-
A total of 125 confirmed COVID-19 cases were studied to assess the NAb response in a variety of patients with differing symptoms. As shown in Table 1, 4 (3.2%) were classified as mild cases based on their clinical manifestations, 81 (64.8%) were moderate, 33 (26.4%) were severe, and the remaining 7 (5.6%) were critical cases. Males and females were equally distributed regarding their clinical classification (χ2 = 2.21, P = 0.529). The average age of these patients was 53.4 years, ranging from 19 to 90. Oxygen supplementation was required in most cases (72%), with nine cases (7.2%) requiring mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The average hospital duration for patients was 26.2 days, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 24.5 to 27.8 for cases who had been discharged. The symptoms of the mild cases [12 days post-onset (dpo)] lasted a significantly shorter time than those of the moderate (24 dpo) and severe (31 dpo) cases.
Table 1. Characteristics of the COVID-19 patients in this study
Characteristic Clinical classification Total Mild case Moderate case Severe case Critical cases Sex, n (%) Male 1 (1.47) 44 (64.71) 18 (26.47) 5 (7.35) 68 (100.00) Female 3 (5.26) 37 (64.91) 15 (26.32) 2 (3.51) 57 (100.00) Age (years) 40.5 ± 15.4 51.3 ± 14.8 56.0 ± 12.5 72.4 ± 8.0 53.4 ± 15.0 ≤ 60, n (%) 3 (3.80) 55 (69.62) 21 (26.58) 0 (0) 79 (100.00) > 60, n (%) 1 (2.17) 26 (56.52) 12 (26.09) 7 (15.22) 46 (100.00) Underlying disease, n (%) No disease 2 (2.94) 48 (70.59) 14 (20.59) 4 (5.88) 68 (100.00) ≥ One disease 2 (3.51) 33 (57.89) 19 (33.33) 3 (5.26) 57 (100.00) Oxygen supplement requirement, n (%) No requirement 3 (8.57) 32 (91.43) 0 (0) 0 (0) 35 (100.00) Low flow oxygen 1 (1.72) 48 (82.76) 9 (15.52) 0 (0) 58 (100.00) High flow oxygen 0 (0) 1 (4.35) 22 (95.65) 0 (0) 23 (100.00) Mechanical ventilation 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (40.00) 3 (60.00) 5 (100.00) ECMOa 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (100.00) 4 (100.00) Disease duration (days) 12.3 ± 5.9 24.5 ± 8.0 31.2 ± 7.8 39.4 ± 24.3 26.7 ± 10.5 ≤ 21, n (%) 4 (10.00) 30 (75.0) 3 (7.50) 3 (7.50) 40 (100.00) > 21, n (%) 0 (0) 51 (60.00) 30 (35.29) 4 (4.71) 85 (100.00) Note. aECMO, Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. -
The proportion of RNA-positive patients declined gradually (Figure 1) with a median of 15 dpo, while the duration of RNA-positivity in severe patients was significantly longer (P < 0.001) than in patients with moderate symptoms. However, no significant difference was observed in the sex, age, and underlying disease classifications. The proportion of seropositive patients continuously increased and reached 100% after 21 dpo of symptoms.
Figure 1. RNA-positive levels and the kinetics of NAbs in COVID-19 patients over time. UD, underlying diseases
Meanwhile, NAb levels increased, peaked at approximately 20–30 dpo, and then decreased as symptoms abated with three different trends detected: 1. stable type, 2. drop type, and 3. wave type (Figure 1 & Table 2) trends. As the NAb testing period may interfere with variability, 51 follow-up cases were selected to study the changes in NAbs. A total of 18 cases (35.3%) showed a stable-type trend since their NAb titers continuously increased or were maintained at a stable level after the peak; 26 cases (51.0%) showed a drop-type trend where NAb expression decreased by at least four times compared with their peak titer; and 7 cases (13.7%) showed a large fluctuation in NAb levels. However, there was no significant difference in trend types between each classification (Table 2). Among all of the cases, six cases older than 60 years and one case that was 58 years showed a wave-type trend, indicating that this type of trend may be associated with older patients. Moreover, the NAb levels of a severe patient were lower than 1:4 in the last antibody test at 56 dpo.
Table 2. Distribution of neutralizing antibody trends in each classificationa
Characteristic Neutralizing antibody trend, n (%) Total χ2 P value Rising type Drop type Wave type Sex 4.46 0.094 Male 8 (26.67) 19 (63.34) 3 (10.00) 30 Female 10 (47.62) 7 (33.33) 4 (19.05) 21 Age (years) 4.73 0.089 ≤ 60 11 (40.74) 15 (55.56) 1 (3.70) 27 > 60 7 (29.17) 11 (45.83) 6 (25.00) 24 Underlying disease 1.89 0.430 No disease 8 (33.33) 11 (45.83) 5 (20.83) 24 ≥ One disease 10 (37.04) 15 (55.56) 2 (7.41) 27 Clinical classification 3.92b 0.166 Mild case 2 (66.67) 1 (33.33) 0 (0) 3 Moderate case 11 (37.93) 16 (55.17) 2 (6.90) 29 Severe case 5 (29.41) 7 (41.18) 5 (29.41) 17 Critical case 0 (0) 2 (100.00) 0 (0) 2 Note. aThere was no statistical difference in the final testing times for each classification. bOnly moderate and severe cases were compared. -
We further analyzed the NAb levels of each group at two time points: the initial detection of NAb formation and the peak titer of NAbs. As the enrollment of patients and serum sampling times were not planned or predictable, the first NAb-positive serum of a patient collected after 10 dpo may interfere with the estimation of the first day of detection of NAb. Therefore, 104 cases were analyzed to estimate the initial day of NAb formation (10.4 ± 5.2 dpo). Peak NAb titers were based on 121 cases (20.8 ± 10.0 dpo), with mild cases that were discharged before their NAb levels reached their peak being omitted from the analysis. Follow-up tests were performed for 51 patients with NAbs, and NAbs were still detectable in one case at 85 dpo with a titer of 1:8.
There was no significant difference between each classification in both NAb levels and the time of initial detection of antibody formation indicating a similar response of NAbs to SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 2). The peak NAb titer in males was slightly higher than that in females (P = 0.019), and the geometric means of the antibody titer were 1:163.14 and 1:101.83, respectively. The peak level of NAbs between each disease severity type was significantly different (P < 0.001); the levels in severe patients were the highest, with a geometric mean antibody titer of 1:272.48, followed by moderate patients with a mean titer of 1:115.36. In addition, the time taken to reach peak NAb titer in severe cases was slightly longer than in moderate cases (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Differences in initial and peak NAb titers against SARS-CoV-2 in patients varying in sex, disease severity, age stratification, and underlying disease status. (A)–(D) Initial NAb levels; (E)–(H) Day(s) post-onset of initial NAb formation; (I)–(L) Highest NAb levels; (M)–(P) Day(s) post-onset to reach the highest NAb levels. Statistical significance was determined using the Student’s t-test (E–H and M–P), Mann–Whitney U test (A, C, D, I, K, L), or Kruskal–Wallis H test (B, F, J, N). *, P < 0.05; ***, P < 0.001.
As sex and disease levels showed a discrepancy in the peak NAb levels, we further classified these cases into four groups based on sex and age: younger or equal to 60 years of age, and older than 60 years of age (younger males, MY; younger females, FY; elder males, ME; elder females, FE). The MY group showed higher NAb levels than the FY and FE groups, suggesting that younger men have the fastest response to SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Differences in the peak titer levels, days required to reach peak NAb levels, and disease duration between different sex/age groups. MY, males ≤ 60 years old; ME, males > 60 years old; FY, females ≤ 60 years old; FE, females > 60 years old. Green dots represent mild cases and yellow dots represent severe cases. Statistical significance was determined using the Student’s t-test and Mann–Whitney U test. a–i, indicates a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) between groups that have the same letter in each graph. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01.
In addition, severe cases younger than 60 years of age had higher NAb levels than mild cases; however, this trend was not observed for older patients. The MY and FY groups reached peak Nab levels quickly and were discharged, whereas no difference was observed for the ME and FE groups, indicating that older patients experience weaker responses to SARS-CoV-2, thereby prolonging the disease duration.
doi: 10.3967/bes2021.133
Kinetic Characteristics of Neutralizing Antibody Responses Vary among Patients with COVID-19
-
Abstract:
Objective The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to present a major challenge to public health. Vaccine development requires an understanding of the kinetics of neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods In total, 605 serum samples from 125 COVID-19 patients (from January 1 to March 14, 2020) varying in age, sex, severity of symptoms, and presence of underlying diseases were collected, and antibody titers were measured using a micro-neutralization assay with wild-type SARS-CoV-2. Results NAbs were detectable approximately 10 days post-onset (dpo) of symptoms and peaked at approximately 20 dpo. The NAb levels were slightly higher in young males and severe cases, while no significant difference was observed for the other classifications. In follow-up cases, the NAb titer had increased or stabilized in 18 cases, whereas it had decreased in 26 cases, and in one case NAbs were undetectable at the end of our observation. Although a decreasing trend in NAb titer was observed in many cases, the NAb level was generally still protective. Conclusion We demonstrated that NAb levels vary among all categories of COVID-19 patients. Long-term studies are needed to determine the longevity and protective efficiency of NAbs induced by SARS-CoV-2. -
Key words:
- Sex /
- Kinetics /
- Neutralizing antibody /
- SARS-CoV-2
注释: -
Figure 1. RNA-positive levels and the kinetics of NAbs in COVID-19 patients over time. UD, underlying diseases
Left panels present the decline of RNA-positive cases (green) as a percentage of the total number of patients and a cumulative frequency of seroconversion (orange) in each classification. Right panels present the kinetics of NAbs, with the line showing the mean NAb levels from a Loess regression model and the gray area indicating the pointwise 95% confidence interval. (A–B) represent male patients with a solid line (LHS) and a blue line (RHS), and female patients with a dashed line (LHS) and a yellow line (RHS), respectively; (C–D) represent mild cases with a green line (RHS), moderate cases with a solid line (LHS) and blue line (RHS), severe cases with a dashed line (LHS, significantly longer duration of RNA-positive levels compared with moderate cases) and a yellow line (RHS), respectively, and critical cases each with a red line; (E–F) represent patients less than or equal to 60 years of age as a solid line (LHS) or a blue line (RHS) and patients over 60 year of age as a dashed line (LHS) or a yellow line (RHS), respectively; (G–H) show patients with underlying diseases as solid lines (LHS) and blue lines (RHS), and without underlying diseases as dashed lines (LHS) and yellow lines (RHS), respectively.
Figure 2. Differences in initial and peak NAb titers against SARS-CoV-2 in patients varying in sex, disease severity, age stratification, and underlying disease status. (A)–(D) Initial NAb levels; (E)–(H) Day(s) post-onset of initial NAb formation; (I)–(L) Highest NAb levels; (M)–(P) Day(s) post-onset to reach the highest NAb levels. Statistical significance was determined using the Student’s t-test (E–H and M–P), Mann–Whitney U test (A, C, D, I, K, L), or Kruskal–Wallis H test (B, F, J, N). *, P < 0.05; ***, P < 0.001.
Figure 3. Differences in the peak titer levels, days required to reach peak NAb levels, and disease duration between different sex/age groups. MY, males ≤ 60 years old; ME, males > 60 years old; FY, females ≤ 60 years old; FE, females > 60 years old. Green dots represent mild cases and yellow dots represent severe cases. Statistical significance was determined using the Student’s t-test and Mann–Whitney U test. a–i, indicates a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) between groups that have the same letter in each graph. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01.
Table 1. Characteristics of the COVID-19 patients in this study
Characteristic Clinical classification Total Mild case Moderate case Severe case Critical cases Sex, n (%) Male 1 (1.47) 44 (64.71) 18 (26.47) 5 (7.35) 68 (100.00) Female 3 (5.26) 37 (64.91) 15 (26.32) 2 (3.51) 57 (100.00) Age (years) 40.5 ± 15.4 51.3 ± 14.8 56.0 ± 12.5 72.4 ± 8.0 53.4 ± 15.0 ≤ 60, n (%) 3 (3.80) 55 (69.62) 21 (26.58) 0 (0) 79 (100.00) > 60, n (%) 1 (2.17) 26 (56.52) 12 (26.09) 7 (15.22) 46 (100.00) Underlying disease, n (%) No disease 2 (2.94) 48 (70.59) 14 (20.59) 4 (5.88) 68 (100.00) ≥ One disease 2 (3.51) 33 (57.89) 19 (33.33) 3 (5.26) 57 (100.00) Oxygen supplement requirement, n (%) No requirement 3 (8.57) 32 (91.43) 0 (0) 0 (0) 35 (100.00) Low flow oxygen 1 (1.72) 48 (82.76) 9 (15.52) 0 (0) 58 (100.00) High flow oxygen 0 (0) 1 (4.35) 22 (95.65) 0 (0) 23 (100.00) Mechanical ventilation 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (40.00) 3 (60.00) 5 (100.00) ECMOa 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (100.00) 4 (100.00) Disease duration (days) 12.3 ± 5.9 24.5 ± 8.0 31.2 ± 7.8 39.4 ± 24.3 26.7 ± 10.5 ≤ 21, n (%) 4 (10.00) 30 (75.0) 3 (7.50) 3 (7.50) 40 (100.00) > 21, n (%) 0 (0) 51 (60.00) 30 (35.29) 4 (4.71) 85 (100.00) Note. aECMO, Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Table 2. Distribution of neutralizing antibody trends in each classificationa
Characteristic Neutralizing antibody trend, n (%) Total χ2 P value Rising type Drop type Wave type Sex 4.46 0.094 Male 8 (26.67) 19 (63.34) 3 (10.00) 30 Female 10 (47.62) 7 (33.33) 4 (19.05) 21 Age (years) 4.73 0.089 ≤ 60 11 (40.74) 15 (55.56) 1 (3.70) 27 > 60 7 (29.17) 11 (45.83) 6 (25.00) 24 Underlying disease 1.89 0.430 No disease 8 (33.33) 11 (45.83) 5 (20.83) 24 ≥ One disease 10 (37.04) 15 (55.56) 2 (7.41) 27 Clinical classification 3.92b 0.166 Mild case 2 (66.67) 1 (33.33) 0 (0) 3 Moderate case 11 (37.93) 16 (55.17) 2 (6.90) 29 Severe case 5 (29.41) 7 (41.18) 5 (29.41) 17 Critical case 0 (0) 2 (100.00) 0 (0) 2 Note. aThere was no statistical difference in the final testing times for each classification. bOnly moderate and severe cases were compared. -
[1] Chen C, Shi Q, Dong XP. Analyses of the duration and dynamics of the COVID-19 epidemic in 11 severely affected countries. Biomed Environ Sci, 2021; 34, 739−42. [2] Yang YS, Peng FJ, Wang RS, et al. The deadly coronaviruses: The 2003 SARS pandemic and the 2020 novel coronavirus epidemic in China. J Autoimmun, 2020; 109, 102434. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102434 [3] Goh GKM, Dunker AK, Foster JA, et al. Rigidity of the outer shell predicted by a protein intrinsic disorder model sheds light on the COVID-19 (Wuhan-2019-nCoV) infectivity. Biomolecules, 2020; 10, 331. doi: 10.3390/biom10020331 [4] Petersen E, Koopmans M, Go U, et al. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 with SARS-CoV and influenza pandemics. Lancet Infect Dis, 2020; 20, e238−44. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30484-9 [5] Subbarao K, Mcauliffe J, Vogel L, et al. Prior infection and passive transfer of neutralizing antibody prevent replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus in the respiratory tract of mice. J Virol, 2004; 78, 3572−7. doi: 10.1128/JVI.78.7.3572-3577.2004 [6] Yu FT, Yan LT, Wang N, et al. Quantitative detection and viral load analysis of SARS-CoV-2 in infected patients. Clin Infect Dis, 2020; 71, 793−8. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciaa345 [7] Diagnosis and treatment of pneumonitis caused by new coronavirus (trial version 7). http://bgs.satcm.gov.cn/zhengcewenjian/2020-03-04/13594.html. [2020-03-03]. (In Chinese) [8] Kenny MT, Albright KL, Sanderson RP. Microneutralization test for the determination of mumps antibody in vero cells. Appl Microbiol, 1970; 20, 371−3. doi: 10.1128/am.20.3.371-373.1970 [9] Chan JFW, Lau SKP, To KKW, et al. Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: another zoonotic betacoronavirus causing SARS-like disease. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2015; 28, 465−522. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00102-14 [10] Wang YQ, Zhang L, Sang L, et al. Kinetics of viral load and antibody response in relation to COVID-19 severity. J Clin Invest, 2020; 130, 5235−44. doi: 10.1172/JCI138759 [11] Seow J, Graham C, Merrick B, et al. Longitudinal observation and decline of neutralizing antibody responses in the three months following SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans. Nat Microbiol, 2020; 5, 1598−607. doi: 10.1038/s41564-020-00813-8 [12] Wajnberg A, Amanat F, Firpo A, et al. Robust neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection persist for months. Science, 2020; 370, 1227−30. doi: 10.1126/science.abd7728 [13] Haveri A, Ekström N, Solastie A, et al. Persistence of neutralizing antibodies a year after SARS-CoV-2 infection. medRxiv, 2021. [14] Robbiani DF, Gaebler C, Muecksch F, et al. Convergent antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in convalescent individuals. Nature, 2020; 584, 437−42. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2456-9 [15] Lopez OJ, Oliveira MF, Garcia EA, et al. Protection against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) infection through passive transfer of PRRSV-neutralizing antibodies is dose dependent. Clin Vaccine Immunol, 2007; 14, 269−75. doi: 10.1128/CVI.00304-06 [16] Carreño JM, Alshammary H, Singh G, et al. Reduced neutralizing activity of post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination serum against variants B. 1.617. 2, B. 1.351, B. 1.1. 7+E484K and a sub-variant of C. 37. medRxiv, 2021. [17] Bates TA, Leier HC, Lyski ZL, et al. Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 variants by convalescent and BNT162b2 vaccinated serum. Nat Commun, 2021; 12, 5135. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25479-6 [18] Sakiani S, Olsen NJ, Kovacs WJ. Gonadal steroids and humoral immunity. Nat Rev Endocrinol, 2013; 9, 56−62. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2012.206 [19] Scully EP, Haverfield J, Ursin RL, et al. Considering how biological sex impacts immune responses and COVID-19 outcomes. Nat Rev Immunol, 2020; 20, 442−7. doi: 10.1038/s41577-020-0348-8 [20] Takahashi T, Ellingson MK, Wong P, et al. Sex differences in immune responses that underlie COVID-19 disease outcomes. Nature, 2020; 588, 315−20. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2700-3 [21] Lieberman NAP, Peddu V, Xie H, et al. In vivo antiviral host transcriptional response to SARS-CoV-2 by viral load, sex, and age. PLoS Biol, 2020; 18, e3000849. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000849