Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in COVID-19 Convalescent Blood using a Coronavirus Antigen Microarray

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Vaccinated Health Care Workers Analyzed by Coronavirus Antigen Microarray

Recent studies provide conflicting evidence on the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 immunity induced by mRNA vaccines. Here, we aim to quantify the persistence of humoral immunity following vaccination using a coronavirus antigen microarray that includes 10 SARS-CoV-2 antigens. In a prospective longitudinal cohort of 240 healthcare workers, composite SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels did not wane significantly over a 6-month study period. In the subset of the study population previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2 based on seropositivity for nucleocapsid antibodies, higher composite anti-spike IgG levels were measured before the vaccine but no significant difference from unexposed individuals was observed at 6 months. Age, vaccine type, or worker role did not significantly impact composite IgG levels, although non-significant trends towards lower antibody levels in older participants and higher antibody levels with Moderna vaccine were observed at 6 months. A small subset of our cohort were classified as having waning antibody titers at 6 months, and these individuals were less likely to work in patient care roles and more likely to have prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

Mapping SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Epitopes in COVID-19 Patients with a Multi-Coronavirus Protein Microarray

The rapid worldwide spread of SARS-CoV-2 has accelerated research and development for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. A multi-coronavirus protein microarray was created containing full-length proteins, overlapping protein fragments of various lengths, and peptide libraries from SARS-CoV-2 and four other human coronaviruses. Sera from confirmed COVID-19 patients as well as unexposed individuals were applied to multicoronavirus arrays to identify specific antibody reactivity. High-level IgG, IgM, and IgA reactivity to structural proteins S, M, and N of SARS-CoV-2, as well as accessory proteins such as ORF3a and ORF7a, were observed that were specific to COVID-19 patients. Antibody reactivity against overlapping 100-, 50-, and 30-amino acid fragments of SARS-CoV-2 proteins was used to identify antigenic regions. Numerous proteins of SARS-CoV, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and the endemic human coronaviruses HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-OC43 were also more reactive with IgG, IgM, and IgA in COVID-19 patient sera than in unexposed control sera, providing further evidence of immunologic cross-reactivity between these viruses. Whereas unexposed individuals had minimal reactivity against SARS-CoV-2 proteins that poorly correlated with reactivity against HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-OC43 S2 and N proteins, COVID-19 patient sera had higher correlation between SARS-CoV-2 and HCoV responses, suggesting that de novo antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross-react with HCoV epitopes. Array responses were compared with validated spike protein-specific IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), showing agreement between orthologous methods. SARS-CoV-2 microneutralization titers were low in the COVID-19 patient sera but correlated with array responses against S and N proteins. The multi-coronavirus protein microarray is a useful tool for mapping antibody reactivity in COVID-19 patients.

IMPORTANCE With novel mutant SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern on the rise, knowledge of immune specificities against SARS-CoV-2 proteins is increasingly important for understanding the impact of structural changes in antibody-reactive protein epitopes on naturally acquired and vaccine-induced immunity, as well as broader topics of cross-reactivity and viral evolution. A multi-coronavirus protein microarray used to map the binding of COVID-19 patient antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 proteins and protein fragments as well as to the proteins of four other coronaviruses that infect humans has shown specific regions of SARS-CoV-2 proteins that are highly reactive with patient antibodies and revealed cross-reactivity of these antibodies with other human coronaviruses. These data and the multi-coronavirus protein microarray tool will help guide further studies of the antibody response to COVID-19 and to vaccination against this worldwide pandemic.

Serological Testing for COVID-19, Immunological Surveillance, and Exploration of Protective Antibodies

Serological testing is a powerful tool in epidemiological studies for understanding viral circulation and assessing the effectiveness of virus control measures, as is the case of SARS-CoV-2, the pathogenic agent of COVID-19. Immunoassays can quantitatively reveal the concentration of antiviral antibodies. The assessment of antiviral antibody titers may provide information on virus exposure, and changes in IgG levels are also indicative of a reduction in viral circulation. In this work, we describe a serological study for the evaluation of antiviral IgG and IgM antibodies and their correlation with antiviral activity. The serological assay for IgG detection used two SARS-CoV-2 proteins as antigens, the nucleocapsid N protein and the 3CL protease. Cross-reactivity tests in animals have shown high selectivity for detection of antiviral antibodies, using both the N and 3CL antigens. Using samples of human serum from individuals previously diagnosed by PCR for COVID-19, we observed high sensitivity of the ELISA assay. Serological results with human samples also suggest that the combination of higher titers of antiviral IgG antibodies to different antigen targets may be associated with greater neutralization activity, which can be enhanced in the presence of antiviral IgM antibodies.

Immune profiling of COVID-19: preliminary findings and implications for the pandemic

SARS-CoV-2 infection can have widely diverse clinical outcomes, from asymptomatic infection to death, with many possible clinical symptoms and syndromes. It is thus essential to understand how the virus interacts with the host immune system to bring about these varied outcomes and to inform vaccine development. We now know that both antibody and T cell responses are induced in the majority of infected individuals, and that cross-reactive responses from other coronaviruses also exist in the uninfected population. Innate immune responses are a key focus of research and may influence the course of disease and the character of subsequent adaptive responses. Finally, baseline immune profiles and changes during early acute infection may be key to predicting the course of disease. Understanding all these aspects can help to create better immune monitoring tools for COVID-19, including tools for predicting disease severity or specific sequelae, perhaps even prior to infection.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required.  OBJECTIVES: Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non-controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to placebo or standard care alone.  Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low-certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences.  We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group.  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low-certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low-certainty evidence).  A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline).  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence).  We identified no study reporting quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Cross-reactive serum and memory B-cell responses to spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 and endemic coronavirus infection

Pre-existing immunity to seasonal endemic coronaviruses could have profound consequences for antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2, induced from natural infection or vaccination. A first step to establish whether pre-existing responses can impact SARS-CoV-2 infection is to understand the nature and extent of cross-reactivity in humans to coronaviruses. Here we compare serum antibody and memory B cell responses to coronavirus spike proteins from pre-pandemic and SARS-CoV-2 convalescent donors using binding and functional assays. We show weak evidence of pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive serum antibodies in pre-pandemic donors. However, we find evidence of pre-existing cross-reactive memory B cells that are activated during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Monoclonal antibodies show varying degrees of cross-reactivity with betacoronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-1 and endemic coronaviruses. We identify one cross-reactive neutralizing antibody specific to the S2 subunit of the S protein. Our results suggest that pre-existing immunity to endemic coronaviruses should be considered in evaluating antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2.

Review of Current COVID-19 Diagnostics and Opportunities for Further Development

Diagnostic testing plays a critical role in addressing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Rapid and accurate diagnostic tests are imperative for identifying and managing infected individuals, contact tracing, epidemiologic characterization, and public health decision making. Laboratory testing may be performed based on symptomatic presentation or for screening of asymptomatic people. Confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection is typically by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), which requires specialized equipment and training and may be particularly challenging in resource-limited settings. NAAT may give false-negative results due to timing of sample collection relative to infection, improper sampling of respiratory specimens, inadequate preservation of samples, and technical limitations; false-positives may occur due to technical errors, particularly contamination during the manual real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) process. Thus, clinical presentation, contact history and contemporary phyloepidemiology must be considered when interpreting results. Several sample-to-answer platforms, including high-throughput systems and Point of Care (PoC) assays, have been developed to increase testing capacity and decrease technical errors. Alternatives to RT-PCR assay, such as other RNA detection methods and antigen tests may be appropriate for certain situations, such as resource-limited settings. While sequencing is important to monitor on-going evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, antibody assays are useful for epidemiologic purposes. The ever-expanding assortment of tests, with varying clinical utility, performance requirements, and limitations, merits comparative evaluation. We herein provide a comprehensive review of currently available COVID-19 diagnostics, exploring their pros and cons as well as appropriate indications. Strategies to further optimize safety, speed, and ease of SARS-CoV-2 testing without compromising accuracy are suggested. Access to scalable diagnostic tools and continued technologic advances, including machine learning and smartphone integration, will facilitate control of the current pandemic as well as preparedness for the next one.

Single-Dilution COVID-19 Antibody Test with Qualitative and Quantitative Readouts

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to place an immense burden on societies and health care systems. A key component of COVID-19 control efforts is serological testing to determine the community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and quantify individual immune responses to prior SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Here, we describe a laboratory-developed antibody test that uses readily available research-grade reagents to detect SARS-CoV-2 exposure in patient blood samples with high sensitivity and specificity. We further show that this sensitive test affords the estimation of viral spike-specific IgG titers from a single sample measurement, thereby providing a simple and scalable method to measure the strength of an individual's immune response. The accuracy, adaptability, and cost-effectiveness of this test make it an excellent option for clinical deployment in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.IMPORTANCE Serological surveillance has become an important public health tool during the COVID-19 pandemic. Detection of protective antibodies and seroconversion after SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination can help guide patient care plans and public health policies. Serology tests can detect antibodies against past infections; consequently, they can help overcome the shortcomings of molecular tests, which can detect only active infections. This is important, especially when considering that many COVID-19 patients are asymptomatic. In this study, we describe an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based qualitative and quantitative serology test developed to measure IgG and IgA antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. The test can be deployed using commonly available laboratory reagents and equipment and displays high specificity and sensitivity. Furthermore, we demonstrate that IgG titers in patient samples can be estimated from a single measurement, enabling the assay's use in high-throughput clinical environments.

Immunologic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Infection from the Antigen Perspective

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has spread globally as a severe pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulates antigen-specific antibody responses. Multiple serologic tests have been developed for SARS-CoV-2. However, which antigens are most suitable for serological testing remains poorly understood. Specifically, which antigens have the highest sensitivity and specificity for serological testing and which have the least cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses are currently unknown. Previous studies have shown that the S1 domain of the spike (S) protein has very low cross-reactivity between epidemic coronaviruses and common human coronaviruses, whereas the S2 domain of the S protein and the nucleocapsid protein (N protein) show low-level cross-reactivity. Therefore, S1 is considered more specific than the native homotrimer of the S protein, and the receptor-binding domain as an antigen to test patient antibodies is more sensitive than the native N protein. In addition, an increasing number of studies have used multiantigen protein arrays to screen serum from convalescent patients with COVID-19. Antigen combinations demonstrated improved performance compared to each individual antigen. For rapid antigen detection, the sensitivity of the test is higher in the first week of onset of the disease with high viral loads. Highly sensitive and specific immunological diagnostic methods for antibodies or those that directly detect viral antigens in clinical samples would be beneficial for the rapid and accurate diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Convalescent Plasma for the Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by a novel coronavirus termed SARS-CoV-2, has spread quickly worldwide. Convalescent plasma (CP) obtained from patients following recovery from COVID-19 infection and development of antibodies against the virus is an attractive option for either prophylactic or therapeutic treatment, since antibodies may have direct or indirect antiviral activities and immunotherapy has proven effective in principle and in many clinical reports.

OBJECTIVE

We seek to characterize the latest advances and evidence in the use of CP for COVID-19 through a systematic review and quantitative analysis, identify knowledge gaps in this setting, and offer recommendations and directives for future research.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were continuously searched for studies assessing the use of CP for COVID-19, including clinical studies, commentaries, reviews, guidelines or protocols, and in vitro testing of CP antibodies. The screening process and data extraction were performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Quality appraisal of all clinical studies was conducted using a universal tool independent of study designs. A meta-analysis of case-control and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Substantial literature has been published covering various aspects of CP therapy for COVID-19. Of the references included in this review, a total of 243 eligible studies including 64 clinical studies, 79 commentary articles, 46 reviews, 19 guidance and protocols, and 35 in vitro testing of CP antibodies matched the criteria. Positive results have been mostly observed so far when using CP for the treatment of COVID-19. There were remarkable heterogeneities in the CP therapy with respect to patient demographics, donor antibody titers, and time and dose of CP administration. The studies assessing the safety of CP treatment reported low incidence of adverse events. Most clinical studies, in particular case reports and case series, had poor quality. Only 1 RCT was of high quality. Randomized and nonrandomized data were found in 2 and 11 studies, respectively, and were included for meta-analysis, suggesting that CP could reduce mortality and increase viral clearance. Despite promising pilot studies, the benefits of CP treatment can only be clearly established through carefully designed RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is developing support for CP therapy, particularly for patients who are critically ill or mechanically ventilated and resistant to antivirals and supportive care. These studies provide important lessons that should inform the planning of well-designed RCTs to generate more robust knowledge for the efficacy of CP in patients with COVID-19. Future research is necessary to fill the knowledge gap regarding prevention and treatment for patients with COVID-19 with CP while other therapeutics are being developed.

Accurate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys require robust multi-antigen assays

There is a plethora of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological tests based either on nucleocapsid phosphoprotein (N), S1-subunit of spike glycoprotein (S1) or receptor binding domain (RBD). Although these single-antigen based tests demonstrate high clinical performance, there is growing evidence regarding their limitations in epidemiological serosurveys. To address this, we developed a Luminex-based multiplex immunoassay that detects total antibodies (IgG/IgM/IgA) against the N, S1 and RBD antigens and used it to compare antibody responses in 1225 blood donors across Greece. Seroprevalence based on single-antigen readouts was strongly influenced by both the antigen type and cut-off value and ranged widely [0.8% (95% CI 0.4–1.5%)–7.5% (95% CI 6.0–8.9%)]. A multi-antigen approach requiring partial agreement between RBD and N or S1 readouts (RBD&N|S1 rule) was less affected by cut-off selection, resulting in robust seroprevalence estimation [0.6% (95% CI 0.3–1.1%)–1.2% (95% CI 0.7–2.0%)] and accurate identification of seroconverted individuals.

Role of Multiomics Data to Understand Host-Pathogen Interactions in COVID-19 Pathogenesis

Human infectious diseases are contributed equally by the host immune system's efficiency and any pathogens' infectivity. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the coronavirus strain causing the respiratory pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To understand the pathobiology of SARS-CoV-2, one needs to unravel the intricacies of host immune response to the virus, the viral pathogen's mode of transmission, and alterations in specific biological pathways in the host allowing viral survival. This review critically analyzes recent research using high-throughput "omics" technologies (including proteomics and metabolomics) on various biospecimens that allow an increased understanding of the pathobiology of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. The altered biomolecule profile facilitates an understanding of altered biological pathways. Further, we have performed a meta-analysis of significantly altered biomolecular profiles in COVID-19 patients using bioinformatics tools. Our analysis deciphered alterations in the immune response, fatty acid, and amino acid metabolism and other pathways that cumulatively result in COVID-19 disease, including symptoms such as hyperglycemic and hypoxic sequelae.

Estimated seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among adults in Orange County, California

Clinic-based estimates of SARS-CoV-2 may considerably underestimate the total number of infections. Access to testing in the US has been heterogeneous and symptoms vary widely in infected persons. Public health surveillance efforts and metrics are therefore hampered by underreporting. We set out to provide a minimally biased estimate of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among adults for a large and diverse county (Orange County, CA, population 3.2 million). We implemented a surveillance study that minimizes response bias by recruiting adults to answer a survey without knowledge of later being offered SARS-CoV-2 test. Several methodologies were used to retrieve a population-representative sample. Participants (n = 2979) visited one of 11 drive-thru test sites from July 10th to August 16th, 2020 (or received an in-home visit) to provide a finger pin-prick sample. We applied a robust SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Microarray technology, which has superior measurement validity relative to FDA-approved tests. Participants include a broad age, gender, racial/ethnic, and income representation. Adjusted seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 11.5% (95% CI: 10.5-12.4%). Formal bias analyses produced similar results. Prevalence was elevated among Hispanics (vs. other non-Hispanic: prevalence ratio [PR] = 1.47, 95% CI 1.22-1.78) and household income < $50,000 (vs. > $100,000: PR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.79). Results from a diverse population using a highly specific and sensitive microarray indicate a SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of ~ 12 percent. This population-based seroprevalence is seven-fold greater than that using official County statistics. In this region, SARS-CoV-2 also disproportionately affects Hispanic and low-income adults.

Characterization of the SARS-CoV-2 S Protein: Biophysical, Biochemical, Structural, and Antigenic Analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global health crisis caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and there is a critical need to produce large quantities of high-quality SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) protein for use in both clinical and basic science settings. To address this need, we have evaluated the expression and purification of two previously reported S protein constructs in Expi293F and ExpiCHO-S cells, two different cell lines selected for increased protein expression. We show that ExpiCHO-S cells produce enhanced yields of both SARS-CoV-2 S proteins. Biochemical, biophysical, and structural (cryo-EM) characterizations of the SARS-CoV-2 S proteins produced in both cell lines demonstrate that the reported purification strategy yields high-quality S protein (nonaggregated, uniform material with appropriate biochemical and biophysical properties), and analysis of 20 deposited S protein cryo-EM structures reveals conformation plasticity in the region composed of amino acids 614-642 and 828-854. Importantly, we show that multiple preparations of these two recombinant S proteins from either cell line exhibit identical behavior in two different serology assays. We also evaluate the specificity of S protein-mediated host cell binding by examining interactions with proposed binding partners in the human secretome and report no novel binding partners and notably fail to validate the Spike:CD147 interaction. In addition, the antigenicity of these proteins is demonstrated by standard ELISAs and in a flexible protein microarray format. Collectively, we establish an array of metrics for ensuring the production of high-quality S protein to support clinical, biological, biochemical, structural, and mechanistic studies to combat the global pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Neutralizing and cross-reacting antibodies: implications for immunotherapy and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 emerged in China in 2019 and quickly spread globally, causing a pandemic. There is an urgent need to develop vaccines against the virus, and both convalescent plasma and immune globulin are currently in clinical trials for treatment of patients with COVID-19. It is unclear whether antibodies induced by SARS-CoV-2 have neutralizing capacity and whether they can protect from future infection. Seasonal human coronaviruses (HCoV) have been circulating for decades. It is currently unknown whether antibodies against seasonal HCoV may cross-neutralize SARS-CoV-2. Data from neonates suggest that trans-placental antibodies against HCoV may have neutralizing capacity. Here we briefly review the epidemiologic observations on HCoV and discuss the potential implications for neutralizing and cross-neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

Modeling human adaptive immune responses with tonsil organoids

Most of what we know about adaptive immunity has come from inbred mouse studies, using methods that are often difficult or impossible to confirm in humans. In addition, vaccine responses in mice are often poorly predictive of responses to those same vaccines in humans. Here we use human tonsils, readily available lymphoid organs, to develop a functional organotypic system that recapitulates key germinal center features in vitro, including the production of antigen-specific antibodies, somatic hypermutation and affinity maturation, plasmablast differentiation and class-switch recombination. We use this system to define the essential cellular components necessary to produce an influenza vaccine response. We also show that it can be used to evaluate humoral immune responses to two priming antigens, rabies vaccine and an adenovirus-based severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine, and to assess the effects of different adjuvants. This system should prove useful for studying critical mechanisms underlying adaptive immunity in much greater depth than previously possible and to rapidly test vaccine candidates and adjuvants in an entirely human system.

Evaluation of lockdown effect on SARS-CoV-2 dynamics through viral genome quantification in waste water, Greater Paris, France, 5 March to 23 April 2020

IntroductionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiological agent of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). People infected with SARS-CoV-2 may exhibit no or mild non-specific symptoms; thus, they may contribute to silent circulation of the virus among humans. Since SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in stool samples, monitoring SARS-CoV-2 RNA in waste water (WW) has been proposed as a complementary tool to investigate virus circulation in human populations.AimTo test if the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genomes in WW correlates with the number of symptomatic or non-symptomatic carriers.MethodWe performed a time-course quantitative analysis of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR in raw WW samples collected from several major WW treatment plants in Greater Paris. The study period was 5 March to 23 April 2020, including the lockdown period in France (from 17 March).ResultsWe showed that the increase of genome units in raw WW accurately followed the increase of human COVID-19 cases observed at the regional level. Of note, the viral genome could be detected before the epidemic grew massively (around 8 March). Equally importantly, a marked decrease in the quantities of genome units was observed concomitantly with the reduction in the number of new COVID-19 cases, 29 days following the lockdown.ConclusionThis work suggests that a quantitative monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 genomes in WW could generate important additional information for improved monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 circulation at local or regional levels and emphasises the role of WW-based epidemiology.

Evaluation of lockdown effect on SARS-CoV-2 dynamics through viral genome quantification in waste water, Greater Paris, France, 5 March to 23 April 2020

IntroductionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiological agent of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). People infected with SARS-CoV-2 may exhibit no or mild non-specific symptoms; thus, they may contribute to silent circulation of the virus among humans. Since SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in stool samples, monitoring SARS-CoV-2 RNA in waste water (WW) has been proposed as a complementary tool to investigate virus circulation in human populations.AimTo test if the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genomes in WW correlates with the number of symptomatic or non-symptomatic carriers.MethodWe performed a time-course quantitative analysis of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR in raw WW samples collected from several major WW treatment plants in Greater Paris. The study period was 5 March to 23 April 2020, including the lockdown period in France (from 17 March).ResultsWe showed that the increase of genome units in raw WW accurately followed the increase of human COVID-19 cases observed at the regional level. Of note, the viral genome could be detected before the epidemic grew massively (around 8 March). Equally importantly, a marked decrease in the quantities of genome units was observed concomitantly with the reduction in the number of new COVID-19 cases, 29 days following the lockdown.ConclusionThis work suggests that a quantitative monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 genomes in WW could generate important additional information for improved monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 circulation at local or regional levels and emphasises the role of WW-based epidemiology.

Evaluation of lockdown effect on SARS-CoV-2 dynamics through viral genome quantification in waste water, Greater Paris, France, 5 March to 23 April 2020

IntroductionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiological agent of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). People infected with SARS-CoV-2 may exhibit no or mild non-specific symptoms; thus, they may contribute to silent circulation of the virus among humans. Since SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in stool samples, monitoring SARS-CoV-2 RNA in waste water (WW) has been proposed as a complementary tool to investigate virus circulation in human populations.AimTo test if the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genomes in WW correlates with the number of symptomatic or non-symptomatic carriers.MethodWe performed a time-course quantitative analysis of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR in raw WW samples collected from several major WW treatment plants in Greater Paris. The study period was 5 March to 23 April 2020, including the lockdown period in France (from 17 March).ResultsWe showed that the increase of genome units in raw WW accurately followed the increase of human COVID-19 cases observed at the regional level. Of note, the viral genome could be detected before the epidemic grew massively (around 8 March). Equally importantly, a marked decrease in the quantities of genome units was observed concomitantly with the reduction in the number of new COVID-19 cases, 29 days following the lockdown.ConclusionThis work suggests that a quantitative monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 genomes in WW could generate important additional information for improved monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 circulation at local or regional levels and emphasises the role of WW-based epidemiology.

Evaluation of lockdown effect on SARS-CoV-2 dynamics through viral genome quantification in waste water, Greater Paris, France, 5 March to 23 April 2020

IntroductionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiological agent of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). People infected with SARS-CoV-2 may exhibit no or mild non-specific symptoms; thus, they may contribute to silent circulation of the virus among humans. Since SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in stool samples, monitoring SARS-CoV-2 RNA in waste water (WW) has been proposed as a complementary tool to investigate virus circulation in human populations.AimTo test if the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genomes in WW correlates with the number of symptomatic or non-symptomatic carriers.MethodWe performed a time-course quantitative analysis of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR in raw WW samples collected from several major WW treatment plants in Greater Paris. The study period was 5 March to 23 April 2020, including the lockdown period in France (from 17 March).ResultsWe showed that the increase of genome units in raw WW accurately followed the increase of human COVID-19 cases observed at the regional level. Of note, the viral genome could be detected before the epidemic grew massively (around 8 March). Equally importantly, a marked decrease in the quantities of genome units was observed concomitantly with the reduction in the number of new COVID-19 cases, 29 days following the lockdown.ConclusionThis work suggests that a quantitative monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 genomes in WW could generate important additional information for improved monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 circulation at local or regional levels and emphasises the role of WW-based epidemiology.

Evaluation of lockdown effect on SARS-CoV-2 dynamics through viral genome quantification in waste water, Greater Paris, France, 5 March to 23 April 2020

IntroductionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the etiological agent of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). People infected with SARS-CoV-2 may exhibit no or mild non-specific symptoms; thus, they may contribute to silent circulation of the virus among humans. Since SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in stool samples, monitoring SARS-CoV-2 RNA in waste water (WW) has been proposed as a complementary tool to investigate virus circulation in human populations.AimTo test if the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genomes in WW correlates with the number of symptomatic or non-symptomatic carriers.MethodWe performed a time-course quantitative analysis of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR in raw WW samples collected from several major WW treatment plants in Greater Paris. The study period was 5 March to 23 April 2020, including the lockdown period in France (from 17 March).ResultsWe showed that the increase of genome units in raw WW accurately followed the increase of human COVID-19 cases observed at the regional level. Of note, the viral genome could be detected before the epidemic grew massively (around 8 March). Equally importantly, a marked decrease in the quantities of genome units was observed concomitantly with the reduction in the number of new COVID-19 cases, 29 days following the lockdown.ConclusionThis work suggests that a quantitative monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 genomes in WW could generate important additional information for improved monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 circulation at local or regional levels and emphasises the role of WW-based epidemiology.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 19 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms.  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence).  No studies reported on quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE.  The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence).  17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.

Cross-reactive serum and memory B cell responses to spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 and endemic coronavirus infection

Pre-existing immune responses to seasonal endemic coronaviruses could have profound consequences for antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2, either induced in natural infection or through vaccination. Such consequences are well established in the influenza and flavivirus fields. A first step to establish whether pre-existing responses can impact SARS-CoV-2 infection is to understand the nature and extent of cross-reactivity in humans to coronaviruses. We compared serum antibody and memory B cell responses to coronavirus spike (S) proteins from pre-pandemic and SARS-CoV-2 convalescent donors using a series of binding and functional assays. We found weak evidence of pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive serum antibodies in pre-pandemic donors. However, we found stronger evidence of pre-existing cross-reactive memory B cells that were activated on SARS-CoV-2 infection. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) isolated from the donors showed varying degrees of cross-reactivity with betacoronaviruses, including SARS and endemic coronaviruses. None of the cross-reactive mAbs were neutralizing except for one that targeted the S2 subunit of the S protein. The results suggest that pre-existing immunity to endemic coronaviruses should be considered in evaluating antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2.

A modular microarray imaging system for highly specific COVID-19 antibody testing

To detect the presence of antibodies in blood against SARS-CoV-2 in a highly sensitive and specific manner, here we describe a robust, inexpensive ($200), 3D-printable portable imaging platform (TinyArray imager) that can be deployed immediately in areas with minimal infrastructure to read coronavirus antigen microarrays (CoVAMs) that contain a panel of antigens from SARS-CoV-2, SARS-1, MERS, and other respiratory viruses. Application includes basic laboratories and makeshift field clinics where a few drops of blood from a finger prick could be rapidly tested in parallel for the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 with a test turnaround time of only 2-4 h. To evaluate our imaging device, we probed and imaged coronavirus microarrays with COVID-19-positive and negative sera and achieved a performance on par with a commercial microarray reader 100× more expensive than our imaging device. This work will enable large scale serosurveillance, which can play an important role in the months and years to come to implement efficient containment and mitigation measures, as well as help develop therapeutics and vaccines to treat and prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Development, clinical translation, and utility of a COVID-19 antibody test with qualitative and quantitative readouts

The COVID-19 global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to place an immense burden on societies and healthcare systems. A key component of COVID-19 control efforts is serologic testing to determine the community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and quantify individual immune responses to prior infection or vaccination. Here, we describe a laboratory-developed antibody test that uses readily available research-grade reagents to detect SARS-CoV-2 exposure in patient blood samples with high sensitivity and specificity. We further show that this test affords the estimation of viral spike-specific IgG titers from a single sample measurement, thereby providing a simple and scalable method to measure the strength of an individual's immune response. The accuracy, adaptability, and cost-effectiveness of this test makes it an excellent option for clinical deployment in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Rapid Gel Card Agglutination Assays for Serological Analysis Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Humans

High-throughput and rapid serology assays to detect the antibody response specific to severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in human blood samples are urgently required to improve our understanding of the effects of COVID-19 across the world. Short-term applications include rapid case identification and contact tracing to limit viral spread, while population screening to determine the extent of viral infection across communities is a longer-term need. Assays developed to address these needs should match the ASSURED criteria. We have identified agglutination tests based on the commonly employed blood typing methods as a viable option. These blood typing tests are employed in hospitals worldwide, are high-throughput, fast (10-30 min), and automated in most cases. Herein, we describe the application of agglutination assays to SARS-CoV-2 serology testing by combining column agglutination testing with peptide-antibody bioconjugates, which facilitate red cell cross-linking only in the presence of plasma containing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. This simple, rapid, and easily scalable approach has immediate application in SARS-CoV-2 serological testing and is a useful platform for assay development beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 Vaccines: "Warp Speed" Needs Mind Melds, Not Warped Minds

In this review, we address issues that relate to the rapid "Warp Speed" development of vaccines to counter the COVID-19 pandemic. We review the antibody response that is triggered by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection of humans and how it may inform vaccine research. The isolation and properties of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies from COVID-19 patients provide additional information on what vaccines should try to elicit. The nature and longevity of the antibody response to coronaviruses are relevant to the potency and duration of vaccine-induced immunity. We summarize the immunogenicity of leading vaccine candidates tested to date in animals and humans and discuss the outcome and interpretation of virus challenge experiments in animals. By far the most immunogenic vaccine candidates for antibody responses are recombinant proteins, which were not included in the initial wave of Warp Speed immunogens. A substantial concern for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is adverse events, which we review by considering what was seen in studies of SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) vaccines. We conclude by outlining the possible outcomes of the Warp Speed vaccine program, which range from the hoped-for rapid success to a catastrophic adverse influence on vaccine uptake generally.

The underpinning biology relating to multiple sclerosis disease modifying treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 viral infection causes COVID-19 that can result in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which can cause significant mortality, leading to concern that immunosuppressive treatments for multiple sclerosis and other disorders have significant risks for both infection and ARDS.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the biology that potentially underpins immunity to the SARS-Cov-2 virus and the immunity-induced pathology related to COVID-19 and determine how this impinges on the use of current disease modifying treatments in multiple sclerosis.

OBSERVATIONS

Although information about the mechanisms of immunity are scant, it appears that monocyte/macrophages and then CD8 T cells are important in eliminating the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This may be facilitated via anti-viral antibody responses that may prevent re-infection. However, viral escape and infection of leucocytes to promote lymphopenia, apparent CD8 T cell exhaustion coupled with a cytokine storm and vascular pathology appears to contribute to the damage in ARDS.

IMPLICATIONS

In contrast to ablative haematopoietic stem cell therapy, most multiple-sclerosis-related disease modifying therapies do not particularly target the innate immune system and few have any major long-term impact on CD8 T cells to limit protection against COVID-19. In addition, few block the formation of immature B cells within lymphoid tissue that will provide antibody-mediated protection from (re)infection. However, adjustments to dosing schedules may help de-risk the chance of infection further and reduce the concerns of people with MS being treated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 4 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs.  MAIN RESULTS: This is the first living update of our review. We included 20 studies (1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs, 16 non-controlled NRSIs) with 5443 participants, of whom 5211 received convalescent plasma, and identified a further 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are randomised. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. Overall risk of bias of included studies was high, due to study design, type of participants, and other previous or concurrent treatments. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from four controlled studies (1 RCT (stopped early) with 103 participants, of whom 52 received convalescent plasma; and 3 controlled NRSIs with 236 participants, of whom 55 received convalescent plasma) to assess effectiveness of convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (1 controlled NRSI, 21 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Time to death (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma prolongs time to death (RCT: hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.82; controlled NRSI: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms, assessed by need for respiratory support (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on improvement of clinical symptoms at seven days (RCT: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19), 14 days (RCT: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.77; controlled NRSI: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29), and 28 days (RCT: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.81; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life No studies reported this outcome.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from 1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs and 10 non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events was variable. The controlled studies reported on adverse events and serious adverse events only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. The duration of follow-up varied. Some, but not all, studies included death as a serious adverse event.  Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (13 studies, 201 participants) The studies did not report the grade of adverse events. Thirteen studies (201 participants) reported on adverse events of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these adverse events were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events (14 studies, 5201 participants)  Fourteen studies (5201 participants) reported on serious adverse events. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (5000 participants), which reported only on serious adverse events limited to the first four hours after convalescent plasma transfusion. This study included death as a serious adverse event; they reported 15 deaths, four of which they classified as potentially, probably or definitely related to transfusion. Other serious adverse events reported in all studies were predominantly allergic or respiratory in nature, including anaphylaxis, transfusion-associated dyspnoea, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma affects the number of serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For safety outcomes we also included non-controlled NRSIs. There was limited information regarding adverse events. Of the controlled studies, none reported on this outcome in the control group. There is only very low-certainty evidence for safety of convalescent plasma for COVID-19.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, problems with recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies are conceivable. The early termination of the first RCT investigating convalescent plasma, and the multitude of studies registered in the past months illustrate this. It is therefore necessary to critically assess the design of these registered studies, and well-designed studies should be prioritised. Other considerations for these studies are the need to report outcomes for all study arms in the same way, and the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are RCTs. This is the first living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. These updates may show different results to those reported here.

Characterization of the SARS-CoV-2 S Protein: Biophysical, Biochemical, Structural, and Antigenic Analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 ( COVID-19 ) is a global health crisis caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ( SARS-CoV-2 ), and there is a critical need to produce large quantities of high-quality SARS-CoV-2 Spike ( S ) protein for use in both clinical and basic science settings. To address this need, we have evaluated the expression and purification of two previously reported S protein constructs in Expi293F ™ and ExpiCHO-S ™ cells, two different cell lines selected for increased expression of secreted glycoproteins. We show that ExpiCHO-S ™ cells produce enhanced yields of both SARS-CoV-2 S proteins. Biochemical, biophysical, and structural ( cryo-EM ) characterization of the SARS-CoV-2 S proteins produced in both cell lines demonstrate that the reported purification strategy yields high quality S protein (non-aggregated, uniform material with appropriate biochemical and biophysical properties). Importantly, we show that multiple preparations of these two recombinant S proteins from either cell line exhibit identical behavior in two different serology assays. We also evaluate the specificity of S protein-mediated host cell binding by examining interactions with proposed binding partners in the human secretome. In addition, the antigenicity of these proteins is demonstrated by standard ELISAs, and in a flexible protein microarray format. Collectively, we establish an array of metrics for ensuring the production of high-quality S protein to support clinical, biological, biochemical, structural and mechanistic studies to combat the global pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2.

A Modular Microarray Imaging System for Highly Specific COVID-19 Antibody Testing

To detect the presence of antibodies in blood against SARS-CoV-2 in a highly sensitive and specific manner, here we describe a robust, inexpensive ($200), 3D-printable portable imaging platform (TinyArray imager) that can be deployed immediately in areas with minimal infrastructure to read coronavirus antigen microarrays (CoVAMs) that contain a panel of antigens from SARS-CoV-2, SARS-1, MERS, and other respiratory viruses. Application includes basic laboratories and makeshift field clinics where a few drops of blood from a finger prick could be rapidly tested in parallel for the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 with a test turnaround time of only 2–4 h. To evaluate our imaging device, we probed and imaged coronavirus microarrays with COVID-19-positive and negative sera and achieved a performance on par with a commercial microarray reader 100x more expensive than our imaging device. This work will enable large scale serosurveillance, which can play an important role in the months and years to come to implement efficient containment and mitigation measures, as well as help develop therapeutics and vaccines to treat and prevent the spread of COVID-19.