Categories
Health

Questioning if the Covid Vaccine Labored? Get the Proper Check, on the Proper Time

Now that tens of millions of Americans are vaccinated against the coronavirus, many are wondering: Do I have enough antibodies to keep me safe?

For a vast majority of people, the answer is yes. That hasn’t stopped hordes from stampeding to the local doc-in-a-box for antibody testing. But to get a reliable answer from testing, vaccinated people have to get a specific kind of test, and at the right time.

Take the test too soon, or rely on one that looks for the wrong antibodies — all too easy to do, given the befuddling array of tests now available — and you may believe yourself to still be vulnerable when you are not.

Actually, scientists would prefer that the average vaccinated person not get antibody testing at all, on the grounds that it’s unnecessary. In clinical trials, the vaccines authorized in the United States provoked a strong antibody response in virtually all of the participants.

“Most people shouldn’t even be worrying about this,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University.

But antibody tests can be crucial for people with weak immune systems or those who take certain medications — a broad category encompassing millions of people who are recipients of organ donations, have certain blood cancers, or who take steroids or other drugs that suppress the immune system. Mounting evidence suggests that a significant proportion of these people do not produce a sufficient antibody response after vaccination.

If you must get tested, or just want to, it’s essential to get the right kind of test, Dr. Iwasaki said: “I feel a little bit hesitant to recommend everybody getting tested, because unless they really understood what the test is doing, people might get this wrong sense of not having developed any antibodies.”

Early in the pandemic, many commercial tests were designed to look for antibodies to a coronavirus protein called the nucleocapsid, or just N, because after infection, those antibodies were plentiful in the blood.

But these antibodies are not as powerful as those required to prevent virus infection, nor do they last as long. More important, antibodies to the N protein are not produced by the vaccines authorized in the United States; instead, those vaccines provoke antibodies to another protein sitting on the surface of the virus, called the spike.

If people who were never infected are vaccinated and then are tested for antibodies to the N protein instead of to the spike, they may be in for a rude shock.

Credit…David Lat

David Lat, a 46-year-old legal writer in Manhattan, was hospitalized for Covid-19 for three weeks in March 2020, and he chronicled most of his illness and recovery on Twitter.

Over the following year, Mr. Lat was tested for antibodies numerous times — when he went to his pulmonologist or cardiologist for follow-ups, for example, or to donate plasma. His antibody levels were high in June 2020 but steadily fell over the following months.

Updated 

June 20, 2021, 9:45 p.m. ET

The decline “didn’t worry me,” Mr. Lat recalled recently. “I had been told to expect that they would naturally wane, but I was just happy that I was still positive.”

Mr. Lat was fully vaccinated by March 22 of this year. But an antibody test on April 21, ordered by his cardiologist, was barely positive. Mr. Lat was stunned: “I would have thought a month after being immunized, I would have antibodies through the roof.”

Mr. Lat turned to Twitter for an explanation. Florian Krammer, an immunologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, responded, asking Mr. Lat which test had been used. “That’s when I looked at the fine print on the test,” Mr. Lat said. He realized it was a test for antibodies to the N protein, not to the spike.

“It seems that by default, they just give you the nucleocapsid one,” Mr. Lat said. “I never thought to ask for a different one.”

In May, the Food and Drug Administration recommended against the use of antibody tests for assessing immunity — a decision that has drawn criticism from some scientists — and provided only bare-bones information about testing to health care providers. Many doctors are still unaware of the differences between antibody tests, or the fact that the tests measure just one form of immunity to the virus.

Rapid tests that are commonly available deliver a yes-no result and may miss low levels of antibodies. A certain type of lab test, called an Elisa test, may offer a semi-quantitative estimate of antibodies to the spike protein.

It’s also important to wait to be tested at least two weeks after the second shot of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines, when antibody levels will have risen enough to be detectable. For some people receiving the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, that period may be as long as four weeks.

“It’s the timing and the antigen and the sensitivity of the assay — these are going to be very important,” Dr. Iwasaki said.

In November, the World Health Organization set standards for antibody testing, allowing for comparison of different tests. “There’s a lot of good tests out there now,” Dr. Krammer said. “Little by little, all these manufacturers, all these places that run them are adapting to international units.”

Antibodies are just one aspect of immunity, noted Dr. Dorry Segev, a transplant surgeon and researcher at Johns Hopkins University: “There’s a lot happening under the surface that antibody tests are not directly measuring.” The body also maintains so-called cellular immunity, a complex network of defenders that also responds to invaders.

Still, for someone who is vaccinated but immunocompromised, it may be very helpful to know that protection against the virus isn’t what it should be, he said. For example, a transplant patient with poor antibody levels might be able to use test results to convince an employer that he or she should continue to work remotely.

Mr. Lat has not sought another test. Just learning that the vaccine most likely has given him a fresh increase of antibodies, despite his test results, was reassurance enough: “I trust that the vaccines work.”

Categories
Health

A Vaccine Aspect Impact Leaves Ladies Questioning: Why Isn’t the Capsule Safer?

Last month, as the Food and Drug Administration paused use of Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine to evaluate the risk of blood clots in women under 50, many scientists noted that clots associated with birth control pills were much more common.

The comparison was intended to reassure women of the vaccine’s safety. Instead, it has stoked anger in some quarters — not about the pause, but about the fact that most contraceptives available to women are hundreds of times riskier, and yet safer alternatives are not in sight.

The clots linked to the vaccine were a dangerous type in the brain, while birth control pills increase the chances of a blood clot in the leg or lung — a point quickly noted by many experts. But the distinction made little difference to some women.

“Where was everyone’s concern for blood clots when we started putting 14-year-old girls on the pill,” one woman wrote on Twitter.

Another said, “If birth control was made for men it’d taste like bacon and be free.”

Some women heard, on social media and elsewhere, that they should not complain because they had chosen to take birth control knowing the risks involved. “That just made me double down,” said Mia Brett, an expert in legal history focused on race and sexuality. “This is such a common response to women’s health care — that we point out something and it’s dismissed.”

The torrent of fury online was familiar to experts in women’s health. “They should be angry — women’s health just does not get equal attention,” said Dr. Eve Feinberg, a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist at Northwestern University. “There’s a huge sex bias in all of medicine.”

Dr. Feinberg and many of the women online acknowledge that contraceptives have given women control over their fertility, and the benefits far exceed the harms. Rebecca Fishbein, a 31-year-old culture writer, started tweeting about the inadequacy of birth control pills almost immediately after the announcement of the pause.

Still, “birth control is an incredible invention, thank God we have it,” she said last month in an interview. “I’ll fight anyone who tried to take it away.”

Contraceptives have also improved over the years, with intrauterine devices and oral options that offer an ultralow dose of estrogen. “Over all, it’s incredibly safe,” Dr. Feinberg said. “Everything that we do has risks.”

But Dr. Feinberg said it was crucial for health care providers to discuss the risks with their patients and coach them on worrisome symptoms — a conversation many women said they had never had.

Kelly Tyrrell, a communications professional in Madison, Wis., was 37 when doctors discovered potentially fatal blood clots in her lungs.

Ms. Tyrrell is an endurance athlete — wiry, strong and not prone to anxiety. In early 2019, she began waking up with a pain in her left calf. After one particularly bad morning, an urgent care visit revealed that she had high blood levels of “D dimer,” a protein fragment that indicates the presence of clots.

She had been taking birth control pills for 25 years, but none of the doctors made a connection. Instead, they said that given her age, fitness and the lack of other risk factors, her symptoms were unlikely to be from a blood clot. They sent her home with instructions to do stretches for her calf muscle.

When she felt a tightness in her chest while running in Hawaii after her grandmother’s funeral, doctors said the cause was probably stress and anxiety. In July 2019, she finished a 100K race in Colorado and assumed her aching lungs and purple lips were the result of running for 19 hours at a high altitude.

But she knew something was seriously wrong on the morning of Oct. 24, 2019, when she became short of breath after walking up a short flight of stairs.

This time, after ruling out heart problems, doctors scanned her lungs and discovered multiple clots. One had cut off blood flow to a portion of her right lung.

“I instantly burst into tears,” Ms. Tyrrell recalled. The doctors put her on a course of blood thinners — and told her never to touch estrogen again. Ms. Tyrrell switched to a copper IUD. Over time, she added, the incident had escalated into a sharp rage that was renewed by the Johnson & Johnson news.

“Part of my anger was that a medication that I took to control my fertility ended up threatening my mortality,” she said. “I’m angry that I hadn’t been counseled better about that risk, or even what to look for.”

Emily Farris, 36, was prescribed oral contraceptives at age 18 to help with migraines. In all of the conversations she has had with her many doctors over the years, “never once was blood clots brought up,” she said in an interview.

On Twitter, some critics pointed out that the inserts with birth control packs clearly describe the blood clot risk. “My response is a bit incredulous to that,” said Dr. Farris, a political scientist at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth.

The inserts for most medications have a long list of possible side effects, placing “a high burden for folks to try to sort through medical research, to sort through what probability and statistics mean,” she said.

Even with a Ph.D.-level education, “I can’t assess those risks,” Dr. Farris added. “I think most Americans need someone to translate what the legalese kind of pamphlet is into real terms.”

For Ms. Tyrrell, that elucidation came much too late. Her lungs have not felt the same since her diagnosis, but she is not sure whether that is because of lingering damage from a previous blood clot, new clots that she should be worried about or simply her age, she said, adding, “It’s never not on my mind anymore.”