We previously reported the safety and immunogenicity data from a randomized trial comparing the booster responses of vaccinees who received monovalent (MV) recombinant protein Beta-variant (MVB.1.351) and MV ancestral protein (MVD614) vaccines with AS03 adjuvant (Sanofi/GSK) to booster response of vaccinees who received mRNA MV ancestral strain BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech). First booster of the vaccines was administered in adult participants previously primed with 2 doses of MV ancestral strain BNT162b2. A subset of these participants with available blood samples collected at Day 0 (D0), at 28 days (D28), and 3 months (M3) post-booster were contacted for additional testing (195/208 participants). The persistence of cross-neutralizing antibodies, including against Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/5, up to 3 months after boosting was evaluated using a validated pseudovirus neutralization assay. Across the whole population, MVB.1.351 vaccine induces highest NAbs titers against Omicron BA.1 and BA.4/5 variants at D28 and M3 post-booster. In participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection between D28 and M3, both MVB.1.351 and BNT162b2 vaccine groups show an increase in GMTs against Omicron BA.1 and Omicron BA.4/5 following infection. Among uninfected participants, the ratio of M3 to D28 GMTs was higher for the MVB.1.351 group than the BNT162b2 group against Omicron BA.1 (0.64 [0.53;0.77] versus 0.43 [0.35;0.53]), Omicron BA.4/5 (0.61 [0.50; 0.75] versus 0.44 [0.34; 0.56]), and D614 (0.68 [0.58,0.81] versus 0.46 [0.39,0.55]). The MVB.1.351 vaccine induces higher and durable cross-neutralizing antibodies against Omicron subvariants up to 3 months after boosting compared to an MV ancestral and mRNA BNT162b2 booster vaccine. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has changed over time, resulting in new virus variants. It is important to understand how booster vaccines work against different virus variants and how long protection may last. We compared the impact of different COVID-19 vaccines on the immune response of people who had previously received an original licensed mRNA vaccine and then received a third dose (first booster) with either the same type of mRNA-based vaccine or with one of two protein-based vaccines. None of these vaccines contained the omicron variant. We saw differences in response depending on the different combinations of vaccine used. Our results suggest booster vaccination using different types of vaccines could enable people to have better protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. This should be considered when considering which COVID-19 vaccines to use during booster vaccination programs. Launay et al compare the persistence of cross-neutralizing antibodies up to 3 months post-booster. The monovalent (MV) recombinant protein Beta-variant (MVB.1.351) vaccine induces higher and durable cross-neutralizing antibodies against Omicron subvariants compared to MV ancestral protein (MVD614) and mRNA MV ancestral strain BNT162b2 vaccines.

In this prospective, observational study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02661464), long-term safety information was collected from participants previously exposed to the Ebola vaccines Ad26.ZEBOV and/or MVA-BN-Filo while enrolled in phase 1, 2, or 3 clinical studies. The study was conducted at 15 sites in seven countries (Burkina Faso, France, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Adult participants and offspring from vaccinated female participants who became pregnant (estimated conception ≤28 days after vaccination with MVA-BN-Filo or ≤3 months after vaccination with Ad26.ZEBOV) were enrolled. Adults were followed for 60 months after their first vaccination, and children born to female participants were followed for 60 months after birth. In the full analysis set (n = 614 adults; median age [range]: 32.0 [18–65] years), 49 (8.0%) had ≥1 serious adverse event (SAE); the incidence rate of any SAE was 27.4 per 1000 person-years (95% confidence interval: 21.0, 35.2). The unrelated SAEs of malaria were reported in the two infants in the full analysis set, aged 11 and 18 months; both episodes were resolved. No deaths or life-threatening SAEs occurred during the study. Overall, no major safety issues were identified; one related SAE was reported. These findings support the long-term clinical safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccines.

Objectives: COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections were frequently reported during circulation of the Omicron variant. The ANRS|MIE CoviCompareP study investigated these infections in adults vaccinated and boosted with BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNTech] and with/without SARS-CoV-2 infection before vaccination. Methods: In the first half of 2021, healthy adults (aged 18 -45, 65 -74 and 75 or older) received either one dose of BNT162b2 (n = 120) if they had a documented history of SARS-CoV-2 infection at least five months previously, or two doses (n = 147) if they had no history confirmed by negative serological tests. A first booster dose was administered at least 6 months after the primary vaccination, and a second booster dose, if any, was reported in the database. Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against the European (D614G) strain and the Omicron BA.1 variant were assessed up to 28 days after the first booster dose. A case -control analysis was performed for the 252 participants who were followed up in 2022, during the Omicron waves. Results: From January to October 2022, 78/252 (31%) had a documented symptomatic breakthrough infection after full vaccination: 21/117 (18%) in those who had been infected before vaccination vs. 57/135 (42%) in those who had not. In a multivariate logistic regression model, factors associated with a lower risk of breakthrough infection were older age, a higher number of booster doses, and higher levels of Omicron BA.1 NAb titers in adults with infection before vaccination, but not in those without prior infection. Conclusion: Our results highlight the need to consider immune markers of protection in association with infection and vaccination history.

Importance There is still considerable controversy in the literature regarding the capacity of intramuscular messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccination to induce a mucosal immune response. Objective To compare serum and salivary IgG and IgA levels among mRNA-vaccinated individuals with or without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cohort study, SARS-CoV-2-naive participants and those with previous infection were consecutively included in the CoviCompare P and CoviCompare M mRNA vaccination trials and followed up to day 180 after vaccination with either the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine or the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine at the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign (from February 19 to June 8, 2021) in France. Data were analyzed from October 25, 2022, to July 13, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures An ultrasensitive digital enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used for the comparison of SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific serum and salivary IgG and IgA levels. Spike-specific secretory IgA level was also quantified at selected times. Results A total of 427 individuals were included in 3 groups: participants with SARS-CoV-2 prior to vaccination who received 1 single dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) (n = 120) and SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals who received 2 doses of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) (n = 172) or 2 doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) (n = 135). The median age was 68 (IQR, 39-75) years, and 228 (53.4%) were men. SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific IgG saliva levels increased after 1 or 2 vaccine injections in individuals with previous infection and SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals. After vaccination, SARS-CoV-2-specific saliva IgA levels, normalized with respect to total IgA levels, were significantly higher in participants with previous infection, as compared with the most responsive mRNA-1273 (Moderna) recipients (median normalized levels, 155 x 10(-5) vs 37 x 10(-5) at day 29; 107 x 10(-5) vs 54 x 10(-5) at day 57; and 104 x 10(-5) vs 70 x 10(-5) at day 180 [P < .001]). In contrast, compared with day 1, spike-specific IgA levels in the BNT162b2-vaccinated SARS-CoV-2-naive group increased only at day 57 (36 x 10(-5) vs 49 x 10(-5) [P = .01]). Bona fide multimeric secretory IgA levels were significantly higher in individuals with previous infection compared with SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals after 2 antigenic stimulations (median optical density, 0.36 [IQR, 0.16-0.63] vs 0.16 [IQR, 0.10-0.22]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this cohort study suggest that mRNA vaccination was associated with mucosal immunity in individuals without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, but at much lower levels than in previously infected individuals. Further studies are needed to determine the association between specific saliva IgA levels and prevention of infection or transmission.

Dopamine affects processing of temporal information, but most previous work has tested its role in prospective tasks, where participants know in advance when the event to be timed starts. However, we are often exposed to events whose onset we do not know in advance. We can evaluate their duration after they have elapsed, but mechanisms underlying this ability are still elusive. Here we contrasted effects of acute phenylalanine and tyrosine depletion (APTD) on both forms of timing in healthy volunteers, in a within-subject, placebo-controlled design. Participants were presented with a disc moving around a circular path and asked to reproduce the duration of one full revolution and to judge their confidence in performance. The onset of the revolution was either known in advance (explicit onset) or revealed only at the end of the trial (implicit onset). We found that APTD shortened reproduced durations in the explicit onset task but had no effect on temporal performance in the implicit onset task. This dissociation is corroborated by effects of APTD on confidence judgements in the explicit task only. Our findings suggest that dopamine has a specific role in prospective encoding of temporal intervals, rather than the processing of temporal information in general.

ABSTRACTBackgroundVariant-adaptated vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as boosters are needed to increase a broader protection against SARS CoV-2 variants. New adjuvanted recombinant protein vaccines as heterologous boosters could maximize the response.MethodsIn this randomized, single-blinded, multicenter trial, adults who had received two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) 3 to7 months before were randomly assigned to receive a boost of BNT162b2, Sanofi/GSK SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV D614 (monovalent parental formulation) or SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV B.1.351 vaccine (monovalent Beta formulation). The primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects with a ≥10-fold increase in neutralizing antibody titers for the Wuhan (D614) and B.1.351 (Beta) SARS-CoV-2 viral strains between day 0 and day 15.FindingsThe percentages of participants whose neutralizing antibody titers against the Wuhan (D614) SARS-CoV-2 strain increased by a factor ≥10 between day 0 and day 15 was 55.3% (95% CI 43.4-66.7) in MV D614 group (n=76), 76.1% (64.5-85.4) in MV B.1.351 (Beta) group (n=71) and 63.2% (51.3-73.9) in BNT162b2 group (n=76). These percentages were 44.7% (33.3-56.6), 84.5% (74.0-92.0) and 51.3% (39.6-63.0) for the B.1.351 (Beta) viral strain, respectively. Higher neutralizing antibodies rates against Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants were also elicited after Sanofi/GSK MV Beta vaccine compared to the other vaccines. Comparable reactogenicity profile was observed with the three vaccines.InterpretationHeterologous boosting with the Sanofi/GSK Beta formulation vaccine resulted in a higher neutralizing antibody response against Beta variant but also the original strain and Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants, compared with mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine or the Sanofi/GSK MVD614 formulation. New vaccines containing Beta spike protein may represent an interesting strategy for broader protection against SARS CoV-2 variants.FundingFrench Ministries of Solidarity and Health and Research and SanofiTrial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05124171; EudraCT identifier 2021-004550-33.

Background:Although effective mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 infection have been deployed worldwide, their interchangeability could facilitate the scale-up of vaccination programs. The objective of the trial was to assess whether the immune response induced by a heterologous SARS-CoV-2 mRNA primo vaccination is non-inferior to that of a homologous mRNA vaccination. Methods:We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial in adults 18 years of age and older who received a first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a second dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, 28 to 49 days after the first dose. Randomization was stratified on the vaccine received at the first vaccination. The primary endpoint was the anti-spike IgG antibodies titer measured 28 days after the second vaccine dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial, NCT04900467. Findings:Of the 414 randomized participants recruited from May 28 to July 2, 2021, 390 were included in the per protocol analysis: 94 participants in group 1 (BNT162b2/BNT162b2), 96 in group 2 (BNT162b2/mRNA-1273), 97 in group 3 (mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273), and 103 in group 4 (mRNA-1273/BNT162b2). The geometric mean titers ratios of anti-spike IgG antibodies for each heterologous regimen relative to the corresponding homologous regimen were 1·37 (two-sided 95% CI, 1·10 to 1·72) in the groups 1 and 2 and 0·67 (two-sided 95% CI, 0·55 to 0·82) in the groups 3 and 4. Levels of neutralizing antibodies to the main circulating SARS-Cov-2 viral strains were higher with the vaccine regimen containing mRNA-1273. Participants who received mRNA-1273 as a second dose experienced a higher rate of local adverse reactions and general symptoms than those who received BNT162b2 (p < 0·0001). Interpretation:The two SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines could be used with flexibility for the second dose of COVID-19 primo vaccination. Tolerance remains good regardless of vaccine sequence although mRNA-1273 was more reactogenic. Funding:French Ministries of Solidarity and Health and Research. BNT162b2 was provided by Pfizer/BioNTech. mRNA-1273 was provided by Moderna.

Immune response induced by COVID-19 vaccine booster against delta and omicron variants was assessed in 65 adults (65–84 years old) early aftesr a first booster dose. An increase in SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies was shown in individuals not previously infected without evidence of an age-related effect, with lower increase in those infected before a single dose of primary vaccination. Of note, humoral response was observed only starting from the 5th day after the boost.

Abstract Background New adjuvanted recombinant protein vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as heterologous boosters could maximize the benefits of vaccination against SARS CoV-2. Methods In this randomized, single-blinded, multicenter trial, adults who had received two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) 3–7 months before were randomly assigned to receive a boost of BNT162b2, Sanofi/GSK SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV D614 (monovalent parental formulation) or SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein MV B.1.351 vaccine (monovalent Beta formulation). The primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects with a ≥ 10-fold increase in neutralizing antibody titers for the Wuhan (D614) and B.1.351 (Beta) SARS-CoV-2 viral strains between D0 and D15. Results The percentages of participants whose neutralizing antibody titers against the Wuhan (D614) SARS-CoV-2 strain increased by a factor ≥ 10 between Day 0 and Day 15 was 55.3% (95% CI 43.4-66.7) in MV(D614) group (n=76), 76.1% (64.5-85.4) in MV(Beta) group (n=71) and 63.2% (51.3-73.9) in BNT162b2 group (n=76). These percentages were 44.7% (33.3-56.6), 84.5% (74.0-92.0) and 51.3% (39.6-63.0) for the B.1.351 (Beta) viral strain, respectively. Higher neutralizing antibodies rates against Delta and Omicron BA.1 variants were also elicited after Sanofi/GSK MV(Beta) vaccine compared to the other vaccines. Comparable reactogenicity profile was observed the three vaccines. Table 1.Characteristics of patients at inclusion (per-protocol population).Figure 2.Neutralizing antibodies against D614 (wild-type; Wuhan) SARS-CoV-2 and variants Beta, Delta and Omicron BA.1 at D0, D15 and D28 after the boost dose (“post D3”)with Sanofi/GSK-D614, Sanofi/GSK-B.1.351 or BNT162b2 (per-protocol population); dotted line represents the positivity threshold.Figure 4.Rates and grades of severity of solicited adverse events reported from D0 to D7 by participants from the three randomized groups of the safety population (G1, Sanofi/GSK-D614; G2, Sanofi/GSK-B.1.351; G3, BNT162b2) according to the Toxicity Grading Scale for Healthy Adult and Adolescent Volunteers Enrolled in Preventive Vaccine Clinical Trials (Modified FDA scale/September 2007) Conclusion All three vaccines boosted antibodies and neutralizing response after BNT162b2 initial course. Heterologous boosting with the Sanofi/GSK SARS-CoV-2 adjuvanted recombinant protein vaccine B.1.351 (Beta formulation) provided higher neutralizing antibodies response rates against variants, including Omicron BA.1, compared with the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine. Disclosures Odile Launay, MD, PhD, AstraZeneca: Financial|GlaxoSmithKline: Advisor/Consultant|GlaxoSmithKline: Grant/Research Support|Johnson & Johnson: Advisor/Consultant|Johnson & Johnson: Grant/Research Support|MD: Advisor/Consultant|Moderna: Advisor/Consultant|MSD: Data safety monitoring board|Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi Pasteur: Advisor/Consultant|Sanofi Pasteur: Grant/Research Support|Sanofi Pasteur: Data safety monitoring board Liem Binh Luong, MD, Pfizer: Advisor/Consultant|Pfizer: Honoraria Karine Lacombe, MD, PhD, Gilead: Advisor/Consultant|Janssen: Grant/Research Support|MSD: Grant/Research Support|ViiV Healthcare: Grant/Research Support Elisabeth Botelho-Nevers, MD, PHD, Janssen: Board Member|Pfizer: Board Member|Sanofi Pasteur: Board Member.

INTRODUCTION: Significant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk persists after chronic hepatitis C (CHC) cure. Preclinical studies have shown that erlotinib, an oral epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, has an antiviral activity and HCC chemopreventive effect. Erlotinib is metabolized in the liver, and its safety in patients with CHC is unknown. This study aimed to assess the safety and antiviral activity of erlotinib in patients with CHC. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated dose-escalation phase Ib prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study, noncirrhotic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients received placebo or erlotinib (50 or 100 mg/d) for 14 days with a placebo-erlotinib ratio of 1:3. Primary end points were safety and viral load reduction at the end of treatment (EOT). The secondary end point was viral load reduction 14 days after EOT. RESULTS: This study analyzed data of 3 patients receiving placebo, 3 patients receiving erlotinib 50 mg/d, and 3 patients receiving erlotinib 100 mg/d. One grade 3 adverse event was reported in the placebo group (liver enzymes elevation), leading to treatment discontinuation and patient replacement, and 1 in the erlotinib 100 mg/d group (pericarditis), which was not considered to be treatment-related. Grade 2 skin rash was observed in 1 erlotinib 100 mg/d patient. No significant HCV-RNA level reduction was noted during treatment, but 2 of the 3 patients in the erlotinib 100 mg/d group showed a decrease of >0.5 log HCV-RNA 14 days after EOT. DISCUSSION: Erlotinib demonstrated to be safe in noncirrhotic CHC patients. An antiviral activity at 100 mg/d confirms a functional role of EGFR as an HCV host factor in patients. These results provide perspectives to further study erlotinib as an HCC chemopreventive agent in patients with CHC.

Assessment of the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is essential in predicting protection against reinfection and durability of vaccine protection. Here, we longitudinally measured Spike (S) and Nucleocapsid (N)-specific antibodies in 1,309 healthcare workers (HCWs), including 916 COVID-19 negative HCWs and 393 convalescent COVID-19 for up to 422 days post-symptom. From month (M)1 to M7-9 post-infection, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies decreased moderately in convalescent HCWs in a biphasic model, with men showing a slower decay of anti-N (p=0.02), and a faster decay of anti-S (p=0.0008) than women. At M11-13, anti-N dramatically decreased (half-life: 283 days) while anti-S stabilized (half-life: 725 days) at a median of 2.39 log Arbitrary Units (AU)/mL (Interquartile Range (IQR): 2.10 -2.75). Overall, 69 SARS-CoV-2 infections developed in the COVID-19 negative group (incidence of 12.22 per 100 person-years) versus one in the COVID-19 positive group (incidence of 0.40 per 100 person-years), indicating a relative reduction in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection of 96.7% (p<0.0001). Correlation with live-virus neutralization assay revealed that variants D614G and B.1.1.7, but not B.1.351, were sensitive to anti-S antibodies at 2.3 log AU/mL, while IgG ≥ 3 log AU/mL neutralized all three variants. After SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, anti-S levels reached at least 3 logs regardless of pre-vaccination IgG levels, type of vaccine, and number of doses. Our study demonstrates a long-term persistence of anti-S IgG antibodies that may protect against reinfection. By significantly increasing cross-neutralizing antibody titers, a single-dose vaccination strengthens protection against escape mutants.

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of psychological stress on non-surgical periodontal treatment (SRP) outcomes in patients with severe chronic periodontitis (stage 3/4 generalized periodontitis) at 6 months in the French population. Methods Patients diagnosed with severe generalized chronic periodontitis (periodontitis stage 3/4) were included in this study. At baseline, psychological status was evaluated by self-administered questionnaire (Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 42 [DASS-42] and Toulouse coping scale [TCS]). Plasma levels of cortisol and chromogranin-A were determined. Patients were then managed by oral hygiene instructions, scaling and root planing of sites with PD >3 mm and followed at 3 and 6 months. Quantitative and qualitative variables were described and interactions were determined by linear and logistic regressions. Results Seventy-one patients were included in this study and 54 were followed up to 6 months. An average probing depth (PD) reduction of 0.73 +/- 0.11 mm and decrease of diseased sites (PD >3 mm) were measured at 6 months illustrating SRP efficacy. Multivariable analysis showed that increased DASS-stress score was associated to worsened SRP outcomes in terms of bleeding on probing (BOP) (OR = 1.02,P <0.05) and mean PD (P <0.05) reduction. An increase of DASS-depression score negatively influenced PD >5 mm (OR = 1.06,P <0.05), PD >7 mm (OR = 1.17,P <0.01), CAL >5 mm (OR = 1.03,P <0.05), and CAL >7 mm (OR = 1.07,P <0.05) reduction. Negative coping strategies were also associated with worsened SRP outcomes. Conclusions Patients with increased stress, anxiety, and depression scores as well as those exhibiting negative coping strategies demonstrate worsened SRP outcomes. DASS-42 and TCS were useful to determine psychological status and their use could be incorporated to assess treatment prognosis.

We measured anti-spike (S), nucleoprotein (N), and neutralizing antibodies in sera from 308 healthcare workers with a positive reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction result for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and with mild disease, collected at 2 timepoints up to 6 months after symptom onset. At month 1, anti-S and -N antibody levels were higher in male participants aged >50 years and participants with a body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m(2). At months 3-6, anti-S and anti-N antibodies were detected in 99% and 59% of individuals, respectively. Anti-S antibodies and neutralizing antibodies declined faster in men than in women, independent of age and BMI, suggesting an association of sex with evolution of the humoral response.

BackgroundAssessment of the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is essential in predicting risk of reinfection and durability of vaccine protection.MethodsThis is a prospective, monocentric, longitudinal, cohort clinical study. Healthcare workers (HCW) from Strasbourg University Hospital were enrolled between April 6th and May 7th, 2020 and followed up to 422 days. Serial serum samples were tested for antibodies against the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) of the spike protein and nucleocapsid protein (N) to characterize the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and the incidence of reinfection. Live-neutralization assays were performed for a subset of samples before and after vaccination to analyze sensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 variants.FindingsA total of 4290 samples from 393 convalescent COVID-19 and 916 COVID-19 negative individuals were analyzed. In convalescent individuals, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies followed a triphasic kinetic model with half-lives at month (M) 11–13 of 283 days (95% CI 231–349) for anti-N and 725 days (95% CI 623–921) for anti-RBD IgG, which stabilized at a median of 1.54 log BAU/mL (95% CI 1.42–1.67). The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections was 12.22 and 0.40 per 100 person-years in COVID-19-negative and COVID-19-positive HCW, respectively, indicating a relative reduction in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection of 96.7%. Live-virus neutralization assay revealed that after one year, variants D614G and B.1.1.7, but less so B.1.351, were sensitive to anti-RBD antibodies at 1.4 log BAU/mL, while IgG ≥ 2.0 log BAU/mL strongly neutralized all three variants. These latter anti-RBD IgG titers were reached by all vaccinated HCW regardless of pre-vaccination IgG levels and type of vaccine.InterpretationOur study demonstrates a long-term persistence of anti-RBD antibodies that may reduce risk of reinfection. By significantly increasing cross-neutralizing antibody titers, a single-dose vaccination strengthens protection against variants.Fun1dingNone.

Studies in animals and humans have implicated the neurotransmitter dopamine in duration processing. However, very few studies have examined dopamine's involvement in other forms of temporal processing such as temporal order judgments. In a randomized within-subject placebo-controlled design, we used acute phenylalanine/tyrosine depletion (APTD) to reduce availability of the dopamine precursors tyrosine and phenylalanine in healthy human volunteers. As compared to a nutritionally balanced drink, APTD significantly impaired the ability to accurately reproduce interval duration in a temporal reproduction task. In addition, and confirming previous findings, the direction of error differed as a function of individual differences in underlying dopamine function. Specifically, APTD caused participants with low baseline dopamine precursor availability to overestimate the elapse of time, whereas those with high dopamine availability underestimated time. In contrast to these effects on duration processing, there were no significant effects of APTD on the accuracy of discriminating the temporal order of visual stimuli. This pattern of results does not simply represent an effect of APTD on motor, rather than perceptual, measures of timing because APTD had no effect on participants' ability to use temporal cues to speed RT. Our results demonstrate, for the first time in healthy volunteers, a dopaminergic dissociation in judging metrical (duration) versus ordinal (temporal order) aspects of time.

OBJECTIVES:Strasbourg University Hospital faced an important COVID-19 first wave from early March 2020. We performed a longitudinal prospective cohort study to describe clinical and virological data, exposure history to COVID-19, and adherence to strict hygiene standards during the first pandemic wave in 1497 workers undergoing a SARS-CoV-2 serological test at our hospital, with a follow up of serology result three months later.PATIENTS AND METHODS:A total of 1497 patients were enrolled from April 6 to May 7, 2020. Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 was measured, and COVID-19 exposure routes were analyzed according to SARS-CoV-2 serological status.RESULTS:A total of 515 patients (34.4%) were seropositive, mainly medical students (13.2%) and assistant nurses (12.0%). A history of COVID-19 exposure in a professional and/or private setting was mentioned by 83.1% of seropositive subjects (P<0.05; odds ratio [OR]: 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8-3.4). COVID-19 exposure factors associated with seropositive status were non-professional exposure (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3-2.7), especially outside the immediate family circle (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.2-3.9) and contact with a COVID-19 patient (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1-2.2). Among professionally exposed workers, systematic adherence to strict hygiene standards was well observed, except for the use of a surgical mask (P<0.05, OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3-2.8). Of those who reported occasionally or never wearing a surgical mask, nurses (25.7%), assistant nurses (16.2%), and medical students (11.7%) were predominant.CONCLUSION:Infection of staff members during the first pandemic wave in our hospital occurred after both professional and private COVID-19 exposure, underlining the importance of continuous training in strict hygiene standards.

Background: The serologic response of individuals with mild forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection is poorly characterized. Methods: Hospital staff who had recovered from mild forms of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using two assays: a rapid immunodiagnostic test (99.4% specificity) and the S-Flow assay (~99% specificity).The neutralizing activity of the sera was tested with a pseudovirus-based assay. Results: Of 162 hospital staff who participated in the investigation, 160 reported SARS-CoV- 2 infection that had not required hospital admission and were included in these analyses. The median time from symptom onset to blood sample collection was 24 days (IQR: 21-28, range 13-39). The rapid immunodiagnostic test detected antibodies in 153 (95.6%) of the samples and the S-Flow assay in 159 (99.4%), failing to detect antibodies in one sample collected 18 days after symptom onset (the rapid test did not detect antibodies in that patient). Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) were detected in 79%, 92% and 98% of samples collected 13-20, 21-27 and 28-41 days after symptom onset, respectively (P=0.02). Conclusion: Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in virtually all hospital staff sampled from 13 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. This finding supports the use of serologic testing for the diagnosis of individuals who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection. The neutralizing activity of the antibodies increased overtime. Future studies will help assess the persistence of the humoral response and its associated neutralization capacity in recovered patients.

ABSTRACTRapid and accurate diagnosis is crucial for successful outbreak containment. During the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency, the gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosis is the detection of viral RNA by reverse transcription (RT)-PCR. Additional diagnostic methods enabling the detection of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection would be highly beneficial to ensure the timely diagnosis of all infected and recovered patients. Here, we investigated several serological tools, i.e., two immunochromatographic lateral flow assays (LFA-1 (Biosynex COVID-19 BSS) and LFA-2 (COVID-19 Sign IgM/IgG)) and two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) detecting IgA (ELISA-1 Euroimmun), IgM (ELISA-2 EDI) and/or IgG (ELISA-1 and ELISA-2) based on well-characterized panels of serum samples from patients and healthcare workers with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and from SARS-CoV-2-negative patients. A total of 272 serum samples were used, including 62 serum samples from hospitalized patients (panel 1 and panel 3), 143 serum samples from healthcare workers (panel 2) diagnosed with COVID-19 and 67 serum samples from negative controls. Diagnostic performances of each assay were assessed according to days after symptom onset (dso) and the antigenic format used by manufacturers. We found overall sensitivities ranging from 69% to 93% on panels 1 and 2 and specificities ranging from 83% to 98%. The clinical sensitivity varied greatly according to the panel tested and the dso. The assays we tested showed poor mutual agreement. A thorough selection of serological assays for the detection of ongoing or past infections is advisable.

The evolution of SARS-CoV-2 humoral response in infected individuals remains poorly characterized. Here, we performed a longitudinal study of sera from 308 RT-qPCR+ individuals with mild disease, collected at two time-points, up to 6 months post-onset of symptoms (POS). We performed two anti-S and one anti-N serology assays and quantified neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). At month 1 (M1), males, individuals > 50 years of age or with a body mass index (BMI) > 25 exhibited higher levels of antibodies. Antibody levels decreased over time. At M3-6, anti-S antibodies persisted in 99% of individuals while anti-N IgG were measurable in only 59% of individuals. The decline in anti-S and NAbs was faster in males than in females, independently of age and BMI. Our results show that some serology tests are less reliable overtime and suggest that the duration of protection after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination will be different in women and men.

AimsPathophysiology of reflex syncope is not fully understood but a vagal overactivity might be involved in this syncope. Previously, overexpression of muscarinic M2 receptors and acetylcholinesterase was found in particular in the heart and in lymphocytes of rabbits with vagal overactivity as well as in hearts of Sudden Infant Death Syndromes. The aim of this present study was to look at M2 receptor expression in blood of patients with reflex syncope. The second objective was to measure acetylcholinesterase expression in these patients.Methods and results136 subjects were enrolled. This monocenter study pooled 45 adults exhibiting recurrent reflex syncope compared with 32 healthy adult volunteers (18-50 years) and 38 children exhibiting reflex syncope requiring hospitalization compared with 21 controls (1-17 years). One blood sample was taken from each subject and blood mRNA expression of M2 receptors was assessed by qRT-PCR. Taking into account the non-symmetric distributions of values in both groups, statistical interferences were assessed using bayesian techniques. A M2 receptor overexpression was observed in adult and pediatric patients compared to controls. The medians [q1;q3] were 0.9 [0.3;1.9] in patients versus 0.2 [0.1;1.0] in controls; the probability that M2 receptor expression was higher in patients than in controls (Pr[patients>controls]) was estimated at 0.99. Acetylcholinesterase expression was also increased 0.7 [0.4;1.6] in patients versus 0.4 [0.2;1.1] in controls; the probability that acetylcholinesterase expression was higher in patients than in controls (Pr[patients>controls]) was estimated at 0.97. Both in adults and children, the expression ratio of M2 receptors over acetylcholinesterase was greater in the patient group compared with the control group.ConclusionM2 receptor overexpression has been detected in the blood of both, adults and children, exhibiting reflex syncope. As in our experimental model, i.e. rabbits with vagal overactivity, acetylcholinesterase overexpression was associated with M2 receptor overexpression. For the first time, biological abnormalities are identified in vagal syncope in which only clinical signs are, so far, taken into account for differential diagnosis and therapeutic management. Further work will be needed to validate potential biomarkers of risk or severity associated with the cholinergic system.