Rapid review on protective immunity post infection with SARS-CoV-2: update 3
October 2021
Download in PDF format (1.08 MB, 44 pages)
Table of contents
- Introduction
- Key points
- Overview of the evidence
- Risk of reinfection post infection
- Immune response markers ≥12 months post infection
- Review Literature
- Methods
- Evidence tables
- References
Introduction
What do we know about protective immunity from studies on reinfection with COVID-19, and correlates of immunity at 12 or more months post infection?
Understanding the extent and limits of protective immunity against COVID-19 has important implications for the COVID-19 pandemic and response. Immunity arising from infection with coronaviruses in general varies tremendously, from a few months for the seasonal coronaviruses associated with the common cold, to 2-3 years for the emerging coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV-1 and MERSFootnote 1. For SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), it is known that most people develop immune responses following infection, however, for how long and to what extent the post infection immune response protects individuals from another COVID-19 infection is not yet clear. Previous versions of this report from February, April and August 2021 summarized the evidence on protective immunity post infection and post-vaccine and can be requested through ocsoevidence-bcscdonneesprobantes@phac-aspc.gc.ca. Due to the expanding evidence base, reviews on protective immunity post infection and post-vaccination have been done separately for update 3 (Oct 2021) and will be done separately for subsequent updates. All reports on protective immunity post infection or post-vaccination can be requested through ocsoevidence-bcscdonneesprobantes@phac-aspc.gc.ca. Evidence on individuals who were both infected and vaccinated are summarized in the immunity post vaccination review.
This review looks at the evidence on protective immunity post infection only and summarizes the risk of reinfection and the durability of immune response markers ≥12 months post infection.
Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 appears to be uncommon but there are challenges to studying this. First is the challenge of diagnosis. The use of nucleic acid amplification testing (e.g., RT-PCR) is excellent for identifying the presence of virus in making the initial diagnosis, but it will also be positive in the presence of non-infectious virus particles (RNA fragments) so, on its own, it cannot confirm reinfection. To address this, several definitions of reinfection have been proposed and are being used both in the literature and by public health organizations (e.g., European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). For the purposes of this review, the definition from PAHO was used where a confirmed case of reinfection is defined as subsequent COVID-19 infection in an individual who has at least one documented negative RT-PCR test between infections and genomic sequence data from both episodes to distinguish two different genetic clades or viral lineagesFootnote 2. A suspected case of reinfection is defined by PAHO as a clinical or lab confirmed initial infection with a positive RT-PCR test >90 days from first infection or an infection occurring <90 days after the first infection with epidemiological evidence of re-exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and where infection by another agent has been ruled outFootnote 2. Some longitudinal cohort studies define a suspected case as a participant with a positive serological test after the first wave in the spring of 2020 for their primary COVID-19 infection.
There are also challenges in assessing long-term immunity from COVID-19 post infection. This arises because immune responses are variable and not everyone who recovers from COVID-19 develops detectable antibody levels after infection. Specifically, a small proportion of individuals who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 do not appear to have detectable neutralizing antibody levels, but still recover from infection; the reasons for this are not fully understoodFootnote 3. Evidence suggests that neutralizing antibodies as well as memory B-cell (i.e., immune cells that produce virus targeting antibodies) and memory T-cell (i.e., immune cells that guide the cell mediated adaptive immune responses) activity specific to SARS-CoV-2 are good indicators of protective immunity. In addition, the variety of assays used to measure antibodies and T-cell or B-cell response complicates the assessment of long-term immunity as their results are not directly comparable. The association between measured long-term immune markers and protection from reinfection from both the wild-type and emerging variants is largely unknown.
This rapid review summarizes the evidence on protective immunity in humans post infection from recent studies on risk of reinfection, and persistence of antibodies and other immune response markers for ≥12 months following initial SARS-CoV-2 infection published before October 22, 2021. Due to the abundance of human data, animal models of disease and in vitro studies were not included.
Key points
Forty-nine studies were identified, including 23 on risk of reinfection and 26 on the kinetics and durability of antibodies and other immune response markers at >12 months from initial SARS-CoV-2 infection and nine rapid or systematic reviews. The review is divided into two sections including reinfections (n=23) in people with prior infection. As well as studies that capture immune response markers 12-16 months post infection (n=26).
Risk of reinfection post infection
The best evidence to date on protective immunity post infection comes from reinfection data reported in 23 prospective cohort studies with >1000 participants, Table 1. Many of these cohorts are on-going and represent reinfections caused by original variants, variants of concern (VOC) or variants of interest (VOI). However, few studies had genotype data and reported the VOC or VOI data separately; results were extracted when provided.
- In a UK longitudinal study, the risk of reinfection was the same for original variants and AlphaFootnote 4Footnote 5, but an uptick in reinfection was identified during the time Delta became dominant. Further research is needed to determine if this increase in reinfection was due to waning immunity, and/or lack of cross protection or increased infectivity of the Delta variantFootnote 6.
- Large prospective cohorts of suspected reinfections from the US, UK, Denmark, France, and South Africa suggest past SARS-CoV-2 infection provides protective immunity in 82-99% of individuals – although the follow up time varied from enrollment (1.5-13 months) and settings (e.g., hospitals, workplaces, military)Footnote 4Footnote 5Footnote 7Footnote 8Footnote 9Footnote 10Footnote 11Footnote 12Footnote 13Footnote 14Footnote 15Footnote 16Footnote 17. Across studies, the proportion of individuals seropositive at baseline that became infected again (i.e., suspected reinfections) was lower than the proportion of seronegative individuals that became infected during follow-up (0.2-10% vs. 0.8-48%)Footnote 7Footnote 8Footnote 9Footnote 10Footnote 13Footnote 15Footnote 16Footnote 17Footnote 18.
- Healthcare workers with positive SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG responses at baseline had lower rates of PCR-positive tests during 6-7 months of follow-up compared to healthcare workers who were seronegative at the start of the study (0.13-1.27 vs. 1.08-4.29 per 10,000 days at risk)Footnote 7Footnote 13, as well as overall lower risk (RR 0.35, 95%CI: 0.15-0.85)Footnote 17. A longer follow-up study (13 months) among healthcare workers found a similar trend (0.40 vs. 12.2 cases per 100 person-years)Footnote 10.
- Two studies from Nicaragua and Switzerland that looked at only symptomatic reinfections found past SARS-CoV-2 infection provided protective immunity in 78-93% of individuals followed up to 6-8 monthsFootnote 19Footnote 20.
- The included studies reported that higher antibody titers mounted post-COVID-19 infection were correlated with protection from reinfection for up to 13 months of follow-up.
- There is evidence for a higher risk of reinfection among those who had low IgG titers or no detectable neutralizing antibody activity against SARS-CoV-2. For example, young healthy adults with high titers had an HR 0.45 (95%CI 0.32-0.65) against reinfection during high SARS-CoV-2 circulation at a US military facility in May-November 2020Footnote 15.
- There were few reinfection cases with antibody titers taken close to reinfection. In a large prospective cohort study, there were two cases of reinfection at 7 months post infection where the 5 month sera had no detectable neutralizing antibodiesFootnote 6Footnote 21.
- In four cohort studies, time to reinfection was highly variable, ranging from 90 to 374 daysFootnote 4Footnote 20Footnote 22Footnote 23. This was similar to a systematic review of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cases that ranged from 20->350 daysFootnote 24.
- Reinfection cases across prospective cohorts were more likely to be asymptomatic (~50-84%) compared to cases experiencing their first infection (19.2-68%)Footnote 4Footnote 25.
Immune response markers ≥12 months post infection
Twenty-six studies with follow-up of >30 participants 12-16 months post infection provide evidence that many individuals have detectable immune markers beyond 12 months after infection, however this varies by what targets were measured and what type of test was used as well as study design (Table 2).
- Six correlational studies reported positive correlations between humoral immunity markers (e.g. antibody titers) and cellular immune markers (T-cells and B-cells) taken between 12-16 monthsFootnote 26Footnote 27Footnote 28Footnote 29Footnote 30Footnote 31. Within humoral markers, there was a weaker correlation between neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and N-protein IgGFootnote 26Footnote 27Footnote 28.
- In eleven correlational studies, there was a positive correlation between cases that had more severe COVID-19 (or an acute infection that lasted longer than 10 days) and higher levels of humoral and T-cell activity taken between 12-16 monthsFootnote 27Footnote 28Footnote 31Footnote 32Footnote 33Footnote 34Footnote 35Footnote 36Footnote 37. No correlation between memory B-cells activity and COVID-19 severity was reportedFootnote 38.
- Six studies documented that a cellular immune response following infection was linked to memory B-cells (i.e., immune cells that produce virus targeting antibodies) or T-cells (i.e., immune cells that guide cell-mediated adaptive immune responses)Footnote 26Footnote 27Footnote 31Footnote 38Footnote 39Footnote 40. It is likely these immune cells (B-cells and T-cells) are good indicators of some long-term immunity to subsequent reinfections.
- Memory B-cell (n=1 study) and T-cell (n=5 studies) activity was shown to be elevated above baseline and in some cases was still increasing in both magnitude and breadth (meaning the cells continued to diversify in their function) 12-15 months post infectionFootnote 26Footnote 27Footnote 31Footnote 38Footnote 39Footnote 40. This suggests that despite waning circulating antibodies ≥12 months after recovering from SARS-CoV-2 acute infection, protective immunity may still be strong.
- CD8+ T-cells were found to remain stable or decrease from peak levels up to 12 months post infection, whereas other studies found CD4+ T-cell responses continued to increase, indicating that antibody production via CD4+ cell activation persistedFootnote 27Footnote 31Footnote 39.
- A preliminary study reported unique T-cell signatures at 6-15 months post-acute infection were correlated to post COVID-19 condition cases, where symptoms or sequelae lasted for more than 3 months post COVID-19 diagnosisFootnote 40.
- Long-term antibody kinetics in post COVID-19 infection were described in 25 studies conducted from 12-16 months post symptom onset. These studies found that the majority of individuals remained positive for circulating SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), S protein and/or RBD IgG antibodies 12 to 16 months from infection with overlapping ranges reported at monthly time points.
- Six studies reported NAbs were detectable in 84%-99% of cases at 12-16 monthsFootnote 27Footnote 28Footnote 33Footnote 35Footnote 41Footnote 42.
- Five studies reported S-protein IgG levels were detectable in 57-100% of cases at 12-13 months post infectionFootnote 10Footnote 26Footnote 30Footnote 35Footnote 42.
- Six studies found that RBD IgG antibodies continued to increase for up to 8 months before stabilizing, and 81% -100% of participants remained RBD-IgG positive at 12-16 monthsFootnote 27Footnote 33Footnote 36Footnote 43Footnote 44Footnote 45. Conversely, one study found only 19% RBD-IgG positivity between 7-13 months, however S2-IgG and overall positivity was >85%, suggesting there may have been a test sensitivity issue with the RBD target antigenFootnote 46.
- Seven studies identified that N-protein IgG and other classes of antibodies waned more rapidly and positivity was highly variable in 20-100% of cases at 12-16 months compared to NAbs, S protein, and RBD antibodiesFootnote 27Footnote 33Footnote 36Footnote 38Footnote 43Footnote 44Footnote 45.
- Four studies found that total IgG positivity was 62-95% at 12 months, longitudinal analysis between 6-12 months showed the total IgG levels were stable and the correlation with disease severity was smaller compared to results under 6 monthsFootnote 29Footnote 32Footnote 37Footnote 47.
- Other correlates of higher humoral or cellular immune markers were reported across studies:
- One study found that symptoms of anosmia and dysgeusia (loss of smell and taste) were associated with higher anti-S protein and/or RBD IgGFootnote 43.
- Five studies found that cases age >60 years or <18 years were associated with higher antibody titersFootnote 28Footnote 35Footnote 41Footnote 45Footnote 47.
Overview of the evidence
Reinfection studies: This review focuses on the highest level of evidence: large prospective cohorts (sample size >1000), some of which were large, multi-center studies as they have the lowest risk of bias and have the highest generalizability. However, multivariable analyses to account for potential confounding factors were not included in some of these studies and may bias the results. Retrospective cohorts of medical record data or routinely collected surveillance data on COVID-19 were not captured because of their higher risk of bias due to the retrospective nature of the study, missing data, and possible confounding factors. Only four studies reported on VOCs; more prospective cohort studies are needed to assess protective immunity against VOCs.
Long-term immunity studies mainly include longitudinal evidence from observational studies, particularly of prospective cohort, large case series and cross-sectional design, which are at moderate to high risk of selection biases and confounding. For example, most studies reported clinical infection severity among study participants, but many did not analyse or control for risk factors that may explain some of the heterogeneity in correlates of immunity. Differences in study participant demographics, baseline immune status, clinical severity of infections, investigated immune outcomes, follow-up time and measurement methods likely contributed to some of the observed heterogeneity. Variability may have come from the application of different antibody and immune cell detection methods with different test sensitivity and specificity parameters.
Knowledge gaps in the current literature include:
- Lack of understanding of how the immunological measures (e.g., neutralizing antibody titers) correlate to protection and risk of reinfection.
- The correlation of specific antibodies, B-cells and T-cells reactive against SAR-CoV-2 in protecting against reinfection have not been definitively identified in humans.
- Evidence is accumulating on variants of concern including Alpha and Delta and prospective studies are being conducted to evaluate long term immunity. However, as vaccination coverage increases there will be fewer unvaccinated people to participate in prospective cohorts to study long term immunity post infection.
Risk of reinfection post infection
The summary below provides the best evidence to date from recently published large prospective cohort studies on risk of reinfection. Case reports, case series, retrospective cohorts and smaller prospective cohorts (with samples sizes <1000) were excluded from this review. Studies with these designs published prior to April 9, 2021 have been summarized in earlier versions of this review available through ocsoevidence-bcscdonneesprobantes@phac-aspc.gc.ca. High level points are listed below and detailed outcomes for each study are located in the Table 1.
Results of reinfection studies (n=23)
Highlights from the current literature include:
- Previous infection resulting in antibodies seems to be associated with protection from reinfection for up to 13 months, however there has been a small proportion of people that have become reinfected. Reasons for reinfection or lack of protective immunity are not well understood.
- No large prospective cohort studies conducted a genomic analysis to ascertain confirmed reinfection among cases. Thus, evidence on reinfection in this review includes only suspected reinfection estimates.
- Four studies provided reinfection evidence on VOCs.
- Alpha variant: Two studies reporting on the SIREN cohort (Jun 2020-Jan 2021) from the UK did not find any evidence that increased prevalence of Alpha adversely affected reinfection rates during follow-upFootnote 4Footnote 5. Analysis suggested that the protective effect of previous infection after 4-9 months follow-up was similar when Alpha was dominant (Incidence Rate Ratio [IRR] 0.18, 95% CI 0.15–0.23) compared to the original variant (IRR 0.13, 95%CI 0.10–0.17, p=0.05)Footnote 4.
- Delta variant: During the time when the Delta variant became dominant, the SIREN cohort study in the UK found that reinfections increased from 7 cases in April/May 2021 to 44 cases in June/July 20216.
- Beta variant: In the placebo arm of a randomized controlled trial for the Novavax vaccine (used in India), there was no difference in infection or reinfection between seronegative and seropositive individuals, among which the majority of cases (92.7%) were caused by the Beta variant. This indicates that prior infection was not protective against reinfection with the Beta variantFootnote 48.
- Thirteen studies of suspected reinfections from the US, UK, Denmark, France, and South Africa suggest past SARS-CoV-2 infection provides protective immunity in 82-99% of individuals across a range of follow-up times from enrollment (1.5-13 months) and settings (e.g., hospitals, workplaces, military) compared to those without past SARS-CoV-2 infection; hazard ratio 0.15-0.41; odds ratio 0.09-0.25; incidence rate ratio 0.002-0.26; risk ratio 0.35-1.14Footnote 4Footnote 5Footnote 7Footnote 8Footnote 9Footnote 10Footnote 11Footnote 12Footnote 13Footnote 14Footnote 15Footnote 16Footnote 17.
- Two studies from Nicaragua and Switzerland that looked at only symptomatic reinfections suggest past SARS-CoV-2 infection provides protective immunity in 72-93% of individuals up to 6-8 months follow-upFootnote 19Footnote 20.
- Adults with end-stage kidney disease treated with hemodialysis, assessed over 5 months, were found to have much lower protection against reinfection; presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline was associated with only a 45% lower risk of subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection (IRR 0.55, 95%CI 0.32-0.95)Footnote 49.
- Ten studies found that previous COVID-19 diagnosis (clinical or laboratory confirmed) had a lower proportion, 0.2-10%, of suspected SARS-CoV-2 infections at 1.5 - 13 months follow-up compared to 10.8-48% among cases with no evidence of previous infection (seronegative or PCR negative at baseline)Footnote 7Footnote 8Footnote 9Footnote 10Footnote 13Footnote 15Footnote 16Footnote 17Footnote 18Footnote 50.
- One study of US Marine recruits found that reinfection was less likely among those with higher baseline IgG titres than lower to no baseline titres (hazard ratio 0.45, 95%CI 0.32-0.65, p<0.001) 15. This study also found that recruits with reinfections had viral loads ~10-times lower than first-time infected participants (p=0.004)Footnote 15.
- Two reinfection cases had serology conducted at 5 months post infection prior to reinfection at 7 months, both cases had virus NAb levels below the estimated threshold for predicting immune protectionFootnote 6Footnote 21.
- Healthcare workers with positive SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG responses had lower rates of PCR-positive tests after 8 months of follow-up compared to healthcare workers with no IgG responses at the start of the study (0.13 vs. 1.09 per 10,000 days at risk)Footnote 7. A longer follow-up study (13 months) among healthcare workers found a similar trend (0.40 vs. 12.2 per 100 person-years)Footnote 10.
- In one US study, the incidence rate of COVID-19 reinfection in a cohort of healthcare workers was 0.35 cases per 1,000 person-days. Participants working with patients in COVID-19 clinical and non-COVID-19 clinical units were 3.77 and 3.57 times at greater risk of reinfection compared to those working in non-clinical units (administrative personal with no patient exposure), respectivelyFootnote 23.
- In four studies that measured time to reinfection, the reported range was 90-374 daysFootnote 4Footnote 20Footnote 22Footnote 23. These estimates only include suspected reinfection cases. They may have data points that are misclassified and instead represent persistent viral shedding or recurrence, both of which have been reported in the literature. A systematic review of confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections reported highly variable time to reinfection ranging from 20 days to >350 daysFootnote 24.
- Three studies found that cases of reinfection were more likely to be asymptomatic (49.7-84% vs. 19.7-68%, respectively)Footnote 4Footnote 15 or mild compared to individuals with COVID-19 for the first timeFootnote 7Footnote 10Footnote 16.
- Across two studies that only recorded symptomatic reinfections, only one reported cases that were admitted to hospitalFootnote 51. The other study demonstrated 10/15 symptoms were reported less frequently by participants who had been seropositive from a previous infection at baseline. The difference was statistically significant only for anosmia and dysgeusia (RR 0.33, 95%CI 0.15–0.73, P=0.004), chills (RR 0.59, 95%CI 0.39–0.90, P=0.01), and limb/muscle pain (RR 0.68 95%CI 0.49-0.95, P=0.02)Footnote 20.
Immune response markers ≥12 months post infection
This section summarizes 26 studies that report on immune responses measured between 12-16 months following SARS-CoV-2 infection. The included studies were limited to studies that reported >30 participants ≥12 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection (Table 2). Twenty-five studies looked at circulating serum antibody levels and/or seropositivity after infection, one study reported exclusively on T-cell activity and six studies reported on multiple cellular and humoral immune markers (i.e., B-cells and/or T-cells and antibodies) in the same sample. The majority of included studies were prospective cohorts or case series that followed the serology of RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases over time. High-level points are listed below and detailed outcomes for each study are located in Table 2.
Overall, there was a lot of variability across studies due to differences in study participants, COVID-19 infection severity, frequency and duration of follow-up, investigated immune outcomes and measurement methods, which limit the synthesis of results across studies.
Key outcomes from B-cell and T-cell immune responses at 11 -15 months post infection (n=6)
Memory B-cells and T-cells following a natural infection likely confer some long-term immunity to reinfectionFootnote 1Footnote 38Footnote 52. There were six studies that measured B-cell and T-cell responses post infection. The viral antigen targets, activity, and counts of these memory cells were most frequently measured by flow cytometry cell analysis techniques, however various assays were also used. The variability of molecular biology techniques and the viral antigen markers used across studies limit the comparability of study results.
- Five studies on B- and T-cell activity found that for many individuals there is an established and sustained polyfunctional response (e.g., T-cells produce multiple cytokines resulting in a more effective response) at 12-15 months post COVID-19Footnote 26Footnote 27Footnote 38Footnote 39Footnote 40. In two of these studies, the memory B-cells and T-cells have been shown to have diversified over time resulting in strong activity against a range of variantsFootnote 38Footnote 39.
- Only one study reported on memory B-cell activity 12 months post COVID-19. B-cells were stable and had expanded clonality resulting in the expression of broad and potent antibodies with exceptional activity against a range of variantsFootnote 38.
- T-cells are immune cells classified by surface receptors CD4+ or CD8+. The primary role of T-cells can be separated into the production of antibodies via B-cell activation (CD4+ T-cells) or the destruction of infected cells presenting certain antigens (CD8+ T-cells)Footnote 39. The included studies isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from serum samples then measured T-cell numbers, phenotypes or activity after simulation with various SARS-CoV-2 peptide sequence pools (i.e., amino acids that make up viral proteins)Footnote 26Footnote 31. The variability and/or the lack of detail on peptide sequences used in simulation studies limit the comparability of study results. Increasingly studies also report Interferon-γ (IFNγ), interleukin-2 (IL-2), and/or Tumor Necrosis Factor α (TNFα) from commercial kits to measure T-cell reaction against antigens based on secreted cytokinesFootnote 26.
- Five studies report on T-cell outcomes in previously infected cases 12-15 months post infection and show long-term polyfunctional and cytotoxic T-cells responsive to SARS-CoV-2Footnote 26Footnote 27Footnote 31Footnote 39Footnote 40.
- The breadth and magnitude of memory T-cell responses were maintained and increased in three studies 12 months post infectionFootnote 27Footnote 31Footnote 39. The magnitude of detectable T-cells in two studies decreased between 6-12 monthsFootnote 26Footnote 39, but in two studies was reported to be stableFootnote 27Footnote 31.
- In three studies at 12 months 76-92% of participants had detectable T-cell responses (CD4+/CD8+) against SARS-CoV-2Footnote 27Footnote 31Footnote 39 or had T-cell activity measured by detectable SARS-C0V-2 specific helper T-cells (80%), Interferon- γ (IFNγ) (65%) and interleukin-2 (IL-2) (43%)Footnote 26.
- Two studies reported a positive correlation between CD8+ or CD4+ T-cell activity and NAbs, IgG and IgM seropositivity or titersFootnote 26Footnote 27.
- Four studies showed a positive correlation with T-cell response at 12 months and more severe diseaseFootnote 27Footnote 31Footnote 39Footnote 40, length of acute infection (>10 days)Footnote 26, and older age (>60 years)Footnote 26. Preliminary results from one study showed at 15 months post COVID-19 distinct immunologic profiles characterized by differentiated proportions of monocytes (a type of white blood cell involved in adaptive immunity)Footnote 40. Those with post COVID-19 condition had significantly elevated levels of intermediate (CD14+, CD16+) and non-classical monocytes (CD14Lo, CD16+) compared to healthy, not infected, controlsFootnote 40.
Key outcomes from circulating antibodies immune responses at 12-14 months post infection (n=25)
Humoral immunity, also called antibody-mediated immunity, generally refers to circulating antibodies that are directed at viral antigensFootnote 1Footnote 52. Among included studies, circulating antibodies in serum samples were measured by antibody affinity assays, pseudovirus neutralization assays, flow cytometry, and other molecular biology-based techniques. Variation between assays was noted in several studies with large disagreement between results in some analyses; this was an important source of between study heterogeneity in at least four studiesFootnote 53Footnote 54Footnote 55Footnote 56. An example of this was a diagnostic test accuracy study that reported the Euroimmun assay missed 40% of positives in 8-month samples found by Roche assaysFootnote 55. The range of reported antibody outcomes included total antibodies, neutralizing antibodies (NAbs), antibody class (i.e., IgG, IgM, IgA) which were frequently further described by subclass (i.e., IgG1, IgG3), and/or binding affinity to SARS-CoV-2 viral antigens. Many studies often specified the viral antigen targets of the measured Ig antibodies, including the spike (S) protein, S1 or S2 subunit of the S protein, nucleocapsid (N), envelope (E), membrane (M) proteins, receptor binding domain (RBD) proteins, and accessory proteins (i.e., open reading frame (ORF) proteins).
Studies found most previously infected individuals had some detectable SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies at 12-16 months from infection, but seroprevalence of specific antibody targets was variable. Longitudinal trends in humoral immune markers post infection across include studies are outlined below, by viral antigen and clinical severity.
- Three studies reported NAbs, anti-S protein and anti-RBD protein IgG were highly correlated, whereas anti-N IgG decreased rapidly and only was only weakly correlated with other circulating antibodiesFootnote 26Footnote 31Footnote 57.
- Two studies found that seroreversion at 12 months was inversely associated with peak IgG for both S and N proteinsFootnote 30Footnote 41.
- Three studies identified that antibodies had a steep decline over the first 6 months and then a much slower decline after 6 monthsFootnote 27Footnote 28Footnote 35.
- Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) target the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and/or the RBD to neutralize the binding of the virus to ACE2 receptors of potential host cells. Seven studies found a range of study level results for proportion seropositive over time.
- 16 months= 88%Footnote 33
- 15 months= 88%Footnote 33
- 14 months= 88%Footnote 33
- 13 months= 72-100%Footnote 33Footnote 35
- 12 months= 48-99%Footnote 26Footnote 27Footnote 28Footnote 33Footnote 41Footnote 42
- In one study, two-phase exponential decay modelling of neutralizing titers found that hospitalized patients had a steep decline in the first phase (half-life 26 days) and a slower decrease in the second phase (half-life 533 days) whereas those with mild or asymptomatic infection had no significant difference in slope, their titer peak was lower and their slow decline was similar to the second phase of severe casesFootnote 58.
- One study on pseudo typed neutralization assays against variants indicated that more than half of participants tested generated 50% inhibition against Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and LambdaFootnote 33. With severe or moderate disease, high neutralization titers against Alpha and Delta (82-100%) were maintained with lower neutralization for Beta, Gamma, and Kappa (64-100% positivity at 12-13 months), however neutralization was much lower for those who experienced mild diseaseFootnote 28Footnote 29Footnote 35.
- Six studies reported on S protein IgG levels which remained detectable up to 13 monthsFootnote 10Footnote 26Footnote 30Footnote 35Footnote 42Footnote 46 despite declining levels (82.8% decrease months 1-12) noted in three with longitudinal samplingFootnote 30Footnote 42Footnote 46.
- 13 months= 96-100%Footnote 35
- 12 months= 57-97%Footnote 10Footnote 26Footnote 30Footnote 42
- Anti-S protein IgG levels were higher among those with severe disease compared to mild or asymptomatic disease at 12-13 monthsFootnote 30Footnote 35.
- Nine studies reported on RBD IgG antibodies up to 16 monthsFootnote 27Footnote 28Footnote 29Footnote 33Footnote 36Footnote 38Footnote 43Footnote 44Footnote 45 which continued to increase from baseline (within 3 months post COVID-19) up to 8 months and stabilize from 6-12 monthsFootnote 27Footnote 44Footnote 55.
- 16 months= 91%Footnote 33
- 15 months= 100%Footnote 33
- 14 months= 97%Footnote 43
- 13 months= 91-97%Footnote 33Footnote 36
- 12 months= 81-95%Footnote 27Footnote 33Footnote 38Footnote 44Footnote 45
- In three studies, titers were higher in patients who had severe COVID-19Footnote 33Footnote 36Footnote 43. In one study, cases that developed a loss of taste and smell had higher RBD IgG titers at 14 monthsFootnote 59.
- In three studies, there was a correlation between RBD Ig antibodies (all Ig classes), and the neutralization activity targeting SARS-CoV-2Footnote 27Footnote 28Footnote 29. This association was consistent among those with mild to severe infections.
- One study indicated that N protein IgG and other classes of antibodies waned more rapidly than NAbs, S protein, RBD antibodiesFootnote 28Footnote 30. In seven studies, compared to other target antibodies, N-protein were highly variable and usually had lower levels of positivity compared to NAbs, S protein, RBD antibodies at ≥12 monthsFootnote 10Footnote 28Footnote 30Footnote 33Footnote 34Footnote 35Footnote 60
- 16 months= 91%Footnote 33
- 13 months= 91-97%Footnote 33Footnote 35
- 12 months= 20-100%Footnote 10Footnote 30Footnote 33Footnote 34Footnote 60
- In four studies, Anti-N protein seropositivity beyond 12 months was correlated with severe COVID-19Footnote 28Footnote 34Footnote 35Footnote 60.
- In three studies, compared to other humoral immune markers, there were weak correlations between NAbs and N- protein IgGFootnote 26Footnote 31Footnote 57.
- In two studies IgG titers were reported to gradually decrease up to 6 months, but then remain stable 6-12 months post infection with seroreversion rates reported as 3-18% at ≥12 monthsFootnote 37Footnote 41.
- 12 months: 62% -95.3% positivityFootnote 29Footnote 32Footnote 37Footnote 47
- At 7-13 months positivity was 88.1% in one small studyFootnote 46
- Other correlates of higher humoral or cellular immune markers were reported across studies.
- In 11 studies, IgG antibody and NAb titers were higher among those with severe COVID-19 and lowest among those with asymptomatic COVID-19Footnote 27Footnote 28Footnote 31Footnote 32Footnote 33Footnote 34Footnote 35Footnote 36Footnote 36Footnote 37. In five studies, the IgG antibody titers from severe cases had a sharper decrease up to 6 months and then the decline was very slow and levels were reported to remain higher than those who had mild COVID-19Footnote 33Footnote 34Footnote 37Footnote 44Footnote 45Footnote 58. One study indicated at >12 months the difference in IgG or NAb titers between those that had severe and mild COVID-19 were not significantFootnote 31.
- In three studies, higher age of cases (> 60 years old) was associated with higher titersFootnote 28Footnote 35Footnote 47. In one study the IgG titers were U-shaped with children and older adults having higher titersFootnote 45. This is consistent with another study that reported the children had higher neutralization titers than adults (p=0.02) and the seroreversion rates at 4-12 months was 3.8% in children and 18% in adultsFootnote 41.
- Four studies measured neutralization against variants of concern (VOC) or interest (VOI) ≥12 months post COVID-19; these preliminary results are based on small numbers of individuals and more data is needed to improve the confidence in these findings. Follow-up ranged between 10-16 months across studies and results included 52% of participants had low, but detectable neutralizing titers against Beta after >300 daysFootnote 58. At 16 months after infection 57% (8/14) of individuals had at least 50% inhibition against all variants (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Lambda)Footnote 33, which was also in line with studies that had 13 months of follow-up, reported neutralization activity for Delta and Alpha and weaker neutralization for Beta, Gamma, and KappaFootnote 28Footnote 35.
Review Literature
Nine relevant rapid and systematic reviews include COVID-19 research from June 2020 – August 2021 on correlates of immunity from previously infected individuals as well as reviews on reinfections (Table 3). These are included as resources for research on time points for immune markers earlier than 12 months and analyses of factors that correlate with a strong immune response to infection or vaccination. There are also systematic reviews reinfection data including summaries of confirmed reinfections typically reported as case reports which are not included in this review.
Methods
A daily scan of the literature (published and pre-published) is conducted by the Emerging Science Group, PHAC. The scan has compiled COVID-19 literature since the beginning of the outbreak and is updated daily. Searches to retrieve relevant COVID-19 literature are conducted in Pubmed, Scopus, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, ArXiv, SSRN, Research Square and cross-referenced with the COVID-19 information centers run by Lancet, BMJ, Elsevier, Nature and Wiley. The daily summary and full scan results are maintained in a Refworks database and an excel list that can be searched. Targeted keyword searching was conducted within these databases to identify relevant citations on COVID-19 and SARS-COV-2. Three separate searches were conducted to identify citations relevant to reinfection, breakthrough infections and immunity. Search terms used included: REINFECTION TERMS (reinfect* or re-infect* or recurren* or re-positive).
Immunity terms (month* or longitudinal) across studies with the Immunology tag.
This review contains research published up to October 22, 2021.
Each potentially relevant reference was examined to confirm it had relevant data and relevant data was extracted into the review.
Acknowledgments
Prepared by: Austyn Baumeister, Tricia Corrin, Lisa Waddell (National Microbiology Laboratory), and Kaitlin Young (Centre for Foodborne Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases), Emerging Science Group, Public Health Agency of Canada.
Editorial review, science to policy review, peer-review by a subject matter expert and knowledge mobilization of this document was coordinated by the Office of the Chief Science Officer: ocsoevidence-bcscdonneesprobantes@phac-aspc.gc.ca
Evidence tables
Study | Methods | Key outcomes |
---|---|---|
Suspected reinfection caused by VOCs (n=4) | ||
Public Health England (2021)Footnote 6 Prospective cohort UK Jun 2020-Jul 2021 |
Asymptomatic and symptomatic staff (n=25,661) working at hospital sites participating in the SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) Study were enrolled between June 18 and December 31, 2020 and were followed to estimate the relative incidence of PCR-positive test results according to baseline antibody and/or PCR results. Earlier results from this study are also reported in Hall 2021Footnote 4. A possible reinfection was defined as a participant with two positive PCR samples 90 or more days apart or an antibody positive participant with a new positive PCR test at least 4 weeks after the first antibody-positive result. A probable case additionally required supportive quantitative serological data or supportive viral genomic data from samples available. As of July 2021 95% of the cohort was vaccinated and thus the number contributing to the reinfection rate was getting smaller. |
|
Hall (2021)Footnote 4 Prospective cohort UK Jun 2020-Jan 2021 |
Asymptomatic and symptomatic staff (n=25,661) working at hospital sites participating in the SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) Study were enrolled between June 18 and December 31, 2020 and followed for 7 months to estimate the relative incidence of PCR-positive test results according to baseline antibody and/or PCR results. A possible reinfection was defined as a participant with two positive PCR samples 90 or more days apart or an antibody positive participant with a new positive PCR test at least 4 weeks after the first antibody-positive result. A probable case additionally required supportive quantitative serological data or supportive viral genomic data from samples available. The effect of the B.1.1.7 variant was included in the analysis by creating a binary variable of when the S-Gene Target Failure (SGTF) PCR accounted for 50% or more of the positive results for each region. Population: 13,401 (52.2%) participants of the cohort were vaccinated during the follow-up period (between Dec 2020 and Jan 11, 2021). This included 9,468 in the negative cohort and 3,933 in the positive cohort. Once vaccinated participants no longer contributed to the reinfection data. |
|
Lumley (2021)Footnote 5 Prospective cohort UK Sep 2020-Feb 2021 |
Healthcare workers (HCWs) were followed to investigate and compare the protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by vaccination (results in Table 2) and prior infection (determined using anti-spike antibody status). Individuals were followed from >60 days after their first positive antibody test to either a positive PCR test or first vaccination. To assess the impact of the B.1.1.7 variant on (re)infection risk, they analysed PCR-positive results with and without S-gene target failure (SGTF), and those confirmed as B.1.1.7 on genome sequencing. |
Nasal and oropharyngeal swab
|
Shinde (2021)Footnote 48 Randomized controlled trial South Africa Aug-Nov 2020 |
Phase 2b trial of a NVX-CoV2373 nanoparticle vaccine. A total of 4387 participants were randomized and dosed at least once, 2199 with NVX-CoV2373 and 2188 with placebo. Serology at baseline was determined and follow-up RT-PCR testing was conducted. Whole virus genome sequencing was conducted on nasal samples. |
Nasal swabs
|
Suspected reinfection caused by unspecified or original variants (n=19) | ||
Banerjee (2021)Footnote 51 Prospective cohort India Oct 2020-Jun 2021 |
Individuals who tested positive for IgG antibodies in a population-based seroprevalence study (n=1,081) in Oct 2020 were followed up by telephone after 8 months to ascertain reinfections. Reinfection was identified by individuals self-reporting a history of fever, cough, and body ache, or after having coming in contact with a positive patient and RT-PCR was done to confirm reinfection. |
|
Massimo (2021)Footnote 22 Prospective cohort Italy Apr 2020-May 2021 |
COVID-19 recovered patients (n=2723) were recruited as potential convalescent plasma donors and tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and followed for possible reinfection. Reinfection was defined as any confirmed positive RT-PCR test >90 days from first episode, regardless of symptoms, with at least one, negative RT-PCR tests on specimens collected between the first and second episode. Subjects were followed for >4 months. The LIAISON® chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (DiaSorin) system was used for antibody screening. The CLIA values are expressed as AU (Arbitrary Units) (≥80 AU correlate with neutralizing antibody titer ≥1:160)- |
|
Gallais (2021)Footnote 10 Prospective cohort France Apr 2020-May 2021 |
Healthcare workers (n=1,309) with a COVID-19 history, proven either by serology (IgM and IgG against RBD or nucleocapsid proteins) at screening or by a previous RT-PCR (targeting two regions of the RdRp gene), were recruited and followed for up to 13 months. Participants that were seronegative without a history of positive RT-PCR were also recruited to evaluate incidence of infection during the follow-up period. Because the main objective of this study was to study serology over time, assessment of reinfection was based on participant reports during visits, as no RT-PCR surveillance was planned in the study. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that the COVID-19 positive participants had unnoticed asymptomatic reinfection during follow-up (although none had a significant increase of both anti-S and anti-N levels during follow-up). |
|
Cohen (2021)Footnote 11 Prospective cohort South Africa Jul 2020-Mar 2021 |
Estimated the burden and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 over the two waves un one rural and one urban community. Mid-turbinate nasal swabs were collected twice-weekly from consenting household members irrespective of symptoms and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR (targeting E, N and RdRp genes). Serum was collected every two months and tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Defined possible reinfection as >28 to 90 days between rRT-PCR positive specimens (no sequence data available) or between first seropositive specimen and rRT-PCR positive specimen; probable reinfection as >90 days between positive specimens; and confirmed reinfection as distinct Nextstrain clades on sequencing or variant PCR between rRT-PCR positive specimens meeting the temporal criteria for possible or probable. |
|
Kohler (2021)Footnote 20 Prospective cohort Switzerland Jun 2020 -Mar 2021 |
Across 17 healthcare institutions in Northern and Eastern Switzerland, 4812 HCWs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (Jun-Sep 2020) and followed for possible reinfection. Subsequently, participants were tested through nasopharyngeal swabs if they experienced any COVID-19 symptoms such as fever and/or the presence of any respiratory symptom (i.e., shortness of breath, cough, or sore throat). Participants were then asked to fill out a weekly survey to record COVID-19 symptoms and the date/result of any PCR or rapid antigen test. The median follow-up time was 7.9 months [IQR 6.7–8.2]. |
Nasopharyngeal swabs
Full cohort
|
Maier (2021)Footnote 19 Prospective cohort Nicaragua Mar 2020-Mar 2021 |
In this study, 2,338 individuals were followed to assess the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and examine the degree of protection from repeat SARS-CoV-2 infection among seropositive individuals. Blood samples were collected in Mar 2020 or at enrollment, and mid-year samples were collected during Oct-Nov 2020. SARS-CoV-2 infections confirmed by RT-PCR were reported for the entire study period, and seropositive infections were reported for the period between blood samples. To examine the protection from symptomatic reinfection provided by anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, the number of symptomatic RT-PCR–confirmed infections was compared by serostatus. |
|
Finch (2021)Footnote 12 Prospective cohort US Apr 2020-Feb 2021 |
Analysed longitudinal PCR and IgG receptor-binding domain (RBD) serological testing data from a cohort of US SpaceX employees (n=4411) in four states. Reinfection was defined as a new positive PCR test more than 30 days after initial seropositive result. A multivariable logistic regression (Adjusted for race, ethnicity, state, job category and BMI) was conducted to investigate the association between baseline serological status and subsequent PCR test result. This required the authors to choose a cut-off week in order to define baseline seroprevalence and the subsequent observation period for PCR testing. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify the optimum cut-off date to define baseline seroprevalence. Follow-up was 6-10 months. |
|
Krutikov (2021)Footnote 9 Prospective cohort UK Jun 2020-Feb 2021 |
Residents (n=682) and staff (n=1429) of 100 long term care facilities were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR monthly and weekly, respectively. Individuals who tested positive were not tested again for 90 days. Blood sampling was offered to all participants at three time points separated by 6-8 week intervals in June (baseline), August and October 2020 to determine antibody titers. All positive PCR tests after October 2020 were considered to indicate infection or reinfection. For reinfection cases, most participants had at least 90 days and all had two or more negative PCR tests between their baseline antibody test and PCR-positive test. |
|
Wilkins (2021)Footnote 13 Prospective cohort US May 2020-Jan 2021 |
HCWs were invited to participate in a cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 serology and COVID-19 risk. Participants were invited to undergo serology testing between May 26th and July 10th (baseline) and then between November 9th and January 8th, 2021 (6-month follow-up). Participants who were seropositive at baseline were considered to be at risk for possible reinfection 90 days after their antibody test until end of follow-up or to first positive PCR plus one or more of the following characteristics: in-home exposure to someone infected with SARS-CoV-2, consistent symptoms, or a physician diagnosis of active infection. IRR analyses were adjusted for age, sex, race, and occupation. |
|
Ronchini (2021)Footnote 61 Prospective cohort Italy Apr 2020-Jan 2021 |
Health-care, support staff, administrative and research personnel (n=1,493) at a cancer center in Milan were tested at baseline for SARS-CoV-2 infection by qPCR using the Allplex SARS-CoV-2 Assay and IgGs using an in-house ELISA assay. Participants were then followed up for up to 6-months to determine possible reinfection. Reinfection was defined as a participant with 2 positive PCR samples with a negative PCR in between and considering a positive PCR after 60 or more days. |
|
Rivelli (2021)Footnote 23 Prospective cohort study US Mar 2020-Jan 2021 |
HCWs (n=2,625) from Illinois and Wisconsin with a COVID-19 history, proven by the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and a previous RT-PCR, were recruited and followed for up to 10 months. COVID-19 reinfection was defined by current CDC guidelines (subsequent COVID-19 infection ≥ 90 days from prior infection). For those with more than two positive PCR results, the second documented infection that was closest to 90 or more days from the prior infection was included. |
|
Abo-Leyah (2021)Footnote 14 Prospective cohort Scotland May-Dec 2020 |
Health and social care workers (n=2063) were followed in this study. The Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay was used to establish seroprevalence in this cohort. New infections post antibody testing were recorded to determine whether the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies protects against reinfection. |
|
Dimeglio (2021)Footnote 8 Prospective cohort France Jun-Dec 2020 |
Healthcare workers (n=8758) were screened for serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibodies and neutralizing antibody titers after the first wave of epidemic (June/July). Serology was investigated over time and new infections were identified during follow-up in Nov/Dec. |
|
Lumley (2020)Footnote 7 Prospective cohort UK Apr-Nov 2020 |
Followed asymptomatic and symptomatic staff (n=12,541) at Oxford University Hospitals for up to 31 weeks to estimate the relative incidence of PCR-positive test results and new symptomatic infection according to antibody status. |
|
Letizia (2021)Footnote 15 Prospective cohort US May-Nov 2020 |
This analysis was performed as part of the prospective COVID-19 Health Action Response for Marines study (CHARM) which includes predominately male US Marine recruits, young healthy adults. Baseline SARS-CoV-2 IgG seropositivity for RBD and spike proteins was assess during a 2 week quarantine period. PCR positivity was also assessed at 0, 1 and 2 weeks of the quarantine period and individuals were excluded at this stage if they had a positive PCR test. Following quarantine, a closed cohort of 3076 recruits went on to basic training where three PCR tests were done at weeks 2, 4, and 6 in both seropositive and seronegative groups. SARS-CoV-2 was in circulation at the training site despite quarantines. Time from initial infection, prior to training is not reported. Only IgG titers at enrollment are available as an indication of the potential protection against reinfection for each participant. |
|
Papasavas (2021)Footnote 18 Prospective cohort US May-Nov 2020 |
Healthcare workers (n=6863) were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 3 times (baseline, after 2-4 weeks, and after 3-6 months). Abbott Architect i2000 platform was used for the qualitative detection of IgG antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2. |
|
Cohen (2021)Footnote 49 Prospective cohort US Jul-Oct 2020 |
Adults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treated with in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) (n=2337) were assessed for the presence or absence of IgG against SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins at baseline and then assessed ~90 days later, and 3 more times monthly, for SARS-CoV-2 infection detected by RT-PCR. Two outcomes were considered. First, any SARS-CoV-2 infection, whether detected during routine clinical surveillance or via a protocolized PCR test at Visits 3, 4, or 5. The second outcome was only those SARS-CoV-2 infections detected during routine clinical surveillance (termed clinically manifest COVID-19), because these represent symptomatic infections. |
|
Iversen (2021)Footnote 17 Prospective cohort Denmark Apr-Oct 2020 |
Screening for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was offered 3 times during a 6 month period to HCWs in the Capital Region of Denmark. A total of 44,698 HCWs participated with 18,679 (42%) individuals participating in all 3 rounds. After each round, participants filled in an online survey and self-reported information about demographics, exposure to SARS-CoV-2, symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing. |
|
Rovida (2021)Footnote 16 Prospective cohort Italy Apr-Jun 2020 |
Healthcare workers (n=3810) were tested for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection according to serostatus determination (SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 and anti-S2 IgG antibody). Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected and tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity in subjects with symptoms suggestive for SARS-CoV-2 infection or in case of contact with infected subjects. |
|
LTE= letter to editor, RBD= receptor binding protein, IRR= incidence rate ratio, RR= risk ratio |
Study | Methods | Key outcomes |
---|---|---|
Circulating Antibody, B-cell and T-cell Immune Responses (n=5) | ||
12 months post infection | ||
Lu (2021)Footnote 29 Prospective cohort US Mar 2020–Mar 2021 |
12 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=29) this study investigated the function, phenotypes, and frequency of T-cells using intracellular cytokine staining and spectral flow cytometry. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were also examined using CYTEK Aurora 5-laser spectral flow cytometer. |
T-cells:
Antibodies:
|
Wang 2021Footnote 38 Prospective cohort US Feb 2020–Mar 2021 |
A cohort of 63 recovered from PCR confirmed COVID-19 were assessed at 1.3, 6.2 and 12 months post infection. (At 12 months 26 had received at least one dose of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer) 2-82 days before follow-up and are excluded from this summary.) 10% were hospitalized during infection, 44% and 14% reported persistent long-COVID symptoms at 6 and 12 months respectively. Serum SARS-CoV-2 RBD specific antibody levels were measured by ELISA, memory B-cells specific to SARS-CoV-2 RBD were measured by FLOW cytometry. Virus neutralization activity in serum samples, against the original variant and VOCs was measured. |
Immune responses among the unvaccinated (n=37) at 12 months post infection were as follows: Antibodies:
Memory B-cells:
|
Rank (2021)Footnote 26 Prospective cohort Germany Jul 2021* |
Antibodies (Spike1 IgG/IgA), neutralizing antibodies, Interferon gamma (IFN-γ), interleukin-2 (IL-2), SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+T- cells were measured in 83 convalescent plasma donors at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. IgG and IgA were analyzed with the Euroimmum ELISA assay. The ELISPOT Interferon-γ (IFNγ kit and IL-2 CoV-iSpot kit measure T-cell reaction against antigens based on secreted cytokines. The activation-induced marker (AIM) assay measured CD4+T-helper cells (THC, CD25hi CD134hi) through the upregulation surface activation induced markers. |
Antibodies:
T-cell:
Correlative Analysis:
|
Feng (2021)Footnote 31 Prospective cohort China Jan 2020–Feb 2021 |
204 convalescent patients admitted to hospital were followed for up to 12 months (280- 360 days, n=50 completing all four sampling points). Plasma S-IgG. RBD-IgA, RBD-IgG were measured through the Kangrun Biotech electrochemiluminescence immunoassay kits in addition to miconeutralization assays and T-cell responses through IFN-y ELISPOT assays. |
Antibodies:
NAbs:
T-cell:
|
Zhang (2021)Footnote 27 Prospective cohort China Jul 2020–Jan 2021 |
Antibodies (NAb, IgG, and IgM) and T-cell responses were measured in 101 convalescent cases at 6 and 12 months after symptom onset. A total of 74 participants had results at the 12 month mark with 56 having results at both time points. NAbs and Spike RBD IgG and IgM was measured both through microparticle chemiluminescence and ELISA. IFN-γ, IL-2, TNFα T-cell responses were measured in PBMC (fresh and cultivated) with ELISpot assays with four peptide pools: S1, S2, M and N. |
Antibodies:
T-cells:
|
T-cell Immune Response (n=1) |
||
15 months post infection |
||
Patterson (2021)Footnote 40 Prospective cohort US Jul 2021 (est) |
The presence of SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein was measured in 46 convalescent individuals. T-cell, B-cell, and monocytic subsets in both severe COVID-19 patients and in patients Post COVID-19 condition were included in the analysis. Non-classical monocytes were sorted from post COVID-19 condition patients using flow cytometric sorting and the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein was confirmed by mass spectrometry. PBMCs were screened for SARS-CoV-2 RNA using quantitative droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). |
15 months post infection:
|
Circulating Antibody Immune Responses (n=20) |
||
14-16 months post infection |
||
Yang (2021)Footnote 33 Prospective cohort China Jan 2020–May 2021 |
COVID-19 diagnosed patients were recruited between January and April 2020 (n=214) and followed as long as they were unvaccinated or were not reinfected, up to a maximum of 480 days (16 months ). Viral inhibition was measured against variants (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta and Lambda) in addition to the micro-neutralizations (NAbs) assay, the RBD and N protein IgG antibodies were measured by Sinobio. |
|
Dehgani-Mobaraki (2021)Footnote 43 Prospective cohort Italy Mar 2020–Jun 2021 |
35 PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases were followed up at 14 months post infection. Anti-Spike-Receptor binding domain IgG CLIA was used for analysis. (Updated analysis toFootnote 36Footnote 62 below.) |
Antibodies at 14 months:
|
11-13 months post infection |
||
Haveri (2021)Footnote 35 Prospective cohort Finland Oct 2020–May 2021 |
2586 confirmed COVID-19 patients were identified and invited to provide serum samples 5.9-9.9 months after infection. Among the 652 subjects that were unvaccinated at 1 year 367 were randomly selected for another sample 11.7-14.3 months post infection. Neutralization was tested by micro-neutralization assays detected NAbs against the original variant and variants of concern (VOC). SARS-CoV-2 fluorescent multiplex immunoassay (FMIA) has been previously described on the MAGPIX system. Microspheres conjugated with SARS-CoV-2 N and spike full length (SFL) and RBD of the spike protein were used to detect IgG antibodies. |
Antibodies:
VOCs:
|
Miyakawa (2021)Footnote 28 Prospective cohort Japan Jan–Mar 2021 |
358 patients (over 20 years old) who had a positive COVID-19 result (RT-PCR, RT-LAMP, or antigen tests) were recruited to submit serum between 5-8 months and 11.5-14.5 months. N-IgG and RBD IgG were measured using the Tosoh immunoassay AIA-CL1200 while neutralizing activity was determined through pseudovirus and rapid qualitative neutralizing assays. |
Antibodies:
VOCs:
|
Dehgani-Mobaraki (2021)Footnote 36 Prospective cohort Italy Mar 2020–May 2021 |
35 PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases were followed up at 12 and 13 months post infection. Anti-Spike-Receptor binding domain IgG CLIA was used for analysis. (Updated analysis to 62 below.) |
Antibodies at 12-13 months:
|
Shi (2021)Footnote 46 Prospective cohort China Jan 2020–Feb 2021 |
102 COVID-19 recovered inpatients had blood drawn at 7, 14, 30 days post symptom onset (POS), and 1-2, 2-4, 4-7 and 7-13 months POS to measure serum antibodies (IgG, IgM, IgA) against S, N and RBD and nAbs. Antibodies were measured by quantum dot (QD)-labeled lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA), in vitro microneutralization assay, and immunofluorescence. |
NAbs:
Antibodies at 7-13 months:
|
Pradenas (2021)Footnote 58 Prospective cohort Spain Mar 2020–Jun 2021 |
Patients with asymptomatic to severe COVID-19 from three waves (March- June 2020, July - December 2020, January - June 2021) were recruited to determine longitudinal neutralizing antibody responses with data on vaccination (not reported here) and VOCs. 139 unvaccinated individuals were followed up for a maximum of 458 days from symptom onset in the first wave. Neutralization Assays, pseudoviruses expressing SARS-CoV-2 S protein and Luciferase were generated against the original variant and variants of concern (VOC). |
Neutralizing antibodies:
VOCs:
|
Xiao (2021)Footnote 37 Prospective cohort China Jan 2020–Mar 2021 |
51 PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases were followed for 12 months after discharge. IgG and IgM were measured monthly by Antibody Detection Kit (magnetic particle chemiluminescence method) for Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) |
Antibodies:
|
Masiá (2021)Footnote 30 Prospective cohort Spain Mar 2020–Apr 2021 |
From 80 PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases, sequential samples were collected at 1,2, 6 and 12 months post discharge. S and N IgG protein levels were measured. |
Antibodies at 12 months:
|
Renk (2021)Footnote 41 Prospective cohort Germany May 2020–Jun 2021 |
A group of 553 children and 726 adults from 328 households with exposure to SARS-CoV-2 were studied. Samples collected at approximately 4 months and 12 months. Neutralization in a surrogate assay was used to evaluate neutralization potential. |
Antibodies at 12 months:
|
Chansaenroj (2021)Footnote 60 Prospective cohort Thailand Mar 2020–May 2021 |
A longitudinal cohort of 531 PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases was followed for 12 months with sampling points at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Only 229 provided multiple time point samples. Blood samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 anti-N IgG by chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay using the commercially available automated ARCHITECT system. |
Anti-N protein antibodies:
|
Zeng (2021)Footnote 47 Cross-sectional China Mar 2021 |
538 PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases were enrolled during their 1 year post COVID-19 follow-up in March 2021 in Wuhan. Blood samples were analysed using a CLIA for IgM and IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. |
Antibodies at 12 months:
|
Gallais (2021)Footnote 10 Prospective cohort France Apr 2020–May 2021 |
SARS-CoV-2 S protein and N protein antibodies were longitudinally measured in healthcare workers, including COVID-19 negative (n=916) and previously infected (n=393) individuals, using lateral flow assay and CLIA. Infected individuals were sampled at 1, 7-9, 11-13 month intervals. |
Lateral flow assay results:
CLIA results:
|
Petersen (2021)Footnote 45 Prospective cohort Faroe Islands Spring 2020, Fall 2020 |
Serum samples were collected longitudinally from Faroe Island residents with PCR confirmed COVID-19, at various time points between 1-12 months post infection, during the first and second infection waves in the region. Serum RBD specific IgG levels were measured by two ELISA assays. |
IgG RBD antibodies:
|
Li (2021)Footnote 44 Prospective cohort China Feb 2020–Jan 2021 |
869 donors for convalescent plasma transfusion were recruited and sampled up to 12 months, all had confirmed COVID-19. CE-marked coronavirus IgG antibody detection kit was used to test the titer of RBD specific IgG. |
RBD IgG positivity rates post diagnosis (titer cutoff <1:80):
|
Dobaño (2021)Footnote 32 Prospective cohort Spain Mar 2020–Apr 2021 |
Antibody levels and seropositivity was evaluated in a sample of primary health care workers (n=173), 149-270 days after symptom onset; serum samples were collected at 3 time points. A subset of unvaccinated HCWs were also tested at 322-379 days. Infections were confirmed by PCR. The majority of the sample was mild to moderate cases, and 14% were hospitalized. Levels of S protein and RBD IgM, IgA and IgG antibodies were measured by assay (not specified). Factors associated with higher levels of antibodies were identified by stepwise multivariable regression analyses. |
Antibodies at 11.5–12.5 months:
Antibodies at 5-9 months after symptom onset:
|
Violán (2021)Footnote 34 Prospective cohort Spain Mar 2020–May 2021 |
Healthcare professionals (303 healthy, 72 asymptomatic, 367 mild-moderate, and 39 severe-critical) were recruited March 2020 with follow-up to May 15 2021. Repeat serological testing was carried out at 15, 30, 60, 90,180, 270, and 360 days after baseline visit. At the 360 day mark results were available for 109 individuals. Commercially available antiSARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM anti-N ELISA kits were used but kit name is not reported. Anti-spike (S) IgG ELISA using DECOV190 allowed for the quantitative determination of IgG class antibodies. |
Antibodies at 12 months:
Antibodies at 9 months:
|
Peng (2021)Footnote 42 Prospective cohort China Aug 2021(est) |
85 recovered patients were recruited from the Yongchuan Hospital, China to measure long term humoral immunity with measurements at 1, 3, 8, and 12 months. Anti- S IgM, IgG, and IgA and NAbs were measured using Bioscience Magnetic Chemiluminescence Enzyme Immunoassay Kits. |
Antibodies at 12 months:
IgG decreased 82.8% from month 1 to month 12, IgM decreased 96.4% from month 1 to month 12, and IgA decreased 89.4% month 1 to month 12. |
Zhan (2021)Footnote 29 Prospective cohort China Jan 2020–Jan 2021 |
121 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were recruited to analyze antibody level one year after infection (10 – 12 months). Data on antibodies were also collected from prior clinical trials within 1 month, 1- 2, and 3-months. Antibody tests included Livzon Diagnostics immunochromatographic assays, InnoDx chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay, and ELISA measuring RBD-IgG. Pseudovirus neutralization assays were conducted for neutralization activities. |
Antibodies:
VOCs:
|
est= date study conducted is approximated using publication date, LTE= letter to the editor. AIM = activation induced marker, ELISA = enzyme linked immunoassay, E protein = envelope, HCW = healthcare worker, Ig= Immunoglobulin antibodies, ICS = intracellular cytokine staining, IFN=interferon LTE= letter, LIPS = luciferase immunoprecipitation system assay, M protein = membrane, MN – microneutralization assay, NAb = neutralizing antibodies, N protein = nucleocapsid, ORF = open reading frame, PBMC = peripheral blood mononuclear cells, S = spike protein, RBD= receptor binding domain (d.a.o)=days post symptoms onset THC= specific T-helper cells Tcm = central memory T-cell (Tem) = effector memory T-cell |
Study | Methods | Key outcomes |
---|---|---|
Immunity from infection (n=6) | ||
Chivese (2021)Footnote 63 Systematic review NA Apr 2021 (est) |
A systematic review of 6 databases was conducted with a search date of April 1, 2021. Risk of bias was conducted. Random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was conducted. |
|
Chen (2021)Footnote 64 Systematic review NA Jul 2021 (est) |
A systematic review of 6 databases was conducted with a search date of July 8, 2021. PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021256932. 50% neutralization titers were extracted. No risk of bias was conducted. Random-effects meta-analysis of GMTs was conducted. |
|
Arkhipova-Jenkins (2021)Footnote 3 Living rapid review NA Mar 2021 (est) |
A rapid review that aims to synthesize evidence on the prevalence, levels, and durability of detectable antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection to determine if antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confer natural immunity. Relevant literature between Jan 1 and Dec 15, 2020 was included in the review. 444 observational studies were included in the review. |
|
Poland (2020)Footnote 1 Review NA Oct 2020 (est) |
This review discusses what was known about human humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 as of the search date Sept 24, 2020. |
|
Post (2020)Footnote 52 Systematic review NA Jun 2020 (est) |
A systematic review on antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 with a search date of June 26, 2020. 150 papers were included. Inclusion criteria included follow-up of greater than 28 days and measured antibody titres. High variability across includes studies and study designs was reported by the author. See appendix 2 for a figure on antibody kinetics over time. |
|
Shrotri (2021)Footnote 65 Systematic review NA Jun 2020 (est) |
A systematic review that critically evaluates and synthesises published and pre-print literature from Jan 2020-Jun 26 2020 on T-cell mediated immunity post SARS-CoV-2 infection. 61 publications included in the review. |
|
Reinfection (n=3) |
||
Shenai (2021)Footnote 66 Systematic Review NA Aug 2021 (est) |
A systematic review of studies reporting on the rate of infection among recovered and vaccinated individuals. Search was Aug 31, 2021 and included published and preprint papers. Risk of bias was New Castle Ottawa Scale. |
|
Kojima (2021)Footnote 67 Systematic Review NA Aug 2021 (est) |
A systematic review of studies reporting on reinfections. Search was Aug 18, 2021 and included published and preprint papers. Risk of bias was not conducted. |
|
Lo Muzio (2021)Footnote 24 Systematic Review NA Jul 2021 (est) |
A systematic review of studies reporting on reinfections. Search was Jul 31, 2021 and included published and preprint papers. Risk of bias was not conducted. A quality of reporting and risk of bias checklist was used. |
|
(est)=Search date or publication date when search date was not available was used. |
References
- 1
-
Poland GA, Ovsyannikova IG, Kennedy RB. SARS-CoV-2 immunity: Review and applications to phase 3 vaccine candidates. Lancet. 2020 Oct 13 DOI:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32137-1.
- 2
-
Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization. Interim guidelines for detecting cases of reinfection by SARS-CoV-2. Washington, D.C: PAHO/WHO; 2020.URL: https://www.paho.org/en/documents/interim-guidelines-detecting-cases-reinfection-sars-cov-2
- 3
-
Arkhipova-Jenkins I, Helfand M, Armstrong C, et al. Antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection and implications for immunity : A rapid living review. Ann Intern Med. 2021 Mar 16 DOI:10.7326/m20-7547.
- 4
-
Hall VJ, Foulkes S, Charlett A, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in england: A large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN). The Lancet. 2021 2021/04 DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00675-9.
- 5
-
Lumley SF, Rodger G, Constantinides B, et al. An observational cohort study on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and B.1.1.7 variant infection in healthcare workers by antibody and vaccination status. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Jul 3 DOI:10.1093/cid/ciab608.
- 6
-
Public Health England. SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England; Technical briefing 19. England: Public Health England; 2021. Report No.: July 23, 2021
- 7
-
Lumley SF, O'Donnell D, Stoesser NE, et al. Antibody status and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers. N Engl J Med. 2020 Dec 23 DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2034545.
- 8
-
Dimeglio C, Herin F, Miedougé M, et al. Protection of healthcare workers against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Jan 27 DOI:10.1093/cid/ciab069.
- 9
-
Krutikov M, Palmer T, Tut G, et al. Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to baseline antibody status in staff and residents of 100 long-term care facilities (VIVALDI): A prospective cohort study. The Lancet Healthy Longevity. 2021;2(6):e362-70. DOI:10.1016/S2666-7568(21)00093-3.
- 10
-
Gallais F, Gantner P, Bruel T, et al. Evolution of antibody responses up to 13 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk of reinfection. EBioMedicine. 2021 Aug 26;71:103561. DOI:10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103561.
- 11
-
Cohen C, Kleynhans J, von Gottberg A, et al. SARS-CoV-2 incidence, transmission and reinfection in a rural and an urban setting: Results of the PHIRST-C cohort study, south africa, 2020-2021. medRxiv. 2021:2021.07.20.21260855. DOI:10.1101/2021.07.20.21260855.
- 12
-
Finch E, Lowe R, Fischinger S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection and reinfection in a seroepidemiological workplace cohort in the united states. medRxiv. 2021:2021.05.04.21256609. DOI:10.1101/2021.05.04.21256609.
- 13
-
Wilkins JT, Hirschhorn LR, Gray EL, et al. Serologic status and SARS CoV-2 infection over 6-months of follow-up in healthcare workers in chicago: A cohort study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2021 Aug 9:1-29. DOI:10.1017/ice.2021.367.
- 14
-
Abo-Leyah H, Gallant S, Cassidy D, et al. The protective effect of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in scottish healthcare workers. ERJ Open Res. 2021 Apr;7(2) DOI:10.1183/23120541.00080-2021.
- 15
-
Letizia AG, Ge Y, Vangeti S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and subsequent infection risk in healthy young adults: A prospective cohort study. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2021 2021/04 DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00158-2.
- 16
-
Rovida F, Cassaniti I, Paolucci S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infections are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and are infrequently transmitted. medRxiv. 2021:2021.06.29.21259500. DOI:10.1101/2021.06.29.21259500.
- 17
-
Iversen K, Kristensen JH, Hasselbalch RB, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and reduced risk of reinfection through six months: A danish observational cohort study of 44,000 healthcare workers. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Sep 17 DOI:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.09.005.
- 18
-
Papasavas P, Olugbile S, Wu U, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, associated epidemiological factors and antibody kinetics among healthcare workers in connecticut. J Hosp Infect. 2021 DOI:10.1016/j.jhin.2021.04.021.
- 19
-
Maier HE, Kuan G, Saborio S, et al. Clinical spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infection and protection from symptomatic re-infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Aug 19 DOI:10.1093/cid/ciab717.
- 20
-
Kohler P, Güsewell S, Seneghini M, et al. Impact of baseline SARS-CoV-2 antibody status on syndromic surveillance and the risk of subsequent COVID-19-a prospective multicenter cohort study. BMC Med. 2021 Oct 14;19(1):270. DOI:10.1186/s12916-021-02144-9.
- 21
-
Atti A, Ferrari M, Castillo-Olivares J, et al. Serological profile of first SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cases detected within the SIREN study. J Infect. 2021 Sep 30 DOI:10.1016/j.jinf.2021.09.019.
- 22
-
La Raja M, Pacenti M, Grimaldi I, et al. COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors: Impact of vaccination on antibody levels, breakthrough infections and reinfection rate. medRxiv. 2021:2021.07.13.21260414. DOI:10.1101/2021.07.13.21260414.
- 23
-
Rivelli A, Fitzpatrick V, Blair C, et al. Incidence of COVID-19 reinfection among midwestern healthcare employees. medRxiv. 2021:2021.09.07.21263100.
- 24
-
Lo Muzio L, Ambosino M, Lo Muzio E, et al. Sars-cov-2 reinfection is a new challenge for the effectiveness of global vaccination campaign: A systematic review of cases reported in literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(20) DOI:10.3390/ijerph182011001.
- 25
-
Martino M, Aboud N, Cola MF, et al. PMC7499003; impact of COVID-19 pandemic on psychophysical stress in patients with adrenal insufficiency: The CORTI-COVID study. J Endocrinol Invest. 2021 May;44(5):1075-84. DOI:10.1007/s40618-020-01422-2.
- 26
-
Rank A, Tzortzini A, Kling E, et al. One year after mild covid-19: The majority of patients maintain specific immunity, but one in four still suffer from long-term symptoms. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021;10(15) DOI:10.3390/jcm10153305.
- 27
-
Zhan Y, Zhu Y, Wang S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 immunity and functional recovery of COVID-19 patients 1-year after infection. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2021 Oct 13;6(1):368. DOI:10.1038/s41392-021-00777-z.
- 28
-
Miyakawa K, Kubo S, Jeremiah SS, et al. Persistence of robust humoral immune response in COVID-19 convalescent individuals over 12 months after infection. medRxiv. 2021:2021.09.27.21264013. DOI:10.1101/2021.09.27.21264013.
- 29
-
Zhang J, Lin H, Ye B, et al. One-year sustained cellular and humoral immunities of COVID-19 convalescents. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Oct 5 DOI:10.1093/cid/ciab884.
- 30
-
Masiá M, Fernández-González M, Telenti G, et al. Durable antibody response one year after hospitalization for COVID-19: A longitudinal cohort study. J Autoimmun. 2021;123 DOI:10.1016/j.jaut.2021.102703.
- 31
-
Feng C, Shi J, Fan Q, et al. Protective humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 persist up to 1 year after recovery. Nat Commun. 2021 Aug 17;12(1):4984. DOI:10.1038/s41467-021-25312-0.
- 32
-
Dobaño C, Ramírez-Morros A, Alonso S, et al. Persistence and baseline determinants of seropositivity and reinfection rates in health care workers up to 12.5 months after COVID-19. BMC Med. 2021 Jun 28;19(1):155. DOI:10.1186/s12916-021-02032-2.
- 33
-
Yang Y, Yang M, Peng Y, et al. Persistent while declined neutralizing antibody responses in the convalescents of COVID-19 across clinical spectrum during the 16 months follow up. medRxiv. 2021:2021.09.18.21263550. DOI:10.1101/2021.09.18.21263550.
- 34
-
Violan C, Toran P, Quirant B, et al. Antibody kinetics to SARS-CoV-2 at 13.5 months, by disease severity. medRxiv. 2021:2021.09.10.21262527. DOI:10.1101/2021.09.10.21262527.
- 35
-
Haveri A, Ekström N, Solastie A, et al. Persistence of neutralizing antibodies a year after SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans. Eur J Immunol. 2021 Sep 27 DOI:10.1002/eji.202149535.
- 36
-
Dehgani-Mobaraki P, Kamber Zaidi A, Porreca A, et al. Neutralizing antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain 13 months after the recovery from the disease. Ann Ig. 2021 Aug 3 DOI:10.7416/ai.2021.2466.
- 37
-
Xiao K, Yang H, Liu B, et al. Antibodies can last for more than 1 year after SARS-CoV-2 infection: A follow-up study from survivors of COVID-19. Frontiers in Medicine. 2021;8 DOI:10.3389/fmed.2021.684864.
- 38
-
Wang Z, Muecksch F, Schaefer-Babajew D, et al. Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 one year after infection. Nature. 2021 Jun 14 DOI:10.1038/s41586-021-03696-9.
- 39
-
Lu Z, Laing ED, Pena DaMata J, et al. Durability of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses at 12-months post-infection. J Infect Dis. 2021 Oct 21 DOI:10.1093/infdis/jiab543.
- 40
-
Patterson BK, Francisco EB, Yogendra R, et al. Persistence of SARS CoV-2 S1 protein in CD16+ monocytes in post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) up to 15 months post-infection. bioRxiv. 2021:2021.06.25.449905. DOI:10.1101/2021.06.25.449905.
- 41
-
Renk H, Dulovic A, Becker M, et al. Typically asymptomatic but with robust antibody formation: Childrens unique humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. medRxiv. 2021:2021.07.20.21260863. DOI:10.1101/2021.07.20.21260863.
- 42
-
Peng P, Deng HJ, Hu J, et al. Humoral responses in naive or SARS-CoV-2 experienced individuals vaccinated with an inactivated vaccine. Cell Discov. 2021 Aug 17;7(1):68. DOI:10.1038/s41421-021-00311-z.
- 43
-
Zaidi Ak, Dehgani-Mobaraki P, Yadav N, et al. Longitudinal observation of antibody responses after SARS-CoV-2 infection at 14 months. Research Square prepub. 2021 DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-618366/v1.
- 44
-
Li C, Yu D, Wu X, et al. Twelve-month specific IgG response to SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain among COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors in wuhan. Nat Commun. 2021 Jul 6;12(1):4144. DOI:10.1038/s41467-021-24230-5.
- 45
-
Petersen MS, Hansen CB, Kristiansen MF, et al. SARS-CoV-2 natural antibody response persists for at least 12 months in a nationwide study from the faroe islands. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8(8):ofab378. DOI:10.1093/ofid/ofab378. URL:https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab378
- 46
-
Shi D, Weng T, Wu J, et al. Dynamic characteristic analysis of antibodies in patients with COVID-19: A 13-month study. Frontiers in Immunology. 2021;12 DOI:10.3389/fimmu.2021.708184.
- 47
-
Zeng F, Wu M, Wang J, et al. Over one-year duration and age difference of SARS-CoV-2 antibody in convalescent COVID-19 patients. J Med Virol. 2021 Jun 25 DOI:10.1002/jmv.27152.
- 48
-
Shinde V, Bhikha S, Hoosain Z, et al. Efficacy of NVX-CoV2373 covid-19 vaccine against the B.1.351 variant. N Engl J Med. 2021 May 5 DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa2103055.
- 49
-
Cohen D, Sibbel S, Marlowe G, et al. Antibody status, disease history, and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients on chronic dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021 Jul 2 DOI:10.1681/asn.2021030387.
- 50
-
Clarke CL, Prendecki M, Dhutia A, et al. Longevity of SARS-CoV-2 immune responses in hemodialysis patients and protection against reinfection. Kidney Int. 2021 Mar 24 DOI:10.1016/j.kint.2021.03.009.
- 51
-
Banerjee A, Gaikwad B, Desale A, et al. Reinfection after natural infection with SARS-CoV-2: A cohort study. SSRN- Lancet prepublication. 2021
- 52
-
Post N, Eddy D, Huntley C, et al. Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0244126. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0244126.
- 53
-
Sonnleitner ST, Prelog M, Jansen B, et al. Maintenance of neutralizing antibodies over ten months in convalescent SARS-CoV-2 afflicted patients. Transbound Emerg Dis. 2021 May 7 DOI:10.1111/tbed.14130.
- 54
-
Kahre E, Galow L, Unrath M, et al. Kinetics and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: A comparison of 3 different assays. Sci Rep. 2021 Jul 21;11(1):14893. DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-94453-5.
- 55
-
Perez-Saez J, Zaballa ME, Yerly S, et al. PMC8261139; persistence of anti-sars-cov-2 antibodies: Immunoassay heterogeneity and implications for serosurveillance. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Jul 7 DOI:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.06.040.
- 56
-
Vengesai A, Midzi H, Kasambala M, et al. A systematic and meta-analysis review on the diagnostic accuracy of antibodies in the serological diagnosis of COVID-19. Syst Rev. 2021 May 26;10(1):155. DOI:10.1186/s13643-021-01689-3.
- 57
-
Lu L, Xiong W, Mu J, et al. Neurological side effects of COVID-19 vaccines are rare. Acta Neurol Scand. 2021 May 17 DOI:10.1111/ane.13444.
- 58
-
Pradenas E, Trinité B, Urrea V, et al. Clinical course impacts early kinetics and long-term magnitude and amplitude of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies beyond one year after infection. medRxiv. 2021:2021.08.12.21261921. DOI:10.1101/2021.08.12.21261921.
- 59
-
Yamamura E, Tsustsui Y. PMC8184870; school closures and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in japan. J Popul Econ. 2021 Jun 8:1-38. DOI:10.1007/s00148-021-00844-3.
- 60
-
Chansaenroj J, Yorsaeng R, Posuwan N, et al. Long-term specific IgG response to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein in recovered COVID-19 patients. Research Square prepub. 2021 DOI:10.21203/rs.3.rs-608525/v1.
- 61
-
Ronchini C, Gandini S, Pasqualato S, et al. Lower probability and shorter duration of infections after covid-19 vaccine correlate with anti-SARS-CoV-2 circulating IgGs. medRxiv. 2021:2021.09.24.21263978. DOI:10.1101/2021.09.24.21263978.
- 62
-
Dehgani-Mobaraki P, Kamber Zaidi A, Porreca A, et al. Antibody persistency and trend post-SARS-CoV-2 infection at eight months. Ann Ig. 2021 Jun 11 DOI:10.7416/ai.2021.2455.
- 63
-
Chivese T, Matizanadzo JT, Musa OAH, et al. The prevalence of adaptive immunity to COVID-19 and reinfection after recovery – a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 011 447 individuals. medRxiv. 2021:2021.09.03.21263103. DOI:10.1101/2021.09.03.21263103.
- 64
-
Chen X, Chen Z, Azman AS, et al. Neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants induced by natural infection or vaccination: A systematic review and pooled meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Jul 24 DOI:10.1093/cid/ciab646.
- 65
-
Shrotri M, van Schalkwyk, M. C. I., Post N, et al. T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2021;16(1):e0245532. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0245532.
- 66
-
Shenai MB, Rahme R, Noorchasm H. Equivalency of protection from natural immunity in COVID-19 recovered versus fully vaccinated persons: A systematic review and pooled analysis. medRxiv. 2021:2021.09.12.21263461. DOI:10.1101/2021.09.12.21263461.
- 67
-
Kojima N, Shrestha NK, Klausner JD. A systematic review of the protective effect of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on repeat infection. Eval Health Prof. 2021 Sep 30:1632787211047932. DOI:10.1177/01632787211047932.
Report a problem or mistake on this page
- Date modified: