Systemic and mucosal antibody responses specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.

SEARCH METHODS

The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

[Low incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in healthcare workers at a tertiary care hospital : Results of a prospective serological cohort study of the first and second COVID‑19 pandemic wave]

Hintergrund

Mitarbeiter im Gesundheitswesen mit Kontakt zu COVID‑19-Patienten sind einem erhöhten Risiko einer Infektion mit SARS-CoV‑2 ausgesetzt. Ziel dieser seroepidemiologischen Studie war es, das Infektionsrisiko für Klinikmitarbeiter eines Maximalversorgers zu evaluieren.

Methodik

Im Rahmen einer prospektiven Kohortenstudie wurden von März bis Juli 2020 (1. Welle) bei unmittelbar in der Versorgung von COVID‑19-Patienten eingesetzten Mitarbeitern im Abstand von jeweils 2 Wochen serologische Untersuchungen auf Antikörper gegen SARS-CoV‑2 durchgeführt. Von Dezember 2020 bis Februar 2021 (2. Welle) fand eine erneute Untersuchung des Antikörperstatus statt.

Ergebnisse

Die Seroprävalenz von Antikörpern gegen SARS-CoV‑2 betrug am Studienende im Februar 2021 5,1 %. Die kumulative Inzidenz betrug nach einer medianen Beobachtungsdauer von 261 Tagen 3,9 %.

Schlussfolgerung

In der untersuchten Kohorte von Klinikmitarbeitern, die in der Akutversorgung von COVID‑19-Patienten eingesetzt werden, fand sich unter den angewandten Hygiene- und Schutzmaßnahmen ein niedriges und mit der Gesamtbevölkerung vergleichbares Risiko einer SARS-CoV-2-Infektion.

Postinfectious Immunity After COVID-19 and Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2

Early results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are highly effective for the prevention of COVID-19. Unfortunately, until we can safely, rapidly, and affordably vaccinate enough people to achieve collective immunity, we cannot afford to disregard the benefits of naturally acquired immunity in those, whose prior documented infections have already run their course. As long as the vaccine manufacturing, supply, or administration are limited in capacity, vaccination of individuals with naturally acquired immunity at the expense of others without any immune protection is inherently inequitable, and violates the principle of justice in biomedical ethics. Any preventable disease acquired during the period of such unnecessary delay in vaccination should not be overlooked, as it may and will result in some additional morbidity, mortality, related hospitalizations, and expense. Low vaccine production capacity complicated by inefficiencies in vaccine administration suggests, that vaccinating preferentially those without any prior protection will result in fewer natural infections more rapidly.

SARS-CoV-2 Portrayed against HIV: Contrary Viral Strategies in Similar Disguise

SARS-CoV-2 and HIV are zoonotic viruses that rapidly reached pandemic scale, causing global losses and fear. The COVID-19 and AIDS pandemics ignited massive efforts worldwide to develop antiviral strategies and characterize viral architectures, biological and immunological properties, and clinical outcomes. Although both viruses have a comparable appearance as enveloped viruses with positive-stranded RNA and envelope spikes mediating cellular entry, the entry process, downstream biological and immunological pathways, clinical outcomes, and disease courses are strikingly different. This review provides a systemic comparison of both viruses' structural and functional characteristics, delineating their distinct strategies for efficient spread.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Swiss hospital workers: Results of a prospective cohort study

In this prospective cohort of 1,012 Swiss hospital employees, 3 different assays were used to screen serum for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seropositivity was 1%; the positive predictive values of the lateral-flow immunoassay were 64% (IgG) and 13% (IgM). History of fever and myalgia most effectively differentiated seropositive and seronegative participants.

IgG and IgM antibody formation to spike and nucleocapsid proteins in COVID-19 characterized by multiplex immunoblot assays

BACKGROUND

Rapid and simple serological assays for characterizing antibody responses are important in the current COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. Multiplex immunoblot (IB) assays termed COVID-19 IB assays were developed for detecting IgG and IgM antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Recombinant nucleocapsid protein and the S1, S2 and receptor binding domain (RBD) of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 were used as target antigens in the COVID-19 IBs. Specificity of the IB assay was established with 231 sera from persons with allergy, unrelated viral infections, autoimmune conditions and suspected tick-borne diseases, and 32 goat antisera to human influenza proteins. IgG and IgM COVID-19 IBs assays were performed on 84 sera obtained at different times after a positive RT-qPCR test from 37 COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms.

RESULTS

Criteria for determining overall IgG and IgM antibody positivity using the four SARS-CoV-2 proteins were developed by optimizing specificity and sensitivity in the COVID-19 IgG and IgM IB assays. The estimated sensitivities and specificities of the COVID-19 IgG and IgM IBs for IgG and IgM antibodies individually or for either IgG or IgM antibodies meet the US recommendations for laboratory serological diagnostic tests. The proportion of IgM-positive sera from the COVID-19 patients following an RT-qPCR positive test was maximal at 83% before 10 days and decreased to 0% after 100 days, while the proportions of IgG-positive sera tended to plateau between days 11 and 65 at 78-100% and fall to 44% after 100 days. Detection of either IgG or IgM antibodies was better than IgG or IgM alone for assessing seroconversion in COVID-19. Both IgG and IgM antibodies detected RBD less frequently than S1, S2 and N proteins.

CONCLUSIONS

The multiplex COVID-19 IB assays offer many advantages for simultaneously evaluating antibody responses to different SARS-CoV-2 proteins in COVID-19 patients.

Highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

The efficacy of virus-specific T cells in clearing pathogens involves a fine balance between antiviral and inflammatory features. SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells in individuals who clear SARS-CoV-2 without symptoms could reveal nonpathological yet protective characteristics. We longitudinally studied SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells in a cohort of asymptomatic (n = 85) and symptomatic (n = 75) COVID-19 patients after seroconversion. We quantified T cells reactive to structural proteins (M, NP, and Spike) using ELISpot and cytokine secretion in whole blood. Frequencies of SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells were similar between asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals, but the former showed an increased IFN-γ and IL-2 production. This was associated with a proportional secretion of IL-10 and proinflammatory cytokines (IL-6, TNF-α, and IL-1β) only in asymptomatic infection, while a disproportionate secretion of inflammatory cytokines was triggered by SARS-CoV-2–specific T cell activation in symptomatic individuals. Thus, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–infected individuals are not characterized by weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response.

COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide pandemic in 2020. In response, most countries in the world implemented lockdowns, restricting their population's movements, work, education, gatherings, and general activities in attempt to "flatten the curve" of COVID-19 cases. The public health goal of lockdowns was to save the population from COVID-19 cases and deaths, and to prevent overwhelming health care systems with COVID-19 patients. In this narrative review I explain why I changed my mind about supporting lockdowns. The initial modeling predictions induced fear and crowd-effects (i.e., groupthink). Over time, important information emerged relevant to the modeling, including the lower infection fatality rate (median 0.23%), clarification of high-risk groups (specifically, those 70 years of age and older), lower herd immunity thresholds (likely 20-40% population immunity), and the difficult exit strategies. In addition, information emerged on significant collateral damage due to the response to the pandemic, adversely affecting many millions of people with poverty, food insecurity, loneliness, unemployment, school closures, and interrupted healthcare. Raw numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths were difficult to interpret, and may be tempered by information placing the number of COVID-19 deaths in proper context and perspective relative to background rates. Considering this information, a cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 finds that lockdowns are far more harmful to public health (at least 5-10 times so in terms of wellbeing years) than COVID-19 can be. Controversies and objections about the main points made are considered and addressed. Progress in the response to COVID-19 depends on considering the trade-offs discussed here that determine the wellbeing of populations. I close with some suggestions for moving forward, including focused protection of those truly at high risk, opening of schools, and building back better with a economy.

Clinical correlates of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody profiles in Spanish COVID-19 patients from a high incidence region

Laboratory testing for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) consists of two pillars: the detection of viral RNA via rt-PCR as the diagnostic gold standard in acute cases, and the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. However, concerning the latter, questions remain about their diagnostic and prognostic value and it is not clear whether all patients develop detectable antibodies. We examined sera from 347 Spanish COVID-19 patients, collected during the peak of the epidemic outbreak in Spain, for the presence of IgA and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and evaluated possible associations with age, sex and disease severity (as measured by duration of hospitalization, kind of respiratory support, treatment in ICU and death). The presence and to some degree the levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies depended mainly on the amount of time between onset of symptoms and the collection of serum. A subgroup of patients did not develop antibodies at the time of sample collection. Compared to the patients that did, no differences were found. The presence and level of antibodies was not associated with age, sex, duration of hospitalization, treatment in the ICU or death. The case-fatality rate increased exponentially with older age. Neither the presence, nor the levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies served as prognostic markers in our cohort. This is discussed as a possible consequence of the timing of the sample collection. Age is the most important risk factor for an adverse outcome in our cohort. Some patients appear not to develop antibodies within a reasonable time frame. It is unclear, however, why that is, as these patients differ in no respect examined by us from those who developed antibodies.

Rate and predictive parameters of novel Coronavirus 2019 (Sars-CoV-2) infections in a German General Practice

Key Points

In our clinical cross-sectional study, we identified 107 of 347 patients who were tested positive for antibodies of novel Coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2). Main symptoms were exhaustion and cough, exposition to other COVID-19-patients appeared frequently.

Background

There is urgent need for information on predictive parameters on immunity and infectivity in Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Our aim was to investigate distribution of novel Coronavirus 2019 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in a German General Practice and to learn about possible predictive parameters regarding infection and pathways of transmission.

Methods

In our cross-sectional study, we tested 347 patients of our General Practice using 2019-nCoV-2-IgG/IgM antibody test [2019-nCoV2 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette (Ref.: INCP-402/INCP-402B; ACRO, BIOTECH, INC.)]. We asked for 13 specific symptoms and 4 questions to investigate patients’ surroundings.

Results

A total of 107 of 347 patients were tested positive for antibodies (Immunoglobulin M-positive and/or Immunoglobulin G-positive). In antibody-positive group, body aches and rhinorrhea were seen more often and there were significantly less asymptomatic patients. Stay in area of risk was significantly more frequent in antibody-positive group as well as contact to infected persons. Distribution of other symptoms was not significantly different between both groups. Most adults or children with SARS-CoV-2 infection presented with mild flu-like symptoms.

Conclusion

A total of 30% of patients had antibodies. It was not possible to identify one solid predictive symptom. Serological testing may be helpful for the diagnosis of suspected patients with negative RT-PCR results and for the identification of asymptomatic infections.

A highly specific and sensitive serological assay detects SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in COVID-19 patients that correlate with neutralization

OBJECTIVE

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic challenges national health systems and the global economy. Monitoring of infection rates and seroprevalence can guide public health measures to combat the pandemic. This depends on reliable tests on active and former infections. Here, we set out to develop and validate a specific and sensitive enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels.

METHODS

In our ELISA, we used SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain (RBD) and a stabilized version of the spike (S) ectodomain as antigens. We assessed sera from patients infected with seasonal coronaviruses, SARS-CoV-2 and controls. We determined and monitored IgM-, IgA- and IgG-antibody responses towards these antigens. In addition, for a panel of 22 sera, virus neutralization and ELISA parameters were measured and correlated.

RESULTS

The RBD-based ELISA detected SARS-CoV-2-directed antibodies, did not cross-react with seasonal coronavirus antibodies and correlated with virus neutralization (R2 = 0.89). Seroconversion started at 5 days after symptom onset and led to robust antibody levels at 10 days after symptom onset. We demonstrate high specificity (99.3%; N = 1000) and sensitivity (92% for IgA, 96% for IgG and 98% for IgM; > 10 days after PCR-proven infection; N = 53) in serum.

CONCLUSIONS

With the described RBD-based ELISA protocol, we provide a reliable test for seroepidemiological surveys. Due to high specificity and strong correlation with virus neutralization, the RBD ELISA holds great potential to become a preferred tool to assess thresholds of protective immunity after infection and vaccination.

Antibody dynamics to SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic COVID-19 infections

BACKGROUND

The missing asymptomatic COVID-19 infections have been overlooked because of the imperfect sensitivity of the nucleic acid testing (NAT). Globally understanding the humoral immunity in asymptomatic carriers will provide scientific knowledge for developing serological tests, improving early identification, and implementing more rational control strategies against the pandemic.

MEASURE

Utilizing both NAT and commercial kits for serum IgM and IgG antibodies, we extensively screened 11 766 epidemiologically suspected individuals on enrollment and 63 asymptomatic individuals were detected and recruited. Sixty-three healthy individuals and 51 mild patients without any preexisting conditions were set as controls. Serum IgM and IgG profiles were further probed using a SARS-CoV-2 proteome microarray, and neutralizing antibody was detected by a pseudotyped virus neutralization assay system. The dynamics of antibodies were analyzed with exposure time or symptoms onset.

RESULTS

A combination test of NAT and serological testing for IgM antibody discovered 55.5% of the total of 63 asymptomatic infections, which significantly raises the detection sensitivity when compared with the NAT alone (19%). Serum proteome microarray analysis demonstrated that asymptomatics mainly produced IgM and IgG antibodies against S1 and N proteins out of 20 proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Different from strong and persistent N-specific antibodies, S1-specific IgM responses, which evolved in asymptomatic individuals as early as the seventh day after exposure, peaked on days from 17 days to 25 days, and then disappeared in two months, might be used as an early diagnostic biomarker. 11.8% (6/51) mild patients and 38.1% (24/63) asymptomatic individuals did not produce neutralizing antibody. In particular, neutralizing antibody in asymptomatics gradually vanished in two months.

CONCLUSION

Our findings might have important implications for the definition of asymptomatic COVID-19 infections, diagnosis, serological survey, public health, and immunization strategies.

Intranasal ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/AZD1222 vaccination reduces shedding of SARS-CoV-2 D614G in rhesus macaques

Intramuscular vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/AZD1222 protected rhesus macaques against pneumonia but did not reduce shedding of SARS-CoV-2. Here we investigate whether intranasally administered ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 reduces shedding, using a SARS-CoV-2 virus with the D614G mutation in the spike protein. Viral load in swabs obtained from intranasally vaccinated hamsters was significantly decreased compared to controls and no viral RNA or infectious virus was found in lung tissue, both in a direct challenge and a transmission model. Intranasal vaccination of rhesus macaques resulted in reduced shedding and a reduction in viral load in bronchoalveolar lavage and lower respiratory tract tissue. In conclusion, intranasal vaccination reduced shedding in two different SARS-CoV-2 animal models, justifying further investigation as a potential vaccination route for COVID-19 vaccines.

Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the infection fatality rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from seroprevalence data.

METHODS

I searched PubMed and preprint servers for COVID-19 seroprevalence studies with a sample size ≥ 500 as of 9 September 2020. I also retrieved additional results of national studies from preliminary press releases and reports. I assessed the studies for design features and seroprevalence estimates. I estimated the infection fatality rate for each study by dividing the cumulative number of COVID-19 deaths by the number of people estimated to be infected in each region. I corrected for the number of immunoglobin (Ig) types tested (IgG, IgM, IgA).

FINDINGS

I included 61 studies (74 estimates) and eight preliminary national estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.02% to 53.40%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63%, corrected values from 0.00% to 1.54%. Across 51 locations, the median COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.23%): the rate was 0.09% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rates less than the global average (< 118 deaths/million), 0.20% in locations with 118-500 COVID-19 deaths/million people and 0.57% in locations with > 500 COVID-19 deaths/million people. In people younger than 70 years, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.31% with crude and corrected medians of 0.05%.

CONCLUSION

The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients and other factors. The inferred infection fatality rates tended to be much lower than estimates made earlier in the pandemic.

COVID-19 Serology at Population Scale: SARS-CoV-2-Specific Antibody Responses in Saliva

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of an ongoing pandemic that has infected over 36 million and killed over 1 million people. Informed implementation of government public health policies depends on accurate data on SARS-CoV-2 immunity at a population scale. We hypothesized that detection of SARS-CoV-2 salivary antibodies could serve as a noninvasive alternative to serological testing for monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 infection and seropositivity at a population scale. We developed a multiplex SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassay based on Luminex technology that comprised 12 CoV antigens, mostly derived from SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S). Saliva and sera collected from confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and from the pre-COVID-19 era were tested for IgG, IgA, and IgM to the antigen panel. Matched saliva and serum IgG responses (n = 28) were significantly correlated. The salivary anti-N IgG response resulted in the highest sensitivity (100%), exhibiting a positive response in 24/24 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 cases sampled at >14 days post-symptom onset (DPSO), whereas the salivary anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG response yielded 100% specificity. Temporal kinetics of IgG in saliva were consistent with those observed in blood and indicated that most individuals seroconvert at around 10 DPSO. Algorithms employing a combination of the IgG responses to N and S antigens result in high diagnostic accuracy (100%) by as early as 10 DPSO. These results support the use of saliva-based antibody testing as a noninvasive and scalable alternative to blood-based antibody testing.

Estimating the false-negative test probability of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR

BackgroundReverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assays are used to test for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. RT-PCR tests are highly specific and the probability of false positives is low, but false negatives are possible depending on swab type and time since symptom onset.AimTo determine how the probability of obtaining a false-negative test in infected patients is affected by time since symptom onset and swab type.MethodsWe used generalised additive mixed models to analyse publicly available data from patients who received multiple RT-PCR tests and were identified as SARS-CoV-2 positive at least once.ResultsThe probability of a positive test decreased with time since symptom onset, with oropharyngeal (OP) samples less likely to yield a positive result than nasopharyngeal (NP) samples. The probability of incorrectly identifying an uninfected individual due to a false-negative test was considerably reduced if negative tests were repeated 24 hours later. For a small false-positive test probability (<0.5%), the true number of infected individuals was larger than the number of positive tests. For a higher false-positive test probability, the true number of infected individuals was smaller than the number of positive tests.ConclusionNP samples are more sensitive than OP samples. The later an infected individual is tested after symptom onset, the less likely they are to test positive. This has implications for identifying infected patients, contact tracing and discharging convalescing patients who are potentially still infectious.

Limited intestinal inflammation despite diarrhea, fecal viral RNA and SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA in patients with acute COVID-19

We sought to characterize the role of the gastrointestinal immune system in the pathogenesis of the inflammatory response associated with COVID-19. We measured cytokines, inflammatory markers, viral RNA, microbiome composition and antibody responses in stool from a cohort of 44 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in stool of 41% of patients and more frequently in patients with diarrhea. Patients who survived had lower fecal viral RNA than those who died. Strains isolated from stool and nasopharynx of an individual were the same. Compared to uninfected controls, COVID-19 patients had higher fecal levels of IL-8 and lower levels of fecal IL-10. Stool IL-23 was higher in patients with more severe COVID-19 disease, and we found evidence of intestinal virus-specific IgA responses associated with more severe disease. We provide evidence for an ongoing humeral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in the gastrointestinal tract, but little evidence of overt inflammation.

Estimating the false-negative test probability of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR

BackgroundReverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assays are used to test for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. RT-PCR tests are highly specific and the probability of false positives is low, but false negatives are possible depending on swab type and time since symptom onset.AimTo determine how the probability of obtaining a false-negative test in infected patients is affected by time since symptom onset and swab type.MethodsWe used generalised additive mixed models to analyse publicly available data from patients who received multiple RT-PCR tests and were identified as SARS-CoV-2 positive at least once.ResultsThe probability of a positive test decreased with time since symptom onset, with oropharyngeal (OP) samples less likely to yield a positive result than nasopharyngeal (NP) samples. The probability of incorrectly identifying an uninfected individual due to a false-negative test was considerably reduced if negative tests were repeated 24 hours later. For a small false-positive test probability (<0.5%), the true number of infected individuals was larger than the number of positive tests. For a higher false-positive test probability, the true number of infected individuals was smaller than the number of positive tests.ConclusionNP samples are more sensitive than OP samples. The later an infected individual is tested after symptom onset, the less likely they are to test positive. This has implications for identifying infected patients, contact tracing and discharging convalescing patients who are potentially still infectious.

Why is COVID-19 less severe in children? A review of the proposed mechanisms underlying the age-related difference in severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections

In contrast to other respiratory viruses, children have less severe symptoms when infected with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this review, we discuss proposed hypotheses for the age-related difference in severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Factors proposed to explain the difference in severity of COVID-19 in children and adults include those that put adults at higher risk and those that protect children. The former include: (1) age-related increase in endothelial damage and changes in clotting function; (2) higher density, increased affinity and different distribution of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptors and transmembrane serine protease 2; (3) pre-existing coronavirus antibodies (including antibody-dependent enhancement) and T cells; (4) immunosenescence and inflammaging, including the effects of chronic cytomegalovirus infection; (5) a higher prevalence of comorbidities associated with severe COVID-19 and (6) lower levels of vitamin D. Factors that might protect children include: (1) differences in innate and adaptive immunity; (2) more frequent recurrent and concurrent infections; (3) pre-existing immunity to coronaviruses; (4) differences in microbiota; (5) higher levels of melatonin; (6) protective off-target effects of live vaccines and (7) lower intensity of exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

Estimating the false-negative test probability of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR

BackgroundReverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assays are used to test for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. RT-PCR tests are highly specific and the probability of false positives is low, but false negatives are possible depending on swab type and time since symptom onset.AimTo determine how the probability of obtaining a false-negative test in infected patients is affected by time since symptom onset and swab type.MethodsWe used generalised additive mixed models to analyse publicly available data from patients who received multiple RT-PCR tests and were identified as SARS-CoV-2 positive at least once.ResultsThe probability of a positive test decreased with time since symptom onset, with oropharyngeal (OP) samples less likely to yield a positive result than nasopharyngeal (NP) samples. The probability of incorrectly identifying an uninfected individual due to a false-negative test was considerably reduced if negative tests were repeated 24 hours later. For a small false-positive test probability (<0.5%), the true number of infected individuals was larger than the number of positive tests. For a higher false-positive test probability, the true number of infected individuals was smaller than the number of positive tests.ConclusionNP samples are more sensitive than OP samples. The later an infected individual is tested after symptom onset, the less likely they are to test positive. This has implications for identifying infected patients, contact tracing and discharging convalescing patients who are potentially still infectious.

Screening for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in convalescent plasma in Brazil: Preliminary lessons from a voluntary convalescent donor program

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) collection began in two Brazilian hospitals for treatment of severe/critical patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Mild/moderate COVID-19 convalescents were selected as CCP donors after reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and absence of symptoms for ≥14 days plus (a) age (18-60 years), body weight greater than 55 kg; (b) immunohematological studies; (c) no infectious markers of hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human T-lymphotropic virus-1/2, Chagas and syphilis infection; (d) no HLA antibodies (multiparous); (e) second RT-PCR (nasopharyngeal swab and/or blood) negativity; (f) virus neutralization test (cytopathic effect-based virus neutralization test neutralizing antibody) and anti-nucleocapsid protein SARS-CoV-2 IgM, IgG, and IgA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.

RESULTS

Among 271 donors (41 females, 230 males), 250 presented with neutralizing antibodies. Final RT-PCR was negative on swab (77.0%) or blood (88.4%; P = .46). Final definition of RT-PCR was only defined at more than 28 days after full recovery in 59 of 174 (33.9%) RT-PCR -ve, and 25/69 RT-PCR +ve (36.2%; 13 between 35 and 48 days). Neutralizing antibody titers of 160 or greater were found in 63.6%. Correlation between IgG signal/cutoff of 5.0 or greater and neutralizing antibody of 160 or greater was 82.4%. Combination of final RT-PCR -ve with neutralizing antibody ≥160 was 41.3% (112/271). Serial plasma collection showed decline in neutralizing antibody titers and IgA levels (P < .05), probably denoting a "golden period" for CCP collection (≤28 days after joining the program); IgA might have an important role as neutralizing antibody. Donor's weight, days between disease onset and serial plasma collection, and IgG and IgM levels are important predictors for neutralizing antibody titer.

CONCLUSIONS

RT-PCR +ve cases are still detected in 36.2% within 28 to 48 days after recovery. High anti-nucleocapsid protein IgG levels may be used as a surrogate marker to neutralizing antibody.

Accurate serology for SARS-CoV-2 and common human coronaviruses using a multiplex approach

Serology is a crucial part of the public health response to the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Here, we describe the development, validation and clinical evaluation of a protein micro-array as a quantitative multiplex immunoassay that can identify S and N-directed SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies with high specificity and sensitivity and distinguish them from all currently circulating human coronaviruses. The method specificity was 100% for SARS-CoV-2 S1 and 96% for N antigen based on extensive syndromic (n=230 cases) and population panel (n=94) testing that also confirmed the high prevalence of seasonal human coronaviruses. To assess its potential role for both SARS-CoV-2 patient diagnostics and population studies, we evaluated a large heterogeneous COVID-19 cohort (n=330) and found an overall sensitivity of 89% (≥ 21 days post onset symptoms (dps)), ranging from 86% to 96% depending on severity of disease. For a subset of these patients longitudinal samples were provided up to 56 dps. Mild cases showed absent or delayed, and lower SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses. Overall, we present the development and extensive clinical validation of a multiplex coronavirus serological assay for syndromic testing, to answer research questions regarding to antibody responses, to support SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics and to evaluate epidemiological developments efficiently and with high-throughput.

Mucosal Immunity in COVID-19: A Neglected but Critical Aspect of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

The mucosal immune system is the largest component of the entire immune system, having evolved to provide protection at the main sites of infectious threat: the mucosae. As SARS-CoV-2 initially infects the upper respiratory tract, its first interactions with the immune system must occur predominantly at the respiratory mucosal surfaces, during both inductive and effector phases of the response. However, almost all studies of the immune response in COVID-19 have focused exclusively on serum antibodies and systemic cell-mediated immunity including innate responses. This article proposes that there is a significant role for mucosal immunity and for secretory as well as circulating IgA antibodies in COVID-19, and that it is important to elucidate this in order to comprehend especially the asymptomatic and mild states of the infection, which appear to account for the majority of cases. Moreover, it is possible that mucosal immunity can be exploited for beneficial diagnostic, therapeutic, or prophylactic purposes.

Validation and clinical evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT)

To understand SARS-CoV-2 immunity after natural infection or vaccination, functional assays such as virus neutralising assays are needed. So far, assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies rely on cell-culture based infection assays either using wild type SARS-CoV-2 or pseudotyped viruses. Such assays are labour-intensive, require appropriate biosafety facilities and are difficult to standardize. Recently, a new surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT) was described that uses the principle of an ELISA to measure the neutralisation capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies directed against the receptor binding domain. Here, we performed an independent evaluation of the robustness, specificity and sensitivity on an extensive panel of sera from 269 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases and 259 unmatched samples collected before 2020 and compared it to cell-based neutralisation assays. We found a high specificity of 99.2 (95%CI: 96.9–99.9) and overall sensitivity of 80.3 (95%CI: 74.9–84.8) for the sVNT. Clinical sensitivity increased between early (<14 days post symptom onset or post diagnosis, dpos/dpd) and late sera (>14 dpos/dpd) from 75.0 (64.7–83.2) to 83.1 (76.5–88.1). Also, higher severity was associated with an increase in clinical sensitivity. Upon comparison with cell-based neutralisation assays we determined an analytical sensitivity of 74.3 (56.4–86.9) and 98.2 (89.4–99.9) for titres ≥10 to <40 and ≥40 to <160, respectively. Only samples with a titre ≥160 were always positive in the sVNT. In conclusion, the sVNT can be used as an additional assay to determine the immune status of COVID-19 infected of vaccinated individuals but its value needs to be assessed for each specific context.

Persistence of serum and saliva antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike antigens in COVID-19 patients

While the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 has been extensively studied in blood, relatively little is known about the antibody response in saliva and its relationship to systemic antibody levels. Here, we profiled by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) IgG, IgA and IgM responses to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (full length trimer) and its receptor-binding domain (RBD) in serum and saliva of acute and convalescent patients with laboratory-diagnosed COVID-19 ranging from 3-115 days post-symptom onset (PSO), compared to negative controls. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses were readily detected in serum and saliva, with peak IgG levels attained by 16-30 days PSO. Longitudinal analysis revealed that anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgM antibodies rapidly decayed, while IgG antibodies remained relatively stable up to 105 days PSO in both biofluids. Lastly, IgG, IgM and to a lesser extent IgA responses to spike and RBD in the serum positively correlated with matched saliva samples. This study confirms that serum and saliva IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are maintained in the majority of COVID-19 patients for at least 3 months PSO. IgG responses in saliva may serve as a surrogate measure of systemic immunity to SARS-CoV-2 based on their correlation with serum IgG responses.

Prospects for a safe COVID-19 vaccine

Rapid development of an efficacious vaccine against the viral pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, is essential, but rigorous studies are required to determine the safety of candidate vaccines. Here, on behalf of the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) Working Group, we evaluate research on the potential risk of immune enhancement of disease by vaccines and viral infections, including coronavirus infections, together with emerging data about COVID-19 disease. Vaccine-associated enhanced disease has been rarely encountered with existing vaccines or viral infections. Although animal models of SARS-CoV-2 infection may elucidate mechanisms of immune protection, we need observations of enhanced disease in people receiving candidate COVID-19 vaccines to understand the risk of immune enhancement of disease. Neither principles of immunity nor preclinical studies provide a basis for prioritizing among the COVID-19 vaccine candidates with respect to safety at this time. Rigorous clinical trial design and postlicensure surveillance should provide a reliable strategy to identify adverse events, including the potential for enhanced severity of COVID-19 disease, after vaccination.

Is Cross-Reactive Immunity Triggering COVID-19 Immunopathogenesis?

The serological responses to both SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 virus have some unique characteristics that suggest cross-reactive priming by other human coronaviruses (hCoVs). The early kinetics and magnitude of these responses are, in some cases, associated with worse clinical outcomes in SARS and COVID-19. Cross-reactive hCoV antibody responses have been detected in both SARS and COVID-19 patients. There is also evidence that pre-existing T cell immunity to common cold coronaviruses can prime the response to SARS-CoV-2. Studies in non-human primates show that SARS-CoV-1 S-protein vaccine-induced antibodies are associated with acute lung injury in macaques challenged with SARS-CoV-1. Here we discuss the potential of cross-reactive immunity to drive the immunopathogenesis of COVID-19 and its implications for current efforts to develop immune-based therapies and vaccines.

Persistence of serum and saliva antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike antigens in COVID-19 patients

While the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 has been extensively studied in blood, relatively little is known about the antibody response in saliva and its relationship to systemic antibody levels. Here, we profiled by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) IgG, IgA and IgM responses to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (full length trimer) and its receptor-binding domain (RBD) in serum and saliva of acute and convalescent patients with laboratory-diagnosed COVID-19 ranging from 3-115 days post-symptom onset (PSO), compared to negative controls. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses were readily detected in serum and saliva, with peak IgG levels attained by 16-30 days PSO. Longitudinal analysis revealed that anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgM antibodies rapidly decayed, while IgG antibodies remained relatively stable up to 105 days PSO in both biofluids. Lastly, IgG, IgM and to a lesser extent IgA responses to spike and RBD in the serum positively correlated with matched saliva samples. This study confirms that serum and saliva IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are maintained in the majority of COVID-19 patients for at least 3 months PSO. IgG responses in saliva may serve as a surrogate measure of systemic immunity to SARS-CoV-2 based on their correlation with serum IgG responses.

Virological and Serological Discordant Profiles in COVID-19 Pneumonia: Two Atypical Clinical Cases

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is primarily diagnosed through viral RNA positivity in nasopharyngeal swabs, and it is associated with the early detection of specific immunoglobulins to SARS-CoV-2 proteins. We describe two moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with WHO score 4/5 at the time of hospitalization, pneumonia, and oxygen saturation <94% and with a strong discrepancy between viral RNA and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. One patient was positive for viral RNA but completely negative for binding and neutralizing antibodies, whereas the second patient was negative for viral RNA but with high levels of both neutralizing and binding antibodies. This observation is relevant to better understand the pathogenesis of this novel infection.

Antibody Profiling of COVID-19 Patients in an Urban Low-Incidence Region in Northern Germany

A vast majority of COVID-19 cases present with mild or moderate symptoms. The study region is in an urban and well-defined environment in a low-incidence region in Northern Germany. In the present study, we explored the dynamics of the antibody response with respect to onset, level and duration in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA were detected by automated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients monitored by the Health Protection Authority. This explorative monocentric study shows IgA and IgG antibody profiles from 118 patients with self-reported mild to moderate, or no COVID-19 related symptoms after laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2. We found that 21.7% and 18.1% of patients were seronegative for IgA or IgG, respectively. Clinically, most of the seronegative patients showed no to only moderate symptoms. With regard to antibody profiling 82% of all patients developed sustainable antibodies (IgG) and 78% (IgA) 3 weeks or later after the infection. Our data indicate that antibody-positivity is a useful indicator of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Negative antibodies do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection. Future studies are needed to determine the functionality of the antibodies in terms of neutralization capacity leading to personal protection and prevention ability to transmit the virus as well as to protect after vaccination.

Engineering luminescent biosensors for point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection

Current serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies mainly take the form of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays or lateral flow assays, with the former being laborious and the latter being expensive and often lacking sufficient sensitivity and scalability. Here we present the development and validation of a rapid, low-cost solution-based assay to detect antibodies in serum, plasma, whole blood, and saliva, using rationally designed split luciferase antibody biosensors (spLUC). This new assay, which generates quantitative results in as short as 5 minutes, substantially reduces the complexity and improves the scalability of COVID-19 antibody tests for point-of-care and broad population testing.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses Correlate with Resolution of RNAemia But Are Short-Lived in Patients with Mild Illness

SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, particularly those preventing viral spike receptor binding domain (RBD) interaction with host angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, could offer protective immunity, and may affect clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients. We analyzed 625 serial plasma samples from 40 hospitalized COVID-19 patients and 170 SARS-CoV-2-infected outpatients and asymptomatic individuals. Severely ill patients developed significantly higher SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses than outpatients and asymptomatic individuals. The development of plasma antibodies was correlated with decreases in viral RNAemia, consistent with potential humoral immune clearance of virus. Using a novel competition ELISA, we detected antibodies blocking RBD-ACE2 interactions in 68% of inpatients and 40% of outpatients tested. Cross-reactive antibodies recognizing SARS-CoV RBD were found almost exclusively in hospitalized patients. Outpatient and asymptomatic individuals' serological responses to SARS-CoV-2 decreased within 2 months, suggesting that humoral protection may be short-lived.

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.

Longitudinal analysis of clinical serology assay performance and neutralising antibody levels in COVID19 convalescents

OBJECTIVES

To investigate longitudinal trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies and the performance of serological assays in diagnosing prior infection and predicting serum neutralisation titres with time Design Retrospective longitudinal analysis of a COVID19 case cohort . Setting NHS outpatient clinics Participants Individuals with RT-PCR diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection that did not require hospitalization Main outcome measures The sensitivity with which prior infection was detected and quantitative antibody titres were assessed using four SARS-CoV-2 serologic assay platforms. Two platforms employed SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) based antigens and two employed nucleocapsid (N) based antigens. Serum neutralising antibody titres were measured using a validated pseudotyped virus SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assay. The ability of the serological assays to predict neutralisation titres at various times after PCR diagnosis was assessed. Results The three of the four serological assays had sensitivities of 95 to100% at 21-40 days post PCR-diagnosis, while a fourth assay had a lower sensitivity of 85%. The relative sensitivities of the assays changed with time and the sensitivity of one assay that had an initial sensitivity of >95% declined to 85% at 61-80 post PCR diagnosis, and to 71% at 81-100 days post diagnosis. Median antibody titres decreased in one serologic assay but were maintained over the observation period in other assays. The trajectories of median antibody titres measured in serologic assays over this time period were not dependent on whether the SARS-CoV-2 N or S proteins were used as antigen source. A broad range of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising titres were evident in individual sera, that decreased over time in the majority of participants; the median neutralisation titre in the cohort decreased by 45% over 4 weeks. Each of the serological assays gave quantitative measurements of antibody titres that correlated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation titres, but, the S-based serological assay measurements better predicted serum neutralisation potency. The strength of correlation between serologic assay results and neutralisation titres deteriorated with time and decreases in neutralisation titres in individual participants were not well predicted by changes in antibody titres measured using serologic assays.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays differed in their comparative diagnostic performance over time. Different assays are more or less well suited for surveillance of populations for prior infection versus prediction of serum neutralisation potency. Continued monitoring of declining neutralisation titres during extended follow up should facilitate the establishment of appropriate serologic correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.

Second Update for Anaesthetists on Clinical Features of COVID-19 Patients and Relevant Management

The COVID-19 pandemic poses great challenges for healthcare workers around the world, including perioperative specialists. Previously, we provided a first overview of available literature on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, relevant for anaesthetists and intensivists. In the current review, we provide an update of this topic, after a literature search current through May 2020. We discuss the evidence on perioperative risk for COVID-19 patients presenting for surgery, the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the operating room, and the current literature on laboratory diagnostics. Furthermore, cardiovascular and nervous system involvement in COVID-19 are discussed, as well as considerations in diabetic patients. Lastly, the latest evidence on pharmacological treatment is summarised.

COVID-19 serology at population scale: SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses in saliva

Non-invasive SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing is urgently needed to estimate the incidence and prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the general population level. Precise knowledge of population immunity could allow government bodies to make informed decisions about how and when to relax stay-at-home directives and to reopen the economy. We hypothesized that salivary antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 could serve as a non-invasive alternative to serological testing for widespread monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 infection throughout the population. We developed a multiplex SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassay based on Luminex technology and tested 167 saliva and 324 serum samples, including 134 and 118 negative saliva and serum samples, respectively, collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, and 33 saliva and 206 serum samples from participants with RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We evaluated the correlation of results obtained in saliva vs. serum and determined the sensitivity and specificity for each diagnostic media, stratified by antibody isotype, for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on COVID-19 case designation for all specimens. Matched serum and saliva SARS-CoV-2 antigen-specific IgG responses were significantly correlated. Within the 10-plex SARS-CoV-2 panel, the salivary anti-nucleocapsid (N) protein IgG response resulted in the highest sensitivity for detecting prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (100% sensitivity at ≥10 days post-SARS-CoV-2 symptom onset). The salivary anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG response resulted in 100% specificity. Among individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed with RT-PCR, the temporal kinetics of IgG, IgA, and IgM in saliva were consistent with those observed in serum. SARS-CoV-2 appears to trigger a humoral immune response resulting in the almost simultaneous rise of IgG, IgM and IgA levels both in serum and in saliva, mirroring responses consistent with the stimulation of existing, cross-reactive B cells. SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in saliva can play a critically important role in large-scale "sero"-surveillance to address key public health priorities and guide policy and decision-making for COVID-19.

Prevalence of Coronavirus Antibody Among First Responders in Lubbock, Texas

BACKGROUND

The ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has a major impact on first responders. Scarce personal protective equipment (PPE) has forced them to conserve and reuse some of their PPE. The efficacy of these practices in preventing transmission of COVID-19 from patients to first responders is unclear. There are limited data on the prevalence of antibodies specific for COVID-19 exposure in these front-line workers.

AIM

Our objective was to determine the prevalence of positive immunoglobulin G antibody specific to COVID-19 among first responders in Lubbock, Texas.

METHODS

Blood samples were collected on 683 asymptomatic first responders who work in Lubbock, Texas and the surrounding area, after informed consents were signed. IgG antibody to SARS-CoV-2 was measured using Abbott's SARS-CoV-2 IgG Reagent Kit in combination with the SARS-CoV-2 IgG Calibrator Kit on the Abbott's ARCHITECT i1000SR analyzer.

RESULTS

The prevalence of IgG specific antibodies to COVID-19 was 0.73%, five of the 683 participants tested positive. Four of those who tested positive had no known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure without adequate PPE.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of IgG specific antibodies to COVID-19 was much lower than expected in our study population despite high sensitivity and specificity of the test reagent. The most likely explanations for this finding include limited exposure, inadequate time for a IgG response, possible clearance of COVID-19 infection locally by the respiratory tract IgA defense system without eliciting a systemic IgG response, and short persistence of IgG antibodies in mild or asymptomatic cases.

Antibody Profiling of COVID-19 Patients in an Urban Low-Incidence Region in Northern Germany

A vast majority of COVID-19 cases present with mild or moderate symptoms. The study region is in an urban and well-defined environment in a low-incidence region in Northern Germany. In the present study, we explored the dynamics of the antibody response with respect to onset, level and duration in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA were detected by automated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients monitored by the Health Protection Authority. This explorative monocentric study shows IgA and IgG antibody profiles from 118 patients with self-reported mild to moderate, or no COVID-19 related symptoms after laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2. We found that 21.7% and 18.1% of patients were seronegative for IgA or IgG, respectively. Clinically, most of the seronegative patients showed no to only moderate symptoms. With regard to antibody profiling 82% of all patients developed sustainable antibodies (IgG) and 78% (IgA) 3 weeks or later after the infection. Our data indicate that antibody-positivity is a useful indicator of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Negative antibodies do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection. Future studies are needed to determine the functionality of the antibodies in terms of neutralization capacity leading to personal protection and prevention ability to transmit the virus as well as to protect after vaccination.