT) versus a commercial surrogate neutralization test (sVNT). Material and Methods: A total of 114 RT-PCR positives samples from 75 COVID-19 patients were analyzed using a pVNT and an sVNT technique. Fifty-six pre-pandemic samples were also analyzed to assess the specificity of the two techniques. An analysis of the repeatability and the reproducibility of the pVNT was also performed. Results: A coefficient of variation (CV) of 10.27% for the repeatability of the pVNT was computed. For the reproducibility test, CVs ranged from 16.12% for low NAbs titer to 6.40% for high NAbs titer. Regarding the clinical sensitivity, 90 RT-PCR positive samples out of 114 were positive with the pVNT (78.94%), and 97 were positive with the sVNT (84.21%). About the clinical specificity, all 56 pre-pandemic samples were negative in both techniques. When comparing the sVNT to the pVNT, the specificity and sensibility were 66.67% (95%CI: 47.81–85.53%) and 98.88% (95%CI: 96.72–99.99%), respectively. Conclusions: The results obtained with the automated sVNT technique are consistent with those obtained with the pVNT technique developed in-house. The results of the various repeatability and reproducibility tests demonstrate the good robustness of the fully manual pVNT technique.

The rapid and large-scale roll-out of new COVID-19 vaccines has led to unprecedented challenges in assessing vaccine safety. In 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) processed about 1.7 million safety reports related to COVID-19 vaccines in the EudraVigilance (EV) database and identified more than 900 potential signals. Beyond the large amount of information to be processed, the evaluation of safety signals has faced several difficulties and limitations, both in the assessment of case reports and in the investigation of databases. The evaluation of a signal of corneal graft rejection (CGR) with Vaxzevria^® was no exception to this. In this commentary, we present the challenges encountered in making regulatory decisions in the context of evolving evidence and knowledge. The pandemic crisis emphasised the importance of quick and proactive communication to address the many questions and, above all, to ensure the transparency of safety data.

Background: in this report, we describe the case of an 83-year-old woman vaccinated with ChadOx1 nCoV-19 who developed a so-called vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome and who did not develop any antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 at 30 days following the administration of her first dose of ChadOx1 nCoV-19. Experimental section: two serum samples from the patient and 5 serum samples from 5 control individuals having received the two-dose regimen vaccination with ChadOx1 nCoV-19 were evaluated. In order to investigate the lack of response to the vaccination, a cell model was developed. This model permits to evaluate the interaction between responsive cells (A549) possessing the Coxsackievirus and Adenovirus Receptor (CAR), a defined concentration of ChadOx1 nCoV-19 and serial dilution of the patient or the control serum. The aim was to assess the impact of these sera on the production of the spike (S) protein induced by the transfection of the genetic material of ChadOx1 nCoV-19 into the A549 cells. The S protein is measured in the supernatant using an ELISA technique. Results: interestingly, the serum from the patient who developed the vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome impaired the production of S protein by the A549 cells transfected with ChadOx1 nCoV-19. This was not observed with the controls who did not interfere with the transfection of ChadOx1 nCoV-19 into A549 cells since the S protein is retrieved in the supernatant fraction. Conclusion: based on the data coming from the clinical and the cell model information, we found a possible explanation on the absence of antibody response in our patient. She has, or has developed, characteristics that prevent the production of the S protein in contrast to control subjects. We were not able to investigate the entire mechanism behind this resistance which deserve further investigations. A link between this resistance and the development of the thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome following vaccination with ChadOx1 nCoV-19 cannot be excluded.

The diagnostic of SARS-CoV-2 infection relies on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reactions (RT-PCRs) performed on nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs. Nevertheless, false-negative results can be obtained with inadequate sampling procedures, making the use of other biological matrices worthy of investigation. This study aims to evaluate the kinetics of serum N antigens in severe and non-severe patients and compare the clinical performance of serum antigenic assays with NP RT-PCR. Ninety patients were included in the study and monitored for several days. Disease severity was determined according to the WHO clinical progression scale. Serum N antigen levels were measured with a chemiluminescent assay (CLIA) and the Single Molecular Array (Simoa) assay. Viremia thresholds for severity were determined and proposed. In severe patients, the peak antigen response was observed 7 days after the onset of symptoms, followed by a decline. No real peak response was observed in non-severe patients. Severity thresholds for the Simoa and the CLIA provided positive likelihood ratios of 30.0 and 10.9 for the timeframe between day 2 and day 14, respectively. Sensitive detection of N antigens in serum may thus provide a valuable new marker for COVID-19 diagnosis and evaluation of disease severity. When assessed during the first 2 weeks since the onset of symptoms, it may help in identifying patients at risk of developing severe COVID-19 to optimize better intensive care utilization.

Rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests are commonly used for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, with the continuous emergence of new variants of concern (VOC), presenting various mutations potentially affecting the nucleocapsid protein, the analytical performances of these assays should be frequently reevaluated. One hundred and twenty samples were selected and tested with both RT-qPCR and six commercial RAD tests that are commonly sold in Belgian pharmacies. Of these, direct whole-genome sequencing identified the strains present in 116 samples, of which 70 were Delta and 46 were Omicron (BA.1 and BA.1.1 sub-lineages, respectively). The sensitivity across a wide range of Ct values (13.5 to 35.7; median = 21.3) ranged from 70.0% to 92.9% for Delta strains and from 69.6% to 78.3% for Omicron strains. When taking swabs with a low viral load (Ct > 25, corresponding to 10 copies/mL), only the Roche RAD test showed acceptable performances for the Delta strains (80.0%), while poor performances were observed for the other RAD tests (20.0% to 40.0%). All the tested devices had poor performances for the Omicron samples with a low viral load (0.0% to 23.1%). The poor performances observed with low viral loads, particularly for the Omicron strain, is an important limitation of RAD tests, which is not sufficiently highlighted in the instructions for use of these devices.

Rapid antigen detection tests (RAD) are commonly used for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, with the continuous emergence of new variants of concern (VOC) presenting various mutations potentially affecting the nucleocapsid protein, the analytical performances of these assays should be frequently reevaluated. One-hundred and twenty samples were selected and tested with both RT-qPCR and five commercial RAD commonly sold in Belgian pharmacies. Of these, direct whole genome sequencing identified the strains present in 116 samples, of which 70 were Delta and 46 were Omicron. Sensitivity across a wide range of Ct values (13.5 to 35.7; median = 21.3) were comparable and ranged from 70.0% to 77.1% for Delta strains and from 69.6% to 78.3% for Omicron strains. When taking swabs with a low viral load (Ct > 25), poor performances were observed for the Delta strains (20.0 to 40.0%) and, even more so, for Omicron strains (0.0 to 23.1%). Two devices failed to detect all samples (n = 13) containing Omicron strains with a low viral load. The poor performance observed with low viral loads is an important limitation of RAD, which is not sufficiently highlighted in the instruction for use of these devices.

Neutralising antibodies (NAbs) represent the real source of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections by preventing the virus from entering target cells. The gold standard in the detection of these antibodies is the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT). As these experiments must be done in a very secure environment, other techniques based on pseudoviruses: pseudovirus neutralization test (pVNT) or surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) have been developed. Binding assays, on the other hand, measure total antibodies or IgG, IgM, and IgA directed against one epitope of the SARS-CoV-2, independently of their neutralizing capacity. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of six commercial binding assays to the pVNT and sVNT. In this study, we used blood samples from a cohort of 62 RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 patients. Based on the results of the neutralizing assays, adapted cut-offs for the binding assays were calculated. The use of these adapted cut-offs does not permit to improve the accuracy of the serological assays and we did not find an adapted cut-off able to improve the capacity of these tests to detect NAbs. For a part of the population, a longitudinal follow-up with at least two samples for the same patient was performed. From day 14 to day 291, more than 75% of the samples were positive for NAbs (n = 87/110, 79.1%). Interestingly, 6 months post symptoms onset, the majority of the samples (N = 44/52, 84.6%) were still positive for NAbs. This is in sharp contrast with the results we obtained 6 months post-vaccination in our cohort of healthcare workers who have received the two-dose regimens of BNT162b2. In this cohort of vaccinated subjects, 43% (n = 25/58) of the participants no longer exhibit NAbs activity 180 days after the administration of the first dose of BNT162b2.

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.

This case reports on the successful maternal to fetal transfer of neutralizing antibodies after vaccination with BNT162b2 in a pregnant woman at 25 weeks of gestation. The levels of neutralizing antibodies were approximately 5-fold higher in the umbilical cord than in the maternal blood while the level of total antibodies showed only a 2-fold increase. This suggest that the antibodies that crossed the syncytiotrophoblast cell barrier have specific characteristics that correlate to functional neutralizing capacity. Although pregnant and lactating women have been excluded from clinical trials for several reasons including ethical concerns about fetal exposure, accumulating evidence has now revealed that these vaccines are safe and efficient for both the fetus and the woman. Vaccination against COVID-19 in pregnancy is vital to control disease burden and to decrease morbidity in the ante-, peri- and post-natal periods. Inclusion of pregnant women in research programs for the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines should be mandatory to provide this population with the equitable benefits of vaccine research.