Data about the long-term duration of antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are still scarce and are important to design vaccination strategies. In this study, 231 healthcare professionals received the two-dose regimen of BNT162b2. Of these, 158 were seronegative and 73 were seropositive at baseline. Samples were collected at several time points. The neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) and antibodies against the nucleocapsid and the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 were measured. At day 180, a significant antibody decline was observed in seronegative (−55.4% with total antibody assay; −89.6% with IgG assay) and seropositive individuals (−74.8% with total antibody assay; −79.4% with IgG assay). The estimated half-life of IgG from the peak humoral response was 21 days (95% CI: 13–65) in seronegative and 53 days (95% CI: 40–79) in seropositive individuals. The estimated half-life of total antibodies was longer and ranged from 68 days (95% CI: 54–90) to 114 days (95% CI: 87–167) in seropositive and seronegative individuals, respectively. The decline of NAbs was more pronounced (−98.6%) and around 45% of the subjects tested were negative at day 180. Whether this decrease correlates with an equivalent drop in the clinical effectiveness against the virus would require appropriate clinical studies.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been licensed worldwide for several years for various indications. Each year, 10–15% of patients on oral anticoagulants will undergo an invasive procedure and expert groups have issued several guidelines on perioperative management in such situations. The perioperative guidelines have undergone numerous updates as clinical experience of emergency management has increased and perioperative studies including measurement of residual anticoagulant levels have been published. The high inter-patient variability of DOAC plasma levels has challenged the traditional recommendation that perioperative DOAC interruption should be based only on the elimination half-life of DOACs, especially before invasive procedures carrying a high risk of bleeding. Furthermore, recent publications have highlighted the potential danger of heparin bridging use when DOACs are stopped before an invasive procedure. As antidotes are progressively becoming available to manage severe bleeding or urgent procedures in patients on DOACs, accurate laboratory tests have become the standard to guide their administration and their actions need to be well understood by clinicians. This review aims to provide a systematic approach to managing patients on DOACs, based on recent updates of various perioperative guidance, and highlighting the advantages and limits of recommendations based on pharmacokinetic properties and laboratory tests.

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.

A rapid and accurate diagnosis in patients with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is essential for patient management but remains challenging. Current HIT diagnosis ideally relies on a combination of clinical information, immunoassay and functional assay results. Platelet activation assays or functional assays detect HIT antibodies that are more clinically significant. Several functional assays have been developed and evaluated in the literature. They differ in the activation endpoint studied; the technique or technology used; the platelet donor selection; the platelet suspension (washed platelets, platelet rich plasma or whole blood); the patient sample (serum or plasma); and the heparin used (type and concentrations). Inconsistencies in controls performed and associated results interpretation are common. Thresholds and performances are determined differently among papers. Functional assays suffer from interlaboratory variability. This lack of standardization limits the evaluation and the accessibility of functional assays in laboratories. In the present article, we review all the current activation endpoints, techniques and methodologies of functional assays developed for HIT diagnosis.

(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.

Serious bleeding events have been frequently described in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). In secondary analyses of phase 3 trials, DOAC plasma concentrations were shown to correlate with bleeding outcomes. This study aimed to describe rivaroxaban plasma levels in patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) for bleeding events. For each patient, risk factors for experiencing bleeding events were also investigated. This analysis was part of an observational study conducted in the ED of two teaching hospitals. Plasma samples from 10 rivaroxaban-treated patients admitted for bleeding events were collected. Rivaroxaban plasma concentrations were determined by calibrated chromogenic anti-Xa assay. The measured rivaroxaban levels were then extrapolated at trough using a published population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model, and compared to on-therapy ranges observed in large clinical trials. For each patient, clinical, medication and ABCB1 genotype data were collected. Rivaroxaban measurements varied from 5 to 358 ng/ml, with a post-intake delay ranging from 9 to 38 h. At trough, estimated plasma concentrations were between 12 and 251 ng/ml (median value 94 ng/ml). Four patients had higher-than-expected rivaroxaban levels. Inadequate dose regimen, excessive alcohol consumption and lack of treatment reassessment were observed in several patients. Half of patients were taking ≥1 drug with potential pharmacokinetics interactions (e.g. amiodarone, diltiazem), while half of patients were taking ≥1 drug increasing the risk of bleeding. All 3 patients with available genotyping data and higher-than-expected rivaroxaban levels were heterozygous or homozygous mutated for the ABCB1 1236C > T, 2677G > T, 3435 C > T and rs4148738 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Rivaroxaban patients admitted to the ED for bleeding events showed highly variable plasma concentrations. This analysis underlines the usefulness of rapid DOAC measurement and the value of PopPK models to estimate concentrations at trough in a context where the post-intake delay is unmanageable. Close patient follow-up, including renal function assessment and drug interactions review, is essential for bleeding risk minimization.