COVID-19 Response Team, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2022 Nov;43(11):1610-1617. doi: 10.1017/ice.2021.484. Epub 2021 Nov 22.
To characterize and compare severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific immune responses in plasma and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) from nursing home residents during and after natural infection.
Prospective cohort.
Nursing home.
SARS-CoV-2-infected nursing home residents.
A convenience sample of 14 SARS-CoV-2-infected nursing home residents, enrolled 4-13 days after real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction diagnosis, were followed for 42 days. After diagnosis, plasma SARS-CoV-2-specific pan-Immunoglobulin (Ig), IgG, IgA, IgM, and neutralizing antibodies were measured at 5 time points, and GCF SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and IgA were measured at 4 time points.
All participants demonstrated immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among 12 phlebotomized participants, plasma was positive for pan-Ig and IgG in all 12 participants. Neutralizing antibodies were positive in 11 participants; IgM was positive in 10 participants, and IgA was positive in 9 participants. Among 14 participants with GCF specimens, GCF was positive for IgG in 13 participants and for IgA in 12 participants. Immunoglobulin responses in plasma and GCF had similar kinetics; median times to peak antibody response were similar across specimen types (4 weeks for IgG; 3 weeks for IgA). Participants with pan-Ig, IgG, and IgA detected in plasma and GCF IgG remained positive throughout this evaluation, 46-55 days after diagnosis. All participants were viral-culture negative by the first detection of antibodies.
Nursing home residents had detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in plasma and GCF after infection. Kinetics of antibodies detected in GCF mirrored those from plasma. Noninvasive GCF may be useful for detecting and monitoring immunologic responses in populations unable or unwilling to be phlebotomized.
在自然感染期间和之后，描述并比较养老院居民血浆和龈沟液（gingival crevicular fluid，GCF）中严重急性呼吸冠状病毒 2（severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2，SARS-CoV-2）特异性免疫应答。
前瞻性队列研究。
养老院。
感染 SARS-CoV-2 的养老院居民。
选择了 14 名感染 SARS-CoV-2 的养老院居民，在实时逆转录聚合酶链反应（reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction，RT-PCR）诊断后 4-13 天内入组，随访 42 天。诊断后，在 5 个时间点测量血浆 SARS-CoV-2 特异性全免疫球蛋白（pan-Immunoglobulin，Ig）、IgG、IgA、IgM 和中和抗体，并在 4 个时间点测量 GCF SARS-CoV-2 特异性 IgG 和 IgA。
所有参与者均对 SARS-CoV-2 感染产生免疫应答。在 12 名接受静脉采血的参与者中，12 名参与者的血浆均为 pan-Ig 和 IgG 阳性。11 名参与者的中和抗体为阳性；10 名参与者的 IgM 为阳性，9 名参与者的 IgA 为阳性。在 14 名有 GCF 标本的参与者中，13 名参与者的 GCF 中 IgG 为阳性，12 名参与者的 GCF 中 IgA 为阳性。血浆和 GCF 中的免疫球蛋白反应具有相似的动力学；在所有标本类型中，抗体反应达到峰值的中位时间相似（IgG 为 4 周，IgA 为 3 周）。在诊断后 46-55 天，所有参与者的血浆和 GCF 中均检测到 pan-Ig、IgG 和 IgA，且仍为阳性。所有参与者在首次检测到抗体时，病毒培养均为阴性。
感染后，养老院居民的血浆和 GCF 中可检测到 SARS-CoV-2 抗体。GCF 中检测到的抗体动力学与血浆中的相似。对于不能或不愿静脉采血的人群，非侵入性的 GCF 可能有助于检测和监测免疫反应。
