Christine Eucher

Bio: Christine Eucher is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Serology & Antigen. The author has an hindex of 11, co-authored 16 publications receiving 288 citations.

Antibody titres decline 3-month post-vaccination with BNT162b2.

Abstract: Several studies reported on the humoral response in subjects having received the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. However, data on the kinetics of antibodies 3 months post-vaccination are currently ...

Clinical Performance of the Elecsys Electrochemiluminescent Immunoassay for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Total Antibodies.

Abstract: Julien Favresse1,2*, Christine Eucher1, Marc Elsen1, Tré-Hardy Marie2,3, Jean-Michel Dogné2, Jonathan Douxfils2,4. 1 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Clinique St-Luc Bouge, Namur, Belgium. 2 Department of Pharmacy, Namur Research Institute for LIfes Sciences, University of Namur, Belgium 3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, Iris Hospitals South, Brussels, Belgium. 4 Qualiblood sa, Namur, Belgium *Correspondence: Julien Favresse Department of Laboratory Medicine, Clinique Saint-Luc Bouge 8 Rue Saint-Luc, B-5000 Bouge, Belgium Phone +32 81 20 91 44 Email: j.favresse@labstluc.be Running title: Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 evaluation.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Rapid and Automated Antigen Detection Tests for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Abstract: (1) Background: The detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal samples through real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is considered the standard gold method for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antigen detection (AD) tests are more rapid, less laborious, and less expensive alternatives but still require clinical validation. (2) Methods: This study compared the clinical performance of five AD tests, including four rapid AD (RAD) tests (biotical, Panbio, Healgen, and Roche) and one automated AD test (VITROS). For that purpose, 118 (62.8%) symptomatic patients and 70 (37.2%) asymptomatic subjects were tested, and results were compared to RT-PCR. (3) Results: The performance of the RAD tests was modest and allowed us to identify RT-PCR positive patients with higher viral loads. For Ct values ≤25, the sensitivity ranged from 93.1% (95% CI: 83.3-98.1%) to 96.6% (95% CI: 88.1-99.6%), meaning that some samples with high viral loads were missed. Considering the Ct value proposed by the CDC for contagiousness (i.e., Ct values ≤33) sensitivities ranged from 76.2% (95% CI: 65.4-85.1%) to 88.8% (95% CI: 79.7-94.7%) while the specificity ranged from 96.3% (95% CI: 90.8-99.0%) to 99.1% (95% CI: 95.0-100%). The VITROS automated assay showed a 100% (95% CI: 95.5-100%) sensitivity for Ct values ≤33, and had a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 96.6-100%); (4) Conclusions: Compared to RAD tests, the VITROS assay fully aligned with RT-PCR for Ct values up to 33, which might allow a faster, easier and cheaper identification of SARS-CoV-2 contagious patients.

Neutralizing Antibodies in COVID-19 Patients and Vaccine Recipients after Two Doses of BNT162b2.

Abstract: The evaluation of the neutralizing capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is important because they represent real protective immunity. In this study we aimed to measure and compare the neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) in COVID-19 patients and in vaccinated individuals. One-hundred and fifty long-term samples from 75 COVID-19 patients were analyzed with a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) and compared to six different SARS-CoV-2 serology assays. The agreement between the sVNT and pseudovirus VNT (pVNT) results was found to be excellent (i.e., 97.2%). The NAb response was also assessed in 90 individuals who had received the complete dose regimen of BNT162b2. In COVID-19 patients, a stronger response was observed in moderate-severe versus mild patients (p-value = 0.0006). A slow decay in NAbs was noted in samples for up to 300 days after diagnosis, especially in moderate-severe patients (r = -0.35, p-value = 0.03). In the vaccinated population, 83.3% of COVID-19-naive individuals had positive NAbs 14 days after the first dose and all were positive 7 days after the second dose, i.e., at day 28. In previously infected individuals, all were already positive for NAbs at day 14. At each time point, a stronger response was observed for previously infected individuals (p-value < 0.05). The NAb response remained stable for up to 56 days in all participants. Vaccinated participants had significantly higher NAb titers compared to COVID patients. In previously infected vaccine recipients, one dose might be sufficient to generate sufficient neutralizing antibodies.

Immunogenicity and safety of a third dose of CoronaVac, and immune persistence of a two-dose schedule, in healthy adults: interim results from two single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trials

Abstract: BackgroundLarge-scale vaccination against COVID-19 is being implemented in many countries with CoronaVac, an inactivated vaccine. We aimed to assess the immune persistence of a two-dose schedule of CoronaVac, and the immunogenicity and safety of a third dose of CoronaVac, in healthy adults aged 18 years and older.MethodsIn the first of two single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trials, adults aged 18–59 years in Jiangsu, China, were initially allocated (1:1) into two vaccination schedule cohorts: a day 0 and day 14 vaccination cohort (cohort 1) and a day 0 and day 28 vaccination cohort (cohort 2); each cohort was randomly assigned (2:2:1) to either a 3 μg dose or 6 μg dose of CoronaVac or a placebo group. Following a protocol amendment on Dec 25, 2020, half of the participants in each cohort were allocated to receive an additional dose 28 days (window period 30 days) after the second dose, and the other half were allocated to receive a third dose 6 months (window period 60 days) after the second dose. In the other phase 2 trial, in Hebei, China, participants aged 60 years and older were assigned sequentially to receive three injections of either 1·5 μg, 3 μg, or 6 μg of vaccine or placebo, administered 28 days apart for the first two doses and 6 months (window period 90 days) apart for doses two and three. The main outcomes of the study were geometric mean titres (GMTs), geometric mean increases (GMIs), and seropositivity of neutralising antibody to SARS-CoV-2 (virus strain SARS-CoV-2/human/CHN/CN1/2020, GenBank accession number MT407649.1), as analysed in the per-protocol population (all participants who completed their assigned third dose). Our reporting is focused on the 3 μg groups, since 3 μg is the licensed formulation. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04352608 and NCT04383574.Findings540 (90%) of 600 participants aged 18–59 years were eligible to receive a third dose, of whom 269 (50%) received the primary third dose 2 months after the second dose (cohorts 1a-14d-2m and 2a-28d-2m) and 271 (50%) received a booster dose 8 months after the second dose (cohorts 1b-14d-8m and 2b-28d-8m). In the 3 μg group, neutralising antibody titres induced by the first two doses declined after 6 months to near or below the seropositive cutoff (GMT of 8) for cohort 1b-14d-8m (n=53; GMT 3·9 [95% CI 3·1–5·0]) and for cohort 2b-28d-8m (n=49; 6·8 [5·2–8·8]). When a booster dose was given 8 months after a second dose, GMTs assessed 14 days later increased to 137·9 (95% CI 99·9–190·4) for cohort 1b-14d-8m and 143·1 (110·8–184·7) 28 days later for cohort 2b-28d-8m. GMTs moderately increased following a primary third dose, from 21·8 (95% CI 17·3–27·6) on day 28 after the second dose to 45·8 (35·7–58·9) on day 28 after the third dose in cohort 1a-14d-2m (n=54), and from 38·1 (28·4–51·1) to 49·7 (39·9–61·9) in cohort 2a-28d-2m (n=53). GMTs had decayed to near the positive threshold by 6 months after the third dose: GMT 9·2 (95% CI 7·1–12·0) in cohort 1a-14d-2m and 10·0 (7·3–13·7) in cohort 2a-28d-2m. Similarly, in adults aged 60 years and older who received booster doses (303 [87%] of 350 participants were eligible to receive a third dose), neutralising antibody titres had declined to near or below the seropositive threshold by 6 months after the primary two-dose series. A third dose given 8 months after the second dose significantly increased neutralising antibody concentrations: GMTs increased from 42·9 (95% CI 31·0–59·4) on day 28 after the second dose to 158·5 (96·6–259·2) on day 28 following the third dose (n=29). All adverse reactions reported within 28 days after a third dose were of grade 1 or 2 severity in all vaccination cohorts. There were three serious adverse events (2%) reported by the 150 participants in cohort 1a-14d-2m, four (3%) by 150 participants from cohort 1b-14d-8m, one (1%) by 150 participants in each of cohorts 2a-28d-2m and 2b-28d-8m, and 24 (7%) by 349 participants from cohort 3-28d-8m.InterpretationA third dose of CoronaVac in adults administered 8 months after a second dose effectively recalled specific immune responses to SARS-CoV-2, which had declined substantially 6 months after two doses of CoronaVac, resulting in a remarkable increase in the concentration of antibodies and indicating that a two-dose schedule generates good immune memory, and a primary third dose given 2 months after the second dose induced slightly higher antibody titres than the primary two doses.FundingNational Key Research and Development Program, Beijing Science and Technology Program, and Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China.TranslationFor the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section. Large-scale vaccination against COVID-19 is being implemented in many countries with CoronaVac, an inactivated vaccine. We aimed to assess the immune persistence of a two-dose schedule of CoronaVac, and the immunogenicity and safety of a third dose of CoronaVac, in healthy adults aged 18 years and older. In the first of two single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trials, adults aged 18–59 years in Jiangsu, China, were initially allocated (1:1) into two vaccination schedule cohorts: a day 0 and day 14 vaccination cohort (cohort 1) and a day 0 and day 28 vaccination cohort (cohort 2); each cohort was randomly assigned (2:2:1) to either a 3 μg dose or 6 μg dose of CoronaVac or a placebo group. Following a protocol amendment on Dec 25, 2020, half of the participants in each cohort were allocated to receive an additional dose 28 days (window period 30 days) after the second dose, and the other half were allocated to receive a third dose 6 months (window period 60 days) after the second dose. In the other phase 2 trial, in Hebei, China, participants aged 60 years and older were assigned sequentially to receive three injections of either 1·5 μg, 3 μg, or 6 μg of vaccine or placebo, administered 28 days apart for the first two doses and 6 months (window period 90 days) apart for doses two and three. The main outcomes of the study were geometric mean titres (GMTs), geometric mean increases (GMIs), and seropositivity of neutralising antibody to SARS-CoV-2 (virus strain SARS-CoV-2/human/CHN/CN1/2020, GenBank accession number MT407649.1), as analysed in the per-protocol population (all participants who completed their assigned third dose). Our reporting is focused on the 3 μg groups, since 3 μg is the licensed formulation. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04352608 and NCT04383574. 540 (90%) of 600 participants aged 18–59 years were eligible to receive a third dose, of whom 269 (50%) received the primary third dose 2 months after the second dose (cohorts 1a-14d-2m and 2a-28d-2m) and 271 (50%) received a booster dose 8 months after the second dose (cohorts 1b-14d-8m and 2b-28d-8m). In the 3 μg group, neutralising antibody titres induced by the first two doses declined after 6 months to near or below the seropositive cutoff (GMT of 8) for cohort 1b-14d-8m (n=53; GMT 3·9 [95% CI 3·1–5·0]) and for cohort 2b-28d-8m (n=49; 6·8 [5·2–8·8]). When a booster dose was given 8 months after a second dose, GMTs assessed 14 days later increased to 137·9 (95% CI 99·9–190·4) for cohort 1b-14d-8m and 143·1 (110·8–184·7) 28 days later for cohort 2b-28d-8m. GMTs moderately increased following a primary third dose, from 21·8 (95% CI 17·3–27·6) on day 28 after the second dose to 45·8 (35·7–58·9) on day 28 after the third dose in cohort 1a-14d-2m (n=54), and from 38·1 (28·4–51·1) to 49·7 (39·9–61·9) in cohort 2a-28d-2m (n=53). GMTs had decayed to near the positive threshold by 6 months after the third dose: GMT 9·2 (95% CI 7·1–12·0) in cohort 1a-14d-2m and 10·0 (7·3–13·7) in cohort 2a-28d-2m. Similarly, in adults aged 60 years and older who received booster doses (303 [87%] of 350 participants were eligible to receive a third dose), neutralising antibody titres had declined to near or below the seropositive threshold by 6 months after the primary two-dose series. A third dose given 8 months after the second dose significantly increased neutralising antibody concentrations: GMTs increased from 42·9 (95% CI 31·0–59·4) on day 28 after the second dose to 158·5 (96·6–259·2) on day 28 following the third dose (n=29). All adverse reactions reported within 28 days after a third dose were of grade 1 or 2 severity in all vaccination cohorts. There were three serious adverse events (2%) reported by the 150 participants in cohort 1a-14d-2m, four (3%) by 150 participants from cohort 1b-14d-8m, one (1%) by 150 participants in each of cohorts 2a-28d-2m and 2b-28d-8m, and 24 (7%) by 349 participants from cohort 3-28d-8m. A third dose of CoronaVac in adults administered 8 months after a second dose effectively recalled specific immune responses to SARS-CoV-2, which had declined substantially 6 months after two doses of CoronaVac, resulting in a remarkable increase in the concentration of antibodies and indicating that a two-dose schedule generates good immune memory, and a primary third dose given 2 months after the second dose induced slightly higher antibody titres than the primary two doses.

Accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. Methods and findings We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting. Conclusions In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

Vaccination in the elderly: an immunological perspective

Abstract: Successful vaccination of the elderly against important infectious pathogens that cause high morbidity and mortality represents a growing public health priority. Building on the theme of aging and immunosenescence, we review mechanisms of human immunosenescence and the immune response to currently licensed vaccines. We discuss the difficulties in identifying the risk factors that, in addition to aging, cause immunosenescence and address the relative paucity of vaccine studies in the elderly. We conclude that vaccine responses are blunted in the elderly compared with that of healthy young adults. However, it is also clear that our understanding of the mechanisms underlying immunosenescence is limited and much remains to be learned to improve the effectiveness of next generation vaccines.

The accuracy of novel antigen rapid diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: Background SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs. Methods We registered the review on PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix and bioRvix, FINDdx) for publications up until December 11th, 2020. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed and when more than four studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses ((1) performed con-form with manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU) or not, (2) symptomatic vs. asymptomatic, (3) duration of symptoms less than seven days vs. more than seven days, (4) Ct-value Results From a total of 11,715 articles, we extracted 98 analytical and clinical data sets. 74 clinical accuracy data sets were evaluated that included 31,202 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity was 73.8% (CI 68.6 to 78.5). If analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions using fresh upper respiratory swab samples, the sensitivity increased to 79.1% (95%CI 75.0 to 82.8). The SD Biosensor Standard Q and Abbott Panbio showed the highest sensitivity with 81.7% and 72.7%, respectively. The best Ag-RDT performance was found with nasopharyngeal sampling (77.3%, CI 72.0 to 81.9) in comparison to other sample types (e.g., anterior nasal or mid turbinate 63.5%, CI 49.5 to 75.5). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in higher sensitivity (87.5%, CI 86.0 to 89.1) compared to testing after one week (64.1%, CI 54.4 to 73.8). The tests performed markedly better on samples with lower Ct-values, i.e., Conclusion As Ag-RDTs detect most cases within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load, they can have high utility for screening purposes in the early phase of disease, and thus can be a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization of conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data. Summary In this living systematic review we analyzed 98 data sets for performance of SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs compared to RT-PCR. Best-performing tests achieved a sensitivity of 81.7%. Highest sensitivity was found in patients within seven days of symptom onset when NP swabs were utilized.